The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1853-03-23
Remarks of Hon. s. S. Phelps, On the Tex
an Debt, in the q. S. Senate,
March /, 1853.

lol tHc DOuuuui law vi lOOp, Nulcll lS
the subject of our discussion, but 1 cxcr-
ted myself to the utmost of my ability
to procure its passage. 1 must say how
ever, that neither upon that occasion nor
on this, have | had the least conception
that in the enactment of that law we
were committing ourselves to these debts
of Texas.
The position of things at that time
will be well understood by gentlemen
who were then members of this body.
The bill introduced by the honorable
Senator from Maryland was the inita-
tory measure, the opening wedge to a Sc
ries of measures then contemplated to
settle very troublesome and very
complicated controversy. The question
with respect to the boundary Of Texas,
was settled by proposing to give to her
sum ef money to relinquish her claim to
certain territory. But at tie same time
claim had been advanced upon this
floor against the United States by GER
tain creditors of Texas, upon the suppo-
sition that by the annexation Of that
Republic to this, the United States be-
came responsible for her debts.
This claim beng then in question, it
was deemed cxpcdient, if that series of
measure should be passed, to put an end
to the whole controversy, and to cxtin-
guish this claim among others ln that
view of the case, after having provided,
in the first section Of the bill, for the pay
ment Of 81 100000 to Texas a subse-
quent proviso was introduced into the
bill by which S5,000,000 of the Sl0000,-
900, which was the money of Texas and
not ours, according to the stipulation
was to be retained in our Treasury until
the claim upon the United States was
released. My understanding at the time
and it will be recollected that had
some little participation in the measures
was not that the claim of these cred-
tors was recognized as a valid claim a
gainst the United States but the pur
pose of this proviso was, as | have men
toned, to place the subject upon that
footing that we should hear no more of
it. And such is my understanding of
the bill as it was finally passed We
provided by the bill for the payment of
Sl0,000,000 to Texas, in consideration Of
Texas rclinquishing her claim to certain
territory. We then provided, not that
the United States should be responsible
for these debts, not that the United
States should charge themselves with
their payment but that such measures
should be taken on the part of Texas as
would induce our creditors to file re-
lease of their claim against the United
States. This is my understanding of the
law as il stands.
Now let me ask what there is in the
provision of that-act which recognizes
the liability contended for Is there
anything more obvious than that the pro
position to Texas was simply this; We
will pay you 100000 but you must
take care that we hear no more of your
creditors That was my understanding
of the bill and it is certainly, according
to my reading, the true Interpretation Of
the act now.
This claim originated in very differ
ont controversy. The idea that the L
nitcd States would become liable foi
these debts, provided the measure of an
nexaton took place, was thrown out OF
this side Of the Chamber as Il make
weight against annexation. 1t origina
ted with some distinguished men in thi
body. it was seized upon, [ will moi
say by all of us on this side of the Cham
bcr-for | never used tit was used n
an argument by many of my politica
friends for what it was worth agains
the measure of annexation, which W,
were then resisting
Now, sir, in the present stage of thi
cont oversy debate has arisen with re
spect to what has been termed the sea
ling Of this debt and it has been argu
ed that Texas has done injustice to he
creditors. Whether she has or has moi
done so, is not my business to inquire
for regard it matter between her anC
her creditors, with which, in my humbl,
judgment, we have no concern. BY what
authority, upon what ground, do we take
it upon ourselves to settle this contro
yersy between other parties We ar,
not made the guardians Of Texas ",
were not authorized, not to call upon, BY
the act of 1850 to satisfy this debt bu
we merely stipulated for our own securi
ty, that Texas herself should make sucl
provision as would relieve US from al
embarrassment upon the subject. Then
upon what principles can we 60 into thu
inquiry how much is justly aud cquitably
due between Texas and her creditors
Why, sir, it has been said that we ar,
trustees of this fund. That is by nc
means the case. We do not hold thi.
money for the creditors of Texas We
hold it back as sort of pledge to redeem
ourselves from the claim But wher
the money is paid it must be paid tC
Texas; and whenever she performs the
condition, there is an obligation on thi:
Government to pay her. How can W,
interpose between that State and hel
creditors, when upon the very face of the
transaction the money is to be regarded
as hers, to be paid to her upon a condi
tion which she in the outset is to per
form ? This does not partake of the
character Of trust There is no stipu
lation in the boundary act which init
mates that it is our duty to scale thii
debt, and to determine how much is just
ly due. So far, therefore, as the argu
mont is concerned that it is the duty oi
this. Government to interfere and settle
this matter, have only to say, that thii
is a matter between Texas and her cred
itors which concerns her honor, with re
spect to which We are neither implca
! ted NOR have anv authority IN intervene