The Convention was opened with prayer by Rev. Gordon Battelle.
President Hall in the chair.
MR. HAYMOND. Mr. President, I ask leave to withdraw my motion made on Saturday to increase the number of the house of delegates from 46 to 56, for the present.
MR. SINSEL. Mr. President, it seems to me according to the rule established here and the usage in such matters that the vote on Saturday evening was out of order. There was a motion then before the house. It had not been determined and was still there. If I am correct in that, why the motion this morning would require the amendment of the gentleman from Wood and not on any amendments offered afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that the motion to reconsider was not out of order; that the work which we were then doing depended very much or entirely on the numbers to be inserted in the member's resolution which determined the Convention to reconsider.
MR. SINSEL. Mr. President, I do not understand it in that way. I understood that the matter under discussion at that time was how they should regulate the two representatives assigned to the counties of Pleasants and Wood. We had decided on the number 46. The committee had reported how the 46 should be disposed of; and that amendment was in reference to the disposition to be made of the two representatives which made up the 46.
THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Taylor will remember that if the increase contemplated by the reconsideration occurred and was made there is no use for the controversy between the counties of Pleasants and Wood; that the difficulty would be removed by the insertion of the larger number. Hence the motion to reconsider and go back prepared for the work in Wood and Pleasants, was proper, in the opinion of the Chair.
MR. SINSEL. It seems that I have failed to make myself understood. The point that I raised was this, that at the time the motion was made to reconsider, we had under consideration the disposition of the delegates assigned to the district of Wood and Pleasants.
MR. VAN WINKLE. The rule in Jefferson's manual is that when a motion has been once made and determined in the negative, it shall be in order for any member of the majority to move a reconsideration, and such motions shall take precedence. It is perfectly in order, sir.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the gentleman from Ohio aware that the amendment of the gentleman from Marion has been withdrawn?
MR. LAMB. Of course both amendments fall unless I renew my motion, which I will do, to strike out 46 and insert 64.
THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Ohio.
MR. HAYMOND. I now offer an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio by substituting the following:
"RESOLVED, That the house of delegates shall consist of fifty- nine members, to be divided among the counties as follows:
Ohio county four delegates; Marshall, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Harrison, Wood, Jackson, Barbour, Mason, Kanawha, Greenbrier and Monroe counties, two delegates each; and Hancock, Brooke, Wetzel, Taylor, Ritchie, Doddridge, Wirt, Roane, Calhoun, Gilmer, Tucker, Pleasants, Tyler, Lewis, Braxton, Upshur, Randolph, Putnam, Clay, Nicholas, Cabell, Wayne, Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Mercer, McDowell, Webster, Pocahontas, Fayette and Raleigh, one delegate each."
THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I would simply state that the number 59 is a new number and one about which no calculations have been made; and until they are we know nothing about it. We had prepared ourselves for the motion of the gentleman from Marion to substitute 56, but here comes in 59, and we are just as unprepared to consider that question as we were Saturday evening.
MR. SINSEL. Mr. President, I feel it again my duty to oppose this amendment.
MR. LAMB. Will the gentleman excuse me for one moment. I would suggest that the only course now to be taken would be to lay the matter on the table, have the different schemes printed to allow us to act intelligently upon it when it does come up, if this should meet with the concurrence of the Convention. If that course should be taken we have plenty of other business to act upon in the meantime. There is a number of the sections of this report that have not been considered. A number of amendments have been offered to this report in regard to other matters which have not been disposed of. Just as the Convention please, however, I have no wish to make a motion to interfere with the remarks of the member from Taylor.
MR. SINSEL. I have no objections to your motion. But, still, Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Ohio because this amendment offered by the gentleman from Marion amounts to nothing more than this, to give each of the counties now a separate delegate, the county of Greenbrier two, the county of Monroe two, the county of Ohio four and Wood two. Wood has two, so that leaves it just as it is in the report of the committee, merely changing these other counties, giving each one of them a representative. And so I cannot see what can be gained by printing this, nothing more than expense, because we all know at once what it means giving to each of these little counties a representative, to McDowell two, Greenbrier two, leaving the county of Wood but two and Pleasants one. The county of Ohio an additional one and Jackson two. That disposes of the question. It does seem to me every member of the Convention can understand that; and it would be unnecessary delay and expense to have these different plans printed.
