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

much restricted. still all powers not delegated to
the United States prohibited to the states, arc
reserved to the States respectively or to the peo-
ple,' and we have already had occasion to remark
at this term, that the people Of each State COM
pose State having its own government, ana en-
dowed with all the functions essential to separate
and independent existence, and that without the
States in the Union there could be no such polti-
cal body as the United States Not only. there
fore, can there be no loss Of separate and inde-
pendent autonomy TO the States through their union
under the constitution, but 1t may not be unreal
sonably said the preservation OF the States and the
maintenance Of their governments are "a much
within the design and care of the Constitution as
the preservation of the Union and the mante.
nance of the national government. The Constitu-
ton IN ell its provisions, looks TO the indestrucu-
BILE Union composed Of indestructible States.
When, therefore, Texas became one OF the United
States she entered into an indissolube relation;
all the obligations Of perpetual union, and all the
guarantees OF the republican government in the
Union, attached at once to the State. The Act
which contaminated her admission into the Union
was something more than compact II was tne
body, and IL was final. The union between Texas
and the other States was as complete, as per-
petual, and as indissoluble as the union between
considersaon or revocation, except through revo-
luton, through the consent OF the States. Con-
sidered, therefore, az transactions under the Con-
stitution, the ordinances OF secession adopted by
cOnVe0UOus
citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her Legisa-
ture intended TO give effect to that ordinance were
absolutely null.
"Tbey were utterly without operation in law.
The obligations Of the State as member OF the
Union, and of every citizen Of the State, as cit
zen of the United States, remained perfect and
unimpaired. Ii necessarily follows that the State
did 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 cfti
gems foreigners. The war must have ceased to be
war for the suppression OF rebellion, and must
have become war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion therefore, is that Texas continued
TO be q State, and State OF the Union, notwith-
standing the transactions to which we have re-
ferred. And this conclusion, In our judgment, 10
not in conflict with any act or declaration OF any
tirely in accordance with the whole series of suoh
acts and declarations since the first outbreak Of
the rebellion
The court discusses at some length the meas
ures adopted by the United States for the recon-
stuction Of Texas, declining to pass judgment
upon the constitutonality OF any Of them, and
concludes:
{" The bonds in question were dated July l, 1851,
and were redeemable after the 3lst of Decem-
Der. 1854 In strictness, it Is true they were not
payable on the day on which they became re-
deemable, but the known usage OF the United
States to pay all bonds az soon es the right of
payment occurs. except where distinction be-
tween redeemability and psysbility ia made by
quired the application Of the rule respecting
overdue obligation to bonds of the United States
which have become redeemable. Before the
dste Of the contract with White and Chiles, all
bonds Of the same issue, which have the indorse-
ment Of governor Of Texas. made before the
date Of the secession orainsnce-and there
were no others Endorsed by any governor
bad been 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