The State of Texas was admitted into the Union on the 29th of
December, 1845, 9 Stat. 108, and from that day the laws of the
United States were extended over it.
Consequently, on the 30th of January, 1846, the revenue laws of
Texas were not in force there, and goods seized for a noncompliance
with those laws were illegally seized.
Calkin & Company were merchants of the County of Galveston,
Texas, and Cocke was Collector of Galveston under the Republic of
Texas.
By a joint resolution of Congress, approved on 1 March, 1845,
the President of the United States was authorized to submit one of
two alternative propositions to the Republic of Texas as an
overture for her admission as a state into the Union. One of these
contemplated the completion of this measure and the adjustment of
its terms by legislation, and the other by negotiation. The
President selected the former, and presented to Texas the proposals
contained in the first and second sections of the said resolutions.
The first section declared
"That Congress doth consent that the Territory of Texas may be
erected into a state, to be called the State of Texas, with a
republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said
Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of
the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as
one of the states of this Union."
And the second section declares that this consent on the part of
the United States was given upon several conditions, one of which
required the constitution, which was to be framed by the
convention, to be transmitted, with the proper evidences of its
adoption by the people of the said Republic of Texas, to the
President of the United States, to be laid before the Congress
Page 55 U. S. 228
of the Union for its final action, on or before the first day of
January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. This consent,
with the conditions on which it was given, was communicated to the
Republic of Texas, and in the course of the following summer and
autumn the people of Texas, by deputies in Convention assembled,
with the consent of the then existing government, erected it into a
new state, with a republican form of government, as shown by the
constitution then adopted by them for its government, and declared
and ordained that they accepted the proposal contained in the
resolutions just spoken of, and assented to the conditions on which
it was made. The constitution adopted by the people of Texas, with
the evidence of its adoption, and of their acceptance of the
proposal made by Congress, and their assent to the conditions with
which it was accompanied, was laid before Congress at the opening
of the session of 1845-1846, and on the 29th of December, 1845, the
Congress of the United States, after taking cognizance of the
acceptance of the proposal and of the conditions annexed to it by
the people of Texas, and of the constitution adopted by them,
declared that the State of Texas "shall be one and is hereby
declared to be one of the United States of America," &c.
This Constitution of Texas, thus adopted by that state and laid
before Congress, contained, amongst others, the following
provisions. By the first section of the twelfth article of the said
constitution, it was declared that
"All process which shall be issued in the name of the Republic
of Texas, prior to the organization of the state government under
this constitution, shall be as valid as if issued in the name of
the State of Texas."
In the second section of the same article it was provided
that
"All criminal prosecutions or penal actions which shall have
arisen prior to the organization of the state government under this
Constitution, in any of the courts of the Republic of Texas, shall
be prosecuted to judgment and execution in the name of the
state,"
&c. The sixth section contained a provision that if it
should appear, on the second Monday of November, 1845, from the
returns, that a majority of the votes polled of the people of Texas
were given for the adoption of the constitution, the President
should make proclamation of that fact, and thenceforth the
constitution was ordained and established as the constitution of
the state, to go into operation, and be of force and effect, from
and after the organization of the state government under the said
constitution. By section ten, it was declared
"That the laws of this Republic relative to the duties of
officers, both civil and military, of the same, shall remain in
full force, and the duties of their several offices shall be
performed in conformity with the existing laws, until the
organization of the
Page 55 U. S. 229
government of the state under this constitution, or until the
first day of the meeting of the legislature,"
&c.
On the same day that Congress declared that Texas shall be and
is hereby declared to be one of the United States,
viz.,
on the 29th of December, 1845, 9 Stat. 108, Congress passed an act
extending the laws of the United States over Texas and declaring
them to have full force and effect within the state. It provided
also for the establishment of a court of the United States, with
its necessary officers. And on the 31st of December, 1845, another
law was passed constituting Texas a collection district, and making
Galveston a port of entry.
The Legislature of Texas did not meet, nor was the state
government completely organized under its new constitution, until
the 16th of February, 1846.
On the 30th of January, 1846, Calkin & Company imported into
Galveston from New Orleans a large amount of merchandise,
principally the growth and manufacture of the United States.
These goods were seized by Cocke, claiming one thousand dollars
as duty, under the revenue laws of Texas. Calkin & Company
protested against this, and demanded that the goods should be
delivered to them in accordance with an Act of Congress of the
United States of the 31st December, 1845, and of a circular of the
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of 9th January,
1846, declaring that
"Vessels and their cargoes arriving in any port of the State of
Texas either from a foreign port or a port in any other state or
territory of the United States, are to be placed on a similar
footing with vessels and their cargoes arriving at ports in any of
the states of the Union."
On the trial of the case in the District Court of the State of
Texas, on the 5th of January, 1847, a judgment was rendered therein
in favor of plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from claiming any
duties on the merchandise, and condemning him to pay to the
plaintiffs the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, the damages
assessed by the jury, as damages for the unlawful detention of the
merchandise, and the costs of the suit. From this judgment a writ
of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Texas, and by that
tribunal the judgment was reversed and one given in favor of the
defendant for the sum of nine hundred and sixteen dollars, the
amount of duties unpaid, and the amount of costs expended in and
about the suit.
