The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1853-03-23

she may proceed IN the performance OF
that condition. This, if understand
the amendment of the Senator from Vir-
ginia, is the only difference which is
made between the original contract and
the amendment now before us.
What is the objection to this PROPOSE
tion Why it is said by the Senator
from Kentucky, that the result of it will
be to pay portion of the creditors, and
leave the rest unsatisfied. How so2 If
we were to pay the money out of the
Treasury to the creditors, such might be
the result; but the proposition of the
Senator from Virginia is, to pay the State
Of Texas; and that proposition leaves the
controversy in relation to the scaling of
the debt where it was left by the act of
1850, and where, in my Judgment, it
ought to be left now For these reasons
l am prepared to favor the proposition
of the gentlemen from Virginia.
Mr. President, might 90 further.
This subject is new to me. There may
be those present who remember dis
cusson upon the subject some years since
in which | took a part. And feel
compelled to say that have never dis
covered even plausible ground for char
ging the debts of Texas upon the United
States. Sir, do not wish to detain the
Senate at this late hour with minute
discussion upon this subject | will,
however, give briefly my views upon it.
The claim is put upon two grounds.
The first is supposed analogy to a hy-
pothecation at common-law, and the rea.
sonng upon this point is techanical rca-
soning. And the other ground is some
supposed principle of the law of nations,
| by which, from the process of anLexing
Texas TO this country, her accession to
our Union is considered as having the
effect Of throwing the debt upon us in
analogy, perhaps, to the common law in
relation to man and wifc-the woman's 5
existence, in the eye Of the law, being
then at an end, and her debts. of course,
merged in the husband. In my judg-
mcnt tbcre is nothing in either of these
arguments. The case bears no sort Of
analogy to a hypothccation at common
law in any respect There is nothing
which can be the subject Of n pledge in o
techanical sense. There is nothing which
can be held as collateral security for the
enforcement of the debt. The ACCURACY
Of the reasoning upon this subject de
f pends upon the inquiry, What was thi,
undertaking upon the part of Texas ? II
was this, that in making these loans, she
pledged her honor, her integrity, and hei
faith as State, to apply her revenues tC
tho satisfaction of these debts. In ont
sense, it is a pledge; but is it in reality
anything more than mere executory
contract on the part Of the State, by
which she undertook. in future, to make
a faithful application of her revenue
Was any transfer Of this revenue con
e templated? Was there any idea of hel
5 creditors obtaining any control over til,
revenues 2 Could they withhold the rev
. enues from Texas, as means of onfor
G cling the debt No, sir nothing of til,
I kind.
r But Mr. President, there is anothe
r. consideration which, with me, is decis
: i've. This is not an ordinary transaction
f in pawnbroker's shop 1t is matte
ofpolitical and national arrangement; ant
= when Texas pledged her revenues fo
: these purposes, the pledge, if you ma,
r call it such, was subject to the great Law
!. of State necessity. These revenues wer
n not to be withdrawn from Texas, to leav
!. her helpless in the contest with Mexico
&. They were not to be diverted to othc
and different purposes But the yer,
t loans upon which this sort of pledge wa
!. based were contributed in aid cf her 9th
cr resources, to sustain her in her strus
| gle for existence Now, it must be ad
# mtted on all hands, that it was Just
c right, proper, and necessary for Texas
in the first instance, to apply these revc
S nues for the purposes | have mentione'
!. that is to say, to defend herself agains
i Mexico, and to perpetuate her nationa
+. existence. 1t was also just and righ
r and proper that these revenues shou,,
/ be exhausted to the last copper if the in
, terests and necessities OF that Republi
d called for it. Now, what becomes of tn
G idea that the pledge of these revenue
t can be compared with the hypothecatiol
G of an old coat in pawnbroker's shop, t,
!. an ordinary business transaction between
- men, when it looks to great nationa
. purposes, and when that transaction wa
y entered into with view to perpetual
+ the existence of that Republic
!. Let us look little further 1t
h said that we have taken the thing pledg
/ ed. What have We takcn2 We hav
not taken a cent of the revenues of Tex
@ as} What have we taken, then TIL
= power to raise those revenues No, siI
Z Texas has by her accession TO the Uniol
@ restricted herself from raising her revC
n nue. in a particular mode, and that is all
: We raise a revenue from the people o
9 Texas, not by virtue of her sovcregnt,
n transferred to US, but by virtue of tn
n power conferred in the Constitution o
o the United States, to which she is par
Q ty. This revenue which we raise is botl
5 in its origin and in its purposes total,
9 different from that which that Republ'
r raised in the contest for her separate ex
q istcnce, The one was levied by Texa
d for the sole use of that Republic, and L
: provide for every purpose of State nc
:. cessity; the other is levied for the ben
eft of the United States, and for certain
!. special purposes confded to the Genera
!. Government by the Constitution. Thi
s being the case, the revenues which VI
]. derive from imports, from the people o
!. Texas, are neither identical with reyc
f nues surrendered by her on acceding Il
the Union, nor substitute for them. Ii
-