Texas v. White. Cv.700 [Sup.

Syllabus.

v. et al.Texas White

people community1. State describes sometimes of individu-a orThcfwordclosely relations, inhabitingals united more or less in political tempo-

onlyorrarily permanently country;the same often it denotes the.country, region, by community;or territorial such notinhabited aunfrequently applied governmentit is to the the peoplewhichunderlive; territory,at other times it therepresents people,combined idea of

government.and2. In the com-expressesConstitution the term State most thefrequently

noticed, State,just people, territory,bined idea of Agovernment.andConstitution, community ofthe'ordinaryin sense of the politicalis a

citizens, organ-of andoccupying territoryfree a defined boundaries^governmentized under sanctioned bya and limited a written consti-

tution, byand tho governed.established consent of theexpress3. 'But term is also usedthe to the idea of a or com-people political

munity, distinguished government.as from In this isthe sense it usedprovidesin tho clause thatwhich tho States shall guaranteeUnited to

every in the Union a formrepublican government,State of and shallprotect againsteach’ofthem invasion.

4. The Union of the States anever was artificiá.1and arbitrary rela-purelyColonies,tion. It began among grewthe and out of common origin,

mutual sympathies, interests,kindred principles,. geo-similar .andgraphical relations. It and strengthenedwas confirmed by the neces-

form,war, character,sities of and definite sanction,received and andByfrom the Articles'of'Confcderation. those the 'Union 'solemnly-was

And,,perpetual.”declared to “be when these Articles were found toConstitution,toinadequate exigencies country-,be the of the the or-was

“ perfectdained to form a moro Union.”indissolubilityperpetuity by5. But the and of Union nothe means implies

existence,the loss of distinct and or of rightindividual the of self-bygovernment contrary, maythe States. On the it be not unreason-

States,said,ably preservationthat the of the and the maintenance oftheir are much thegovernments, designas within and ofcare the Con-stitution, preservationas tho of tho andUnion the maintenance of the

Constitution,government. The in provisions,National all its looks toUnion,an composedindestructible of indestructible States.

States,one6. Texas became of tho sheWhen United entered into an indis-The unionsoluble between Texas and the other wasrelation. States

ascomplete, perpetual,as and as indissoluble as uniontho between theoriginal States. There was no place for revocation,reconsideration orexcept orthrough throughrevolution consent of the States.

Considered as transactions7. under the the ordinance of se-Constitution,cession, by convention,theadopted and aby majorityratified of the

Texas,citizens of and all the of her legislature giveacts intended to

Dec. Texas v. White. 7031868.]

Syllabus.

to ordinance, utterlyeffect with-absolutely Theywere null. were.thatoperation in State,out did cease a norlaw. The State not to be her

citizens to be citizens of the Union.exercise, State,8. But in order the sue inby rightto a of to this court,.the.

government,be a representthere needs to State tocompetent the Statein government,its relations with the so at the in-National far least asstitution and of isprosecution a suit concerned.

9. by governmentWhile Texas controlled awas hostile to the UnitedStates, in affiliation a confederation, wagingand with hostile uponwar

States, suit, name,the United no ininstituted her could be maintainedin It necessary governmentthis court. was that the and the- peopleof to peacefulthe State should be restored relations theto UnitedStates, Constitution,under the abefore such suit prosecuted.could be

Authority suppress10. to rebellion is found in topowerthe suppress insur-carry war;and on authority providerection and to for the restoration

governments,of Constitution,State under the when subverted andStaujderived,overthrown, is from the ofobligation the United' to

guarantee ineveryto State the Union republican govern-a form oflatter, indeed,ment. The in of acase rebellionthe involveswhich

government State, time,the and,of a for the the.excludes National†cauthority limits,from its seems to be necessary complementa the

other.'abolished,11. slaveryWhen was the new freemen necessarily partbecame

of andpeople; peoplethe the still States,constituted-the State: forindividuals, identity,like retain tlieir extent,tothough changed, somo

in constituent elements. And State, constituted,their it '.he thuswastowhich was now entitled the of the constitutionalbenefit guaranty.

In of the power by clause,12. the exercise conferred' the guaranty as in theeveryofexercise other constitutional apower, indiscretion the choice

is necessarilyof .means allowed. It is onlyessential the meansthatnecessarybe proper carryingmust and for into execution powerthe

conferred, through the restoration the State to itsof constitutional rela-tions, formrepublican government,'andunder a of done,no bethat acts

exerted,authorityno prohibitedand which is either or byunsanetionedthe Constitution.

long^gí continued,var it cannot be deniedSo that the13. Presidenttemporary government districts,institute withinmight insurgent occu-

forces, orby provisionalthe National takepied measures, anyin State,' governmentfor the' restoration of State faithful Union,to the employ-however, efforts,in onlysuch suching, means and agents as wore

by But, powerauthorized constitutional laws. the to carry into effectof guaranty primarily legislativeclause is a power,the and resides in

necessarilythough limited to casesCongress, where the rightful gov-violence,subverted;by revolutionaryis orernment in dangerimminent

, anbeing by opposinggovernment, byof overthrown set up force withinthe State.

Texas, least,partially,executives of at reorganized14. The'several under

'702 Tenas v. White. Ofe.[Sup.

' of ease'.Statement the

authority Congress,the of of havingthe thisand sanctioned.Presidentsuit, the necessary prosecuted'conclusion that }twas and isinstitutedis,

'competenthy authority:Public, Stgte,property- during15. a by .usurpingof alienated rebellion an

State'government purpose carrying againstfor tlie of on war the United■States,may by government; organizedreclaimed .a restored inStateb.e

Union,allegiance to forthe the benefit of the State.definitions,16. Exact a government, organ-which acts ofwithin the State

■hostility-td government-,ofized in the Constitution and the-Unitedvalid,be,State.s, invalid,-must as or need not It'attempted.betreated

said,'however, neeessarybe tomay peace gQodthat acts order-andcitizehs,among such, for example, sanctioning protectingas acts and

descents,marriage relations, governingand'the domestic the course ofthe conveyance property, personal,and transfer of real andregulating

estate,forproviding injuries,to -person and and otherand. remediesqcts, emanating govern-similar would be if.valid from a lawfulwhich

ment, apmust be fromproceedingas valid whenregarded'in-geperalactual,' though unlawful-government; and that in oracts furtherance

States,a-gainstof the tosupport rebellion defeat-'of'inténdedUnitedother,acts must,just rights-of, citizpns, like-natufe,and of in getthe

eral, ,regardedbe as void.in'valid.'andpayableof bonds ofStates to the State Texas17. issuedUnited.Purchasers

bearer, duringfebellion by insurgent government,or alienated the and^aftpr date atacquired redeemable,the Vhieh the- became arebonds

ofafíectod with-notice of defect title in the seller.

On originakbill.The ordains ofConstitution' that 'the thejudicial power,

States shall- extend and themcases,to-certain amongUnited“ State;ato controversies State and citizens anotherbetween of

,. , a-State,and between or. the citizens awlthereof, foreignthat in.or It ordainsStates, further,.subjects.”,. citizens

pases which ain “a State” the Supremeparty,shall.beshallCourt original'jurisdietio-n.have ^

visions,i'nthese force as law, Texas,With fundamentalpro“ Texas,herself- the State of one of- the Unitedentitling

on ofAmerica,” filed,of the loth anSuites February, 1867}and.different, Chiles,bill agai.nst person's; Whiteoriginal

a Co.,certain firm,one Ilárdenberg, Birch,'Murray’& andand’other.States;some'otbers,* of New-York -pray-citizens

Shaw, &c.,wereThese no counselStewart, bywho made resistance at*argument.the

®; White.Texas 703Dec. 1868.]

the case.Statement of

their or receiving paymentan askingagainsting injunctionof certain bonds of the Federalthe States ¡gov-from United

"bonds; theTexan' and thatasknownernment, indemnityto andbe fordelivered.up the-complainant,bonds' might

relief.and furtherotherwas this:The case

the United States'issued its bonds—fiveIn thousand1851andeach, numbered from No.bondsfor 1$1000 successively

and5000, thus the sumto of the$5,000,000makingNo.. —toTexas, in ofState of certain boundaryarrangement claims

The bonds,that State. which weremade datedby Januarywere1851, bonds, their1st, payable, by terms, tocoupon

cent,of Texas or with'■theState interest atbearer, 5 perand,u redeemable the 31stsemi-annually, of Decem­dayafter

Eachber, 1864.” bond contained a statement on its facethe debt was authorizedthat act ofby and wasCongress,

“ on and to weredelivery,” each attached six­transferableroonth to Decembercoupons, 31, 1864.*extending

In' of an act theof-pursuance of theTexas,legislatureofcontroller accounts theof waspublic State authorized to

and receiveto bonds;there thegoAto Washington, thehisstatute tomaking.it them,duty deposit, received,whei|

the of the Statein oftreasury Texas, to be of uasdisposedlaw;”be by andmay provided further, noenacting that bond,

“aforesaid andissued as to bearer,payable should be avail-same,in the hands ofable holderany until the shall h^ive

been theindorsed, in. city Austin, theby thegovernor Slateof ofTexas.”ofMost of the bonds were indorsed and sold toaccording

onlaw, and thepaid presentation United Statesby topriorof them,A part acthowever,,^ appropriatedI860. ofby—

as a school fund—were instill thelegislature oftreasuryinTexas, 1861, when theJanuary, late Southern rebellionout.broke

which event,The Texas took in thatpart and the position

* bonds,a particularFor account of these see Paschal’s Annotated DigestArts. 442-450.

v.Texas White.704 Ct.[Sup.

of the case.Statement

of, her, be,it arein the left to herewhich close necessaryto.adverted

. TexasAt time of that was oneoutbreak,the confessedlya Stateof the States of constitutionAmerica^havingUnited

andStates,in accordance of the Unitedwiththkt representedin the atsenatorsby representatives Congressand Washing-

.a call a of1861,ton. In for convention the peopleJanuary,the was issued,of State individuals.signed by sixty-one

andThe call was without Underauthority revolutionary.weré elected from some’ sections ofit the State,delegates

whilst in others no-vote was taken. These assem-delegatesin and on the 1stconvention,bled State of 1861,February,

an ordinancethe “to dissolve unionconvention-adopted theTexas and the other States,betweenthe State unitedunder theof

”America,.’“the theConstitution UnitedStatesconipact.siyled, of ofcontained a itThe ordinance to bepi’ovision sub-requiring

'of forTexas,to the ratificationmitted orpeople rejectionthe voters on the ofthereof, 23d.qualifiedby February,

of'The the State, convened in extralegislature1861.' ses-ofon.the 22dsion, anJanuary, actpasséd ratifying’1861*

election of thethe chosen in thedelegates, man-irregularconvention,'above to thementioned,nei\ The ordinance

submitted to yoteof secession the waspeople abyadopted34,794 11,235.of. .The.agh-inst convention, which had'ad-

the,onimmediately ordinance,journed passing’ reassem-On the' 4th of 1861,bled. itMarch, declared that the'

of secession had been ratified theordinance by andpeople,had withdrawn fromthat the union of the StatesTfixas

the Federalunder It also áConstitution. passed resolutiontake,ofthe officers the State torequiring government an

to provisionaloath ofsupport thegovernmentthe Con-'States, and ifthatproviding, officer“any refusedfederate

inoath, the mannersuch andto take within the time pre-shouldhis'office "be'deemedscribed, vacant, and the same

he were dead.”'-filled as -On thethough 16th of theMarch,'an ordinance,convention passed that whereas thedeclaring,

and the of statesecretary refused orgovernor had omitted. .take oathto theirprescribed, vacant;werethe offices that

Texas v. White. 705Dec. 1868.]

of the case.Statement

•should exercise the andlieutenant-governor authoritythe.the duties to the office ofperform appertaining governor,

officers should deliveraud that the to their suc-deposedsealin the of the and all.State,cessors office great papers,

inarchives,.and their orpossessionproperty belonging ap-the Theto State. convention further assumedpertaining

theto and administer andpolitical powerexercise authority•of the State.

