From He Richmond Enquirer MIR. CLANS LETTER.
{"character_count": 1800, "word_count": 323, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9819999933242798], "ccnet_perplexity": [541.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Tine letter of the Hon. Henry Clay on the subject of Texas has at last made it's appear ance, and the country can judge of It, both as an evidence of his great epistolary talent and the soundness of his views. Coming from so distinguished source, confess my deep disappointment at the arguments there set forth against the annexation, and shall briefly consider some of the most weighty, (this being determined by the stress which their author lays on them.

 Nearly one-half of this long letter is based upon the fact, that Mexico has not yet ac- knowledged the independence of Texas, and that we cannot therefore have her annexed to this Union, without violating the treaty of 1919 between the United States and Mexico. The distinguished gentleman must surely for get, that since Hiat treaty, Texas has been declared independent of Mexico by all, or nearly all, the powers of Europe, and that our own United States has done so likewise. If then Texas has been declared INDEPEN- DENT, what does this mean? An indepen- dent nation must ''eG ui termiRio be able to contract alliances with any other power; for, if she is prevented from doing this by the ac- ton of any other nation, she Is to all intents and purposes not independent, but conroll- able by that power which thus prevents her. Mir. Clay says, that as Mexico has not yet consehted to the independence of Texas, we would be committing fraud on her, were we to annex Texas now. In reply to this, l need only say, that it is now too late to use this argument, even if it were valid one at any time We have solemnly declared Texas sovereign State, have entered into commer- cial arrangements with her, and have by these very acts violated the treaty with Mexico. which Mr. Clay so much relies on as his main argument on this question, Was Mr