The daily union., 1852-09-07

have anything do with the question presented by this
amendment The sole question for TO consider is
whether the government OF The United States is bound
Mr. BUTLER. lin his seat) Humph
Mr. PRATT. The senator makes light of the propo.
stion know him 10 be good lawyer, and venture
10 say now that he cannot answer The Argument which
so humble an individual as self may make on The sub
lect He may answer il by saying "iumph" daughter j
bat that wall be his only answer 10Y agnment is to
be answered at all, want II answered by Argument AND
not by saying Humph"
MI President, do not propose TO say anything as TO
me honor OF Texas The question here is whether the
Unlled States are liable Tor these debts not II The
United States be answerable for them then II Is The
honor OF the United States, not the honor Of Texas. that
we are TO consider Nov, assume, as legal propo'i
ton which my honorable friend from South Carolina
cannot deny, that whenever any State becomes, by
compact amaigamaed with another, the State into which
the sovereignty merged is liable for all the obligations
OF the government thus united with II.
My constituents are deeply interested in this question
do not intend TO say aught against Texas an speak
stiiuents the debt which believe is due from this
government to them.
Texas was sovereign State; the United States canno,
deny that proposition; il must be conceded by US, al
least, that Texas sovereign State She has yielded
that sovereignty TO the United States WHAT permit me
10 ask, was pledged for the payment OF her debts !
say that the national faith Of Texas her faith nde
pendent nation, pledged She has ceased to exist
nation The United States now possess that former
sovereignty which was originally pledged by Texas for
the payment of these debts Now, ! say that il is a
proposition of national law. running down from the first
elementary works 10 the latest writer the subject
that where that exists, where the sovereignty
State has been merged that of another that the State
into which is merged is liable for all the obligations OF
the other. hold before Rutherords Institutes, who
speaking OF the effect OF tho union, by compact OF two
States into one, says:
"Snce both States thus continue in this united body,
and neither Of them exist the rights and the ob
obligations Of the united body-tha is, whatever rights be,
onged each State separately before they united
will afterwards be the rights OF the collective STATE and
the obligations that each STATE under separately
before. the collective State will be under afterwards"
You will find in all the elementary works this PROPOSE
ton broadly laid down, and il is, ! submit, proposition
right in itself. Texas entitled 10 enter into these OBJ
legations. She nation, existing in the eyes OF the
civilized world as nation, when she entered into these
Mr BAYARD Allow me to ask The honorable sena
ator rom Maryland whether he argues that the entire
nationality of Texas all amalgamaled into the United
Stales Did her entire sovereignty pass 10 the United
Saiesi say tie entire nationality OF the nation anal
gamated with another must be destroyed before the
ton ino which it is amagamaed is liable for the debts
of the other.
Mr. PRATT. The senator says that the entire ma
tonaty must be destroyed. Now, 1 say The entire ma.
tonaty OF Texas was destroyed. do not mean 10 say
that she is not State equal TO any in this Union am
proud TO consider her sister State equal to any
other State IN the Union. But say that Texas has
rendered the entire nationality which pledged The
payment OF these debts.
The proposition Of nv honorable colleague is that the
United States bound for that class OF debts for which
she bad pledged her revenue from mposts, and which
were OF course expressly csded to this Union BY her be-
sition My honorable friend from South Carolina says
there is nothing in it, but he adduced no argument 10
show IT,
Mr. BUTLER had not time TO do So
MT PRATT. Nor could you, il you had time nor
any man lvEg reu,e the proposition, thai so far
The Obligations Of 7tIas secured By her from
mposts h,eh haze been Surrendered 10 hs Ua,on,
government having taken those revenues, took them
Onsre, and are bound for the debts Tor which Texas
pledged them. But go further, and say that in refer
ence TO all the debts OF Texas for which the national
faith pledged. we, having assumed the nationality
which was pledged for their payment assumed The debt
My honorable friend from Delaware has asked me
whether Texas surrendered her naonalityher entire
revenue, and ability TO pay, which, nation, she pos
sessed anlecedenuy TO her annexation to this Union
Well, say that she has ceased to exist nation
Mr. BAYARD. She possesses a>quaSi sovereignty
Mr. PRATT. We have peculiar Institutions. The
sovereignty which she possesses Is qu1si sovereignty
but The sovereignty which she had pledged for The pay
ment OF these debts absolute sovereignty. and
has been surrendered She entered into these debts
nation. As nation she has ceased to exist and she
IS now member OF this Union possessing as my friend
says, q1ai sovereignty but not possessing the sover
eighty which pledged for the payment OF those
debts. II is sufficient however, for the purpose Of this
gument to show what cannot be successfully denied
any one that the class Of debts embraced by the amend
ment secured BY express pledge OF revenues OF
Texas which hdUe been surrendered 10 the United States
In regard therefore, TO the class OF debts affected by the
amendment under consideration, Texas has surren
dered TO the United States the revenues which she
had pledged for their payment; and IN regard TO them
the senators from South Carolina and Delaware must
admit that Texas has ceased TO be soveregn and by
the admission necessarily inferred from their argu-
menl. we the United Sates) answerable for them,
the thing the revenue pledged by Texas for their pay
men,, now belonging to the United States. and she re-
ceving the money arising from IT, This proposition,
therefore, with due submission to the judgment oi Others
say, cannot be successfully denied with reference 10
that class OF debts intended TO be embraced BY this
ment, because, by assuming the means which Texas
pledged for their payment the United States fcih them
necessarily assumed the payment OF the debt for which
those means were pledged.
enter into argument this subject ! agree with
those who think have not time TO consider IT. and
am informed by my honorable friend IRON Indiana Mr.
BRroHTl that il this subject is 10 be considered, he IN
tends to Offer amendment to the amendment, the
bill proposed by my colleague. Now, SIR, Tor the pur-
pose OF testing whether the Senate will consider the
amendment or not, move TO lay the amendment on the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. BADGER in the
chair) The honorable senator perhaps that
that motion carries the bill with Il.
Mr. PRATT Tnen, | withdraw the motion
Mr. WALKER. move that the Senate do now ad.
ourn
The question being then taken upon the motion to ad-
journ upon division 10 voted in The affirmative and 10
in the negative but before the decision was announced
by the Chair,
Mr. BoRLAND called for the yeas and nays, and they
were orderei.
The que- ion being then taken by yeas and nays the
motion to adjourn agreed to-yeas %, nays l5-as
follow
YEAs-Messrs Bright Brooke, Botler, Chase, Clarke.
Clemens Davis, Dawson Dessussure Bamlin- Meriweth
Sprusnce. Stockton, Underwood, Wade, and Walker %
NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bayard, Borland,