Southern shield., 1851-07-26
From the Huntsville Ala Advocate Letter from Senator King.

inc Editor of the Pickens West Alabaman,
 upon the Compromise measures. Ii IS cal
 culated 10 give no comfort to the Disunion-
 ists. We find room for his opinions upon
 the most material points.
 In relation to the admission of California, # he "has not been able 10 see in the meas ure violation of the constitution" and says:
 No man could have felt more indignant than did at this partial and unjust legisla- tion but l am free 10 declare, that 1 h0Ue not 6een dble 70 see iR the measure c UloIa- tion o1 the c0nStitutiOn, as contended for by many; did 1 so consider it, l neither could
 nor would have expressed the opinions, that the people of the South could with hon0y, and under the circumstances should, acqui-
 eSce in what had been done.-I'he consti-
 tuition simply gives to Congress the power to admit new States; and the only restric- ton upon the exercise of this power is, that the State constitution shall be republican. No territorial training is reqaired-no as- sent of Congress to the formation of the con- stitullon, previously given is 10 be tound.- The whole matter rests with Congress to exercise a sound discretion"
 He is opposed to the bill abolishing the slave trade in the District, but is in favor of giving the city of Washington power to abate il as a nuisance.
 As to the boundary of Texas, in voting for it, he felt he twas promoting the true interests of Texas and ofthe who}e SoutA.--
 The cIamor which has been raised against
 the measure, 'that slave territory had been surrendered 10 free soil,' haS no foundation in fact," This part of the letter we quote at length, and commend 10 the Democrat for it to digest:
 "I am fully satisfied that in giving my SUD- port to the line as agreed on, although had contended for different boundary, acaS promoting tie true interests Of I'e.caS and of the 1uhO3e South. Ihe clQm0r aChich haS 6eea raised against the measure, "thdt SlaUe territory had bPen surrendered 10 free S0il," haS n2foundatisa in fact. Many, however, without giving to the subject thorough examination, have been made to believe that the boundary of Texas had been established at the time of her annexation; and that her right 10 the whole territory east of the Rio Giande, from its mouth ts the source, was unquestoned. Nothing can be erroneous. When Mir. Calhoun, as Secretary of State l negotiated a treaty with the Texas Con- . miSsionerS, he openly declared that he con- sidercd her true western boundary 10 be line to be drawn through what was known as the desert, lying between the Nueces and
 the Rio Grande. The treaty was rejected
 by the Senate. At a subsequent session, the resolutions which passed authorizing the admission of Texas, expreSsI y reserved the
 right of this government to fix by negotia- lion with Mexico her western boundary nothing was said about the Rio Grande-- and thus Texas came into the Union her
 western boundary unsettled. The effort to
 settle it by negotiation having failed, Gen. Taylor was directed to take a position on the east bank of the river-he removed from
 Point Isabel and encamped opposite Mata-
 moras The battles of Palo Alto and Resa-
 ca de la Palma followed What was then said by Mir. Calhoun, the bold, fearless and uncompromising advocate and defender of
 southern rights, and southern interests! He
 denounced in most indignant terms, the Ad-
 minisration of Col. Polk for having invov-
 ed the country in an unjust, and unnecessa- " war by the invasion of Mexican territo- \ ". Texas, then a State of the Union, had
 not, in the opinion of that distinguished man, e any well founded claim to any territory bordering on the Rio Grande, and in that opinion he was sustained by many who now denounce as faithless tothe South, all those
 who aided in securing to Texas the undis- /. puted possession of territory large enough
 for two States, the right 10 which they had
 strongly denied her. No territory has been surrendered to free soil unless the people of Utah and New Mexico, when they from constitution, and apply for admission as States, think proper to prohibit slavery
 and for the unrestricted exercise of this \ right we of the South have always contend i ed. Governments were established for these territories in strict accordance with # all the territorial acts heretofore passed, t 'clth the exception of that foy Oregon. There # IS no restriction as to slavery; and the ablest ; statesmen, and most distinguished iurists of thesouth, entertain no doubt that the own-
 CTS ot slaves may with perfect security take
 them to either of these territories, regard q less of the Mexican law Had the southern senators and representatives entertained any i doubt on this subject, do you suppose that they, one and all, would have voted for the s bill known as the Clayton bill; which left
 the question as to the validity of the Mexi-
 can law to be decided by the Supreme court
 satisfied as we all were, that that decision \ could not fail to sustain the rights of the 8 South! Yet then, as now, the advocates 4 for restriction contended, that the law of # Mexico evclndeI cIavar1- Tb,t tbav did