Year: 1869

The decision of the Supreme Court OF
the United States concerning the pay
ment of the Texas bonds, will not be sat
isfactory to those who have upheld the
doctrine that the seeded States were, in
law and fact, out Of the Union during the
rebellion. This is doctrine that great
many Radicals, as well as all the seces
si9nists, have maintained. II is difficult
to understand how the policy of recon
struction can be defended on any other
ground.


Thaddeus Stevens, who was the author
of that policy, declared it to be absurd to
attempt its defense except on the ground
that those States were out of the Union,
and were conquered provinces. The
court declared that The conclusion that
Texas continued to be State, and
State of the Union, is not, in the opinion
of the court, in conflict with any act OF
declaration of the national government
but entirely in accordance with the whole
series of such acts and declarations since
The first outbreak of the rebellion.


This opinion did not involve the ques
ton of the constitutionality of the con
gressional policy of reconstruction
Upon that the court declined to pass
Judgment. From which it would appear
that Congress can so legislate as to b'
consistent with the assumption that
State is in the Union, and transgress th'
Constitution and deny every right pos
sessed by State. OF course, there may
be unconstitutional legislation affecting
State governments, consistent with the
fact that the States effected by that legis
lation are in the Union, but how car
measures be made consistent with tha
fact, or the assumption of its existence
which treat those States as if they were
territories, or conquered provinces?


If State be in the Union. how car
she be readmitted Can there be ad
mission, or readmission, of one organiza
ton into another, if they have been part
of each other from the time Of the exist
ence of both, and the lesser one has
never been outside of the superior one
Is is consistent with the fact that State
is already in the Union 10 say that she
may come in on certain conditions Ii
it consistent with the facts that Virgins
is State, and State in the Union, tc
substitute for her government the will oi
a Major General, and deny to her citizens
every right and privilege granted tc
citizens of the United States by the
Federal Constitution


1t is true that the preRmbles to the mil
tary bills may be reconeiled with the as
sum ptiou that the excluded States are in
the Union, but the provisions of those
bills are at war with any such idea, and
the court says that no " act or declsra'
ton of Congress is in conflict with the
conclusion that Texas continued to be a
State, and State in the Union"


The decisions in the Garfield and Mil
ligan and Missouri test oath cases leave
no doubt of what the decision of the
court would be were the validity OF Con-
gressional reconstruction to come before
it squarely, and in q way to compel &C
ton on it's merits. The assertion that
the policy is consistent with the doctrine
that Texas is in the Union, necessitstes
the conclusion that the court has grasped
a subtlety which it comprehends, but can
not explain to others.


Nobody but the court can understand
how two particles of matter can occupy
the same space at the same time, or how
a State can be in the Union, and yet have
10 be admitted before she can get ini OF
how acts and declarations at war with
facts and assumptions named can be
consistent with them.


No irony is intended in saying the
court can understand all this, because
the court is honest, aud will not say what
it does not believe TO be true. When
members Of Congress have said that they
could understand how the reconstruction
infamy could be reconciled with the doe
trine that the seeded States were States
in the Union, and always SO continued,
nobody believed them, because they had
not capacity enough to comprehend the
meauness and criminality of this work,
aHd because they were notorously un-
worthy of belief


Practically, the opinion of the court
on this point will amount to nothing. Ii
is merely the expression Of judgment
upon question which does not deter
mine anything likely to come before the
court. The entire case is chiefly of in-
terest, so far as the nation is concerned,
as showing what is the opinion of our
highest Judicial tribunal On the validity
of secession. Many have imagined that
the extreme States Rights ground taken
by Chief Justice Chase in Ohio, when
acting in an official capacity, would lead
him to evade the expression Of an opin-
ion as to the right Of State to withdraw
from the Union Chicago Times.