The Placer herald., 1860-06-23
California at Charleston.

find either in our Charleston, Washington
or New York exchanges, a full report of their
proceedings. The report was sent to the
Weekly Standard:
Mr. BdweI, of California, said California
yesterday and to day, and hoped her posi-
ton had not tended to produce this result.
He understood the position of California to
be, ever since the passage of the Kansas.
Nebraska Act Of 1854, that non-intervention
was just and proper, but not that noninter-
vention which would give the Territorial
Legislatures the right to destroy the rights
of property of any State in the Territories.
The State Legislatures had no power to de-
stroy the rights of property, and, certainly,
Territorial Legislature can have no such
power. In 1859, when it was said that Cali
fornia was in favor Of a slave code, she had
passed resolutions defining her position,
which he read, and which took strong non
Intervention grounds, leaving all questions
of the rights of property to be settled by
the Courts. California did not intend to de-
stroy the rights Of any section, though she
might differ in the means by which such
rights may be protected If the California
delegation had done ought here to bring
about the unfortunate events that had oc-
CURED, they would not be held blameless by
their constituents. He had voted for the
minority resolution reenacting the Cincin-
natl Platform, and it was one of the proudest
acts of his life. He had also supported the
preamble and first resolution in the minority
platform, which had been rel octed. He had
;,,to olol a. of o1,,,,~
which he thought would have met the views
of the Convention, and which he would vet
offer. They were as follows
l. Resolved, That the Platform adopted
bv the Cincinnati Convention in 1856, is
hereby affirmed
2. ResolOed, That to entitle Territory to
firm Constitution for admission into the
Union as a sovereign State it should contain
reasonable number Of inhabitants which
should not be less than the number required
for a represent ative in Congress.
3. Resolved, That the true Interpretation
Of the Cincinnati Platform is hereby declar-
ed to be that the right to hold slaves in a
Territory rests upon the same ground, and
entitled to the same protection as other pro-
perty.
4. Resolved, That any nfraction Of the
rights of property in a Territory would bo
Judicial question, and that it would be the
duty of Congress to pass such laws as may
be necessary to secure the faithful execution
of the mandates of the Courts
8. Resolved, That Congress has the power
at any time to change or repeal any Terrific
rial organic act, and to revise or annul any
Territorial law conflicting herewith.
Mr.. A. E. Smith, of California, said he
could not sit silent and hear one eighth Of
the delegation of that State msrepresented
by one black sheep of the flock. The State
of California had repudiated the doctrine Of
popular sovereignty.
Mr.. Patrick, of California, denied the right
of either of the delegates to speak for him.
Mr.. A. E. Smith did speak of the gentle
man, unless he chooses to eat his own words,
for he had expressly voted for the majority
platform and repudiated the doctrine of
squatter sovereignty. The State of Cafor
MIA had repudiaed most emphatcally the
doctrine of popular sovereignty in their
State Conventions and in their votes. The
ed with their fellow Black Republicans, but
the Democracy had overthrown them ALL
He reviewed with some severity the course
of the Northern Democracy, who had truck
led to Aboitionsm in its new phase of popu-
lar sovereignty.
Mr. Gallagher, of Connecticut claim
the attention of the Convention.
The President-The gentleman from Cali
fornia has the floor
Mr.. Galagher-The gentleman from Cali
fornia has no right to SANDER the Democrats
of Connecticut, and, lash in hand, to attack
those with whom he acted.
The President called the gentleman from
Connecticut to order.
After some discussion.
Mr. Smith said he was glad the cap fitted
so well. Kisses. He would remind the
House that only the goose and the snake
hiss-they might make their choice of the
application. He had but little to say
California had not withdrawn from the Con-
vention, and the course he should pursue
would be decided by the future action of the
Convention. He was commenting upon the
resolutions of the minority, when
Mr.. Krum, of Missouri, inquired if the
gentleman from California was opposed to
the Pacific Railroad!
Mr.. Smith-No, he was not; but he asked
no man to 60 for it who believed it to be
unconstitutional to 90 for the railroad. His
State was deeply interested in it, and perhaps
might not see the Constitution in the same
light with other Constitutional Democratic
States. But it was a narrow mind that con-
ceived the question.
Mr. Krum and Mr.. Patrick both rose.
Mr.. Stuart reminded the chair that per-
sonalities should not be allowed in debate.
The President had not caught the remark
of the gentleman, but requested that the