The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-10-12


And we may add that a proposition Of that kind
by ITSELF would never BE- proper--becAuse il
would lack motive, reason and object. These
determine entirely the question Of propriety,
and without these no such proposal would ever
be made.
He next refers to the Texas debt. Says that
when We took her customs, arms, ships, public
buildings. &C., that were bound for that debt it
would seem that we became bound for il, espe-
cially as what we took was more than sufficient
to pay-it. He admits that by the resolutions Of
annexation it was expressly stipulated that we
should NOT be bound for her debt, but says her
and were not bound by it He says:
Snch b ing the case, the opinion has extern
sively prevailed, and has been daily gaining
strength with the statesmen of the country, that
we are bound for the debts of Texas 1t would
seem, therefore, that there ought to be but little
objection to the provision for them, ard there
would not be, If the question was not connected
with others. But the subject of slavery has
been connected with all these questions-and
there lies the whole difficulty
Well, if we are bound for the Texan debts
and received by the act of annexation "means"
@more than sufficient for their discharge" rs he
distinctly asserts, why not pay the debt at once
out of our overlooking treasury Why Insist on
taking her territory, or any claim of hers to ter
ritory, for paying debt that we are already
bound to pay, aud for which she has already fur
~,
But it may be commended that we are only
bound to pay her creditors, or see them paid,
and then have right to look to her. We
deny it. We say that we are not bound by
any principle in equity to pay them until the
fund she retained proves inadequate. That fund
was her public lands, which is far more than ade-
quate, since but a portion of them, that which
we are to get in this case, is worth more than
her debt. We took by treaty from Mexico a
large territory, without the consent of her cred
TORS. Are we bound to pay her debts
Mr.. BAYLY adverts to the imputation of at
tempting to bride Texas by this bill, and answers
it in very unlucky manner. He first denies
that the people of Texas have any interest in
the matter as bondholders--her creditors being
nonresident and she not taxing herself now to
pay them, and thereby realizing nothing herself
by the money she gets. But then he finds she
has an interest in this bill. He says
"The interest which Texas has in the bill is
the interest which every State has in preserving
its credit and honor 1t cannot be doubted that
it will add ultimately greatly to her prosperity
to have the incubus of her public debt removed
from her shoulders. Without credit she can
construct no improvements to develop her vast
resources in a condition Of reputation, men OF
character and capital are loath to connect their
fortunes with hers; the fear that one day or an
other she will resort to heavy taxation to pay
her debt, deters emigration Tom her borders.
Remove that incubus, and her strides to pros
perity will be long and rapid"
Mr.. BAYLY then turns his attention to the
effect of this measure on the South, and says:
.She will be ina condition to be divided into
two States, if it shall be desirable, long before
New Mexico will be in condition to come into
the Union AZ State. Indeed, at no distant day
she will be in a condition in which her right to
be formed into four States, in addition to the
present State, secured in the articles Of annexa-
ton, and reasserted in the bill under considera-
ton, would be enforced.
1.-The question which will be submitted to
Texas will be, whether her prosperity will be
promoted by this bill. If it will not, she will re-
ject it. If it will, she will acceptit. Ii she will
be benefited and strengthened by this BILL so
will the South be- Whatever contributes to the
strength of one of the Southern States, con-
tributes to the strength of all There can be
no conflict in the interest of Texas and the
other Southern States. | am willing to trust
Texas to decide where she is directly interested,
and where we are indirectly but decidedly inter-
ested on the same side with her; and the more
so because believe she will decide wisely"
Well, this is new and grand policy for a
State-rights Virginia strict-construction Demo-
crat to exfoiate-for the Federal Government
to buy territory from State i'll debt in order to
raise her credit, increase her population, and
construct improvements. This transcends any
of the conceptions of ALEXANDER HAMILTON
and enables the Federal Government to dismenl-
Der and manufacture States in style never
dreamed of before. We know that Virginia
and other Southern States ccded territory to the
Union, from which Free-sol States have been
made. We thought the bitter fruits of this
policy were quite enough. But it muat be re-
membered that these cessions were made not
for money, but on account of the equitable right
which the Union had acquired to them, from a
war at the common expense. But even if it be
alleged that the war with Mexico acquired this
territory, which MIR. BAYLY and we deny, we
thought the North had already acquired through
the Federal Government a disproportion of ter
ritory sufficiently great.
But this brings us to the main question Mr..
BAyLY says:
alt is also said that tie bill CONVEX slave ter
| ritory into Free-soil. This assumes two propo-
stions absolutely irreconcilahle with each other,
yet both of them must be established before the
truth Of the assertion can be sustained. 1t as
sumes that the territory transferred is Texan
territory, and that the constitution and laws OF
Texas do not extend to it. Fit be Texan ter
ritory in which slavery exists, so it will continue
to exist after the transfer; for the set establish