Skip Navigation

Debates and Proceedings
of the
First Constitutional Convention
of West Virginia

January 11, 1862

Convention met at the appointed hour. President in the chair.

Prayer by Rev. Gideon Martin, of the M. E. Church, Wheeling.

Journal read and approved.

THE PRESIDENT. The Convention when it adjourned had under consideration the 5th section of the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department.

MR. HERVEY. Mr. President, before proceeding with the regular business, I want to submit a paper to come up on the final passage of this report, to amend the first part of the 3rd section of the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department, and ask that this paper be printed.

There being no objection the paper was received and order made that it be printed. The paper is as follows:

Until the senatorial districts shall be differently arranged, after the next census, taken by authority of the United States, the counties of


At the first election held under this Constitution the city of Wheeling shall elect one senator, and the counties of Brooke, Hancock and Ohio County, one senator, and in this manner for the next three succeeding terms. For the fifth term the city of Wheeling shall elect two senators; and the counties of Brooke, Hancock, Ohio County and the city of Wheeling, shall elect in the above manner until a reapportionment of this State.

MR. VAN WINKLE. I -will offer this amendment that I indicated yesterday. I think it ought to come in between the 4th and 5th sections. It relates partly to senators and partly to delegates and if adopted should be an additional section.

"Of the senators first elected, one from each senatorial district, to be determined by lot, in the presence of the senate, shall serve until the fourth day of July, 1863, and the other until the same day of the year 1864; and delegates as elected shall serve until the same day of the year 1863."

MR. VAN WINKLE. I tried yesterday when offering the amendment which was adopted to explain to the Convention the uncertainty as to what time the Constitution would go into operation. The object of the amendment was to make the term begin twenty days after the election. Now if that twenty days should expire after the 4th of July as the matter stands we have fixed it so that they hold for two years. This is intended to make it that the first class of senators hold until two years has expired after the 4th of July next. So far as this feature of the amendment is concerned, it is only to make that certain so there shall be no difficulty in determining when the terms of these senators will end. It also contains another feature which I have contemplated in connection with these double districts and which I think will tend to reconcile many to them. As I said yesterday, it is impossible to make single senatorial districts without diminishing the members too much. You ought to have sufficient numbers to do the business, to divide into the proper committees, and on the other hand we have to avoid making the senate too large. There ought to be a certain ratio between that and the house of delegates. Of the senators first elected, one from each senatorial district, to be determined by lot in the presence of the senate, shall serve to the 4th of July, 1863, the other to the same day, 1864. The effect of that in connection with the clause passed under the report of the Committee on Fundamental and General Provisions, would establish the rule and the principle and the operation of one-half the senate being elected every year, one half going out each year. The advantage of that is very apparent, you retain one-half the senate in office. They are familiar with the mode of business, and - what is perhaps more important - they are practically acquainted with what you may call the state of the business. They know the reasons and position of the legislation of the previous session, and they, as it were, transmit it to the next house. It will give steadiness to our legislation, and will give us a dignity, which if the senate were nothing but a house of delegates with smaller numbers they would not attain. The Senate of the United States, as everybody is aware changes one-third of its members every year, they being elected for six years; and it is to realize the same advantages that we propose this amendment. Everything of human institution, or which humans have the management of is apt to be defective in some points; and while there can be no doubt that the people are always safest under a popular government when they have the management of their own affairs, in their own hands, they are always safest because their interests dictate to them what is the safest course to pursue. But it has been found that mere popular assemblies are very apt to decide hastily or without due consideration, and the second house is in all our states and in the national government interposed as a sort of balance-wheel - something to keep the motion steady, to prevent the evils which are inherent in popular legislation; for our form of government, while the best yet devised, has, of course, some infirmities connected with it, or else it would belong to the other world, not to this. The senate is introduced in order to keep the course of legislation more steady and maintain a consistent policy in the State; and while the senators are sufficiently acted on by the popular will, so that it is not to be supposed they will long persist in opposition to that will, yet at the same time, knowing better the whole ground from their previous experience they will act as a check on any hasty or inconsiderate legislation from the other house - not to say by any means that all the legislation of the lower house is to be hasty; but from the very mode of its councils it is to be expected there will occasionally be something of the kind. It is to me something creditable to the State of Virginia that her policy - without saying whether that policy has been a very good one, or a bad one, or an indifferent one - that her policy has generally been consistent with itself. Whatever the leading policy of the state has been, it has been very consistently pursued. And I think notwithstanding the many things of which we complain in the administration of our state government, yet that one thing has atoned for a great deal of evil.

I have more than once expressed my great desire that such a constitution should be given to the senate as to make a house to which the best men of the State would be willing to go if called on to do so; men of experience, men of information as to public matters, men of mature ripe judgment. If you get the upper house composed altogether of such men, you would give consistency, and I must add a beneficent tendency to your legislation which it can hardly otherwise attain. I have expressed my opinion, sir, and I think it must be the opinion of a majority of this Convention that from the diverse aggregates of population in the several counties, ranging from fifteen hundred to over thirteen thousand, and almost at every point between it, from the peculiar location of many counties - as, for instance, this Panhandle - the counties we are perhaps to admit from the Valley, the counties lying in the northeastern section, they being generally large counties - it is impossible to make a senate of single districts that shall bear anything on its face like fairness. I have tried it in a variety of ways; tried it for single districts; tried it by making nearly all single and putting in a double one or two, but I have found that would be awkward, at any rate, and did not answer the purpose.

But I want to suggest to gentlemen that what I now propose of an alternation of the senators will perhaps tend to cure the evil in a great measure. After the consideration I have given the subject of these double districts with this provision, I should favor the double districts because I think they will tend, occupying so much larger territory, embracing, of course, so many more interests, that that alone would be one of the things that would tend to give steadiness and consistency to the legislation of the State and respectability to the body.

As for reducing the number, sir, that is, of course I mean not more than one or two if that should be convenient. You will see the evil now exhibited in the existing senate. They have but eight or nine members, and they ought in ordinary legislation to have nearly double that number to properly constitute standing committees. They have as many standing committees as they have members. Well, it is utterly impossible that business can progress when there is nobody to do it; and I am afraid unless these Valley counties come in we will find the same difficulty in the house of delegates, because you will not have members, enough to distribute among your committees to give the committees that ability to act which numbers will give them. Every member is aware that the great labor is in the committees; and in those of which I have been chairman no report that I have made has been without at least one suggestion from every member of the committee. They have all aided. Well, again, committees will arise in course of legislation, such as we have here, where information is to be collected and collated and examined, and it may be very laborious. I merely throw out these suggestions to show that we cannot well have a smaller number of senators than we have already fixed and cannot have single districts for that number.

I therefore, sir, offer the amendment that I have indicated. In the absence of the Clerk, I will read it again:

"Of the senators first elected, one from each senatorial district to be determined by lot, in the presence of the senate, shall serve until the fourth day of July, 1863, and the other until the same day of the year 1864; and delegates as elected shall serve until the same day of the year 1863."

