The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-25

power, not upon equality with you, not as sovereign
State of this Union to be consulted in any arrangements
which you propose 10 make II does more than that IL
proposes to do the very thing for which you blamed Tex
as and scales portion OF The debt lower than Texas
herself has done Where she obtained eighty or ninety
with ten per cent interest The anendmsn nj OF the sena
tor from Indiana would reduce all the creditors 10
less than sixty cents the dollar and would put on an
equality the who went and invested his money IN
Texas, dollar for dollar with him who went into the
market and bought her securities at five and ten cents
the dollar For that amendment cannot vote, and
test against unjust Ii you choose 10 disregard the
rights OF the State of Texas in this matter If you choose
10 violate the obligations of your law. and make
greater scaling than that which you charge Texas with
having made, then for that amendment but il cannot
| receive my sanction.
Sir The charge has been made from the very beginning
that Texas able pay this debt and has refused do
it, Gentlemen who make this charge must ind out
rules OF arithmetic by which ten Millions Of dollars
deem twelve and half millions OF obligations before this
can done particularly when one-haf Of the ten millions
your treasury and you refuse to make any arrange
meDt about it, Bat, say gentlemen, Texas has land
Yes sir she has land and that land has been to her
creditors at fifty cents per acre at all times They can
20 there and take the land at that rate in payment OF
their claims
Sir dislike to consume the time OF the Senate, and
will not tTespass any further than TO say that with
out fault OF mine, have been forced into this debate,
when have not time to do justice to the subject my
| Mr.. BAYARD. Mr.. President. have taken no part
this debate and at this hour of the session perhaps
should not have done but Tor the unnecessary
remarks, my Judgment OF the honorable senator from
Texas in reply what said in my seat. when, with
s proposion 81 Of hs When could not assent IN my
own mind TO proposition which he enunciated, ex-
pressed my dissent, for which have been censured by
hun. shall orbear however, to enter into any discus
of this question: further than say that TO
me-not that amused at the matter at althat the
doctrine OF the senator from Texas most extraordi
nary and novel; which could undertake TO create Obiga
lions te part OF the United States TO the State OF
Texas, before Texas had existence as separate sole-
reignty, arising out of treaty between the United States
nd the uInpn 0T /
the proposition either under the laws OF nations, or,
may be allowed to say, under any principle OF common
sense that | aware of. Nor can understand how
there could be- on principles of good faith, any claim
made BY the State OF Texas against the United States al
ter the period when by her own annexation with ths
government she had determined the principles and Inc
which she asseDted to the annexation IL she
had any claims behind that then was the time to make
them-nol now So much for the remarks OF the honor
able from Texas. called for by any remark
OF mine, but simply educed by this expression OF dssent
my part very low tone with no intention 10 IN
errupt made TO the honorable senator from Connecticut
Mr. ToUcEYl sitting by my side But pass over that,
and come to the real merits OF the proposition before the
Senate
agree with the opinions so eoquenty and so ably
expressed by the honorable senator from Vermont Mr.
PHELPS and shall not attempt to mar them by rePet-
ton. There is point, however, in which do not
agree with him. In my judgment-l not to enter
into argument but rather TO state conclusions OF law
than TO enter into any on which those coRcu-
sons may be supposed 10 be fouhded-l agree that there
obligation arising under the law OF nations, or
the laws OF morals, that can see, by which II was IN
cumbent on the government oil The United States at any
time provide for the debts OF Texas, except to the ex
which is imbodied in what is called the boundary
act. which shall presently notice. Nor do admit that
the boundary act implies creates an obligation on the
part of the United States TO pay any debt OF Texas
admit that the State OF Texas is TO settle her own debt
but look to the provision OF the boundary act as con-
tract between Texas and the United States. which has
stipulation entirely at war with the amendment OF the
honorable senator from Virginia, tMr MAsok,l and
which prevents all possibility OF my voting Tor that
amendment
This is the view which take OF that stipulation
The government of the United States had refused 10 ad-
nit by her agreemen-and say It IS agreement alone
which binds nations their political contracts IN refer
ence TO individuals OF another State with whom they
make a contract-any liability Tor the debts OF Texas
When the United States passed the boundary act, con-
tanning proposals Texas for settling the dispute IN REL
her boundary line, and agreed 10 pay 10 her
certain sum OF money, that money became not, IN the
language OF the honorable senator from Vermont, the
money OF Texas absolutely but II became the money oil
Texas in accordance with the conditions, and on The per-
iomanes Of The conditions sp IN sns aw ~ ,S
United States l-for to that extent they are bound and
no further One condition was, that the United States
were 10 pay 5000 900. They have paid IL further
condition that they should issue s5,ooo00 OF stock
TO the Stale OF Texas, bearing an interest oi hve per
cent and redeepabe in fourteen Years, on the express
condition that certain creditors oil Texas were 10 he re-
leases in the treasury OF the United Sales before that
money TO be paid. What was the object OF that
stipulation the part OF the federal government Al
that time and before IT, the creditors OF Texas from the
period OF annexation had been making claims upon ihe
United States; the United States, not deeming those
claims TO be us meant IN Tue boundary act containing
then proposals 10 Texas TO provide that they should no
longer be annoyed by these claims after they bad PAD
the IS 900 In other words they paid these 5000
900 Texas the condition that those debts should De
settled by Texas for that is the intent and meaning OF Inc
stpuaon that releases should be hled IN 'he ueas
ury OF the United States Has Texas complied with the
terms OF iha, provision
am not going to into discussion OF the ques-
ton of the action OF Texas and to ascertain whether she
has been lust or unjust in the settlement with her credit
ors but 10 say that she cannot call upon us-it
she has called, and not that the Legislature OF
Texas has called upon usto pass the amendment OF the
honorable senator from Virginia But even II she had
called the answer would be, You have right under
your contract TO expose the United States, after paying
out this fund Of $1,000 to the claim of your credit
ors without complying with the terms OF the law oy
which you not receive the money uni the Uni
ted States should be released by your CREDITORS Inc
government OF the United States might wen say 10 tne
government OF Texas, As you have not complied WIN
thai condition. you are entitled to ask for the money
We will comply with contract but we cannot pay
you until YOU comply with the obligations which The
contract imposes upon you which s tnat you snail put
us in such condition that no further claim shall be made
upon u.s. Who does understand perfectly well that
n this proposition of the from Virginia he
piled with and you and pay portion OF the creditors
out of the $1,000 900, and the iund becomes exhaused
other creditors holding pledge OF the revenues Of
Texas made during her state OF separate existence ~
patlon will back the government, and make
continuous claim, until ultimately you will have that
also 10 pay
My objection to the amendment OF the senator from
Virginia specifically this-that have obligation 10
part with one dollar of this money until these releases
shall be filed. That obligation imposes upon the State OF
Texas she asks or no matter who asks the money the