ESS. t of its revolutionary war. t they were undeveloped. at once. It was in the wn Government was dethe Senator from Maryour Revolution, and her wistful eye towards the tates. We begun to hear United States were bound xas, because the United ment of the receipts from The United States have t obligation to this day. I in the resolutions of ane the boundary act was ed that $10,000,000 should inasmuch as that act diwit: the public landsed by the act of annexaeditors of Texas, it subhan an ample equivalent; n that $5,000,000 of the act should not be paid to the creditors or at least, debts the customs were releases in the Treasury Thus it will be perceived, he United States, throughhered to its original thet of Texas, previous to the air of Texas, and not of provided in the boundary ould be paid-to whom? , sir-but to the State of -ever, the right to retain ury of the United States had been secured on the heir releases in the Treas3; so that, so far from this ry act being a recognition part of the United States State of Texas before the erence to the original idea were the affairs of Texas, es would do no more than hatever was to be received e United States, from its n looking into those oblisay that she owed but a he would scale those obliot bound to pay what apheir face, but would only value which she had actderstand from a member entatives from the State of pon which the debt was he creditors at a meeting scheme which they would State of Texas scaled the table; but the creditors not receive dollar for dollar they would not receive, ven the whole five millions, pon us, and a proposition ay them not only the five were bound by the boundinstead, $8,333,333 33al sum as will amount, at same annual interest with cent. sition for several reasons. =, we assume for the United e debt of Texas. Another g that liability, if we disroposed, we do what we for doing-we are repudilebt and scaling it; for this r for dollar on the face of ch, according to the Secrehe revenues from the cusind; and in the next place, epudiation in that point of iolent hands upon money ay to Texas, for the boundhat we should pay it to the herself, when the creditors releases. to pay these $8,333,333 331, -Texas Debt-Mr. Hunter. consideration of the vast domain which she ceded for the $10,000,000? She would come in, and I do not hesitate to say that she would be entitled to the $5,000,000, if she chose to demand it. She has given the land, and she has a right to insist that we adhere to our compact, whatever it be, and we have no right to refuse to do it. I admit we may refuse to pay these $5,000,000 until these creditors file their release, but we have no right to take that fund out of the Treasury, and distribute i, upon any principles which we may choose to establish, amongst these creditors. In other words, we have no right to take one of the sovereign States of this Confederacy, and put it under a commission of bankruptcy; none whatever. But I perceive that an attempt has been made by the honorable Senator from Maryland, with that ability and ingenuity for which he is distinguished, to show that we are not in effect assuming the liability of the debt of Texas by paying the $8,333,333 33 instead of $5,000,000, because he says, in point of fact, the two sums are equivalent. Why, Mr. President, there is an easy answer to this. If the eight and one third millions of stock, payable at the end of twenty years, with an interest of three per cent., is worth more to the creditors of Texas than five millions at five per cent., to run for fourteen years, it must cost more to the United States to pay that sum. That is simple enough. But, sir, it is a question of arithmetic-it is one of figures, which is very easily decided. Eight and a third millions with three per cent. interest for twenty years, will amount to thirteen and one third millions; that is, at the end of twenty years, when we 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 third millions. Five millions at five per cent. for fourteen years, after the time is elapsed when we have paid interest and principal, will amount to $8,500,000. So that one proposition costs more than the other, according to that calculation, by $4,833,333 33. Or take it in another way. Take it according to the present value of the stock. I made inquiries last summer, and was informed that it was the opinion of an intelligent financier and dealer in stocks in New York, well acquainted with such things, that at that time a three per cent. stock, to run for twenty years, would yield what the Senator from Maryland said, to wit: eighty-five cents in the dollar. So that the present value of eight and one third millions, or the value at that time for which it sold in the market, would have been $7,083,050. At the same time, the then value of five millions of five per cent. stock for fourteen years, which he estimated at 106, would have been $5,300,000. So that this proposition is dearer to the United States than the other by the difference between $5,300,000 and $7,083,000. Or, if I chose to go into it, there is another way of calculating. I might take the present value of the eight and one third millions payable twenty years hence, and add to it the value of an annuity for $250,000 for twenty years; and upon applying the same principle to a five million loan, we should find almost as great a difference as in any of the modes in which I have presented the calculation. But there can be no doubt about this. There can be no doubt that when we pay eight and one third millions in three per cent. stock to run twenty years, we pay more than if we paid what the boundary act requires us to pay, viz: five millions of five per cent. stock having fourteen years to run. It is obvious, then, that upon this proposition we shall pay more than we are bound to do by our boundary act; and if we pay it, we must do so upon the principle that we are bound for that debt of Texas If our obligations extend beyond that act and cover a part, they cover the whole This, sir, must be manifest to all. But if we pay the eight and one third millions, and no more, upon this supposition, is it not obvious that we are doing the very thing for which Texas is reproached? If these eight and one third millions be worth only eighty-five cents on the dollar, and if the debt, for which the customs of Texas were bound, amounts to eight and one third millions, as the Senator from Maryland has SENATE. paying it according to its face? If we owe it, what right have we to scale it in that manner? Or if we do scale it in that manner, how does it lie in our mouths to charge Texas for having adopted a similar scheme? If we are to scale it, there must be some discrimination