Now it comes back to the fact that this "pretence of authority" was the authority of all those States. Those States, when they come back to the Union, if they ever do, will come back with all their powers as original States. The Confederation you may call illegal and improper, but it is a Confederation _de facto_; its right may be questioned, but it is a _de facto_ Government, with this gentleman presiding over it, and performing the duties which, as the Ruler of a great nation, devolve upon him--bringing out armies by hundreds of thousands, bringing out treasures by the million,--and yet you are to say it has no color of authority. It is idle, it seems to me, to say that a man situated as Jefferson Davis is was intended by a law against a mere nominal Prince. I submit that because Jefferson Davis was actually the Chief of a Confederation of States, not foreign, exercising actual power and government over large territories, with a large population, under an organized Government, having Courts within its territories for the adjudication of captures,--that upon each of these grounds Harleston, as well as the others who are citizens, should be acquitted under the 9th section. That is all the argument which I address particularly; and I beg leave to read two or three general propositions on the construction of the law in this matter: I.--The recognition, by the great commercial nations of the world, of the Confederate States as belligerents, and not pirates and robbers, prevents the captures under authority from being held piratical under the law of nations. II.--1. The ninth section of the Act of 1790 has not in view any application to the States then recently united as the United States of America, or to the persons having authority _de facto_ in them. 2. That section had in view foreign Princes and States, and foreign authority only. 3. The authority from any person in that section has reference to persons without the possession, in fact, of territory.