The Middlebury galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1848-1850, 1849-02-13
NUMBER 70.
REMARKS OF MIR. PHELPS.
o. THE LIABILITY OF THE GENERAL Gov.
EHNMENT roR THE. pEBrs OF TEXAS.
I. S. SENATE. Jan. a6-

l. D SENATE, Jan. %.
On motion of Mr. JOHNSON, of MARYLAND
the Senate proceeded to the consideration of
the bill for the relief of Frederick Dawson.
james Schott, and Elisha Dana Whitney.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr.. President, rs ] said the
other day, | will not trouble the Senate viii
any EXTENDED argument upon this subject. nor
would trouble he Senate at all were it not
that regard this proposition as an entering.
wed &c to the assumption by the United States
Of the debts Of the State of Texas.
This bin itself contcmplates an expenditure
or an appropriation Of something between
half million and million of dollars Be-
hind this bill is another claim, founded 1pon
a different species of securities issded by the
State OF Texas, which have been called to or
attention hy memorial which, believe, Is
now pending in one or The other House, upon
Il claim of MIR. Coombs, of Kentucky. ms
bill, in my judgment, involves the question
whether we are responsible for the wlole Of
the debts of that State, or, if a distinction ear
be made, how far we are responsible
Sir, it will be recollecied by those wLo par
itcipated in the deliberations Of this body at The
time of the annexation Of Texas TO this Con
federacy, that the opinion was expressed az
that time, in some quarters that the result OF
that anne Ration would be to cast rpon tic
United Sta Is all the debts of Il at rcpul lie. Sir
never entertained HAT opinion, hut it was
entertained by lawyers Of the highest Standing
in this body, and conceive it 10 be nv duty
now TO call the attention Of the Scns:c to Il
measure which IS evidently intended as IN OK
pertinent npon this great question.
The ground upon which our rcsponsIili.v.or
rather our supposed responsibility, Tor the
debts of Texas was hen placed, was tie
ground TO which alluded in the course of INV
remarks the other day, VIZ. that this Govern
mcnt succeeding the Government of Texas.
or, to express myself differently. that tie re-
public of Texas having been absorbed bv the
United States. all the d, bis Of that trpitlic
would, of course, fall upon us their Successors
In relation to this point, submitted the other
day NV views in very concise manner. and |
will now submit them again in as brici iolm
As possible. My views are thai the principle
upon which the opinions rested that we should
become responsible for the debts # the repuli-
lie Of Texas, by reason Of her annexation 70
the United States, was applicable only to
case where the sovereignty Of debtor State
was eNiinguShed. then remarked, that the
annexation Of Texas was nothing more than
bringing into tins republic new member,
with all the powers Of sovereign State. OK
cept so far rs that sovereignty was limited by
.
nited States. regarded Texas as still COM
peren; to provide revenue and as still rrtsin.
ing TO herself the means and sources Of reve.
nue. necessary to discharge her liabilities, with
the single exception ola revende from imposts
| said that the restrictions upon her sovereign
ty, with respect TO treaties With foreign Pow
ers, had no bearing upon this subject that flc
States exercising this power previous 70 their
admission into the Union, had been left in the
full enjoyment OF their sovereignty in this par
ticular, (the contracting OF debts. providing a
revenue, &c y from the formation of the Con
s'itution until The present day. al,5- T., mark
ed on that occasion, that Vermont came mo
the Union as an Independent State, having "a
serted her independence, and maintained IT,
N fact. for some twenty years previous 10 her
admission j his was all that | thonsht It ne
ceS~ary &c say upon this point.
The honorable Senator from MARYLAND. MIR
,Johnson,) however. in the remarks nnnn this
subject which he submitted 10 TIE Senate ut
the last session, put this liability Of the nif-,f
States for the PAYMENT of these debts of Tex
IS upon arcther ground. VIZ: that Texas Isl
| pledged her revenue rs security for their nat
mcnt; and, consequently. lien WIS created
upon her income; and that, inasmuch as Lv
her annexation to ibis country her revenue.
have been, 10 a cerain extent, Transferred To
the United Stat :. the United States have OBJ
tanned from Texas what she had pledged in
| payment OF these debts. and have of course
| taken it, subject to The claims for which il was
pledged.
was proceeding to remark the other Gav.
when yielded the floor, that. in nv Judgment,
this transaction helrs no sort Of analogy TO a
legal pledge. The principles applicable to mn
ordinary legal pledge arc not. in my humble o.
pinion, at all applicable to the present ease. [
proceeded to remark then. and repeat now.
that the principles applicable 10 LEGAL pledges
can apply nowhere except where there is a
subjcct-ma;tcr 10 which the principle can ap-
ply. and upon which the len can attach IL
must be such subject rs Is Susceptible If ros-
session IL Is wcii-cstabiishcd rule IN rcla-
ton to legal pledge. that possession Is inds-
pensal'e 10 It's validity 1t Is an established
rule thai q voluntary surrender OF the posses
sion OF the pledge Is a surrender of The lien
also Well. SIR the next inquiry is, if this he
legal pledge, what il the suhject-n after To
which the lien can attarh Is it susceptible
Of possession Is it susceptible Of delivery
Docs it admit Of the application Of any legal
rules Of this character 10 it Why, sir. when
come % look upon the security given bv that
republic upon which this claim Is founded.
find that Texas pledges her hOnor and her
rercnue.' Her Lonor, | trust, we have not ia
ken from her; her reyehdas we have not ia
ken.
What is the character of this security civ
en- by Texas for the payment of this debt ?.
Why, sir, it is Il mere pledge of tie Lonor of
Texas to-apply her rev enues to the extingnish-
melt of this debt. | can 20 no further. Ills
no pledge of the power Of raising revenae. 1t
is no pledge Of ihe proceeds OF her imposts,
because the proceeds Of her mposts we're not
in existence at toe time. What, then, sit?
Nothing but a pledge Of the integrity of that
republic. Nothing else, sir. What was The
effect of this pledge uron Texas ? Did it lin
1t The sovereign power Of that State in respect
to the regulation Of is rovenucs-to the 6rdi-
nary legislative power modifying Ler financial
system? Did it tie that State down 10 any
system Of revenue which happened to be in
existence Mt the moment this contract was en-
y -