Texas v. White

德克薩斯州訴懷特案

Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.[1] The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.

德克薩斯州訴懷特案(引用號：74U.S.700（1869）)，是1869年在美國聯邦最高法院進行訴訟的一個重要案例。 [1] 在該案中，德克薩斯州的內戰後重建政府聲稱德克薩斯州的邦聯政府在內戰期間非法出售了由德克薩斯州自1850年起擁有的美國國債（聯邦債券）。德克薩斯州直接向美國最高法院提起訴訟，（因為）根據美國憲法，聯邦最高法院對以州為一方的某些案件保有初審管轄權。

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled thatTexashad remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States ofAmericaand its 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”.[2]

通過接受初審管轄權，最高法院裁定，德克薩斯州自從首次加入了聯邦後一直保持（聯邦的）一個州的地位，儘管它曾經加入邦聯，並且在該案件的裁決時處於軍事管制下。在裁決債券事務時，最高法院還認為，憲法並沒有允許各州單方面從美國分離出去，而分離州的分裂條例，以及其立法機構試圖落實此類條例的所有行為，都是”絕對無效的” [2]。

 

Secession and bond sales

分離和債券銷售

 

On February 1, 1861, theTexassecession 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 theUnited Statesto the Confederate States.[3]

1861年2月1日，德克薩斯州分離會議起草並通過《分離條例》。本條例其後經州立法會和全州公投批准。1862年1月11日，州立法會批准建立一個軍事委員會，以解決從效忠聯邦轉向效忠邦聯過程中的事務。[3]

 

Texas had received $10 million inUnited Statesbonds in settlement of border claims as part of the Compromise of 1850. While many of the bonds were sold, there were still some on hand in 1861. Needing money, the legislature authorized the sale of the remaining bonds. Existing state law required theTexasgovernor to sign his endorsement on any bonds which 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.[4]

作為1850年妥協方案中解決邊界糾紛補償的部分，德克薩斯州已從聯邦收到價值1000萬美元的美國債券。雖然很多債券已經售出，但仍然還有一些在州政府手裡。因為急需錢用，州立法會授權銷售剩餘的債券。現行的州法律要求德克薩斯州州長在售出的所有債券上簽字授權，但是德克薩斯州（政府）又擔心，如果聯邦財政部拒絕兌現由邦聯州出售的債券的話，這些債券的出售價格將被壓低。因此，州立法會廢除了要求州長簽字認可的條件，意圖隱藏債券的來源。[4]

 

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).[5] 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 theUnited Statesgovernment.[6]

在債券被出售之前，在德克薩斯州的一個聯邦主義者向聯邦財政部報告了這個消息，後者在《紐約論壇報》刊登了一條法律通告，申明聯邦財政部不會兌付任何來自德克薩斯州的債券，除非它們是由內戰前的德克薩斯州州長（山姆·休斯敦 Sam Houston）簽署的。[5]儘管有此警告，由喬治·W·懷特（George W. White）和約翰·智利（John Chiles）擁有的證券交易行還是購買了136份債券。雖然此次出售可能實際上發生得更早些，但交易的執行直到1865年1月12日才獲得書面確認。這些債券同時也被轉售給幾個個人，而其中有一個或更多的人還通過美國政府成功地贖出債券[6]

 

With the end of the war, President Andrew Johnson appointed a temporary governor, Andrew J. Hamilton, and ordered the state to create a new state constitution and form a state government loyal to theUnion. James W. Throckmorton was elected governor under this process while General Philip H. Sheridan, the military commander of the area, appointed Elisha M. Pease as governor.[6][clarification needed]

隨着戰爭的結束，總統安德魯·約翰遜（Andrew Johnson）任命了安德魯·J·漢密爾頓（Andrew J. Hamilton）為臨時州長，並責令德克薩斯州設立一個新的州憲法，並成立一個忠於聯邦的州政府。在這個過程中，詹姆斯·W·斯洛克默頓（James W. Throckmorton）當選為州長，而該地區的軍事指揮官菲利普·H·謝里登將軍（General Philip H. Sheridan），則任命了以利沙·M·皮斯（Elisha M. Pease）為州長。[6] [此處需要澄清]

 

John Chiles, who was being sued along with White, argued that he could not be sued becauseTexaslacked 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 Texas.[7]