If the feature of alternate elections is objected to, it had better be stricken out, because I think that is a matter of course.

MR. SOPER. I submitted before the hour of recess a proposition to this effect. I approve of all the remarks the gentleman has made; but I would suggest to him the propriety of leaving out the dates in the amendment.

MR. VAN WINKLE. I had them in blank until the Convention passed on the subject last evening.

MR. SOPER. I had prepared a substitute intended for the second section:

"And after the first election, the senators of each district shall be divided into two classes. The first class shall hold office for one year, the second for two years; so that one-half thereof shall be chosen annually thereafter."

MR. VAN WINKLE. I should have been entirely contented with this. But mine goes a little further in fixing the end of the term. Now, we would disturb the present arrangement, if it is to be permanent, if they were not elected until, say, August. If they had to serve two years or three, I would terminate in August, not at the time fixed by the Convention. Of course, if the time is altered in the one case, it will be altered in all the others.

MR. SOPER. That is the objection I see to it, that is fixing the time. The time is to be a matter of uncertainty.

Mr. Lamb addressed the Chair.

THE PRESIDENT. The senator from Ohio. Does the senator from Tyler give way?

MR. VAN WINKLE. (Sotto voce) We have no senators here.

MR. LAMB. Two distinct objects are embodied in the resolution of the gentleman from Wood. So far as one of the provisions is concerned, something of the kind will be absolutely necessary in the Constitution or in the schedule. We fix the commencement on the 4th of July. We do not know at present at what time the election may take place, and it will be necessary to provide in some way or other for that contingency. The other provision is the one for a classified senate - the same in substance offered before the recess by the gentleman from Tyler and laid on the table to be printed on his motion. Now, I would be disposed to acquiesce in this thing of classifying the senate if the gentleman would relieve me of one difficulty in regard to the matter, which was suggested in the Committee on the Legislative Department, of which we have yet heard no explanation. It is, how you carry on this classification when you come to reapportion - when you come to make a new apportionment under a new census. The district would then have one senator entitled to hold his seat for one year and another entitled to hold for two years. In making this reapportionment under the new census with a view to classifying the population of the different districts, it may be necessary to change the whole of the districts. But to specify. In the apportionment adopted by the Convention, the counties of Marshall, Wetzel and Marion constitute a district. When you come to reapportion that district it will have one senator in office for one year and one for two years. Now in making a reapportionment suppose it should become necessary - which is not at all improbable - that you put Marion, Monongalia and Taylor in the district. Marshall and Wetzel go into a different district and Marion into a different district. When the term of the senator for one year elected by the district composed of Marshall, Wetzel and Marion expires, who is to elect his successor, the district on the one side, or the district on the other? I take it from what occurred in the Committee on the Legislative Department, that if they could have seen their way through this difficulty they would have adopted the scheme of classifying the senate. It was the only objection suggested to it; and I do not know how to get over it. If the gentleman can unravel the riddle, I presume the committee would acquiesce in the classification of the senate.

MR. SOPER. Mr. President, I suppose, sir, that whenever the election districts are altered, it puts an end to the office of each senator, and the legislature which makes the new apportionment will provide for it, for elections under the new arrangement of districts. I suppose that to be it. If there is any doubt about it, we can very easily add a clause here putting an end to the office of all the senators whenever a new apportionment shall be made. We can so provide for it in the Constitution that whenever it becomes necessary to make a new apportionment their offices shall cease and then the legislature will provide for the manner in which they shall deem best to have senators classified under the new apportionment.

MR. VAN WINKLE. My impression is different from that of the gentlemen who have spoken. It says "for the election of senators the State shall be divided, etc." After each census, the legislature shall alter the senatorial districts so far as may be necessary to make them conform, etc. That means nothing but to take one county and change them. The districts would remain substantially the same. If the districts were abolished, the senators would be abolished. But I think in merely making alterations it would not have that effect. I think the difficulty would not arise, but it could be removed if it did. The gentleman from Tyler has suggested that already.

MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I do not think it is necessary or proper to have the senate abolished at every alteration. It seems to me we are fixing the Constitution so that when put in operation and the representatives of the people have assembled and constituted a legislature it should continue and that this provision which meets my approbation, very fully, - and I confess further avoids much objection that resulted from double districts - but I am sure that this completely carries it out, by putting one half the senate out every year, and that it shall be one for each district put out every year, so that in effect throughout the State there will be an election for a senator in each district every year at the same time the election for the house of delegates takes place. There will always be on hand one-half the senate who are old members with the experience of at least one year's service and the wisdom they may have gained in that time, as a standing and established body, a reserve against that characteristic which the house must always have of an entire renewal every year.

The difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Ohio, that it might be the district would be so altered, so arranged at least, that the senator might be representing another county than that which elected him. As to the first class of senators there seems to be no serious difficulty or objection in it, for the same number of senators, exactly, in the State would be representing the same entire people of the State. And if the old senators were to continue until the next election there would be no objection in the fact of their continuing, and all the benefits of their service would be derived in that case as in any other; perhaps more, because in the new order of things new men would come in and express whatever new ideas were derived by the change, and they would become indoctrinated with the business of their vocation by the time their co-senators whom they found in office went out, when a successor would come in precisely on an equality with this new senate. I think the feature is well to be preserved. I decidedly prefer it to having the terms of the whole senate expire at each apportionment. Now if there was to be a change in the number of senators there might be some objection to it; but inasmuch as the senate is to continue, I see none whatever. You fix the number of the senate of the State, and you are preserving the one part of it in office for the interim of one year while the new apportionment is being applied and new senators elected. The reapportionment of the districts should not have the effect to bring the senate to a close.

MR. PAXTON. Mr. President, I should like to hear the amendment reported.

The Secretary read:

"Of the senators first elected, one from each senatorial district, to be determined by lot in the presence of the senate, shall serve until the fourth day of July, 1863, and the other until the same day of the year 1864; and delegates as elected shall serve until the same day of the year 1863."

MR. PAXTON. A difficulty is suggested by fixing any particular dates when the terms shall expire. We do not know that the terms will commence as soon as here contemplated. If we had any assurance that this movement would be recognized by Congress at this session; but it may not be recognized this session, or even the next. It might be deemed expedient to postpone the new State, and hence would be better for us not to provide that the terms should expire at a particular time. It appears to me the proposition of the gentleman from Tyler would meet the difficulty.

If it should happen that the present session of Congress should not act on this favorably, it will be necessary that the Convention should reassemble, for there are other things that perhaps will have to be changed in the same way. It was to avoid the necessity of that I made the suggestion.

MR. VAN WINKLE. I do not like to contemplate the possibility of not getting through this session. I think we will.

MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I am struck with the force of the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, and I think we should put the Constitution beyond this contingency, and also avoid the reassembling of this Convention, for I presume when we adjourn, we will adjourn sine die; and it should be so expressed in all its language throughout that no action of the Convention will be necessary on it again, whether Congress should act at one session or another.

MR. PAXTON. I move to amend the amendment by adopting the language of the gentleman from Tyier. That will avoid the difficulty that has been suggested, and to my mind really is one. and the agricultural portions of your country will be finally left, a large number of them, without any delegates. Now, sir, I recollect, that the county where I resided in the State of New York, where gentlemen of the Convention will recollect a number of the delegates or members of the assembly are elected - that county, sir, small in territory, had one member of the assembly, and she now has seven; and it is because the city of Brooklyn has so rapidly increased in population that it has been the cause of her increase in representation in the house of assembly. I recollect another county, sir - a wealthy, flourishing agricultural county when I first became acquainted with it, which was represented by five members of the assembly; and now, at this time, it is represented by two. I remember other counties, sir, which had a representation of three members in the assembly and now have but one. And that not in proportion to the white population of the state but because it is an organized county. You will perceive, sir, that by the law of population, connected with trade and manufactures and commercial pursuits which are always to be found in the cities, the population is constantly increasing. We have here, sir, in this new State the city of Wheeling and the town of Parkersburg, so that the population of Ohio county and Wood county will necessarily increase much faster than in agricultural counties. And what will be the result? Why, sir, if you are to fix the representation in the house of delegates according to population, or according to the portion of it which is set forth in the report, the result of it will be, sir, that many of those counties which now have a delegate at the taking of the next census will be left without a delegate. It is with a view of securing to every county a delegate that I propose this amendment. And I have fixed the number four thousand not that I am particularly attached to that number - a less number would be satisfactory to me - but I have named the number 4000 because it has been set forth here I think in some of our reports in relation to the organization of new counties. If the amendment that I propose prevails, every county within this State at all times hereafter having a population of 4000 or more will have a delegate; and after giving to our county and every delegate district within the State having that amount of population a delegate, the additional delegates will be divided among the counties of the State according to their population. Wherever that goes most largely, there the number will be. Now, sir, I want gentlemen representing the country counties here to look at it; and I will lay this down as a fact: true, population in most of the counties of this State will increase, but the time will come when our agricultural counties will be filled up and the surplus population among them must of necessity emigrate. Not so in relation to your cities. The larger increase, the great capital, the more extensively they are engaged in business, the greater their population. So that if gentlemen will just look at it they will see at once that unless there be some such guard as this the time will come when these large cities will by virtue of their population engross nearly all the representation of the State; and the time may come, sir, when the representation, in the house of delegates shall come exclusively from the cities unless you go upon some principle of this kind. I mention to you that within a few years back where in a single county having a single representative in the house of assembly had seven. I could refer you to New York City; when I first knew that city the amount of its representation in the house assembly was ten; now it is between twenty and thirty. While we are preparing a Constitution which is to last for all time, it is our duty to protect our agricultural counties if we wish them to have future legislation in the legislature; but you can. only do it by saying that every county in your State shall have a delegate, or that every county with a small population shall have one. Now, sir, I have fixed the number 4000, and I hope at least when the next census is taken every county in the State will have that much. If it has, why then it will always be represented in the house of delegates. It is with that view that I have hastily set down here this morning to prepare an amendment to meet the object which I have thus briefly explained.

MR. LAMB. Mr. President, in order to understand fully the bearing of this amendment it may be necessary to state briefly what is the plan proposed in the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department, in order that we may see where the two propositions differ. The report of the Committee on the Legislative Department does provide that wherever a county has a white population equal to one half the ratio of representation it shall have a delegate by itself. Instead of adopting a fixed number of 4000 inhabitants, the plan here reported provides that if the population amounts to one-half the ratio of representation the county shall have a separate delegate. The difference between us is then here. The gentleman adopts a fixed amount to answer for all time to come without any reference whatever to the aggregate population of the State. We adopt a plan. which will give a small county having one- half the population which would strictly entitle her to a delegate its proper separate representation. Is not this liberal enough? Is it not fair enough? So far as we do depart from the strict principle of apportionment of representation according to population; so far as we do depart from that in reference to this question it is to favor the small counties. Kanawha county and Ohio get a representative only for 6618 white inhabitants. One of these small counties gets one for 3309. Then the plan reported by the Committee is that if a county has not one-half the ratio of representation it shall be attached to a contiguous county to form a delegate district. The gentleman has referred here on several occasions to the State of New York. He has cited other constitutions, I imagine from memory; but I would prefer that the Constitution of New York should speak for itself. The 5th section of the third article of that constitution, provides, as was read by the gentleman from Wood yesterday:

"The members of the assembly shall be apportioned among the several counties of the state by the legislature as nearly as may be according to the numbers of their respective inhabitants, excluding aliens and persons of color not taxed, and shall be chosen by single districts."

We then here stand on the same footing except in one respect as the constitution of the gentleman's own state places the counties of that state upon, and that is simply here: When a county in New York becomes entitled to two or more representatives in the lower house, that county is to be divided by the supervisors into separate districts, each one of which elects a. single delegate. Whether we shall adopt that plan here or not is a question that has not been raised before us. It is attended with some difficulties and it would be attended with other great disadvantages. What do they do with small counties? Gentlemen, when this constitution was adopted there was one small county in the State of New York, Hamilton. The counties of New York are large; many of them have a large population. The number of the lower house in the State of New York is 128. I do not recollect the number of counties, but I do not think it exceeds 40.

MR. SOPER. Between 50 and 60.

MR. LAMB. Comparing the number of the house of representatives with the number of counties, you have an abundant representation for the purpose of apportioning representation according to population. But there was, it seems, one small county there. How have they disposed of it? This same section, after providing that the supervisors in case a county is entitled to more than one member shall divide the county into single districts, contains this provision:

"Every county heretofore established and separately organized, except the county of Hamilton, shall always be entitled to one member of the assembly; and no new county shall be hereafter erected unless its population shall entitle it to a member. The county of Hamilton shall elect with the county of Fulton until the population of the county of Hamilton shall, according to the ratio, be entitled to a member."

Now, sir, we are much more liberal here with the small counties. We say that the county of Clay shall elect with the county of Braxton until the population of Clay will entitle it to have a member; and it will be so entitled when it has half the ratio. We are twice as liberal as the gentleman's own state with these small counties.

