Mobile register and journal., 1845-06-26

ference.''
 Bnt t,nsuiy three whis members thought and ted that some foreign power had the right to com plain, and that there obligation to resist, and among them was Col Wm. D. Dunn.
 The third Texas resolution (lhe seventh of the se- res) was in the following brief lines:
 a1hat wisdom, sound national policy, salety al home and responsibility abroad, demand the imme- dinte re annexation of Texas this Unlon To this also Mr. Dunn said no with 22 other whigs. This too, afler lhe great popular decision of November, in favor of Texas and annexation
 The ''unclanged opinions" of Col. Dunn are therefore that Texas is not independent in lact- that annexation would give just cause for foreign in te, ference--and that it would be injurious to the south m particular and of no benefit to the Union.
 He further nlmates that il is dishonorable to the country and in violation of faith to Mexico. Tbis s said directly only of the Tyler treaty, but the ob lection applies to every lorm of annexation, and s SO understood by the editor of the Advertiser, who avows that he has never written sentiment at va riance with those which he understands to be Col. Dunn's-and we know that he has pronounced the joint resolutions of congress, now before the Texas convention, to be hagrany and wickedIy unconstitu- tuona, and gross national aiihlessness to Mexico
 The position of Col. Dunn, therefore is, that an nexaton IS d wrong to Mexco-an injury to the people oi the soulh-useless if not hurtlul to the whole Unon-dsgraceful to the country and in sio- aton of the constitution. He has said it, and the editor of the Advertiser fully with him and declares that Col Dunn ought to be acceptable 10 the people of both pariies-ihe friends and the mics of Texas, because he declares that he will not seek to dsiab the decision of the last congress-, in favor of this shameful, wicked, AageteOus act! The Col is quoted saying:
 "Notw rhslanding he had always entertained these opnons-and they were still unchanged-he qnes- ton had assumed different shape. His own opinions had been overruled by the country. The last Congress had dec ded that Texas should be nexed certain specified terms and condilons- The iaith of our government was therefore now plrdg- ed To Texas that when those terms were complied | with her part, she should become member of | this Union; and he should feel il hls duty, in the of his election, to in the faith Of our | ernment. Consequently, should Texas ac2ept the offered terms Of annexation and present constltu- ton based republican principles, he would he the last man to throw any obstacles in the way oi her | free admission into our Union."
 1 His submission to this national crime and dshon or, is the 'patristlc' ground that the act is summated as contract, "mhsn Teras accepts ths ef- fered terms" that the government bound to admit Texas "oN CERTAIN SPECIFIED TERMS AND coNDITIoNs;'' and these make compact of faith which must be reluctantly kept at the cost ofal the disgrace and perfdy which he finds in the offer of such terms. | The careful reader will not fail to perceive that Col. Dunn only pledges himself not to oppose the l rlotio If he ,f he Ha binds himself to adhere to the "specifea'' terms which that congress offer d to Texas. We shall not discuss the political morals of claiming great praoe of peculiarly high patriotism in keeping n- violate pledge to Texas, which commits great wrong and violates sacred treaty pledge to Mexi- co; but con6ne ourselves 10 the expediency of ac- l cepng any such forced and ungracious acquies- cence, in necessity, sufficient 10 justify any friend of Texas annexation in voting for Col. Dunn. What confidence they feel in the fidelity their opin- ions of who coniesses himself in d par tia withholding of his opposition to he con strained by con iclIng obligation, to violate hIs conscience and his of right and duty1 Surely, no friend of Texas would select such man to | present his opinions, even fine were agent 10 perform, mechanically the duty of voting for the ad- mission of Texas.
 But this is not the whole of Col. DUEK's position. He is only constrained annexationist, against his conscience and feelings, in consequence of the past action of Congress, which he thinks he ought not attempt 10 nullfy. But how, if any new action should be required? How if Texas consentng in general to the terms proposed, should ask modif- caton7 How if she should hesitate and require some explanation of difficulty. or some remo,al of a hardship? What is Mir. Dunn's position then? Evidently, if he be honest in his unchanged opin- ions," which we do not doubt, he will be happy be released from he implied faith of ma nlainIng the "specfed" conditions promised by Congress; and must feel great relief in being able to return to his natural position unshackled. Would he add a halrs breadth concession, to mako annexation sure? Would he concede inch further than the tion of all that has been done, would demand, for sake of annexationl Is he not. on the contrary, bound by the strongest moral and political consider atons, by every sense of public duty upon his de- claIed view of the naure of the question, ts do eve ry thing winch he can honorably do, to release hs government from contract which he calls dishonest, degrading and mischievous? His friend and the ex- 
 e1ults at every political sign that gives hopes that TEXAS may be induced, on her own part, to re ect those terms. When the negotiations of President JONES with Mexico. through the agency of Captain ELLIOTT, the British Minister, were made known here, the Advertiser reoiced the prospect thereby opened, that annexation would still be de leated. In his paper of May 23rd, alludng to the proclamation of Anson Jones, and the accompanying intelligence of the British intrigues in Mexico, he said:
 Uncompromisingly opposed to the present scheme ' oi annexation, as both uncOnsttuiIona aRd inex- " pedient-believng it would operate to the serious injury of the planting States without bringing any C. benefits in return-tiiat il would weaken the bonds " of glorious union without adding to the securi " ty of our "pecullar nstiiutions;" and believing G. further, that it would be better both for Texas " and the United States, that the former should re- c. main Independsni Republic, confess we should 6 De extremely grated beiispe that there he least prospect that the scheme cf annexation ,Douid be noy |" frustrated"
 We want somebody 10 reconcile this eager thank fitness that Great Britain has succeeded in inter- posing something to 'frustrate' the annexation of Texas with the lofty claims put forth in the same paper, for high patrotism in acquescing in the de- cision of the people of the United States. It seems to our poor understanding, very different of a thing from genuine patriotism, 10 rejoice that for eign government has succeeded in defeating the wishes of the people of this country. which it is un patriotic to oppose al home.
 We cannot say whether Col. DUNN approves of
 rI,