33D CONG....2D SESS.

the seats now occupied by men of reputation and character filled by preachers, who have long since ceased to worship the Most High, and to preach Jesus and him crucified, and have substituted in their stead the most abject of God's created intelligences, the negro! or by politicians of one idea -opposition to the South; or, as their mob-orators | elegantly term it, "opposition to the slave power." And yet, strange to say, Southern men are found to rejoice at the victories achieved by this party in the North over the firm, consistent advocates of State-rights. They wilfully shut their eyes to the fact that the only men elected from the North who are willing to concede the just constitutional rights of the South are anti-Know-Nothing Democrats, and attempt to mislead the people there by referring to the fact that William H. Seward is opposed by a portion of the Know-Nothings in his State. But, sir, I predict that this chief leader of the Abolition party will this day be reëlected to the Senate of the United States by the New York Legislature, of which the Know-Nothings have control.

These, Mr. Chairman, have been the political fruits heretofore borne by this "American" tree. And I have produced them here to exhibit to national men everywhere the real objects and ultimate designs of this new organization.*

From them it will be seen that the course of the leaders of this new party in the North upon the slavery question, has been that of bitter vindictive opposition to southern institutions. They have openly defied the laws of Congress enacted to protect southern men in their rights to their property. The ministers of the Gospel seem to be the leaders in this slavery excitement. Opposition to slavery swallows up all other articles of their religious or political creeds, and has become their sole rule of faith and action. We of the South are now asked to bury these things in oblivion, and to enter into alliance with our old enemies the enemies of the Constitution, law, and Union-because they have added two other articles to their confession of faith-proscription of foreigners, and war to the knife upon the Roman Catholic religion? Those who favor it, from whatever motives, are only swelling the ranks of the Abolitionists and religious fanatics, and adding fuel to the flames which are now consuming the Union. And I can tell the gentleman from Maryland that if that proud Commonwealth which he has the honor in part to represent, and whose Catholic founders were among the first to establish religious toleration in the American Colonies, is to bear the responsibilities and answer for the consequences of this secret political order, instead of becoming the Marathon of the Union, she will become the modern Nineveh, to bring down upon the nation the curses of the gods as a punishment for its iniquity. To avert such fatal consequences, I look to the united effort of the Democratic party. Many Whigs, too, I hope, will "lend a helping hand. But, sir, if deserted by all-friends, and (political) foes-I, for one, will be found in the line of duty, battling against the pernicious influences of this new order; and if, in my retirement, I do not pray for "the good of Rome," I will for the safety of my own country, and invoke the gods to preserve the honor, the glory, and the perpetuity of the American Union.

TEXAS DEBT BILL.

SPEECH OF HON. J. C. BRECKINRIDGE,
OF KENTUCKY,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February 6, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE said:

Under the rules of the House, and of the committee, I am entitled, Mr. Chairman, to occupy one hour in the discussion of this subject, and at the close of the general debate to occupy another hour. But in view of the extraordinary pressure of the public business, in view of the fact that we have but one day set apart for the consideration of

* Since this speech was made Mr. Seward has been reelected.

Texas Debt Bill-Mr. Breckinridge.

this subject, and of the additional fact that general debate is to close upon it at three o'clock this day, I think it would be unjust to the committee, as well as to other gentlemen who may desire to express their opinions on this bill, to avail myself of all my rights. I propose, therefore, to make a very brief expository statement, touching only what I consider to be the leading points connected with the subject; and I hope to be able to do so in the course of half an hour. There are, doubtless, many gentlemen on this floor better acquainted with the subject than I am, for it is only very recently that I have given any attention to it. I therefore feel the less regret that I cannot discuss it at length, because I am sure the whole subject is familiar to the country.

These general facts may be stated, as well known to the committee and the country, that Texas, while she was yet a separate Republic, contracted a considerable debt in her revolutionary struggle, and to repel Indian incursions; that for a lage portion of that debt, as her political fortunes were somewhat uncertain, and as her stocks did not invite investment, in order to throw around her obligations a more solemn guarantee of payment, she specifically pledged to her creditors of that class, the revenue arising from the duties laid on foreign imports; which debt I shall call, for convenience sake, the revenue debt of Texas; that, at the period of her annexation to the United States, this revenue debt was still undischarged; that, on her annexation, this Government absorbed her customs revenues, and they have been ever since going into the Federal Treasury, and will continue to do so; that, in view of this absorption of her customs, there was a stipulation between this Government and Texas at that time that her public domain, which she retained, should be appropriated to the payment of her debts, and that the remainder, after discharging those debts, might be disposed of at her pleasure. It was also stipulated, that this Government should in no case become liable for the debts of Texas; but, in passing, it should be remembered that the creditors of Texas were not parties to that agreement. From the annexation of Texas down to the present time, Congress has been besieged by petitions from the revenue creditors for the payment of that class of debts. Texas did not appropriate her public lands in discharge of those obligations.