There is one part of the gentleman's proposition - the application which the gentleman distinctly pointed out - in relation to which I must confess I do not see that it has any bearing, unless it is to raise again distinctly before this Convention the question which was adopted and decided upon yesterday. He proposes in this amendment that this 4000 ratio shall at each apportionment after the next census - "after the next census," not under the present census - for the election of delegates from counties "containing a white population of less than 4000 shall at each apportionment after the next census be attached to some contiguous county to form a delegate district." The present section applies to the present apportionment and has governed the present apportionment. But this is only to apply after the next census; and for the present apportionment, I presume if this be adopted, the measure is to be followed up by our acting again on the proposition which we thought had been settled yesterday; that these delegate districts are to be abolished entirely until the next census and each county is to have its separate representative. That question has been sufficiently discussed, if the gentleman contemplates by his motion to raise it here again. The motion, I take it, Mr. President, is out of order; for it can only be raised before this Convention upon a direct motion to reconsider the decision of yesterday. The proposition - the argument rather than the proposition - of the gentleman is a singular mode, it strikes me, of carrying out the principle which this Convention has established, whether it intends to act upon it or not - which this Convention has unanimously recognized, whether it is to govern their action or not - that so far as possible we will base representation in the legislature upon the white population. According to the argument of the gentleman, what it is necessary for us to be particularly careful to guard against is an increase of population. Those cities - for I take it the reference here in western Virginia to large cities such as Brooklyn and New York is mere delusion - but the gentleman's principle seems to be that those districts where the most rapid increase of population is to be expected are those that we are to particularly guard against; that some check is to be put on this rapid increase in population. Why, gentlemen, we have been told here, and it is what we all expect, that these same small counties, these same sparsely settled districts of country, will be the regions of the State, so far as western Virginia is concerned, whatever may be the case in New York, where the population of an empire is founded in the limits of the state - but here the increase of the population is to be expected in these same sparsely settled districts - the comparative increase, at least. We have been told here it was our duty to hold out all the encouragement we could to an increase of population yet we are to be urged, when we come to apportioning representation to be particularly careful to guard against the increase of population giving its corresponding increase in future apportionments of representation. Is this carrying out your principle? Is this republicanism? Are the dangers which do exist in New York to be apprehended in western Virginia? Are we going to have a city like New York City, or even like Brooklyn, here on the borders of the Ohio. I hope, gentlemen, it may be so; I should be rejoiced if it were so; but to calculate on anything of the kind or to tell this Convention that anything of the kind is to be so much apprehended that you must adopt constitutional provisions to prevent its effect, is mere delusion. Anyhow, gentlemen, if it were so, I would go for the principle that we have adopted; I would go for the fair application of that principle in the language of our fundamental provisions, "as far as possible," admitting that it cannot be carried out with precise equality in all cases. Above all things, I do not think it is necessary for this Convention to add provisions in their Constitution to provide against the danger of the increase of population in any section of the country!

MR. SOPER. Will the gentleman hand me that Constitution?

MR. LAMB (Mr. Lamb handing it to Mr. Soper). It is on the left-hand page.

MR. SOPER. Yes, sir. Now, if the gentleman is so conversant with the State of New York, he would know that the county of Hamilton had an existence without a separate organization for a great number of years; and it embraces a very large tract of country; which tract in Hamilton County and in the interior of Herkimer County is so barren, so poor, that there is scarcely anything growing upon it and it is covered with rocks and crags and rivers, and is the resort of people from the sea-board towns and counties during the appropriate season of the year to go there to fish, and in the pursuit of game to be found there. During the greater portion of the year very few people will undertake to live there - I mean during the winter season. And for some purpose which was deemed necessary in order to keep peace among those people, who were trappers in that region of country, it was deemed wisest by the legislature to organize the county of Hamilton at a time when there were not 600 inhabitants in it. And this I think is over thirty years ago. And I don't believe now that there are two thousand inhabitants in the whole county. Therefore it never had a full separate organization and was always connected with the county of Fulton for its police purposes. If the gentleman is conversant about the State of New York, he will, if he knows anything about the sale of lands there for taxes at times, find that this tract has been known for a great number of years by, at this time a very distinct name. It is called "John Brown's tract." This is the name it is known by, and has been for the last thirty years. Now, sir, I assert it as a fact that there is nothing in this Constitution to deny it, that at the time this Constitution was amended - it was formed in 1821 - every county that then had an organization, with the exception of this little county had a representative in the house of assembly. And it is only those counties which are entitled to more than one member that the counties and cities have divided off into districts. If any argument is to be drawn from that fact it is in behalf of what we contended for here yesterday, that in the lower house the delegates ought to come directly from the locality they are intended to represent. So much did the State of New York see the necessity of it that where a county was entitled to more than one representative in the assembly they passed a constitutional provision compelling the supervisors of that county to take and lay off the county into districts so that the people in the particular portion of the county should be represented in the house of assembly.

Well, now, sir, when I was up before I said here that the city of New York had between twenty and thirty representatives in the house of assembly; that the county of Kings had seven; and if you will look at the county of Erie, in which Buffalo is, Monroe, in which is Rochester, Oneida, in which is Utica, and Onondaga in which Syracuse is, and the county of Albany, in which Albany is, or Rensselaer, in which Troy is - and you take, sir, the members of assembly from those cities and add them together and you will find that they have more than one-half the lower house. It is, sir, because, the truth is, as I have before stated, that while your cities are constantly increasing in population, your agricultural districts are not. It is true, sir, that we expect that for many years here our counties will increase rapidly in population. They will of necessity do so; but the time will come when that will cease; the time will come when every farming tract of land over 40 acres, if you please, in your counties on which a man can live will be occupied, and his children as they grow up, must of necessity emigrate. Not so in your city. It will extend up and down your river and back through your hills after a while. Why, we cannot begin to calculate, we cannot set limits to, the increase of population of these cities; but you can to your agricultural districts.

Well, then, the question comes back, whether or not the principle adopted in the State of New York is not sound here, that every county organized in the State ought to have a delegate. I contended for the principle yesterday, sir; for I care so much about it as to the counties now organized, and looking to the future. We are here in our infancy; we are not in existence, but when we come into existence as a State, we will be in our infancy. I shall never live to see this state of things. There may be gentlemen here who will be here when your cities will increase their representation in your house of delegates till they will have control; and as a necessary consequence, sir, the smaller counties will decrease and lose. It is to guard against that that I am now insisting on the amendment that I am offering here to name 4000. It is said we have got some eight (or five) counties that have a less population than this. I suppose there are ten of them. Showing that the counties in a large portion of western Virginia contain but a small portion of the people. But another fact we ought not to lose sight of is this; that the whole territory of this portion of the State is now cut up into small counties, there may be but very little room for the accumulation of counties hereafter; so that there is nothing to be feared from this increase of counties to operate with this principle.

I do not believe, sir - I hope - before we rise here we will not increase this number 46, for some reasons. I am not going to touch upon it now, but I hope gentlemen will see instead of reconsidering it the expediency of letting it stand, and, at all events of making the house at least two-thirds larger than the senate. But even if it is done, sir, or is not done, there is no necessity, no fear of the counties in this State increasing so fast that if we fix the ratio at 4000 that there will not be members of the house of delegates enough under the Constitution to represent the counties.

