The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-01

| VI tlitlT respective DEBTS remain,
ing after considering the payments III
treasury warrants as valid. In their plead.
| lles they allege that this requirement OF
payments upon the basis of ignoring pay.
| menus made in treasury warrants was IL
legal and that they assentod 10 the an
phcation which was made of their pav.
| Hehts only under protest and pray for "A
IeaPpiication of payments. In other words
they nave 10 resort to cross action t.
set aside the application heretofore made
OF payments: Then they have the burden
OF proving that the first payments made
| IN treasury warrants were legal in order
to show the exaction of a second payment
| or the amounts paid in treasury warrants
| was unauthorized.
But the defendants say the presumption
! IN favor of the regularity Of official ncfs
requires us TO presume that officials
| charged with receiving these payments
| received none but legal warrants The
presumption OF the regularity of official
| acts proceeds upon the assumption that
| executive Officers regard all legislative
| acts passed in due form as constitutional
| until decided by the judicial department to
| be unconstitutional. The presumption.
| therefore, is that in 1864 the executive Off
| GERS of the government regarded the
| statutes authorizing payments to be made
IN any Kind of treasury warrants as valid,
| ana that, therefore, they did not dis
| crlminate in receiving such warrants so as
| to reject what are now classed as Illegal
because issued in aid of the rebellion
| This IL not only presumption but his
| take Judicial notice of the historic facts
that in 1854 the offices of this State were
occupied by men who believed the State
had legally seeded from the Federal
Union, and who acted oil the assumption
that no laws in aid of the war were void
as being against the laws of government
with which they believed they had severed
their connection and to which they be-
lieVed they no longer owed any allegiance
or duty. They did not think Of acts in
aid of the rebellion for to their minds
FAl. n1I tn,, l.a,t Il, Cat
cesSion from the Union. To their minds
acts in aid of the war were acts In de.
tense of ones country against a war OF
conquest waged by alien enemies. They
not only did not seek to avoid such IT.
cial acts as would aid In the war, but
each with his whole heart and soul did
everything in an official way, that he
could do 10 make successful what he r.
garded as war of defense of his country
and such would 1t have been held for all
legal purposes in this StateAlf it had been
successful. The presumption contended for
by defendants, though supported by gen
eral propositions of law, Is in this case
overcome by the presumption that those
organizing a government in hostility TO
the United States and outside <f the Union
as they believed would not hold legisla.
tion of their State unconstitutional, be-
cause 1t might be hostile to the constitu-
ton and government Of the United States
but the facts Of history do not leave the
question open to presumption. The court
iudicially knows that they generally
treated warrants issued I'M aid of the re-
bellion as valid. Prescriptions of fact can
not be INDUCED in against the public mis-
tory of the country proving the contrary.
1t is safe to assume that II the men
who received for the State the payments
in question were now living, they would
regard il as an imputation Of treason to
ask them to testify that they attempted
to discriminate against warrants issued in
aid of the Southern Confederacy. Nearly
all of the participants in behalf OF the
South yet deny that there was a rebellion
and maintain the opinion that there was
iustifablc legal secession from the Union.
The question must forever remain open In
the forum of Independent individual opin-
ion whether that position was correct.
and It Is no purpose of mine to give "A
personal opinion that the view maintained
by the South was or was not erroneous.
For all purposes OF judicial decisions the
question has long since been concluded
against the views of the South, and
am not at liberty to depart from the 1u-
dicia decisions on that subject while
passing on the question as court nor
do ] seek to evade tn full logical conse-
quences of the prevailing course Of Ju-
dicial opinion on this subject.
| hold that the alleged payments In
State treasury warrants were inehectual
for any purpose for the reasons which !
have given.
TREASURY WARRANTS TO CIRCU-
LATE AS MONEY-BILLS
or CREDIT.
The next objection to the payment In
treasury warrants is that the acts author
izing such payments were void because
they attempted 10 aid in giving effect to
legislation providing for the issuance OF
treasury warrants TO circulate as money
in violation of the State constitution, for
bidding the issuance of treasury war
rants feor such purposes and in violation of
the constitution or the United States,
which forbids any States TO emit "Bills
of Credit" and on this point Judge Nor
ris holds the acts void and says:
Although payments made by one citizen
to another In such unlawful paper made |
under the coercion Of war, which de
prived the people of all other circulating /
mediums are held valid when accepted
yet Il different rule must be applied to |
paymentA 10 the State which issues the |
paper and makes its claims payable in 1t i
as "a direct and intended means of in
ducing ii to circulate "a money, ray |
ments to the State must be treated as void |
or there would be no means Of stopping |
the circulation of such paper as money |
and the constitution would he imperative:
The propositions OF defendant bssed
upon the concession for the purposes of
their argument that the payments may
have been illegal when made, but nave
become binding on the State; iirst' because
State being in part dellcto can not reopen
il; second because the State is estopped
nv its conduct and because II has acqui-
esced a long while in what was done ana
hee,1 ruilty Of laches: third, because II
has recognized and affirmed the payments
hy the legislation of 1870, may each ana
all be answered with the propuHltioH tiat
If the act OF 1864. authorizing the pay
ments, were unconstitutional and Vold for
the reasons that they were passed " aiu
of the rebellion or to assist the state IN
emitting bills OF credit or circulating
treasury warrants as money any act OF
the subsequent State legislature or stAte
ofTicers. under the same or even more
stringent constitut onal restrictions, Whlch
Looked to their being given effect by con
duct of State officials or by direct sang,
ton of the legislature would also be Noln
and of no binding force upon the SlAt,
such acts would not he the acts OF the
state but lawless acts Of a State govern
ment. When State officers have no power
10 directly bind the State by their ac,s
they can not do so indirectly. And VINE
the state emily acts by agents ana
may be bound Indirectly under the doe-
trine of estoppel by the acts Of us agents
who have power TO bind the state Girecls
lv vet when state officers act OUTSIDE OF
their constitutional authority their acts
a re In no sense the acts OF the Stite' an. |
can not be so treated for the purposes o.
affectlng the rights Of the state IN court
This Is no more than an application %
the elementary rules of agency 10 VI.
1uestiop; for, II one appoints an ageh,
md delegates TO him certain powers, eiin
Inc agent exceeds those powers, sNcIS
one will agree that the urauthorlzed ael9
~ the agent do not bind the prlhclpai
And while the principa! may IN perso.
pdnDt and ratify the unauthorize1 acts o.