Texas v. White

德克萨斯州诉怀特案

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.

德克萨斯州诉怀特案(引用号：74U.S.700（1869）)，是1869年在美国联邦最高法院进行诉讼的一个重要案例。 [1] 在该案中，德克萨斯州的内战后重建政府声称德克萨斯州的邦联政府在内战期间非法出售了由德克萨斯州自1850年起拥有的美国国债（联邦债券）。德克萨斯州直接向美国最高法院提起诉讼，（因为）根据美国宪法，联邦最高法院对以州为一方的某些案件保有初审管辖权。

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]

通过接受初审管辖权，最高法院裁定，德克萨斯州自从首次加入了联邦后一直保持（联邦的）一个州的地位，尽管它曾经加入邦联，并且在该案件的裁决时处于军事管制下。在裁决债券事务时，最高法院还认为，宪法并没有允许各州单方面从美国分离出去，而分离州的分裂条例，以及其立法机构试图落实此类条例的所有行为，都是”绝对无效的” [2]。

Secession and bond sales

分离和债券销售

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，德克萨斯州分离会议起草并通过《分离条例》。本条例其后经州立法会和全州公投批准。1862年1月11日，州立法会批准建立一个军事委员会，以解决从效忠联邦转向效忠邦联过程中的事务。[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]

作为1850年妥协方案中解决边界纠纷补偿的部分，德克萨斯州已从联邦收到价值1000万美元的美国债券。虽然很多债券已经售出，但仍然还有一些在州政府手里。因为急需钱用，州立法会授权销售剩余的债券。现行的州法律要求德克萨斯州州长在售出的所有债券上签字授权，但是德克萨斯州（政府）又担心，如果联邦财政部拒绝兑现由邦联州出售的债券的话，这些债券的出售价格将被压低。因此，州立法会废除了要求州长签字认可的条件，意图隐藏债券的来源。[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]

在债券被出售之前，在德克萨斯州的一个联邦主义者向联邦财政部报告了这个消息，后者在《纽约论坛报》刊登了一条法律通告，申明联邦财政部不会兑付任何来自德克萨斯州的债券，除非它们是由内战前的德克萨斯州州长（山姆·休斯敦 Sam Houston）签署的。[5]尽管有此警告，由乔治·W·怀特（George W. White）和约翰·智利（John Chiles）拥有的证券交易行还是购买了136份债券。虽然此次出售可能实际上发生得更早些，但交易的执行直到1865年1月12日才获得书面确认。这些债券同时也被转售给几个个人，而其中有一个或更多的人还通过美国政府成功地赎出债券[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]

随着战争的结束，总统安德鲁·约翰逊（Andrew Johnson）任命了安德鲁·J·汉密尔顿（Andrew J. Hamilton）为临时州长，并责令德克萨斯州设立一个新的州宪法，并成立一个忠于联邦的州政府。在这个过程中，詹姆斯·W·斯洛克默顿（James W. Throckmorton）当选为州长，而该地区的军事指挥官菲利普·H·谢里登将军（General Philip H. Sheridan），则任命了以利沙·M·皮斯（Elisha M. Pease）为州长。[6] [此处需要澄清]

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]

约翰·智利（John Chiles）与怀特一起被控，申辩说因为德克萨斯州缺乏证据所以他不该被起诉。他声称有关该债券的文件因被士兵摧毁而无法恢复。因此怀特认为，他无须赔偿德克萨斯州。[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]

美国财政部在了解有关债券的情况后，拒绝赎回那些由怀特和智利出售的债券。德克萨斯州意识到它不再持有这些债券后，它确定债券已被非法售出来资助对联邦的反叛。为了夺回德克萨斯州对这些债券的所有权，所有这三个州长（安德鲁·J·汉密尔顿、詹姆斯·W·斯洛克默顿和以利沙·M·皮斯），都批准根据美国宪法第2条，第3款，提起诉讼。该条款规定，最高法院对所有”以一个州为一方”的案件保有初审管辖权。这个案子，提交于1867年2月15日，出现在案卷中为“德克萨斯州，主审计长，诉乔治·W·怀特，约翰·智利，约翰·A·哈尔登堡，塞缪尔·沃尔夫，乔治·W·斯图尔特，肯塔基商业银行支行，韦斯顿·F·伯奇，小拜伦·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]

