The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1869-05-22
STATE RHGHTs-THE SUPREME
COURT.

can Union can sccede TO the extent to work
q Severance of its relations with release of
its people from their allegiance to the Fed.
eral Government. The decision was render
ed in the case Of the State Of Texas vs..
George nj. White, and others. The opinion
of the majority of tho Court was rendered
by the Chief Justice. Tho Court began by
stating that:
So far as the object could be accomplished
by ordinances of the Convention, by acts of
the Legislature, and by votes of tho citizens,
the relations of Texas 10 the Union were
broken up, and new relations for now gov.
ernment were substituted for them. The
position thus assumed could only maintained
by arms, and Texas accordingly took part
with the other Confederate States in the war
of rebellion which these events mado iney.
table. During the whole of thSwar lhere
was no Governor or Judge, or any other
State officer in Texas who recognized the na-
tional authority nor was any officer OF the
United States ever permitted 10 exercise any
authority whatever under the National Gov.
ernment within tho limits Of tho State, ex.
cept under tho immediate protection of the
national military forces.
Upon this statement of tho facts the Court
inquiries 'Did Texas in consequence Of
these acts, cease to be State Or, If not,
did the State cease to be member of the
Union ?'' And this question is answered
as follows:
The obligations Of State as member Of
the Union, and of every citizen Of tho Uni.
ted States, remained perfect aud unimpaired
1t necessarily follows that tho State did not
cease to be State, nor her citizens TO be
citizens Of the Union. Ii this were other.
wise, the State must have become foreign
aud her citizens foreigners. The war must
have ceased TO be = 'sar for the suppression
OF the rebellion, and must have become II
war for conquest and subjusation.
Our conclusion, therefore, =, that Texas
continued 10 be State, and State of the
UnioE. Notwithstanding tho transactions TO
which We have referred, and this conclusion,
in our judgment, IS not in conflict with any
act or declaration Of the National Govern.
ment, but entirely an accordance with the
whole series of such acts aud declarations
since the first outbreak OF the rebellion.
The argument not only includes the idea
that tho Union formed uEder the Constisu-
| ton is perpetual aud indissolubie, bus its
perpetuity and indissolubility are distinctly
| affirmed. Citing the words Of the Articles
of the Confederation and the Constitution
| the Court enquiries What can bG indie
| soluble if perpetual Union made perfect Is
notl" The Court, however, finds that this
perpetuity and indissolubiily arc not iucon.
sis.ent with the independent self.existence
of the States aud, having made the Union
as strong as il can be made by the Ian.
guage at its command. the Court proceeds,
by similar process, to give the creates.
a Il ii. a
solubility Of the Union" says the Court,
and individual existence OF the righ. Of eelf.
government by tho States.
The Constitution and ell its provisions look
t. an indestructible Union, composed Of IN.
destructib!e States
There was 40 place for reconsideration or
revocation; exoept through resoiusion, or
through the consent Of The States"
Indissoluble, however, as the Union may
be, il is, Is the Court admits. dissolubie in
two ways by the consent IF the States, and
by revolution. Here are very important
points being lightly touched upon too
lightly, perhaps, considering their import.
anee, aud their connection with recent eyeuts
and present conditions. What il meant By
the consent of States7 What is meant by
rcyolution7 Until these matters ere re.
dueed TO certainty, questions remain Of vital
moment to the we'll. being of the present aud
future generations. II there can be recon.
sideration or revocation Through the con.
sent Of the States" how many States, aud
how? If "thro' revolution" how is the
revolution 10 be conducted in order to render
the proceeding Legitimate, and how signiEed2
As between u nation with vast aud ire
sistible power, and Il component part Of that
nation with comparatively feeble power,
there must be different degrees Of indeatrucs-
ibility. The indestructibiiity may be abso-
lutte in one case, but it is far from being 80
in the other We know that States are not
indestructible for States have been de.
stroyed-are now lying overwhelmed by in.
destruction. Practically we have, without
the presentation OF hypothetical cases, the
best of evidence Of the non existence Of mn
indestructible Union, com posed Of indestFuct.
ible States Of the fact that such thing has
no potential existence. In short, we have
the alternative; If the Union is indcstruct.
ibic, the States are not and If the States
are indestructible, the reverse is the case
with the Union.
It must be admitted on all bands that the
dccisson is, incidentally, one Of vast import.
ance. 1t is no light thing for the highest
tribunal in the land, the court of last resort,
the authentic interpreter Of the Constitu.
ton, TO have decided that the States Of this
Union are Observation-Disclosures the obliga.
tions Of the seeding States as members of
the Union, and of every citizen of those
States, as citizens Of the United States, re.
main perfect and unimpaired that the
States haYe not ceased TO be States, nor their
citizens citizens of the Union. Rights
are correlatiyes Of Obligations and
If these States are States Of the Union, and
their citizens citizens of the United States
and are under obligations as such, it ire.
sistably follows that to them appertain all
the rights which correspond to such obliga.
tons to the States the right Of autonomy
and selfexistence and to the people the
right of self. government, as fully and per.
fectly as they appertain to any of the States
or their people.
From this it follows, Furthermore, that the
United States can acquire no right of action
against States, or against their citizens col.
lectiyely to dsnantle or reconstruct the one
or disfranchise the other that the States
neither have ceased nor can, at any time.
cease to exist; and that the people cannot,
except by their own voluntary act of abdi-
cation, lay down their rights as citizens of
the States, and, by consequence, as citizens
of the United States.
Virtually, therefore, the decision is iu-
dicial condemnation of the entire plan Of in.
reference on the part of the general govern.
ment with the concerns of the States or with
the political free agency Of the people. 1t
places the whole machinery of reconstruc.
tion, whether by legislative or executive act,
in the light of usurpation. It condemns
all that has been done in tho past, and is a
nrotest apainsk alI that NAV ha dona In tho