The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-02-13

sum That Is simple enough, But, sir, II is question
OF arithmetic II IS one ot figures Which is very easily
decided Eight and third millions. with three per cent
interest for twenty Years, will amount to thirteen and
one-thrd millonshat u.s. at the end OF twenty years.
when shall have paid the three per cent interest," and
when we come to redeem the principal, we shall have
paid in the whole thirteen and one-ihird millions. Five
millions AT five per cent for fourteen yeats, after the time
is elapsed when we have paid interest and principal,
more than the other according TO that calculation, BY $i
s33 333 33t Or take il In another way Take il according
TO the value OF lhs stock made Inquiries lasts
mer and was informed that the opinion OF an intel
lgent nancieI and dealer in stocks in New York, well ac-
quanted with such things that thai time three cent
Stock 10 run Tor twenty years, would yield what the sena
tor IRON Maryan said, TO Wit eighty hve cents IN Tue
dollar So that the present value OF eight and one,
third millions, or the value at that time for which II sold
10 The market would have been $T0s3 $50 Al The same
lime the then value oil five millions OF five per cent stock
for oureen years, which he estimated at l06, would
have been $53o0 oOO So that this proposition is deare
to The United States Than the other by the difference be-
tween S5, 900 900 and $1oS3,000 Or, if chose to 90
into it, there is another way OF calculating l might
take the present value oil the eight and one-ihird millions
payable twenty years hence and add to the value OF an
annuity for $3.50 600 twenty years. and npon apply ing
the same principle to fve-mlion loan should nd al
most great difference IN any 81 the modes IN Whch
have presented the calculation. But there can be no
doubt about this There be doubt that when we
pay eight and third millions in three per cent stock
to twenty years. we pay more than we PAID what
the boundary act requires us TO pay, VIZ hve millions OF
five per cent stock having fourteen years to run .
1t is obvious then, that upon this proposition we shall
pay than are bound to do by our boundary act
and if we pay it, must do so upon hs principle that
bound for that debt of Texas. II our obligations
extend beyond that act and cover part they cover the
whole, This, sir, must be manifest TO all.
But il we pay the eight aud one-thrd millions and no
more, upon this supposllion il obvious tha, we
doing The very thing for which Texas is reproached'
II these eight and onethird millions be worth only eighty
five cents on the dollar and if the debt for which the
customs of Texas bound amounts to eight and one
third millions. the senator from Maryland has stated
and amounts TO more, as shall presently shows 1t
not obvious ha. We are paying that debt at eighty
cents on the dollar instead OF paying II according to s
face II we owe il. what right have we TO scale II IN
that manner Or If we do scale II IN that manner, how
does It lie in our mouths to charge Texas for having
adopted similar scheme Ii we are 10 scale H. there must
be some discrimination such as Texas has made The
who furnished dollars worth for every dollar Tor
which the State is indebted to him must be entitled 10
more than The man who furnished but twenty five cents
worth the dollar. Ii they TO be scaled, there must
be some equitable principle upon which 1t should be
done.
Ba, deny that the United States liable for the debt,
OF Texas. | deny that they liable for the debt OF
Texas according 10 the law OF nations or the law OF ma
ture, and think ! can show it. know that there Is a
great array OF very respectable opnonsnay SIR oil the
highest legal opinions amongst living aulhofties--op
posed my view but must say, from the examination
which have given to the subject that these opinions
seem TO have been very loosely and hastily given
We have the opinion first, OF MIR. Reyerdy Johnson
Mr.. Johnson says:
Thar whatever rights belonged to each State separately
before hey were united viii afterwards be the rights OF
the collective State and the obligation, that each
Stale under separately before the collectve State will
be under afterwards. ds.-Gro.us, v. 2, ch 8, sec. 9.
Let see now how far his authority sustains him |
will read The whole OF section nne of chapter nine, Of
book second, OF Grolus, which is as follows
"Bu IL two nations be united, the rights Of neither OF
Sabncs first, and afterwards of the Abans transfer
red the Romans, and when they make one State as
Livy expresses t. The same may be also adudged o.
Kingdoms which really and truly united, and not only
by treaty oi alliance or because they have but one
prince"
Now according 10 Mr.. Johnson's quotation from Gro
tus The same Obligations which each State was under
Not at all MIR Johnson gives his own inference in
stead OF the text which refers 10 different matter. To
understand the text we must look TO The instance which
is taken from the early dawn oil Roman blstory-lrom
It's early twilight If may use the erm-and refers 10 the
old history OF the adoption the Sabnes and Albans by
the Romans INTO the fights OF citizenship Llvy says, IN
each instance 10 which Grotus refers that they were
carried Rome, and there admitted equally 10 the rights
of czenshp and yet upon this instance doubtful as II
is, femote so ancient, IS TO be founded this grave
principle OF public law, by which we are 10 be charged
with these SS 900 SIR, know tbai il was said that
the Romans stole The Sabine women bu, believe Il is
nowhere recorded, either 10 history or fable, that they
ever paid Sabine debt, the debt OF any other people
whom they ever conquered united to their empire
Such thing is not found in The myths OF that early
day, much less in history. And yet. upon that old in
stance thus stated by Grous, and thus unconscously
perveried-because know il was not designed By that
disDg gentleman-we have the grave position
laid down that we are bound TO pay the debts oil Texas
Where is TO be found in Roman history that the Ro-
man people held themselves bound for the debts OF
quered provinces Where can the instance be shown
rotu. was too well read in that history TO make such
assertion.
Next comes the opinion OF the Secretary OF the Treas
uy He is little more cautious. He says that
"It will be found that all writers public Law, having
any authorty agreed upon this point from the time oi
Crous the present. Indeed the proposition thus
serted obviously that IL is possible for nation
Ia modern Tunes contoyert without orietng that cha
acuer justice and probny which. happily for mankind,
has become Indispensable for sovereign Siates.'
This reference is so general, that do not know how
TO meet IT, only stand on the old maxim-De non
apparentibus d non srisienibns eddsm sa ratio When
the authority is presented, hope and believe shall be
able TO meet II.
rhe senator from Maryland is little more precise,
He quoted dctum OF WlldmaD. taken from Vatiel, and
founded upon single instance in German history |
the cession OF Siesa by the Empress OF Ausraa
cession made in her righ Queen of Poland, 10 the
King of Prussia That done by the treaties s Bres
su and Berlin, about the year 1742, the senator from
Maryland has said. But il must be observed, when you
come look al this, that the instance referred TO does
mo-, sanction The principle laid down by Vatie and
Wildman in these genefa views Allow me, however,
to go step further before come analyze the IN
stance, and show what principle it does justify say
If that principle were acknowledged by nations as they
have stated it, their would not be IN point here,
because when Sesa united 10 Prussia she lost all
her former nationality II, indeed, she could be said TO
have bad any, It totally merged, and she bad gov
ernment left but that OF Prussia She did
Independent government like that Of Texas, with indie.