- JOIN | SUPPORT TSHA
TEXAS V. WHITE
TEXAS V. WHITE. Texas v. White, a suit of the state of Texas against George W. White, John Chiles, and others, was filed in the United States Supreme Court on February 15, 1867, during the administration of A. J. Hamilton, ad interim Reconstruction governor of Texas, and sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from using Texas Indemnity Bonds paid to them by Texas after secession for supplies for the Confederate States of America and to obtain the restoration of fifty-one of the bonds. The case was argued by George W. Paschal and R. T. Merrick for the state and Philip Philips, Albert Pike, J. W. Carlisle, and J. W. Moore for the defense. The most historically significant question involved was whether or not Texas, having seceded and not having completed Reconstruction, had status in the Union and therefore the right to sue in the United States Supreme Court. The specific legal questions concerned the authority of Paschal, as financial agent of Texas, to represent the Texas government; the validity and enforceability of the contract made by Texas acting as a member of the Confederate States; the right of injunction in the case; and technical questions relating to the transfer of the bonds. The case was argued on all counts, but both the attorneys and the court recognized that the main issue was the status of Texas. This question had a bearing not only on the case in point but involved the legality of all Reconstruction government in the South. Paschal argued that the Union was indestructable and that Texas's status in the Union therefore had been unchanged by the war. The defense argued that Texas, by seceding from the Union and later waging a war against the United States, had lost the status of a state in the Union and therefore had no right to sue in the United States Supreme Court. The court had the opportunity to hand down a ruling on the validity of all acts of the governments of the seceded states, but it limited its decision to the specific issues involved. The five to three decision, read on April 15, 1869, by Chief Justice S. P. Chase, held the Union to be indestructable and, thus, not dissoluble by any act of a state, the government, or the people. The court, therefore, repudiated the doctrine of state sovereignty, but it clearly supported the federal in contradistinction to a consolidated system of government, for the decision continues: "But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means, implies the loss of distinct and individual existence or of the right of self-government by the states." On the remaining points the court recognized Paschal's authority to represent the government of Texas, ruled that the contract between White and Chiles and the Texas State Military Board was unlawful since it furthered the Confederate cause, and held that since White and Chiles were unlawful holders, they could not transfer the bonds. As a result of the decision the proceeds from the transferred bonds were turned over to Paschal as the Texas representative. He claimed all of the proceeds he collected, $47,325, plus $17,577 as his legal fee. Governor E. J. Davis refused the claim and dismissed Paschal as financial agent. Paschal then sued and won his case and was allowed to retain all bonds and moneys as his fee.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:Walter T. Chapin, Presidential Reconstruction in Texas, 1865–1867 (M.A. thesis, North Texas State University, 1979). William Whatley Pierson, Jr., "Texas v. White," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 18, 19 (April, July 1915). Jane Lynn Scarborough, George W. Paschal: Texas Unionist and Scalawag Jurisprudent (Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University, 1972). John L. Waller, Colossal Hamilton of Texas (El Paso: Texas Western Press, 1968).
Image Use Disclaimer
All copyrighted materials included within the Handbook of Texas Online are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 related to Copyright and “Fair Use” for Non-Profit educational institutions, which permits the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), to utilize copyrighted materials to further scholarship, education, and inform the public. The TSHA makes every effort to conform to the principles of fair use and to comply with copyright law.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The following, adapted from the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, is the preferred citation for this article.Handbook of Texas Online, "Texas v. White," accessed April 24, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrt01.
Uploaded on September 19, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.