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

could her creditors complain Would
it have been in violation of her contract
with her creditors. Did she bind her
self to raise revenue in this manner
Not at all. When therefore by her ac
cession to this Union she restricted her
self in this particular, and abolished her
imposts, she did no more than exercise
the discretion reserved at the time of
the pledge.
Then we come to the case of specific
pledge-and 1 use the word pledge in
the sense in which it is used herein
a loose. and not technical sense. What
is the character of that specific pledge
| have already described 1t as a pledge
Of the revenue from imposts, like that of
her other revenues subject to the prior
lien of State necessity. What was to
be done with that revenue 1t was to
be consumed to the very last fraction if
the necessity of the State called for it
before her creditors could have any
claim to an appropriation for their bene-
fit The power of raising a revenue
from imposts by Texas has indeed been
dried up, the power having been surren-
dered by her accession to the Union,
the thing pledged no longer exists.
That being the case, in what sense can
it be said that because we exercise SIM
liar authority under different source
of power-the Constitution of the Uni
ted States-and for totally different
purpose, we have appropriated TO our
selves the identical thing pledged How
can it be made out even as respects this
specific pledge that Texas violated her
contract by the application of this par
ticular revenue to the great purposes of
selfdefence and selfexistence Sir, is
not the surrender Of the power under
the circumstances virtual appropria-
tion to those purposes so essential to her
and to her creditors Was not the act
in perfect accordance with the implied
condition of the pledge, and is it equally
advantageous to her creditors as to her
self The technical rules Of common
law, as applied to the ordinary transac-
tions between individuals, have no appli
cation to this question-none at all.
There is another consideration L
these revenues were justly and properly
applicable to the purposes which l have
mentioned to the exclusion of her credi
tors, this great State necessity impose!
a sort of lien which has precedence tC
the claim of her creditors. How came
we by this transfer of power, for we cal
call it nothing more Why, sir, We
have assumed the duty of protecting thai
State. We have interposed between
her and her enemies. Her security
now rests not upon her army and navy
but in the American name. Now, sir
if there is anything like a transfer o
power, if she has suri endered the reve
nue. she has pledged to her creditors, il
, she not justified ? Have we not pait
an equivalent And if | were to follow
: out the technical reasoning upon tho
subject, might argue, are we not tn
/ prior incumbent have we not the prio
lien ? Sir, | have never been able to SCI
anything like justice in the proposition
that this nation. situated as it is to tn
State of Texas, has become liable fo
her debts
What, then, is the ground upon whicl
this claim is based ? Why, sir, W
have quotations from writers upon tn
subject Of national law but not one o
them had any reference to confedera
5 tion of the character of the union o
these States. We may extract iron
these writers general principles. But
this is not a question of principle it i
=, question of application. Does The
!, principle laid down by those writers ap
ply ? No, sir. l am willing to admi
that if country be conquered, and it
sovereignty be extinguished, its debt
| are transferred to that sovereign whic
t absorbs it But is there any authorit,
or precedent for the proposition, that
State entering into a confedoracy produ
c ces this result A confederacy alway
qualities the sovereignty of a nation, o
at least, regulates or limits its exercise
If there is anything binding in the con
federacy, it has this extent But doe
it destroy the nations identity Does i
! produce the same effect as the conques
Of nation by which the sovereignty j
actually takcnl Why, sir, Texas is nov
sovereign and independent, She has
S capacity to contract debts. She has al
= the powers incident to sovereignty
restricted only in those particular
wherein the exercise of those powers i
limited by the compact of confederation
: She has q right TO raise revenue bu
in consequence of her coming into thi
= Union, she has stipulated not to exer
, else the power in a particular manner
| am not disposed to elaborate this vieV
of the subject but l might compris
the whole argument in this simple posi-
tion that whatever might be the effee
of extinguishing the sovereignty of ma
tion, confederacy has no such efiect
Now, what is this Union ? For certai
purposes a consolidated government, AM
for certain other purposes a confederac
merely. In those particulars in whicl
the States retain the sovereign power i
: is confederacy and nothing more
= How is it with regard to the power o
contracting debts? Do not the State
exercise that power Are they not rec
ognized at home and abroad, in Europe
and the world over, as having this capaC
ity ? How is it to be made out, ther
that the restrictions imposed by th'
terms of our Confederacy, bearing a
they do in this particular upon her in
ternal financial policy, are to be regard
ed as having oblterated the power o
: the State of Texas to contract debts, o
her responsibility for them when con
tracted2 This is the whole argument