MR. PARKER. Mr. President, a moment, I would inquire, for information. My recollection is that on Saturday there was but one reconsideration, which was a reconsideration of the vote, as I understand, passing that section. Well, then, to that was the first amendment as I understood offered by the gentleman from Wood. That was voted down. That was to substitute 54 for 46. Well, that was the amendment to the section of the report of the committee. On that amendment, then, there was an amendment to the amendment, offered by the gentleman from Doddridge. That also was voted down, so that both amendments were then voted down and the vote was taken on the passage of this section. Well, now, there was one reconsideration on Saturday, of but one question, and that was the reconsideration of the vote the section of the report as reported by the committee. Now, what the question is I do not perceive unless I am under a mistake, and I rise for information, if there was but one reconsideration, and that was on the passage of the section as reported. There is no motion to reconsider that as yet. Well, that being so, that is the only way this can be brought up again is by reconsidering. The 8th rule is explicit on that. "A question being once determined must stand as the judgment of the Convention and shall not again be brought into debate."
MR. STUART of Doddridge. Is it to lay on the table? I understand a motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
MR. PARKER. I merely rise for information. If we are not right on the record there is no use going on.
MR. VAN WINKLE. I do not think the interposition of these strict techniques is worth while. The vote was to reconsider the vote by which 46 was fixed. The house agreed to reconsider it. We have adopted the section. The section is again open for amendment, of course. It is very evident that if two votes had been necessary to effect the purpose, if the Convention voted one vote they would have voted the other. While these rules are intended to facilitate business, certainly they need not be insisted on when the effect will be to hinder business.
MR. PARKER. I would ask, Mr. Secretary, to turn to the journal and see how it stands.
The Secretary read Mr. Warder's motion, to reconsider the vote by which the second section of the report had been adopted.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would remark when the question was brought up his first impression was that it would require two votes to prepare for the amendment; but it was then suggested that it would not require two votes, and the Chair was unable to see any object, but understood the purpose was to reach the very matter we are now investigating. The Chair is under the impression that no possible good could result from a second vote. It would only be a loss of time. However, the Convention might determine to review it all.
MR. PARKER. It would strike me as a matter of order that we should keep our record right, and certainly this is a rule that is clear. And it is perfectly clear now, from the reading of the Secretary, that it was the reconsideration only of the vote which passed the section, not touching the amendment. Well then that judgment which we passed on this first amendment of the gentleman from Wood was decided in the negative and so stands on the journal. I would inquire how that stands?
THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman will take his seat. The gentleman has a perfect right to appeal, not to argue the question.
MR. PARKER. I would take an appeal to the house. I would ask for the Secretary to read the record of the final disposition made of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wood, which was to substitute 56 for 54.
MR. VAN WINKLE. The gentleman is in error. I did not offer the motion at all. I did not offer the 54. The gentleman from Ohio offered it.
MR. PARKER. I am corrected. I thank you for the correction.
MR. VAN WINKLE. Well, sir, let us have the vote on the appeal.
THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman will commit his appeal to writing, so that the Convention will understand what it is they have decided.
MR. CALDWELL. Would it not be in order to move to lay this appeal on the table? I will make that motion; and I do it without any disrespect to the gentleman from Cabell, but only to save the time of the Convention.
THE PRESIDENT. The question is on laying the appeal on the table.
The question was taken, and the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The question recurring on the motion to lay the amendments on the table and print, the motion was rejected.