In 1850 a controversy arose between Texas and New Mexico in regard to the boundary line between the two countries. By what is called the boundary act, this Government purchased from Texas her title, or, to state it in another from, if you please, her claim to a large extent of country, for which we agreed to pay her $10,000,000 in stock, payable in fourteen years, and bearing interest at the rate of five per cent., payable semi-annually. Five million dollars of that stock were delivered to the authorities of Texas, and the other $5,000,000, by a proviso contained in one of the clauses of the bill, were to be retained in the Federal Treasury until the revenue creditors should have released this Government from all claims growing out of her having absorbed those revenues which had been so pledged to them. The revenue creditors of Texas, however, have not released this Government, because Texas has scaled this debt at rates from eighty-seven cents down to twenty cents in the dollar, and because, on the release being filed by the creditors at the Treasury, the stock would be paid over to them at the scaled rates. The creditors preferred, therefore, not to release the claims against this Government, but to hold them. And in this position matters have stood. Texas has not settled with them, but she adheres to her scaled rates. The creditors have not been paid, but they have been besieging our Government for payment. The $5,000,000 of stock remains in the vaults of the Treasury bearing interest, and nobody can find the key. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, if we desire to dispose of this subject, that there should be some additional legislation broad enough to satisfy this Government, Texas, and her revenue creditors. complish this object; but if they do not, I see no We think that the provisions of this bill will acmode by which the difficulty can be settled.

The bill which has passed the Senate, which has been favorably reported upon by the Committee of Ways and Means of this House, and

HO. OF REPS.

which is now before you, provides that, in lieu of the reserved fund, with the accumulated interest and premium, which are retained in the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury shall be directed to pay to the revenue creditors of the Republic of Texas, as ascertained by Mr. Corwin, former Secretary of the Treasury, whose report was approved by Mr. Fillmore, and who come within the opinion of the present Attorney General of the United States, $800,500,000 in full satisfation of their claims.

The bill also provides that it shall not take effect until assented to by Texas, nor until the Legisiature of that State shall withdraw all claims and demands against this Government growing out of Indian spoliations and depredations committed prior to her annexation. The sum in the Treasury, reserved under the boundary act of September, 1850, was $5,000,000, which, with the interest to the first day of October, 1855-which I have assumed to be the earliest period at which any arrangement we may make can be consummated, together with six per centum premium, being the premium now offered by the Secretary of the Treasury for that class of debt-amounts, in the whole, to the sum of $6,487,500, a fraction less than $6,500,000. The revenue debt of Texas, according to the report of Mr. Corwin, and the present Attorney General, Mr. Cushing, will amount, at the same period, to wit: October 1, 1855, to the sum of $11,983,157, being within a fraction of $12,000,000-leaving an excess of revenue debt over the reserved fund in the Treasury, with the interest and premium upon it, of, say $5,500,000.

One or two general remarks in regard to the liability of this Government for any portion of this debt. It has been held by some of our statesmen that, at the period of annexation, the United States became liable for the whole debt of Texas, upon the ground that by that act she became absorbed in this Union. I have not been able to bring my mind to this conclusion. I recognize the general principle, that when one country is amalgamated, so to speak, with another, the obligations of the separate countries become the obligations of the collective State; and perhaps the rights of the separate countries become the rights of the collective State; because the country so absorbed does not retain the independent power to contract engagements, and to lay taxes to discharge them. Under our peculiar system of Government, the case is very different. Texas only lost her sovereignty for certain purposes prescribed by our Constitution, but for all other purposes she retained it. She still retains the power to contract obligations. She still retains the power to lay taxes for the discharge of obligations so incurred. I hold, therefore, that we are not bound to pay any portion of the debt of Texas, on the ground alone of her annexation to this country.

As my time is so brief, I must simply indicate lines of thought without pursuing them.

But there is a part of the Texas debt which must be decided by other principles. I allude to that portion for the payment of which she pledged her revenues from customs. I believe the general principle is recognized that a State may, for the purpose of lending additional sanction and solemnity to her obligations, hypothecate or pledge either land or any other resource which she possesses, and in such case, when there is afterwards conquest or cession of the land or other things hypothecated or pledged, they pass, to use a legal term, cum onere. I believe history is full of examples upon this point. I remember a case where the King of Spain hypothecated certain territory for a sum of money which he had borrowed. Afterwards that territory was conquered in war by the States General of Holland; and the most distinguished publicists of Europe held that the States General held it subject to the lien; that they took only the right of Spain, and held it subject to the payment of the debt for which it had been hypothecated.

