The Arkansas banner., 1844-01-16
MIR. CLAY,s CONSISTENCY.


 and friends, it is fair to assume that he is, no,c, opposed 10 the annexation of Ieras to the United States. The sLouisville Jour nal," which may be called his s'home Secre- tary''-his fre-side organ-the very mouth piece of his political pipe-stem, through which his opinions and mandates are puffed upon the public,-this special organ has talk en the boldestground against annexation, and given 'sthe lie direct" to the assertion that MT. Clay is in favor of it. Again :-the Clay organ in Mississippi-''The Southron," published at Jackson, with the name of its idol inscribed upon its flag, and that flag anailed to the mast,o holds the following language:
 GAS much as we regret the agitation of this question we feel ourself in duty bound to speak out in unequivocal terms against so unwise and impolitic proposition. as the an- nexation of Texas"
 And, still, again The Whig Convention, of Connecticut, which assembled in Nov. last, unanimously nominated MT. Clay, for the Presidency and unanimously adopted the following resolution
 "Resozued, Thet the annexation of the re- public of Texas-a foreign and independent State-to our Union, will be most palpable and fragrant infraction of the constitution of the United States, alike inconsistent with healthful administration of the government, and dangerous to our liberties and must in- evitably break up and destroy our glorious Union.'' .''-Whig State Convention, N ovember, 1843."
 That this resolution was adopted, with a full knowledge of MT. Clay's opinions, and was intended as promulgation and endorse ment of those opinions, there is no reason to doubt.
 Therefore, we say, Afr. Clay IS opposed to anneration.
 It is not our purpose, here, to discuss the policy of the measure of annexation. Our present object is to speak of 1t only in con- nection with Mir. Clay ito shew, in the first place, as the foregoing proves, that he is op- posed to 1t ao1c and, in the second place, that he was most anxiously in favor of 1t in 1827,-as will be seen in the following ex- tract of his letter, while Secretary of State under MT. Adams, to MT. Poinsett, who was then our Minister to Mexico. The differ ence of his views and wishes now, and in 1927, and the reasons of his change, shall be considered hereafter We design here to fas- ten the inconsistency upon him, for which the perusal of the following letter is sufficient. Read the letter:
 .Mr. Clay to .Mr. Poinsett.
 WASHINGTON, March, 1927.
 SIR-The great extent and facility which appear to have attended the procurements of grants from the government or the United Mexican States, for large tracts of country to citizens of the United States in the province of Texas, authorize the belief that but little value is placed upon the possession of that province by that government These grants seem to have been made without any sort of equivalent, judging according to the opinions of the value of the land. They have been made to, and apparently in contemplation of being sattled by, citizens from the United States. These emigrants will carry with them our principles of law, liberty, and reli- zion and, however much it may be hoped they might be disposed to amalgamate with the ancient inhabitants of Mexico, as far as political freedom is concerned, 1t would be almost too much to expect that all collisions would be avoided on other subjects Already some of these collisions have manifested themselves, and others in the progress of time may be anticipated with conidence.- These collisions may insensibly enlist the sympathies and feelings of the two republics, and lead to misunderstanding.
 Impressed with these views, the President has thought the present might be an auspi- cious period for urging negotiation at Mex ico, to settle the boundary between the ter ritories of the two republics. The success of the negotiations will probably be promo ted by throwing into it other motives than those which strictly belong to the subject it. self If we could obtain such boundary as we desire, the government of the United States might be disposed to pay reasona- ble pecuniary consideration. The boundary which we prefer is that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio del Norte in the sea, shall ascend that river to its source and from its source, by line due north, to strike the Arkansas to its source, in the latitude Az deg. north, and thence by that parallel of lati- tude to the South Sea. The boundary de- scribed would, according to the United States fTanner's map, published in the United States, leave Santa Fe within the limits ol Mexico, and the whole of Red River or Rio Roxo in the Arkansas, as far up as 1t is pro ba5ly navigable, within the limits assigned to the United States. If that boundary be unat- tainable, we would, as the next most desira- ble, agree to that of the Colorado, beginning at it's mouth in the Bay of Bernardo, and as- cending the river to its source; and thence by line due north, to the Arkansas; and thence, as above traced, to the South Sea- This latter boundary would probably, also give us the whole of the Red River-woult