Thus was established the rebel of Texas.governmentandThe senators of the.State inrepresentatives Congressfromnow withdrew that atbody Washington. Delegates

sent theto of the so-calledwere ConfederateCongressatStates and forAlabama, electors aMontgomery, presi-

anddent of these Statesvice-president Warappointed.become to thehaving destruc-necessary complete purposed

tion the South of the Federalby Texas joinedgovernment,the other Southern andStates, war themade UniteduponStates, whose nowwas in no mannerauthority recognizedwithin her borders. The oath of allofallegiance persons

wasfunctions to thepublic Texas,both State ofexercisingand to the America;of and noConfederate States officerof kind the United States withinwras theany representing

oflimits the State hadofficers, who beenexcept militarywas and had formade Such been several monthsprisoners.

thecondition of in ofthe 1862.beginningthingsOn the of of11th that theJanuary, ofyear, legislature

ofthe Texas an act—utousurping government passed pro-arms and and thevide armsammunition,■ andfor manufacture of

State,”ordnance the .the Andmilitary itbyfor defencesof“ board,”a to outcreated the indi-military carry purpose

thetitle'. Under ofcated thisauthority act;,thein militarywereforces organized.theOn same the a furtherday act, enti-passedlegislature

“ Antled act to andprovide militarypurposes,” thereinfunds fordirected the if hadboard, which “topreviously organized,

bondsand bedispose any which incoupons may the ontreasuryofuseand such or their'any account, proceeds thefunds for defence

State;”the and an act'additionalpassed the actrepealingbfYOL. VII. 45

706 'Texas if. White.,, .[S.dp.-Ct.

¡Statement- of the case.

whichmadean indorsement the the Texasby ■governorbondsof- ofto make them thenecessaty in hands the holder:available of

• acts, board,these theUnder theon 12th Janu-militarya1865, date at which the success of the Federal armsary,

sell &■to White one lfun-'probable, Chilesagreed'to.seemedof bonds,dred and those then in the ofthirty-five treasury

and others with certainTexas, seventy-six bankersdepositedin in for which &'Chiles werepayment toEnglapd-, White

boarddeliver to the a of cotton cards andquantitylargeThe former bonds were delivered to White &■medicines.

■theChiles on 15th March none ihemfollowing, beingin-ofdorsed Texas.by any governorof

It in 1862,that after the rebellion hadappeared February,it was made known to the.out, of thebroken Secretary

of the United inStates, the HornTreasury G.bywriting,,W. of whoPaschal, Texas, had remained constant to the

madethat would be the rebelUnion, byan effort authoritiesiiiof to use the bonds the in aid.remaining treasury.Texas

rebellion;of the and could becausethey identified,bethathad wereall-that circulated war indorsedbefore’thebeen by

different The of theof'Texas.governors Secretary Treasuryacted this inon and toinformation, refused bondspaygeneral

indorsed. the of October,that 4thhad-not,been On 1865,,,as caused,Mr;'Paschal, of the toTexas,State ofagent ap-

in the money and editorial the Yorkpear report .of Newthe,transactionof^Herald,a-notice between the rebel govern-

ment'of Texas and White & aChiles,, and statement thatthethé' of United States would not- the bondstreasury páy

themtransferred to such On theby usurping government.theOctober, 1865,10th of-theprovisional Stategovernor

“in New York a Caution thethe Tribune' to Pub-publishedwhich he recited thatlic in the rebel of Texasgovernmentf’

a,underha4, contract-, Whitepretended transferred to &and“one hundredChiles United TexanStatesthirty-five

bonds, issued inindemnity fuur-January!, 1851, payableof the of each, andteen^years, $1000' couponsdenomination

theattached tothereto of in theamoupt $1287.50,amountingbonds-and) coupons, to the sum of $156,287.50.”aggregate*

p.Texas White. 707Dec. 1868.]

case.Statement of*the

bondshowever,His caution did riot any particularspecify,went to that thecaution on transfernumber. The sayby

and Wriite &a the rebelwas between governorconspiracyWhite & Chiles hadChiles to State thatrob the treasury,

that had fled theonenever the State theypaid farthing,themade known toand that these facts had beenState,

“And athe States.of the of pro-UnitedSecretary TreasuryMr. of the State ofPaschal,test was him byfiled.with agent

the of the said bonds andTexas, couponsagainst paymentTheunless for authority.”presented payment by proper

intestified,it was wasnotice,of this publishedsubstanceaboutthe various ofarticles of of newspapersmoney many

York and otherand that men in Newdate,that financialin-it beMr. who had caused toPaschal,toplaces spoke

was testified thatalso,serted in about it. ItTribune,the.saidafter of the White & Chilessuit,the commencement

that had seen it.they1865,therebel disbanded on 25thThe forced May,being

ofand the civil officers of the governmentusurping Texasfrom the the on thePresident,fled country, 17th.having

Mr.issued his A. J.June, 1865, proclamation appointingandState;of theHamilton, directingprovisional governor

inthe of a Texas.the formation Stateby people governmentthus theestablished,theUnder provisional government

ato make and reconstructconstitution,proceededpeopletheir government.Stafe.

the,was done,arose as to what thus andBut much questionthethe ofwas not by CongressState acknowledged United

theas On-States contrary, Congressbeing reconstructed.asacts-,in known the Re-March, 1867, certain.threepassed,

Apts. nothe'first of thatthese,construction By recitingfor life oror protectionState adequatelegal governments

nineTexas,of andthen existed in the rebel Statespropertythat was thatnamed, and it' necessary peaceStatesother

andin them untilorder should be enforced loyaland goodestablished,becouldgovernments legallyStaterepublican

five militarynamed into districtsdivided the StatesCongress■(Texas made itthe and the dutywith Louisiana being fifth),

v,708- Texas [Sup.'Ct.,.White.

’ofStatement the case.

the President to each zntoof andassign of'the.army,officerforceto.detail to enable hima-sufficient tomilitary perform

his andduties enforce within hisauthoi’ity district. The actmade it the of this officer to all in theirduty, protect persons

insurrection,,to todisorder, and■rights, violence,suppresstoor cause be all disturbers of thepunish, punished, public

theand local civileither tribunals orpeace criminals, throughwhich the actmilitary commissions, authorized. Itthrough

further, that when the of oneprovided, ofpeople theseanya constitution inStates had formed with that ofconformity

aStates,the United framed in the statuteway wentwhich‘and whenon to the State had a certain‘specify, adopted

article amendment named,,of to the Constitution of the■ and when such articleStates',United should have abecome

of the States,the Constitution of United then thepart that'States should be declared entitled torespectively represen-tation in and the of, the act becomeCongress, partpreceding

and that until were so admitted civilinoperative; they anywhich e'xist in them should be deemedmightgovernments

and to'the ofsubject paramountprovisional only, authorityanyatStates,'United time to abolish, control,modify,the

or them.supersedeA ofconvention anState 1866 ordinancepassed looking

bonds;ofthe these and ofto actrecovery October ofbythe of Texas'.that authorized to take suchyear, governor vras

deemas he best for the interests of the .State insteps mightmatter; to thethe either recover or tobonds, compromise

Under this act thewith holders.' angovernor appointed'to theof the look afterState matter..agent

state ofwas in -this with theIt Statethings', governmentin the manner and with the status above men-organized

that this bill'wastioned, directed thispresent to beby agentfiled.

'filedThe bill was Mr. R.-T. Merrick andby so-others,this on behalf of thecourt, State,licitors'in without ,prece~

dent written warrant of But a letterattorney.- from J. W.under,eleéted theThrockmorton, governor constitution of

their1866, act,ratified and authorized them to. prosecute

TejíasDec. v. White. 709.1868.]

of caseStateme:.- the

the'suit. Mr. now with the otherwho appearedPaschal*counsel, in behalf of the had been Gov-State, appointed by

■ernor Hamilton to the and-Mr. a.State, Pease,representGeneral com-Sheridan,subsequent governor, appointed by

mander under the renewed thisacts,reconstruction appoint-,ment.

The ofbill set forth the issue and the bonds to thedeliveryathe fact that were seized combination ofState, they by

in armed the thepersons to of Unitedhostility governmentanStates, sold board,theby styled militaryorganization

Chiles,to & thefor of theWhite overthrowpurpose aidingof the Federal &that White Chiles had notgovernment;

what It then setperformed to.do. forththey agreed thatnumbers,had transferred andsuch suchthey specifying

andthem, to such and such others toHardenberg, Birch,&c.;Co.,& that theseMurray transfers were not in good

faith, but were notice onwith the ofexpress the trans-partferees of the manner in Which.the bonds had been obtained

White & 'Chiles; that the bondsby were overdue at thetransfer;time of the and that had never been indorsedthey

of Theby any Texas.governor the de-bill-interrogatedfendants allabout these them to an-particulars; requiringswer 'oath;on and, as mentioned, italready an in-prayed

theirjunction oragainst fromasking, paymentreceivingStates;the United that the bonds be delivered to themight

of Texas,State and for other and further relief.Chiles,As &Whiterespected who"had now largely parted

the.bonds, thewith rested much whatcqse upon precedes,ownand answers.their

Chiles,The answer of that he had none of thedeclaringin his setbonds forth:possession,

was no1. That there sufficient shown toauthority prose-incute the suit the name of Texas.

•That Texas2. her rebellious courses had so farby changedas States,one of thestatus,her United as to be disqualified

from, in this court.suingThat wffietherthe3. ofgovernment Texas, the termduring

in was one ordejure it hadquestion, defacto, authorized the

Gt,Texas tu White.no [Sup.

Statement of the case.

actto for and that-thb wasit,board Statemilitary estoppedits acts.from denying

4, no .theindorsement of bonds was necessary, theyThatbeenhaying negotiable paper.