約翰·智利（John Chiles）與懷特一起被控，申辯說因為德克薩斯州缺乏證據所以他不該被起訴。他聲稱有關該債券的文件因被士兵摧毀而無法恢復。因此懷特認為，他無須賠償德克薩斯州。[7]

 

As the United States Treasury Department became aware of the situation regarding the bonds, it refused to redeem those bonds sold by White andChiles. 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 theUnited 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 ofKentucky, Weston F. Birch, Byron Murray, Jr., and Shaw.[8]

美國財政部在了解有關債券的情況後，拒絕贖回那些由懷特和智利出售的債券。德克薩斯州意識到它不再持有這些債券後，它確定債券已被非法售出來資助對聯邦的反叛。為了奪回德克薩斯州對這些債券的所有權，所有這三個州長（安德魯·J·漢密爾頓、詹姆斯·W·斯洛克默頓和以利沙·M·皮斯），都批准根據美國憲法第2條，第3款，提起訴訟。該條款規定，最高法院對所有”以一個州為一方”的案件保有初審管轄權。這個案子，提交於1867年2月15日，出現在案卷中為“德克薩斯州，主審計長，訴喬治·W·懷特，約翰·智利，約翰·A·哈爾登堡，塞繆爾·沃爾夫，喬治·W·斯圖爾特，肯塔基商業銀行支行，韋斯頓·F·伯奇，小拜倫·穆雷，和肖（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 ofKentucky, Weston F. Birch, Byron Murray, Jr., and Shaw）”。[8]

 

Reconstruction politics

重建期的政治

 

By the time the suit was filed, Republicans in Congress, led by its Radical faction, were opposing President Johnson's leadership in reconstruction policy. 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 abandoningLincoln's position that the states had never left theUnion, 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.[9]

到訴訟被提起之時，國會裡的共和黨在其激進派帶動下，正在反對約翰遜總統在重建政策上的領導作用。激進派反對建立臨時州政府，而溫和派則因由為臨時南方州長們為阻撓國會重建而策動的一些訴訟而感到沮喪。越來越多的共和黨人開始放棄林肯的立場，即這些州從未離開聯盟，而傾向於寧願把南方當作是被征服的省份，應該完全受國會管治。他們希望最高法院會聲稱在德克薩斯州沒有法律承認的政府，從而拒絕對該案的司法管轄權。[9]

 

Democrats, on the other hand, wanted the Court to acknowledge the existence of an official state government inTexas. Such a ruling would have the effect of acceptingTexasas fully restored to its place in theUnionand render the Military Reconstruction Act unconstitutional. Wall Street was also concerned with the case, being opposed to any actions that threatened bondholders and investors.[10]

而在另一方面，民主黨人則希望法院確認德克薩斯州（當時）存在正式的州政府。這樣的裁決會產生這樣的效果，即接受德克薩斯州完全恢復到它在聯邦中的地位，從而使軍事重建法案變得違憲。華爾街也關注此案，而反對任何威脅到債券持有人及投資者的行動。[10]

 

Arguments

法庭辯論

 

A total of twelve attorneys representedTexasand the various defendants in the case. Arguments before the Supreme Court were made over three days on February 5, 8, and 9, 1869.

共有12律師代表德克薩斯州及本案中的各被告。最高法院在1869年2月5日，8日和9日三天裡，聽取各方辯詞。

 

State ofTexas

德克薩斯州

 

The complaint filed byTexasclaimed ownership of the bonds and requested that the defendants turn the bonds over to the state.Texas' attorneys disputed the legitimacy of the Confederate state legislature which had allowed the bonds to be sold. In response to an issue raised by the defendants,Texasdifferentiated 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.”[11]

德克薩斯提交的訴訟主張對債券的所有權，並要求被告把債券交給德克薩斯州。德克薩斯州的律師質疑允許債券出售的邦聯州立法會的合法性。在回應被告提出的一個問題時，德克薩斯州區別了邦聯州立法會“為了避免社會淪入無政府狀態和維護秩序”（比如婚姻和日常的刑事和民事案件）的必要行為和那些“旨在促進南部邦聯或者是違反了美國憲法的行為。”[11]

 

Texas argued that it was a well established legal principle that if the original transfer to White andChileswas invalid, then the subsequent transfers were also invalid.Chilesand 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.[12]