MR. SINSEL. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Marion, and also to that of the gentleman from Ohio; and in what I have to say I wish it to apply to both. The proposition of the gentleman from Marion is to give to each one of the counties a representative. Now, upon examination it will be found that there are some twenty counties lying in that end of the State that lack the number now necessary to give them a representative. Commence with McDowell. It has a population of 1535; and upon the 56 proposition it would then fall short of having the ratio, 3901. It would lack 3901 of having enough to entitle it to a representative were the number increased to 56. Still worse if increased to 59, or nearly as bad. With a house of 54 McDowell would fall short 4102. The county of Wyoming, with a population of 2797 would be entitled to one representative under his proposition, and she lacks 2639 with a house of 56. With a house of 54 she would lack 2840. So either of these propositions would be unjust, to give each of these counties a representative. The county of Raleigh, with a population of 3291 would be entitled to one, while she would fall short 2165, and still worse with a house of 54. The county of Calhoun, with a population of 2492 would be entitled to a representative, when she lacks 2944. Gilmer, with a population of 3685 would be entitled to one, while she falls short 1751. The county of Braxton would be entitled to one, which she has already, I believe, with a population of 4885. She falls short 551. Clay, with a population of 1761 would be entitled to a representative, while she would lack 3675. Tucker, with a population of 1396 would be entitled to a representative, according to his arrangement, while she is minus 4040. Randolph would have one, with a population of 4793, falling short 643. Webster, with a population of 1552 would have a representative, while she lacks 3884. Nicholas, with a population of 4470 would have one, while she would lack 966. Boone, with a population of 4681 would be minus 755. Logan, with a population of 4789, would be minus 647. Pocahontas, with a population of 3686, would be minus 1750. The county of Roane, with a population of 5309, would be minus 127. Wirt, with a population of 3728 would be minus 1780. The county of Monroe, with a population of 9526 would be entitled to two representatives. She would fall short 1346. The county of Greenbrier, with a population of 10,499, would be minus 373, with a house of 56. With a house of 54 she would have two also and then she would be minus 775. Pleasants, with a population of 2926 would be minus 2510 with a house of 56; 2711 with a house of 54. Doddridge, with a population of 5168 would be minus 268 with a house of 56; with a house of 54, 469.
Well, now these counties in the aggregate make 82,969 of a population, which would have according to that plan twenty-two representatives when, in fact, they would be entitled to only fifteen, a gain of seven representatives with a house of 54. With a house of 56, they would fall short of the population to entitle them to representatives 36,623. With a house of 54 they would fall short 41,045. Now, is there any justice in that?
One or two figures on the other side. The other counties would exceed what would entitle them to a representative except Hancock and Brooke and it seems to me one other county that comes within. Tyler lacks some of having it, and these others lack but a small amount. These counties all lie in one end of the State, or nearly so; and worse than all others these little counties are decidedly Secession in sentiment and feeling.
I would like to know if this Convention is going to deal out that kind of liberality towards their enemies? When this Rebellion is put down and these counties come up and vote for their candidates freely, who would be elected? No one would be returned from any I have named, except Pleasants and Doddridge, but Secessionists or sympathisers with them. We are then here to take in connection with that the fact that the other counties lying in that part of the State favor Secession but have the number sufficient to entitle them to a representative. They would return Secession sympathisers, and the legislature of the State would be ruled decidedly by the Secessionists while they would have only about one-fourth of the population of the State. Is there any justice in that? It does seem to me from the utterances of some persons on this floor, that they seem inclined to bear down pretty hard on the Secessionists. I was always in favor of giving unto them their just dues; of depriving them of no rights they should enjoy; but it seems to me I am utterly opposed to giving all the power of the State into their hands while they are entitled to about one-fourth of it. Wherever they can elect a Secessionist on fair and equitable principles, with a fair ratio of representation, I have no objections to it. I am the last one who ever would complain of it. But I am utterly opposed to giving the power of the State, taking it from the loyal citizens and handing it over to the Secession districts.
Any one can see that what I have stated here is fact. Who denies that McDowell, Wyoming, Raleigh, Calhoun, Gilmer, Braxton, Clay, Tucker, Randolph, Webster, Nicholas, Boone, Logan, Pocahontas, Roane, Wirt, Monroe and Greenbrier - add to that Barbour and many others - are all dominated by the spirit of the Rebellion, and you are proposing to give them seven more members of the house of delegates than they are entitled to. You are saying to the people in the loyal part of the State that it shall take two men to represent them while in the disloyal districts one man shall have equal power. It is giving them an advantage they have no right to, and I am opposed to it.
I am in favor of a house of 46. I would consent, to make it look more fair for Greenbrier to add another to that county, but to adding to any other county, I am opposed to.
MR. IRVINE. Mr. President, I only rise for the purpose of making a short explanation. The arrangement proposed by the amendment would do great injustice to my county. The county of Lewis is the largest county - has more inhabitants - than any other county that is not entitled to two representatives. Now, I will show in what the injustice consists. According to the arrangment, it is proposed to give to the county of Ohio four representatives; to the county of Lewis one. The county of Ohio has not three times the population of the county of Lewis. But instead of that, they propose to give to the county of Ohio four representatives and to the county of Lewis one representative. There is no justice in that. If the county of Ohio had three times as many and a large fraction over, I would not complain; but when Ohio has not three times as many inhabitants as Lewis, to give to Ohio four representatives and to Lewis one, I contend would not be doing my county justice.
