New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-07-10
From The Sun Of yesterday.

AuufxatfOn-Ufs NsHy-Iu ne Suus
From Tie Sun Of yesterday
Tvr axxrxArroS QUEsrrox-1hc Tribune does no,
hl,aye that IL, people done talking Of the wick
edpc. OF annexation and says there more such talk
and there Ia 20 be- much more and adds, 1T Just as
unjust dshonorabe and dangerous 70 the Integrity OF
the Union when Henry Clay 80 denounced II last
year i The Tribune quite thar that distinguished
did actually consider the possession Of Texas
"unjost and dishonorablc = HI. words we believe
were quite OF a different import. and ran thus " Poson-
oly should be ad 10 Trcs amend wor,ded could
BE- accomplished peaesabiy and rtfhot rar rh Msrco
His name canuo, be invoked against annexation win
such sentiments What remains 70 be done ~ ms
frends now annexation IS completed JON hand ana
heart In Sustaining this important acquisition IN preventing
a wh Mexico by appealing ~ her prlneipcs' hef
interests her good sense and satisfying her that re
lees her friend though Texas may be ours nay tna
are her neghbOr and friend, and cesxn 70 90
hez no wrong VIA, do mean ssys The Tribune, bS
saying nc must 90 no farther We mean 70 say '''sa
with fcxas territorial possessions al the SCUM are
Completed. We want no mOrc-ncveT talk oil acquiring
territory by conquest-wc want no war, our weapons
negotiations and good iaith-what we nay acquire
hereafter mas; be done peaceaoy not iofcOiy snh IL
can be done Our great measure wAcn VIII mere
after BE- fully developed IS TO sustain and take part IN
Congress OF al the powers on the American continent
for mutual protection against foreign interference
- We asked The San to state precisely what
j, meant by no fqrther,7 in declaring tina, we
must 90 no farther" than Texas in our acquisitions
of territory We asked it expressly 10 tell us
whether it considered the country Of the Cananches,
the Mexican province Of Santa Fe and the country
yves; OF the Nueces rightfuly portions of Texas. and
accrune 10 ~ with herl Has Texas any rigbtinl
Weston boundary If so, where ? Does it coincide
with that Of the old province Of Texas or does !;
overlesp this and stretch 10 the Rio del Norte On
wha, principle, by what right. do we absorb the Ca
mancse country How can we, as Republicans,
subject Santa Fe to our rule And il we resolve TO
reach out to the Rio del Nore will The Sun take
firm stand against going farther Why not speak
plainly
We certainly think this country has not acted
toward Mexico the part Of near neighoor ana
friend" "a certain man going down from Jerusa
lem 20 Jericho tcH omoag There's, who stripped ana
woundoi him and left him half dead and ochoid a
nries; saw him and passed by ON the other side
sl.o Leyi,e; lastly the Good Samaritan, who acted
the mari of a real neighbor.--Whose conduct has
That of o,r Government toward Mexico in this whole
Texas business most rescmbed-that of the priest,
IN. Lcvi,e the Samaritan or the thieves
as The Tribune quite sure" abost Mr. Clays
sentiments in regard TO Annexation Yes sir sure
every way, but his public letters are sufficient.
Mr. Claws original letter Annexation lsce DAILY
Tribune April Goth, lsi4 expressly declares that
IL would be wrong in us TO annex Texas without a
previous recognition of her Independence by Next
co--that Annexation and war with Mexico are
identical" Mr. Clay goes on TO argue that II would
be "disLonorable thus to treat a weak ncigbbor
and TINT. even if Mexico were TO give her assent
~ do not think that T1as ought 70 BE- yecered into e
Union iee2rai part o a. ~ deeded oRposd'oH one
rish,s Of o0asiraJe and respectable PORTION Of dc
C0gfsdracy
In subsequent letter TO Alabama, refuiing Loco
Foco allegations that he was pledged to oppose An
pexaiion at all times and under MI circumstances,
Mr. Clay declared that he had no personal objections
IA Annexation but would be glad to see it if it could
be effected 1cifh0m ,cor, withovt dishoRor, and
ruth the common consent of he american People
1--WE cannot at this moment lay our hands on the
letter but these the conditions and very nearly
the words) And in his final letter to the National
In,egencer, Mr.. Clay says;
ain my second letter to Alabama assuming that the An
nexatiOn OF Texas might be accomplished without ma
tonnl dishonor without with the general consent OF
the States of the Union. and upon fair and reasonable
terms. stated that should be glad to see IT, did not
suppose that II possible could be misunderstood
imagined every body would comprehend me as intend
ing that whatever mi sht be my particular views and
eopinons should be happy TO see what the whole ma
ton might IN desiring under the conditions stated
Nothing further from my purpose than 10 intimate
any change of opinion long any considerable and
ro.pcT table portion of the confederacy should continue
90 stand out IN opposition to the Annexation OF Texas
Need we add word TO vindicaie Mr. Clay
from The Suns perversion The speeches and
votes of the Kentucky Wings in Congress last win
ter will show what they think of Annexation Mr..
Clay nerer, in any line he has written, expressed
the opinion that Annexation would be justifable
without the free. unconsirained assen, of Mexico,
II
the American Union. He regards the Union as
great partnership into which the majority have no
right to thrust new partners withou, the free
of all the old ones. And this is manifestly true
Now at the latest demonstration OF the public will
in the last Presidential Election, tcelre States
ing one Hanarcd and Mvty-three Electoral Votes,
gave popular maioritics against Annexation New
York aud Michigan did SO, in addition TO the States
voting for Clay but we exclude Tennessee from
the account, because the Wings of tina, State did
no, all oppose Annexation Since then, no Anti
Texas State has changed IFS ground, but even New
Hampshire has virtually polled majority against
Annexation, in the defeat of Woodbury. by Hale
Who then, pretend tina, any of the conditions
which Mr. Clay declared essential prerequisites 10
Annexation. have been fulfilled Who docs no,
Know inat MI Gay mas repeatedly, uniformly pro
nouuced Annexation under existing circumstances,
'unjast aud dishonorahle.'
But The Sun regards as idle and absurd our
talk of " the wckedness of Annexation In the
eyes of tina, paper. nothing which looks tempting
and convenient, can ever be impotc wicked, and
the Forbidden Fruit would have seemed only
pleasant relish after dinner Ii is hard to reason
against want OF moral perception bu, Authority
sometimes has weight where Argumen; would fail.
We ask The Suns attention therefore TO the fol.
lowns leading Editorial from as orn columns, viz
8 : : . : > . y
HON ne Nen York San .Lan 2ilh ISIS