The State guard., 1848-10-03
NO. 40.
I9ypocrisy of ti,e Whigs.


 We adopt the following racy review from that sterling paper, the Mississippi Jacksonian: t1 The whigs are trying to make fuss and injure Mir. Polk because he signed the Oregon Bill. From the way they talk about that act the people would suppose that none of their party voted for putting the Wilmot Proviso in the Bill.--Such how ever is not the fact. A Majority of the whig party in Congress did vote for the Proviso. If it was wrong for the President to sign the Bill, it was equally wrong in the whig party to vote for the Bill, and thus force Mf. Polk to leave the people of Oregon without Government or sign the Bill with the Proviso in it.-- Here is the final vote in the Senate which sustains our statement:
 YEAs--Messrs. Allen, Baldwin, Ben CLARKE, CORWlN, DAVIS. of Mass, DAYTON, Dickinson, Dix, Dodge, Doug lass, Felch, Fitzgerald, GREEN, HALE, Hamlin, Hannegan, Houston, MILLER, Niles, PHELPS, SPRUANC, UPHAM, Walker, and WEBSTER.--29.
 NAYs.-Messrs. Atchson, BADGER, BELL, HEREIN, Borland, Butler, Cal. houn, Davis, of Miss, Downs, Foote, Hunter, JOHNSON, of Md, Jonson, of Ga., JOHNSON, of La., Lewis, MAN GUM, Mason, METCALF, PEARCE, Rusk, Sebastian, Turney, UNDER WOOD, Westcott, and Yulee.--25.
 Wings in Capitals--Democrats in Ro- man.
 This was the vote to recede from the l amendment of the Missouri Compromise, which had been added to the Bill in .he Senate, after it had first come from the House.
 By examining this vote our readers will see that twenty-one whigs voted- ofthese, twelve voted for agreeing to the striking out the Missouri Compromise by the House. When the whigs censure the President they must bear in mind, that a majority of their party voted for the law.
 On the previous vote in the Senate, when the Compromise line was added to the Bill, majority of the whigs even vo. ] ted against that. aa
 Here is the vote on that occasion;s. I YEAs.-Messrs. Atchison, Bell Benton, BERlEN, Borland, Breese, Butler, Cal houn, Cameron, Davis, of Miss, Dickin- son, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan. Houston. Hunter, J OHNSON, of Md, JOHNSON, of La., Johnson, ofgGa., King, Lewis, MANGUM, Mason, METCALF, PEARCE, Sebastian, SPRUANCE, Sturgeon, Turney, and | UNDERWOOD.-33.
 NAys.-slcssrs, Allen. Atlerton, BAD- GER, BALDWIN, Bradbury, CLARKE, CORWlN, DAVIS, of Mass, DAY. TON, Dix, Dodge, I1elch, GREEN, HALE, Hamlin, MILLER, Niles. PHELPS, UPHAM, Walker, WEB. STER.-2I
 This shows that the whig party are against extending the Missouri Compro. mise to the new ,erritor,s--of twenty -one whigs that voted in the above list, twelve were against the Compromise and only nine for it-ot the thirty three Democrats that voted, twenty-four voted for it and only nine against it.. Our readers will recollect that the whigs have constantly voted for extending the Wilmot Proviso to the territory of the United States, by which the South would be excluded en- tirely from the use of it.
 1 Notwithstanding tie Missouri Compro- mise gives the North more than half of California and New Mexico, still the whlg party were opposed toi it. They want to give it all to the North. Yet some of them pretend to be the peculiar guardians of the Solitherp interests. If this were the case, why do they not expose their par 1 ty for its continued opposition to the South.
 Because some of the Northern Demo- crats voted against the south, these HY- POCRIIICAL SOUTIIELN WfIIGS try to make the people of the South-be. I ieve that the Democratic party is opposed to the rights of the South. The Demo- cratic party have always bcon true to the South. and the whig party always against it. If the President is to be censured for ] giving the people of Oregon govern. mcni, what ought the people to think of the whig party for defeating the Missouri Compromise. *sfs