and beneficent enterprise of the age; and we have no other, if the only other one is the sacrifice of the mining interest of iron in the old Atlantic states. Sir, I have voted land by the square league across the continent, and twenty millions of dollars out of the public treasury for railroads. I will not vote one dollar out of the iron-mines of my country, at the cost of the owner, and of the miner who is engaged in drawing its wealth to the surface. TEXAS AND HER CREDITOR'S. MARCH 2, 1853. MR. PRESIDENT: At the epoch of annexation, 1845, the republic of Texas possessed some property in public defences, a large domain of unappropriated land, and revenues derived from customs. It owed a considerable debt which had been incurred in establishing independence and organizing civil government. That debt was divided into two classes: first, what has been called a domestic debt, not distinctly charged on the revenues from customs; second, what was secured to creditors by a pledge of those revenues. Texas came into the Union as a state, under stipulations concerning her property and debts, namely: She ceded to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, and other property, pertaining to the public defence. She retained all her funds, and all of her public domain, but under a covenant that it should be applied to the payment of her debts, with the absolute right to any surplus; and it was agreed that in no event should those debts become a charge on the government of the United States. Thus did the United States, in the very act of union with Texas, bind her to pay her creditors, at least as far as her domain would furnish resources for that purpose. In 1850, five years after the annexation of Texas to the United States, all those debts remained unpaid; and, adding interest thereto, they stood, on the 1st of July in that year, as follows: Domestic debt.... Debts secured by customs pledged Total..... .$4,138,733 80 .$12,432,681 32 During that intervening period, there had been war between the United States and Mexico, which had resulted in the annexation, by conquest and purchase, of New Mexico, a state adjacent to Texas. A border dispute existed between those states, and it was supposed by Congress necessary to adjust that dispute, in order to restore civil government in New Mexico, and even to prevent armed collision between Texas and the military force of the United States, which, it was apprehended, might terminate in a general civil war, subversive even of the union of the states. In the midst of this dispute the creditors of Texas appeared here, and urged the settlement of their claims as a condition of the proposed adjustment. They pleaded that the United States had become liable for those debts, by absorbing the sovereignty of Texas, and that at least they had become liable for them to the extent of the value of the revenues accruing from imposts which, although they had been specifically pledged to the creditors, had been diverted into the treasury of the United States by the act of annexation. Thus the debt of Texas became an element of the controversy which Congress undertook to settle in 1850. Congress settled it by compromise: 1. Texas ceded her claim to some of the lands before insisted on, and accommodated her boundary to the demands of the United States. 2. Texas relinquished all claim upon the United States for the debts of Texas, and all other claims for indemnity. 3. In consideration of these concessions, the United States stipulated to pay ten millions of dollars to Texas, in five per cent. stock of fourteen years. But 4. It was stipulated that the United States should not pay to Texas more than five millions of dollars of said ten millions until the creditors, who had taken pledges of her revenues from customs, should have filed releases of all their claims against Texas with the secretary of the treasury of the United States. Thus it appears that there were three parties to this compromise-the United States, Texas, and the creditors of Texas. The United States and Texas bound themselves then. The consent of creditors, whose debts were secured by customs, although postponed, was nevertheless necessary; and so they were a third party, whose consent was afterward to be given by releases. The domestic creditors, who had no specific lien, and in whose behalf the United States made no stipulation, were dismissed to the justice of Texas alone, and they disappeared at once and for ever from this capital. This is the starting-point in the present case. It is manifest that it was a cardinal object and design of that compromise that the creditors of Texas, whose debts were secured by pledges of the customs, should be satisfied by the extinguishment of their claims. The way in which it was to be done was by making that extinguishment, through the agency of Texas, a condition precedent of the payment to her of the last half of the ten millions of dollars. It is manifest also, now, that the compromise had inherent defects, which were these, viz. :— 1. That it did not ascertain and fix the amount which was to be paid to the creditors. 2. That it left that amount open to dispute between Texas and the creditors thus preferred. Nevertheless, the ascertaining and establishing this amount was indispensable to the execution of the compromise. The United States were obliged to ascertain it before they could pay the five millions; and Texas was obliged to ascertain it, and see it extinguished, before she could demand the last five millions. Each party, therefore, undertook to ascertain and fix the amount. Texas has ascertained and fixed it at Which would leave to Texas of the five millions. .