The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-16

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

Chief Justice Chase. on the 12th, rendered the
decision of the United States Supreme Court in
the case of the State Of Texas against George NJ.
White, George Childs, John A. Hsrdenburgh, and
others. The original suit was brought by the State
of Texas, TO restrain the defendants from receiv-
ing payment from the national government for
certain five per cent. Texas indemnity bonds OF
the United States, which plaintiff claims ~ be-
longing to the State. These bonds, Il is alleged,
were sold in 1866 and 1866. by authority Of the in-
insurgent Legislature of Texts, and the recon.
structed government of the State nov seeks to
preventive payment OF the value OF the bonds to
the holders deriving their title through said nsur
gent legislation. Various interesting and import
ant collateral questions were also raised relating
TO the jurisdiction Of the court the ability Of plain
tiff to sue, etc. The opinion Of the Court, which
ia very long and able, concludes as follows {" On
the whole case, therefore, our conclusion is, that
the State Of Texas is entitled to the relief sought
by the bill, and decree must be made aocofd-
iDgly." FFS@s
Associate Justice Grier dlssented as to the jurs-
diction, and to the merits of the cause, holding
that Texas is not State in point Of fact, and
therefore could not bring suit 10 this court any
more than could the District OF Columbia Asso-
cate Justices Swsyne and Miller dissented as to
the question Of jurisdiction only.
The decision of the Supreme Court In the Texas
case, after relating the facts as TO the alleged
secession Of that State in 1861, says: ." In all
respects, so far as the object could be accom-.
plished by the ordinances OF the convention, by
the acts of the Legislature, and by the votes OF
the citizens, the relations OF Texas to the Union
were broken up, and new relations TO a new gov
eminent we're substituted for them. The position
thus assumed 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 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-
ercise any authority whatever under the
national government, within the limits of the
the national military forces. Did Texas. in con-
sequences OF these acts, cease TO be State? Or,
If not, did the State cease to be q member Of the
Union! IL Is needless to discuss at length the
question whether the right OF O State TO withdraw
from the Union from any cause, regarded by her
self sufficient, is consistent with the Constitu-
ton Of the United States. The union Of the States
never was purely artificial and arbitrary relation.
1t began among the mcolonies, and grew out OF
the common origin Of utual sympathies, kindred
principles, similar interests, and geographical
relations. 1t was confirmed and strengthened by
the necessities of war, and received definite form,
ard character, and sanction from the articles Of
confederation. By These the Union was solemnly
declared to be perpetual, and when these articles
were found 70 be inadequate to the exigeucies Of
the country the constitution was ordained, to
form q more perfect union.' II Is difficult
to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more
clearly than by these words. What can be
indissoluble II perpetual union. made
more perfect. is not, But the perpetuity and 10.
dissolubility of the Union by no means imply the
loss Of distinct and individual existence, or Of
the right Of self government by the States. On
der the Articles OF Confederation, each State re-
tanned its sovereignty, freedom and independence.
and every power, Jurisdiction and right not ex-
presssy delegated to the United States, under the
constitution, though the power Of the States was