Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1853-02-16
DEBT OF TEXAS.

A bill is now pending in the United States
Senate for paying the creditors of Texas our Of
the Federal Treasury MIR. Pearce, of Mary
land is said to have delivered very able argu-
nent in favor of the measure, but we have seen
no report of his speech. Mr.. Hunter of this
State replied to Mr.. Pearce, and his remarks are
published in the Washington Union of the 18th
inst.
Mr. Hunter makes out strong case against
Mr. Pearce's bill After showing that by the
terms of the annexation resolutions, it dis
tinctiy provided that the debts and liabilities of
Texas were 10 no event to become charge upon
the Government of the United States, Mr..
Hunter goes on to say:
The creditors of Texas were thus notified be-
fore the annexation that the United States would
not be bound for its debts, and the public lands
of that State were to be set apart to secure the
payment of those debts by that State in the event
of her accepting the offer of annexation upon the
proposed terms. These conditions accept
ed by Texas in her act OF annexation, and pre-
sumo that by those reciprocal acts of mutual e-
gislation, each OF them passed upon conditions;
the two governments were much bound to each
other as If the obligation had been incurred under
treaty. ] need not argue that point. BY those
acts the State of Texas became bound to apply
her land as security for the payment of the debts
which she owed at the time of the annexation
By that act too, the creditors were warned that
the United States would not be bound for those
debts; and as no complaint against the act OF an-
nexation or its terms was made by them, 1t
might be fair to imply their assent, it it
cessary to establish that position for the sake of
the argument But as it is not, waive that point.
The State of Texas was thus annexed to the
United States. The United States, it is true,
took from Texas its revenue from the customs !;
but is also true that the United States relieved
it from the charge off separate army, separate
navy, and separate diplomatic establishment
In other words the United States relieved it pro-
baby from burden far than equivalent to
any benefit derived by it from revenue from the
customs. Previous to the annexation, Texas had
been in an uncertain condition. Its future pros
poets were uncertain, to say the east-so un-
certain and so gloomy as to retard settlement is
and prevent emigration, and the rapid develop
ment of its resources. The moment the act OF
annexation was consummated the whole state OF
things was changed. The broad egis of the GO
vernmen of the Union was extended over it.
Settlement became safe the country filled up
rapidly; and think that man doubt that
the creditors of Texas, supposing that they
looked only to the State of Texas for the pay mont
of their debts, were placed in better condition
after the annexation than before, when they
looked to Texas, even with its whole revenue. for
the payment oftheir debts. presume that at a
time just previous to the period of annexation. ii
you had put that question to the creditors of Tex
as, there would not have been one dissenting
voice; all of them would have preferred to take
their security after the annexation upon the
terms prescribed in the act of annexation than to
trust to their chances to the State of Texas alone
If there had been annexation.
But, sir, the State of Texas was young 1t was
encountered with the debt of its revolutionary
war Ii had vast resources, but they were un-
developed. Itwas not ready to pay at once. 1t
was in the condition in which our own govern
- ment was described to have been by the senator
from Maryland Immediately after our revolut on.
and her creditors began to cast wstful eye to-
wards the treasury of the United States. We
Logan to hear it said by them that the Uuited
States bound to pay the debts of Texas, be-
cause the United States were in the enjoyment
of the receipts from the customs of Texas. The
u. States have never acknowledged that obligation
40 this day. 1t was not acknowledged in the re-
solutions of annexation. at the time the bound
cry act was passed. That act provided that
100000 should be paid to Texas; and mas
much as that act diminished that fund-to wit,
the public lands-whch had been established by
the act of annexation security to the creditors
of Texas il substituted what was more than an
ample equivalent; it substituted provision that
S5000 900 of the amount granted by the act should
not be paid to the State of Texas until the credi-
TORS or at least all of those for whose debts the
customs were pledged, should file their releases
10 the treasury of the United States. Thus
it will be perceived that the government of
the United States throughout the whole mat
ter, adhered to its orr ginal theory, to wit that
the debt of Texas previous to the annexation
was the affair of Texas, and not of the United
States. 1t is provided in the boundary act, that
$l0.0O0.0 900 should be paid-to whsml Not to
the creditors. No, sir; but to the State of Texas
reserving, however, the right retain IS 600, 900
10 the treasury of the United States until those
creditors who had been secured on the public
lands should file tdeir releases in the treasury of
the United States; that, far from this provi-
sion 10 the boundary act heiug recognition of an
litigation on the part of the United States to pay
the debts of thu State of Texas before the annex
alton. it is adherence to the original idea that
the debts of Texas were the affairs OF Texas and
that the United States would do } more than So
to the creditors whatever to be rs
ceived by the compact with the United States
from its public lands
The evidences of debt held by the creditors of
Texas, consist mainly, we believe, of promissory
notes which were issued by the Texan Govern
ment. during the brief period of its separate and
independent existence. These notes underwent
ruinous depreciation 10 the hands of their ORR
ginal holders and were finally bought up by spec
.ilators at a merely nominal price. Texas now
refuses to pay what appears to be due on the face
of these obligations, but scales them at an enor-
NOUS rate. Hence the creditors come before
Congress and sndeavour to induce that body to
intervene between themselves and their repudis-
sing debtor. We can no Justice Or propriety