MR. RAYMOND. Mr. President, it will be seen by examining the resolution I offered that I have given to the county of Ohio four members; that I have given to all the counties where the population exceeds eight thousand two members; which leaves Lewis county with only one member. When I first came to this city I was opposed to Ohio having more than three members. I believe that the county of Ohio should have been satisfied with three members; but, sirs, when I come to look around this city and see this noble city, with her manufactures and her work-shops, and when I see the surrounding improvements around this city, I have come to the conclusion to give her four members. Mr. President, how was this noble city made? She has been raised by the hands of the general government and by the hands of the state government to what she is. She is now a mighty and powerful city for western Virginia. The general government gave her the National Road, and this house we are in. The state legislature has conferred on her many advantages. For a long time she contained all the banking capital in western Virginia. And from those considerations, and seeing her improvements, I came to the conclusion to give her four members; and I now ask her delegates in this Convention to come and go with me to the mountain counties and see if we cannot improve them, that we may bring them side by side in improvements by the great county of Ohio. Sir, I desire to see those hills and mountains of West Virginia improved. I desire to see them cleared out; to see the blue grass and clover growing in the highest mountains in western Virginia, and they covered with cattle and sheep; to see manufactures springing up all over this country, not only in Wheeling but all over West Virginia. That must be done to make us a great and powerful state and counties. I call upon men to look around them and expand their minds throughout the borders of this new State. Sirs, the county that I represent in part is a manufacturing county. She is full of mineral, and she has the greatest water-power in the world. She is better calculated for manufacturing than Ohio. She has all the material there for making glass; she has the material for making glass sufficient to supply all the markets of the world. Why not give it to us?
Sir, I ask my friend from Ohio to go with me into the mountain country in forming this Constitution as a liberal constitution and induce men of capital to come among us and improve these hills by clearing them out and bringing up manufactures. Sir, I voted the other day to increase the number of the house from 46 to 54. Here I differ with my colleague. I was sorry for it. But I intend to leave him to vote as he sees proper and I will do the same. He said he could not vote to increase it; that he would be afraid to go home to his constituents; that he did not come here to represent the hills but the people. I am here to represent the people and the hills; and I shall not be afraid to meet my constituents there, sir. No, sir; they will not meet me with a rope to hang me; but they will meet me and take me by the hand and say, "Well done, thou liberal soul; we wish we had more of your kind." (Merriment.)
(Mr. Stuart of Doddridge in the chair.)
MR. DERING. I was opposed originally to increasing the number of the house of delegates any at all. But, sir, as the Convention progressed, I found that an increase of that number was an inevitable fact and a foregone conclusion. The house having come to that conclusion, I myself, when the facts were developed came to the conclusion that every county in this State should have a delegate. I think, sir, it becomes the Convention to be magnanimous with the little counties which have a small population now and grant to each a member of the house of delegates. And I think, sir, by attaching the little counties to the larger ones, you will deny them a representation in the house of delegates. For instance, sir, the member from Tucker tells me that they have been attached to the county of Randolph in the election of their delegates to the general assembly. He says they have been virtually without any representation in their county; that all the legislation for that particular section of country has been in favor of Randolph and not one iota in favor of Tucker. It is virtually, sir, depriving these little counties of a representation in the general assembly when you attach them to larger ones. They over-ride, they eclipse them; and the interests of the little counties are entirely lost sight of. Sir, we cannot adhere to any iron rule of figures in fixing representation. I would be in favor of basing it upon white population, but it is out of the question. Every calculation that has been made has departed from that rule; and in many cases we have the greatest injustice done to the various counties. We cannot adhere to any iron rule in fixing a basis of representation. Let us, sir, be magnanimous to the little counties and give to each a delegate and give to Wood an additional delegate. We have increased the whole number in the house of delegates to 54. I would like to see that body respectable in point of numbers and by weight of talent; and it seems to me we might come to that conclusion and do justice to the little counties making a respectable house and await the course of future events to bring up these little counties to a proper apportionment, when representation with some propriety might be based on white population. These little counties that you are ignoring, you are doing them a manifest injustice now. It will be but a few years until these hills will all be cultivated and they will be full of a thriving industrial population; and then, sir, under a re-apportionment you can apportion on the basis of white population. I am decidedly, sir, in favor of giving to these little counties each a delegate. You increase the lower house only a few and do justice to Wood and Greenbrier and give them an additional delegate.