到诉讼被提起之时，国会里的共和党在其激进派带动下，正在反对约翰逊总统在重建政策上的领导作用。激进派反对建立临时州政府，而温和派则因由为临时南方州长们为阻挠国会重建而策动的一些诉讼而感到沮丧。越来越多的共和党人开始放弃林肯的立场，即这些州从未离开联盟，而倾向于宁愿把南方当作是被征服的省份，应该完全受国会管治。他们希望最高法院会声称在德克萨斯州没有法律承认的政府，从而拒绝对该案的司法管辖权。[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，民主党人则希望法院确认德克萨斯州（当时）存在正式的州政府。这样的裁决会产生这样的效果，即接受德克萨斯州完全恢复到它在联邦中的地位，从而使军事重建法案变得违宪。华尔街也关注此案，而反对任何威胁到债券持有人及投资者的行动。[10]

Arguments

法庭辩论

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律师代表德克萨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日三天里，听取各方辩词。

State ofTexas

德克萨斯州

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]

德克萨斯提交的诉讼主张对债券的所有权，并要求被告把债券交给德克萨斯州。德克萨斯州的律师质疑允许债券出售的邦联州立法会的合法性。在回应被告提出的一个问题时，德克萨斯州区别了邦联州立法会“为了避免社会沦入无政府状态和维护秩序”（比如婚姻和日常的刑事和民事案件）的必要行为和那些“旨在促进南部邦联或者是违反了美国宪法的行为。”[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]

德克萨斯州认为，一个公认的法律原则将会认定，即如果最初给怀特和智利的债券转让是无效的，那么随后的转让也是无效的。智利和怀特需对这样的买家负责，而任何已经成功赎出这些债券的买家有责任对于收到的金额作出有利于的德克萨斯州个人判断。[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)的律师们首先提出司法管辖权问题。他们声称，宪法给予最高法院的初审管辖权的部分并不适用。德克萨斯州目前的情况不是联邦创始人们所设想的一个州的状态，而是是通过军事征服获得的一片领土。德克萨斯州的居民都受到军事管治，在美国国会既没有代表也没有宪法权利。[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)的律师们还申辩，出售债券这事本身，即使是由一个革命政府进行的，也并没有违反宪法。这些销售是为本州人民的利益，而这些人民，并不能仅仅是因为他们现在有一个不同的政府，就决定前任政府的行为无效。律师们拒绝了州的人民和州（政府）本身是在法律上独立的实体的主张。只要人民选择了通过代表来行事，那么谁是代表就无关紧要。[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]

哈尔登堡（Hardenburg）的律师詹姆斯·曼德维尔·卡莱尔（James Mandeville Carlisle），则申辩由于他的当事人是在纽约的公开市场购买的债券，他根本不可能知道任何涉及他的所有权的有效性的问题。卡莱尔还表示，认可“革命”政府的决定对后续政府具有约束力的判例，是“在国际公法中得到普遍承认的。”[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]

怀特的律师，P·菲利普斯（P. Phillips），申辩说如果债券的销售是无效的，那么邦联州政府在战争期间的所有行为都是无效的。他说，“文明政府承认政府在任何时候都是需要的。”菲利普斯总结陈词时指出，如果，事实上，德克萨斯州（政府）在战争期间已经施行非法行为，那么后续政府就无权再对最高法院起诉上述非法行为。[14]

Decision

法院裁决

Majority opinion

多数意见

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]

法院的意见（有五个法官支持，三个法官持异议）由终审法院首席法官萨尔蒙·切斯(Chief Justice Salmon Chase)，亚伯拉罕·林肯的前内阁成员，宣布于1869年4月12日。他首先厘清了最初的申诉中请提出的程序性问题，即声称德克萨斯州无权对此案提起诉讼。切斯裁定，在向法院提交的原案材料上三个州长中的任何一个的批准都足以授权该诉讼。[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:

切斯写道，殖民地间的最初的联盟的建立是对殖民者们面对的一些非常现实的问题的反应。在这些情形下的第一个结果就是创建了邦联条款，在这些州之间建立了一个永久性的联盟。而联邦宪法，在实现的时候，更加加强和完善了这一永久性的关系。[16] 切斯写道：

”              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]   ”

“各州之间的联盟从来就不是一个纯粹人为的和随意的关系。它开始在各殖民地中间，出自于共同的起源，相互的同情，类似的原则，相似的利益和地理的联系。这一联盟的 性质通过独立战争得到确认和加强，并由《邦联条例》（全称Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union《邦联和永久联合条例》）赋予明确的形式、性质和认定。通过这些，联盟被郑重宣布为‘是永恒的。’而当《邦联条例》被发现不能满足国家的迫切需要时，美国宪法被制订来“形成一个更完善的联邦。”很难用除了这些词汇之外别的说法来更清楚地传达不可分割的联 合这个理念。如果一个永久性的、致力于完善的联盟不是不可分割的话，那么还有什么是不可分割的呢？”

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:

确定了国家（联邦）的起源之后，切斯接下来厘清德克萨斯州和联邦的关系。他拒绝了德克萨斯州只是跟其他州订立了一个合同的说法；相反，他说，它（德克萨斯州）实际上是把自己结合进了一个已经存在的不可分割的政治团体。[16]裁决中说：

”              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，当德克萨斯成为联邦的一个成员时，她就进入了一个不可分割的关系。永久性联盟的所有义务，联邦内共和政府的所有保证，立刻联结到德克萨斯州。完成接受她进入联邦的行为远远超过一个合约；这是把一个新成员纳入政治机构。而且这是终极性的（行为）。德克萨斯和其他州之间的联合跟最初的(十三)州之间的联合一样，同样完整，同样永久，同样不可分割。没有复议或撤销的余地，除非通过革命，或者获得联邦的同意。[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:

由于这些原因，德克萨斯州从未处在联邦以外，任何德克萨斯州方面宣称分离或实施《分离条例》的行为都是无效的。德克萨斯州（政府）本身的权利，以及德克萨斯州人作为美国公民的权利未受到损伤。[16]裁决中说：

”              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]             ”

“考虑到（分裂、脱离联邦）是在宪法规定下的行为，（德克萨斯州的）分离法令，由（德克萨斯州）分离会议通过并获得大多数德克萨斯州的公民的认可，以及所有（德克萨斯州）立法会旨在落实该条例的行为，都是绝对无效的。他们完全没有法律基础。德克萨斯州，作为联邦的一员，她的义务，德克萨斯州的每一个公民，作为联邦的公民，他们的义务，依然完整，未受损伤。由此必然地（得出结论），德克萨斯州并没有停止成为（联邦的）一个州，德克萨斯州的公民也没有停止成为联邦的公民。否则，德克萨斯州必然已成为外国，她的公民也成为外国人。这场战争也已必然不再是镇压叛乱的战争，而且必然已经成为征服和奴役的战争。[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，德克萨斯州对战前政府的中止确实需要由联邦来平定叛乱并重建德克萨斯州和联邦政府之间的正确关系。这些义务产生于宪法赋予（联邦政府）以镇压叛乱的权力和确保每一个州都有共和政体的责任。[16]裁决中说：

”              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] ”

“执行第一部分的授权来自于抑制叛乱和进行战争的权力；执行第二部分的授权，源自联邦需要保证联邦中每一个州都有共和政体的政府的义务。后者，事实上，在叛乱涉及一个州的政府，但不牵涉国家权力情况下，似乎是前者的一个必要的补充。[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:

解决了司法管辖权问题后，切斯转移到谁拥有债券所有权的问题。在以往的巡回法庭案件中，切斯认可（邦联州）立法决定的有效性，如果其目的只是为了维持南方州社会内部的和平与秩序。他认可“结婚许可证，市场交易，以及由邦联州政府法律认可的日常的行为”的有效性。但他清楚地区别对待促进内战战争努力的行为。[17]裁决中说：

