The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-02-16

u upUH buFPUsIlOH
bly, apply the money which she was TO receive under that
boundary act. in a satisfactory to her cred
tors, and that il she did not satisfy her creditors this gov
ernment would be liable TO perpetual demands by those
creditors Tor the payment OF their claims.
In The remarks with which introduced the boundary
act presented similar views, acknowledging al the same
time the reluctance with which had come 10 such con-
cusons. justified the large sum which that bill pro
posed 10 give to Texas by the consideration that we
mad absorbed that oil revenue to whose 1uure pro-
ductyeness heI creditors had looked Tor relief and pay
ment,
held that it not "a sufficient answer TO say that
without annexation Texas would have had no security
and therefore increase OF commences Tor we know
that her Independence would have been acknowledged
by Mexico on the condition OF eternal separation IRON
the United States and that il this scheme guaranteed by
England and France had gone into operation she would
soon have gathered strength and grown IN prosperity
did not propose did. TO reserve to the United
States the right of distributing the money among The cred
itors of Texas, partly because was unwilling 10 seem
cast any reproach upon the Sate and IN part because
supposed that she could herself better settle with her
creditors. But as the money voted to Texas was gwen
with the view OF enabling her TO discharge those ooga
lions which seemed TO be also charge upon lhe United
Staes endeavoed to guard the treasury OF the Union
gainst the contingencies which night How from the
measure by the provso which reserves five of the
millions until the revenue creditors have filed at the treas
ury releases OF their claims.
Then, sir hold that Congress, both by the terms ol
the resolutions of xaton and by the boundary act OF
1850, has recognised that the United States were under
some sort of liability for that portion OF the deols OF
Texas for which her revenues from customs were
plecged. The general argument as TO ths liability IS
stated with spicen dlstinclness in the remarks which
have read from Mr. Cays speech The United States,
having taken that fund which was pledged by the late
republic of Texas for the payment OF certain portion OF
her debt must take It with the obligation Of satisfying
that debt That is The general proposition,
This doctrine Is. not II is not unknown to the
pubclsts the contrary, il has been well recognised
find IN book OF authority on International law ref
eTence to the weknown case OF the province OF Sllesia
Wiliman, In his work Oh national law. says:
Bu. in that the eonqueror acquires rights but
a
ject to all absolute or qualified alienarons previously
made. Thus The King Of Prussia, when he acquired 81
esia by conquest and cesson bound himself by treaty
pay the debts for which that province had been morgaged
to BRUSH merchants But without such express spnia
ton, Slesa would sti have remained subject the
gage for he could conquer no rights but such
vested Ia his enemy"
This mortgage of the revenues OF Sesla made
by Charles vi, Emperor OF Germany, the year 1884.
think. lis conquest by Frederick consumnaled in
The time of his daughter, Maria Theresa and the cession
was made by the preliminary treaty OF Bfesau, in l742
the seventh article OF which treaty provided that the
King OF Prussia should pay those debts for the
OF which the province OF Se la was morigaged to Ger
tain English merchants.
One would suppose that that tanaogy tolerably per-
feet But may De told that there a very great df
ference that the mortgage of the of Siesia
Included all the revenues Of Sesla that it equiva
lent TO surrender of the whole taxing power, and thai
Texas has Ro by her union with the United States given
up the whole OF her taxing power But lei look al ii
little further. When Slesla was ceded 10 Prussia the
contracting party that had engaged 10 pay this debt was
the head OF great subsisng empire, shon, indeed. OF
very small part OF her immense posse ssons but still with
vast extent OF territory, and with ample
While Sesia could no longer be taxed by the Empress
Queen, all the rest oil the vast possessions over which
her sovereignty remained intact could be taxed.
II was NOT Therefore, anylhag but the transfer OF the
thing pledged which made The King OF Prussia liable. The
ability 10 pay remained in the original contracting party,
almost II not quite undimnished for, in comparison 10
the OF such empire that OF Mara Theresa
the OF Sesa must have been nconsdeTable and
scarcely worth mentioning But not 80 with Texas. la
sufrenderng up her revenues from Imports she suren-
deed tina, which was the principal source OF her reve-
nue she gave up more than four flhs OF all her annual
income.
lind, by reference 10 tabular statement which have
examined that IN the year 1874 the OF Texas
from imports amounted Sl77 00o and that her revenue
from all other sources was less than $4,000. Besides
We know that IN modern times the principal source OF
revenue to all nations, certainly TO all maritime nations
is revenue from duties on Imports Why. sir, II was the
surrender OF the duties IRON customs by the States OF this
Union, upon The formation OF our federal constitution
which was one OF the principal grounds Tor the assump
o the debts of the State governments by the govern
ment OF The Union
Ia the case of Silesa, to which have referred the
liability OF the imperial head OF the Germanic empire
maincd and the ability OF the Empress 10 pay the deb
which had been contracted 10 these British merchants
remained but The thing pledged having been assigned
to the King oil Prussia, that monarch took with the
burdens upon H. and therefore bound himself 10 pay and
after some very curious controversies did finally satisfy
the claims OF the British merchants.
The same principle may be found ia Bynkershoeks
/ Treatise on the Law OF War AT page l9l he says
Conquered countries, like lands purchased, pass
oneTe lie illustrates II by reference 10 certain territory
OF the King OF SPAN conquered by the States General
aud which before that conquest had been bypothecaed
by that monarch He says that If the States, instead oil
conquerng had purchased il from the King the creditor
would sliil have been entitled TO his pledge as he was
upon its transfer by conquest.
Alter the passage OF the boundary act OF 1850 the
Secretary OF the Treasury and the President OF the United
States found that was their duty to consider wha
classes OF the debts OF Texas within the provisions
OF that act, and the Secretary made report upon the
subject IN which the President concurred.
had oh nj ha htvtIa nd tntn etX
There the debt contracted under the Texan act OF
1897, called, believe the ten per cent consolidated
million loan, all OF which not issued created under the
authority OF various laws of Texas There was another
class OF debt created under one of the OF February
5, ls4o, called the eight and ten per cent funded debt
and another debt created under another act o
February 5, lsia, called the eight per cent treasury
bonds, Then there treasury notes of three dill
ferent classes, and finally another item OF public debt
which consisted principally of drafts audited and un-
audited, which were N fact, drawn upon the treasury
OF Texas for the current expenses and supplies OF the
government, and sometimes properly called the domestic
debt OF these six classes two did not appear to the
President and The Secretary OF the Treasury 10 come
within the principle assumed by the bill. The eight
and ten per cent funded debt OF February 5, 1910
called in the report of the Secretary OF the Treas
ury "class c." one OF those which did not come
within the principle assumed by the boundary act, be-
cause, by the act which created that debt there was
pledge given OF revenue from imports either for the
payment OF principal interest. any provision making
this debt receivable for public dues Class consisting
OF audited and unaudiled paper called "domesic debt