The daily union., 1852-03-13
ros IN. Union.
m. Dob, Or TN. nsp.sns ofr..-..

/ | have noticed In a late number OF the New Orleans
Picayuns an article touching the final action of the Texas
in which the editor OF that journal the
position that the dna decree OF Texas as 10 the amount
and character of the Texas debts binding upon the United
States government, and no power can 60 behind such
law OF that State" This doctrine has other sdvo
in certain newspapers of the Union; and although
know that the Pcayune has, all occasions. urged
upon Texas the adoption of policy different from that
recently assumed by law, yet no little asonlshed that
That able journal should claim for her this arbitrary and
unconstitutional power The Picayune distinctly AYERS
that ''the general government, If bound for the debt is
bound only for the amount certified TO be us deb by the
State" II this be the legal and constitutional construc
ton OF the law Of the 9th September $780, which the
federal government requires certain holders OF the debt TO
release her, condition precedent TO her paying Ierss
giUen Of money the State has the right TO certify
that there is debt that she nothing and the
United States would be bound by it, The release from
the creditors required by the law wosd be full and
pee in the law of the State declaring that there
debt, and this sovereign declaration of sovereign State
to another power equally sovereign would exonerate
both from all responsibility for the debt in question
But the editor of the Picayune and those who think
with him, to forget that by the law OF 9th Sepem
Der, 1850, the creditors Of Texas have the rghtnay.
have been requed-to present their claims at the treasury
in Washington, and that in doing, they have notified
the federal OF the amount and character OF
to the passage Of the late law enacted by the Texas
legislature had received officially from the authorities
of the State all the laws OF the late republic creating and
authorizing the various classes OF the debt, well
the amount and character of il. These laws. passed
from 1886 to 1s4O orm," in the language OF the Secre
ay he basis Of the contract between the present hold
and the State and from them II is ascertaned that
the amount OF the debt is much larger than that "certi
fed" by the recent law of Texas. Now, in adjusting
this discrepancy, by which law Congress to be govern
ed?by that creating the debt that reducing denying
it! This question is scarcely debatabe for the cons
tuition of the republic of Texas the constitution OF the
State Of Texas, and the constitution Of the United States
all organic aws take from the State OF Texas the
power Of passing any law imparng the obligation Of a
contracts and as the United States is the power with
whom Texas must settle this question: the former must
either trample her constitution in the dust, appeal
to the proper tribunal to have the recent law OF the
latter pronounced mere nudity.
The cardinal Of the Picayune, and others who
reason like the editor Of that Journal lies in the un9ua
fed assumption that, Texas sovereign State her acts,
although subvesve OF her constitution, cannot be
questioned aside by any judicial proceeding This
doctrine is admissible and true between her and p
citizen, but unlenabe where the federal government
another State is the party tgan The constitution Of
the United States points out the method of adjusting diff
eultes of this character. The question under discussion
involves case in point The republic of Texas by va
Of such Indebtedness in bonds and treasury When
she ceased to exist political body and was merged
into the present State the latter bound herself TO the Uni
ted States the treaty of annexation 10 pay the debt OF
the former out of the proceeds OF the public lands The
State Also her constitution, secured to the holders OF
the obligations OF the late republic call the rights which
they had against her during her political existence. In
other words, the State of Texas, when erected into
member OF the Union, declared in her organic law that
the debt OF the republic should be determined by the
laws creating it. In her recent compact with the federal
government, she agreed that five millions OF dollars
should be retained until certain holders OF this debt
should release the United States /" OF all liability for
or Of the same p and, in furnishing the Secre
tay OF the Treasury with authenticated copies Of the laws
of the republic creating the debt, in relation 10 it,
law furnished which had been passed by the republic
whilst independent power showing that she had any
way changed modified her obligations 10 her creditors
On the contrary all the laws of the republic only rec
ognse the debt in its completeness and entirety but also
contain pledges and promises which evince the honora
BILE INTENT her part of fulfilling her to the let
ter Thus bound with pledges TO the federal government
that she would execute the trust committed her. and
pay the debt OF her predecessor which was determined
ichen made the State OF Texas will have her rem
edy before the Supreme Court il the United States should
do her injury in distributing the FIVE millions now
the treasury among the credtors but that she has no
right to alter change the original contract has, it is
hoped, been fully established.
Having thus briefly noticed the Texas debt and its his.
tory. proceed TO the law recently passed by Texas,
scaling the debt. will be borne in mind that the debt
of Texas for which the FIVE millions are withheld BY the
United States debt Of the republic Of 7e1as and not
Of the State and that the State is merely trustee for its
payment The holders Of ali claims, within the terms of
" the boundary law" have evidence OF Indebtedness
against the State but trustee and the question natu
rally arises to whether the State, acting fduciary
capacity both for the creditors and the United States gov
ernmen pass law reducing denying the debt Of
the original obgor, the republic Tas poper she has
usurped and the usurpaon and exercise OF receive
from writers their approval and sanction. That
she has constitutional right to enact such law is
manifest from her organic law and the constitution
OF the United States. As well might tell the
creditors OF the esato that he claimed the power OF
ducng their legal demands, and that he would pay them
only one-haf of the amount Of them.
But il is urged ha, Texas is sovereign State, and as
such her decree is na and cannot be overued by any
other power II the claims OF the creditors against
the State OF Texas alone they might be without remedy
for want of judicial power TO enforce their rights for
then they would be literally powerless and from her de-
csion, whether she should pay them anything or nothing
there would be no appeal The federal government,
however, has assumed the payment OF that portion OF the
debt OF the late republic for which the customs were
pledged and when the assumption OF il was made the
sum total, principal and interest estimated by Mr.
Pearce at -four millions FIVE hundred thousand dollars
The five millions, withheld by Congress- as a security
that Texas would pay the claims within the terms OF the
propiso were, therefore, considered ample ndem-