The union Democrat., 1869-05-01
SONORA. TUOIUMNE COUNTY, 1, 1863.

OF secession ADOPTED by the convention and
ratified by majority of the citizens Of Texas
and all the Acts of her Legislature intended
TO give effect to that ordinance. were abso
lutely null. They were utterly without
operation in law. The obligation of the State
as member of the Union. and of every citi
zen OF the State as citizen of the United
States, remained perfect and unimpaired. L
necessarily follows that the State did no
cease to be State, nor her citizens to bt
citizens OF the Union. Ii this were otherwise
the State must have become foreign and hel
citizens foreigners. The. war must have
ceased to be a war for the suppression of re
beliion. and must hare become a war for con
quest and suLiugation. Our conclusion
therefore. is that Texas continued to be {
State and State of the Union, notwithstand
ing the transaction to which we have refer
red, and this conclusion, in our Judgment i,
not in conflict with any act or declaration o
any department of the National Government
but entirely in accordance with the who.t
series of such ac and declarations since tht
first outbreak of the rebellion
The Court discusses at some length the m meas
ures adopted by the United States for the re
construction of Texas, declining to pass judy
mentupon the constitutiopality cfany of them
and concludes 1.-The tonds il. question
were dated January /. 1851. end were re
deemahle after the 3lst of December, 1864
ln strictness, il is true, they were not paya
h'e on the day on which they became redeem
able. but the known usage of the United
States to pay all bonds as soon as the right
OF payment occurs, except where distinction
between redeemability and payabiIity is made
by law and shown on the face of the bonds
. L
overdue obligation of the United States which
have become redeemable before the date oi
the contract with White & Childs, and all
bonds OF the same issue which Eave the en-
dorsement of q Governor of Texas made be
lore the date of the secession ordinance. and
there were no others unendorsed by the Gov.
ernor paid IN coin on presentation at the
Treasury Department; while. on the contrary,
all applications for the payment of bonds
without the required endorsement, and OF
coupons detached from such bonds, made to
that department, had been denied. As a
necessary consequence, the negotiation oil
these bonds became difficult They sold much
below the rates they would have commanded
bad the title to them been unouestioned.
They were bought, in fact, and under the
circumstances could only have been bought
risk Of a bad title, hoping, doubtless, throu gh
the action Of the National Government or the
Government of Texas. it might be converted
into good one, and it is true that the frs,
Provisional Governor encouraged the expecta.
tion that these bonds would be ultimately
paid to the holders, but he was not authorized
to make engagements in behalf of the State
ard IN fact made none. 1t is true. the Treas
ury Department, influenced perhaps by these
representations, departed to some extent from
its original rule, and paid bonds held by
some of the defendants without the requisite
endorsement, but it is clear that this change
in the action of the department could not ef
feet the rights of Texas as State of the
Union, having government acknowledging ns
her obligations to the national constitution
1t is impossible, upon this evidence. to hold
the defendants protected by the absence oil
notice of the want of title in White and
Chllds, as these persons acquired no right to
the payment of these bonds against the State,
and purchasers could acquire none throu gh
them. On the whole case, therefore, our con.
cluslon is that the State of Texas is entitled
to the relief sought by her bill, and a decree
must be made accordingly"