The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-03-24

supp0siton that by the annexation 81 u,at fspuolcto
this The United States became Responsible Tor her debts
This claim being then 10 question: was deemed expe
dent that series OF measures should be passed 10 put
an end TO The whole controversy, and 10 exnguish this
claim among others la that view OF the case alter hav-
ing provided, the ffst section OF the bill Tor the pay
oil Sl0,O0ooOo 10 Texas subsequent proviso
introduced into the bill by which % 900 900 OF the Sl0
600 900, which was The money OF Texas and not ours,
according 10 the stipulation, 10 be retained in
treasury until the claim upon the United States was
.eased My understanding at the time-snd il viii be
Teeclleeted tina, had lltile participation in these
measureswas not that the claim OF these creditors
recognised as valid claim against the United States; but
tue purpose oil this provso was, have mentioned TO
place The subject upon that footing that should hear
no more OF H. And such my understanding of the bill
as Il was hnay passed We provided by the bill for the
payment OF Sloo0o00o 10 Texas, in consideration OF
lexas relinquIshng her clam TO certain territory We
then provided not that the United States should be re-
sponsible for these debts-not that the United States
should charge themselves with their paymentbut that
such measures should be taken the part OF Texas as
would induce creditors to file release OF their claim
against the United States This 10 my understanding OF
! The law as IL stands
Now let me ask what there is in The provision of that
act which recognises the liability commended lot IL
there anything obvious than that the poposon 10
Texas was simply this We will pay you Slo,so ,ooo ;
but you must take care that we hear no more OF your
creditors That my understanding OF The bill ami II
is certainly, according 10 my reading The true lnlerela
ton OF the act now.
This claim originated in very different controversy
The idea that The United States would become liable Tor
these debts, provided the measure OF annexation took
place, was thrown this side OF the chamber "A
4 make weight against annexation. Ii originated Win
distinguished in this body 1t seized upon
will not say by all OF this side of The chamber
for never used lit used argument by many
OF my political friends for what il worth against the
measure OF annexation, which we then resisting
Now, sir in the present stage OF this controversy de
date has arisen with respect TO what has been termed The
scaling OF this debt; and has been argued that Texas
has done injustice TO her creditors Whether she has
has not done is not my business TO inquire for re-
gard Il matter between her and her creditors, with
which, in my humble judgment, we have concern
| BY what authority, upon What ground, do we take 1t
upon ourselves settle this controversy between other
parties We not made the guardians of Texas. We
not authorized not called upon, by the OF 1850
to satisfy this debt but merely stipulated for
security that Texas herself should make such pro-
vision would relieve from all embarrassment upon
the subject Then, upon wha, principles go into
the inquiry how much is justly and equltably due be-
tween Texas and her creditors Why, sir, it has been
said that we trustees of this fund That is by no
means the case. We do not hold this money for the
creditors OF Texas We hold back a sort Of pledge
10 redeem ourselves from the claim, But when the
money is paid II must be paid 10 Texas; and whenever
she performs The condition, there IS an obligation on this
government 10 pay her.
How can we in,erpose between that State and her
creditors when upon the very face OF the transaction the
money is to be regarded hers to be paid 10 her upon
condition which she in the outset is perform This
does par,ake OF the character OF trust There is no
stipulation IN the boundary which nlmates that it is
our duty TO scale this debt and TO determine how much
justly due. So far therefore, the argument is
cerned lha il is the duty OF this government TO interfere
and settle this matter. have only to say that this is
matter between Texas and her creditors which
her honor, with respect 10 which neither impli-
Gated nor have any authority TO intervene so much for
that.
Now, the question is. VIVA, shall be done Here are
three several propositions before The first is the
proposition OF the senator from Virginia, which in my
judgment IS the only one which we can with proprey
adopt. This provision the original terms OF the
compact simply far as this BY the original terms the
condition 10 be performed in toto before Texas could
claim the i've mllons but by the proposition OF The
senator from Virginia, we are 10 pay Texas pro rata as
she may proceed the performance OF that condi-
II 1 understand ne
tor from Virginia, is the only difference which made be-
tween the original contract and the amendment now be-
fore
What is the objection to this proposition Why, it is
said by the senator from Kentucky that the result OF
viii be to paya portion OF the creditors, and leave the
rest unsalisfed. How 50! Ii 10 pay the
out OF the treasury TO the creditors, such might
be the result but the proposition OF the senator IRON
Virginia pay the State OF Texas and that PROPOSE
lion leaves the controversy relation 10 the scaling OF
the debt where left by the OF 1885, and where,
in my Judgment, II ought TO be left now. For these
reasons am prepared 10 favor The proposition OF the
tleman from Virginia.
Mr. President, might 60 further. This subject s
not new to me. There may be those present VINO re-
member discussion upon the subject years since,
IN which | took part And feel compelled 10 say that
have never discovered even plausible ground for
charging the debts OF Texas upon the United States Sir
do not wish to detan the Senate at this late hour with
minute discussion upon this subject will, however,
give briefly my views upon 1t.
The claim is put upon two grounds. The first is
supposed analogy TO bypoihecaon at common law, and
x.
And the other ground is supposed principle OF the
law OF nations, by which, from the process Of annexng
Texas 10 this country her accession TO Union is
sdered having the effect OF throwing the debt upon
u.s. IN analogy perhaps, 10 the common law In relation
TO and wife-the womans existence, in the eye of
the law being then at end and her debts. of course,
merged IN the husband. In my judgment. there is moth
ing IN either OF these arguments. The case bears sort
OF analogy TO hypothecaton al common law in any
pect There is nothing which can be the subject of
pledge IN technical sense There nothing which
be held collateral security Tor the enforcement OF the
debt The accuracy OF the reasoning upon this subject
depends upon the inquiry, What this undertaking
upon The part OF Texas 1t was ihis-that in making
these loans, she pledged her honor her integrity, and
her faith State, TO apply her to the salts
faction of these debts In sense, it is pledge but
it in reality anything than executoy
tract the part of the state, by which she undertook
in future TO make faithful application OF her
Was any transfer OF this revenue contemplated Was
there any idea OF her creditors obtaining any control
the revenues Could they withhold the revenues from
Texas, OF enforcing the debt No, sir moth.
ing Of the kind.
But Mr. President. there is another consideration,
which with me is decisive. This is not ordinary
transaction in pawnbrokers shop II is matter OF po-
uca aud national arrangement; and when Texas
pledged her for these purposes, the pledge
State necessity. These revenses not to be with.
drawn from Texas, to leave her helpless in the contest
with Mexico They not to be diverted TO other and
different purposes. But the very loans upon which this
sort OF pledge based contributed in aid OF her
other resources 10 sustain her in her struggle for exist
eDce Now, II must be admitted all hands, that IL
was Just right proper and necessary for Texas the
first instance to apply these for the purposes
have meDonedihai IS to say, to defend herself against
nd In hprp NAL III