such as Texas has made. The man who furnished a dollar's worth for every dollar for which the State is indebted to him, must be entitled to more than the man who furnished but twenty-five cents' worth on the dollar. If they are to be scaled, there must be some equitable principle upon which it should be done. But I deny that the United States are liable for the debt of Texas. I deny that they are liable for the debt of Texas according to the law of nations or the law of nature, and I think I can show it. I know that there is a great array of very respectable opinions-nay, sir, of the highest legal opinions amongst living authorities-opposed to my view; but I must say, from the examination which I have given to the subject, that these opinions seem to have been very loosely and hastily given. We have the opinion, first, of Mr. Reverdy Johnson. Mr. Johnson says: "That whatever rights belonged to each State separately before they were united, will afterwards be the rights of the collective State, and the same obligations that each State were under separately before, the collective State will be under afterwards.”—Grotius, v. 2, ch. 9, sec. 9. Let us see now, how far his authority sustains him. I will read the whole of section nine, of chapter nine, of book second, of Grotius, which is as follows: "But if two nations be united, the rights of neither of them shall be lost and become common, as the rights of the Sabines first, and afterwards of the Albans, were transferred to the Romans, and so when they made one State, as Livy expresses it. The same may be also adjudged of kingdoms which are really and truly united, and not only by a treaty of alliance, or because they have but one prince." Now, according to Mr. Johnson's quotation from Grotius, the same obligations which each State was under separately, the collective State was under afterwards. Not at all. Mr. Johnson gives us his own inference instead of the text, which refers to a different matter. To understand the text we must look to the instance, which is taken from the early dawn of Roman historyfrom its early twilight, if I may use the term-and refers to the old history of the adoption of the Sabines and Albans by the Romans, into the rights of citizenship. Livy says in each instance to which Grotius refers, that they were carried to Rome, and there admitted equally to the rights of citizenship; and yet upon this instance, doubtful as it is, so remote, so ancient, is to be founded this grave principle of public law, by which we are to be charged with these $8,000,000. Sir, I know that it was said that the Romans stole the Sabine women, but I believe it is nowhere recorded, either in history or fable, that they ever paid a Sabine debt, or the debt of any other people whom they ever conquered or united to their empire. Such a thing is not found even in the myths of that early day, much less in history. And yet, upon that old instance thus stated by Grotius, and thus unconsciously perverted-because I know it was not designed by that distinguished gentleman-we have the grave position laid down that we are bound to pay the debts of Texas. Where is it to be found in Roman history that the Roman people held themselves bound for the debts of conquered provinces? Where can the instance be shown? Grotius was too well read in that history to make such an assertion. Next comes the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury. He is a little more cautious. He says that "It will be found that all writers on public law, having any authority, are agreed upon this point from the time of Grotius to the present. Indeed, the proposition thus asserted is so obviously just that it is not possible for a nation in modern times to controvert it without forfeiting that character for justice and probity which, happily for mankind, has become indispensable for sovereign States." This reference is so general, that I do not know how to meet it. I can only stand on the old maxim-De non apparentibus, et non existentibus, eadem est ratio. When the authority is presented, I hope and believe I shall be able to meet it. The Senator from Maryland is a little more ession made in the King of ties of Breslau is the Senator must be ob= this, that the on the principle dman in these er, to go one te the instance, stify. I say if by nations as - would not be was united to nationality; if, ad any; it was overnment left eserve an indeTexas, with inwards to which ance itself does down by these treaty of Bresnich closed one press of Aus i contained a contained stipites. It ceded press of Aus-. It settled all em, and it was ess of Austria hich she owed, the Empress of cated upon her sferred to the more natural? nd Dutch, and venue, not as a Empress. And rantor to that Great Britain, ited Provinces What so natthis treaty and quivalents, the rovided for the eing the treaty, parties to the ebt to England ng to them the ng of Prussia? in point-and cious of it, for it would have ought to have npress of Ausving one word ussia, and the on the ground ould have been of nations, as is was a mere › parties, made nder the law of e. And again, at, it would fall because in the : to her, which ts; a separate left to her; she ere was ample ause I wish to laid down as t it never has e earth as nabe so regardich one nation, ng by cession bound by its assert, that in express treaty as done by arof being bound be found that n without any r has paid the e nation from Thus, in the n, where Nor Texas Debt-Mr. Hunter. way was ceded by Denmark to Sweden, and Swedish Pomerania was taken by Denmark-I speak of the treaty of Kiel, in 1814—it was specially provided, as a matter of arrangement and calculation, that Sweden, taking Norway, should pay a certain portion of the debt of Denmark; and Denmark taking Swedish Pomerania should pay the debt of that province. But, sir, just before that, a treaty had been made between Sweden and Russia, at Fredericksham, in 1809, under which Sweden lost Finland. There was no stipulation about the debts, and none were ever paid by Russia for Sweden, because the matter was left to be regulated by the law of nations, which prescribed no such thing. But how was it with us? We took a portion of the territory of Mexico. Well, sir, if the law is good for the whole it is good for a part. If we would have been bound for the whole of the debt of Mexico to third parties if we had taken the whole of Mexico, it would seem to be but obvious justice that we should be bound for a part of the debt of Mexico, when we took a part of her territory. But when we took a part of her territory, were we bound for any portion of its debts? Just as much as we are bound for the Texas debt, incurred before annexation. If