德克薩斯州認為，一個公認的法律原則將會認定，即如果最初給懷特和智利的債券轉讓是無效的，那麼隨後的轉讓也是無效的。智利和懷特需對這樣的買家負責，而任何已經成功贖出這些債券的買家有責任對於收到的金額作出有利於的德克薩斯州個人判斷。[12]

 

Defendants

被告方

 

The attorneys forChilesfirst raised the issue of jurisdiction. They claimed that the section of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction did not apply.Texas' current situation was not that of a state as contemplated by the Founders, but was that of a territory secured by military conquest. Residents ofTexaswere subject to military rule and had no representation in Congress and no constitutional rights.[12]

智利（Chiles)的律師們首先提出司法管轄權問題。他們聲稱，憲法給予最高法院的初審管轄權的部分並不適用。德克薩斯州目前的情況不是聯邦創始人們所設想的一個州的狀態，而是是通過軍事征服獲得的一片領土。德克薩斯州的居民都受到軍事管治，在美國國會既沒有代表也沒有憲法權利。[12]

 

Chiles' attorneys also argued that the sale of the bonds itself, even if conducted by a revolutionary government, were not in violation of the Constitution. Their sale was for the benefit of the people of the state, and the people, simply because they now had a different government, could not decide to invalidate the predecessor government's actions. They rejected the notion that the people of the state and the state itself were legally separate entities. As long as the people had chosen to act through representatives it was irrelevant who those representatives were.[13]

智利（Chiles)的律師們還申辯，出售債券這事本身，即使是由一個革命政府進行的，也並沒有違反憲法。這些銷售是為本州人民的利益，而這些人民，並不能僅僅是因為他們現在有一個不同的政府，就決定前任政府的行為無效。律師們拒絕了州的人民和州（政府）本身是在法律上獨立的實體的主張。只要人民選擇了通過代表來行事，那麼誰是代表就無關緊要。[13]

 

James Mandeville Carlisle, the attorney for Hardenburg, argued that since his client had purchased his bonds on the open market in New York he had no way of knowing about any possible questions concerning the validity of his title.Carlislefurther stated that the precedents recognizing that the decisions of the ”revolutionary” government would be binding on any subsequent governments were ”universally admitted in the public law of nations.”[13]

哈爾登堡（Hardenburg）的律師詹姆斯·曼德維爾·卡萊爾（James Mandeville Carlisle），則申辯由於他的當事人是在紐約的公開市場購買的債券，他根本不可能知道任何涉及他的所有權的有效性的問題。卡萊爾還表示，認可“革命”政府的決定對後續政府具有約束力的判例，是“在國際公法中得到普遍承認的。”[13]

 

White's attorney, P. Phillips, argued that if the bond sales were invalid, then all actions of the state government during the war were null and void. He stated that ”civilized government recognizes the necessity of government at all times.” Phillips concluded his presentation by stating that if, in fact,Texashad acted illegally during the war then a subsequent government had no right to appeal that illegality to the Supreme Court.[14]

懷特的律師，P·菲利普斯（P. Phillips），申辯說如果債券的銷售是無效的，那麼邦聯州政府在戰爭期間的所有行為都是無效的。他說，“文明政府承認政府在任何時候都是需要的。”菲利普斯總結陳詞時指出，如果，事實上，德克薩斯州（政府）在戰爭期間已經施行非法行為，那麼後續政府就無權再對最高法院起訴上述非法行為。[14]

 

Decision

法院裁決

 

Majority opinion

多數意見

 

The court's opinion (with five justices supporting and three dissenting) was delivered on April 12, 1869, by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln. He first addressed a procedural issue raised in the original filings claiming that the state lacked the authority to even prosecute the case. Chase ruled that the approval of any one of the three governors on the original bill submitted to the court was sufficient to authorize the action.[15]

法院的意見（有五個法官支持，三個法官持異議）由終審法院首席法官薩爾蒙·切斯(Chief Justice Salmon Chase)，亞伯拉罕·林肯的前內閣成員，宣布於1869年4月12日。他首先釐清了最初的申訴中請提出的程序性問題，即聲稱德克薩斯州無權對此案提起訴訟。切斯裁定，在向法院提交的原案材料上三個州長中的任何一個的批准都足以授權該訴訟。[15]