A writ of error brought this judgment up to this Court.
Page 55 U. S. 235
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of
Texas. The suit was originally brought by the plaintiffs in error
before the District Court of Galveston County, to recover the
possession of a stock of goods from the defendant, who had seized
them at Galveston as collector of that port under the authority of
the Republic of Texas for nonpayment of duties. They recovered a
judgment in that court, but, on a writ of error from the supreme
court the judgment was reversed and the goods held liable to the
duties.
The case was this:
The plaintiffs shipped from New Orleans into Galveston the stock
of goods, on the 30th January, 1846, and the defendant, claiming to
act as collector under the Republic of Texas and also that the
revenue laws of that government were then in force, charged them
with a rate of duty in conformity with those laws, and for the
nonpayment by the plaintiffs, they insisting that the goods were
not liable to any rate of duty since the admission of Texas into
the Union, he seized and took possession of and detained them until
they were redelivered to the plaintiffs by the order of the
district court.
The question in the case is whether the revenue laws of this
government were in force in the State of Texas at the date of the
importation, or those of the former government of that country. The
supreme court held the latter were in force, and charged the goods
with the customary duties.
The State of Texas was admitted into the Union on the 29th
December, 1845, on an equal footing with the original states in all
respects whatever. 9 Stat. 108. And by the 1st section of an act of
Congress, passed the same day, all the laws of the United States
were declared to be extended over and to have full force and effect
within the state. And by the 2d section the state was declared to
constitute one judicial district, called the District of Texas, for
which a judge should be appointed and should hold the first term of
his Court at Galveston on the first Monday of February then next.
The remaining part of the section confers upon the court the usual
powers belonging to a district court, and also of a circuit court
of the United States. The 3d section provides for the
Page 55 U. S. 236
appointment of a district attorney, and marshal for the
district, and for a clerk of the court.
Id., 1, 2.
On the 31st December, 1845, the next day after the admission
into the Union, Congress passed an act declaring the state to be
one collection district and making the city of Galveston a port of
entry, and to which was annexed several other places as ports of
delivery. The 2d section provides for the appointment of a
collector for the port of Galveston, and the 3d section for the
appointment of a surveyor for each port of delivery.
Now it is quite apparent from the joint resolution of Congress
admitting the State of Texas into the Union and the acts passed
organizing the federal courts and revenue system over it, that the
old system of government, so far as it conflicted with the federal
authority, became abrogated immediately on her admission as a
state. This is clearly so unless some provision is found in the act
of admission postponing the time when it shall take effect, and, as
applied to the case before us, postponing it until after 31
January, 1846, when these goods were shipped to the port of
Galveston.
This has been attempted on the part of the defendant in
error.
We have been referred to the 1st section of the 13th article of
the Constitution of Texas, which provides
"That all process which shall be issued in the name of the
Republic of Texas prior to the organization of the state government
under this constitution shall be as valid as if issued in the name
of the State of Texas."
And also to the 2d section of the same article, which provides
that
"All criminal prosecutions or penal actions which shall have
arisen prior to the organization of the state government under this
constitution in any of the courts of the Republic shall be
prosecuted to judgment and execution in the name of the state."
And also to the 6th section, which provides, upon its appearing
that a majority of the votes of the people given is for the
adoption of the constitution,
"it shall be the duty of the President of the Republic of Texas
to make proclamation of the fact, and thenceforth this constitution
shall be ordained and established as the constitution of the state,
to go into operation and be of force and effect, from and after the
organization of the state government."
And also to the 10th section, which declares
"That the laws of the Republic relative to the duties of
officers, both civil and military, of the same shall remain in full
force, and the duties of the several offices shall be performed in
conformity with the existing laws until the organization of the
government of the state under this constitution or until the first
day of the meeting of the legislature. "
Page 55 U. S. 237
It is supposed that these several provisions of the Constitution
of Texas, and which is the one accepted when she was admitted into
the Union by Congress, have the effect to postpone and fix the
period of admission to the time of the first meeting of the
legislature of the state and organization of the government under
the constitution, which was on 16 February, 1846, and of course to
postpone the operation of the laws of the Union over her till that
period.
But the obvious answer to this view is that these several
provisions in the constitution were designed and intended, and had
the effect, to organize a government at once on the adoption of the
constitution by the people, and thereby to avoid an interregnum
between the abrogation of the old and the erection of the new
system and until the legislative body could meet and put the
government in operation in conformity with the requirements of the
organic law.
The whole of the 10th section, a part of which has been already
referred to, affords an illustration of the design of the framers
of the constitution. It is as follows:
"That no inconvenience may result from the change of government,
it is declared that the laws of the Republic relative to the duties
of officers, both civil, and military, of the same shall remain in
full force, and the duties of the several offices shall be
performed in conformity with existing laws, until the organization
of the government of the state under this constitution or until the
first day of the meeting of the legislature."