& had5. That articles which White Chilesthe toagreedthe were in disbandedState, transitu, troops,giye destroyed by

who 'infested the loss of the was uu-Texas, and that article'avoidable;The answer of sameWhite went over' some of the' ground

“with that of He he washowever,Chiles. thatadmitted,■informed and believed that in all of thecases where any

were, of to thehim,bonds it was knowndisposed by partiesfor or as for thatthemselves, others, therepurchasing agents

was some saidembarrassment in bonds at'paymentobtaining of■the the States, out thetreasury United titlearising thisof ofof

hisand1respondent Chiles.”co-defendcinlseemed,As Hardenberg, the muchcase thus:respected

■Inthe November,of the of the1866, datebeginning afterPaschal,notices oneMr. resid-given through Hennessey,

in New anand onYork, and com-ing carrying importingmission tobusiness, then sold of thesethirty,Hardenberg

Chiles;Wlhitebonds, to and and whichoriginally givená of his, knownthirty, correspondent tb in Ten-him,long

•had sentnessee, to him for sale. ¡them'Hardenberg bought“ the ofat rate for the1.20 dollar on their face,” and forpaid

“them.- had heard from thatHennesgey there wassomebodysome aboutdifficulty the at thepaidbonds’beiug treasury,

did notbut remember hewhether heard .that before or’after■thesale.”' also these.Hardenberg of bonds near the.bought,. others

time, át 1.15 undersame circumstancesper.cent., thus testi-to Mr. C.fied Lewis,T. ofby New York:a.lawyer

“In conversation Mr. I had learnedHardenberg; thatwith .he was in bonds,interested the. Texas andindemnity meditated

I was informedsame. in'Wall-purchasing Street that suchwere offered for sale Kimball•& a'by Co., at certain price,..bonds

recollect,’which Mr.price informedIcannot.now Hardenberg%ine toof .this and he securefact, Requested the bonds himfor ai

.-JDce. Texas v.18(18.] 711White..-.-- — .

Statement ease.of/'the.

tpthat I H.went C. & and them'-toprice. Kimball toldCo*■thesend bonds to and. aMr. check'forgetMard'enbergs office

them, which I understand did. I remember to•they expressing,Mr. bonds,the that these on theiropinion beingHardenberg face'

andnegotiableby in at no distantpayable gold,must, day,,delivery,beredeemed to their and atenor, were,therefore,according goodpur-,

at thechase at which weretheyprice offered.“ that this I had aMy impression read'is, negotiationbefore

in some New Yorkparagraph that thenewspaper, pay-'statingment of the the Texaswhole.issue-of bonds was sus-indemnity

until the ofpended a certain thehistory ofportion issue, sup-to have been for the benefit ofposed thenegotiated rebel

service, should understood. I not atbe am all certain whetherI read this before-or the ofafter date thepublication transac-’tion. the was made this transaction I hadpublicationIf before

read purchasethe article the was made. im-probably Mybeforein ais, that it was a 1piession money article, butparagraph

it. I inattributed no to acted this matterimportancegreatof Mr. andas the friend received no com-simply Hardenberg,

mission for Iservices. am a and notlawyer by profession,mya broker.”

toKimball & above referredCo. brokers thus Mr.by(thetheytestified that had received the bonds thus sold,Lewis),

“ perfectfrom a firm inwhich aridnamed, faith,they goodthem in like as wefaith, would other lotgo'od anysold

of bonds areceived from house.”reputable It.appeared,however, that in the Kimball Co.,bonds to & forsendingsale; the firm had not bethat knownrequested they mightin the transaction.

the asown account of declaredmatter, byHardeuberg’shis wasanswer, thus:

“That he York;was merchant ofa in the New that hecitythe held in inbonds him market saidpurchased by open city;

thethat whom he the wereparties from samepurchased respon-'sible and in saidpersons, city;business that heresiding doing

McKim, Co.,of inpurchased Brothers bankers good& standingin Wall the 6thStreet, one bond on of No-cent.,at 1.15 pervember, 1866, $1.47£,rate of and declin-when was at thegold

that when he the same he no ofing; made inquiriespurchased

Texas White.712 v. Ct.[Sup.

ofStatement the case.

MeKim, Brothers butCo.,& took the bonds on his own obser-vation of their tenor effectand at heplain what conceived tobp a that andgood afterwards, before thobargain; ofpaymentsaid andbonds the ofcoupons by Secretary andthé-Treasury,at the ofrequest the B. he madeTaylor,Hon. W.Comptroller,

qf said firm ofinquiry McKim, Co.,Brothers & and in-theyformed him that said bonds and had been sent to themcouponsto be sold the First Bank ofby National Wilmington, North.Carolina; that he on the November, 1866,8th ofpurchased

>bonds,of said to tho sum ofthirty $32,475,of S.amounting J.29 Street, New YorkWarren business asHennessey, City, doing

a commission informed him inmerchant, that,who tho ofwaybusiness, were sent himthey ofby Nashville,Hugh Douglas,

that he wit,at the rate of 120centsTennessee; time,at a topaidthe November,8th of 1866, when was 146 andatgold selling

that the other bonds were himieclining; three purchased b}r' on the 8th of ofNovember, 1866, C. Co.,H. Kimball & 80 Broad-brokers inStreet, who informed him, ongood standing, inquiry

■ said bonds were handedafterwards, them to be’sold abythathouse in New'York of the whohighestbanking respectability,

owned the but whosesame, names were not as the saidgiven,firm informed him could ‘see no reason forthey divulging pri-vate and he fortransactions;’ that lastimentionod bonds atpaid

cents,rate 120 onof said 8th ofday November, 1866,.the when146was at andgold selling (Ieclining.

“ Further he hesaith that had no at theanswering, knowledgetime of said that thepurchase, bonds were Obtained from tho

'State of Texas, or were claimed State;the said heby that actedon information obtained from the of thepublic:report Secretaryof the Treasury, showing that a similar bondslarge portion‘ofhad been andredeemed, his own of the nature-upon judgmentof the theobligation themselves, andexpressed by uponbondshis own faith in the full of bonds;said and horedemptionaverred that he nohad of the contract referred to-knowledgein the. bill of nor of thecomplaint, interest or of Whiterelation

Chiles,'& nor of connectionany which had with said com-theyor said bonds, nor of the ofplainant, law of the State Texas re-

quiring indorsement.”

answer ofThe. White in to Harden-mentioned, regardbonds, that were soldberg’s broker;'histhey by (White’s)

Texas White. 718v.Dec. 1868.]

of case.theStatement

ofhad the name of the realWhite,that he, no”knowledgecent, them;115who, however, forpaid perpurchaser,

' of sale,“that at-the time the his broker informed(White’s)or for thehim that.the the pur-purchaser, person acting

andnot want introduction to thedidchaser, any respondent,sold;of the bonds to be thatno proposedhistoryrequired

that should come to him thelie desired they through-onlyneverhands of a who had been withidentifiedperson,loyal

the rebellion.”matter, inAnother reference to the re­important possibly

lief the exact decree*bill, should,asked to-the made,andbybonds ofbe mentioned about theseperhaps, Hardenbérg.

“of stated,-The that on. theanswer 16th ofHardenberg1867, the theof ordered theFebruary, Secretary Treasury

of all said bondsto the andrespondent coupons,paymenttrue;and the samewere on that This waspaid day.” literally

of theand thesethe books bonds asshowedtreasury amongbonds; and showedthe redeemed else. aAs mat-nothing

ter of it that the of thefact, Texas on oneappeared agentsthe tonot the andhand, thepay bonds,governmenturging

forholders, other,on the in-paymentpressing being—itsisted last that thethese United States had no toby rightwithhold the and thus themoney, deprive holder of thebonds of interest —the of theController Mr.Treasury, Tay-

made, aler, on the of29th toreport, theJanuary, 1867,of the in which he that itSecretary Treasury, mentioned,

seqmed to be the of State,the herby thatagreed agentsoncase her showto a wantdepended ofability faithgood

bonds;on thethe of holders of and that hepart had statedto the as considerable hadagents,-that delay already-been

unless theincurred, would,he weekduring succeeding theytook the feelproper legal steps holders, it hisagainst duty

bonds asto such were in intitle thepay unimpeachedHeholders’ hands. recommended to the secre-accordingly

of and of sometary payment others. TheHardenberg’son samethe controllerthe madeagents, day his report,that

* p.last,this infra,See foot of 742.

-v.714 Texas Whiie.. Ct..[Sup.

of ihe'case.Statement

and after he had written most of .informed himit, that theywould.'take on behalf of thelegal a'ndproceedings States

turn,informed in that'thewere be made onreport would•would embrace bonds.day,.and TwoHardenberg’s.that

afterwards a. action wasdays personal commenced, in the.,Mr.name of the' .Texas,, against McCulloch, theState.ofthe,then of forSecretary Treasury,the. detention of the

bonds,of and others.' This was dismissed.Hardeubqrg actionÍ9th. On the 15th of theFebruary . same theFebruary-,

bill filed. On the of -the.present themonth,was 16th' pér-sonal suit the time,at'thesecretary as al-against haying

withdrawn,-beenstated,above and noready process underthe nor thepresent .then, 'until 27thhapingbill beenfolloioing,

Mr;onserved the,Controller of Treas-Hardenberg, Tayler,theCox,and one ofury, entered intoagent Hardenberg,

an which it wasby thatarrangement, thisagreed agentnotes,should with Mr.deposit Tayler government known

“ seven-thirties,”as in valueequivalent to the bonds andheld to be heldcoupons by Hardenberg; Mr. “asby Tayler

for Mr. McCulloch,indemnity against any personal damage,he,and in whichloss, be involvedexpense may by'reason

of the of the bonds.” Thepayment seven-thirties were thento Mr. and a indelivered check forTayler, coin the amount

the and interest wasOf bonds delivered to Hardenberg’sseven-thirties wereThe. converted intoagent. subsequently

calledthe and“five-twenties,” thesebonds remained inthe hands Mr. Tayler,of. inbeing hisregistered name as

-The books of thetrustee. intreasury re-nothingshowedtrust;this asnor,lation to said,already more oranything

than that the bondsother were topaid or hisHardenbergagent.

Murrayas theNext, bonds of Birch',respected & Co. Itseemed in to these, that toregard prior July, 1855, Chiles

to thismoney, applied firm, whowanting lent him $5'000,a of twelveof theon bonds.deposit 'The whole of the

twelve were taken to the treasury Thedepartment. de-at first declined topartment but'pay them, finally did nay

' White. 715Texas <v.Dec. 1868'.]

of'the case.Statement

towith the uponof coupons $4900),'them (amountingfourtoit hadfirm,the thatthe the $5000lentbyground urged

.jvith-andof thethe couponsonChiles bondshypothecationand be-Téxas,claim of-theofout the State.'of.knowledge

tp was aand holderbé,cause the firm was apparently,urgedother in num-bonds,and-for valuethe eightin.good-faith,

not to the firm,1in' the paid,treasury, andber,-remainingthe and ofTexas,because of claim of ofthe alleged State

the the same. comehad. possessionthat into-theallegationwithout,of, and conside-said White and ..improperly,Chile?

ration.bonds,was about fournow ¿he1The less perhapsdifficulty

further was thusthan about these' history pre-eight, whosethe,one of to the bill.Birch, firm,the answersented by of

hisand after withansder,said in thisHe gettingmentioningthe four bonds—ofthedifficulty payment

“ 1866, Chilesand the calledafterwards, year uponduringThatof the First of theComptrollerthe reporthim with printedfrom it that theR. W. appearedHon. whichTayler,Treasury,

redeemin reasonablewquld, probability,all all-saiddepartmentfurther on saidbonds; and advancesrequested eight remaining

Chiles,that the firm advanced saidbonds; thereupon uponandtime,from time the sum ofbonds, $4l85i25,tothe said .eight

ad-,That he madeof which was due and theunpaid.all saidChiles hethe of said thatas well upon representationsvanees

holder of said bonds and asthe bona hiscoupons, uponwas fideof tenor effect;and their andlegalown observation knowledge

his,faith inof the thereof .thebyredemption governmentandUnited States.”of the

said’ that—further,The answer

the first made,the time of advances the firm had“■At no-inthe contract1 referred to the nor of theofknowledge bill]

connection of'said White & Chiles with theinterest com-or{ofof the law of the referred innor State Texas .t'hetoplainant,

16, and that the bonds we1851;December takenbill passed.in faith.”good

to the whole thesefurther,-in of bohds;It regardappeared

v. "White. Ct.Texas716 [Sup.

of theStatement cas§.