 

Chase wrote that the originalUnionof the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only strengthened and perfected this perpetual relationship.[16] Chase wrote:

切斯寫道，殖民地間的最初的聯盟的建立是對殖民者們面對的一些非常現實的問題的反應。在這些情形下的第一個結果就是創建了邦聯條款，在這些州之間建立了一個永久性的聯盟。而聯邦憲法，在實現的時候，更加加強和完善了這一永久性的關係。[16] 切斯寫道：

 

”              TheUnionof the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, theUnionwas solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfectUnion.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetualUnion, made more perfect, is not?[7]   ”

“各州之間的聯盟從來就不是一個純粹人為的和隨意的關係。它開始在各殖民地中間，出自於共同的起源，相互的同情，類似的原則，相似的利益和地理的聯繫。這一聯盟的 性質通過獨立戰爭得到確認和加強，並由《邦聯條例》（全稱Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union《邦聯和永久聯合條例》）賦予明確的形式、性質和認定。通過這些，聯盟被鄭重宣布為‘是永恆的。’而當《邦聯條例》被發現不能滿足國家的迫切需要時，美國憲法被制訂來“形成一個更完善的聯邦。”很難用除了這些詞彙之外別的說法來更清楚地傳達不可分割的聯 合這個理念。如果一個永久性的、致力於完善的聯盟不是不可分割的話，那麼還有什麼是不可分割的呢？”

 

After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressedTexas' relationship to thatUnion. He rejected the notion thatTexashad merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said it had in fact incorporated itself into an already existing indissoluble political body.[16] From the decision:

確定了國家（聯邦）的起源之後，切斯接下來釐清德克薩斯州和聯邦的關係。他拒絕了德克薩斯州只是跟其他州訂立了一個合同的說法；相反，他說，它（德克薩斯州）實際上是把自己結合進了一個已經存在的不可分割的政治團體。[16]裁決中說：

 

”              When, therefore,Texasbecame one of theUnited States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in theUnion, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into theUnionwas something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union betweenTexasand 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.[7]         ”

“因此，當德克薩斯成為聯邦的一個成員時，她就進入了一個不可分割的關係。永久性聯盟的所有義務，聯邦內共和政府的所有保證，立刻聯結到德克薩斯州。完成接受她進入聯邦的行為遠遠超過一個合約；這是把一個新成員納入政治機構。而且這是終極性的（行為）。德克薩斯和其他州之間的聯合跟最初的(十三)州之間的聯合一樣，同樣完整，同樣永久，同樣不可分割。沒有複議或撤銷的餘地，除非通過革命，或者獲得聯邦的同意。[7]”

 

For these reasons,Texashad never been outside theUnionand any state actions taken to declare secession or implement the Ordinance of Secession were null and void. The rights of the state itself, as well as the rights of Texans as citizens of theUnited Statesremained unimpaired.[16] From the decision:

由於這些原因，德克薩斯州從未處在聯邦以外，任何德克薩斯州方面宣稱分離或實施《分離條例》的行為都是無效的。德克薩斯州（政府）本身的權利，以及德克薩斯州人作為美國公民的權利未受到損傷。[16]裁決中說：

 

”              Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended 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 theUnited 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 theUnion. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, 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 subjugation.[7]             ”

“考慮到（分裂、脫離聯邦）是在憲法規定下的行為，（德克薩斯州的）分離法令，由（德克薩斯州）分離會議通過並獲得大多數德克薩斯州的公民的認可，以及所有（德克薩斯州）立法會旨在落實該條例的行為，都是絕對無效的。他們完全沒有法律基礎。德克薩斯州，作為聯邦的一員，她的義務，德克薩斯州的每一個公民，作為聯邦的公民，他們的義務，依然完整，未受損傷。由此必然地（得出結論），德克薩斯州並沒有停止成為（聯邦的）一個州，德克薩斯州的公民也沒有停止成為聯邦的公民。否則，德克薩斯州必然已成為外國，她的公民也成為外國人。這場戰爭也已必然不再是鎮壓叛亂的戰爭，而且必然已經成為征服和奴役的戰爭。[7]”

 