You cannot - again I say, Mr. President - fix upon any settled figures that will give an exact proportion of representation according to white population. You have to depart from the rule. Let us, then, be generous, embrace the great principle of justice to all the counties in our State; and under the fostering care of this new state government these little ones will grow up by the side of their sister counties by the time the re-apportionment will arise they will be entitled to a delegate on the apportionment principle. With these views I shall vote to give to each of these little counties a delegate, thus embracing the principles of justice and according to Wood and Greenbrier the additional delegate, which will make our house, not cumbersome in numbers, but will give it respectability.
MR. POMEROY. I understand the question before the house is to increase the number of the house of delegates to 69.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. The question is on the amendment to the amendment, which increases the house to 59 and gives to the various counties, naming them, certain numbers of delegates.
MR. POMEROY. Well, Mr. President, I only offer a few remarks. I am opposed to that motion. I voted against the increase when the question was before us before. I wish to stand right before the Convention and before the people on this subject. I am not opposed to increase if it can be done in a fair and equitable manner, but I am opposed to increasing the house to 59 with the probability that a number of other counties will come in which in the same proportion will increase the house to that number that we will have nearly as large a house as the large states around us, while we will be one of the smallest states in the Union as regards population. I am opposed to it on the ground of unnecessary expense of a body so large; and because a large body does not move as rapidly as a small one in the transaction of business. Though I am not a compromising man, I think if we could compromise on the number 54 we could give to nearly all the small counties a member, which I am in favor of. But it will not do to carry that matter to an extreme. It will not do for us to go before the people and say that we thought a man in one county should be counted as much as five men in another county. There is no fairness in that. If you would give to Tucker, for example, a member, why, then, one man in that county will count as much in the house of delegates as five men in some other counties. That would be carrying our charity towards those counties to a point that I am not willing to extend. I am for favoring the smaller counties as far as we possibly can without too great an increase in the number of the house. As has been stated by the gentleman from Tyler, it is certainly unfair to leave large fractions unrepresented in the larger counties to accommodate these people who are in the sparse counties. It appears to me that 54 would about accommodate all parties. It would give all the larger counties two members and nearly all the smaller counties a member; and I think the Convention might be harmonized on that number. But if you run up to 59 we cannot expect that these counties will come in. I have not applied arithmetic to it, but I suppose it will make a house of about 75; a much larger house in proportion to our population than any of the great states surrounding us. And I shall vote for a body of about such a number as this body. This Convention is about as capable of transacting business as a much larger one. There appears to be a general opinion that we are capable of transacting business. Now, if there is any great good to be gained by increasing, why should we go for it beyond that which has been suggested. I would be willing to go for an increase to 54, as my friend from Monongalia...
MR. DERING. That will only give an increase to Wood and Greenbrier.
MR. POMEROY. I understand the motion before the house is to increase the number to 59, and therefore I am opposed to increasing to 59. And I will show that I am so opposed, not only by what I say but by my vote. If we can find that it can be distributed so as not to do injustice to any party, I am not opposed to 54. But I do not believe it can be made clear that one man in Tucker is as good as five men in Brooke. He ought to have the same voice in the legislature they would have. If so, there is a great improvement in men by migrating in that direction, and I would advise my friends in Brooke to increase their value by migrating to Tucker. And while I wish these small counties should be represented, and am in favor of doing justice to them as far as we can, I think it would be impossible to give every county a representative without increasing the number to a greater number than there is any necessity to be. Legislate for the interests of the people. The people have to bear the burden and let us make a house that will represent respectably any number, but not larger than is actually necessary, when no real good can be accomplished by so doing. Therefore I will vote against 59.
MR. LAMB. From the appeals that have been made to us, Mr. President, that we should be "just" to the small counties, that we should be even "magnanimous" to them, an outsider might suppose we were about to perpetrate some great injustice on this section of the State. I am not willing that our propositions should rest under that imputation. What is this "injustice" which we propose in the plan of apportionment which I favor, to perpetrate on the small counties? What is the great hardship which justifies these appeals of gentlemen to our magnanimity and liberality? We propose to be not merely just to the small counties, but we do intend to be magnanimous and liberal towards them. Upon the scheme of representation which I favor, the fundamental principle of which is one that lies at the basis of the whole scheme is that whenever a small county has a white population equal to one-half the ratio of representation it shall be entitled to a full delegate. Is this any hardship? Lewis county and Kanawha county and Ohio county get one representative for the full ratio. Only those counties we propose shall have a representative when they have a population equal to one-half the ratio. Is not this fair? Is it not more than fair - liberal? Is this doing "injustice" to these small counties?
