Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-03-15

in California. The undersigned have hesitation In
saying that the provision in the Constitution excluding
that institution meets with the almost unanimous appro-
val of that people. This unanimy is believed to re-
suit not so much from the preudces against the syes-
tenn which are quite general in the northern portion OF
the United States as from universal conviction that
In no portion OF California is the climate and soil OF
character adapted to slave labor.
Since the discovery of the mines, the feeling oPpo-
stlon to the introduction OF slavery is believed to nave
become, fpossibe, more unanimous than heretofore
The relation OF master and slave has never existed IN the
country and there generally believed to be prohibited
by Mexican law, consequently the original California
population is utterly opposed to it. Slavery is ques-
ton little discussed in California so settled appears the
public mind relative thereto. Public meetings have
scarcely ever considered it. The opinion put forward
that the decision of this question has been toresaed has
no foundation in truth And no more conclusive proof
OF this can be found than the simple TACT that fifteen Of
the forty eight members composing the Convention
which unanimously inserted the prohibory clause in
the Constitution, were from slaveholdng States, while
twelve were Cafornans proper, and twenty North
ern men, Further than this there is doubt that two
ifths of those who voted in favor of the Constitution
recent erngrants from slaveholdng States, while
it known that many of the the given against the
instrument given in consequence of the failure
of the messengers to distribute the printed copies in
several mining localities No debate upon the subject
was had in the Convention, though some Converse
ton ensued upon proposition to submit the provision
to the people for separate vote. This suggested
by Northern men and did not prevail.
There could not be more conclusive answer
to the attacks of Southern Democrats in Congress,
upon President Taylor, for his California policy,
than is afforded by the narrative, which we have
above abridged, the conclusions drawn from it by
the four Democratic authors of the memorial, and
above all, the explanation which they give of the
circumstances that caused the insertion of the
ant-slavery clause in the California constitution.
We venture to affirm that no man of candour
can read these statements and then assert that
Gen. Taylor was guilty of usurpation, by reason
of the acts of General Riley or the Monterey
Convention, or had any participation whatsoever
in the matter of the exclusion of slavery.
The memoralists explain and vindicate the &C
ton of the Convention with regard to the bounda-
riessof the new State, and also the qualifications
prescribed by Gen. Rey's proclamation with re-
gard to the right of suffrage They describe the
manner in which the Convention transacted its
business, and the reception of the constitution by
the people. The idea is deprecated, that the opera
tions of the State government have been COM
menced regardless of the wishes and rights of the
people of the U. States, and said that this
was pursued because it was necessary in itself and
was expected to be unanimously approved.
The population Of California is estimated as
follows: