Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1850-02-21

rendered to Texas, we propose to oi1er oy this
second resolution a sum which the worthy Sena-
tor from Texas in my eye, THINKS VIII hol DC Tess
than about three millions OF dollars-the exact
amount neither he nor yet possesses the requl-
site materials to ascertain. Well, sir, you get
this large boa ndary and three millions OF your
debt paid. | shall not repeat The argument OIL
fered upon a former occasion. as to the ooliga-
ton of the United States to pay that debt but
was struck upon reading the treaty OF limits,
first between the United Sales and Mexico, then
The treaty of limits between the United States
and Texas, to find in the preamble of both these
treaties direct recognition of the principles
out of which. think, spring our obligations 10
paw the debt tor which the duties OF foreign I'M
ports were pledged while Texas was an indie
pendent State.
The principle asserted in the treaty of limits
with Mexico is that whereas, by the treaty OF
1919 between Spain ana the United States,
limit was fixed between Mexico and the United
States, Mexico then composing portion OF the
possessions of the Spanish crown, although
alexIco was, at the date of that treaty, severed
from the crown ot Spain, yet she was bound: as
having been Fart oi the possessions OF Spain
when the treaty o! 1872 was made-she was
bound by that treaty. as much as IT 1t was made
with herself instead OF Spain. In other words,
part If Common empire cannot exonerate eltn-
er portion OF iLat empire iro the obligations
that are created When the empire IS entire and
uusevered. So the principle Is asserted IN
The ireaiy U! 1885 between Texas aid the Uni
tel States The principle asserted being That the
treaty OF 1885 between Mexico and The United
Suites having been ide when Texas a
part OF Mexico, and now Texas being discovered
from Mexico, she nevertheless remains bound
by that treaty, If no such severance had taken
place la other words, the prirciple is this:
that when independent power creates an oh
legation or duty, no subsequent political mis-
iortuDe-no subsequent political severance of the
territory OF that pOwer-can exonerate /. from
the obligations which were created while 1t
an independent power. In other words 10 bring
II down and apply ii TO this specific case, Texas
being an independent power, and having right
10 take loans, and to make pledges. having taken
loans and having pledged the specific imports,
arising from the CUSTOMS to the public creditor,
the public creditor became vested with right
10 that fund of which he could no; be Invested
by any o her act but his own consent-by no
p'lIlical changes which Texas sht subsequent
ly think proper 10 make. In The absorption or
merging OF Texas in the United States, the
Creditor, beng m party 10 The treaty by which
that operation WAS performed, did not lose his
rights, but retained his rights to demand the full
himent of the pledge and the payment of the
fund, just : il there had never been any annex
alton Of Texas u the United States.
That was the foundation upon which arrived
II the CONCLUSION embraced IN that resoluiiun.-
TIE United States. having appropriated 10 them
selves the duties arising from Imports which have
been pledged 10 the creditor by Texas, an
honorable and jus, power ought now to pay the
delt Tor " Inch these duties were sDlemulV nctr-