Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1860-05-24
The Missouri Delegation at Charleston

, &AS ~AiSsoeAA OOATSa at1oA a. C0diAcstVE.
In the Jefferson Examiner we find the
following record OF the action of the Mis-
souri, delegation al Charleston, written BY
the Editor, Mr.. CoRwIs, who was one Of
the delegates. 1t is lively picture of the
harmoniOus-the men who are always bel
lowing Everything for the Cause, Moth
ing for Men"
When,n The Convention, our delegates were
called upon 10 name their member Of the COM
miItee on a Platform, an Intellectual attempt
was made 10 compromise our difficulties
Several persons were proposed by the 9TH
er side in lieu of Claiborne, but Mr.. Lake
mans friends refused TO abandon him.
They hsd agreed upon him in advance, and
had his promise that he would leave the
matter entirely;in their hands. They bad
selected him Tor this position without his
nowiedge, and because he stood fairly and
squarely on the platform of the Democracy
oil Missouri, and would take that platform
Tor his guide in the Committee. On the
part of the Douglas men, Craig, Hender-
son, King and others Of that iIk were sug-
gested, and finally Mr.. Shortridge, anti
Douglas. Mr.. Shor,ridge was no, obiec-
tionable TO The anti Douglas men. They
could see no reason why The Douglas men
should prefer him TO Mr.. Lakenan; yet, for
the purpose of harmonizipg, they were will
ing 10 drop Mr.. Lakenan for Mr.. Short
ridge.
Tn Ter these circumstances vote was
taken. Mr.. Shortridge now voting against
him; but before the result had heen declared
by The Chairman. some oI The Douglas men
proposed an Adjournment to The room of The
delegation TO settle the question.
There, ns soon as the delegation had been
called To order, Gov. King got the floor. and
declared that as The proposition oI his side
in regard TO Mr. Shortridge had not been
accepted, he should withdraw it.
Mr.. Craig then proposed four resolutions,
which he claimed were declnratory of the
Missouri platform on the subject Of slavery
in the Territories. They were in substance
as follows:
Ist. That the STAKEHOLDER possesses the
Constitutional power to enter the Terrific
ries with his property.
I'd. Tha, neither Congress nor any Ter
ritorial Legislature can impair this right.
Sd. That Congress can neither protect nor
prohibit slavery in the Territories.
4h. Tha, the cohsliiutionaliiy of Con.
gress protecting the people Of the Terrific
ries in the enjoyment of these rights, is q
question the Democratic party will leave
70 the Supreme Court to decide.
Mr.. Corwin said these resolutions did
not 60 far enough; while the third. declar.
ing that Congress possessed no power to
protect slavery in the Territories, was pal
psbls hetesy. They did not properly ex-
plain the Missouri platform. He therefore
,fferei as substitute, resolution instruct
ng our member of the Committee on the
National platform, to take the Missouri res
'lution as his guide.
1t was objected by some Of the Douglas
men that the Missouri platform said moth.
Dg in regard to a slave code; by others,
hat although they themselves fully en-
orsed the Missouri platform, Douglas
rould not stand upon it. /
Mr.. Wilkes also proposed substitute,
pr. Corwin's proposition. except
hat il provided that our commit,se-m man
hould consider biz duties csnfned sxprsss.