In another instance I find, that when the King of Prussia had acquired a certain territory by conquest and cession, he entered into an obligation to pay the debts of certain British subjects, for the security of which the territory had been hypothecated. It was held by distinguished public men, that even if he had not entered into a

33D CONG....2D SESS.

treaty, he would still have been liable to pay the debts, upon the ground that the conqueror has no rights except those which belonged to the enemy, and that was a right to the territory, subject to the lien upon it.

If these positions are true in regard to conquest and cession, they are equally true in regard to peaceful annexation, by means of which the party annexing absorbs the sources of revenue pledged for the payment of debts, whether those sources are foreign imports or lands.

Texas Debt Bill-Mr. Breckinridge,

able portion which these revenues, in our hands, ought to bear. That leaves $3,500 000 as the portion to be borne by other sources. I state, without fear of contradiction, that the value of the customs of Texas, in proportion to the value of other sources of revenue which were pledged, is greater than the proportion of two to three and a half.

But I must pass from this branch of the subjuct to another. Whatever may have been the original position which this country should have taken in regard to her liability for any portion of the Texas debt, I hold that she has admitted, by her own legislation, that she is liable for the revenue debt of Texas. I was not here and had noth

When she became annexed to this Government we absorbed those revenues, and they have ever since been flowing into our Treasury, and will continue so to flow as long as this Union continues. Texas is still sovereign within her sphere, still able to contract debts and to lay taxes for the purpose of discharging those debts; but she is no longer sovereign within the sphere of her customhouses, for they belong to this Government, and Texas cannot apply the revenue derived from them to the payment of the debts for which they were pledged.

Now, it may be said that for a large part of her revenue debt she pledged not only her revenues from customs, but her lands and other resources, and that the creditors are first bound to look to the land and other resources before they come upon the customs. I presume it will hardly be contended that when two things of value have been pledged by a Republic for certain debts, it would be proper for the United States to interpose between the Republic and her creditors, and compel the latter to abandon the highest and most valuable security, and look to the lesser and inferior security.

But if it be supposed that the revenues in our hands should be applied in part only to pay the debts, which they, with other things, were hypothecated to secure, then I take the position that her revenues from customs, in our hands, ought to bear their equitable portion of the debts tor which they, with lands and other resources, were, pledged.

find it. I cannot construe the legislation of this country in any other way than as an admission of her liability for the revenue debt of Texas. To put it in the weakest form of statement, our legislation involves admissions; which make it eminently desirable that we should extricate ourselves by a fair compromise.

Let me recur, for a moment, to the history of this transaction.

On page 28 of the documents published with the bill, you find the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845. Among other things the resolution provides, that when Texas is admitted as a State "into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, forufications, barracks, ports, and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armanients, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owng said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabili ties to become a charge upon the Government of the United States."

Recollect that this was our first transaction with Texas. She was then about being annexed to this Union. We were about to absorb her revenues. We e were fully aware of the fact that those revenues were pledged for a particular class of debts. We made a stipulation with Texas, to which, however, her creditors were not parties, that she should retain all the vacant and unappro

I conclude, therefore, that her customs were her most valuable source of revenue; and they ought to bear in our hands, for the discharge of her revenue debt, that proportion which their value bears to the other things which were pledged at the same time.

This being the case let us state the account. I have already stated that there will be in the Treasury, including interest and six per cent premium, on the 1st of October, 1855, $6,487,000; and that the revenue debt of Texas, according to the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, approved by President Fillmore, and the opinion of the present Attorney General, will, at the same period, amount to $11,983,000, leaving an excess of revenue debt, after paying for the land ceded by Texas, the amount we agreed to pay by the boundary act, the sum of, say $5,500,000. We have taken her revenue from customs; and now, what proportion of this $5,500.000 ought these revenues, in our hands, equitably to bear? I undertake to say, that there is no gentleman who has made himself familiar with the availability of the Texas lands for the payment of debts, but will agree that these revenues were the chief source of value. We have said in the bill that $2,000,000 is the equit

to the payment of these debts and liabilities. We undertook to say that the Government of the United States should in no way be responsible for these debts; but that was a supulation between us and Texas only, which could not affect our moral and equitable obligations to her creditors. To see the extreme anxiety of the Government of the United States on this point, (a sort of instinct of liability,) we have only to observe the great exactitude which marks the terms of this stipulation -Texas "shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within her limits, to be applied to the payment of he debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of sand lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may dir ct.

That is the first legislative act, or contract, with Texas touching this subject. She took the land, but has not discharged those debts. I desire to say, in passing, that I have no reflections to make on the State of Texas. I am regarding this question as one between the United States and those revenue creditors. I have nothing to say, either in approval or condemnation of the course of that Stare.