However, the state's suspension of the prewar government did require theUnited Statesto put down the rebellion and reestablish the proper relationship betweenTexasand the federal government. These obligations were created by the Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections and the responsibility to insure for every state a republican form of government.[16] From the decision:

然而，德克薩斯州對戰前政府的中止確實需要由聯邦來平定叛亂並重建德克薩斯州和聯邦政府之間的正確關係。這些義務產生於憲法賦予（聯邦政府）以鎮壓叛亂的權力和確保每一個州都有共和政體的責任。[16]裁決中說：

 

”              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 theUnited Statesto guarantee to every State in theUniona republican form of government. The latter, indeed, 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.[7] ”

“執行第一部分的授權來自於抑制叛亂和進行戰爭的權力；執行第二部分的授權，源自聯邦需要保證聯邦中每一個州都有共和政體的政府的義務。後者，事實上，在叛亂涉及一個州的政府，但不牽涉國家權力情況下，似乎是前者的一個必要的補充。[7]”

 

Having settled the jurisdiction issue, Chase moved on to the question of who owned title to the bonds. In previous circuit court cases Chase had recognized the validity of legislative decisions intended solely to maintain peace and order within southern society. He had recognized the validity of ”marriage licenses, market transactions, and other day-to-day acts legally sanctioned by the Confederate state governments”. However he clearly treated actions in furtherance of the war effort in a different light.[17] From the decision:

 

解決了司法管轄權問題後，切斯轉移到誰擁有債券所有權的問題。在以往的巡迴法庭案件中，切斯認可（邦聯州）立法決定的有效性，如果其目的只是為了維持南方州社會內部的和平與秩序。他認可“結婚許可證，市場交易，以及由邦聯州政府法律認可的日常的行為”的有效性。但他清楚地區別對待促進內戰戰爭努力的行為。[17]裁決中說：

 

”              It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a State government must be treated as valid or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.[7]       ”

“沒有必要試圖準確定義一個州政府的什麼行為該被視為有效或無效。可以說，也許以足夠的準確度，維護公民之間的和平和良好秩序的必要行為，例如，支持和保護婚姻和家庭關係的行為，規定遺產繼承順序，管理財產的輸送和轉移，不動產和個人財產，並為人身傷害和房地產損失提供救助，以及其他類似的行為，這些行為如果從合法政府發出是有效的，也必須一般認為是有效的，儘管是從實際存在但不合法的政府而來。而為促進或支持反抗聯邦的的行為，或旨在挫敗公民的正當權利的行為，以及其他類似本質的行為，在一般情況下，必須被視為非法和無效的。[7]”

 

Chase ruled that the state's relationship with White andChiles”was therefore treasonable and void.”[18] Consequently, he ordered that the current state ofTexasstill retained ownership of the bonds and were entitled to either the return of the bonds or the payment of a cash equivalent from those parties who had successfully redeemed the bonds.[19]

切斯裁定，德克薩斯（邦聯）州與懷特和智利關係“因此是叛國和無效的。”[18]因此，他裁定當前的德克薩斯州依然擁有這些債券的所有權，並有權取回這些債券或從已經成功贖出債券的當事人那裡獲取等價現金。[19]

 

Dissenting opinion

反對意見

 

Justice Robert Grier wrote a dissent in which he stated that he disagreed ”on all points raised and decided” by the majority. Grier relied on the case Hepburn v. Ellzey in which Chief Justice John Marshall had defined a state as an entity entitled to representatives in both Congress and the Electoral College. Thus,Texas' status had become more analogous to an Indian tribe than to a state. He also believed that the issue ofTexasstatehood was a matter for congressional rather than judicial determination, and he was ”not disposed to join in any essay to proveTexasto be a State of theUnionwhen Congress had decided that she is not.” Justice Grier said thatTexas's claim that she was not a state during the Civil War was the equivalent of making a ”plea of insanity” and asking the court to now overrule all her acts ”made during the disease”. Justices Noah Swayne and Samuel F. Miller also dissented.[20]

