The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-26
In CONGRESS OF THE U. STATES.


Il. l 49,
time Of the Senate. but desire 10 express one or TWO
views which il seems 10 me have moi been advanced oy
the gentlemen who have preceded me. desire he az
fention OF the honorable senator from oouh oaoha o
the purpose of saying that he starts, as seems 10 me-
not al the proper point in this argument MS deol was
contracted. not by The sovereign Stale OF ieSas as nlS
argument presuposes but II was contracted by me re-
public nation OF Texas entirely independent oil lhe
United States and with which at the time we had no con-
Now. state here, in The presence OF The repre-
sentaves of the present sovereign State OF Texas that
while she remained the republic OF Texas, TO the very last
OF her public in reference 10 her debt she said BY her
legislation, and by her executive communications thai
every cent OF This debt should be paid.
Thus therefore, The creditors OF the republic Of Texas
stood anterior TO the annexation OF that republic 10 the
United States There was legislature IN ls4l since
which period part OF the debt was contracted decarag
the whole debt TO be obligatory upon the republic There
executive message as late as o43 expressly pro-
claiming TO the creditors OF the republic OF Texas, both
foreign and domestic that Texas intended to pay every
cent OF her debt; that those who had falsely alleged that
she did not design TO pay every part OF were insulting
the dignity and calumnlaiing the iair lame ol lexas
What then was the position OF the creditors lhey We're
not specuators they the recognised creditors
OF Texas conceded by the legislative action OF that re-
public after the contraction OF the whole debt 70 be is
honest creditors and in regard 10 whom the republic mad
proclaimed to the world the fixed determination 10 pay
every cent of its Indebtedness That then their po
siton. But now, Mr. President II can get the aiten
ton OF the Senate desire TO press view OF this sub
iec which has not been htheIto presented TO your
sideraon and will not 60 the ground occupied by
those who have already addressed the Senate.
intend now 10 say, upon the articles OF annexation of
Texas 10 The United States, and | ask the attention of
those senator's who have expressed The idea that they
cannot conceive of the existence of this obligation,
the remarks which intend TO make. What were those
articles Of annexation The senator IRON Virginia, who
spoke the other day upon this subject said truly that
the United States and Texas. What is then this siipu-
lation : Why, this republic of Texas and the United
States spulae, that after annexaon-he object Of the
treatyhad been effected, The State of Texas shall re-
tain all the unappropated lands of the republic of Tex
as"-for what purpose " To pay all her debts" Now,
have shown you that her debts anterior TO that period,
and during the whole period OF her national existence,
fully recognised by her When, therefore, those
articles OF annexation were entered INTO, when this
treaty stipulation was made that the Safe OF Texas was
to retain all these Incorporated lands and pay all the
stipulation for The creditors of Texas, whose debts had
been recognised TO the full extent of their apparent obga
ton and it is stipulation that all the debts of Texas
should be paid from the proceeds of these lands What
further DO these articles OF annexation say THAT the
rest and residue of those lands, after paying the debts OF
the republic Texas should be subject to the disposal of
the State OF Texas" Hee therefore, say that this treaty
stipulation clearly appropriates all the public lands pr.
maly to the payment OF all the debts OF the republic of
Texas and that only the and residue OF the lands
left to the control disposal OF the State OF Texas
There can be no mistake about this, because it is plain
and positive language, about which human mind can
dispute Then, Mr. President, will assume that have
established the position that the republic OF Texas
admitted as one o the States o The Union upon stip
ulaon that all the unappropated lands TO be ap.
ped primarily 10 The payment of the debts then recog
nlsed 10 exist 10 Their fullest extent, ard that the State
OF Texas should have the conlro only of the residue OF
The lands after all those debts were paid
NOW, allow me 10 bring TO the notice of the Senate, in
connexioH with this Argument the boundary act OF 1885,
Permit me TO ray, s that voted for that act; that
voted Tor amongst other reasons, because believed by
all The questions IN reference 10 the debts OF Texas
would be settled and adjusted and will vote for
no measure which does not finally and completely settle
the clam claim against the United States Allow TO
bring that act 10 the view ofhe Senate, in connexion with
The .ial
then will ask eny 10 contradict by any legal propo.
