Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-04-15

complete, &c perpetual, and as indissolu
BILE as the union between the origins
States. There was no place for reconeic'
Grafton or revocation except thrcugf
revolution or the consent Of the States
Considered, Therefore, as transaction
under the Constitution, the oTdiDance o.
secession adopted by the Convention and
ratified by a majority Of the citizens OF
Texas, aud eli the acts OF her Legisla'
ture intended to give effect to that ordi-
nance, were absolutely null. They were
utterly without operation in law. The
obligations of the State as 3 member OF
the Union, and Of every citizen of the
State as . citizen Of the United states,
remsined perfect end HDimpaiFed.
It necessarily follows that the state cid
not cease to be . State, nor her citizens
to be citizens OF the Union. II this were
otherwise, the State must have become
foreign aud her citizsps foreigners. TIE
war must have ceased TO be war for the
suppression Of the rebellion, and must
havs become q war for conquest ana suo-
jugstion. Our conclusion, therefore, H.,
that Texas continued to be a State, and
State Of the Union, Notwithstanding
the transactions TO which we hsve re-
ferred, and this conclusion, in our judg-
ment, Is not in conflict with any act or
declaration of any department of the
national GOvernmsnt, but entirely in &C.
onrdance with the whoie series of such
acts and declarations sincs the q st out
break Of the rebellion.
The Court dscdssss st some length the
measures adopted by the United States
for the reconstruction OF Texas, dec!!a-
ing TO pass Judgment upon the eoDstitu-
tiOuslity Of any of them, and concludes
rs f9ilOWs:
'The bonds in question swere dated
July /, 1851, and were fefeemaOle after
the 3Ist of December, 1854 Ia strict
ness ii is tue they we're not payable on
the day hich they became redeemsb;e,
but the known usage Of ths United States
to pay all bonds as soon as the right OF
payment occurs, except wher5 distine-
tiOa between re0esLa ability ana payable
ity is made by lay aad shown on the
face of the bonds, II q1iTsd the applica-
ton OF the rule respecting Rn overdue
obligation 20 the bonds OF the L aited
States which have bscome retee mable
before the date OF contract with White
& Chies, aud all bonds of the same issue
which have the endorsement Of . Gov
eToOr OF Iexa5 made before the CEdins1ce
Of secession, and there were no others
endorsed by any Goveroros that have
been paid by coin or presentation ct the
Treasury Department; while on the con-
traTy, al applications for the payments
OF bonds Without tde required ind0rse-
ment, and OF coupShs detached from
such bonds made to that department.,
had been denied as necessary conse-
qusnee.
" The negotiation Of these bonds be-
come difficult. Tnsy sold much belo "
tha rates they would have commanded
had the title TO them been unqaesti0ned.
They were bought, in fac5, and, under
the circumstances, could only have been
bought upon speculation. The purehas-
ers took the rick OF 9 tide, hoping, doubt
less, that through the action OF the na-
tionsI government, or the government
Of Texas, it might be converted iatO 8
good one, and il IS true the first PfOvis-
iohsl Governor of Texas encouraged the
expectation thAt these bonds would be
uitim 4tely paid to the holders, but he
wss not authorized TO make any engage
rnent in behaif Of the State, and in fact
made none.
at is true that the Treasury Depart
ment, influenced perhaps by these repre-
sentatinns, departed TO some extent from
its original rule, and paid bonds held by
soma Of the defendants wishout the re-
uuisits endorsement, but il Is clear that
TIE action Of the department. could not
affect the rights Of Texas IS State OF
the Union, having government and ao-
kn0~iedgiUg bsr obligations TO the IA
tinnal Constitution. It's impossiole upon
this evidence TO hold the defendants pro-
iPcsed by ths absence ~ the notice Of the
want Of the title of White 4 Chilss, ss
these persons acquired no right to the
psvment OF thsse bonds So against the
S,ste. Purchasers could acquire none
through them. Oa the whole case,
therefore, eur eOne'usiOa is that the State
Of Texas is entitled to the relief sought
by her bill, spd q decree must be made
accordingly
THE M'CARDLE CASE.
The Supreme Court Of the United
States to-day disposed Of the case of VIM.
II. MeCardle, the Mississippi editor who
was arrested, tried, Snd sentenced to i'm
urisonmeut by the military authorities
several wears ago on the charge OF
writing aud publishing seGitious articles
in his newspaper. he had appealed
from the Circuit Court OF the Uaited
Ststes fer the Southern District of Mis-
sissippi which had denied the writ OF
baheas corpus. Chief Justice Chase de-
liyered the opinion OF ths court dismiss
ing thu appeal for want OF jurisdiction.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The cases Of the United States, appel
lant, vs. Albert L. MUwry, Samuel J.
Morgan, Jonsthan P. Burton, Oliver a.
Jeffrey and Bsrj HigdoD, were appeals
- 1t,aE ~,
briefly these In 1851 the parties above
named severaliy supplied the Depart
meut Of Missouri with mortar and tug
boats, railroad cars, horses, etc. Gen.
Fremont was st the time ia command OF
the department, and McKinstry vss
seting AS Quarterm sster. Tae charge oil
fraud havlug bsen raised, the Secretary
o; War suspended the contracts, and 9
board, under q resolution OF Congress,
was appointed to investigate the claims.
They submitted thsir claims to the board
which awarded certsin amounts for
which they TeceipJed under protest.
They afterwards sevsrsiiy brought suit iu
the Court Of Claims, which allowed them
the remainder of the money claimed
under contracts. The Supreme Court
holds that these parties having voiuuta-
rily come before the board and receipteG
for the sums allowed, were estopped from
further claims. 1t was nQt designed by
the Government that proceedings shou,d
be commenced in one tribunal and ended
iu another. Nelson delivering the
opinion, reverse5 the decision of the
Court Of Gains and rem zlded the
causes, with direction to enter decree
dismissiEg the petition.
In the case Of the s'eamboat Belfast,
b. C, Nelson ct al, claimants 10 error v,
Boon & Co, ct al, in error TO the Su,
preme Court Of Alabama, Justice Clif
| ford delivered the opinion Of the Cour
reversing the decree OF the courts below
with costs, aud remsndiDg the Gauss
with directions TO dismiss tics libel. Tie
| case involved claims for cotton lost IL
transportation, and which had been iE,
sured by the owners, Phe court held a
against the court beloY that the Fedora
| jurisdiction in marine and admiralty ca
ses extends from the sea as far up tht
rivers IS they are nsvigsbie, irrespective
| OF tide water.
Ia the case OF jesse Riddlebarger
plaintiff in error against the HartforC
| Fire Insurance Company, in. error, Ii
the Circuit Court Of the United States 70
the District of Missouri, JUICE Field de
| Iivered the ODiniOn OF the Court affirm