The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-09-01

gagged in perous struggle for her liberty and ipdepend
enee Her population was small Her citizens had re
cently settled wilderness They were poor Her gov.
eminent pad 20 raise means TO prosecute her revolution
airy war; by promising large interest and entering into
contracts al enormous prices. She unable pay the
interest she promised and the 10Th May, 1885, she
passed an ac 10 pay The interest her funded dent and
an othef debts oil her government, IN promissoy noes
She was so destitute OF money among her people that
me lsh January 1885, she passed act requiring OF
neeIs except certain Judges to receive her promissory
notes IN payment OF their fees, forfeit tier Offices
line after tme and late as the 2sth june ls45
acts passed pay her ordinary appropriations ia
pfomlssoy notes and eIehe9uer bills 30 great were her
necessities that the sth January. lei5 she authorized
her Secretary OF the Treasury Ia anticipate her
by issuing drafts upon the collector OF the direct
for Bowie county, in favor of named Bird, for 800
payable in 1915. $3.50 payable in 1885, $500 payable in
1SI7, and $3.50 payable in S4s. Various other acts OF
similar character were passed during the session
the liabilities OF Texas from great depreciation, and the
original holders OF her bonds in many cases, doubt
have transferred their claims for song and are now
TO enrich the Shylock assignee violation OF the assu-
ance TO the American people that the United States were
never to pay her debts upon some lately prn
cIple OF moral duty
Mr.. President, have occasionally heard it said that
Texas mortgaged her duties imports to her creditors
and that the morgaged estate has into our hands,
we must pay the debt if willing be governed by
equitable principles. My first remark in reply this is,
thai duties on imports not yet collected not things
beng they are mere possibilities They may never ex
list The law imposing them may be repealed Non
intercourse and war may prevent importation. A thing
which does the time is not the subject of con-
tract. mortgage, pledge. Such is the general rule,
even should there be exceptions This consideration is
sufficient to show that mortgage pledge by State, Of
revenues OF any kind thereafter to be collected can,
the very nature OF things, amount 10 than prom
ise 10 appropriate The particular when collected
IN specific manner Now, is there any greaer moral
force or obligation binding Stale individual pay
the debt for the payment OF which particular fund,
accrue IN future but which collected had been
set apart and consecrated than there is to pay debt for
,aht lie (..tl
ground Of morals is il that one honest debt shall have
preferences another in reference TO the future acqu
slions OF The debtor! When debts contracted all the
property then owned by The debtor under no incum-
bance, is equally liable every creditor AMI OF the
future earnings OF The debtor What right in morals has
he, after going IN debt TO thousand persons. then 10
contract with thousand Others, and pledge mortgage
to these last all his future eafnngs the exclusion of the
first know there .preferred debts" recognised by
law know that public sentiment justifes failing
debtor IN dlscharging those debts which will his
sGrees in preference to those where he has given no
surety.
But where there is law regulate the distribution
OF The assets and the rights OF the parties what Is the
great principle Of conscience and equity It is pro rata
distribution among all honest creditors There is no law
which consrains Ii, therefore, are bound in
conscience to pay anything for Texas, il seems 10
TO The debt due him. cannot admit tbat Texas had the
moral right to pledge mortgage duties imports 10 be
collected in iutre to give her subsequent creditors
preference and to place them upon better footing than
those who had previously advanced their money upon
pledges OF her faith and her public domain But all these
pledges nothing than promises the part OF
Texas iii said 81 these promises she can never
fulfil in consequence of granting to her houses,
and the exclusive right To levy duties imports Admit
all that to be true, how does violation of promise
her part impose moral obligation do the thing
she promised to do II is said step into her shoes,
and we get the duties she would have received but for
her annexation. True. But how does that bind us in
morals pay any part of her debts' 1t is said we have
essened her and ability pay by taking from her
those duties and therefore in conscience ought 10
render Them IL we paid an equivalent and he full
value Of these duties, does equity require pay
Now think Il can be abundanty shown that in annex
ing Texas, and taking upon ourselves the duty of de-
Tending her. aud delivering her from government she
was unable to support that we have paid much more
than equivalent for the duties imports she has
rendered TO But to this il may be said should pay
her creditors to whom the duties pledged, because
both Texas and the United States acted in bad faith in
entering the contract of by which Texas
deprived OF the power of fulfilling her engagement
Let test this by puuing analogous Suppose
farmer promises 10 one sci Of creditors the fleece OF his
ocks from year to year. 10 another sci the produce OF his
orchards and to third that of his fields and meadows
Suppose large holder oil stocks shall promise 10
OF his creditors the annual dividends OF his government
stocks 10 another set his dividends on bank stocks and
TO third the profits upon has corporation stocks Tor
manufacturing purposes In these cases shall the mere
promise 10 apply TO the benefit OF creditors the profits
from year to year. they INTO the hands oil the
owner prevent the sale and transfer OF these and
stocks III that should be DONE there could not be
system devised more pregnant with fraud inJu-
rous to the Improvement and advancement OF society
Such device would enable the owner retain snd live
sumptuousy upon his estates, by defraudng set Of
creditors upon the preext that he had pledged the profits
TO different set Such doctrine would arrest the free
alienation OF estates essential TO the general welfare
The error in surprising that we are under any moral
obligation 10 pay any portion OF the debts OF Texas
grows out OF ideas in regard TO membranes upon
private property, which. at the time OF their creation,
were sanctioned by law. These membranes become
legal rights, and such enforced The error consists
in supposing that such legal rights existing between in
dvlduals analogous ~ principle and should furnish
the rule applicable 10 Texas and the United States.
Were | to present an individual which would N
principle bear strong analogy, and illustrate the subject
II would be this owes debt, and promises TO pay
IL of the rents OF his house Afterwards he sells the
house to G., who has full knowledge OF the promise.
The debt being unpaid B demands payment Of Z, upon
the ground tina, he is morally, though not legally bound
To this G replies, and thns-"the contract be-
tween and myself advantageous 10 both, especial
y so to him Ne informed me that his other means were
enough TO pay you, and leave something handsome be
sides He and both thought the contract would, and
still think II has, relieved HIM feou certain difficulties OF
serious character Thus relieved, he IS now more able
10 pay you than he would have been. he and acted
conscentousiy in the bargain, supposlng you would be
benefited instead OF injured knew you had no legal
claim which could interfere with my purchase there
fore protest against your demand IN the court OF con.
science"
But suppose The United States are liable. what is the
extent OF her liability Certainly il oanno, be extended
beyond the value OF the duties imports which were
pledged to the creditors o Texas beyond the amount
of the debt for which The pledge made What Is the
value OF the duties No one has given an estimate
The data for an estimate uncertain, that the best
estimate would be no more than unsatisfactory con.
lecture The amount OF the debt, however, admits OF
something like certainty find, from examination Of
the laws OF Texas that she authorized three loans.
The first By act OF 18th November, $50, for $4,000 900