this principle were true as a principle of public law, we should be bound to pay a portion of it. How would it operate? Suppose we were to take the position, and admit that we should have been bound for the whole debt of Mexico, if we had conquered it, what is the result? Why, she could have obtained what funds she pleased to fight us with; because the creditors would know that they would be paid in any event. If Mexico succeeded, she would be bound; if we had conquered and absorbed her, we should have been bound to pay the very debt she had contracted to fight us with. Could there be any such principle under the law of nations? Does the history of nations show any such practice to sanction such a principle? Are there precedents for it? None, sir. The only case which has been produced, is one of special treaty stipulation, and it was a case in which it was no debt of Silesia, but a debt of the Empress of Austria, hypothecated upon her revenues in Silesia, and under circumstances which showed the manifest convenience of making this special arrangement. Why, sir, we have come to a pretty pass, if, notwithstanding our own act upon that statute-book, where we affirm that we were not bound and would not be bound, we are made to pay this debt upon such dicta as these, and drawn from such precedents as the history of old Roman transactions with the Sabines and Albans may furnish us with upon such a subject as this. Are, then, the authorities to be produced here to saddle the United States with such a debt as this? I hardly know, sir, how to characterize such a pretension. It is not the law of nations; and so far as we can judge the matter, we have settled and decided that question. We decided it in the joint resolutions of annexation, and we adhered to that theory of our obligation in the terms of the boundary act itself. That the principles to the extent to which Vattel has carried them are not sustained by the practice of nations, and cannot be true, I think I have proved. Still, sir, there is some foundation of truth for them, and to some extent he is sustained by the practice of nations. When one nation conquers another, a third party which holds a right of way or fishery within the limits of that conquest, does not lose its rights thereby. To argue that, the third party must be conquered, and that is not pretended. Its right to this use of territory is as perfect as if it had held a portion of the soil itself. This right is very different from the one set up here. The one is compatible with the rights of conquest, the other not; the one is capable of definition and capable of enforcement, the other is indefinite and incapable of enforcement. Well, sir, if we are not bound by our own stipulations, and not bound by the law of nations to pay this debt, how are we bound? Are we morally bound? Why? If so, it can only be because that the fact of our taking the customs of Texas has disabled her from paying her creditors, which it may be maintained would not have been the case, had she never been annexed. If, on the other hand, Texas was placed in a position, and in circumstances of greater ability to pay these debts in SENATE. consequence of the act of annexation, although she lost her customs, than she would have been without the act of annexation, the creditors have no moral claim against us, because we have improved their condition. How is it, sir? We all know that the effect of the annexation was to give her and to encourage settlements, and facilpeace, itate immigration and population. We all know that the State of Texas, as a State, was amply labe to pay the debt which she had conteracted. She had a hundred millions of acres of land which were bound for that debt. She had, last year, at the time I made inquiries into that subject, between eight and nine millions of money in her Treasury and in our Treasury together, which she might have applied to that purpose. In order to show these facts, I would like to have read a letter which I received from one of the gentlemen who represent her on this floor. The Secretary read as follows: WASHINGTON, August 23, 1852. DEAR SIR: I have received your note asking," first, What is the amount of the United States indemnity now in the Treasury at Austin? "Second. What is the estimated quantity of the public domain in Texas? "Third. Since the act of 1851, are you aware that the creditors of Texas have by any authorized committee petitioned her Legislature to pay the difference between the scaled rate and face value of the securities and certificates of stock of her public debt? Fourth. What do you estimate the first class, or, in other words, the debt for which the revenues were specially pledged, estimating the interest to the 1st of April, 1853, according to the admission of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States ?" By the first inquiry, I presume you desire to know what amount of the $5,000,000 already paid over to Texas remains in her treasury. I am informed, upon what I regard as good authority, that she has appropriated to the payment of a portion of the debt decided by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States not to be included in the proviso in the boundary act, $1,096,833 12, which, I presume, has been paid. I understand that about $200,000 have been appropriated for other purposes, which would leave in her treasury $3,704,166 88, besides the interest on the $5,000,000. The Legislature of Texas has appropriated $3,480,297 59, to be paid to the creditors included in the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, on condition that the proviso in the boundary act be so modified by Congress as tha Texas may receive from the Treasury the amount for which she may file the releases contemplated in the proviso of the said act. To the second inquiry: I think the public domain of the State is estimated at not less than one hundred millions of acres. In answer to your third inquiry: I believe some three or four creditors did so petition. The largest number, I understand, have not, either by themselves or any authorized committee, taken any such steps, and I am informed that no definitive action was had upon the petitions that were filed. Your fourth and last inquiry presents an interrogatory which it is difficult to answer, as it involves several questions, arising out of the laws of Texas, and the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, of the 13th of September, 1851. I inclose you the joint report of the Auditor and Comptroller of the State of Texas, dated 12th November, 1851, subsequently to the Secretary's decision, which shows that the total ostensible debt, including interest, is $12,436,991 34. If you deduct