Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1866-01-06

A number of interesting questions, grow
ing out of the present political relations OF
tho State of Texas to the Genoral G0vern-
mCut, were presented in several cases du-
ring thcprcsent terra of the District Court,
to his Honor, Judge Mcfarland, for decis-
ion;
First--As to the effect Of the law known
az the Stay Law, passed by the rebel legis-
lsture; and, also, as to the effect Of the act
passed by The same body suspending the
Statute OF Limitations.
Sccond.-As to the power of the Proyis-
ional Governor TO appoint provisional ju-
dietary; and to organize provisional courts.
Thrd.--As to the relation in which the
provisional courts, 30 established, stand to
the former district courts of the State, or
ganized under secession auspices.
Fourth.-As to the effect TO be given by
the provisional courts TO tho intorlocutory
orders and DEGREES of the rebel district
courts in suits still pending.
Upon these questions his Honor was I'M
derstood TO have ruled substantially, that
the authorities having the control Of the
State of Texas from February, 1861, TO
June, 1866, constituted for all practical
purposes, n government dc .tdcio and that
while, as political fabric, it fell to pieces
with the surrender and dispersion Of the
Confederate armies, and all its political
legislation ceased to be Of force; yet the
private and individual rights that may have
GROWN up under these acts remain unim-
paired, and ere still valid and binding be-
tween individuals, and will be so held until
the succeeding government shall see fit to
alter them; and he furtherheld in this con-
nection, that the order Of Gen. Granger,
declaring illegitimate all acts Of the Gov
ernor and Legislature since secession, and
the further proclamation of the Governor
declaring such laws imperative and void,
and putting in force the body Of statute
laws in force prior to secession, did not
necessarily have the effect of multiplying
md rendering invalid transactions between
private individuals during secession rule.
He further held that the replication that
the stay law forbid the institution of suits,
was {. good and sufficient answer to plea
Of the statute of limitation.
He further held that the Provisional
Governor was clothed with the power to or
ganizo provisional judiciary; and, in the
same connection, we may state, that he
ovcrrued motion in pending suit, to set
aside intcrlocutory orders, DEGREES, &C.,
that had been rendered in such suit during
the rebellion; but as no attempt was or has
been made to enforce any order of this
character, this point may still be regarded
as an open question. As to how far the
provisional courts may be regarded as the
successors of the rebel district courts and
as to whether or not, if called upon, in a
judgment, to enforce such DEGREES, the pro
visional courts would enforce them, we un'
derstand to be, also, open questions. These
together with other perplcxing questions of
a similar character, growing out of the late
revolution, Judge Mcfarland disposed of
promptly as presented. The necessity for
action by the Convention on these and
many kindred questions, must be apparent
to every one. No doubt that body, when
assembled, will take such action as will
tend to put at rest these important ques.
tions.-Austn htetlgcacer.