June,in to1865, Chiles, borrow ofthat, onewanting moneyHamilton,andBarret, he, Mr. thenBarret, justknowing

but not installed intoprovisional yetappointed governor,nor as the whichoffice, apparently yet impressionshaving

he madehis caution went toby him,public, sup-afterwardshim. well with the nature bonds,of theseposing acquainted

and as to their value,his and as tosought opinion whetherwould be Barret’sthey testimony proceeded:paid.

“ advised me to Chiles,the of andaccept propositionHe gaveas his that the wouldopinion have to thegovernmentit. pay

Ibonds. afterwards bad several conversations with him on thein all of which he the samesubject, gave opinion. Afterwards,

(I can’t theremember exact Mr. Chiles totime), applied Birch,& Co. afor loan ofMurray tomoney, someproposing bondsgive

as collateral and at his Isecurity; request went to Birch, Mur-Co.,& and informed them ofray conversations withmy Governor

Hamilton, and of his as toexpressed me.opinion thenTheyto make a loan on the Inwilling security offered. orders.eemed

to them further Iassurance that was notgive mistaken in myof Governor opinionHamilton’sreport verbally expressed, I

from him aobtained letter It readsproduced]. thus :[letter

Tonic,New 'June I860.-25th,K. Barret.Aon. J.Sir : reply questionDear In to aboutyour Texas indemnity bonds

S.,the U. I can thatby assure-you they are perfectlyissued good,certainly payand the will them to thegov’t holders.

Yours truly,A. J. Hamilton.”

“witness theThe mentioned conversations had with Gtov-Hamilton, and the letter,ernor also of andspoke sometimes

to of whomread it various some were inparties, dealing“as he hadbonds,” and, stated,these reason to believe that

Hamilton’s inGovernor to the bondsopinion regard becameknown dealers in suchamong■pretty Thegenerally paper.”

however, did not Mr.witness, know Hardenberg.

were:therefore,The questions,one; theA minor1. preliminary question presented by

as to whetheranswer,Chiles’s sufficient was shownauthority

Dec. v.Texas White. 7171868.]

Opinion of the court.

thefor the suit inprosecution of the name and in behalfof Texas.

A one;2. and a ofgreat principal question jurisdiction,viz., whether the timeTexas, at of the filedbill or now, was.one of the United ofStates soAmerica, and tocompetent

anfile bill here.originalshe was,3. that a whether the re-Assuming question

orspective defendants, all, who of wereany, proper£hem,for thesubjects asinjunction theprayed, bondsholding

without sufficient andtitle, herein —and more particularlyas respected &Hardenberg, and'Birch, Co.—aMurray ques-

oftion and thenegotiable extent to whichpaper, holders,'-themselves holders bond andasserting for value, offide

“to bearer,” held itpayable ofpaper discharged precedentequities.

A4. as the effectto of thequestion at thepayments,of the ofbonds and of the four bondstreasury, Hardenberg

Birch,of & Co.Murray

caseThe was Messrs. andby Paschal in be-Merrick,arguedTexas; White;and contra, byMr. Phillips, Mr. Pike,ofhalf for

Chiles; Mr. Carlisle, and Mr. Moore,Hardenberg;for for for.Birch, Murray Co.‡

court;The CHIEF delivered of theJUSTICE the opinionan suit in this which thecourt,This-is in Stateoriginal

ascertain bonds of the States herTexas,of Unitedclaiminganasks to restrain the defendants frominjunctionproperty,

the and tofrom Nationalreceiving payment government,the of thesurrender bonds theto State.compel

bill, answers,It from the and that theappears proofs,act of offered1850, to-theStates, 9,by SeptemberUnited

Texas,of in claimsState for her connectedcompensationherthe settlement inwith of five$10,000,000boundary, per

cent, sum $1000;each for the of and that this offerbonds,was Texas. wereOne-half of these bonds re-accepted by

for in and thetained certain the Nationalpurposes treasury,half theother were delivered to bonds thus de-State. The

718 Texas v. "White. [Sup. Ct.’

Opinion of the court.

livered were dated 1, 1851, were,all'madeandJanuary pay-toable State of Texas,'or andbearer,tbe afterredeemable

the ‘31st of December,day 1864. received inThey' wereof the State the.behalf ofby comptroller accounts,public

an)binder of act of the which, besidesauthority legislature,that nothat bond should be avail-giving authority, provided

able in the hands of holder until after indorsementariy byof the State.governor.the

After the out of rebellion,.the thebreaking insurgent legis--lature of theTexas, On 11th the1862,of January, repealed

the of the and on therequiring indorsement governor,*acfsame of aday provided board,'for the.organization military

of treasurer;and■composed governor^the andcomptroller,authorized a of that board to ’providefor'thémajority defence.of the State means of in theby any-bonds upontreasury, anyacbo’untjto .extent.of $1,000,OOO.†The defencethe confem-i'

the act was to be-made-plated by the Statesagáinst Unitedwar.' this the boardby authority military,Under entered

aninto andagreement-with Chiles,George W.VWhite Johnhundred,to themtwo of the saledefendants,, for’thé orieof

these,■ inand then thebonds,of of thethirty-five treasuryand withStatej more, '&depositedthenseventy-six' Dróege

for toCo.,',in in whichEngland; payment they engaged de­the of cotton cardsliver to board'd medi­large quantity and

on theThis was made 12th ofcine's.' agreement January,' ■ March, 1865,of White12th and Chiles re­1865.’ .On'the

from the board oneceived andmilitary thirty-fivehundredof which were indorsedof these nonebonds, anyby governor

inAfterward, the of theof Texas. course 1865'andyearssome of the same bonds came into .the of1866, possession

or asdefendants,of the forothers ad­by purchase, securityofvances money.

■ is a case. Itbrief outline of the will beSuch necessaryin detail someto refer more to circum-hereafter particular

stances,of it.

was directedfirst to which our attentionThe inquiries by'

* Laws,1862, 55.Texas,Acts of 45. Texasp. †

v.Texas White. 719Dec. 1868.]

of the court.Opinion,..

answer of Chilesof thearose thecounsel, upon allegationsthefor prosecutionthat no sufficient shownautho.rity-is(1),

theofin name and on the- State'ofthe'suit the behalfofherseveredTexas; and that the State', relationshaving(2)

of a'ndUnion,a the States the. bywith of havingmajorityalie-;to throw herher ordinance of secession attempted off

the of theto Constitution .and governmentgiance Unitedso her be fromfar status as toStates, changedhas disabledsuits in National courts'.prosecuting the

The firdt of theis evidence.these.allegations disproved byA ofletter the of which is not. dis-authority, authenticity

inhas been which J. W. Throckmorton,puted, produced,■under the- constitution in 1866,electee! adopted.governor

and act of theunder an State legislature relatingproceedingto these ratifies and confirms the ofbonds, actionexpresslythe solicitors filed the billj.andwho them toempowers prose-

suit;cute this further the of Mr.and it is proved by affidavitthe that he wasPaschal, for complainant, duly ap-counselHamilton, whileAndrew J.by provisionalpointed governor-

Texas,of to the Texas in to the-State of referencerepresentin thatbonds and his hasappointment .been'controversy,

ed Ifrenew- E. M. the actual Texas wasPease,by gpvernor..the acts,a of time.of and theseState Union theseat per-,the

or weresous, either of tothem, competent represent the.State, this leaves no thedoubt of au-proof upon questionthority.

a ofThe other Itquestion jurisdiction.allegation presentsthis hasis not to that courtbe-questioned original-jurisdic-

of other. or thatStates,tion of suits Statea citizensby againstmust be Statesthe States entitled to invoke this jurisdiction

that no suchof the it is clearBut,Union. equally jurisdic-has this suitstion been Conferred courfc'ofupon by.any other

communities than such'States.politicalIf, is that the of Texas was not attherefore, Statetrueit

of is ofbill, now,time this or not one the.ho Unitedfilingwe have of it isStates, no suit,.and ourjurisdiction dutythis

to dismiss it.

Texas720 v. White. [Sup. Ot.

ofOpinion the court.

areWe seusible of the and'very ofmagnitude importancethis of the interest it and ofexcites, thequestion, difficulty,

to ofnot so of it as tosay theimpossibility,, disposing satisfyof men equallyconflicting enlightened,judgments equally

and But we meet it thepatriotic.'upright, equally case,iuweand must determine it in exercisethe of our best judg-

under thement,, of the Constitution alone.guidancehowever,Some not inaid,unimportant theascertaining

sensetrue of the Constitution, derived'from con-maybewhat is the correct idea a State,ofsidering apart-from any

•union or confederation with other States. The ofpovertyoften the illof termscompels employmentlanguage quite

and ofdifferent this movesignifications; hardly exampleanyis than inbe found the use of the 'areto word- nowsignal we

It would serve no useful toconsidering. purpose attemptthe inenumeration of all various sehses which it isan used.

noticed.A need befew onlya ordescribesIt sometimes of individ-people community

lessunited more or inuals closely political relations,, inhab-the same oftentemporarily or-permanently ititing country;

the ordenotes only country inhabitedregion,territorial bya not itsuch is thetocommunity; unfrequently applied gov-

live;ernment which at other ittimes-the-people repre-underthe combined andsents people, territory, government.idea.of

seedifficult to that in all these sensesIt is not the primaryais that of or Theconception people community. people,

either orin whatever territory perma-dwelling, temporarilyaand whether underorganizednently, regular government,’

relations,and lessor looser definite constituteunited thebystate.

This, is the fundamental idea which theundoubtedly uponofinstitutions our own are established.republican country

was stated an eminent in oneIt ofclearly byvery judge,*the earliest cases this and we arecourt, notadjudicated by

decision,aware of in aof differentany subsequentanything,tenor.

* Paterson, Dallas,inMr. Justice Admrs.,v. Doane’s 3Penhallow 93.

,v.Dec. Texas White. 7211868.]

Opinion of the court.