This section, taken in connection with the 3d section of the
same article, completed an organization which effectually prevented
any interval between the old and new systems when the laws did not
operate or an organized government was not in force. That section
provides, that
"All laws and parts of laws now in force in the Republic of
Texas which are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States, the joint resolutions for annexing Texas to the United
States, or to the provisions of this constitution shall remain in
force as the laws of this state until they expire by their own
limitation or repealed by the legislature."
This section, as it will be seen, also negatives the idea that
the Constitution and laws of the Union were not in force within the
state as soon as her admission into the Union took place.
This subject was very fully considered in
Benner v.
Porter, 9 How. 235, which involved an inquiry into
the affect of the admission of Florida into the Union as a state.
Some of the questions there were very similar to those raised in
this case, as the machinery of the territorial government had been
adopted by an ordinance in the constitution until the organization
was effected under the constitution by the legislature.
Page 55 U. S. 238
We there said
"That, on the admission of Florida as a state into the Union,
the organization of the government under the new constitution
became complete, as every department became filled at once by the
adoption of the territorial laws and the appointment of the
territorial functionaries for the time being."
That
"The convention being the fountain of all political power, from
which flowed that embodied in the organic law, were, of course
competent to prescribe the laws and appoint the officers under the
constitution, by means whereof the government could be put into
immediate operation, and thus avoid an interregnum that must have
intervened, if left to an organization according to the provisions
of that instrument. This was accomplished in a few lines, adopting
the machinery of the territorial government for the time being and
until superseded by the agency and authority of the constitution
itself."
An argument is attempted to be drawn against the conclusion that
the laws of the Union were extended over Texas as soon as she was
admitted into it, founded upon certain acts of Congress concerning
the establishment and regulation of the post office system over the
state. On 6 February, 1846, various post routes were established in
Texas, and the Postmaster General was authorized to contract for
conveying the mail on them as soon as could be conveniently done,
after the passage of the act. A joint resolution was also passed on
20 May, 1846, authorizing the Postmaster General to continue the
mail service existing in the state under the laws and authority of
Texas or such part as, in his judgment, the public interest
required, from the time that Texas became a state in the Union and
until contracts could be made and the mail service put in operation
on post routes established by Congress at its then session. And on
the 29th of the same month, another act was passed establishing
several post routes and repealing the act of the 6th February,
referred to. The second section of this act authorizes the
Postmaster General to continue in operation the existing mail
service in Texas, established under its former laws, upon any of
the routes mentioned, as he may deem expedient, not to extend,
however, beyond 30 June, 1850. And the third section provides for
the payment of mail contractors in Texas for service performed by
them since 16 February, 1846, and also the officers employed in
superintending the mail service, with a proviso, that such payment
shall in no case exceed the compensation agreed upon with the late
authorities of Texas. The act then provides that the several
postmasters in Texas appointed by the late government shall account
to the Postmaster General for all balances accruing at their
offices respectively, after 16 February, 1846.
Page 55 U. S. 239
We perceive nothing in these several acts expressing or implying
that Congress possessed no power to extend the system of mail
service over the state from the time of its admission into the
Union, or that the date of the admission is to be limited to 16
February, 1846.
There was necessarily some delay in putting the system into
practical operation, and to avoid any inconvenience in the
meantime, the existing system under the laws of the former
government was recognized and adopted, until the several post
routes were designated by Congress and contracts made for the
performance of the service in the usual way. The period fixed when
the payment of the old contractors and superintendents of the
service should commence, and also when the existing postmasters
should begin to account to the Postmaster General for the money
collected, and the allowance of compensation, to-wit, 16 February,
1846, relate simply to the arrangement as to compensation and as to
the adjustment of the accounts of these several officers. The
system, as established under the Republic of Texas, was recognized
and not interfered with in the adjustment down to the period
mentioned; after that it was placed under the laws and regulations
of the Post Office department of the general government.
That these acts do not admit the want of powers in Congress to
extend the post office laws over Texas until 16 February, 1846, is
shown by the act passed the 5th of that month designating several
post routes and conferring the power upon the Postmaster General to
enter into contracts for conveying the mail over them. This act
continued in force until repealed on 29 May following, when a new
and somewhat different arrangement of mail routes was provided
for.
Without pursuing the case farther, our opinion is that the
admission of Texas into the Union is to take date from 29 December,
1845, the time of its admission by Congress, and that the laws of
the Union extended over it from that time, and, consequently the
seizure of the stock of goods in question by the defendant under
the revenue laws of the Republic on 30 January, 1846, was without
authority of law.
The judgment of the supreme court below, must therefore be
reversed with costs, and that the proceedings be remitted to that
court with directions that the judgment of the district court be
affirmed with costs in supreme court and district court.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals for the
Page 55 U. S. 240
State of Texas, and was argued by counsel. On consideration
whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the
judgment of the said Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals in this
cause be and the same is hereby reversed with costs, and that this
cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Supreme Court
of Errors and Appeals with directions to affirm the judgment of the
District Court for the county of Galveston in said cause, with
costs in said supreme and district courts.
