The Wilmot Proviso

It s proper ihat the parlies should bolh bo held (o tho repooeiblKty on tliis subject whicli the facts involve. T'ie wlags are rund of olleging tliat their pariy dan ami-sluvcry pany and ougbifobe trusted accordn-ly. LSut wh.h they huid slavoliüldérd in clo.-e party fellowship, m tku them thoir Icading men and candidaies for ihs hihést officts, they shou'd notcotnpiain f the responsibility invo'vd .■;. It' they lake the mea th y inutt takt; their deedi. Says the Genius el Liherty: "The voto on the Wil mot Proviso in theSenae was 71 for, and 31 against. Among these ng-u'nst the W'ilmot Proviso Wfr N1NE WHIGS, viz., A reliar, of Va., Pet ree and Johnson, of Maryland, Mangum, ol' N. Carolina. Berrien, of Georgia, Johnson, of Lo 'si on, J r .agin, of Tennessep, Morehead and Crittenden, of Kentucky. Now tako these 9 Whigs f rom '21_12, and add thern to 21-30. If uil the Whigs had - oled for the proriso, the vete would have been for the proviso '0, and againsl il 2 1 ! ! ! Nov for the House. The l&st vote in the House, receuiug fiom thoir iirst position was 97 for llie proviso, 102 against, " WHIGS against iheprouiao, TWENTY-ONE! Take 21 fr m 1C2_S1,- Aid Sito. 97-118. Had the Whigsall votfd for Ihe Proviso Inslead of ogainst it, the vote would have been 113 for, 97 against!! Almpst ONE THIRO of ihe whole VVin'gs, both in the Senaie, and in tl.e House, voted against the Proviso. Aiïd vo!-?e still, had all the Whigs f rom the free States voted, the proviso would have been retained. Hut six of them " shot ihe pit" and et proviso go by iiie board." i