from that amount $1,738,872 27, decided by the Secretary, as I understand his decision, not to fall under the proviso, it would leave $10,698,119 07, not including the additional interest which seems to be contemplated by the report of the Committee on Finance. I also inclose copies of the several acts of the State of Texas in relation to her public debt. Yours very truly, Hon. R. M. T. HUNTER, THOMAS J. RUSK. Chairman Committee on Finance, United States Senate. How, Mr. HUNTER. Mr. President, so we see that to meet this debt, which at its highest estimate is $10,000,000, Texas had one hundred million acres of land, and at that time last summer, between eight and nine millions of dollars in her Treasury and the Treasury of the United States together. Sir, she was at that day, and she is at this time, in proportion to her population, perhaps the richest State in this Confederacy. There is no State better able to meet the demands upon it, the legal and just demands upon it, than Texas. then, can her creditors say we are morally bound, if we, by the consequences of this annexation, have contributed to such a state of the treasury as exists in Texas? Can it be said that we have diminished her pecuniary and fiscal ability to meet her liabilities by this act of annexation with the conditions presented? Not at all. We have increased that capacity; and I believe that we took away from Texas a source of expenditure fully equal, ay, sir, greater, in the event she had remained an independent nation, than her customs 320 CONG.....2D SE would have met. How is toms, together with the re hardly maintain this Gover of just such functions as th eved from by the annex. set is employed in manag pans and those between the ere been an additional sou tendent Texas. To r we have expended our who debt. Is it likely, then, of things which existed b Tenue derived from custo are sustained her army a patic establishment? ring that it is not probe castoms would have terdependence and her r . If, then, we are in a Secreditors of Texas for of the means of collecting th ase we took from Texas capacity to pay it, but ter the desire to do and ler moral tone. Will that te said, that although Te body admits she is, she will by jury to her moral ton Ted States? That, sir, is can be maintained. It is ma charged with preventing T creditors, that she is able to are accountable at all, we a because she cannot, but bec these debts. 80, With regard to the mode ours? Have we a right to bound by those co Gerernment to another, to g to its face. And if we Did she not suspend spec Bot mean to be unders Dot by the law of natio by our own special of ESS. s it with us? Our cusreceipts from the lands, ernment in the discharge the State of Texas was xation. This Governaging our foreign relahe States, which would ource of expenditure to meet these obligations hole revenue and are in n, that under the state before annexation, the stoms by Texas would and navy and foreign ? I hazard nothing in obable that the revenue ve sufficed to maintain relation to foreign na1 any way answerable to or having deprived them 5 their debts, it is not beas the pecuniary and fisit because we took from and lowered and injured at be maintained? Will Texas is able, as everywill not do it, because of tone by annexation to the , is the only ground that manifest, if we are to be Texas from paying her e to pay now, and if we we are to be charged not because she will not pay ode which she has taken bts, what concern is it of to intervene between a Confederacy and its crediIl settle those debts? Are courtesies due from one , to abstain from such a hat would be? For how nsult to a State than thus sion of bankruptcy? - own hands so clean, acven of our previous finanhonorable Senator from afford thus to intervene, h-handed manner? Why, own obligations after the ause we were not able to not able to pay them then, ere is a petition now beinance, praying us to pay onary certificates accordwe are going to take up every debt due, according tion, why do we not go evolutionary debts, scaled ed to one?-scaled, as well principle of paying only ertificate at the time of the ippose we were to apply eTexas debt, how do we nount to any more than ay? But is our Governnly Government that has eat Britain herself in effect her wars with Napoleon? cie payments by her bank, depreciated paper? What pudiation to a certain exthat has dealt largely in one it? that I say this, I would Texas, which has such de for the payment of all her. I believe that ultinot authorized to speak for at is due, nor is it my conknow is, that there is a n bound to look, that these paid without the assent of of the creditors. When ses of the creditors, I do ood as being opposed to Texas Debt Mr. Houston, of Texas. SENATE. that; but beyond the express obligation of the boundary act we are not bound to pay one cent. Especially would I not pay it in this discourteous manner towards one of the States in this Confede-ed, no excuse will be rendered for it, and to deter racy. Sir, let us look a little further into this matter, and see to what it would lead us. If this demand is sustained at all, it must be upon the ground, that inasmuch as we have the customs of Texas and are enjoying a portion of her revenue, 'we are bound to pay her creditors, because the public creditors are entitled to all before any portion goes to domestic purposes; and that our Government in its operation upon Texas, pro tanto, is for domestic purposes, and that therefore we are bound to pay. say that if it can be sustained at all, it is only upon this ground, for the other pretensions are manifestly without foundations of justice. There is no such obligation under the law of nations, and if we take this position, how will it be with our repudiating States and their foreign debtors? May not those foreign nations, which are accustomed to collect the debts due to their citizens at the point of the bayonet, come forward with much more reason and say to us, "Here are the States of your Confederacy that have contracted debts. We are in the habit of dealing summarily with other nations. You interpose between us and them, and say we shall not collect our debts, and not only that, but you collect your own dues from them for domestic purposes. You collect your customs from them, and yet you do not pay us one cent. Now you must do one of two things: You are bound either to pay us, or you are bound to let us collect our debts from these States as we collect them from other nations." Would not that be a stronger argument for the assumption of any State debt due abroad than the argument here urged in relation to the Texas debt? think it would be. I think there is but one safe ground