The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, July 1915 - April, 1916 Page: 33
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Texas v. White
the existence of the State. "Dacotah is no State," he said, and
yet the United States courts administer justice there.
He argued that as a fact Texas was not politically in the Union.
In summing up his opinion, he said,
I do not consider myself bound to express an opinion judicially
as to the constitutional right of Texas to exercise the rights and
privileges of a State of this Union, or of the power of Congress
to govern her as a conquered province, to subject her to military
domination, and keep her in pupilage. I can only submit to the
fact as decided by the political position of the government; and I
am not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas a State in the
Union when Congress have decided that she is not. It is a ques-
tion of fact, I repeat, and of fact only. Politically, Texas is not
a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a
question not before the court.
Justice Grier, therefore, in strict logic and with judicial consist-
ency, refused to join in the attempt to harmonize the Congres-
sional plan with the public law.
Whether, conceding the continued existence of the State, she
had the right to repudiate her contracts, he considered irrelevant
to the present case. The payment of the bonds by the United
States would have assisted the agents of the rebellion. "It is a
matter of utter insignificance to the government of the United
States to whom she makes the payment of these bonds. They are
payable to the bearer." On this point, the justice was at variance
with all his brothers of the court and with the policy of the United
States government. It had become a well established principle
that acts done in assistance of the insurrection against the United
States were void, and that property dedicated to such purposes was
liable to seizure and confiscation. The dissenting Justice was,
perhaps, on stronger ground, when he said, in defense of the main
Having relied on one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the
Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this
court to adopt, that she is not a State at all during the five
years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of in-
sanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the
disease as void.
On the contrary, he claimed that the act of secession was the
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, July 1915 - April, 1916, periodical, 1916; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101067/m1/41/: accessed April 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.