In ex-the Constitution termthe state most frequentlythe combined idea ofpresses noticed,just territory,people,

and A in the sense ofstate, the Con-government. ordinarya of freepolitical citizens,community occupy-stitution's

a of defined boundaries, and undering territory organizeda andsanctioned limited a writtengovernment by eonstitu-.

andtion, ,established the of the Itby consent governed. is.the union of such under astates, common whichconstitution,forms the distinct and unit, which that Con-greater political

as thestitution United makes ofdesignates States,-and theand states which itpeople one and onecompose people

country.The use of the word in this sense further.hardly requires

remark. In the clauses which impose dieprohibitions uponStates in to the ofrespect treaties, of billsmaking emittingof andcredit, duties of and Whichlaying tonnage, guaranteeto the States in the House ofrepresentation Representativesand in the areSenate, found some instances of this use in theConstitution. will occur to mind..Others every

But it alsois used in its sense, as in thegeographicalclauses which athat inrequire representative shallCongressbe an inhabitant of the in heState which chosen,beshalland that'the trial of crimes shall be held within the Statewhere committed.’

And there are instances in which the sense ofprincipalthe word seems to be that one to which we have ad-primary

of averted, or aspeople political community, distinguishedfrom, a government.

In this. latter sense the word seems to be used in the clausewhich that theprovides United States shall to^guarantee

State in the aevery Union ofrepublican-form government,and shall each of themprotect invasion.against

In clause a.this distinctionplain made between ais Stateand the of a State.government

thus ascertained the ymrdsenses in which theHaving stateis in the Constitution, we willemployed to considerproceed

said,the of haswhat beenpropef applicationvox., vii. 46

,v.Texas Ct.722- [Sup.White.

of the court.Opinion

Texas was admitted into the a'Union,'asTbe ofRepublicof this act the newState, December,on the 1845. By27th

State,of new wereand withthe theState, investedpeopleto all tileall and became responsibilitiesthe subjectrights,

theofthe States Constitution.and duties underoriginal1861,until the wasadmission,of Statethe dateFrom

States herin of thethe United byrepresented Congréssas aand herrepresentatives,senators and relations member

In thatremained unimpaired. year, actingthe Unionofa fethe of State under Consti-thatthe theory rightsupon'

thrown off atrenounced, and herbe obligationstution mightformed,the bond thusto severTexas undertookpleasure,

with theconstitutional relations Unitedbreak herand to upStateá.

au­convention,a withoutof called1st February,*On-they•theby legislature regu-but sanctionedsubsequentlythority,

to dissolve thean ordinance unionelected, adoptedlarlyTexas and the other States under theofthe Statebetween

was de­States,the United Texasof whei’ebyConstitutionand and-“herState,”“a separate sovereignto beclared

frpm“absolved all toto be allegianceand citizeris”peoplethereof.”States, or the governmentthe United

It'was, a of the and an actvote byordered by convention†should be submittedthat this'ordinancetheof legislature,‡

people, approval disapproval, on the.23d offor orto'the1861.February,

the decision thushowever, invoked,Without awaiting,.,aon the 4th of resolu-convention, February, adoptedthe

to' the inseven Staterepresentdelegatestion designatingatof States “inor-convention Montgomery,secedingthe

“that anddeclared, the wishesthe inter-'as resolutionder,”inTexas be consultedof reference tomaytheof peopleests

and that beprovisional .governmentconstitution may-theconvention.”saidby.established

of this theresolution conventiontheBefore passage had

* Texas,ofDigest Laws 78. Id. 80.Paschal’s †Texas, 1859-61, 11.p.ofLaws‡

Texas v. 'Whité.Dec. 7231868.]

•Opinion theof court.

a committee of and an or­appointed public safety, adopteddinance tothat committee take measures'authority'togivingfor of the of the Statespossession Unitedobtaining propertyin andTexas, for the National from' herremoving troopslimits. The committee,members of the and andall Officers

or wereit, sworn toappointed employedagents by secrecy,and to to the State.* Commissioners were at onceallegiance

with instructions to to theappointed, ofrepair headquarterscom-,General then the United inStatesTwiggs, representing

mand of the and to the dehiaudsdepartment, make necessaryfor the of of theaccomplishment purposesthe .committee.A force was in of thesemilitary organized support demands,,and an was effected witharrangement the,commanding gen­eral, which the United States wereby totroops engaged

the and the forts and all theState,leave public property,to the theremoval of werenecessary troops,not surrendered

to the commissioners.†These transactions took between the 2d .andplace the

18th of and underit was theséFebz’uary, circumstances thatvote the ratification orupozzthe of the ordinancerejectjon

of secession was taken on the 23d of It wasFebruary. rati-a of the of théfied'by voters' State.'majority

The convention, which had adjourned before votethe w^staken, reassembled on the 2d of March,' and theinstructed

sent'to thedelegates of thealready Congz’ess States,secedingfor admission into theapply confederation, and-.to do give

the adhesion of Texas itsto provisional constitution.It to make theproceeded, also, in thechanges State-con-

stitution which this adhesion made necessary. The'wdrdsWereStatés,'”“United stricken out wherever they occurred,

and the'woz’ds “Confederate States” substituted; and themembers of the and all-legislature, officers of the State,

new,constitutionwere therequired to take anby oath ofnew1,to the constitution and laws of thefidelity confederacy.

Before, indeed, theáe in the constitution hadchanges been

* Digest,Paschal’s 80.Texas Reports of the Committee of(Library 45.Congress),†

Ct.,y.724 Texas White. [Sup.

ofOpinion the 'court.

ofthe the State had been tocompleted, required ap-officer^anthe committee and of topear before take oath allegiance

,fhe Confederate States.and state,The of tosecretary refusinggovernor comply,

were from office.ejectedsummarilyofThe members the which had also adjournedlegislature,

and i-eassembled on the of were moreMarch,18th compli-..ant. the and the ofoath,took on 8thThey proceeded

to law the- offor choice electors ofbyApril provide presi-dent and of the Confederate States.vice-president

-ofThe the State in the of therepresentatives CongressUnited States were aswithdrawn,'and as soon the secededStates became constitution,under a Texas sentorganizedsenators and to "the Confederaterepresentatives Congress.- all so far as therespects, beobject'cou^d accomplishedIn

ordinances of the of theby convention, actsby legislature,and votes of the citizens, the Texasby relations- of to theUnion were broken and new relations ato newup, govern-ment'were established for them.

The thus assumed could beposition maintainedonly byarms, and Texas took with theaccordingly part, other Con-

the war of thefederate-States, rebellion,in which theseinevitable. the whole thatof warDuring thereevents.made

no or or otherwas State officerjudge, any ingovernor,•Texas, who the National Nor wasrecognized authority!.

ofofficer the United Statesany to*permitted exercise anyunderwhatever the Nationalauthority withingovernment

the State,limits of the under the immediateexcept protec-tion of the National forces.military

Texas,Did in ofconsequence these acts, cease to be anot,if did theOr,State? State cease to be a member of the

Union?

isIt needless to atdiscuss, the question whetherlength,of athe State to withdraw from the Union forright any

cause, herself as sufficient, is consistentby with theregarded•of the United States.Constitution

of the StatesThe Union never was a artificial andpurely

Texas v. White. 726Dec. 1868.]' Opinion of the court.

the andrelation. It Colonies,arbitrary began among grewof common mutualout kindredsympathies; prin-origin,

interests,similar and relations. It wasciples, geographicaltheconfirmed and necessities war,of andstrengthened by

and fromform,received definite and sanction thecharacter,Articles of these the wasConfederation. UnionBy solemnly

“declared be Arid when theséto Articles wereperpetual.”to the offound tó be the theexigencies country,inadequate

awas ordained “to form moreConstitution Uniom”perfectdifficult,is to of-It the idea indissoluble moré'convey unity

thesethan words. What can be indissoluble if aclearly bymade more isUnion, not?perpetual perfect,

ofthe and the'Union,But perpetuity indissolubility by nothemeans of distinct and individual existence,implies loss

or of the of the theStates. Underbyright self-governmentArticles each itsof Confederation State retained sovereignty,freedom, and andindependence, every power, jurisdiction,and not to the United States.right expressly delegated

Constitution,the the ofUnder the Statespowersthoughallrestricted, still,were much notpowers to thedelegated

nor to theStates, are reservedStates,United toprohibitedor thethe .States to weAnd havepeople.respectively,

“al occasion to remark at this terhi, that thehadready peo­¡átateof each a State, itscomposeple having own'govern­

ment, and with all the functions essentialendowed to separateand andexistence,” that “without the Statesindependent.in there could be no suchuniou, thepolitical bodpas Uni­

therefore,ted canStates.”* Not be noonly, loss ofthereand to theindependent autonomy States,separate through

un-,their union under itConstitution,the but be notmayreasonably said'that the theofpreservation States, and themaintenance of their are as muchgovernments, within the

and care of the as thedesign preservation ofConstitutionand thethe Union maintenance of the National government.

itsConstitution,’inThe all looksprovisions, to an indestruc­tible Union, of indestructiblecomposed States.

* of v.County Lane of Oregon,The State supra, p 76.

726 Texas v. White. Ct.[Sup.

of theOpinion court.

Texas becameWhen, therefore, one of the United States,she entered into an .indissoluble relation. All the obliga-

union,tion's of and all the ofperpetual republi-guarantiescan Union,in the attached at once to the State.governmentThe act which consummated her admission into the Unionwas than amore it was thecompact;something incorpora-tion of a new member into the And it waspolitical body.final, The union between Texas and the other States wasas as and as indissoluble as the unioncomplete, perpetual,between the States. There was no for re-placeoriginal

orconsideration, revocation, revolution, orexcept throughconsent of the States.through

therefore asConsidered transactions under the Constitu-tion, the ordinance of secession, the conventionadopted byand ratified a the citizens of and allby Texas,majority of.the 'acts of her intended to effect to thatlegislature give

wereordinance, null. wereabsolutely withoutThey utterlyin Thelaw. of theoperation as a mem-State,obligations

ber of the Union, alndof citizen of the State, as aevery citi-zen of the United remainedStates, andperfect unimpaired.It follows the-that State did cease to acertainly State,not be'nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were

theotherwise, State must’have become and herforeign,citizens The war must have ceased to be a warforeigners.for the of and haverebellion, must become a warsuppressionfor andconquest subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore continuedthat Texas to be ais,and a ofState, State the theUnion, trans-notwithstandingto which we have And this inconclusion,actions referred.

our is not in conflict with act or declarationjudgment, anyof the National butany departmentof government, entirely

in accordance thewith whole series of such acts and declar-ations since the outbreakfirst of the rebellion.

But in order a thethevexercise, State,to of to sueby rightin this there needs acourt, to be State compe-government,

, tent the in with theto State its-relationsrepresent National

Dec. v.Texas Weite. '7271868.]

Opjcion of the court.

so far at least as the institution'andgovernment, prosecu-tion of a suit is concerned.