on which we can possibly stand, and that is, that the persons who deal with the States of our Confederacy take the risk, because they deal knowing the relation in which they stand to us, and to the rest of the world. And so those who dealt with Texas knew the risks when they were dealing with her and charged her accordingly. There is no doubt that they charged Texas for everything furnished her with profits enough to cover the insurance. Sir, we tread here upon dangerous ground; let us take care how we commit ourselves to principles which may possibly have so dangerous an application in the future. The principle as laid down by the creditors of Texas may serve their own pur poses of present convenience; but the United States, think, in view of the peculiar form of our Government, should hesitate long before they adopt it. I do not believe myself that it is a principle either of the law of nature or of nations; for that cannot be said to be a law of nations which nations have never sanctioned by their usages and practices, whatever may be the opinion of elementary writers in regard to the subject as a matter of abstract inquiry. But I will not further prolong my inquiry into the question before us. It was my purpose to present as briefly as I could the facts of the case, and the reasoning which has led me to a conclusion so opposite to that at which the honorable Senator from Maryland has arrived, and having done that, I take my seat. TEXAS DEBT. her Senators at least an explanation. If they are incapable of vindicating her reputation; if she cannot be justified in the course which she has adoptmine upon the merits of her claims to consideration and to the due regard of her sister States, it is proper that we should advert to the circumstances under which those debts originated, and under which they are held by the present claim ants. Texas, when she rose from her revolutionary struggle, did not owe much more than $2,000,000; and more concurred in the opinion that she owed but a million and a half than that her debt exceeded two millions. This constituted the amount of her entire liabilities at that time, and up to the year 1838. From the period of the commencement of her separate Government, in the fall of 1836, down to the winter of 1838, her entire debt did not exceed $2,500,000, embracing all her liabilities; and her entire currency in circulation was less than half a million. It was from 1838 up to the end of 1841, that the debt accumulated from two and a half millions to the enormous sum of twelve millions of dollars. This was not, as gentlemen seem to understand it in most instances, a debt created by the sale of bonds, pledging the faith of Texas for their redemption; for a little more than one million of bonds are all that are outstanding against Texas. The other debts have resulted from her currency. The impression has gone abroad that Texas was placed on a footing with other States, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and others, who sold their bonds at a depreciation, and that, therefore, the question would not arise whether she received the full value of those bonds or not; but that she was bound to pay them at their face; that she had received the most that could be obtained for them, and that the risk justified the depreciation of price at which they were purchased. I know that these are the impressions which have gone abroad throughout the community; and if Texas, when her credit was low and depressed, had been compelled to raise means for the support of her armies and for the expenses of her civil list, and had for that purpose sold bonds calling on their face for a hundred cents to the dollar, and had only received fifty cents, she would yet have been bound in good faith to redeem them according to the letter of the liability, and would have had no excuse for shrinking from punctually meeting her obligations but inability to pay her debts. But Texas, we find that, with the exception of about one million of dollars, they are of a very different character from what has been generally supposed. Texas issued promissory notes. Up to 1838, these passed currently at par. A change in the administration of the Government then took place, and the first act of the new Administration was to raise new regiments for the purpose of defending the frontiers, as it was said, and then, although the previous amount allowed to the Executive for frontier defense had been inconsiderable, it was. swelled up by appropriations to the amount of a million and a half of dollars, and the civil list had no less than half a million appropriated to support it. when we look into the nature of the liabilities of The throwing of these two millions of dollars of promissory notes into circulation, had the effect of lowering the value of the former currency, and the whole depreciated at least fifty per cent., and gradually declined from that to the lowest point of depression. Successive issues were made, and the SPEECH OF HON. SAM HOUSTON, depreciation continued during the years 1839, OF TEXAS, IN THE SENATE, February 11, 1853, On the bill to provide for the payment of such creditors of the late Republic of Texas as are comprehended in the act of Congress of September 9, 1850. Mr. HOUSTON said: Mr. PRESIDENT: I am very reluctant to occupy a moment of the precious time of the Senate, and particularly when other matters which are, in the Lla manilaman of so much 1840, and 1841; and in proportion as the issues were increased the depreciation went on. During that period immense expenditures were incurred and liabilities issued, for which there was not the semblance of authority. The Santa Fé expedition was fitted out, and must have cost more than one million of dollars; and that expenditure was incurred, not only without authority, but in positive violation of the expressed will of the two Houses of the Texan Congress, by a mere dictum of the Executive. The arms and munitions of war of the country were entirely expended in that d payment beher debts. these creditors h plaintive apwho are implorrs: Help us o were suffertruggle? or are the individuals Cangers of that res depreciated ed and fought ere given their cause of indetes depreciated hey were then ere, seized upon e streets of our nitted to public ts to five cents, was that these eir claims to the and the feeling There were no y would bring; sold for a mere , and "in quanwere piled up as were cried up on the dollar, e bidder, and he om the pile as ke a bundle as se evidences of me liabilities for d cents on the the rate of from llar. No doubt ought the proshat the Texans xon stock, and erty in defiance can race never ackwards, and ssed their foot ld go on. Such if