The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-04-13

failed.
III consider that the plan OF The committee is recon-
mended by justice.
Justice is the basis of moral obligation. Whether
there is moral obligation between the United States and
these creditors question concluded by the act oil an
alton of lS45, and the compromise act OF 1880 on
what ground other than such Obligation did the Uni
led States. in ls4o leave 10 Texas peculiar national
fund.- and bind her TO il TO pay her creditors gener.
ally, and spulae with her for the indemnity oil the Un
ted States against those debs On what other ground
did the United States, in 1850 in their treas
ury five millions OF the to be paid TO Texas, until
her creditors should file their releases in the federal treas
ury II clear, then, that is just and the United
States bound TO The creditors by moral obligation 10
their debts extnguished. al least far the sum OF
five millions would go. Under Just such circumstances,
court Of equity would bill OF nterpeader direct the
United States to pay that fund TO those creditors.
Bat the moral obligation under which the United
States assamed 10 indemnify The creditors for five mil
lions equally holds for their indemnify n.y. TO the whole
under moral obligation 10 pay that sum, then the
stipulation TO pay five millions was wanton waste OF
that sum, without adequate considerations position
which no one here will assume.
Such the grounds which The plan OF the commit
lee is defended. ! proceed to consider the objections
raised against it, The honorable senator from Virginia
Mr.. HUNTER says that under obligations to
pay these creditors because, in the act OF annexation,
Texas agreed that should not be liable, and that she
would pay them and that the creditors had notice of that
annexation on those terms and did not protest, and
therefore impedy consented. But the honorable senator
was understood 10 waive this point Of implied consent
by the creditors.
lake the objection, however, In whatever form, and
say in reply:
l. That all the world knows that protest by the cred.
tors against the of annexation would have been
more impe tnent than unavalllng
g. That may well be supposed that the creditors con-
cerned may, in ls45, have foreseen that although the
United States then refused, yet in 1850 they would
sumo the debts OF Texas 10 the amount supposed TO be
secured by the revenues OF Texas diverted into the fed
era treasury.
The senator from Virginia Objects secondly, that the
sovereignty Of Texas was not by the ac OF annexation
merged in the United States but that the contrary,
she still remains sovereign State, and in the enjoyment
of adequate and ample resources, viz her public domain
and capacity Tor direct taxation 10 pay the creditors.
reply. first, that while The public domain OF Texas,
like own, and her capacity Tor direct taxation, like
our own are valuable resources Tor credit and to scme
practically unavaing for the payment OF large funded
debt The resources OF Texas for that purpose were her
customs, which have diverted, and annexation, in
stead OF increasing, has impaired the practical ability OF
Texas 10 pay her debts.
q This objection is foreclosed by the compromise Of
1850
The senator from Virginia objects, thirdly, that the
plan proposed is departure from the theory of annexs
lion, which theory that Texas should pay her
debt And the senator insists that the compromise OF
1850 adhered TO ha, supposed theory OF the of
alton because it directed the $5OoOOo0 to be paid not TO
the creditors, but TO Texas herself
| reply, that the imagined adherence in the compro
mise of 1850 to the theory OF annexation is an adherence
ia form only and not in tact. because the $4,000 900
10 be paid to Texas When she procures releases IRON her
creditors, and paid il they will give the
releases So the stipulation is exactly The Thing
would have been stipulation for paying the $50oo,ooo
or much should be due directly to the creditors
The departure from the supposed theory then, made
in 1850, and is no. TO be made in 1858 We must keep
on in the OF 1850 till reach the goal
The honorable objects further that this plan OF
the committee TO pay IS 1888 1893 at three per cent, being
less than the usual rate OF interest on public Stocks
scaling of the debts, that creditors will not ge, dol
lar for dollar, and is therefore objectionable on the same
ground that Texas is complained OF. Grant this 10 be
true still reply that scale less deeply than Texas
Secondly, that we medaing between the proper par
ties and thirdly, who complain Not Texas, for
we take nothing from her, and do not divert any fund in
which she has claim. Not the creditors, for they
sent.
The senator further objects that Texas will neverthe
less back for the IS 100000 and will be entitled
it, reply that Texas has already declared By act of
January 81, 1882 that $685. 1850 25 OF this S5
200 Justly due TO these creditors, and shall be paid
to them. AT the very worst, Texas will not come back
for that Will Texas come back for the remaining
81 ,644639 76' She must produce releases from the
creditors ior IT. They will have already released upon
just consideration paid, not by Texas, but by the Uni
ted States aud after Texas had had ample time to obtain
releases. and had failed, because she exaced what the
creditors were neither legally nor equilably bound TO
yield.
The senator from Virginia objects further that the
S. 1888 $685. al three per will cost the treasury
than hve millions at five per cent II will cost exactly
80 1893 But that is good objection, IT. hIst,
is necessary TO paw that sum 10 discharge these debts
and it, secondly IT is jus-bo,h Of which points have
been demonstrated.
The senator at las, falls back on bis original ground
thai the United States not liable for the debt OF Tex
as according to the law OF nature or OF nations II is
quite too late 10 raise the question after the act OF
alton OF lsi5, and the compromise OF 1850.
Nevertheless, will briefly consider the senator's arxu-
meHt.
The United States derived advantages from the annex
alton OF Texas, and creditors had aided Texas 10 rise TO
the condition in which her union thus advantageous
They did not give her dowy but they enabled her to
assume he, own The union OF Texas with the United
States, and division OF her revenues were division of
her sovereignty rendering her less fully and exclusively
approachabe by creditors Was there not in these cr
cumslances sufficient consideration 10 sustain the
mens between Texas and the United States for the 5ene
fit OF the creditors 7
Bynkershock teaches us 50, %. 1917
Again: Texas by annexation became subject 10 the
debts OF the United States How is il, then, that the
United States could acquire Texas without coming under
some moral obligation 10 guaranty The debts OF Texas
1t remains only TO notice the argument OF the honor
able senator from Texas, [Mr. HoUsros, which seems
result in this that Texas bad ght TO ascertain and
FIX the amount of her Liabilities, and she has fixed IL at
s., 1856 800 IS, and the United States and the creditors
are concluded by that decision
reply, that was not the agreement IN the compromise
II was that the creditors should release their claims II
they will release for the 80 1856 800 IS 1t is enough
But they have released for that sum, and they will
not
Then the senator insists iha, Texas Just and they un.
reasonable do not think so. The principle assumed
by Texas is that she her creditors not what she
agreed pay but the value OF what abe received from
them 1t needs only that this proposition should be stated
TO its rejection. II can be put in the
of Texas in regard TO these debts than in any other
OF public and private indebtedness.
The argument, however, is attempted TO be sustained
by precedents reply, II sound. 1t needs no aid from
pecedents II unsound, then precedens can make ii
sound.
There is only one ground on which a government can
Justly scale its debtshat is the ground OF absolute ina
bty or ankup,cy-and then there must be devotion OF
Toxu he ifcd ran