From thp Wnshinoiou Union.
{"newspaper_name": "Mobile register and journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3457, "word_count": 564, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9398999810218811], "ccnet_perplexity": [1353.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
IMPoRTAET DEvELoPEmENrs.--In lette, from the "fIon. Ashbel smith," published in the last "New York Joarnal of Commerce" he makes the following statement:

 1.-The insinuaiion that have opposed annexation, or that went to Europe 10 concert measures, or 10 cooperate m any way with any European govern ment for the purpose oi preventing annexation, IS mferiy false. The following facts will illustrate my views this subject. In June last year. proposi tion made to me, as Texas minister in France and England, to pass q diplomatic act. whereby these powers would guaranty to Texas peace with Mexico and independence, conditioned that we should remain separate government. conimuni- cated the proposition to the Department o! Sta'e, accompanied with what conceived Il strong argu- ment against its acceptance, based iAe grave Ob r ctions 10 European interference in Americana aialrs on any pretext whatever. This ,ekspach of mine is in the archeves of Texts The proposition has ne- yer been renewed either side. President Jones, then Secretary of Stnte under General Houston, en- tirely approved my conduct"

 The impptent pOrio of this statement IS the dis closure of the fact, that Great Britain and France offered 10 guaranty the independence oi Texas, and peace with Mexico, provided lhe young republic would not annex herself t0 the United States! Yes, they would compel Mexico tO give up Texas, would despoil hersof her erritory-as our Ang h. Mexican whigs would say-to repress the growth of the United Ststesl

 This impertnent interference in American affairs -thcse disgraceiul manGuvres to defeat our peace ful policy and ssbaa lance of power in America, ad- monish what confidence we can place in those European powers, should they proier mediation be- tween us and Mexico.

 England and France have already nterered with our interests m regard 10 Texas. Can they act the part of impartial mcdiaiors where Mexico IS par ly, and where Texas is of the great objects of contention? Can they mediate for peace first. with out next attempting to guaranty the boundary De- tween Mexico and the United States

 The fact is that it best for the governments m America, who have theiI own private interests to preserve, 10 manage their own affairs, in relation to each other, in their own way.

 Mir. Smth's letter is published in the New York Journal of Commerce of Thursday last, and por- ports to be addressed 10 H. Stewart. Esq, editor of the Galveston Civilian. It is written from the steamboat Pike, m the Ohio river, a lew days past, on his return to Texas. He exoneraes himself irom

 the suspicion of being opposed to the annexation 'i Texas; and after the passage which we have alrea' dy quoted, he says

 "My signing, with Senor Cuevas, articles pre-

 minary to peace pitli Mexico, has been severely condemned. received assurances, on which could rely, that the Mexican governnen, would sign these articles. provided the Texas Secretary oi State would first afiix hIs signature. IL appeared proper to accee to this overture from Mexico, Tor the fol- lowing considerations

 "Firsi-The signing ofthe articles in question re. moved all preiext for the removal of hostilltIes by hlexico and thus leil Texas to pursue, without mo- Iesiatlon, such policy as we might deem best.

 "Second-lt is, in facr, relinquishment, snb n,odo, by Mexico, ofaI claim of sovereignty, over the territory of Texas thereby facilitating, rather than impeding, annexali9D.