698 



UNITED STATES. 



could be no sucli political body as the United States."* 

 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate 

 and independent autonomy to the States, through 

 their union under the Constitution, but it may be not 

 unreasonably said that the preservation of the States 

 and the maintenance of their governments are as much 

 within the design and care of the Constitution as the 

 preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the 

 national Government. The Constitution, in all its 

 provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, com- 

 posed of indestructible States. 



When, therefore, Texas became one of the United 

 States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All 

 the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guar- 

 antees of republican government in the Union, at- 

 tached at once to the State. The act which consum- 

 mated her admission into the Union was something 

 more tban a compact it was the incorporation of a 

 new member into the political body, and it was final. 

 The union between Texas and the other States was 

 as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble, as the 

 union between the original States. There was no 

 place for reconsideration or revocation, except through 

 revolution or through consent of the States. 



Considered, therefore, as transactions under the 

 Constitution, the ordinance of secession adopted by 

 the convention and ratified by a majority of the citi- 

 zens of Texas, and all the acts of her Legislature in- 

 tended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely 

 null. They were utterly without operation in law. 

 The obligations of the State as a member of the Union, 

 and of every citizen of the State as a citizen of the 

 United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It 

 certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a 

 State nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If 

 this were otherwise, the State must have become for- 

 eign and her citizens foreigners ; the war must have 

 ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, 

 and must have become a war for conquest and subju- 

 gation. 



Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued 

 to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstand- 

 ing the transactions to which we have referred. And 

 this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict 

 with any act or declaration of any department of the 

 national Government, but entirely in accordance with 

 the whole series of such acts and declarations since 

 the first outbreak of the rebellion. 



But, in order to the exercise by a State of the right 

 to sue in this court, there needs to be a State govern- 

 ment competent to represent the State in its relations 

 with the national Government, so far, at least, as the 

 institution and prosecution of a suit are concerned. 



And it is by no means a logical conclusion, from 

 the premises which we have endeavored to establish, 

 that the governmental relations of Texas to the Union 

 remained unaltered. Obligations often remain unim- 

 paired, while relations are greatly changed. The obli- 

 gations of allegiance to the State and of obedience to 

 her laws, subject to the Constitution of the United 

 States, are binding upon all citizens, whether faithful 

 or unfaithful to them ; but the relations which sub- 

 sist while these obligations are performed are essen- 

 tially different from those which arise when they are 

 disregarded and set at naught. And the same must 

 necessarily be true of the obligations and relations 

 of States and citizens to the Union. No one has 

 been bold enough to contend that, while Texas was 

 controlled by a government hostile to the United 

 States, and, in affiliation with a hostile confedera- 

 tion, waging war upon the United States, Senators 

 chosen by her Legislaturej or Bepresentatives elected 

 by her citizens, were entitled to seats in Congress ; 

 or that any suit instituted in her name could be en- 

 tertained in this court. All admit that, during this 

 condition of civil war, the rights of the State as a 

 member, and of her people as citizens of the Union, 

 were suspended. The government and the citizens 

 of the State, refusing to recognize their constitutional 



* County of Lane vs. The State of Oregon. 



obligations, assumed the character of enemies and in- 

 curred the consequences of rebellion. 



These new relations imposed new duties upon the 

 United States. The first was that of suppressing the 

 rebellion. The next was that of reestablishing the 

 broken relations of the State with the Union. The 

 first of these duties having been performed, the next 

 necessarily engaged the attention of the national Gov- 

 ernment. 



The authority for the performance of the first had 

 been found in the power to suppress insurrection and 

 carry on war; for the performance of the second, 

 authority was derived from the obligation of the 

 United States to guarantee to every State in the Union 

 a republican form of government. The latter, in- 

 deed, in the case of a rebellion, which involves the 

 government of a State, and, for the time, excludes 

 the national authority from its limits, seems to be a 

 necessary complement to the former. 



Mr. Justice Grier, in .the dissenting opinion, 

 said: 



Is Texas one of these United States ? Or was she 

 such at the time this bill was filed, or since? 



This is to be decided as a political fact, not as a 

 legal fiction. This court is bound to know and notice 

 the public history of the nation. 



If I regard the truth of history for the last eight 

 years, I cannot discover the State of Texas as one of 

 these United States. I do not think it necessary to 

 notice any of the very astute arguments which have 

 been advanced by the learned counsel in this case, 

 to find the definition of a State, when we have the 

 subject treated in a clear and common-sense manner, 

 and without any astute judicial abstractions, by 

 Chief-Justice Marshall, in the case of Hepburn & 

 Dundass m. Elzey, 2 Cranch, 452. As the case is 

 short and clear, I hope to be excused for a full report 

 of the case as stated and decided by the court. " The 

 question," says Marshall, C. J., "is whether the 

 plaintiffs, as residents of the District of Columbia, 

 can maintain an action in. the Circuit Court of the 

 United States for the District of Virginia. This de- 

 pends on the act of Congress describing the juris- 

 diction of that court. The act gives jurisdiction to 

 the Circuit Courts in cases between a citizen of the 

 State in which the suit is brought and a citizen of 

 another State. To support the jurisdiction in this 

 case, it must appear that Columbia is a State. On the 

 part of the plaintiff it has been urged that Columbia 

 as a distinct political society, and is, therefore, a 

 * State ' according to the definition of writers on gen- 

 eral law. This is true : but, as the act of Congress ob- 

 viously uses the word State ' in reference to that term 

 as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to 

 inquire whether Columbia is a State in the sense of 

 that instrument. The result of the examination is a 

 conviction that the members of the American Con- 

 federacy only are the States contemplated in the Con- 

 stitution. The House of Eepresentatives is to be 

 composed of members chosen by the people of the 

 several States, and each State shall have at least one 

 Eepresentative. ' The Senate of the United States 

 shall be composed of two Senators from each State.' 

 Each State shall appoint for the election of the Ex- 

 ecutive a number of electors equal to its whole num- 

 ber of Senators and Eepresentatives. These clauses 

 show that the word ' State ' is used in the Constitu- 

 tion as designating a member of the Union*, and 

 excludes from the term the signification attached to 

 it by writers on the laws of nations." 



Now, we have here a clear and well-defined test by 

 which we may arrive at a conclusion with regard to 

 the questions of fact now to be decided. 



Is Texas a State, now represented by members 

 chosen by the people of that State and received on 

 the floor of Congress? Has she two Senators to 

 represent her as a State in the Senate of the United 

 States ? Has her voice been heard in the late election 

 of President ? Is she not now held and governed 



