Texas v. White

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A U.S. Supreme Court case with a similar name can be found in volume 423 of the _United States Reports _.

1869 United States Supreme Court case

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1869. The case's notable political dispute involved a claim by the Reconstruction era government of Texas that U.S. bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War . The state filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court, given that, under the Constitution , that institution has original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas was and remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union in 1845, despite it later purporting to join the Confederate States of America and despite it being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null ". The purported bond sale during the civil war was thus void and the reconstructed Texas remained the legal owner.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._White&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Secession and bond sales

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._White&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Secession and bond sales")
]

On February 1, 1861, the Texas secession convention drafted and approved an Ordinance of Secession . This ordinance was subsequently approved by both the state legislature and a statewide referendum . On January 11, 1862, the state legislature approved the creation of a military board to address issues involved in the transition in the shift in loyalty from the United States to the Confederate States.

Texas had received $10 million in United States bonds in settlement of border claims as a part of the Compromise of 1850 . While many of the bonds were sold, there were still some unsold in 1861. Needing money, the legislature authorized the sale of the remaining bonds. Existing state law required that the Texas governor sign his endorsement on any bonds that were sold, but the state feared that the sale price would be depressed if the United States Treasury refused to honor bonds sold by a Confederate state. The legislature therefore repealed the requirement for the governor's endorsement in order to hide the origin of the bonds.

Before the bonds were sold, a Texas Unionist notified the Treasury which ran a legal notice in the _New York Tribune _ that it would not honor any bonds from Texas unless they were endorsed by the prewar governor (Sam Houston ). Despite the warning, 136 bonds were purchased by a brokerage owned by George W. White and John Chiles. Although this sale probably occurred earlier, the written confirmation of the transaction was not executed until January 12, 1865. The bonds were in the meantime resold to several individuals, one or more of whom were able to successfully redeem the bonds through the United States government.

With the end of the war, President Andrew Johnson appointed a temporary governor, Andrew J. Hamilton , and ordered Texas to create a new state constitution and form a new state government loyal to the Union. James W. Throckmorton was elected governor under this process. Throckmorton was in office for a year before General Philip Sheridan , the military commander of the Military District of the Southwest, dismissed him for being an "impediment to the reconstruction of the State", appointing Elisha M. Pease in his place. Pease was a Republican who had lost to Throckmorton in the election.

As the United States Treasury Department became aware of the situation regarding the bonds, it refused to redeem those bonds sold by White and Chiles. After the state realized that it was no longer in possession of the bonds, it determined that the bonds had been sold illicitly to finance the rebellion against the United States. All three of the governors, in order to regain ownership of the bonds for the state, approved filing a lawsuit under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all cases "in which a State shall be a party". The case, filed on February 15, 1867, appeared on the docket as The State of Texas, Compt., v. George W. White, John Chiles, John A. Hardenburg, Samuel Wolf, George W. Stewart, the Branch of the Commercial Bank of Kentucky, Weston F. Birch, Byron Murray, Jr., and Shaw.

John Chiles, who was being sued along with White, argued that he could not be sued because Texas lacked evidence. He claimed the bond documents were destroyed by soldiers and that there was no way to get them back. White believed therefore, that he should not have to reimburse the state of Texas.

Reconstruction politics

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._White&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Reconstruction politics")
]

By the time the suit was filed, the radical faction of Republicans in Congress opposed President Johnson's policy in Reconstruction. Radicals opposed the creation of provisional state governments, and moderates were frustrated by a number of lawsuits instigated by provisional Southern governors attempting to obstruct congressional reconstruction. Increasingly, Republicans were abandoning Lincoln's position that the states had never left the Union, preferring to treat the South as conquered provinces totally subject to Congressional rule. They hoped that the Supreme Court would reject jurisdiction in the case by claiming that there was no legally recognized government in Texas.

Democrats, on the other hand, wanted the Court to acknowledge the existence of an official state government in Texas. Such a ruling would have the effect of accepting Texas as fully restored to its place in the Union and render the Military Reconstruction Act unconstitutional. Wall Street was also concerned with the case, opposing any actions that threatened bondholders and investors.

Arguments

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._White&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Arguments")
]

Twelve attorneys represented Texas and the various defendants in the case. Arguments before the Supreme Court were made over three days on February 5, 8 and 9, 1869.

State of Texas, plaintiff

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._White&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: State of Texas, plaintiff")
]

The complaint filed by Texas claimed ownership of the bonds and requested that the defendants turn the bonds over to the state. Texas's attorneys disputed the legitimacy of the Confederate state legislature that had allowed the bonds to be sold. In response to an issue raised by the defendants, Texas differentiated between those acts of the legislature necessary "to preserve the social community from anarchy and to maintain order" (such as marriages and routine criminal and civil matters) and those "designed to promote the Confederacy or that were in violation of the U.S. Constitution".

Texas argued that it was a well established legal principle that if the original transfer to White and Chiles was invalid, then the subsequent transfers were also invalid. Chiles and White might be liable to such purchasers and any purchasers who had successfully redeemed the bonds were liable for a personal judgment in favor of the state for the amount they received.

Defendants

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._White&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Defendants")
]

The attorneys for Chiles first raised the issue of jurisdiction. They claimed that the section of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction did not apply. Texas's current situation was not that of a state as contemplated by the Founders, but was that of a territory secured by military conquest. Residents of Texas were subject to military rule and had no representation in Congress and no constitutional rights.

Chiles's attorneys also argued that the sale of the bonds itself, even if conducted by a revolutionary governmen

…