And it is' no a themeans conclusion, fromby prem-logicalises which we have endeavored to that theestablish, gov-

,ofernmental Texas to tbe Union remainedrelations unal-tered. remain whileoften relationsObligations unimpaired,are The of thetogreatly changed. .obligations allegiance

andState, of her to theobedience'to laws,'subject Constitu-tion of the allUnited areStates, upon citizens,binding

-whether them;faithful of theunfaithful to 'but ./relationswhich subsist while arethese areperformed,obligations

whendifferent from those which arise areessentially they'and set at And the same must -neces-disregarded nought.

true andbe of-the relations andsarily of'Statesobligationscitizens to the one hasUnion. No been -bold to con-enoughtend whilethat, Texas was acontrolled hos-.by governmenttile to the United and inStates, with,aaffiliation hostileconfederation, war the States,United senatorsuponwagingchosen her orby electédlegislature, representatives her-bycitizens, were entitled to inseats or suit,thatCongress; anyinstituted in her name, could be entertained in this court.-All that,admit this condition of civil war, theduring tights^of the State as a and of hermember, as citizens of thepeopleUnion, were Thesuspended. theandgovernment citizens

-of the State, to their constitutionalrefusing recognize obli-assumed thegations, character of andenemies, incurred the

ofconsequences rebellion.These new relations new duties theimposed upon United-

TheStates. first-was of the rebellion.that Thesuppressingnext'was that of the broken relationsre-establishing of the-

Union.;State with the The first of these duties beenhaving1the nextperformed, the attentionnecessai’ily ofengaged the

National government.The for theauthority of theperformance first had been

found in the topower insurrection andsuppress oncarrywar; for the ofperformance the second, was de-authorityrived from the of the United Statesobligation to guaranteeto a,inState the Unionevery form ofrepublican govern

(X.v. 'White.728 Texas- [Sup.

Opinion of the- court.

in; athe case of rebellion whichindeed,The flatter,ment.the timeof a 'andState,involves the for excludesgovernment

aits seems to be neces-limits,fromthe authorityNationalto the former.-cornpletn'entsary''' ■ athe ease of Texas furnishesthis, striking'illustration..Of

State,hrthere was no thewar closedWhen the governmentforbeen the ofwhich had purposeoi'ganizedthatexcept

Thatthe States. governmentwar Unitedagainstwagingfunctionaries left theThe chiefdisappeared.immediately

followed their ex-the officialsof subordinateState. Many■ annulled or im-wereresponsibilities greatlyample. Legal

shouldinevitable that confusionIt Was pre-greatpaired.11where the sensemaintained, it was goodIf order wasvail.

to localthe citizens supportvirtue of acting mag-arid gavethemore needful restraints.directlyoristrates, suppliedtheincreased of the situa­social difficultyA changegreat

with certainStates,in the localSlaves,tion. insurgentfree the Proclamation ofbeen bydeclaredhadexceptions,

be madeand whatever as toquestions mightEmancipation;clear,itConstitution,under theact, wasof thateffectthe

its inthat operation, Conner*-­practicalthefrom beginning,like must beacts of tendency, completewithtion legislative

the National forcesWherever obtainedenfranchisement.freemen. to the actsSupportthe slaves became ofcontrol,

President,ofand the the1proclamation concerningCongressa of Presidentmade condition Lin­slaves, amnesty* bywas

and President Johnson inDecember, 1863,incoln, by Mayj'confirmed,was rather than or-And emancipation1865.†

thpthe amendmentStates, toin thedain-ed,. Con­insurgent bythe Union, whichslavery -throughoutstitution1 prohibiting

;1865,in andFebruary,by Congress ratified,proposedwasof autumn,close the thethebefore following by requisite

of thethree-fourths States.‡. new freemen became ofThe thenecessarily part people,,

State;thestill constituted forthe States.,and likepeopleretain theirindividuals, toidentity, though some'changed

* Large, 737 Ib. Ib.13 at 758.Stat. 774-5.‡†

TexasDec. v. White. 7291868;]

Of'tlie court'.Opinion

was the State,extent in their constituent elements. itAndthus which was the olconstituted, entitled to benefitn.ow

>the constitutional guaranty.'no'There in Texas -in constitu-being government.then

tional the it became of theUnion,rela-tions-with the duty■ to for the of such aStates restorationprovide gov-Unitedernment.' the whichBut restoration of the government

offi-existed before the without a new election ofrebellion,Election,-was and before suchcers, anyobviously impossible;

could be was that the consti-held,'it oldnecessaryproperlytution such amendments as would conform itsshould-reeeive

to the new conditions createdprovisions emancipation,byand afford the of the. State.toadequate .security people

In the exercise'of the conferredpower by the guaranty. inclause, the exercise of other constitutionalas every power,a indiscretion choice of means is Itallowed.necessarilytheis essential the means must be andthatonly necessary proper,for into execution theconferred,the powercarrying through

under-,restoration of the to its relations,State constitutional■a form of and done,acts berepublican government' that-no.

and no which is eitherexerted, or mi-authority prohibitedsanctioned Constitution.by the

It is not to at the measuresimportant review, length,which have been thistaken, thepower, byunder executive^and of the Nationallegislative Itdepartments government.1is to observe thatproper, however, almost afterimmediatelythe cessation of and whilehostilities, the warorganized yet'

insmouldered the President of the United is-Texas, Stateshissued a forproclamation appointing provisional governor

andthe.State, for the of a convention,providing assemblingwith a view to the re-establishment of a republican govern-ment, under an amended theconstitution, toand restorationof the State herto constitutional A .'con-proper relations.- jvention was theassembled, amended,constitutionaccordinglyelections aheld, and State itsgovernment, acknowledging

to the Union,obligations established.theWhether action then taken in war-was, respects,all.

ranted the isby Constitution, it not to deter-now.necessary

C,t,730' Texas v. "White. [Sup.

ofOpinion the court.

mine.. The exercised the President waspower supposed,by,hisdoubtless, to be from asfunctions,derived .constitutional

commander-in-chief; warand, so as itcontinued,thelong.,banpot be-denied that hie temporaryinstitutemight govern-ment within districts, the.National’occupiedinsurgent by

or inforces, measures, theState, for restoration ofanytakefaithfulState to the Union, however,government employing,

in efforts,such means and as weresuch author-only agentsized constitution at laws.by

But, the to into effect the clause ofcarry guarantypoweris a and inlegislative power, residesprimarily Congress.

th¿the fourth article“Under of it restsConstitution; withwhatto decide is' the establishedCongress government one

in a State. theNor, United States toas each Stateguaranteea mustrepublican' government, decideCongress necessarily

is established in the State,Avhat before it cangovernmentit isdetermine whether or not.”republican

Justice,This is the of the Chieflanguage late speakingcase from ,this in a Rhodecourt, Island,*for from thearising

inof tha.topposing governments And,State-.organizationwe that the sanctioned it beprinciple bythink may applied,

even more to casewith of a Statepropriety, ofdeprivedthe,all violence;,by-revolutionarygovernment,rightful though

to wherelimited cases thenecessarily rightful governmentinsubverted, or imminent ofis thus over­danger being

an set force withinby government, up byopposingthro.wnthe State.

of the President must, therefore,action beThe consideredinand, that it seems toas have been re-provisional, light,

It was taken after the term of theby Congress. 38thgardedhad The 39thexpired. whichCongress, assembledCongress

1865, followedDecember, thein 40thby whichCongress,March, 1867,in afterproceeded,met tolong deliberation,

various measures for andadopt reorganization restoration.weremeasures embodied inThese proposed amendments to

inand theConstitution, actsthe knowu as the Reconstruct

* Borden, Howard,v.Luther 7 42.

v. White.Texas 781Doc:.1868j

ofOpinion the court.

winch have bfeenso far carried thatActs, effect,tiou a.into■of the which iii rebellionStates themajority were engaged

their underhave been restored to constitutional relations,forms of to be Cou-adjudged republican bygovernment,

th'eii;admission ofthe “Senators and Repre-g'ress, throughinto councils of thesentatives the Union.”

beforethe case us the court toNothing pro-requires.innounce the ofjudgment upon constitutionality any particular

"of these acts.provisionisit to observe thatBut, themselves-important these.actstheshow ve beentents,that rani which establishedgo gudhad

had been in under direction,executiveactual wereoperationas as andby provisional, asrecoguized Congress existing,

continuance.capable’ofof 2,1867,* thethe act first of the theséBy series,Marchwere, indeed, pronounced and were"governments illegal sub­

andcontrol,to were declaredmilitary to bejected provis­and act of 1867,theonly; by 19,ional supplementary July

series,the it was furtherthe third.of declared that it thewasand of the 2,intent act of.March that themeaning gov­ti-u'e

then were Stateernments existing not.legal governments,continued’, were to beand if continued to the.mili­'subject

of the districts andcommanders torespective thetary para­of We notdomount hereauthority Congress. intoinquire

of this sothe far as it relatesconstitutionality to*legislationtheor to paramount of Con­authority,military authority

to that the of theIt suffices terms actssay, necessa­gress.of actuallyrecognition existing governments;rily imply and'

•tact, theof thusthat in governments inpoint recognized,still exist.some respects,important

has thus been saidWhat generally describes, with suffi-the situation ATexas.cient accuracy, provisional.of gov-

the wasState theappointedernor of inby 1865;Presidentwas elected thea under con-governor by peoplein 1866 .the

dateof that at aa.subsequentyear;stitution wasgovernorcommander of thethe Each of thebyappointed district.

* Large,14 Stat. at 428.

'Texas732 White. Ct.v. [Sup.

ofOpinion the court.

executiveexercised functions and actually representedthreeinthe State the executive department.

us has his tothe case before each sanction theIa giventhe we nosuit,of and find withoutdifficulty,prosecution

office,the of either to the executivelegalinvestigating titlein the thus warrantedthat sanctionholding given sufficiently

and in behalf of thethe action of the solicitor counsel State.is that the suit was instituted andThe conclusionnecessary

is competentprosecuted by authority.

weof,disposedThe of pro-question jurisdiction being.thusthe merits as theheed to consideration of presented bythe

and the evidence.pleadings

qr notfirst to be answered whetheris,And the questionto in was divestedof State .the conti■thetitle the oversybonds

?with and Chilescontract of the board Whiteby the militaryonwere of the State of TexasThat the.propertyihe'bonds

the act aliena-of when1862, prohibitingJanuary,the.11thofindorsement the was repealed,'without thetion governor,'

came-intono and is denied.admits of Theyquestion, .notof the.and actsownership publicher throughpossession

the which' noticeState,and of gave.general governmentthem.thé byto all world of transactionth.e consummated

aif a act ofthat, State,it clear byAnd, publicthinkwe.the alienation ofrestrictions uponher imposeslegislature,

su,cha transfer ófwho takesthat-her everyproperty, person, of Aliena-notice them.must be held affected byproperty

can no title toof restrictions,such conveytion,.in disregardthe alienee.

the restriction im-is thatthis it saidcase, however,Inthe actthe of was of/1862-.act 1851 repealed bybyposed

asbeis.true if the of 1862 can valid.'this act regardedAnditwas valid ?But,

at the time the con-Texas,of repeal,legislatureThe. of> a Stateone of'the ofstituted .government,departments

the Unitedin to the Constitutionestablished of.hostilityin courts oftherefore,be theIt cannotStates. regarded,