Well, sir, what was the next legislative act? It was what is known as the boundary act, approved September 9, 1850. Besides relinquishing her forts, arsenals, and other public property, Texas agreed to surrender her claim to certain territory in controversy between her and New Mexico, for which the United States stipulated to pay her, in consideration of said establishment of bounda ries and cession of claims, the sum of $10,000 000

Mr. CLING MAN. With the gentleman's permission, I would inquire whether he can inform

Ho. OF REPS.

the committee how much land Texas sold us under the boundary act of 1850, of that portion which was never claimed as belonging to New MexicoI mean of the northern part of Texas, which is watered by the Canadian, and other stream, to which her title was indisputable? My own impression is, that some thirty or forty thousand acres were sold.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I am obliged to the gen leman from North Carolina for calling my attention to that fact, which I might have omitted. I am ot able to state the amount with accuracy, but I understand that it was enough to make a State of the first class.

Mr. SMYTH. The amount was sixty-six million acres

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I thank the gentleman. Sixty-six million acres to which New Mexico never made any claim whatever.

Very well, then in consideration of these sixtysix million acres ceded, to which she had a perfect right, and in consideration further of her relinquishment of her claim to territory which New Mexico also claimed, we agreed to pay her $10,000 000. Did we pay her that $10.000.000? No, sir. We were to issue stock payable in fourteen years, and bearing five per cent. interest, payable semi-annually The natural and proper course of one sovereign State dealing with another, would have been to have issued the stock and paid it over to Texas. What did we do? We issued $5,000,000 of stock ad banded it over to Texas. For the other $5,000,000 we put the following upon the record:

"Provided, No more than five millions of said stock shall be issued until the creditors of the State holding bonds and other certificates of stock of Texas, for which duties on imports uere specially pledged, shall first file at the Treasury of the United States releases of all claims against the United States for or on account of said bonds or certificates, in such form as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the President of the United States."

In the first transaction which we had with Texas we were careful to stipulate, as between us and her, that we were not to be chargeable with these revenue debts; that they were to be paid by her from the proceeds of the vacant and unappropriated lands which she retained. A few years afterward when we came to buy more land-and the very land which we had previously stipulated should be applied to the payment-we stipulated, in order to protect ourselves against liability for these revenue debts, that we would not pay the Sovereign State of Texas the money which we had agreed to pay her for her land until these revenue creditors released the United States from all liability for these debts. Why did we make that stipulation? Why, in dealing with the Commonwealth of Texas as a sovereign State, did we undertake to retain $5,000,000 of that money until we were relieved from certain obligations? Was she not competent to pay her own debts? Was she not competent to manage her own affairs? Sir, it was a legislative admission of our liability, and it cannot be construed in any other sense It was a declaration of the Congress of the United States that they considered themselves liable in some form to settle with the revenue creditors of Texas. In order to guard ourselves against legal, moral, and equitable claims of these creditors we retained the money in the 'reasury. It is perfectly notorious to every gentleman familiar with the debates in Congress at that time, that it was thought $5 000,000 would be sufficient to cover the hole revenue debt of Texas. If this sum had not been supposed to be ample. Congress would have retained the whole $10,000,000. It would have been well if this had been done.

Mr. Chairman, I find these stipulations and admissions upon the statute-books; and I hold, even if it be a question of doubt, as an original proposition, whether we are bound for the revenue deb, even if it be a question of doubt whether this legislation is an admission on the part of our Government that she stands in some sort of relation of obligation to these revenue creditors-I hold that the case presents a fair ground for compromise.

Mr. TAYLOR, of New York I would inquire whether the first section of the bill provides for all of the revenue debts of Texas; so that its passage will finally settle the matter.

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE Mr. Corwin excluded one or two items which Mr. Cushing allowed, and Mr Cushing excluded one or two items which Mr. Corwin allowed; but by admitting the items that were allowed by both, I think you will include every dollar that can properly be termed her revenue debt.

Mr. TAYLOR. With the gentleman's permission, I will call his attention to the last paragraph in the nineteenth page of the public document upon this subject, in which, it seems to me, it is admitted by the present Atttorney General, that the entire revenue debt of Texas is not included in the claims for which this bill provides. Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I think the gentleman from New York is mistaken. If he will examine those documents carefully I think he will find that there is very little difference between Mr. Cushing and Mr. Corwin, and that the items embraced in their united opinions, will cover the entire revenue debt of Texas.

Mr. TAYLOR. It seems to me, that Mr. Corwin does not construe the term 66 revenue debt," as Mr Cushing does.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Not in every particular, but, I think the sum of their opinions embraces it all.

