Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-05-24
THE STATE DEBT OF TEXAS.


the mistaken opinion that he Gazette are opposed to
the payment Of debt This far from being the case
We have for favored the idea of doing less
'but conceive that it will satisfy obligation Of justice
the State should adopt the principle Of paying her creditor.
at the rate it available to her."
Now appears from this that the only difficulty in the
matter is, how to determine what constitutes indebted
for the Gazette says does favor the idea Of doing
less than paying the debt whatever and certainly we
not in favor of doing Is then, the amount Of that
debt be ascertaned by the literal and express promises
which the State then made, and, according the mutual un-
derstandns both Of the State and its creditors that me
of what meant by those promises must we deter.
mine that debt by the degree of its availability the State
would seem, from the above extract that the Gazette in
favor of the latter method Our opinion is that this debt
really the price Of independence and that without
the assistance which procured from those promises the
revolution would have been failure. If this be So then
those promises certainly available for much larger
amount than they call for BY their procured not
only the territory which has been sold for the ten millions
but also other territory of vastly larger extent and hundred
times valuable. We do not therefore, agree with the
Gazette that should pay those promises the rate Of their
availabity because that would make our Indebtedness at
least ten times much the that was actually pro-
missed The obligation Of gratitude may perhaps be justly
measured by the benefits received from the aid rendered
US in doubtful revolutionary struggle but our pecunay
obligation we think should be limited strictly the amount
which actually promised pay According to the rule
of the Gazette that debt is be measured by the rate
was available its amount would be less accord
ing to our ability to make it available Will the Gazette
point out the authority for making the obligation
Of promise depend the contingency Of its availability
We do not recoec to have this rule laid down by Po
ther, any Of the writers civil moral obligation. All
the authorities have read agree adopting the rule that
BY the agreement between the parties and that this agree
men to be interpreted and enforced in the by which
was understood by both parties at the time. This is the
only rule we have found by which to determine the debt
which one party to another If the agreement
derstood differently by the paes then the debt be de-
termned by the rule of quantum n,e, gso,tu uaLeba,
de-; but even in this case, have authority for
applying the Gazees rule of availability If Texas had been
able to make $780, 900 of her debt available securing lands
worth million, it does not follow therefore that she owes
million instead Of S00 00O In like MANNER had she utterly
Jailed In securing any thing with the 100000, had it
been available to her for nothing does not follow that she
would be under obligation to pay nothing, Gas would follow
from the G1etes rule, although her ability pay might
have been destroyed But in this there occasion
for referring to the quantum meyt, quantum ualsbat,
availability to determine the debt because that deter
mined by the parties at the time the debt created The
only question, then is, whether there any misunder
standing between the parties the of the obligation
the amount Of the debt Did Texas and her creditors
derGand the agreement In the for If they did,
IL,
according all the rules Of obligation have ever seen. If
il tho understanding that Texas not pay merely
what promised in her obligation, but the full
which she might make her creditors money available then
must be governed by the Gazees rule and pay the
proceeds Of all public domain fit the understand
ing that Texas pay but one-thd oneouh,
fifth Of what promised (accordng to the market value Of
the promise at the me then actual Indebtedness is but
onethrd, eourth, fifth Of what promised and
may therefore proceed to reduce accordingly But if
it the understanding between Texas and her creditors
that the amount Of the debt be the named
in the PROMISE and neither less then that
tany constitutes the debt We refer to that understanding
Of the parties, and their true intent and meaning the only
rule have heard Of to determine moral legal obi
CATION This rule is true, does not hold good when the
parties not competent to contract but presume that
neither Texas her creditors will plead incompetency
It only remains to ascertain what understanding that
was in order 10 determine the Of Indebtedness
II the editor of the Gazette find leisure another article
this subject shall be glad learn from him. as an old
citizen Of the country, whether not the uni
understanding the time debt contracted that
should be paid according the promised or
cordng to it's availaby according to its depreciation at
that any other time
We have referred to the mutual understanding Of the par
ties and their true intent and meaning at the time the obE
CATION c0nsummnfed; for presume, it will be
pretended that either party had right to change the nature
the terms Of the obligation, at any subsequent period
without the consent Of the other party.
We have thus endeavored clearly possible, to give
the true principles by which the actual
of Indebtedness must be determined. 1t appears
necessary to agree upon those principles the very
threshold of this important investigation for cannot
how possible for US to measure the extent of Obligation
without applying to well known and determnate
rules. II we have been in those rules will
thank the Gazette point error, and it shall
be corrected.
The Gazette has touched upon many topics which have
not time now 10 discuss.
The HoS. HESRr CLAr.-Mr. Glars friends in this