The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-04-24
COLUMBIA, Sc.
Saturday Morning, April "a. 1869.
The Texas ca, ,e 40.

to the ownership OF certain bonds. The
opinion of the court involves many points
of constitutional law that were awaiting an
authoritative announcement from the Su-
preme Court of the United States, as the
great arbiter of questions affecting the
grayest interests of the nation. The most
important point was that of the jurisdiction
Of the Supreme Court, That court has
jurisdiction Of suits brought by State of
the Union against any other State or oiti-
zens of anyother State This suit vas in
stituted by the State of Texas, which, by
the Act of Congress, of March 2, 1867, was
pronounced stilega., " end was also, by
subsequent Act of July 10, 1867, declared
to be one of those States which had snot
legal State Governments" The suit was
instituted in 1867 as an original suit in the
United States Supreme Court, and the deci-
sion DC not only that the court has jurisdic-
ton, but that, notwithstanding all the Acts
of Congress, Texas was at that time uc-
'tually and legally State, and one of the
States OF the Union.
LII is unnecessary to enter into details as
to the various points presented in this
decision. It was ably argued, and the
opinion delivered by the Court is nc
1nowledged to be one Of the ablest and
most exhaustive and conclusive ever ema-
mating from that highest tribunal of JUS
tice. 1t decides, among other things,
that Texas has never ceased to be State of
the Union; that the Acts of secession we're
void, and that no State has at any time
taken itself out of the Union. The au-
thority OF the Federal Government was sus-
pended while the State was in rebellion,
but neither did the State lose its status MS
one of the States of the Union, nor its citi-
zens as citizens of the United States The
opinion justifes the establishment of the
provisional governments organized by Pre-
sldents Lincoln and johnson as a necessity
for the restoration of law and order and
legitimate State government in the seeded
States. 1t avoids, however, any decision
upon the constitutionality of the various
reconstruction laws of Congress- except so
far as they recognize the existence of State
government already organized
1t was in effect decided in the language
of the brief of one Of the counsel, Mr.. r.
L. Merrick, that 'there may be Slate
without government, though there cannot
be a govern 11ent without n State. A State
IS none the less State though anarchy may
prevail and all government be overturned.
The association of individuals remains un-
der the social compact, though without any
organized power exercising and directing
Its political force. 1T is. therefore, appa-
rent that the State and the government are
not one and the same;" and that the CO.
vernments of those States which were in
rebellion were usnrping governments,
established upon the overthrow of the GO
vernments de jure, and organized for the
purpose OF hostility to the Union. And the
object OF the war was to overthrow these
hostile and usurping governments. and re-
establish the governments de .juye in their
legitimate authority, and at the samo time
restore the supremacy of the Federal Con-
stitution in States that never had been and
could not be withdrawn from the Federal
Union"
The point made by Mr.. Merrick that ..a
State neither loses any of its rights nor is
discharged from any of its obligations by
change in the form of its civil government,
IN old maxim in fundamental law, is fully
recognized by the Court in this decision.
AS has been well said in reference to This
decision by an able contemporary, "The 90
vernment of State is mere incident.
which may be changed, altered, or abolished
without impairing in any wise the political
OF territorial integrity of the State. The
acts OF secession had no legal effect, and
their practical effect was the overturning