It has been remarked that I probably spoke from recollection, in reference to certain statements made by me yesterday in relation to the Constitution that has been referred to. I think I can remember matters, and I now turn to read it. "Every county heretofore organized" - mark the words - "Every county heretofore organized shall have a member of assembly except the county of Hamilton," which is of the description I have named. "Every county heretofore organized shall have a member of the assembly, and such counties as are entitled to more than one member shall be districted." Now, there are counties in the State of New York, sir, composed of four townships, with a population not exceeding probably ten or twelve thousand; and the ratio of representation according to the last apportionment, if my recollection serves me, is between twenty-five and thirty thousand. I merely refer to what I had known to be the effect of this increase of population and where I had become satisfied of the necessity of having some limit here as to the ratio of representation for the protection of the agricultural counties. I have the honor to represent Tyler. That county is an old county; has been in existence some thirty years; and although some portions of Doddridge and Pleasants have been taken from her, she is left with a population of but little over six thousand; and if you do not adopt the principle I am now contending for, sir, the time will come when she may be without a delegate.

MR. HALL of Marion. It does occur to me that we have enough to do without borrowing trouble, and that while we are making a Constitution that is to last more than a day we are not making it like the laws of the Modes and Persians, that it never can be altered if the necessity shall arise. I am not alarmed with the danger of being eaten up by the great and growing cities. I say let them come and eat us! It is the very trouble that I would seek. I protest against legislating here with reference to the precedent set by the State of New York. We are not situated as New York has been. We have no facility, there is no possibility, of growing or building up such great commercial cities as exists there. We are not to be taken by that enemy in a very few years. I am not alarmed by any such things. I am willing to look to the experience of other states. I am as willing to look to that of New York as of any other; but I am unwilling if other states have erred that we should repeat their errors here; and whenever we are asked to depart from a proper principle to regulate our action, I do not care if every state in this Union has done it, I would not follow their example. A single county was the exception there that had not a delegate, according to the statement of the gentleman from Tyier; and now where are the figures? Why, sir, if there was but a single county in the proposed State of West Virginia that had not the amount we required a county shall have to be entitled to a representative the very same case would exist in our Constitution as existed there, and the very same clause would be incorporated in the Constitution. What was the population of the various counties there except the one? So there is no argument in that at all.

It is admitted, I believe, by the gentleman from Tyler that before we are to be swallowed up by these great cities in this country, we are going to have an increase of population in these counties in the rural districts. Well, then, we will have more power to strangle these giants than now. Let us consider the work of today, and when we are grown more powerful in the rural districts, there need be no fear we will be able to secure whatever we are in justice entitled to when questions affecting our rights arise. I know personally we will never have a New York City in Marion. When we grow more powerful if we find this great enemy getting hold of it we will take him then by the nape of the neck and deliver him into custody; we will bind him. But if we are to undo what we did yesterday, I hope we will do it by a reconsideration vote. This would be an indirect method of undoing what we did yesterday. It is a weaving round the stump, to do a thing that we cannot, or do not choose to do, directly. Not that the work of yesterday was done so finally that it cannot be reconsidered; but I trust that if we are going to reconsider it; if we are going to do anything that will have that effect we will do it by a straight out motion to reconsider the vote we have taken. I cannot see a particle of argument in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Tyler, and every argument he has adduced is against what he asks the Convention to do. I trust we will not undo our work; that we will not get alarmed about a state of things that may by possibility occur next century. The gentleman remarks that he does not expect to live to see. O, well, I am not going to trouble myself about imaginary evils that are coming when I am gone. I will provide against them so far as reason may enable me to do it.

MR. VAN WINKLE. Let posterity take care of it.

MR. BROWN of Kanawha. The gentleman from Tyler gives very great consideration to the Constitution of New York and the action of the people there. I confess I do not look at it in the light he does as supporting the principle he is seeking to establish here. The Convention have adopted - or, rather, have decided to adopt - a principle, on yesterday, after an elaborate discussion refusing to give what we sought to attain, a delegate from each county. Having refused that, this amendment of the gentleman from Tyier seems to me to be for the accomplishment of nothing but for the purpose of, in effect, discriminating between the counties. Now, while a man might be very ready to give a delegate to every county I do not see why we should undertake to violate another principle which we have now adopted of refusing to give a delegate to each county, in order to give it to only one of the few unrepresented counties. Now the proposition would only give delegates to one or two more counties, still leaving us with delegate districts. Well, now, if this principle should be extended to all the counties, I can see no sufficient reason for departing from that which we have adopted. This section constituting the house of 46 members, the last clause of it, does establish the fundamental principle that every section or small district, county or district, shall have a delegate. The last clause of the 5th section reads: "But every delegate district, and county not included in a delegate district, shall be entitled to at least one delegate." No matter how low its population sinks, it shall be entitled to at least one delegate. But under the proposition of the gentleman from Tyler if the county fell below 4000 it would be without a delegate. The principle of the ratio of representation is wholly departed from. It is ignored and the doctrine of unities is asserted in this section. Now, whenever we depart from the counties I must confess, having looked over this pretty carefully that I do not think you can well make better delegate districts than are made in this report. Unless you go to the principle of giving each county a delegate I do not think you can better this by altering it.

There is but one case in which the principle of having the smallest counties united with counties adjacent and contiguous is not carried out in this report, and that is in the case of the coun- ties of Nicholas and Webster. Webster has 1552, Nicholas 4770. Now Pocahontas is a smaller county than Nicholas, and it joins Webster; yet according to the principle that has been adopted and so much contended for by gentlemen who arranged the county representation, according to that principle as laid down in the report of the Committee on Fundamental Relations the counties of Pocahontas and Webster should have been united, and not Nicholas and Webster. Because, in the first place, they lie together; in the second place, it would have united the two smaller numbers, and not have joined Nicholas, which is a larger one. It is giving to Pocahontas, which has a smaller population than Nicholas one delegate, while Nicholas, larger than Pocahontas, has Webster associated with it. It is making the larger still larger and the smaller still less. But, sir, the relationship of the people of Pocahontas and Webster is not equal to the relationship that exists between the people of Webster and Nicholas: mountain ranges and barriers intervene between the two. It would be uniting two distinct peoples in one delegation; and therefore this principle of equality of representation is subordinated by its advocates to another principle - and very properly so.

So I think, taking all the reasons that can be offered to bear in support of this report on this topic; taking the relations of the people; having departed from the principle that each county shall have a separate delegate, you cannot do better than take it as it is. I think these delegate districts are the best delegate districts that you can devise, as the report stands. I therefore oppose the amendment as proposed.

