Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-12-04

A gentleman of this city has been furn-
ished by r. w. Tayler, Comptroller of the
| Treasury. with copy of his report, made
| Aug Is, 1866 to the Secretary of the Treas
ury, upon the "Texan Indemnity Bonds"
| II. w. Tayler was a Republican Senator
from Mahoning county, from 1856 to 1860;
then Auditor of State, which position he
r. 81 gned for his present one on the death of
E isha Whittlesy. During theiast two years
of his Senatorial career, Mr.. Tayler was the
acknowledged leader of his party in the
Legislature; and while known to be, in pol
itifs man Ofthe Chase school, was, FecOg-
nized by all who knew him as one of the
ablest men In Ohio. These Texan Bonds
had been issued by the U. S. to that State
| prior to the Rebellion. The State had
agreed to negotiate a part of them
for railroad purposes, and after the Re-
bellion and attempted secession of Texas,
this agreement was completed by the rebel
State officials, who indorsed the bonds to
the present holders. Among others the
question then arose, whether these holders
had such title as rendered the U. S liable to
pay the bonds and interest to thend We
are permitted to copy the folio wing from
Mr.. Tayler's report. The italics are ours.
From page 1G to 10 Mr.. Tayler says:
Besides, it seems to ME the disloyalty of
the State officers did not deprive them OF
their local powers-of their power to dis
charge their duties as officers of the State
affairs. 1t will not do to hold that the acts
of these officers in conformity to law, up to
the date of the ordinance of secession, are
legal and binding, and that all such acts
done after that date are null and void; that
be such act of Rebellion the State officers
abdicated the Government. If this were to
prevail as law, and the official acts of Off
GERS of the State are to be held as Illegal
and void, it is equivalent to holding that
Texas was in state of anarchy and the
official acts of every officer deriving his
power from the state also illegal and void.
A moments consideration will show how
untenable and inadmissible such views
must be. If the fact that the Governor and
| Legislature, in whom were vested the high
est powers of the State, and through lohOm all
| local and inferior powers were derived,
were in Rebellion, made null and void the
acts of such Governor and Legislature, then
mustthe acts of all other officers deriving
! their powers through such disloyal Govern
| or and Legislature be null and void also,
| whether such other officers were or were
not themselves disloyal. SO that the laws
of the State by which her people we're goy-
erned the acts of the Executive in preserv-
ing and promoting order and happiness, the
judgments of the Courts in administering
law, and the execution of those judgments
| by the recognized officers; all conveyances
of real estate, eohen the deed ,0dS acknowledged
| before a State officer, and all marriages SOL
emnzed under the laws OF the State by dis
loyal or even a loyal Justice or minister,
would be null and void. Children born in
what was deemed lawful wedlock would be
illegitiuiate, and illegality would prevail
over everything and over every interest,
social and material, throughout the whole
State. But such is not the law.
The regular discharge of local
powers, not directly connected with the Re-
bellion, must in any event, he recognized as
legal and proper. 1t would be so though
the local Government were an usurped one,
and the officers usurpers-tohich they 1Cere
not the Government and the officers aoere such
as the people of Texas chose for Themselves !;
to whom they gave power over their COM
mon property, and in whom they vested the
conduct and management of their State
! affairs. Neither the State, nor the people
of the State, can now object that the acts OF
their officers are illegal; and, for most pur-
poses, it would be the same had the Gov
ernment been an usurped one that was final
ly overcome and expelled by the rightful
one. The latter could not treat the acts Of the
former as uOid. The history of the civilized
world is full of instances where Govern
ments held to have been usurped were yet,
when put down, held to have been Govern
| ments, in fact, and their acts, except when
they troubled the prerogatives of the crown
or the form of Government, Ualid and bind
ina on the Government. When the Govern
ment of one nation seizes upon that of an
other, it, for the time being, becomes pos
sessed of all the po,oer and rights of the ex-
PEELED Government, lawfully takes its rev.
enues and property, and disposes of them,
and executes the laws; and It's acts, when
it has again surrendered its possession to
the rightful Government, are binding upon
the latter. This is a part of the law of ma
tions, and applicable not merely to the case
| of invasion and expulsion, but to usurpa-
ton and restoration also. Governments
must exist and be bereeOgnized-laws must
be executed; and this can be done by those
only who have possession of the powers of
Government, for the time being. Lord Reep-
er Whitelock, though friendly to Charles,
Ilaceepted his position from Cromwell after
much hesitation, because, the business to be
undertaken by him was the execution OF
law and Justice, without which men could
not live one by another; a thing of abso-
lutte necessity to be d0ne. So with Sir Mat
thew Hale, who was a royalist upon his
appointment to the Bench by Cromwell, he
at first refused, because, he was not satis-
4 fled with the lawfdlness of theIProtebtOrSs
authority. Cromwell answered that he
had possession of the Government, and
would keep it, but still that it was his de-
sire to rule according to the laws of the
| land, for which purpose he had nominated
him, and that if he was not permitted to
reign by red gowns, he would by red coats.
Hale yielded upon the advice of royalists,
but he entertained strong objections to
presiding at criminal trials; with State
prosecutions he would never meddle.g 7
"a revolutionary Governments succeeds to
bothrthe rights and obligations of its prede-
eessor. In the meantime, before its COM
! plete and recognized establishment it is the
! ,il,Government of the State. Should it be
finally expelled its acts are not to be held
void. Whatever may have been done by it,
that was within the powers of the legiti-
= mate Government to do, is binding upon
that Government when restored, at least so
far as relates to the administration of the
laws and the use of the public revenues and
| property. ,..t' =. ,.af..,.t.,g s,t,.i
"As topublic debts, whether due to or from,
the revolutionary States. mere change in
the form OF Government or In theperson OF
the ruler does notaffect their obliqation. The
lInew Government succeeds to the fiscal
rights, and is bound TO JttlLL the fiscal obliga-
tions Of the former Government! Ii becomes
entitled to the public domain and other
property of the State, and is bound t0pav its
debts previously contracted (WheatonlslI Int.
Law, PIP. .52.3) 'o si3a's4 sfJ ui L'!Wt
"And wrongs done by a ausurped Govern
ment towards the citizens of another coun-