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

heF debt WOn1d be paid, speed
y PAID out of this particular attribute OF sovereignty
Texas that they entered into this contract Now she
has given up She is to be in sense-as the
honorable senator saysa sovereign; but she not the
sovereign she was she is crippled sovereign. with
reference TO the powers which she originally
Just as much crippled, just much weakened II the
case be supposabe one, the United States would be
crippled if they themselves to any other
government. So much for his first answer to the COM
miiiee.
Now it surprised me little more. because, if under
stood the honorable senator arlght he prepared 10
concede that il there TO be found any legal pledge
this contract. it would be incumbent upon the United
States, unless Of his other OF expedency
TO be held sufficient to restrain them, pay the debt
And he tells us there is not to be found single attribute
OF legal pledge in this And why not, sir Because
the honorable senator thought the thing supposed be
pledge was not in sxistence because, in order to
slitue legal pledge, there must be possession of the
Mr. President; and put i to the honorable senator #
farmer cannot mortgage his crops for any number of
years he may think Proper' put it TO the gentleman,
eepts for any period of time they may think proper
Does anybody doubt that! There is not a singl
State erhaps, where such roads exist, where we have
not such mortgages as this We have them in Mary
land Our State passed charter to railroad
from Washington 10 Baltimore, upon the company s
agreeing to pay fourth the passage money TO the
pay upon that contract The State, acting she sup
posed, upon the unguesoned principle that that pledge
was good and binding upon the company, have from
time to time borrowed, for her wants. and secured
the money borrowed to the lender by pedgng specific
security to him, the receipts which, from year to year.
expected 10 come into the treasury from this
pany. Is there any doubt about that The proposition
of the honorable senator from Vermont If sound would
show that contract be made, binding the parties
contracting, in reference to any subject OF property there
after to come INTO existence:
am that, upon reflection the honorable senator
will see that the proposition cannot be maintained.
Mr.. PHELPS, Tin his seat) 1t is good between the
MI JOHNSON The gentleman says that such a con-
tract would be valid pledge between the parties; Well,
decide is, whether, if the United States, by contract
between the United States and the morgager take into
their possession, for their the thing pledged,
without the consent OF the morgasee they are not bound
Why, sir, let illustrate the have just sup;
posed man pledges his growing crop My friend
been pledged by making contract with the morgager,
himself gets possession OF the crop; would not he be liza
| BILE in equity and law for that crop?
Mr. PHELPS Gin his seat) made reply to the latter
question. which was not heard at the reporters desk
| Mr.. JOHNSON. should say that he would be bound
| unqnesuonably if it was the crop of that farmer
Well, the honorable senator can see that between
Texas and the CREDITOR if there could be any legal mode
to enforce it, there is nothing in the nature Of the
ors to enforce it. | admit that there is legal mode
without the consent of Texas; she cannot be sued with
out her own permission But is not to be presumed
that she would refuse to carry out the contract We
are therefore bound to believe, that but for the in
terpositon OF the United States, Texas, as an indie.
pendent nation might have had the ability to redeem this
would be reproach to her in the eyes of the world.
Now says the honorable senator-and it may be all
truentheIe is nothing to prevent Texas from chang
| contract | admit that if she does il honestly if she
substitutes better one. or one that she thinks is bet
ter-beievng that she accomplish it better by
abandoning the system altogether, and resorling to
internal taxation. Thus she honestly carries it out,
and edeems her faith by paying the creditor out of this
system OF taxation But that is not this case,
1t is change of the financial sysem-t is surren
der OF the power OF up the very attribute
upon the faith of which the creditor told to rely, and
without which he would never have been involved in
the wrong which, point OF fact, has resulted from this
conrac wrong. because the United States have thought
proper without his consent. swallow Texas elf may
the expression, almost rendered classical by its
in the argument of the honorable senator from Mchi-
gan, not now upon the foor)
Why, says the honorable senator, is it not clear that
the ability OF Texas 10 meet this particular engagement
greater than it antecedent to her annexation
to the United States' In the first place. you have no
e9 a na
cies OF security. you have right to take it from him,
without his consent, and substitute another. But the
tanned And what was that! Why, that she was,
at the period this debt contracted in state Of
war, the result of which nobody could certainly tell He
would have us to believe that at the period oil her
alton she was in the same state Of trial What was her
condition at the time of annexation! The struggle
over She had been triumphant in part by the Of
this very navy and it is when the struggle the
war ended, and her independence secured upon sure
basis that she stands out against the nations OF the world
with every attribute OF most uDqueSOned sovereignty,
and with growing prosperity which can doubt
would be sufficient to enable her pay this debt in
very brief period of time We took her into coned
eacy and thus deprived her of this, perhaps the only
means of paying it,,
Now do not desire this bill to suffer by the arguments
perspcuousy stated by the senator from Vermont that
this is like the assuming OF State debts, and may by
principle involve that doctrine, and that il also involves,
necessarily the liability of the United States for the
it which resembles what is called the assumption of State
debts! What debts were they! They were debts con
aced by the States OF the Union States stripped Of
OF the of revenue Debts therefore, contracted
upon the faith of that sovereignty that still remains not
only have no right to look to the United States, but the
creditors told in advance, by the very form of the
contract that the only to which they had right
moment the debt contracted. We have not
changed them | put it to the honorable gentle
man--if such thing could have occurred-wheth-
er, if of the States of the Union, owing its ten
millions of dollars, could afterwards, by the of
Congress, be brought back to its territorial cond-
its of raising revenue, and thrown entirely back
to It's original territorial condition. put it to the honor
able SENATOR if it would not be very clear that in such
the United States would be bound to pay the debts
Of that State Why, that is this case exacllynot in
fact but in principle. And why bound' Because You
have tax away from the debtor the only with
which he pay his debts Because you have appro.
government in relation TO this very means-you are
bound TO pay all the incumbrance outstanding, the
ment you have taken this power 10 yourself.
Another word, and have DONE My friend from Ver-
mont says the public lands all here-the right OF in
erna taxation is all there, and that is abundanty su
cient for the payment of the debt Now we know that
the facts The public lands are there's but
vhofar IA Gbouyp ho