the Texans night venture to en there was a lepreciated pabt under these ited States purissory notes of and now come ents on the dolcularly, I will 1 of Texas cur, getting a saleive it, and his ceive in Treas Texas Debt-Mr. Houston, of Texas. a man gets his due, he is doing very well. Has not Texas done this towards her creditors? Texas, sir, has evinced no disposition to evade the payment of all equitable and just debts and liabilities. I have every disposition to be very candid on this occasion, and therefore I think it due to the creditors, I think it due to individuals, and I think it due to the Government of the United States, to state plainly that I would not eschew one liability on the part of Texas, and transfer it to the shoulders of the United States. I would say to Texas, "Pay away the last cent in your coffers, bankrupt yourself, give away your hundred millions of acres of land, rather than throw the responsibility on the United States." If we were to be left destitute of a dollar, and without an acre of land available, the times then would not be as gloomy as those through which Texas has already passed. I would be sorry to see Texas not meet her just liabilities, and throw the responsibility of them upon the United States, and that then, through grace and tender mercy to the reputation of Texas, the United States should liquidate our debts. issue of bonds, ay at the most I am for doing justice, and nothing but justice; but I am determined that something shall be understood in relation to this matter, more than the partial representation of the claimants was disposed to exhibit to the world. Who are those that are most clamorous against the injustice of Texas, and the wrongs which they have sustained from her? Are they men who have peculiar claims upon the sympathy of this body? Are they men who have peculiar claims upon the confidence of Texas? Are they men who blended their destiny with hers in her hours of trial? Are they men who marched with her armies upon their marches? Are they men who upon her vigils of peril watched with her? Are they men who toiled or starved for her? No, sir. They have sprung up, like dragon's teeth, around this Capitol within a few years; and we find the diffusive influence of this speculation upon multitudes that surround the Capitol. Members are besieged at every step with appeals, "Do this for us; do justice for us; save the reputation of Texas; be honorable, and it will do her some good." They do not say, in significant strains, "Fill our pockets, fill our pockets, will you?" though this is what they mean. They mean nothing else than to acquire, and to take away from either Government-I will not say ill gotten gains-but what would be clear gains, if they got them. SENATE. When the United States repudiated-I do not claim that as authority, but I wish to bring it in array before the public mind-it was for an amount upwards of $240,000,000 of revolutionary debt. Has Texas done anything of that sort? Has she repudiated one just demand, amounting to a single dollar, of citizens of Texas who assisted her in her hours of difficulty? Not one. The United States repudiated millions, and hundreds of millions, held in the hands of war-worn veterans, who had toiled through a revolutionary struggle of seven years. The United States repudiated the revolutionary debt of the war of Independence, which commenced in 1776. Texas, during her revolution of nine years, did not repudiate one dollar that was held by her revolutionary soldiers. The United States, when they assumed the debts of the several States -the old thirteen-after the war of the Revolution, required the States to scale those debts, and paid them at the scaled rates. If we were disposed to be a little tricky, might we not follow these examples? But if we have been tricky, I do not know what fair dealing means. We do not, however, claim the benefit of the high examples to which I have referred; but I think that in view of them it comes with a very bad grace from the United States to become administrator on the affairs of Texas, and to determine what are her liabilities. The largest amount of the outstanding issues against Texas at this time arises from obligations that were issued from her treasury, for which she received but from sixteen to ten cents on the dollar; and now a hundred cents on the dollar is claimed for them, swelling the amount of her debts to millions. No matter how irregularly the debt was contracted by Texas, whether there was authority for the obligations issued or those brought in and funded; whether they were made without appropriations or not, Texas has estimated them, and placed them on a footing with the other equitable demands against her. She has extended equity when she might have caviled, and contended that, according to strict law, or common usage, she was not bound. Yet we are told that if Texas would only come forward and. redeem her outstanding obligations at par, or pay all the money she has in her coffers, and the $5,000,000 reserved by the United States, she would establish a reputation above all suspicion; that she would then sustain herself with credit; that it would do her more honor, and make her a more glorious nation than ever existed. Sir, Texas as a State is only a part of this Confederacy; one of thirtyone; and she does not aspire to be more glorious than the United States, or the mighty nations of the earth. We find that they have perpetrated offenses against good morality and national honor, which Texas scorns to do. They have repudiated debts, not only revolutionary debts, but others contracted in good faith. This Texas has not done, and will not do. She has not repudiated one dollar of her revolutionary debt, and she wili not do it. She will pay a hundred cents upon every dollar she has realized. Is not that worthy of admiration? Yet gentlemen say she would be glorious if she would pay the nominal amount of her liabilities. The amount of $5,000,000 that was reserved in the Treasury of the United States, was reserved at the instance of creditors, who were importuning and surrounding Senators here when legislating on this subject. Some sagacious lawyer had discovered that the United States were liable when they acquired Texas, and received from her means which were intended for the liquidation of her debts. It was not intended by that reservation to determine what the debts of Texas were, but only the debts of a certain character for which the Government of the United States might possibly be held liable. When were they to pay these debts? When ascertained by Texas, and certified to the Treasury of the United States. That was the object of retaining the $5,000,000, as I understood