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

legation due TO her from the Ming oil PRUSSIA u", s
10 have made this in point these auhoite
seemed 10 be conscious OF it, Tor they say hat wthou
the treaty il would have resulted from natufai
this ought 10 have been the state OF things IL me EN-
press OF Austria had ceded Silesa without saying one
word about the debt the King of Prussia and he hg
OF Prussia had paid the debt on the ground ha' II wen
with Sesia, then il would have been case IN pp'nt "
establish the law OF nations Vatte has laid u down
But this was mere matter OF arrangement between 'ne
parties made account OF any Obligation unuet 'ie
law OF nations but for mutual convenience ana AGAIN
saw that even il il established that II would iali lar
short of the before because IN tue case o
Texas, resources were lett TO her which were large
enough to meet her debts separate and independent
government left 10 her she remained horeieish
State and there ample security Tor her creditors
But lei us go little further because wish 10 I'aee
this principle which has been laid down as one OF ma
ional law, show that il never has been regarded oy
the nations of the earth national law, and VIII pooa
bly, never be so regarded There other instances III
which nation. on account OF conquering OF ooa'nihg
by cesson the provinces OF another has been bound by
jts debts But believe may safely assert that IN all
these cases. il matter OF express treaty stipulation.
AS proof that this done by arrangement and not
from any view OF being bound 10 by the law OF nations,
will be found that whenever provinces have been aken
without any treaty, the conquering nation never has pau
the public debt or any pari ol H. ior lhe haion ron WHOM
Denmark and Sweden, where Norway was ceded Dy
Denmark to Sweden. and Swedish PomeIana was taken
by Denmark speak OF the treaty OF KEEL IN lel4-it
was specially provided, matter oil arrangement ana
calculation, that Sweden taking Norway, should pay
certain portion of the debt of Denmark and Denmark
Swedish pomeTanla snOuld pay Inc ueDl ol udt
province, Bat sir just before that treaty had been
made between Sweden and Russia at in
1909, under which Sweden lost Finland. There was no
stipulation about the debts. and none paid by
Russia for Sweden. because the matter was left to be
regulated by the law OF naons which prescrbca no such
thing.
territory Of Mexico. Well, sir, if the law is good for
the whole It is good for part II we would have been
bound for the whole of the debt of Mexico 10 third par
ties If had taken the whole of Mexico, would
IN hp hut phvIpu ~
part OF the debt OF Mexico when we look part OF her
territory. But when we took part OF her territory we're
we bound TOR any portion OF i. debts Just as much as
bound for the Texas debt incurred before
alton. II this principle were true principle OF pub
lie law, should be bound to pay portion OF it, How
would operate Suppose we were to take the pos,ilon
debt Of Mexico if we had conquered II, what is the
sulta Why, she could have obtained what funds she
peased TO fight US wi'h because the creditors would
know that they would be paid in any event II Mexico
succeeded she would he boundlf had conquered and
absorbed her. should have been bosndto pay the very
debt she had contracted to fight with Could there
be any such principle under the law of nations Does
The history OF nations show any such practice 10
sanction such principle Are there precedents
Tor it, None, sir. The only which has been
produced OF special treaty stipulation. and
in which it was debt OF Sesia but debt OF The
Empress OF Austria hypothecaied upon her in 81
lesa and under circumstances which showed the manifest
con onvenience OF making this special arrangement Why
have come TO pretty pass IT. Notwithstanding
own act upon that statute book, where affirm that
pay this debt upon such deta these and draw from
such precedens the history OF old Roman transactions
with the Sabines and Adams may furnish us with upon
such subject this Are then, the authorities to be
produced here 10 saddle The United States with such
debt thsi hardly know, sir, how 10 characterize
such pretenson IL not the law OF nations; and
far can Judge the matter, have settled and de-
cded that question We decided it in lbe joint resolutions
OF annexation and adhered TO that theory oil OBJ
ligstioa in the terms of the boundary act itself.
That the principles 10 the extent 10 which Vatte has
p1 ham unfe Inplb
and cannot be true, think have proved Still, sir,
there is some foundation OF truth for them aud TO
extent he is sustained by the practice OF nations When
one nation conques another, third party which holds
right OF way fishery within the limits OF that con
quest, does not lose its rights thereby To argue that,
The third party must be conquered and that is not pre-.
tended. Its right 10 this OF territory is perfect
il It had held portion OF The soil itself This right
very different from the set up here. The one is
pable with the rights OF conquest, the other not the
one capable OF definition and capable Of enforcement,
the other indefinite and incapable OF enforcement
Well, sir, if not bound by stpulatons,
and bound by the law OF nations pay this debt how
are boundi Are morally bound Whyl Ii so,
only be because that the fact OF taking the
customs Of Texashas disabled her from paying her cred
the had she been annexed. If the other
band, Texas was placed in position and IN cfcum.
stances OF greater ability to these debts IN consequence
OF the OF xaon, although she lost her cssloms
than she would have been without the act OF
on the creditors have moral claim against because
we have improved their condition How is It, srl We
all Know that the elect oil Tue annexation was 10
her peace. and to encourage settlements and facilitate
immigration and population. We all know that the State
OF Texas, Stale, amply able TO pay the debt
which she had contracted She had hundred millions
OF acres OF land which bound for that debt She
had last year. the time made inquiries into that SUBJ
ecl, between eight and nine millions OF money in her
treasury and IN treasury together which she might
have applied 10 that purpose. In order show these
facts, would like TO have read letter which received
from of the gentlemen who represent ber on this
floor
The Secretary read follows;
WAsHIseros, August 20, 1852.
DraR sfRs have received your note asking "hr.t
What is the Of the Uuiied indemnify now
Ia the treasury OF Austin
Second, What tho estimated quantity of the public
domain In Texasl
''Thrd Since the act Of 1851 are you aware thar the
creditors OF Texas have by any authorized committee pet
Toned her legislature pay the difference between The
scaled and face value Of the securities nd certificates
OF stock OF her public debt
Fourth. What do you estimate the first class, or In
other words the debt for which the specially
pledged estimatng the interest the LIST OF Apr 1858
according to the admission Of the Secretary Of the Treasury
Of the United Safest"
By the first inquiry presume yon desire know what
amount Of the S5,000oDo already paid Texas
maius in her treasury am informed upon what regard
good authority that she has appropriated the payment
portion oil the debt decided by the Secretary OF the
Treasury Of the United States be included the
proviso 10 the boundary ACT, o96 s33 H. which, pre-
sumo. has been paid understand that abont s210,00O
have been appropriated for other purposes, which would
In her treasury So 1866 80 besides the interest on
1h. nff