Mr. HOUSTON. Will the gentleman from Kentucky state whether the amount provided for under this bill is not very much larger than the amount for which the revenues from customs were specially pledged by the State of Texasand which amount the act of Congress in 1850, assumed, to a certain extent, to pay.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. If my friend from Alabama has examined the opinions of Mr. Corwin and Mr. Cushing, he has discovered that they construe the proviso to the boundary act of 1850, as embracing the whole revenue debt of Texas.

Mr. HOUSTON. I understand that. But the point desire to bring to the attention of the committee is this: the term "special revenues" was used in the law of Texas by which a portion of her debt was created-for the balance, (or the most of it) of her debt, she pledged her revenues generally. The act of Congress of 1850 used the term "revenues from customs" and assumed to pay the amount for which such special pledge was given. By reference to the law of Texas, you will find that the amount for which the special pledge was made is less than $1,000.000. This bill proposes to pay $8,500 000 Now, if our obligations are based upon, ad proceed from our act of 1850, in which the obligation went only to the extent of the amount for which Texas had made a special pledge of her revenues from customs; and if it be true that the amount for which Texas had made such pledge be under $1,000,000, then I would like to know upon what principle we are bound beyond our express obligation. The opinion of the Attorney General is that whenever the general revenues from customs were pledged, that amounts to a special pledge. And that I understand to be the point upon which this case turns. If we confine this bill to the obligations assumed by us, the $5.000,000 we owe Texas will considerably overpay the amount. If, however, the reasoning of the Attorney General be good, and a general pledge of revenues means (in the sense of the legislation of Texas and Congress) a "special pledge of the revenues from customs," then this bill does not propose to pay the full amount of our assumption by several millions of dollars.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I will read a short extract from the opinion of the present Attorney General upon this point:

"It has been suggested that the pledge of all the revenues does not come up to the condition of the act of Congress, 'for which duties on imports were specially pledged.' feel constrained, however, to agree fully with the reasoning of Mr Corwin as to this point: Omne massus in se minus conti et-the whole includes all the parts. If a pledge of all revenues be no: a pledge of duties on imports, then it is no pledge of anything; for you may strike out from its purview each and every species comprehended in the genus r venue' by force of the same reasoning which strikes out duties on imports, and the effect would be to annul, and altogether defeat, the whole purpose of the lawgiver."

The gentleman will find, also, in the act of Texas, of January 14. 1840, the following words:

"That for the redemption of all loans negotiated by the authority of the Republic of Texas, independently of the

Texas Debt Bill-Mr. Breckinridge.

reservation of the sinking fund, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, its revenues and public faith are solemnly pledged."

This act is prospective as well as retrospective. By the legal import of these words it is an act of general, permanent legislation, and the Attorney General, in his opinion, to which I refer my friend from Alabama, goes on to demonstrate this with great clearness. Now, I hold it to be too clear for argument that a “solemn pledge" for a debt, of all revenues-in which he customs are included is, by a fair construction, a special pledge of revenues from customs. This seems to me to be conclusive. But in addition, it may be remarked here, that, if by the annexation of Texas, and the absorption of her revenues from customs, this Government became liable for the whole, or an equitable proportion of the revenue debt, the language of the boundary act is immaterial.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I find that I have consumed so much time that I shall have to pass over very much that I had intended to say. But I desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact, that if we desire to dispose of this subject, some legislation is necessary. While this sum remains in our Treasury, the interest upon it will accumulate, and unless we appropriate an amount sufficient to command the assent of Texas and her revenue creditors, it is not improbable that we shall have to pay the whole of these claims For, sir, after we shall have paid the $5 000.000 with interest, amounting, when the stock matures, to $8.500,000, these creditors will come here for the balance of these debts, amounting, I think, to some $3.500,000, with the accumulating interest. They will be pressed upon Congress continually, until, some day or other, they will be paid, as all large claims against the Government are which have anything plausible to sustain them, and especially in this case, when they have really, in my opinion, much justice to sustain them.

Now, sir, what are the means proposed? The first is the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. SMYTH,] which proposes that the Secretary of the Treasury shall issue to the State of Texas such portion of the stock mentioned in the proviso of the boundary act, as shall be equivalent in amount to the releases of the claims against the United States, which shall then be filed in the Treasury, as in said article is provided.

The effect of that provision is this: If Texas can get her creditors to release the Government of the United State from all claims against us, the Secretary of the Treasury shall then issue pro rata stock to the State of Texas. But, sir, there is, at the outset, this objection: It is a proposition that could never pass the two Houses of Congress. The same proposition was made in the Senate, and after having received full and elaborate consideration in that body, was voted down by an overwhelming majority. It could, therefore, never pass the Congress, and to propose such a measure would be equivalent to proposing no legislation at all.