法官羅伯特·格里爾（Justice Robert Grier）寫下了他的異議。他說，他不同意多數法官“提出並決定的所有論點”。格里爾引用了先例－－赫本訴艾爾則（Hepburn v. Ellzey），在此案中首席大法官約翰·馬歇爾（Chief Justice John Marshall）定義一個州為有權在國會和選舉人團中都有代表的實體。因此，（當前）德克薩斯州的地位變得更加類似於一個印第安部落，而不是一個（正常的）州。他還認為，德克薩斯州的地位（作為一個州的狀態）問題該由國會判定，而不該由司法裁決，而他“不會試圖論證德克薩斯州是聯邦的一個州，如果國會已經判定她不是一個州的話。”法官格里爾說，德克薩斯州聲稱她在內戰期間不是一個州的說法，等同於”承認精神失常”，並要求法院廢止她“在精神病期間作出的”所有行為。法官諾亞·斯維恩（Justices Noah Swayne）和賽繆爾·F·米勒（Samuel F. Miller）也表示異議。[20]

 

The dissenting justices rejected the majority opinion for different reasons. Grier, a ”doughface” fromPennsylvania, was opposed to Radical Reconstruction and was primarily concerned with the bondholders. He felt that the Treasury lost any control over the bonds immediately after they were issued. Miller and Swayne were more sympathetic than Chase to the radical position. In a separate dissent they agreed with the majority that the bonds had been sold illegally by the secessionist government, but agreed with Grier that the current state ofTexaswas not a state within the meaning of the Constitution.[21]

 

持異議的法官們基於不同的原因而拒絕多數派法官的意見。格里爾（Grier），是來自賓夕法尼亞州的“南方同情者”，他反對激進的重建，而主要關注債券持有人的的利益。他認為，財政部發出債券後，就立即失去了對其的任何控制權。米勒（Miller）和斯維恩（Swayne）比切斯（Chase）更傾向激進派立場。在一個單獨的異議（陳述）中，他們同意多數派的意見，即該債券是被分離政府非法出售的，但又贊同格里爾的意見，即當前狀態的德克薩斯州不是憲法意義上的一個聯邦州。[21]

 

Reaction

各方反應

 

The Court's decision, written by Chase, was criticized by both sides. Radical Republicans saw this as evidence that Chase was abandoning a cause he had once enthusiastically supported. Conservatives condemned Chase for a decision that would allow congressional reconstruction to continue.[22]

由切斯執筆的法庭裁決，受到了雙方的批評。激進的共和黨人認為這證明切斯放棄了他曾經熱情支持的事業。保守黨人則譴責切斯作出的決定將允許國會重建繼續進行。[22]

 

In December, Lyman Trumbull, using the Miller-Swayne dissent as his model, introduced legislation to overcome the White decision.Trumbull's bill stated that ”under the Constitution, the judicial power of theUnited Statesdoes not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions”. In a direct attack on Chase's position the bill stipulated that ”it rests with Congress to decide what Government is the established one in a State, and that it is hereby, in accordance with former legislation, declared that no civil State Government exists inVirginia,Mississippi, orTexas.” The legislation was defeated by the more conservative members of Congress.[23]

十二月份時，萊曼·特朗布爾（Lyman Trumbull），使用米勒－斯維恩異議為模本，（試圖）通過立法來推翻“懷特裁決”。特朗布爾的法案說：“根據憲法，美國的司法權不囊括政治權力，或給予司法法庭任何權力來質疑政府的政治部門的政治事務。”該法案直接攻擊切斯的立場，規定：“應由國會來決定什麼政府是一個州的既定政府，而且因此，按照以前的法律，宣布在弗吉尼亞州，密西西比或德克薩斯州不存在文官州政府”。（但是）該法案被國會裡更加保守的議員們給否決了。[23]

 

Aleksandar Pavković and Peter Radan in Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession ”hold that the entry 'There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States' was not surprising. Given that theUnited Stateswas born from revolution, Chase's words echo what had been stated by many legal scholars and politicians of the day, including Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster.”[24]

亞歷山大·帕夫科維奇（Aleksandar Pavković）和彼得·拉詹（Peter Radan）在《創建新的國家：分裂國家的理論與實踐》一書中認為“堅持這一觀點‘沒有複議或撤銷的餘地，除非通過革命，或者獲得聯邦的同意’（引自切斯原文）並不令人意外。有鑑於聯邦是從革命中誕生，切斯（Chase）的話語重複了許多當時的法律學者和政治家的陳述，其中包括亞伯拉罕·林肯和丹尼爾·韋伯斯特。”[24]