union and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union attached at once to the State. Finally the Court say: "Our conclusion, therefore, is that Texas continued to be a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transaction to which we have referred."

§ 576. In considering further the question of jurisdiction, it is held that in order to maintain a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States there must be a State government competent to represent the State in its relations with the national government, and it is asserted that that legal condition may exist, although the relations of the body politic called a State may have undergone essential changes with reference to the national government.

§ 577. The ordinance of secession imposed new duties upon the United States. The first was the duty of suppressing the Rebellion; the next was the duty of re-establishing the broken relations of the State with the Union. The authority to provide measures for re-establishing the broken relations of the State with the Union, the Court say, "can only be derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government." The Chief Justice quotes with approval the opinion of Chief Justice Taney in the case of Luther against Borden in these words: "Under the fourth article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as

the United States guarantee to each a republican government, Congress shall necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not."

§ 578. The Court, by a majority, entered a decree that the State of Texas was entitled to the relief sought by the bill. Three of the Justices, Grier, Swayne and Miller, dissented from the conclusion reached by the majority of the Court, and upon the ground that Texas was not a State in such a sense as entitled it to maintain a suit in the Supreme

Court under the second clause of the second section of the third article of the Constitution.

§ 579. In the dissenting opinion written by Mr. Justice Grier, it is contended that inasmuch as Texas was not at the time of the filing of the bill represented in either House of Congress, nor had authority to be so represented, the inhabitants resident on the territory of the former State of Texas were not so organized as a political community as to come within the scope of the phraseology used in the clause of the Constitution last referred to. At that time, Texas, by the act of Congress of March 2, 1867, was described as "a rebellious State," and by the same act it was subject to the military authorities until a legal republican State government should be established. Upon these facts the minority claimed that Texas was not a State in the Union, nor entitled to appear in a suit, and that consequently the bill should be dismissed. In respect to the merits of the controversy there was no difference in the Court.

§ 580. From these two opinions the following propositions may be deduced, namely:

1. That a State as a political organization is indestructible.

§ 581. 2. That the obligation of the guarantee given by the United States to secure a State in the enjoyment of a republican form of government, and to protect the people against invasion or domestic violence is a continuing obligation, and is not affected by any change in the relations of the State to the national government, unless that change shall have been authorized by the consent of the United States in the exercise of the power to amend the Constitution.

§ 582. 3. That for the purpose of maintaining a suit against another State or a citizen of another State, it is not essential that there should be a representation in Congress, provided always that there is some official personage authorized to represent the State in the institution of the suit.

§ 583. 4. That the power is vested in Congress to decide,

whenever in its opinion, circumstances are such as to justify the inquiry, whether the inhabitants of a State are in the enjoyment of a republican form of government.

§ 584. 5. That the action of Congress by which Texas was for a time excluded from representation, and by which a provisional government was established, was authorized and justified by section four of article four of the Constitution.

§ 585. 6. That the existence of a military government in

a State under such circumtances as to warrant the conclusion that it was instituted and is maintained as a permanent system, would justify and require the United States, through Congressional action, to declare that a republican form of government did not exist in that State, and to provide means for its overthrow, and the substitution of a government republican in form.

CHAPTER L.

AS TO AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

ART. 5.

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

§ 586. As this article makes provision for the amendment of the Constitution, it has not happened that any question has arisen that could have been brought within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, nor is it likely that any such question can hereafter arise.

§ 587. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, which were proposed to the Legislatures of the several States by the first Congress, the 25th of September, 1789, were submitted without approval on the part of the President. The same appears to have been true in regard to the Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment was approved by President Lincoln, February 1, 1865. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, however, were submitted by Congress to the several States without the approval of the President and without official knowledge on his part of the action of Congress.

351

CHAPTER LI.

AS TO PRE-EXISTING DEBTS AND THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION.

ART. 6, PAR. 1 AND 2.

1. "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

2. "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

§ 588. There are no cases cited under paragraph one, and many of the cases cited under paragraph two have been treated under other provisions of the Constitution. An example of this is in the case of Ware against Hylton (3 Dal. 199), in which it was held that British creditors, under the fourth article of the definitive treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, concluded on the third of September, 1783, might recover debts contracted previous to the war, notwithstanding a payment of the debt into the State treasury of Virginia, during the Revolutionary War, and under the authority of a law of sequestration enacted by that State.

§ 589. The supremacy of the Constitution of the United States over acts of Congress was recognized, and the reason for that supremacy set forth in the case of Marbury against Madison (1 Cr. 137).

§ 590. Rights of property vested in an individual by virtue of a treaty are maintained by the Courts, although the treaty itself may have been subsequently terminated by war or other means. (Society &c. v. New Haven, 8 Wh. 464.)