$3,355,360 25 A sum exceeding the five millions reserved for those cred- 8,293,947 52 And exceeding the sum at which it is fixed by Texas by.. 3,293,947 52 It is manifest, also, that Texas holds the initiative in the action necessary to carry the compromise into effect. She must see that her creditors release herself and the United States. Moreover, not only can not the United States pay all the creditors thus secured, but they can not pay any until all of them shall, by the agency of Texas, have been brought to file releases. This dispute, full of loss and damage to the creditors, and of irritation. between the United States and Texas, is now two years old. The debt to the creditors grows chiefly at the rate of ten per cent., while the fund is in the treasury, drawing an interest against the United States of five per cent. It is manifest now that it is time, high time, that the controversy should be settled, and the compromise carried into effect. It is equally clear that unless Congress shall intervene, it will not be settled for an indefinite period. The committee on finance proposes a plan of settlement, which is, that in lieu of the five millions of five per cent. of fourteen years, the United States shall issue stock to the amount of $8,333,333 33, at three per cent., redeemable in twenty years, and deliver it to the creditors, taking assignments for their claims (the small excess of their claims being paid in money at the treasury), and that the United States shall hold the assigned claims as a bar to the claim of Texas for these five millions. I. I consider this plan commended by its convenience. 1. In the first place, the creditors of Texas, for whose protection the United States, with her own consent, has intervened, will be promptly paid. Their claims will be extinguished, and this is a cardinal point. 2. The whole claim of Texas on the United States, under the compromise of 1850, will be virtually paid, which is another cardinal point. In any event, and by her own showing, Texas will be paid to within the sum of $1,164,639 75. The difference which will remain to be adjusted, if any, will be one between the United States and Texas, which will involve no injustice to individuals-another cardinal point. 3. The expense to the United States will not be materially increased. The interest of five millions at five per cent., and of $8,333,333 at three per cent., are equal. There will be still the difference of $3,333,333 between the principal sums, to be borne by the treasury. But we have now, and, for some time to come, are likely to have, a surplus in the treasury, and so can buy up this eight millions; or, if you please, the whole thirteen millions in one or two years, and so indemnify ourselves, in a great measure, for the additional sum advanced to settle the controversy. II. I consider the plan, in the next place, commended by its harmony with the principles of the compromise of 1850. The United States, by that compromise, assumed to guaranty ample satisfaction to the creditors in question. The sum appropriated (five millions of dollars) was appropriated because it was thought adequate to that object. The United States would then have appropriated eight millions of dollars, if it had been understood that the debts in question amounted to that sum; and there is no reason to doubt that Texas would have as promptly agreed to that sum as to the lesser one. However this may be, the fact now is that the compromise of 1850 has failed, for the reason that the sum assigned for the indemnity of the creditors was too small by the difference of $3,333,333. I am sure that the sum would have been fixed at what now is proposed, if it had been understood that otherwise the compromise would fail of effect for the reason that it has failed. III. I consider that the plan of the committee is recommended by justice. Justice is the basis of moral obligation. Whether there is a moral obligation between the United States and these creditors, is a question concluded by the act of annexation of 1845, and the compromise act of 1850. On what ground, other than such an obligation, did the United States, in 1845, leave to Texas a peculiar national fund, and bind her to use it to pay her creditors generally, and stipulate with her for the indemnity of the United States against those debts. On what other ground did the United States, in 1850, reserve in their own treasury five millions of the sum to be paid to Texas, until her creditors should file their releases in the federal treasury. It is clear, then, that it is just, and the United States are bound to the creditors by a moral obligation, to see their debts extinguished, at least as far as the sum of five millions would go. Under just such circumstances, a court of equity would, on a bill of interpleader, direct the United States to pay that fund to those creditors. But the moral obligation under which the United States assumed to indemnify the creditors for five millions, equally holds for their indemnity to the whole amount of their claims; that is, for $8,293,947 50. If we were under no moral obligation. to pay that sum, then the stipulation to pay five millions was a wanton waste of that sum without adequate consideration-a position which no one here will assume. Such are the grounds on which the plan of the committee is defended. I proceed to consider the objections raised against it. The honorable senator from Virginia, Mr. Hunter, says that we are under no obligations to pay these creditors, because, in the |