it at the time, and I voted upon the subject in all good faith and confidence, satisfied, as I was, that the amount upon which the impost duties of Texas were pledged did not amount to $5,000,000, and that there would be a large residuum to Texas of that amount. The President and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, after the passage of that bill, determined, in effect, that the Government of the United States were liable for all the debts of Texas. It will be remembered that in the administration of the government of Texas from 1841 down to the time of the annexation in 1845, there was not one dollar of debt incurred, nor one liability created. From December, 1841, when the exchequer system was established, and the immense issues of $12,000,000 were suspended, $200,000 was the amount of the currency established by law, and that commenced to issue at the rate of a hundred cents on the dollar. A combination was directly formed of brokers and speculators, gentlemen alien to Texas, who wanted to filibuster, and subvert the Goverment, right or wrong, who said that if they were not admitted into its control or made participants of it, they would subvert it, if by no other way, by revolution. They combined, and by their combination immediately reduced the value of that currency from a hundred cents to seventy-five, and at one time it went down as low as twenty-five cents on the dollar. By economical issues, by extreme economy in the Government, the value rose again. But the Legislature which met annually consumed a large amount, and being opposed to the Executive, sought every possible means to embarrass him; and instead of requiring the taxes to be paid as under the previous existing laws, they repealed those laws for the collection of taxes, or postponed their operation for six months, so as to depreciate the value of, by lessening the demand for this currency, and thereby to embarrass the government in such a way that it could no longer exist. However, the good fortune that presided over Texas, and directed her path, did not desert her. The currency came up again, and was at par; but after a long session of the Texas Congress, it fell to fifty cents, and even as low as thirty-seven and a half cents; but it rose 32D CONG.....2D SE! , and continued at par, Fé and Mier prisoners be paid in par funds, and to the last farthin pounds if you please, Cristian blood." Sir, if th gees, or the descendants of leet just credit upon his re Bat, Mr. President, it is t piral in Texas-that it is 1 her not to pay her debts. N ertain by what standard arrive at the adjustment of standard of morality that I What he has given, but a hu dition to that? Or is it the st to establish here, that when citors, but I cannot see I do not think there is any If, however, the United of dears. They claimed 1 annexation for the debts a prior one, and the Us la these creditors. Wou apar them, you shoule , in spite of all the com- ernment of the United States was solemnly bound s of faction, corruption, by treaty with Mexico to defend Texus against administration ended, in the Indians, to reclaim them to the territory of the exas had not only accu- United States, and to inhibit their crossing the 25,000 of par funds in frontier. Instead of that, what did the United aid all just and unavoid-States do? I intend no reflection upon them, but tions, and to support the I intend to vindicate Texas, now a part of the -s in Mexico, and to pro- United States, but then a part of Mexico. The than $70,000. So that United States had solemnly pledged their faith, exception of $2,500,000 by treaty, to give protection to the boundary of = 1838 and 1841, not a Mexico; but instead of that, they treated with the e administration which Caddoes and acquired their territory, forced them to 1844. It will thus be into the boundary of Texas, and paid them in not grow out of her ne- arms, in munitions of war, in powder, in impleent creditors who come ments of slaughter and massacre, and those Inmands, and who, accord- dians drenched our frontier in blood. Weak as we were-pressed upon by Mexico on the one hand, and the wily and sagacious Indian on the other hand, watching his opportunity to maraud upon our frontiers and slaughter our men, butcher our women, massacre our children, and conflagrate the humble hamlets in which they had dwelt in peace, we incurred expenses to keep them off, and for this the United States are responsible, as they are for a hundred other violated pledges in relation to Indians. Texas in her hours of ey into the lap, instead o the lap of speculators. Texas which will not s, but which will also I, est, and at a premium.¦ -let them be paid to the hing; but let those who obligations by speculaost enormous character, r" pound of flesh," or e, but "not one drop of E these men were the ass of Shylock, they would reputation. [Laughter.] is thought that it is imis not a clever thing in Now, I should like to rd of morality we are to of her debts? Is it that t pays a man not only hundred per cent. in ade standard it is proposed en a man has given three get a hundred cents? Is are to judge of the moadvantage of her creditery agreeable one to the ee that it would be comeart or the head of Texas. nything smart in it. It ditors, but certainly most are for fixing their standas, and she is for fixing id justice for them; and o business at all with it d States are bound for the e bound for much more pay. The independence ized by Mexico when it ed States. The domestic about a hundred millions ed that Texas should pay ns were even suggested if Texas would assume ional debt of Mexico, the might be acknowledged. now bound by the act of of Texas to the extent the United States would he Government of Mexico Inited States are bound to r sum than they are bound uld you be willing to go ount? Yet it has a pridemand. Mexico never t Texas incurred by her cognize that you are bound 1 also pay to Mexico the exas to the one hundred debt of Mexico. ment of the United States of the liabilities incurred because a portion of the ed into for the purpose of gainst the Indians. What Were they indigenous to o were they? The Shawhe Choctaws, the Anadacoes, Caddoes, and other mits of the United States But what is the real history of this matter? When the scaling of the debt of Texas took place, in 1848, there was an almost entire acquiescence on the part of her creditors. Some three or four, or perhaps five, were somewhat refractory, and having more sagacity than the others, they concluded that there was some important advantage which they would gain by coming here, and therefore they had recourse to the Government of the United States. They might then have had in view the