• asas a or its acts lawful'States, lawfulthe United legislaturé,

733-v. White.TexasDec. 1868.]

of theOpinion court.

ofthehistoricalAnd', it is an fact that governmentacts. yet,actualState, was itsin of the onlythen full controlTexas,

had been aif Texas separateand certainlygovernment;the newStates,Unitedand not one of' theState, government,

estab-andthe authority,displaced regular havinghavingthe ex-iin seats of and inlished itself the Customary power,wouldof the functions of administration,ercise ordinary

a dewords,in strictest sense ofconstituted,have the theacts,its theand of its ex-periodgovernment, duringfacto

as be allsuch,istence would in re-effectual, and, almostvalid. to someAnd, this-is true of theextent, actualspects,

of Texas, andunlawfulthoughgovernment revolutionary,as the States.to United

notIt is to exact withindefinitions,necessary attempt anyawhich the acts of such State must be treatedgovernment

valid,as or It be said,invalid. with sufficientmay perhapsthat acts to and orderaccuracy, necessary peace good among

suchcitizens, for as acts andexample, sanctioning protectingand the domestic therelations, course.marriage governing

of the anddescents, transfer ofregulating co’nveyauee prop-and andreal personal, .remedies forerty, providing injuriesand and otherestate,to acts,similar whichperson would be

afrom lawfulvalid if be re-emanating mustgovernment,in from,as valid whengeneral an actual,.garded proceeding

'unlawful 'and that acts ingovernment;though furtheranceofor rebellion the Unitedagainstsupport States, or intended

thedefeat ofto just andrights citizens, other acts of likeinmust,nature, be asgeneral, regarded invalid and void.

What, then, tried theseby tests, was thegeneral character'contract of theof the board withmilitary White and Chiles?

board, as we haveThat seen, was organized, not' for theof thedefence State aagainst invasion, or forforeign its

domesticprotection against withinvioletice, the ofmeaningthese words as used thein National Constitution, but for the

under the name ofpurpose, ofdefence, warlevying againstthe United States. This purpose was, unlaw-undoubtedly,

thefor acts itful, which contemplated are,. within the ex-definition of thepress Constitution, treasonable.

-'-vi,Texas [Sup.White.734' Oí./

Opinion of the Court.

It is the board reor-true that ivasmilitary subsequentlyconsisted, the twothereafter,Tt of .ganized.- governor and.

members, and and was,other removable himappointed by \therefore, subordinate to Itsexecutive control.entirely gen-

remained: but wereeral without itsobject change, powersallto the control' of workspublic supplies,ancj“extended

aid within theState,and to the of the by .impor-producingsuch,articles and for aid.”of necessarytation proper

argumentit was insisted in ou behalf of theAnd some ofthat the with White anddefendants, Chiles,contract being,

of cotton-cards and medicines, was not athe purchase.forin aid of the but forrebellion, ca-contract goodsobtaininga and,of use and innocent, there-entirely.legitbmatepable

for those the transfer offore,. goods by anythat.^paymentthe Stateof unlawful. We cannofproperty adoptwas^iot

atWithout this time,view. 'theentering, uponthis inquirymade acontract such board can be sustained,any bywhetherthat theto of theare boardsay powerswe obliged enlarged

have beenus to coüfcrrexl in furtheranceto of itsappearof the States,United and thewar.againstpurpose, thatmainconsideration, even if'made in theunder executioncontract,

was' still a contract in of thepowers, aid'enlargedof thosetherefore, void/ And werebellion, and, cannot ourshut

whichthe evidence that the act ofprovesto wasrepealeyesaid rebellion the transferbyto ofintended thesefacilitating

doubtless, th,atwasIt of themsupposed, negotiationbonds.difficult if bore theirless nothey uponbe face directwould

come from' theof ofpossession insur-having anyevidenceWe can no effect,give therefore,'State government.gent

'act,to this repealingthe of the wasthat title State noti divestedIt follows by

intheact'of government into thisinsurgentthe enteringcontract.

insisted infurther,. it'was behalf of thoseBut defendantsof these bondswho claim certain ór aspurchase, collateralby

however unlawful have been thethat meansmaysecurity,■ and obtainedwhich White Chiles of thepossession bonds,by

v.Texas White. 735Dee. 1868.]

•theof court.Opinion

and entitled tonotice,withoutholders,are innocenttheysecuritiestorules whichsuch under the applyasprotection

indiscussedrules wereThese fullywhich pass by delivery.thethat pur­held ia that caseLardner.* Wev.Murray

and illbonds, without notice'due,beforéchaser of couponandseller,in thewant of titleis unaffectedfaith, bygood

in and want ofthat the burden of to noticeproof respecttheis.on the claimant of the bonds asfaith, againstgood

are satisfied with doctrine.We thispurchaser. entirely,to theseState,Does the show noticethen, affirmatively

anddefendants of want of title to the bonds in Chiles.?Whitewould, difficult to a -answer thisIt he togive- negative

if thethere were no other thanquestion legislativeproofacts of Texas. there is evidence whichBut other might

heldbe to be of if the rule tonotice,sufficientfairly proofwewhich thishave-adverted be toappliedproperlycould

cáse.

But these rules have never been to matured obli­applied.Purchasers of notes or bonds due takegations. past nothing

but the actual and title the vendors.ofright †1851,1,The-bonds in were datedquestion January and.'December,redeemable after the of In strict-31stwere 1864.

itness, is true were not on the whenthey payable day theyredeemable; but the known of the Unitedbecame usage

States .to all bonds as as thesoon of ac-pay right paymentcrues, where a betweenexcept andredeemabilitydistinction

- is law,made and shown on the face ofpayability by thebonds, of ruletherequires over-the-application respectingdue to bonds of the United whichStates -haveobligationsbecome redeemable, and in to which no dis-'respect suchtinction has been made.

all inNow, bonds had becomecontroversythe redeemablethebefore of the with White Chiles;contract anddate and

all bonds of the same issue which have the indorsement oi

* 2 Wallace, 118.Davies, Term, 80;Brown v. 3 Simonds,Goodman v. Howard,† 20 366.

v. fSup.White.Texap736 Ct.

ofOpinion the court.

a of. Texas made before the of the secessiongovern'd’ datewere no-ordinance, others indorsed by -anygov-—and-theré

ernor, been in coin on at thepaid presentation .treasury—hadwhile,-on for theDepartment; the'contrary, applications

of the andbonds, indorsement,withoutpayment requiredof from to thatbonds,-madesuchcoupons detached depart-

had denied.ment, beenof,thesea the bondsnecessary consequence, negotiationAs

fb'"difficult. sold much below the ratesnecame Theytitle themhave commanded had to beenwould qthe.

in andfact, under the c'tioned, They wei;e'boughtcould have beenstance's only bought, upon speculation

a title,took the risk of bad douhpurchasers hoping,„oof thethat the action National government,through

„it be converted aTexas,of intomightthe government grone.

trap ofis that the first Texasgovernorit provisionalAndbondsthat these would be ulti-the expectationeheburaged

he was not'the But authorized toto holders.mately paidthe State,in behalf of in factmake any engagement and

■ theis thattrue, also,none. It Treasurymade Department,.representations,•influenced to.perhaps by departedtbesfe

rule,extent ffom its and bondssome heldpaidoriginal byindorsement.,without thesome the defendants" requiredof

init is-clear this the action of the.that change depart-Butcould not affect the- of Texas ament as State of therights

Union, hergovernmenthaving.'a acknowledging obligations',to-.the National Constitution!

thisIt to holdevidence, defendantsimpossible, uponis theof notice of the want of title in .'Whitebyprotected absence

theseChiles. Asand no toacquiredpersons paypientrightas theof these bonds State',against purchasers acquirecould

none them.through,

therefore,On whole our.case, conclusion is that thetheState-of Texas is entitled to relief her bill,the andsought by

*decree must be madea. accordingly.­

* decree, infra, p.See 741.the

‘Whitji.’ 737v.TexasDec. 1868.]

GS-rier,J"., dissenting;-'*ofOpinion

GRIER,Mi-. Justice dissenting.I am to dissent from theI that compelled opinionregret

the of the court on all the raisedof andmajority pointsindecided this case.

first in order is the courtThe of thequestion jurisdictiontheto entertain this bill in behalf of State of Texas.

The of this court can be invokedjurisdiction onlyoriginalone of The Territories have no suchthe United States.by

on them the nor have theConstitution,conferred byrightwho are the ofIndian tribes under theprotection military

’authorities of the government.was she at'Is Texas one of these United States? Or such,

filed,the time this bill was or since?a,a not asThis is to be decided'as politicalfact, legalfiction.

is know and notice theThis court bound to public historyof the nation.

the last IIf I truth of thehistory years,forregard eightof as one of thesecannot discover the State UnitedTexas

to notice of thedo it necessary veryI not think anyStates.have advanced the learnedwhich been byastute arguments

of a State,.-whenfind the definitiontoease,counsel in thisin a clear andhave,the common senSotreatedsubjectwe

in. the ease of &Marshall, HepburnChief Justicemanner byease is I to be ex*short,the hopeAsEllxey.*v.Dundassas stated and decided theit,of byfor a full reportcused

He says:court.

“ thewhether the as residents ofis, plaintiffs,The questionin thecan maintain an action CircuitColumbia,ofDistrict

for the-District ofStates Thisthe'United Virginia.ofCourtact of the ofon the Congress,describing jurisdictiondepends

,to Circuit Courts inThe act thejurisdictiongivescourt.thatthecitizen of in which the suit is brought,a Statebetweencases

inthe jurisdictionof-another To supportcitizen State.aandOn themust is a partit State.case, that Columbiaappearthis

is a distinctit that Columbiathe has-beenplaintiff, urgedofto the‘State’therefore, accordingasociety, is,andpolitical

* Cranch, 452.2yon. vii. 47

V.- CtVálTE. [Sup,TflXA? .

Grier,Opinion J.,of dissenting.

writers-on,definition of isgeneral true;law. but as the'.Thisofact uses' the inCongress obviously word ‘State’ reference to

that term as the itConstitution,used in tobecomes-necessaryisinquire Columbia a State in the sense of that instru-whether

ment. The result of that examination is a conviction that themembers of the American are theConfederacy' only States eonr

intemplated Constitution. The House ofthe Representativesis beto of members chosen the of thecomposed by people seve.ralStates, and 'each State shall have at least representative:one‘ of the States shall be ofUnited. two sen-composedThe.Senateators from each 'Each‘State forState.’ shall the eloci-appoint,\tibn of the number ofexecutive, equala -to itselectors, wholenumber of senators and' These showrepresentatives. clauses’ .

