The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-24

come 10 The concuson--that general pledge OF all the
revenues OF Texas for the satisfaction OF her debts Is
equivalent TO specific pledge OF her revenues from i'm
ports have taken totally different view Of this sub
ect When Texas pledged her revenues generally, she
reserved 10 herself her discretion TO levy those
in any mode or manner which she ght deem eX-
pedent She under no obligation 10 raise revenue
from imports. She might have adapted the suggestion
OF her neghbor from Arkansas, Mr. BoRLAsD i ADD
sorled to direct taxation, il she pleased She might have
disposed OF her public landsmght have abolished her
lmposts and how could her creditors complain Would
have been In violation OF her contract with her cred
tors Did she bind herself to raise revenue ia this
manner! Not at all When therefore by her accession
TO this Union she restricted herself IN This Particular and
abolished her imposts she did 40 more haa exercise the
discretion reserved al the time OF the pledge.
Then come 10 the case OF specific pledge; and !
use The word pledge in the sense IN which i is used
herein loose, and not technical What is The
character OF that specific pledge! have already de-
scrbed il pledge OF the revenue from mposs, ike
that OF her other subject 10 the prior lien OF
State necessity What 10 be done with that revenue
IL was TO be consumed TO the very last traction, if the
necessities OF the State called for H. before her creditors
could have any claim appropriation for their benefit
The power OF raising from imposts by Texas
has indeed been dried upthe power having been
deTed by her accession the Unionhe thing pledged
longer exists. That being the case IN what be
said that because we exercise similar authority under
different source OF powerhe constitution OF the United
Statesand for totally different purpose we have appro-
priaed to ourselves TIE Identical thing pledged How
can be made OUT even respects this specific pledge
that Texas violated her contract by the application OF
this particular revenue TO the great purposes OF self de
fence and self existence!
Sir not the surrender of the power under the cir
cumsaoces a virtual appropriation TO those purposes SO
essential to her and 10 her cTedltorsl Was the
in perfect accordance with the implied condition of the
pledge, and is il not equally advantageous her credit
10 herself! The technical rules OF law
as applied 10 the ordinary transactions between ndivd-
uals, have no application 10 this lueslionnone al all
There is another consideration Ii these revenues
Were justly and properly applicable TO the purposes which
have mentioned to the exclusion OF Der creditors, this
great State necessity imposes sort OF lien, which has
IA n her we hy
this transfer OF power, for we call II nothing
Why sir. have assumed the duty OF protecting that
State We have nterposed between her and her enc
mics Her security now rests not upon her army and
navy, but in the American Now, sir, if there is
anything like transfer OF power- she has surrendered
the she has pledged her credtois she not
justified! Have we not paid an equivalent And if
were 10 follow out the technical NJ upon the sub
ect, might argue, are we not the prior incumbent
Have we not the prior lien Sir, have been able
10 see anything like justice in The proposition that this
nation, situated II is with respect to the State OF Texas,
has become liable for her debts
What then, is the ground upon which this claim is
based Why sir, we have quotations from writer's upon
the subject OF national law but not OF them had any
reference to confederation Of the character OF the Union
era principles But this is not question OF principle
II is question OF application. Does the principle laid
down by those writers apply No, sir. am willing to
admit that if country be conquered and its
be exiting ushed lis debts transferred TO that
eighty which absobs it. But is there any authority
precedent for the proposition that State entering into
qualities he sovereignty oil nation, at least regulates
or limits lis exercise. II there is anything binding IN the
coniederacy IL has this extent. Bu. does II destroy the
nations identity! Does produce The effect the
conquest OF nation by which the sovereignty is actually
taken Why, sir, Texas is now sovereign and indie.
pendent She has capacity to contract debts She has
power 10 levy revenue. She has all the powers Incl
dent to sovereignty, restricted only in those particulars
wherein the exercise OF those powers Is limited by the
compact OF confederation. She has a right 10 raise
revenue but in consequence OF her coming into this
union she has stipulated not TO exercise the power
particular | am not disposed 10 elaborate this
view of the subject but might comprise the whole
gumeni in this simple positon-that whatever mght be
The effect OF exlDguishing the sovereignty OF nation,
contedeacy has such effect Now, what this Unions
for CERTAIN purposes IL IL consolidated government and
for certain other purposes confedeacy merely In those
particulars IN which the States retain the power
is confederacy aud nothing more How is il with
gard 10 the power OF contracting debts DO not the States
exercise that power Are they not recognised at home
and abroad IN Europe, and the world this
capacty How II 10 be made out them thai the resirlc
lions imposed by the terms OF our coederacy, bearing
as they do in this particular upon her internal financial
policy, 10 be regarded hayng obteaied the power
Of the State OF Texas TO contract debts or her RESPONSE
bty Tor them when contracted This IS the whole
gument IL may be said-and have the idea thrown
in some OF the newspapers-,bat Texas is SOW
ereign IN the custom house. What OF that The mode
and manner OF raising is matter concerning Der
internal policy, and does not affect tue question OF her
sovereignty
have thus given the view which entertain OF this
subject have regarded it'll will not say bug
bearbul have re- arded the SUGGESTION that II Texas
came into the Union should be liable Tor her debts,
argument against the proposed measure Of an
nexa,ion But lnasmuch as the Senate is exhausted,
feel ii 10 be my duty not 10 proraci this debate further
have submitted my views thus concsely, with the hope
that il have done more have at least made them
ellisble
Mr.. SEWARD addressed the Senate at length. ibis
remarks will be published heTeafter.l
TO BE CONTINUED