Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1849-04-13

"
Mr.. Folks Cabinet, without exception, was op-
posed to the Wllmot Proviso. - WIZ Journal.
Then Mr.. Polk was at variance with his Cabi.
net on the Proviso question, for he was in favor
of-openIy in favor-of it. Proof his signature
of the Oregon Territorial bill with the Proviso in
it, Chronicle of Wednesday last.
Bear it also in mind. that the leading mem
bers of Gen Taylor's Cabinet Wilmot Provi-
so men. Mr.. Clayton, Secretary of State, roted
for the PrOuisO - Wilmington Journal.
We suppose Mr.. Clayton voted for the Proviso
at the same session of Congress at which James
J. Mckay voted for it, namely, at the session of
ls46-7.- Wilmington Chronicle. Wednesday.
If the Chronicle really wishes to know how
and when Mr. Clayton voted for the Wilmot
Proviso, we would refer him 10 the proceed
ings of the Senate, on the LIST March, 1847, a
part of which we will quote for his especial
edi6cation.
Pending the debate on the three million bill,
Mr.. Upham then rose. and in & heightened
speech moved to add an additional section, (sub-
stsntiaIly the Wilmer PRovIso." )-Cos. Reg.
18th Congress. End session, p. 26s.
This section was in the following words:
Provided further, That there shall be neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, in any territory
on the continent of America, which shall hereaf-
ter be acquired by, or annexed to, the United
States, by virtue Of this appropriation. or in any
other manner tUhateUer, except for crimes where
of the party shall have been duly convicted Pro-
vided, oI,Unys, That every person escaping into
such territory, from whom labor or service is law
fully claimed in any one of the United States,
such fugitive may be lawfully claimed and con-
vcyed out of said territory to the person claiming
his or her labor or service"
The question on the additional section was then
taken by yeas and nays, as follows:--
YEAs-Messrs. Allen, Anterior, Cameron,
Cilley, JOHN NJ. CLAYTON, CORWIN, Da-
Wis, Dayton, Dix, Evans, Fairfield, Green, Hun
tington, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Simmons, Stur.
geon. Upham, Webster, and Woedbridge-2l.
NA1s-Messrs. Archer, Ashley, Atchison,
Badger. Bagby, Benton, Berrien, Breese, Bright
Butler Calhoun, CASS, Chalmers, Colquitt
Crittenden, Dickinson, Hannegan, Houston. Jar.
nigan, johnson of Maryland. johnson of Louisi.
ana, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Morehead, Pearce
Rusk. Sewer, Soule, Turney, and Westcott-3l
So the amendment was not agreed to- Con
Reg. p. 273.
Upon the final passage Of the bill, .cithout
the Proviso, the vote was as follows
YEAs-Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchiscn, Ath.
erton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Bright, Butler
Calhoun, CASS, Chalmers, Colquitt, Dickinson
Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Houston, johnson o.
Louisiana, Lewis, Mason, Niles, Rusk. Sewer
Soule, Sturgeon, Turney, Westcott, and Yulee.-
20.
NATs-Messrs. Archer, Badger, Berrien, Cam
eron, Cilley, JOHN VI. CLAYTON, CORWIN
Crittenden, Davis, Dayton, Evans, Green, Hun
tington. Jarnigan, johnson of Maryland, Man
gum, Miller, Morehead, Pearce, Phelps, Simmons
Upham, Webster, and Woodbridge.-24.-
So much for that matter. If any NOR
proof be wanted, we suppose it would not b.
difficult TO find it.
The Chronicle knows-no one better-tha
the provision in the Oregon Territorial bill
and the Wilmot Proviso, are two very differ
ent things, both in their language and opera
ton {; the first being in accordance with tn
intention of the Missouri Compromise, tn
latter in direct violation both of its letter an
spirit.
Will the Chronicle please favor US with ii
o,Un views upon the Proviso. We have new
er yet seen any distinct avowal from it upo
that question.