suon or argument, the train OF argument which pursue
The boundary act bought OF Texas lea millions OF dol
lars worth oi the very land which, under the articles OF
annexation, were pledged primarily TO the payment Of
the debts and which, under that treaty stipulation, Texas
had no right TO sell We bought, we paid, to pay,
ten millions OF dollars Tor public lands ceded 10 by
the State Of Texas which the republic OF Texas had
iecedeny pledged to these creditors for the paymen, OF
Their debs and which debts by express treaty
obligation TO be paid by the STATE OF Texas before she
was empowered 10 sell ALLEVIATE one acre OF the land
purchased and ceded 10 u.s. II this proposition in
court OF law there Is no Judge OF the United States
courts who would hear argument in support of so
plain proposition My learned friends may talk about
ihe plain Argument OF The senator from Vermont; they
may taIR oil the sophsTy and weakness OF the argument
o. senators who take bts side OF the question but there
sno Judge IN the United States who would permit prop
oston OF that kind TO be supported by argument We
have stipulated by treaty binding upon us as they ad
os Of hs reSoS, 'na ~ 80 70 oe Symen, OF the cred
that the State OF Texas should have no control except
the residue OF the lands. We hay, subseouent 10
that stipulation, without the consent Of the creditors
bought OF the State OF Texas ten millions OF dollars
worth OF that land.
Now to that liable TO the extent OF our pur-
chase TO The extent OF ten millions of property pledged
by our own treaty 10 The payment OF the creditors. -
legal proposition which would not be argued by any OF
my learned friends IN court of justice They may ar
que here but they would not dare before the Supreme
Court or any court which they respected to argue such
aquesuon II any one doubts this let them authorize
su 10 be brought that the question may be decided by
he Supreme Cour, OF the United States should prefer
s 70 any ether course 1.-THE question OF liability be
submitted 10 That court II would be simple PROPOSE.
on which we would have before US Let the FIVE mil.
lions remain IN the treasury II the United States are
not bound 10 the creditors, then Texas will have the
whole OF H. and we are clear OF the debt OF Texas and
'he perpetual annoyance Of her creditors | venture 10
say that there would not be dissenting voice in The Su
pIeme Court oil The United States upon the question OF H.
ability There could not be doubt there do not in.
ehd 10 60 over The argument which has been heretofore
,poweo whleh is conclusive. however, 10 my mind, al
snouen lfea'ed SO lightly by others, that the United
states have received from Texas by the surrender of her
nationality, and her duties upon imposs that which
"" originally pledged by the republic OF Texas for
WWese oebts The argument Of my learned friend from
fsma, "n'cb has been so highly eulogsed by gem
san pen mere, 10 founded upon an assumption legally
na morally incorrect II proceeds upon this as.ump-
No.. ia"s ,he republic OF Texas by making this
an :, usuIfed no liability which she could not throw
tv III as necessary incident of sovereign
we say So II that be law Then the a,onmen, "a a
souna one but lis predicaed soielv ,,d ,non
Ha WoPos'uon, which is, according m mo bnr,hee nag
men' ,alsei and therefore The eonclnsian ,h;eh "a
nh ,ou u"' y aso alse Ii Texas is released from the
oongauon contained 10 that clause 81 ~ , ,, w ~
annexation then why ia not ths ill.,, ,us I.soulon .,
TO" men oohgallon ior the debts az M. tadar.t ar
men', 'ney having been annexed 10 Texas as - a.
wa. suneAea 70 lhem' ls not Texas maos liable
oy annexation tor the obligations "a ~ uaue usole
antecedently conracted1 III AZ 49,. w Ohiteu states