{"newspaper_name": "Mobile register and journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2704, "word_count": 452, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9585999846458435], "ccnet_perplexity": [1169.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The article in our last paper, defining from the corded votes and declarations of Col. DUNN, the whig candidate for Congress m this District--his "unchanged' hostility to the annexation of Texas because it is unconstitutional, perfdous, breach of nrtional faith to Mexico injury ,o the States ol the Soulh,and of no benefit to the Unlon-has drawn forth long and rambling reply from the editor oi the Advertiser. It consists of bitter denuncIations of the democratic party for having taken up the Tex as question, and with it, he afirms defeated Mir. Cay-a repetition of the reasonngs by which he seeks to recommend Col. DUNN, this unre eating eil- emy of TEXAS, to fhe support of those who wish 10 see Texas annexed-some defensive matter on his own account, against our quotation of his words wherein lie reioced that there yet prospect of the defeat of annexation, and some recriminations towards this paper. On such of these matters as are worth noticing, we have few words to say.

 The bitter reproaches heaped upon the democratic party for having rallied the popular feeling in favor of TEAS against Mir. CLAY. whereby alone in the opinion of the Advertiser, they succeeded in over throwing hun, are the best acknowls Judgements by a baled adversary of the power of the Texas question over the public mind. The saluary dread of this Texas question, which was taught with such over "Neiming power by the Presidential contest of Mo- 'ember, is manifest in the effort lo avoid it's force at me present Congressional election. Col. DrEN, the

 ""'s candidate, and his editorial friend, both labor 10 shew that under certain specified circumstances they are noi bound hy their moral or constitutional

 ohJectons To continue to oppose the and the editor throws out n loud defianc. thai the demo-

 crais dare not waive this question, put out f the canvas altogether and try lhe electors on inc o,ber political points al issue between the pariie,. H. gravely explains, that in his opinion, if inc demo

 crats had but waived this question, winch tusv mn, forth as one of paramount national importance. in. yolying vast national consequences and great public principles, the whgs might have made better fight, -and he thinks them very ungracious in ma,n,ain- ing position which has rallied the popular eulhusi- asm so fatally against the whgs. II would be ex tending indulgence to adversary further than the most chiyarous generosity could defend surrender the elements of sIccess, a the cost of sacrifice of principle and duly, merely give broken foe the opporHnily to rally. The whigs may therefore con tinue to complain that the Texas question destroyed and is destroying them as a plrty-but they cannot