”              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]       ”

“没有必要试图准确定义一个州政府的什么行为该被视为有效或无效。可以说，也许以足够的准确度，维护公民之间的和平和良好秩序的必要行为，例如，支持和保护婚姻和家庭关系的行为，规定遗产继承顺序，管理财产的输送和转移，不动产和个人财产，并为人身伤害和房地产损失提供救助，以及其他类似的行为，这些行为如果从合法政府发出是有效的，也必须一般认为是有效的，尽管是从实际存在但不合法的政府而来。而为促进或支持反抗联邦的的行为，或旨在挫败公民的正当权利的行为，以及其他类似本质的行为，在一般情况下，必须被视为非法和无效的。[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，德克萨斯（邦联）州与怀特和智利关系“因此是叛国和无效的。”[18]因此，他裁定当前的德克萨斯州依然拥有这些债券的所有权，并有权取回这些债券或从已经成功赎出债券的当事人那里获取等价现金。[19]

Dissenting opinion

反对意见

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]

法官罗伯特·格里尔（Justice Robert Grier）写下了他的异议。他说，他不同意多数法官“提出并决定的所有论点”。格里尔引用了先例－－赫本诉艾尔则（Hepburn v. Ellzey），在此案中首席大法官约翰·马歇尔（Chief Justice John Marshall）定义一个州为有权在国会和选举人团中都有代表的实体。因此，（当前）德克萨斯州的地位变得更加类似于一个印第安部落，而不是一个（正常的）州。他还认为，德克萨斯州的地位（作为一个州的状态）问题该由国会判定，而不该由司法裁决，而他“不会试图论证德克萨斯州是联邦的一个州，如果国会已经判定她不是一个州的话。”法官格里尔说，德克萨斯州声称她在内战期间不是一个州的说法，等同于”承认精神失常”，并要求法院废止她“在精神病期间作出的”所有行为。法官诺亚·斯维恩（Justices Noah Swayne）和赛缪尔·F·米勒（Samuel F. Miller）也表示异议。[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]

持异议的法官们基于不同的原因而拒绝多数派法官的意见。格里尔（Grier），是来自宾夕法尼亚州的“南方同情者”，他反对激进的重建，而主要关注债券持有人的的利益。他认为，财政部发出债券后，就立即失去了对其的任何控制权。米勒（Miller）和斯维恩（Swayne）比切斯（Chase）更倾向激进派立场。在一个单独的异议（陈述）中，他们同意多数派的意见，即该债券是被分离政府非法出售的，但又赞同格里尔的意见，即当前状态的德克萨斯州不是宪法意义上的一个联邦州。[21]

Reaction

各方反应

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]

由切斯执笔的法庭裁决，受到了双方的批评。激进的共和党人认为这证明切斯放弃了他曾经热情支持的事业。保守党人则谴责切斯作出的决定将允许国会重建继续进行。[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]

十二月份时，莱曼·特朗布尔（Lyman Trumbull），使用米勒－斯维恩异议为模本，（试图）通过立法来推翻“怀特裁决”。特朗布尔的法案说：“根据宪法，美国的司法权不囊括政治权力，或给予司法法庭任何权力来质疑政府的政治部门的政治事务。”该法案直接攻击切斯的立场，规定：“应由国会来决定什么政府是一个州的既定政府，而且因此，按照以前的法律，宣布在弗吉尼亚州，密西西比或德克萨斯州不存在文官州政府”。（但是）该法案被国会里更加保守的议员们给否决了。[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]

亚历山大·帕夫科维奇（Aleksandar Pavković）和彼得·拉詹（Peter Radan）在《创建新的国家：分裂国家的理论与实践》一书中认为“坚持这一观点‘没有复议或撤销的余地，除非通过革命，或者获得联邦的同意’（引自切斯原文）并不令人意外。有鉴于联邦是从革命中诞生，切斯（Chase）的话语重复了许多当时的法律学者和政治家的陈述，其中包括亚伯拉罕·林肯和丹尼尔·韦伯斯特。”[24]