The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-27

Another ground suggested by the committee is. that IN
ducement was held out to Texas to provide fc her honor
which seems TO me to mean her debts admit that in
structons given to the commissioners who
ted the treaty OF annexation; but is to DC ooseea ana
were never acted upon No stpulaiions or agreements
out of them; and what Is worse Hr PRESIDENT
we all know that il this question OF annexation nad oeeh
left to rest upon the negotiation OF treaty, we should
never have been troubled with this case She came into
the Union under no OF the kind she into the
Union with qualifications or restrictions except,
remember right that it provided by the resolution OF
annexation that she should be still held responsible for
her debtsPuiiing herself by the act of annexation.
upon precisely the footing which have endeavored TO
ascribe TO her.
lay these instructions of the case the contract
was never consummaed; the treaty was reected and
the annexation effected at last, not by the treaty
making power, but by joint resolution, imposing no
qualifications no restrictions upon her, no modification
OF her sovereignty, except so far that sovereignty is
limited and modified by the provisions of the constitution
OF the United States The question: therefore, Is left to
u.s. What is the necessary legal consequence OF her
nexation Ii seems, therefore, that argument favor
able to the bill be derived from the instructions given
TO the commissioners who were charged with the duty OF
negotiating the treaty.
Well, sir what else 1t is said that in consequence Of
the annexation, Texas assigned TO us-uansferred to
ns-he very property for hich this debt was incurred
She did upon the simple ground, that, coming into the
Union, she was incapactated from maintaining navy
herself 1t was therefore the result OF annexation.
There is them the question for decide, whether
there was lien upon these vessels d these claimants
themselves in the outset by lien upon this prop
eny' No, SIR They were the creditors OF the State OF
Texas That State was indebted to them for the build
have not yet learned upon what principle of law-upon
what principle of equitable awhe claim of these petit
TONERS against the United States rests These, be-
their report upon this bill believe have alluded to
every reason which has been urged ground for the
liability of this government
ms brings the matter upon the mere question of ex.
pediency Well, sir, am not about to argue the
expedieney OF the assumption of State debts recoect
very WELL when first came into this body. that this
question OF the assumption of State debts very much
agated but it was agtated in this form 1t charged
upon me and my political friends that designed the
impuation; The question was, whether charge
able with the mpuation not. No man, believe, ad
,vocated the measure. No man proposed this assump-
ton OF the State debts l am not now about 10 argue
this question But. sir, cannot help nqurng, whether
Texas herself asks this of us! Is it measure which
she proposes-or, on the other hand called upon
now to volunteer to satisfy her debts and become her
volunteer creditor This seems the position upon
which the bill stands and think that should hesitate
should hesitate before places itself in that position in
relation to Texas any other State. Why, sir, if we
open the doorf the precedent is established-f the
the several States of this confederacy becomes mere
question Of expediency-the principle is yielded the
precedent is settled and that precedent be established
debts OF Pennsylvania of New York. of Mississippi or
Arkansas becomes, at once, mere question of expe-
Olcncy, involving no principle at all.
MIR President, promised to be brief am under the
necessity OF being brief, everybody perceives alu
ding to his indisPostion] | not disposed to delay
action upon the bill am not disposed to weary the
Senate with ine-spun argument purposed merely to
present. as concsely as was in my power, outline of
the view which had taken of the subject will now,
therefore, submit it to the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland Suppos;ng that no 9th
er person designs to speak this subject for the
purpose OF making very brief reply to the argument of
the honorable senator from Vermont The committee by
whom this measure was originally recommended to the
Senate were OF the opinion, and the of that
committee still of the opinion, that it due to the
honor OF the United States that this claim should be paid
The facts upon which that opinion was founded were
briefly these: These claimants, citizens OF the United
eminent of Texas to build briggs and three schoones
and to furnish them will all the necessary warlike
equlPmens The contract under which they were built
provided. if recoect right. that they were. at the
option OF the government OF Texas upon the deliv-
cry OF the vessels, to be paid in cash three bundled
and sixty thousand dollars, or in sterling bonds-the
interest OF which was to be paid annually upon princi-
pal OF hve hundred thousand doarshve per bonds
or in their currency. bonds payable Texas for FIVE hun
dred and sixty thousand dollars. The government of
Texas, in the exercise of the option given them by
the contract decided upon giving their bonds for five
hundred and sixty thousand dollars The contract it.
SET, however, IN its origin was authorized by law
OF Texas, and the law upon its face, authorized the
ecutve TO Offer as an inducemen 10 the contractors
pledge OF the current revenue Of The State embracing
ing or might thereafter receive from her system OF i'm
posts, or on the taxes which she might receive from
VI nOuc OF internal upon the
faith Of this pledge these vessels built, deliver.
ed and the bond received From that day this one
dollar OF principal or interest has been paid Those
who are acquainted with the history of Texas will not
sue contradict the fact which statehat perhaps there
thing which contributed more to the recogn
ton OF that sovereignty by the other nations OF the world
by satisfying them Of their ability obtain their ndepend-
ence OF Mexicothan the possession of this eet for
directly after the fleet obtained, several governments
OF Europe recognised the independence of Texas
which the United States had not yet done
Now, sir the United States, when Texas was in fact
lndependent-when no hostile Mexican foot, nor any
other hostile foot, had rod upon her soil for years. and
when upon the assumption that that independence was
fixed and absolute as the independence OF the United
States themselves thought proper take Texas into
this Union; and IN the articles of annexation this very
navy became portion of the property of the United
States; and the authority with which the government of
ties was dyested and became exclusively vested in the
United States These vessels received into the
service anew. portion OF them were used, and the
rest OF them have been so and the proceeds whatever
they were. have gone into the public treasury.
Now Mr. President, there is another fact to be recol
lected The treaty which was negotiated through the in
strumentality of the honorable gentleman from South
Carolina at that time at the head the State Department
rovlded that certain amount of money should be paid
dred thousand dollars should be paid these claimants
IN part The fate of that treaty here all know; and
the manner IN which, and the history of the resolutions
under WINCH Texas subsequently annexed, also
know. We also know, Mr.. President, that if the United
plates had not insisted upon receiving Texas into the
Union under one OF the alternatives proposed TO the Sem
ave- and had resored 10 the Other-hat of negotiation
looking to her plighted honor, she would, in form
or o'es have stipulated for the payment Of her debts
txaff fhYor ID