MR. VAN WINKLE. Mr. President, I much prefer the report of the committee to the amendment of the gentleman from Tyler; and, as a general reason for this, that the report of the committee is applicable to any state of circumstances in reference to population that may arise, while the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tyler is absolute and cannot be changed. I do not intend to go at any length into this subject. I am satisfied with the remarks just made in reference to the main question involved; but I would like to give to the Convention a few figures. I find that during the ten years preceding 1860, the period of the decennial census, the counties of northwestern Virginia increased over twenty-five per cent in population. I find that what are known as the southwestern counties increased something over twenty per cent. Now, sir, we cannot imagine that the increase of the whole of the new State will not be at least twenty-five per cent in the next ten years. That is, by the time when a new apportionment is to be made. If so, sir, and the house is continued at 46 delegates - I include all counties in this calculation - the divisor in the next apportionment will be 8260. Well, sir, in the counties tributary directly, or nearly so, to the Northwestern Virginia Railroad, from 1840 to 1850, which was before the ground was broken in the construction of the road and of course had not much reference to that the ratio of increase during that ten years was greater than twenty-five per cent. There had been a prosperous state of things generally in the country. The Northwestern Turnpike, from Parkersburg to Winchester, had been made; and the increase of population, which had been waiting for the facilities of that highway, was so great that it was about fifty per cent during that period. Well, sir, I feel confident that the advantages that we propose to hold out by means of our new institutions, and the very fact of separation from the rest of the State, justify us in looking forward to an increase of population throughout this whole State ranging from thirty to fifty per cent; and I believe the lowest of these percentages - certainly the average of them - would bring up the ratio for a member of the house of delegates of 46 to upwards of ten thousand. So that while we are in this degree of uncertainty as to what will be the divisor at the end of ten years, we ought not to fix a specific amount. The rule adopted by the committee to allow a delegate for a fraction over one-half is certainly a fair one if any counties are to be attached to other counties.

Now, sir, I would repeat the calculation more definitely that I endeavored to call attention to yesterday. If we take an average rate per cent of increase for every county in the State, you will see how rapidly you will work injustice to the larger counties, whether cities in them or not. Take a county of 2000 inhabitants. Now let them increase 25 per cent, and at the end of ten years it will be 2500. Take the gentleman's county of 6000. At the end of ten years it will be 7500. Well, now, it is with these figures - these positive quantities - we operate in reference to counties. The gentleman's county would have increased 1500 while this small county would have increased only 500, although the ratio in each case is the same. If we are going to look forward, we ought to try to find out what is to be the probable state of things say five years hence, as representing the average of the whole ten years. If you will do that, you will find that even if the larger counties were now favored that at the end of five years even they would be disfavored counties, although their rate of increase was not greater than that of the small counties. But as the representation does not go by percentage but by actual numbers, the gentleman's county would have increased 750 while the other increased by 250. Then the one instead of outranking the other 4000 would outrank it 5300, and the relative disproportion would be greater. I do not doubt that every member of this Convention is actuated by a love of justice in this matter, and I do not hesitate to believe for one moment that even those who propose to give to these small counties a representative to themselves think there is a justice in that. It may be, sir, if we were capable of doing it; but when we see it works great injustice to others the same love of justice should teach us not to do injustice in order to do justice. We must get a medium somewheres between them and that is what the mode of representation in this report attempts. It proposes if they have one-half the ratio to give them a representative; if they have less than one-half they must vote with some other county. That seems to me equal justice to both. I do not think, sir, you could with any show of justice whatever in view of the principle that equality of representation is to prevail "as nearly as possible," give to those counties each a representative without making your house of delegates to consist of 100 members; and then, sir, if you did make it consist of 100 the county of Tucker would not, by the rule that one-half the ratio would give it a member, be entitled to one. The ratio would be over 3000 and Tucker is short of 1400. Now, in that view you would see how great the injustice would be to deprive others of a fair representation in order that there may be members where the claims are so slight. Not that you are going to deprive them of representation entirely but to subject them to the inconvenience, if you please, of voting with another county. That is all.

I have said more than I intended when I got up. I can only repeat that I think the report of the committee is something in the nature of a principle, while the proposition of the gentleman from Tyler is a rule. A principle will adapt itself to any circumstances; a rule is arbitrary and can only be worked out in one way.

The question, on the motion of the member from Tyler was taken and it was lost.

THE PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Wood renew his amendment?

MR. VAN WINKLE. I propose to renew it in another shape. I offer the following, to come in before the 5th section:

"If the first elections of senators and delegates are held within six months after the 4th day of July, in any year, their respective terms of service shall be reckoned from that day; and if held within six months next preceding that day, in any year, their terms shall be reckoned from the 4th day of July next after such election."

If elected after the 4th day of July, their terms will be a little less than two years, not exceeding two years. I believe that meets the case, meets the objections that were made to the other.

MR. LAMB. I would ask, Mr. President, to lay the amendment on the table, to allow us to think about the matter until Monday.

MR. VAN WINKLE. I have no objections, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. What will you do with the section - pass it by?

MR. VAN WINKLE. O, yes, sir; there is no immediate connection between them.

The question was taken on the adoption, of the section, and it was adopted.

The Secretary reported Section 6 as follows:

"6. After each census hereafter taken by authority of the United States, the delegates shall be apportioned as follows:

The ratio of representation for the house of delegates shall be ascertained by dividing the whole white population of the State by the number of which the house is to consist, and rejecting the fraction of a unit, if any, resulting from such division.

Dividing the white population of every delegate district, and of every county not included in a delegate district, by the ratio thus ascertained, there shall then be assigned to each, a number of delegates equal to the quotient obtained by this division of its white population, excluding the fractional remainder.

The additional delegates which may be necessary to make up the whole number of which the house is to consist, shall then be assigned to those delegate districts, and counties not included in a delegate district, which would otherwise have the largest fractions unrepresented. But every delegate district and county not included in a delegate district, shall be entitled to at least one delegate."

MR. LAMB. I can only say in reference to this that it is the plan which has been finally adopted by Congress in apportioning representation in the House of Representatives of the United States. The matter of the principle of making that apportionment had been under discussion at different periods in the Congress of the United States since 1789 down to 1850. This plan was adopted as the most equal of any other that could be devised. As a merely arithmetical proposition giving us an adequate number in the house of delegates, it does, as near as possible apportion representation according to population. It does accomplish that result as an arithmetical proposition nearer than any other principle that can be adopted. These were the considerations which recommended it to Congress, where it was adopted by the act of May 23, 1850. These are the considerations which recommended it to the committee. It accomplishes another object. This rule avoids controversies in regard to the distribution of fractions. They are kept out of the legislative halls and conventions. It becomes thus a matter of figures simply. You will have no squabbling in your legislature about fractions because the figures will decide it according to the census; and if a question arises between two counties, the county which has the largest fraction gets it. It is certainly fair that where you are to distribute to fractions, the members should go to the counties which have the largest fractions. It is simply the principle of the whole matter.

