The union Democrat., 1869-05-01

Flowing on 10 the ocean Of love evermore.
Religion is naught. all pretensions are vaiu
II works are still wanting ah where rs thy gain
As bark cast away des'la-e shore,
Aswreck on tn deep, thou art gone evermore.
Thy days that fleet away as a meteor's CLEAN,
Flashing bright for smoment they fade a dream
Yes dream though it be. yet ou'far distant shore
Shall in thunders re-echo the past evermore
As flower dost thou blossom. mere thing Of a day,
As breath Of the flower thou wi I vanish away;
Let love he thy motto this weary life Ger.
Then in sunshine OF love wilt thou bask evermore.
Decision ir the Tcxns Indemnify Bond Case
Texas Declared TO be a state in the Union
Chief Justice Chase, April 18th, rendered
the decision of the United States Court in the
case of the State of Texas against George NJ
White, John Childs, John A. Hardinburgh
and others. The original suit was brough,
by the Stare of Texas to restrain defendants
from the National Government for certain 5
per cent, Texas indemnity bonds of the
United States, which plaintiff claims as be-
longing to the State. These bonds, it is al
legged, were sold in 1865 and 1866 by the in
surgeat Legislature of Texas and tie recon
structed government of the State now seeks
to prevent the payment of the value of the
bonds to the holders deriving title through
said insurgent Legislature. Various inter
ests and important collateral questions were
also raised relating to the jurisdiction of the
Court, the ability of the plaintiff to sue, etc.
The opinion of the Court. which is very long
and able, concludes as follows:
''Our conclusion is that the State of Texas
is entitled to the relief sought by her bill,
and decree must be made accordingly"
Associate Justice Grier dissented as to the
(,otf E
that Texas is not State in point of fact, and
therefore could not bring suit in this Court
any more than could the District of Columbia.
Associate Justice Swayne and Miller dis
sented as to the question of jurisdiction only
The decision of the Supreme Court in the
Texas case. after relating the facts of the al
legged secession of that State in 1861, SAYS:
SIN all respects, so far as the object could
be accomplished by ordinances of the coneen-
ton, by Acts of the Legislature. and by votes
Of the citizens, the relations of Texas to the
Union were broken up, and new relations to
the new government were substituted for
them. The position thus assumed could on
ly be maintained by arms, and Texas accord
ingly took part with the other Confederate
States in the war of the rebellion which these
events made inevitable. During the whole of
the war there was no governor or Judge, or
any other State officer in Texas who recog-
nized the national authority, nor was any
officer of the United States permitted to ex-
erclse any authority whatever under that Ma
tinnal Government within the limits of the
State except under the immediate protection
of the national military forces. Did Texas,
in consequence of these acts, cease to be a
State ? or, if not. did the State cease to be q
member of the Union ? 1t is needless to dis
cuss at length the question whether the right
of State to withdraw from the Union for
any cause regarded by herself sufficient, is
consistent with the Constitution of the United
States. The union of the States never was a
purely artificial and arbitrary relation. 1t
began among the colonies and grew ont of the
common origin. mutual sympathes. kindred
principles, similar interests and geographical
relations. 1t was confirmed and strengthened
by the necessities of war. and received defu-
ite form and character and sanction from the
articles of confederation. BY these the
Union was solemlv declared to be perpetual.
and when these articles were found to he in
adequate 70 the exigencies of the country, the
constitution was ordained to form q more per-
feet Union. 1t is difficult to convey the idea
of indissoluble unity, more clearly than by
these words. What can be indissoluble if a
perpetual union made perfect is not? But
the perpetuity and indissolubiltv of the
Union hv no means implies the loss of distinct
and individual existence. or of the right of
self-government by the States. Under the
articles of confederation each State retained
its sovereignty. freedom and INDEPENDENCE.
and every power. Jurisdiction and right not
expressly delegated to the United States un-
der the constitution. Though the powers OF
the States were much restricted. still all
powers. not delegated to the United States
nor prohibited to the States are reserved to
the States respectively or to the people. and
we have already had occasion to remark a,
this term that ''the people of each State COM
pose State having its own government. and
endowed with all the functions essential to
separate and independent existence and
THAT without the States in the Union there
could he no such noliticaPbody as the United
States.' Not only. therefore. can there be
no loss Of fseparate and independent autonomy
to the States under the Constitution. but it
may not be unreasonably said that the pre-
servation Of the States and the maintenance
of their governments are as much within the
design ard care Of the Constitution as the
preservation of the Union and the mainten-
anee of the National Government. The Con-
sti'utioa. in all its provisions, looks to an in
destruetible Union, composed of indestructi-
Bile States. When. therefore, Texas became
one of the United States. she entered into an
indissoluble Union. All the obligations Of
perpetual union, and all the guarantees of a
Republican Government in the Union at
taehed 1t once to the State. The act which
eonsummated her admission into the Union
was something more than compact. 1t was
the incorporation of a new member into the
political body. and it was final. The union
between Texas and the other States was as
comnlete. rs perpetual and indissoluhle as
the Union between the original States. There
was no place for reconsideration except
through revolution or through the consent of
the States Cnnsiinred therefOre. as q trar $.