Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1847-12-02
Correspondence of the Journal Of Commerce.
N

WASHINGToN, Nov. IL, lS4I.
Mr.. Cay's propositions in regard to the Mexican
war are now before u.s. and they are definite
satisfactory as might have been expected from him.
| do no, that Mr. Clay has shed any additional
light this question, given any clue by which
we can exircate ourselves from Its perplexltes Mr.
Clay decidedly opposed to the present administration
but the public prepared to believe that without
new declarations.
Mr.. CLAY thinks that the President made the war
himself without the authority of Congress- and there
by violated the Constitutions; but Mr. Clay does not
propose, as Mr.. Webster did, to impeach President
Polk, which is oversight, or proof of extraordi-
nary forbearance.
Mr. Clay declares that the caused by the
annexation of Texas but he does not propose dts
annexation Instead of proposing to recede Texas to
her lawful owner he insists upon defining and defend
ing her boundaries, -meaning her entire boundaries,
claimed by her.
But how does Mr.. Clay propose TO get rid OF the
war! | see no proposition for that object. He says
Mr.. Polk ought to his purposes and objects in
conducting the war; and if he won't DO it, and do it
satisfactorily 10 Congress- then Congress must tell him
what they intend to fight for.
Mr. Polk tells every body, and he will tell Congress,
that lie is fighting for "peace and boundary" Mr..
Clay wishes Congress to direct the Executive to fight
for the thing-til Mexico give peace and such
boundary as he thinks we ought to ask. see 10 diff
ference, so far, between Mr. Clay's policy and Mr..
Polks-except this, that Mr.. Polk has proposed de-
finite boundary line, and Alr. Clay has not. MIR. Polk
proposes to compensate Mexico for territory taken, bet
Mr.. Clay does not.
Mr. Clay says he is opposed to taking any territory
but the breath, he qualities this dogma in such
a manner to show that he meant nothing by IT. He
will take no territory. If there he had stopped he
would have said something; but he adds the words
'.for The purpose Of prOpagating slarery," &c. He
will not take territory for The purpose OF propaga-
ting or extending slavery. Pray, who would! Who
has ever suggested the idea of taking territory for
that purpose Certainly not the Administration Mr..
Buchanan has argued favor of bis line that slavery
cannot exist within it. Mr.. Clay leaves US to take
any territory, and as much please, we do
not take it for the avowed purpose of promoting
slavery.
Ii could be wished that Mr.. Clay somebody would
make the question, whether shall take territory
not Mr.. Berrien and Mr.. Calhoun are the only two
public men, and both Of them shareholders, who
ever explicitly and firmly maintained the policy of adj
ding no territory Mr.. Clay looked at this point and
shrunk back from it.--palsed, suppose by the pop
uar will, that too strongly in favor of taking
some territory from Mexico, ever to be successfully
resisted Mr. Clay indeed suggests that territory
is large enough for present population, which is
quite true. When the latter amounts to two hundred
millions 1t ma not be quite so true, and, ut all events