MR. RUFFNER. There seems to me a propriety in authorizing the State to take a census and make the apportionment on it. In order to bring this idea before the Convention I would move that after the words "United States" the words "or of the State" be inserted.

MR. LAMB. I do not know that there can be any objection. The Committee considered the question of making an apportionment according to a State census, and of requiring a State census; but the great expense of taking the census was one great objection to it. Then as a census is provided for by the Constitution of the United States every ten years, as long as the Constitution of the United States operates over West Virginia, and as long as West Virginia exists it will operate over it, a census has to be taken under that Constitution every ten years. We supposed this was sufficiently often to bring up this question of representation with all its embarrassments and difficulties and ill feeling. I have no particular objections to the gentlemen arranging that matter as they see proper. If they want the census and apportionment oftener than each ten years, it might be necessary to make such an amendment as the gentleman proposes. If the Convention should determine, however, that once in ten years is often enough to bring up this question, why, as long as the Constitution of the United States exists we will have a fair census by which we can make our apportionments without any expense incurred by the State in taking it.

MR. VAN WINKLE. While I should be disposed to object to the provision which the gentleman from Ohio has alluded to absolutely requiring that a census should be taken intermediate between the United States census on account of the reasons he has stated, that it is an expensive matter, yet I apprehend that the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Kanawha is not objectionable - at least it is not so to me. If circumstances should arise such that the people should demand of their representatives that they should order a census to equalize the representation, it would leave them free to do it. I do not think, however, sir, that I would propose the amendment in this connection nor make it one absolutely requiring a census to be taken. But if that matter is to be left to the legislature, the people instructing them, I shall have no objection to the amendment.

The question was taken on Mr. Ruffner's motion, and the amendment rejected.

The section was then adopted.

MR. IRVINE. I would like to have one word to say before this question is taken.

The vote adopting the section was reconsidered by general consent.

MR. IRVINE. I dislike very much to intrude myself on the house under the circumstances. I do not rise to make a speech, nor would I insist on having anything to say on this occasion but for the fact that it seems to me there is a flaw in this section, which has, I suppose, if it is a fact, escaped the notice of the vigilant chairman of the committee. This 6th section may work possibly. If it does - if you can work out this section so as to apportion the representation, it would be the result of an accident, it seems to me. The ratio of representation here now is 6618. Well, then, you will assign one representative for every 6618. When the apportionment is made in future, the ratio will be much larger; but that does not affect the argument. So for every 6618 you have one provision. You are guided, then, by the ratio in all the districts and large counties in apportioning the representation. Suppose that there were no fractions at all. Then you would assign to each district and to each large county one representative for every 6618 inhabitants; no fractions. In additions to this - I adopt the 6618 for the purpose of illustration - in addition to this, you are to assign to all the small counties where the population exceeds half of this amount a representative, yet at the same time to be confined to 46 representatives. This thing will not work out.

MR. VAN WINKLE. Will he permit me to tell him he is mistaken. I have tried it on six or seven different ratios, and it always works out.

MR. IRVINE. Well, sir, it is perfectly obvious to my mind that it would be the result of accident. It might work out in a given instance. But suppose the fractions were not sufficient to make up for the deficiencies, the thing would not work at all. In consequence of their being large fractions to compensate for allowing to small counties where they exceed one-half a representative, it might possibly work; but this would be the result of accident. It might so happen that it would work. For every 6618 inhabitants the counties are entitled to one representative. If there were no fractions it would not work at all; because in a number of instances where there was a great deal less than 6618 inhabitants you would be entitled to a representative. It might accidentally work out right. The fractions might be sufficient to make up the deficiencies, but this would be the result of accident, and I do not think the working of any provision in the Constitution ought to depend on accident.

I have expressed myself rather badly on the occasion owing to embarrassment; but it is clear to my mind if it works out it will be the result of accident.

MR. LAMB. The gentleman's objection, of course, is a radical one to the whole section. If there is force in it, it is necessary for the Convention to dispense with the whole. But I think the objection made is founded altogether on a mistake, and that the gentleman's own statement makes the mistake apparent. He proceeds, in the first place, to suppose that there are no fractions. Now if there are any counties with a less number than 6618 there are fractions. The population of such counties come into the column of fractions at once. So far as those counties are concerned, they are all fractions. So that his supposition is inconsistent with itself. That the number might be so exhausted by making up one delegate to each of these small counties that you would not have any delegates to assign to larger ones, as well as I can see into his objection . . .

MR. IRVINE. I only supposed for purposes of illustration that there were no fractions in order to show it would not work when there were no fractions.

MR. LAMB. Then if there are no fractions, there can be no counties of less than 6618, or exactly twice that, or exactly three times that.

MR. IRVINE. I may explain again to the gentleman. I was speaking of fractions in those cases where the counties or districts would be allowed a representative, one or more representatives; then there may be fractions left. I speak of the fractions in those cases in which the counties are entitled to one or more representatives as being sufficient to make up for the deficiency in a number of counties which would be entitled to a representative where there were not 6618 inhabitants. Thus, 20 counties would be entitled to 20 representatives. Well, then, suppose the other counties should contain 3618 inhabitants. In that case it certainly would not work, because you would have a great many more than 46 members. I cite this merely for the purpose of illustration. If there were twenty counties having precisely 6618 inhabitants, and the other counties had 3618 inhabitants, all the other counties would be entitled to a representative each, and the number of representatives would exceed 46. So that if the thing would work at all, it would be the result of accident that the fractions in the counties which are entitled to one or more representatives would be sufficient to make up any deficiency.

MR. LAMB. There is a great deal of difficulty in discussing a matter of this kind which is to be decided by logarithms and algebra, and not by a speech on the floor of the Convention. But I think I can satisfy the gentleman that under this section there cannot possibly be any difficulty in working it out.

You have 44 counties; you have a house of 46. If you make a number of delegate districts, say six or any other number, you reduce the number of counties. We have made in this proposition six delegate districts. We have six districts and 21 counties, making 37 districts and counties to which 46 members are to be distributed. Now the provision is that each one of the 37 shall have at least one delegate. You start with that. But says the proposition, every delegate district and county not included in a delegate district shall be entitled to at least one delegate. This is the exception. Whatever may be the effect of other provisions that is to govern. Then, in any way you can fix it, you secure some representation to every county and to every delegate district. As long as you have got 46 members to distribute and 31 counties and six districts to give it to. Or if you destroy the delegate districts entirely you have 44 counties to give it to. The balance merely operates on the excess. The gentleman's difficultly would exist if you had 44 counties to assign delegates to and were to adopt the motion that was suggested the other day to make the house 36. I can imagine a possible case in that state of facts on which you could not work. But there is no possible case where the number of your delegates exceed the number of counties in which this "won't work." It may not work equally unless you have considerable excess but some way or other that will work wherever the number of delegates to be assigned is equal to the number of districts and counties to which they are to be assigned. I state this as a clear arithmetical, or algebraic or logarithmic proposition. As to the thing merely working in case of accident, I would inquire if the gentleman has ever tried to work it out in any possible state of the case?