In the next place, it would not be accepted by the revenue creditors. These creditors have now some claim upon the Government of the United States, which has been to some extent recognized It is well known that the State of Texas has scaled her debts, some of them eighty-seven and a half cents, some seventy, some fifty, and some twenty cents in the dollar. Well, sir, do you suppose the Texas creditors will release their claims against the United States, to be turned over to the State of Texas, and to be scaled to twenty, thirty, or fifty cents in the dollar? So that it will result in no legislation whatever. Besides, what right have we to be dealing in this way with the State of Texas? Let us make a clean business of it, one way or the other. If we are liable to these creditors, let us make some suitable provision for them If we are not liable, let us hand over to Texas the whole of the stock we agreed to give her for her cession of land, and allow her to settle her own debts in her own way.

The next proposition made is, that we shall pay out this stock to the creditors pro rate, without the assent of Texas. Sir, we cannot do that without the consent of Texas. In the first place, it would be a violation of the compact we made with Texas, when we settled the boundary with her in 1850. In the next place it would afford a

HO. OF REPS.

broad ground for the assumption that the United States are liable for the whole amount of the debt. I think, therefore, that this plan is wholly impracticable.

The next proposition, and the most plausible one, is that we pay the sum in the Treasury, with interest and premium, amounting now to about $6,500,000, pro rata among the creditors, with the consent of Texas. That, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, will not be accepted by Texas. Why? Because Texas, as I have already remarked, has scaled her revenue debt by classes, from eighty-seven and a half cents in the dollar, through successive classes, down to twenty cents in the dollar. She has, therefore, put upon record, and her honor is pledged to the fact, that to a portion of her revenue creditors she owes eighty-seven and a half cents in the dollar, to others seventy cents, to others thirty cents, and to other twenty cents. But a distribution of the $6,500 000 in the Treasury pro rate among those creditors would yield only about fifty-five cents in the dollar. She will never do it; obviously never do it. And, therefore, to appropriate $6 500,000, to be distributed pro rata among the creditors with her consent, would be to do nothing, to keep the money in the Treasury accumulating interest, and the whole subject festering here, and festering in Texas. I desire the committee to pay particular attention to this point, because I believe that is the only dangerous proposition that will be offered in connection with this bill. I ask gentlemen to consider, for one moment, whether Texas will ever agree that the United States, acting for her, shall distribute $6,500,000 among certain creditors, which yields a pro rata of fifty-five cents in the dollar only, when she, the State of Texas, has by law declared that she owes a considerable portion of those creditors more than fifty-five cents in the dollar, and some of them eighty-seven and a half cents? She will never do it. We ask her to allow us to pay for her the amount which she owes with a far less sum. She never can agree to it.

Well, suppose we take another course Suppose we simply say: We have nothing to do with the debt of Texas, revenue or otherwise; we will repudiate our legislation of 1850; we wish we had paid her the whole $10 000,000 instead of only $5,000,000 and now we will issue the remaining $5 000 000 of stock with interest, and pass it over to the State of Texas absolutely, and without qualification or condition. What will be the result? Texas will take the $5,000.000 of stock; she will pay her revenue creditors at the scaled rates, amounting to less than $5.000,000, leaving about $7.000 000 of her revenue debt, ac cording to the face of her obligations, undischarged, for which her creditors will pursue us constantly, and time without end, until it is settled. And at last, when we come to pay this claim, as come we will, at some future day, when so many eminent men in the country, and so much of the intelligent public opinion of the country holds that we are bound for this class of debts-and these claims always grow when the justice of them is sanctioned by an intelligent public opinion-at last you will have to pay the $7,000,000, with interest, of revenue debt left undischarged, after having paid to the State of Texas the $5,000,000 and interest which you have now in hand.

You paid her $5,000,000 in 1850, and reserved $5,000,000 to secure this Government against the claims of the revenue creditors. Now, by the addition of $2,000,000, as proposed in this bill, you can rid yourselves of the claim for a much greater amount, and close up the whole subject with both Texas and the creditors. But if you pay over the stock to Texas your reserved fund is gone, $7,000,000 of revenue debt remains undis charged and the subject is still undisposed of. And yet there are, rationally, but two alternativesone is to pass the bill offered to you by the Committee of Ways and Means, and the other is to issue all the reserved stock to Texas, and say nothing more about it.

I have omitted saying anything in regard to the last section of this bill, because I have not had time, and I shall refrain from saying anything about it until I am up again, and, perhaps, I shall not consider it important to dwell much upon it then.