idea of a reserved $5,000,000 fund out of which they would be enabled to get their demands by appealing to the sympathy of members; by trying to show that they were bankrupted by their liberality in their anxiety to help Texas in the time of her direst need. They thought that if they could represent successfully to the Congress of the United States that they had been munificent and liberal towards Texas, it would entitle them to some extraordinary interposition of the Government of the United States. They came forward after the compromise was proposed, but not until that time. They received a new impulse by the proposal of the compromise. Most of them had acquiesced prior to that time, and we now find that hundreds came in who were not then interested in the debts of Texas. Strangers have come in as participants in the interest and are to be the recipients of its benefits. This is the case, and none will deny that there has been a most extraordinary change. If it had not been that the compromise of 1850 passed, the Texas creditors would nearly all have received their money, or their proportion of it, by this time, and would have been at rest and quiet, each man consoling himself in the advantage of having made a handsome speculation upon his adventure. But it was thought proper that there should be an appeal to the generosity and magnanimity of Texas, and after her to the United States, and that they might make something, and could lose nothing by that course. In that way it is that these claimants have not only multiplied, but they have become more urgent in their pursuit for gain, and are now resolved that nothing will satisfy them but the hundred cents on the dollar, according to the face of the paper. Well, sir, Texas has incurred liability. She issued bonds to a certain amount. Let her pay those bonds with interest, since she made a tender of them in the market. Let her pay for her vessels-of-war or navy; let her pay all the just contracts she has made; all the equitable liabilities arising from the currency which she threw into circulation. That currency became valueless in the hands of her own citizens, and was then grasped at by greedy speculators. Let her treat them, as she has done, with justice and fairness. It was twice in prospect to repudiate the debt of Texas. But did she do it? It was talked of, and a little encouragement might have produced the result. The conduct of the refractory creditors had no doubt stimulated it. But Texas did not SENATE. justly owed. So she will. But if that message is read, let it be remembered that not a word of the extract is recognized until the whole message is produced here upon the floor, and the whole instrument construed together. It was then laid down as a principle that the Government of Texas would equitably redeem, every dollar that she owed. She had evinced a disposition to do it by submitting her public lands to entry at two dollars per acre when her notes were selling at three cents on the dollar; and she had kept them open for years subject to entry at that rate. She has gone further, and says it will be just to redeem money issued at a depreciation at the full value at which it issued from the Treasury with interest thereon. That is the act of Texas. What the refractory conduct of her creditors may do with the feelings of Texas I cannot say. Within a few years a total revolution has taken place in her population. The number of emigrants since annexation, I suppose has more than doubled or quadrupled the previous number of inhabitants. The interest on the money retained in the Treasury here will diminish the necessity of taxation by her. What her people may deem to be politic and expedient hereafter in relation to their debts I know not. I do not encourage repudiation. I hope it never will take place; but if it should, let those be accountable for the result who invoke and provoke their destiny. Let the sin lie at their doors. I hope it will never lie at the door of Texas; but those who have advanced, or who have contracts with her, shall be paid to the last farthing of what they have advanced. A law was passed by the Legislature of Texas, after annexation to the United States, in 1848, by which it was provided, that any person coming forward and depositing fifty cents at the treasury of Texas, should take a receipt from the treasurer, and for every fifty cents received at the treasury he should be entitled to one acre of land. Certificates to the amount of more than half a million of dollars were deposited under this law, as I was informed, and land drawn, or land warrants issued, to that amount. These gentlemen have gone quietly and located their lands, and now realize several hundred per cent. How are the benefits of this bill to be extended to them? How are they to be recompensed for the losses which they have sustained, according to the plan of this bill? Are they to fall back upon the United States? Are they to become recipients of the benefits proposed in this bill, or, are they to be excluded? But I am sure that the honorable gentleman who introduced this bill cannot object to the principle of Texas scaling. She is to be the judge of her own matters. She knows very well under what circumstances the debts or liabilities were contracted. She knows their character perfectly; and we find that the honorable gentleman who introduced the bill has not determined to pay according to the face of the paper, or of the demands of the creditors; but he, too, is for scaling the liabilities. He proposes that a certain amount shall be paid, and that, if that does not cover all the liabilities, the creditors shall receive it according to the proportion of their demands, and shall give a receipt in full. Now, Mr. President, as for the morality of the thing, whether one cent or one dollar, one degree or ten degrees of discretion at all changes the standard of morality, I am not prepared to say. I think Texas is the best judge of this matter; so that the United States would incur an additional reproach upon herself, if she were, by this law, to take it out of the hands of Texas to adjust her own affairs. Texas knows what her liabilities are: she knows all the circumstances surrounding them, under which they grew up, under which they dragged along, and by which they were managed. She knows, too, the influences and the means of their acquisition. But she is not acquainted with the means and influences that surround this Capitol, and which grow every day. I know it is perilous, eminently perilous, to oppose an influence so overwhelming as that of the claimants here. I have stood in perilous positions before, but when I felt badly. nobody knew it. I feel well on this |