MR. IRVINE. I have not thought of it until this morning.

MR. LAMB. Well I have; and I worked it out in a great many cases and I have found no difficulty in applying it. I have here a paper submitted to the committee in which we apply the principle to a house of 42, a house of 45, of 48 and of 50 members; and I have figured out since the application of it to a house of 54 and a house of 46. There is no difficulty at all in working it out. It always comes out. The gentleman on my right (Mr. Van Winkle) has applied it in sundry cases in which I have not. He applied it to the 39 counties or to a house of odd numbers, and there was no difficulty in working it through. But the gentleman's difficulty would only exist if you had a house much less in number than the counties or districts to which you had to apply your apportionment. If you had a house of 36 and were obliged to apportion it among 44 counties and districts, there might be a possible case. Well, it might require a greater difference than that. But there can be no possible difficulty in working it out as a sum in arithmetic where the number of delegates is equal to the number of districts to which you have to apportion them. That I set down as a fixed fact at any rate. As long as you have got 46 delegates and only 44 counties, there can be no possible difficulty of working it out.

The question on the adoption of the section was resubmitted and it was adopted.

MR. BATTELLE. Before we adjourn, I wish to give notice to the Committee on Education to meet in their room Monday morning at half past eight o'clock.

MR. HERVEY. I wish to inquire whether the chairman of the Committee on the Legislative Department designs to move the adoption of the whole report now or let it lie over until it comes up for revision. The reason I make the inquiry is this: I handed him a paper this morning which is designed to be a substitute for part of this report and I hope the vote will not be taken until that substitute is printed and before the members.

MR. LAMB. I suppose the proper course with regard to this report will be after we have considered the report section by section and adopted such amendments as may seem expedient to the Convention, to lay over the whole report.

MR. SINSEL. Have it reprinted, won't you?

MR. LAMB. Well, that may be necessary.

MR. STEVENSON of Wood. O, Yes; it had better be printed.

MR. LAMB. But I don't think we ought to hurry the final vote on a report of this nature. Even after we have gone over it section by section and amended and made it as good as we can get it. I dare say there will be still an abundance of defects in any piece of our work.

MR. HERVEY. I then understand, Mr. President, there will be no motion to adopt the report at this time?

MR. LAMB. Only to go over it section by section and adopt each section; and it will finally come up some other time.

MR. HERVEY. Yes, sir.

The Convention then took a recess.


*The Convention re-assembled.

Mr. Ruffner presented six petitions, signed by one hundred and fifty-nine citizens of Nicholas county, stating that no election was held in said county in October last for a delegate to this Convention, and praying to be represented here by John R. McCutchen. On motion of Mr. Ruffner, John R. McCutchen was admitted to a seat in this Convention, as a delegate for the county of Nicholas.

Mr. McCutchen appeared and took the oath embraced in the ordinance for the reorganization of the state government.

Mr. Van Winkle moved to amend the 7th section by inserting in the 69th line, after the words "two delegates," the words "of whom the county of Wood shall elect one delegate, and the counties of Wood and Pleasants shall together elect one delegate."

Pending the consideration of which,

Mr. Warder moved to reconsider the vote by which the 2d section was adopted, and the question being upon reconsiderating, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. Haymond moved to amend the 2d section, by striking out the word "forty-six," in the 7th line, and insert "fifty-six."

Mr. Lamb moved to amend the amendment by striking out "fifty-six," and inserting "fifty-four."

Mr. Lamb then moved to lay all the motions on the table for the present, which was agreed to.

And, on motion of Mr. Hervey, the Convention adjourned.

*As reported in the Journal of the First Constitutional Convention, 1861-62.

**The seventh section of the Report of the Legislative Committee was taken up and reported:

7. Until a new apportionment be declared under the next census to be taken by authority of the United States, the counties of Calhoun and Gilmer shall form the first delegate district; Clay and Braxton the second; Pleasants and Wood the third; McDowell, Wyoming and Raleigh the fourth; Tucker and Randolph the fifth; and Webster and Nicholas the sixth. And the apportionment of delegates shall be as follows:

To the third delegate district, two delegates; and to the other five, one each.

To Barbour, Boone, Brooke, Cabell, Doddridge, Fayette, Greenbrier, Hancock, Jackson, Lewis, Logan, Mason, Mercer, Monroe, Pocahontas, Putnam, Ritchie, Roane, Taylor, Tyler, Upshur, Wayne, Wetzel and Wirt counties, one delegate each.

To Harrison, Kanawha, Marion, Marshall, Monongalia and Preston counties, two delegates each. And to Ohio county, three delegates.

Mr. Van Winkle moved to insert after "to the third district, two delegates," in the second paragraph, these words: "of whom the county of Wood shall elect one delegate, and Wood and Pleasants together shall elect another delegate.

After considerable discussion of this amendment,

Mr. Warder moved (such a motion taking precedence) to reconsider the vote by which the second section was adopted, in order to afford opportunity for a motion to strike out "forty-six" as the number of the house of delegates, as then proposed, and substitute "fifty-four."

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. Raymond then moved to strike out "forty-six" and substitute "fifty-six."

Mr. Lamb moved to amend the amendment by substituting "fifty-four."

The Convention then adjourned.

**As reported in the Wheeling Intelligencer, January 13, 1862.

November 26, 1861
November 27, 1861
November 29, 1861
November 30, 1861
December 2, 1861
December 3, 1861
December 4, 1861
December 5, 1861
December 6, 1861
December 7, 1861
December 9, 1861
December 10, 1861
December 11, 1861
December 12, 1861
December 13, 1861
December 14, 1861
December 16, 1861
December 17, 1861
December 18, 1861
December 19, 1861
December 20, 1861
January 7, 1862
January 8, 1862
January 9, 1862
January 10, 1862
January 11, 1862
January 13, 1862
January 14, 1862
January 15, 1862
January 16, 1862
January 17, 1862
January 18, 1862
January 20, 1862
January 21, 1862
January 22, 1862
January 23, 1862
January 24, 1862
January 25, 1862
January 27, 1862
January 28, 1862
January 29, 1862
January 30, 1862
January 31, 1862
February 1, 1862
February 3, 1862
February 4, 1862
February 5, 1862
February 6, 1862
February 7, 1862
February 8, 1862
February 10, 1862
February 11, 1862
February 12, 1862
February 13, 1862
February 14, 1862
February 15, 1862
February 17, 1862
February 18, 1862
February 12, 1863
February 13, 1863
February 14, 1863
February 16, 1863
February 17, 1863
February 18, 1863
February 19, 1863
February 20, 1863

Chapter Eleven: First Constitutional Convention of West Virginia

A State of Convenience

West Virginia Archives and History