‘¿*.»tthe word is used in the Constitution aBdesignatingState’ofa member the and fromUnion, excludes the term the signi-

on,fication to it1attached writers the lawnf nations.”by

andNow we have here a clear well-defined test whichbyawe arrive at towith theconclusionmay regard questions

• fact now to beof decided.aTexas State,Is now members chosen-represented by by

that,.-the of State and received on the floor of 'Con-people,Has she two to her asenators as State in.gress? represent

theof United 'her voiceStates ? Has been heardtheBepateiu'the late election of sheIs not now heldPresident? and

conquered force ? Theprovince bygoverned-as-a military .Texas,of'Mapch^d,act declaresof-.Congress 1867, to be a

and“reheLS'tate',” provides for-its until agovernment legalestablished;an'd; State could begovernment legallyrepublican

Texas,theLouisianaconstituted and■It fifth district,military'it not theto civil but thesubject, toauthority,and .made

authorities-of States.”the United-“’military■ notrue that rebellion noworganizedIt is and.exists there,

States now‘the courts exerciseof'.the United jurisdiction1is the.,over of that Bút this no testthe ofpeople province.

Union; is State,State’s no and the.yetthe.being-in Dacotahcourts of therethe'United States as théyadminister-justice

Texas;indo The Indian mil--whotribes, governed byareforce, cannot claim to Unión.ifary be of WhereinStates the 'does the cónd-itiónof Texas differ-from -theirs?

White.Texas v.Dec. 789.1868.]

Grier, J., dissenting.ofOpinion

statusa theas presentorNow, admittingby assuming factleaveIpolitically, begUnionof Texas as.a State not in.the

as toof judicialinconsistencyto any chafgeprotest againstorof this court,a memberasheretoforeopinion^ expressedtoboundconsider myselfassented I do notto.silently

as the constitutionalto rightexpress any judiciallyopinionofa' Stateand ofof Texas to exercise the privilegesrights

as ahertothe ofthis orUnion, governpower Congressdomination,her to'to militarysubjectconquered province,

assubmit to theand her in I can onlykeep pupilage. factand Iof thedecided the political position government;byto -bein to Texasam not to provejoin essaydisposed any

that shehave decideda State of the whenUnion, Congressofand factfact,is not. It is' a of I only.question repeat,

WhetherTexas is not d in thisPolitically, State Unionr right-out of it or is a not before the court.notfully question

, But the as assumednow fact to be judiciallyconcedingshe has ais,the next whetherbrethren, questionby my

toto her'contracts? Before proceedingrepudiaterightthatthis we a fact in this caseanswer question, must,notice

the,I mean that Unitedwas in the argument.forgottenthis and bondssuit,States are no to pay‘theparty.to refusing

the in-to advancethe wouldbecause .be'usedmoney paidaIt is matter of utterof the rebellion. insignificanceterests

she makesof the United States to whomtheto governmentto thethese bonds. are bearer.the of payableTheypayment

bondis not bound to the jidesThe -inquire'intogovernmenthasnor whether the of Taxesholder,of the partedSlate

or And thewith the bonds wisely foolishly. although byshe all debtsActs is torequired repudiateIiceonstruetion

this does notrebellion,contracted for the of thepurposesrebellion,all the theannul acts of State duringgovernment

Statefor nor authorize the toor contracts other pmrposes,them.repudiate

ofwhether we assume the Texas to beNow, judici-Stateor it wilinot,in the ofUnion outally actually(though it)

Statenow is between thenot alter-the case. The contestannul a con-of citizens. She seeks toTexas and her own

74Q v.Texas White. Ct[Sup.

Grier, J.,Opinion dissenting.of

withtract the based the that thererespondents, on allegationno in'was Texas enter into antoauthority competent agree-

ment the relied one fiction,rebellion. uponduring Havingis ashe State in the she now reliesUnion,namely,.that upon

a which sheshe wishes this court to thatsecond-one,, adopt,was not a at-all the that was inState shefive>yearsduring

now sets the of and asksinsanity,,rebellion. She pleaupacts,all her made the disease asthe court to-treat during

void.We had some to thatvery/astute provelogic judici-have

a at all,she was not State her ownbyally although governedexecutiveand as “a distinct politicallegislature body.”

was theordinance of secession convention1byadopted.The1861; submitted to athe 18th theFebruary,on of vote.of

and Iby an'overwhelming majority.ratified admitpeople,ill-advised measure. Stillthat this was a. it wasvery the

State,a and theact of onverdict thesovereignsovereignas herbattle,”*this toof “by secede,question, right,to..trial

thather. But verdict did not séttlehas been against anyin case.not involved the It did not settle the.question

her to and set aside all herplead insanityquestion-of rightthemade the ofcontracts, trial, withduring herpending

food,for orcitizens,,own medicines. The sameclothing,“ theorganized political body,” exercising powersovereign

thewhich indorsementState, ofrequiredof-the these bondsthe also the lawspassed the dis­by governor, authorizing

of them without such indorsement. She cannot, likeposalassume the colorthe. of thechameleon, toobject- which she

this toand ask court involve itselfadheres, the contra­in.that she is a State in the Uniondictory positions, and was

andit,ofnever o.ut not a'State allyet at for four years,“which she acted and claims to be anduring organized

all the andpolitical'body,” exercising powers functions .ofan State. Whether aindependent sovereign State de facto

■ de she isor from herjure, estopped indenying dis­identitywith her own Ifcitizens. haveputes notthey fulfilled their

Prize Cases,Black,2* 673.

u\White.Texas v..Dec. 1868.]

Miller, JJ., dissenting.andSwayneOpinion of

of itthe breachforherhave remedyshe cancontract, legalin own courts.her

otherof thethatdiffers fromthe ofBut case Hardenbergbondmarket,inbonds opentheHedefendants. purchased

be observedit is toNow,consideration.and for a fullfide,courtand that thisbearer,tobonds'arethat these payable

to justifyTheas a of argumentto court equity.is appealedasof Texascommonwealth againstfavor of thea decree in

tobonds,theseis though payablethis:Hardenberg, simplyredeemable, Thedate.fourteen fromarebearer, years gov-

the interesther ofexercised payinghas privilegeernmentwhich anthe givesa term without principal,for redeeming

dis-arethe bondsvalue to the bonds. Ergo,additionalhonored; resume thehas a toformer ownerthe. right,Ergo,

a ownerthem fromthem,of reclaim bondpossession and fidea ofá decree of court equity.by

ain the form ofwhenis the putThis argument,legalassist herour aid towhich Texas invokedsorites, bylogical,

of thisin the wrong.pei'petration greatconscience;ofis said' a courtof to beA court chancery

introduced toastute be thehowever mayand argumentI that neither reasondecree, can mythis only 'saydefend'can it.assent tonor my giveconscience

SWAYNE:Mr. Justiceas to thewith brother Grier of theI concur my incapacity

condition,in her to maintainTexas,of anpresentStatein court. The insuit this question, my judgment,original

in to this court is bound therelation which actionis oné bythethe ofof department government.legislative

withease,the merits of the .theI.agree majorityHponbrethren.of my

to that brother MILLER unitesI am authorized say mythese views.mé inwith

The Decree.

the ofby wayoverruled objection interposed plea,The decreeof theof defendants to the solicitorsofauthorityin the answer

Texas v. White. Ct.742 [Sup.

The decree.

Texas,to ofsuit,the institute this and thecomplainant to rightStates,one of inas of the the a billNational toUnion, bring-

this court.It between the1865,declared the contract of 12th January,

Board and White WhiteMilitary void,and Chiles and enjoinedand Chiles from decreed thatit,claim under andanyasserting

was entitled to receive bonds andthe'complainant couponsthecontract,inmentioned the as been transferred or soldhaving

Chiles,to White and which, at the' several times of service ofsuit,in inthis were the or under the con-process, possession,

trol of the defendants and thereofrespectively, any proceedswhich had come into such or with notice ofcontrol,possessionthe of theequity complainant.

White, Chiles, Birch, Jr.,It andenjoined Murray,Ilardenberg,from claim to of thedefendants,other bondssetting up any any

attached, in first ofand described the article said con-couponstract, that the was entitled to restitutionand ofcomplainant

come,the and assuch of bonds and had intocoupons proceedsor control of the defendantsthe respectively.possession

determine for which howcourt, to andAnd the proceeding,the were tobonds defendants accountablemany respectively

the decreedof, of,make restitution or make thatproceedsgoodwere .accountable for numbered inBirch soMurrayand eight,

decree,in t-ho with attached;a and onecouponsstatedwayin the noteStewart defendant mentioned at ac-(a page 702),

theothers,for four of which numbers werecountable given,with decreed and as also Stewart,that Birch Murray,coupons;

the the for whichshould deliver to bonds -woretheycomplainantaccountable,made with the and executethus all neces-coupons,

bonds,of thosesary instruments,transfers and and that paymentthem,or of the of the toany the com-by Secretary Treasury,

should be an of Birch andacquittance and of-plainant, Murraj',Stewart, to extent,that and forthat such this decreepaymentshould be'sufficient thewarrant to secretary.

And, it decree on toappearing went thesay upon plead-—the —and that before the ofings proofs, bill,the Birch.filing and

had received and collected from theMurray StatesUnited thefour bonds,full amount of other numbered, &c.,and that Ilar-

before the-commencement of suit,the haddenberg, depositedbonds,numbered, &e.,in thethirty-four forTreasury Departmentof which hebonds claimed to have receivedredemption, payment

•Dec. v.IIoland United States. 7431868.]

the'.Statement of ease.

from the the ofserviceTreasury-beforetlieSecretary .process.ofinhim in which and the effectsuit,this toupon respect payment

thereof the counsel the said Birch and forMurray,for and. thesaid heard,desired to be it was orderedrespectively,Hardénberg

said,that time for such should be to the1hearing given parties.Both' the and the defendants tohadcomplainant liberty apply

thpfor infurther to of thedirections execution decree.respect

v. UnitedRoland States.

California,grantA of in topurportingland have bybeen made GovernorPico, 1846,May,Pío on of andthe.2d on theinsufficient archive papers,

helped by producednot be papersdecided to by the claimant; thesecourt, case,being by uponfound the the evidence in the not genuine,

inproducedandafterthought, onlyan courtbut because growththe' cupidityhad the Of speculatorsof California stimulated to experimentPico,leftfragments title-papers byof unfinishedwith and which were

conqueston theup by.bur officers of thegathered country.

Appeal from the District Court for the Northern-DistrictaCalifornia, land under theclaim,of act of Marchrespecting

to haveThe been made on the3d, purported1851. grantPico;Pio Moreno1846, adby2d of May, being secretary

interim; decidedthis court after thethat,having 7th July,ashad no The claim1846, Pico was-forpowers governor.

“ land in California,eleven of at the of thejunctionleagues'rivers.”San and Stanislaus The wasJoaquin expediente

from the and wasarchives, theobtained ofamong papers■anmade index. It consisted ofwhich Hartwell a petition,

the issue,order that title decree of andconcession,■marginalor of .thedraft, title, tpthe be, borrador, to thegiven party

It from other'interested. differed inexpedientes this: thatno nodiseño,there was no thereport, approval by Depart-

and because the wholemental Assembly, wereproceedingsonand consummated the same This documentbegun day.-

claimant,thenot to establish'being title,enough intheown,order make itto compléte, from bisproduced custody