law was adopted, or liability incurred by any indirect act of the general Government assuming the debt. It is said, however, that the Government has rendered itself liable for its payment, because she admitted Florida into the Union as a State without first compelling her to make payment of these debts.

The argument proceeds on the ground, that The United States cannot admit a portion of its territory into the Union while in debt, without becoming responsible for such indebtedness. It asserts, in substance, the principle that whenever the Government has it in its power, by the conditional denial of any privilege, to compel a territory to make payment of a debt, it must insist on such compulsion, or it shall be holden to have assumed such debt.

This is a new responsibility imposed on Governments.

It is quite clear to me, on the other hand, that The United States might well assume the position that she had nothing to do with the contracts, between her territories and individuals, and that it is not a part of her duty to constitute herself into a judicial tribunal to pass upon the pecuniary relations existing between them. Florida might well contend that this should not be done, and that she will not be dictated to, or interfered with, by The United States on the subject.

But this point is put still stronger. It is said that a provision was inserted into the constitution of Florida, preparatory to her admission as a State, "that no other or greater amount of tax or revenue shall at any time be levied, than may be required for the necessary expenses of Government," and it is contended that this provision expressly prohibits the payment of any prior existing debt; and, that The United States, by admitting Florida into the Union, with such a clause in her Constitution, became accessory to the wrong done, and should be holden responsible for it. But this is a far-fetched construction of the clause in question, and forms altogether too remote a claim to impose a legal pecuniary liability. The most necessary expenses of a Government are the payment of its obligations as they fall due. It can hardly be pretended, if a tax should be assessed by the State of

Florida upon its citizens, to raise funds to meet such obligations, that an individual could resist payment of such tax on the ground that it was unconstitutional. No court would give such a construction to this provision of the Constitution, and unless we hold that such would necessarily be the decision of the Court, then the objection is without foundation, and constitutes no ground for the assertion that The United States, by admitting Florida into the Union with this provision, should be held to have assumed the debts of the territory.

But whether such be the interpretation of the clause in the Constitution or not, the inference attempted to be drawn from it would not follow. If Florida has repudiated her debts for any cause, it was her act, and it was not incumbent on The United States to compel her, by any denial of the ordinary right of admission into the Union, to pay such debts. She had no more rightful control over the acts of a Territory so situated, than she had over a State.

The creditors of the Territory had no power, either legal or moral, to interpose any such bar to her admission. It is not a remedy for coercing the payment of debts which was contemplated by any party to the contract when entered into.

The United States, therefore, violated no principle of law, or equity, or moral obligation, in admitting Florida into the Union, and is guilty of no laches for which she should be holden responsible in not disapproving the acts passed by her as a territory.

The several States and territories are independent sovereignties for the ordinary purposes of local government. They have the power over the liberty and lives of their citizens, and the formation of their own civil and social relations within their precinct.

They can incur obligations for all expenditures coming within their appropriate sphere as fully as the general Government. Their delinquencies in any matter, coming within the range of their powers are their own, and, however grievous a wrong they may inflict by such delinquencies on their creditors, the precedent of holding the general Government

responsible for such wrong, would be still more disastrous. It would impose burdens on individuals having no immediate share or interest in the benefit received; would constitute taxation without representation, and would confound the necessary and rightful distinctions in the partition of responsibility and accountability essential for the maintenance of Government.

The wrong complained of is not one which can be charged against The United States; she is not amenable for it, and a proper appreciation of the distinct agencies of different organizations in Government will fully exonerate The United States from the claim set up in this case. In my view, therefore, the claimants have shown no ground entitling them to recovery against the general Government.

"FLORIDA BONDS."

London, 14th December, 1854.

THE umpire reports, that this claim has been brought before the Commissioners by the holders of Bonds, issued by the "Territory of Florida," while it was under a Territorial Government, and before Florida was admitted into the Union, as one of the States of The United States. At the time of the issue of the Bonds in question the Territory was governed by a Legislative Council chosen by the people, the Governor being appointed by the President of The United States. All the Acts or Laws of the Legislative Council were required by the law of The United States, to be laid before Congress, and if not disapproved of, they became law in Florida.

For one portion of these Bonds, the claimants, contended, that by the right which Congress claimed to reject or veto any law passed by the Legislative Council of Florida, The United States Government rendered itself liable to pay the interest and principal of these Bonds, should Florida fail to do so.

For another portion of the Bonds, the claim on this ground was abandoned, and their claim was based on the fact, that The United States had in the Session of Congress of 1843-4 admitted Florida into the Union, with a Constitution, having the following clause in it.

ARTICLE 8. "No greater amount of Tax or Revenue shall at any time be levied, than may be required for the necessary expenses of Government."

The first ground of claim need hardly be treated seriously, it might as well be contended, that the British Government is responsible for all the Canada Debentures, because all the acts passed by the Canadian Parliament, require the sanction of the Home Government before they became Laws; it will be seen, however, that at the time these Bonds were bought,

it was never imagined by the buyers that the United States were in any way liable.

With regard to the second ground of claim, that The United States, by having admitted Florida into the Union as a State with the Article in her Constitution above referred to, were rendered liable to pay the debts of Florida, it may be remarked that Congress could not justly refuse to admit Florida into the Union with such a Constitution, there was nothing in it contrary or in violation of the Constitution of The United States; Congress had only the power to fix the time of admission, and reject any Constitution that was contrary to the Constitution of The United States, nor does it appear that the bondholders are in any way damaged by this Article in the Constitution of Florida; if the people of Florida refused to pay, or neglected to pay as a Territory, would they be more likely to pay as a State? There would be the same people to deal with, the Members of the Convention that formed the Constitution were chosen by the people, and the Legislature chosen by the people, would not be likely to be very different from the Convention. It is by no means clear that the 8th Article of the Constitution forbids any taxes for liquidating the liabilities of the State; if that be so, there is no difficulty in amending the Constitution, most of the States have amended their Constitutions from time to time. The bondholders have the same remedy against the State, as they had against the Territory, they have a just claim, but they are under the well-known disadvantage in both cases, they could not sue the Territory, they cannot sue the State.

It has been urged that there is no way of getting at a State Government, except through the Government of the United States. This is a mistake: there is no difficulty in the way of individuals dealing with the separate Sattes in any matters that concern the State alone, nearly all the States have public works and contract loans with individuals, American and foreign, and any person aggrieved may petition the Governor or Legislature for relief. A State cannot

T