, 1869-05-21
THE TEXAS INDEMNITY BOND CASE.

III tne case oil the stale OF leXaS agalns
GeOege NJ. White, John Ohilds, John A
Hardinburgh and others. The original sui
was brought by the State of Texas to re,
strain defendents from receiving payment
from the National Government for certain
live per cent indemnity bonds of the United
States, which plaintiff claims as belonging To
the State. These bonds, it is alledged,
were sold in 1865 and 1866 BY the insurgent
legislature of Texas, and the reconstructed
government Of the State now seeks to pre-
vent the payment to the value Of the bonds
to the holders deriving title through said
lnsurgent legislature. Various interests and
important collateral questions were also rais>
ed relating to the jurisdiction of the Court,
the ability of the plaintiff to sue, etc. The
opinion of the Court, which is very long aud
able, concludes as follows:
"Our conclusion is that the State of Tex
as is entitled to the relief sought by her bill,
and decree must be made accordingly
Associate Justice Grier dissented as to the
Jurisdiction and merits of the cause, holding
that Texas is not State in point of fact,
and therefore could not bring a suit in this
Court any more than it could the District of
|
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 to the facts of
the alledged secession of that State in 1861,
says:
I" In all respects, SO far as the object
could be accomplished by ordinances of the
convention, by Acts OF the legislature, and
by votes of the citizens, the relations of
Texas to the Union were broken up, aud
new relations to the new government were
substituted for them. The position thus as
sumed could only be maintained by arms,
and Texas accordingly took part with the
other Confederate States in the war of the
rebellion which these events made inevita>
BILE. During the whole of the war there
was no Governor or Judge, or any other
State officer in Texas who recognized the
national authority, nor was any officer of the
| United States permitted to exercise any au-
thority whatever under that National Gov
ernment within the limits of the State, ex>
cept under the immediate protection of the
national military forces. Did Texas, in con-
sequence of the acts, cease to be State
or, If not, did the State cease to be a mem
Der of the Union? 1t is needless to discuss
at length the question whether the right of
State to withdraw from the Union for any
cause regarded by herself sufficient is con-
sistent with the Constitution of the United
States The union of the States never was
purely artificial and arbitrary relation. 1t
began among the colonies and grew out Of
the common origin, mutual sympathies, kin>
dred principles, similar interests and geo>
graphical relations, 1t was confirmed and
strengthened by the necessities of the war,
and received definite form and character
and sanction from the articles of confedera.
tion. BY these the Union was solemnly de-
clared to be perpetual: and when these arti>
cles we're found to be inadequate to the ext.
gencies of the country, the constitution was
ordained 10 form more perfect Union. 1t
is difficult 70 convey the idea of ofindissoluble
unity, more clearly than BY these words
What can be indissoluble if a perpetual un.
ion made perfect is not? But the perpetui>
ty and indissolubility of the Union by no
| means implies the loss of district and indi
vidual existence, or of the right of self.
government by the States. Under the arti.
cles of confederation each State retained its
sovereignty, freedom and independence, and
every power, jurisdiction and right not ex>
pressly delegated to the United States under
the constitution. Though the powers of the
States were much restricted, still all powers
not delegated to the United States nor pro-
hibited to the States are reserved to the
States respectively or to the people, and we
have already had occasion to remark at this
term that " the people of each State compose
State having its own government, endowed
with all the functions essential to separate
and Independent existence" and that with.
out the States in the Union there could be
no such political body as the United States"
Not only therefore, can there be no loss of
separate and Independent autonomy to the
States under the constitution, but it may not
be unreasonably said that the preservation of
the States and the maintenance of their gov
ernments are as much within the design and
care Of the Constitution as the preservation
of the Union and the maintenance of the
National Government The Constitution,
iu all its provisions, looks to an indestructi-
BILE Union, composed Of indestructible States.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the
United States, she entered into an indestruc-
tible Union. An the obligations of perpet-
ual, and all the guarantees of a Republican
Government 10 the Union attached at once
to the State. The act which consummated
her admission was more than compact. 1t
was the incorporation of anew member into
the political body, and it was final. Texas
and the other States was as complete, as
perpetual and indissolubIe as the union be-
tween the original States. There was no
place for reconsideration except through
revolution or through the consent of the
States. Considered, therefore, as TRANSACT
ton under the Constitution, the ordinance
adopted by the Convention and ratified by a
majority OF the citizens of Texas, and all the
Acts Of her Legislature, intended to give ef-
feet to that ordinance, were absolutely null.
They were utterly without operation in law
The obligation Of the State as a member ol
the Union, and Of every citizen of the State
as . member of the United States, remained
perfect and uniupaired. Il necessarily fol