The only amendments of any importance which

33D CONG....2D SESS.

the Committee of Ways and Means have made to the bill, as it came from the Senate, are: first, a provision for the release of both the United States and Texas; and next, a provision that the act shall not take effect until the Legislature of the State of Texas shall pass an act withdrawing and abandoning all claims against the United States, growing out of Indian depredations prior to the admission of the State into the Union.

I do not mean to say, Mr. Chairman, that I consider that Texas has a just claim against this Government, growing out of those Indian depredations. We did not put it in as a consideration, to any great extent, for the amount in this bill. But I do mean to say, that it is a claim which, like many others brought before Congress, and finally paid, is a plausible claim-a claim to some extent admitted by Executive officers of the Government in times past-a claim pressed with great urgency by a distinguished Senator from Texas, and which he believes to be just, and one of those claims which it is just as well, in making a settlement, to include, if it can be done, so as to leave no subject of dispute or controversy between the State and the Federal Government. For that reason, sir, it was inserted in the bill. The amount of the claim is $3,800,000.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that, as a matter of compromise-to put it upon the lowest groundfor the disposal of a subject which has been a perplexing and vexed one, and which, unless we pass some law of this sort, must continue to be a perplexing and a vexed one for years, I think that, as a matter of compromise, this bill is the best we can adopt. I believe that, in a financial point of view, it is the best for this Government, believing as I do, that, unless we adopt it, we shall not only have to pay the exact amount contained in this bill when the stock matures, but that we shall also have upon us this claim urged by Texas in regard to Indian depredations, and the balance of the revenue debt urged by the creditors, which now amounts to about $5,000,000, and is constantly increasing. I believe, therefore, that to close the subject, as this act will-Texas assenting and the creditors releasing, as they will do, worn out, as they are, by delay, and heart-sick from hope deferred-the passage of this bill is the best thing that the House can do. I hope, sir, that some disposition will be made of it to-day. I do not think it is asking too much of the committee to request that gentlemen, in view of the importance of the subject, and the pressure of public business, will continue the present sitting long enough to act upon all amendments that may be offered, and pass the bill in such form as the majority shall approve.

BRIG GENERAL ARMSTRONG.

SPEECH OF HON. J. A. PEARCE, OF MARYLAND,

IN THE SENATE, February 9, 1855. The question being on reconsidering the vote by which the bill for the reliet of the claimants of the private armed brig General Armstrong was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading

Mr. PEARCE said:

Before the question is taken, I desire to make a very few remarks. There has been such an extended argument on the subject, and the case has been discussed by so many gentlemen of great ability, that I do not think it necessary to go into an argument; but I desire to state very briefly to the Senate the reasons why I consider this claim utterly unfounded.

It has been said that the attack made by the British squadron in the port of Fayal upon the privateer General Armstrong, was a gross violation of national law. That, sir, is nothing new in British naval history. I think with that nation, as with some others, the question of right has frequently been subordinate to the question of power; and there are even more conspicuous instances than this of her violation of neutral rights. But the violation of a neutral jurisdiction does not of itself justify a demand of satisfaction against the neutral Power. Still less does it necessarily authorize a demand by the injured party against his own Government. This claim seems to me to

Brig General Armstrong-Mr. Pearce.

be defended principally upon two grounds. First, it seems to be assumed that because Portugal is a sovereign Power we must necessarily deduce from that sovereignty her ability to cause satisfaction to be made for the injury which was committed by the forces of another Power within her waters; and, secondly, that our Government is liable, because we have been guilty of gross negligence in the management of the claim after it was put into the hands of the Government by the claimants. In regard to the last ground, I might perhaps say, too, that it includes the allegation that the Government of the United States have violated the rights of the claimants by submitting the claim, without their consent, to the arbitration of a neutral, friendly Power.

Now, sir, I suppose that when a citizen claims damages for an injury committed by a foreign Government, and puts his claim for prosecution into the hands of his own Government, he is not like an individual employing an attorney, who is subject to his instructions, and bound by them. The dignity of the Government, its duty and interests will not permit any such analogy. I suppose that, from the moment the claimant has put his demand into the hands of the Government, that Government is to conduct the claim according to its own judgment of the fitness of things. From that moment it ceases to be an individual proceeding, and assumes the character of nationality. The Government may press the claim by war if necessary, but everybody admits that it is not bound to do that. Every one agrees that the paramount duty of the Government to the great body of its citizens is superior to its obligation to the individual citizen. I think it is true that this same duty of the Government, to regard the paramount interest of the whole country, will authorize the employment of any means to adjust claims of this sort which the Government sees proper. It may abandon the claims, as was admitted by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] in the course of the debate last Friday. If the Government may abandon the claims, rather than enter into a war for their prosecution, may not the Government undertake to refer them to arbitration? Does not the larger power include the less? If the Government is authorized to abandon it, may it not seek, after it has exhausted argument and reason with the Government on whom the claim exists, to have that claim enforced by appeal to the reason of another Power, that is to say, by arbitration? This is one of the recognized modes of settling international complaints, and I think that the Government has the right, necessarily, to settle a claim by any of these known modes.

