ledged by the Executive of The United States; but on three different occasions-the first in 1847, the two others in 1848-The United States' Senate Committee of Claims reported in favour of the payment by The United States of this debt, and upon the express ground that the transfer of the right to levy imports which Texas had, as a sovereign Republic, at the time of her annexation to The United States, and which antecedently she had appropriated expressly to the payment of this debt, bound The United States to do one of two things either to pay the debt, or surrender the pledge; and not being able constitutionally to do the latter, it follows, as a matter of irresistible consequence, that she is both morally and legally bound to do the former. And since this Commission was appointed, a Bill has been actually reported by the Senate for payment of such creditors of Texas as are comprehended in the Act of Congress of September, 1850, in which category Mr. Holford holds a prominent place.

Strange to say, this last fact has been made use of on this occasion in order to prove that this Commission has no right to enter upon a consideration of the case. It is said, that because Congress has taken up the subject, this Commission is ousted of its jurisdiction. If this were to be held sufficient, however, the entire jurisdiction of the Commissioners might have been ousted, and the whole object of the Convention frustrated, by each Government taking an initiatory step with respect to each important claim, the mere introduction by one section of the legislature of a Bill being considered tantamount, as against the claimants, to a final settlement of their claims.

The fifth assertion, which is the last in the protest made by the learned Agent against the Commissioners' assuming jurisdiction over the claim, is as follows:

"Because this Commission has nothing to do with any law or act of the United States addressed to the Government or people of Texas, designed or tending to induce that State to perform her obligations entered into while an independent Republic; and hence, to take jurisdiction of this claim would

be a palpable and unwarrantable violation of the spirit and intention of the Convention, to which The United States would have a just and perfect right to take exception, as much so as if this Commission were to pass laws for the government of The United States, or do any other thing wholly without the bounds of its authority."

I suppose, for it is not very clearly stated, that it is intended to assert that the Commissioners have no right to take notice of, or draw any inference from, the first proviso in the fifth clause of the first section of the Act of Congress of the 9th of September, 1850, which says, that no more than five millions of said Stock shall be issued to Texas until the creditors of Texas, having a pledge on the duties on imports, shall file releases against The United States,-which of course they would not be likely to do until they had been paid what was due to them by some one. This proviso the learned Agent regards as merely an inducement addressed by Congress to the Government of Texas to perform her obligations; but I have yet to learn that the refusal of a debtor to pay what he owes his creditor, until that creditor shall have discharged all the debts which he owes to other people, is to be considered simply as an "inducement" to the creditor to do his duty. I cannot suppose that Congress withheld five millions on such pretext, because, if I did, I must necessarily consider that Congress, in enacting that proviso, intended to act dishonestly as regards Texas.

Certainly the "inducement" was not likely to have this effect; for it is not probable that Texas, on the assumption that she needed such inducement, would pay twelve millions of dollars (the amount of her debts for which her imports were mortgaged) in order to receive five millions from The United States.

It is clear to me, however, looking merely at the language of the proviso, and remembering the occasion of it, that Congress designed to save The United States harmless from ultimate liability, as also to protect the creditors from loss, and that this anxiety sprang from a settled conviction that The United States, having appropriated the security of the

creditors, was liable to them in respect of it; and that, being so liable, Congress was justified in providing means to indemnify The United States from loss. So far then from thinking that the Commissioners have nothing to do with this Act, I consider it is incumbent upon us to consider it carefully. To my mind it furnishes authoritative evidence, of the most conclusive description, of the very proper mode in which the Congress of The United States have considered the position of the creditors of Texas, not only with respect to the specific pledge to them of the duties on imports, but also of their position and their rights as against The United States, consequent on and subsequent to the appropriation of those duties to themselves by The United States. It follows, therefore, in my judgment, that this fifth, as also all the preceding assertions of The United States' Agent, ought not to be sustained, and that this Commission shall have full jurisdiction over the claim.

Looking also at the fact that the moneys advanced by Mr. Holford for the purposes mentioned in the agreement of the 24th October, 1848, were secured by the terms of the law of the 16th May, 1838, by a pledge of all the revenues of Texas; that the bonds so given, as a further security for the performance by Texas of that agreement, were also secured by the solemn pledge of all the revenues and public faith of Texas; that this solemn pledge of all the revenues has always been interpreted to mean, and necessarily does include, a specific pledge of the revenues derivable from imports; that this branch of revenue has passed into the possession of The United States in consequence of the admission of Texas into the Union, and is still in law and equity subject to the obligation antecedently imposed on it, notwithstanding the terms of any agreement entered into by Texas with The United States with reference to the debts of the former,-I have no hesitation in saying that my opinion is in perfect accordance with that uniformly expressed by the Executive and Legislature of The United States, to the effect that The United States, having become possessed of the public revenues of Texas pledged for the payment of the debt due to

Mr. Holford under the agreement of the 24th of October, 1838, and secured by the bonds of the 1st of July, 1849, are properly responsible for the discharge of those obligations.

In conclusion, I must again express my regret that my colleague has not favoured me with any statement of his reasons for rejecting this claim. He may possibly have arguments to urge which would have appeared to me more deserving of consideration than those which have been adopted by the American Agent; but in the absence of that assistance which my colleague might perhaps have rendered me, I must say that this claim appears to me entirely unanswered and unanswerable; and I am therefore of opinion that The United States' Government is responsible for the payment of the bonds of Texas now held by the executors of Mr. Holford, and the arrears of interest now due thereon.

MR. UPHAM, United States' Commissioner:

THIS case has been very fully and ably argued. We have refrained from limiting the discussion to the question of jurisdiction, as we preferred the case should be submitted to us for consideration in all its bearings.

To the general position taken by the counsel for the claimants, I do not feel called upon to object. There are limitations, however, to the broad ground on which they have placed the case that should not be overlooked; and there are also matters of fact relative to the position of Texas under The United States' Government, and the dealings between the two Governments in reference to the indebtedness of Texas, that should be more fully considered than they have been by them in arriving at the true measure of justice and equity involved in the claim presented.

A portion of these facts also have an important bearing on the question, whether the class of claims now submitted to us were designed to be included for adjustment under the Convention from which our powers are derived.

It may be conceded, that the claim presented is substantiated as a just debt against Texas. Some suggestion has been made as tending to throw discredit upon it, on the ground that a large bonus was given for the loan in this and other cases. It is undoubtedly true that, during the struggle for the independence of Texas, her necessities, and the uncertain nature of the controversy in which she was engaged, urged her to the contraction of loans at a great pecuniary sacrifice, and at high rates of interest. The inducements held out to obtain such loans were, however, no greater than the risk of compliance with them seemed to demand. This fact furnishes no bar to the claim in any manner, and should not limit in any considerable degree the strong grounds. of equity urged for its payment.

There are other and distinct considerations, however, bearing upon the claim, as against The United States.

It is contended that The United States is rendered liable,