The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-28

been realized by the late repube and may report such
other classification they may deem est calculated 10
preserve The rights OF The Stale, and 10 do equity 10 the
holders OF the claims and the classification and rate OF
payment recommended by the auditor and comptro Ter
shall be subject the revision amendment. and ati-
heaton oil tue next legislature"
la this act il is clear that the legislature did not under
take TO reduce The claims their specie value at the lime
they accrued The object OF the law, as declared in the
caption, was 80 provide for ascertaning The debt" and
The whole body OF the act looks TO the object declared
AZ the caption The auditor and comptroller were 10 adj
verise for all creditors 10 present their claims, not for
payment or that they might be scaled but that the debt
might be asceralned II Is true that there Is strong IN
malon on The face OF the law thai the Legislature con-
tempaed at some future session, consider The ques
lion OF reducing the debt TO the par value OF the
claims but whether this purpose should be carried out
or not expressly reserved for future legislature
when the whole debt should be ascertaned. To induce
the creditors present their claims or before given
day they notified that they not presented by the
time designated they Will be posponed;" and, by the
act OF the oth Of February $780, extending the time till
the LIST Monday in September, 1851 il is declared that all
claims not presented by that time shall be .barred" In
compliance with the advertisements under these two acts
large number OF the creditors presented their claims
and obtained receipts therefor in accordance with the pro-
visions of the act OF the goth March, lS4S. The audi
tor and comptroller reported the claims presented TO the
legislature, showing the amount actually realized by the
republic each. There another portion OF the cred
ltofs who failed TO present their claims within the time
prescribed BY an act OF the legislature passed on The
3s of January 1852 the State OF Texas proposes pay
10 those creditors who presented their claims the amounts
L
tuay realized by the republics but provision is made
for the payment Of those creditors who failed present
Their claims BY the LIST Monday O. September. 1851.
Two questions arise First, those creditors
who presented their claims bound in law or in morals TO
accept payment at the scaled rates Second those
creditors, who failed TO present their claims legally or
equitably barred
l. 1t will scarcely be maintained that the legislature OF
Texas could constutioRaly reduce the amounts OF the
claims OF her creditors without their consent ii they
bound 10 accept the scaled rates, the obligation
arises from their consent either express implied. The
act OF March co. 64S does not puport to contain prop
oson for the acceptance OF the creditors but il declares
the creditors that Texas desires ascertain the
OF the debt OF the republic, and 10 that end they
titled TO present their claims They not told that upon
having agreed TO accept the actually realized by
the republic, but they told that the auditor and comp
troer will report the actually realized 10 the
next legislature "for final adjustment" II is essential
to the validity of an agreement or contract that con-
tans the consent OF two willing parties The creditors
cannot be said to have presented their claims upon
agreement TO accept the scaled rates. because the act
flying them to present them does not require them to
consent to such proposition. But the presentation OF
their claims cannot be construed into agreement or
tract to accept the scaled rates. because they were not
left exercise their free will in The matter. They
notified to present their claims within specified time,
or that they would be postponed as declared N the
The act of the Texas legislature placed the creditors in
this pedcament: if they presented their claims, they
must do with knowledge that subsequent legs-
ature might undertake 10 scale them; il they failed to
present them within the prescribed tme they to be
Il barred" If the debtor had been individual subject
the ordinary powers of court of justice the creditors
would have had difficulty in disregardng such prop
oson But their claims were against State not liable
10 be sued and therefore their whole reliance must be
upon her plghted faith and her OF justice That
portion of the creditors who presented their claims chose
to trust 10 the OF justice oil subsequent legislature
rather than incur The consequences Of having thel'
claims barred" The presentation OF their claims,
therefore, evidence, either express or implied OF
their agreement accept The scaled rates. and court
Of could or would SO regardt By presenting
rel m he
tempted be created by the act OF ls4s but they neths
abandoned nor forfeited any portion OF their right to de
mand payment OF their whole claims.
But there any doubt the correctness OF th
conclusion, there another view OF the subject which
far the liability Of the United State
is involved The most that be said OF the act OF ls4
of the Texas legislature is, that II proposition
the creditors to present their claims in order that III
question Of scaling them might be submitted 10 the sue
ceeding legislature The succeeding legislature EXTENDS
the time for the presentation OF claims, and passed
hat any legal holder of any Of the Liabilities of thu
late republic OF Texas that have been audited and re
ported 10 the Legislature under the act OF March co. ls4s
may, by surrenderng the same TO the Commissioner
the General Land Office, receive in lieu thereof land
6caies at the rate OF fifty cents per to the sasac
ton of his her. or their claim" This act was a mer,
proposition the creditors 10 accept payment IN land
but whether 10 the full amount oil their claims or accord
ing the scaled rates not altogether clear This &C
contained the additional extraordinary provision that the
debt OF Texas should 10 draw interest alter the Isl
july 1904 provision utterly nuga,oy, and probably
intended the creditors into the acceptance oil
lands The whole act, however, was mere PROPOSE
lion to the creditors and far they declined to
cep It's provisions il nulliiy leaving their claims
in as full force they under the aci Of lsis In
September $780, the cesson act passed BY Congress
when the United States assumed the payment OF the rev.
enue debt OF The republic OF Texas From the time that
the State OF Texas accepted the cession act OF Con
gress she ceased have any right 10 interfere with OF
control the claims Of the creditos and all the terms OF
her OF lS4s and 1850 ceased 10 have any validity
The United States stepped in and assumed the debt OF
Texas before the legislature OF Texas contaminated the
scaling process foot by her act OF ls4s and oil
course the creditors bound by her act passed alter
she had ceased 10 be the real creditor
O. The only remaining question is, whether those cred
ios who failed present their claims by the LIST OF Sep
tember, 1851, are "bsred" This question may be dis
posed OF in few words The act OF 1850, declaring the
claims be barred" il not presented within specified
time could only operate upon the remedy OF the cred
iors II intended 10 declare the contracts with
the creditors void, the act grossly unconstitutional
il was probably unconstitutional IL was intended
merely 10 bar the remedy. But this Is an immateria
point as the creditors had remedy by way OF suit
either with or without the act OF l5ts or 1850 The
"baf" created by these acts wholly nugaloy, and
leaves the claims in the plight IN which they would
have been II they had been presented 10 the auditor and
4 comptroller The United States II as much bouna foT
them as for The claims presented and the obligation ex.
tends 10 the whole Of the claims, and not merely
49, hag Lad .las