SENATE.

written arguments of the claimants by the Secretary of State, was, in itself, a ground for the liability of this Government; but that as the claim ants were ultimately injured in the arbitration by an erroneous decision, caused by giving a construction to the treaty that was made, which violated one of the chief rights of the individual which ought always to be secured to him, therefore a responsibility arises. I say that a treaty made upon that basis, makes, as I think, a just claim upon the Government.

Mr. PEARCE. I admit, that, if the Government, in the conduct of the arbitration, did not in good faith use all the means in its power to submit the facts fairly to the arbitrator, it would be liable; but I say it is impossible to suppose that this Government has been guilty of such negligence. The facts which have been presented to us disclose no such state of things; but, on the contrary, they make the conclusion irresistible that there was no such negligence as is alleged. Why, sir, the claim arose during the war of 1812-I think in 1814. Very soon afterwards it was placed in the hands of the Government; and, from that day to the time of arbitration, there has been an extraordinary amount of correspondence between the claimants and the Government, and between this Government and the Government of Portugal. The papers are voluminous; all the facts are substantially, and, indeed, minutely set forth in that correspondence; and they also contain an abundance of argument. I do not believe that there has been a particle of argument presented in the Senate which is not contained in the papers in the case. In point of fact, the whole case has been presented as fairly and as fully to the arbitrator as if the claimants had been allowed an opportunity to present to him a written argument by their attorney or agent. It is impossible to resist this conclusion. There has scarcely ever been a case in which there was more minute detail of fact, or more careful elaboration of argument.

As to the decision of the arbitrator, I do not wish to speak much of that. I confess I am surprised at the ground upon which he puts his award. It does not seem to me to correspond with the state of facts in the papers, as presented to the Senate; and I will particularly mention the statement of facts made by the Governor of Fayal in relation to the proceedings of the British force on the occasion of that outrage. I think it clearly demonstrable from his letter that the attack was made by the British. Whether the first gun was fired by the privateer or not, the attack was made by the British. She was in the act of repelling an aggression when she discharged, if she did discharge, the first gun. For, though it is manifest that the first British boat which approached the privateer was only reconnoitering, it is equally clear that the first detachment of armed boats fired into was sent from the squadron with hostile intentions, and therefore the crew of the privateer were fully justified in firing before they were boarded. But do not mean to impeach the integrity of the arbitrator when I say this.

trator.

Mr. SLIDELL. As I have already said, the friends of the bill will not pursue the discussion; and I, therefore, here desire merely to remark that I do not think any evidence can be found of any assent on the part of the claimants to the arbitration until after that submission had actually been made.

Mr. PEARCE. I do not mean to say to the contrary; but I recollect that Mr. Marcy, in his letter addressed to the Committee on Foreign Relations, stated that it was known at the Department of State that the parties interested acquiesced in the arbitration after the convention with Portugal had been made. But whether they acquiesced or not makes no difference, in the view which I have undeavored to present. Then it is assumed that there was gross negligence on the part of our Government, because the claimants were not permitted to submit an argument to the Prince President of France. The treaty stipulated that the claim should be submitted to the arbitrator upon the correspondence which had passed between Portugal and the United States upon this subject.

Mr. BAYARD. I look upon the Government and claimants more as being in the situation of a guardian and ward than as client and attorney. I did not intend to say that the refusal to submit the

ground upon which we can rest any allegation of Upon the whole, I am clear that there is no gross negligence, or negligence of any sort, against this Government. The Senator from Delaware seems to assume that, because Portugal was a sovereignty, it followed necessarily that she was under the liability either to make Great Britain grant satisfaction through her to the claimants for the outrage, or to make it herself. He assumes, also, her ability to compel Great Britain to make such satisfaction. Now, I think one of these is a presumption of fact too violent to be made; and the other a legal assumption not warranted by any general principles, or by any authority from the law of nations on this subject, which, as in all other cases, when there is no conventional arrangement, is the law of reason, resting upon moral right and those obvicus considerations which make it the duty of one Government to do, or omit to do, some particular thing. In fact, sir, Portugal had not the ability to compel the British Government to make satisfaction. She did, indeed, do that which it was both her right and her duty to do. She appealed in the strongest language, through her Secretary of State, to the British Government, complaining of this violation of neutrality, and the injury done to her friend within the waters of