MR. DERING. Would not they have to wait until there is a re-apportionment?
MR. LAMB. They would have to wait till their population equalled one-half the ratio. If the gentleman wants a re-apportionment next year or the year following, if there is any injustice in postponing till 1870, there would be no hesitation in giving it to him. Certainly they have to wait for a full delegate until it appears their population is half enough to entitle them to one. There is where we have drawn the line in this scheme.
Sir, they will be secured in certain cases twice as favored terms as are giving to the larger counties. But this is not sufficient! The proposition now is, in substance, to give them a full delegate although they have not a population equal to one- fourth the ratio. It is pressing the matter too far.
I would be liberal to these small counties, but I would be just to the larger ones. I would pay some respect to the principle of apportionment, not merely by county lines but according to the principle of density of population. For that is the only true, the only fair, the only just principle. And though we cannot carry it into precise operation in all cases as an arithmetical proposition without altering the boundaries of the counties, as was suggested by the gentleman from Kanawha, it is no reason why we should not adhere to it as far as practicable to carry it. The argument upon this subject has been very well stated by the gentleman from Taylor. He has anticipated much that I would have said. But instead of descending to particulars, as he has done, let us present the general result of the measure which is now before the house. Mr. President, there are twenty counties which have a population of less than the ratio. To these it is proposed to give twenty members. The aggregate white population of these twenty counties is 72,751. If they are assigned a member each it will be one for every 3637. The other twenty-four counties have a population of 231,682. If the proposition of the gentleman from Marion should carry they would have 39 delegates, or one for every 5940. Here, then, is the short-hand of this proposition: that 5940 men, citizens, in one section of the State are to count as much as 3637 in another section of the State.
Mr. President, this is just adopting the three-fifths principle. It is just adopting the principle to which I referred the other day in the Constitution of the United States by which five slaves count equal to three whites. Five of us here in the populous section of the State are to count only as the equal of three men there. Can the gentleman from Marion on my right (Mr. Haymond) go back to his constituents and tell them that he has put such a principle as that on the thirteen thousand inhabitants of that county? I am not going before my constituents with a proposition of that kind and to ask their acceptance of it.
This is not pointing out the extreme cases, but it is the general result. Comparing the twenty counties with the twenty-four counties. If you go to the extreme cases, you will find, for instance, that Kanawha county has just about ten times the population of Tucker. If Tucker gets one delegate, Kanawha ought to have ten. He gives Kanawha two. A white man in Kanawha is equal only to one-fifth a white man in Tucker. And this is the state of things which under the operation of this system of regarding county lines instead of white population you are to attempt to engraft in the Constitution of this State! We are to go back again to the old system which we combatted before 1830 - a system which the people of the northwest under the leadership of Phillip Doddridge fought for fifteen or twenty years - a system of apportioning representation with almost exclusive reference to county lines and not with reference to the men inhabiting the different sections of the country. Sir, I go for apportionment according to men, as far as it is possible to carry out that proposition.
It is said this would be overshadowing the small counties, to annex them to an adjoining county to constitute a district. Why, sir, suppose Tucker and Randolph, for instance, constituted but one county instead of having a county line drawn between them. Could we say the people of that end of the county were overshadowed or rendered inconsequent in the elections for the county? If Tucker should be annexed to Randolph county, would not she have precisely the weight in the county elections and in all other elections which the number of their voters would entitle them to? They would have, in fact, more than this; for we all know that when a small county is annexed to a larger county the small county generally controls all the elections. They control on this principle, that the large county will have a number of rival candidates, whose great object as soon as they are in the field becomes to secure the vote of the small county, and they are willing to submit to any sacrifice of the interests of their own county to secure the support of the adjoining county. It is very true - and it is a very material objection, it strikes me so far as a temporary objection should prevail in reference to this matter, that this provision, so far as it is to have any practical effect on the legislation of the State, as far as possible, puts the Union men of the State in the hands of the Secession districts; puts our destinies in the hands of those who have carried us into the Confederate States.
There is another objection to it, an objection which has had considerable influence with me. It is to subject the people living in the tax-paying districts of the State - that from which much the largest proportion of the revenue of the State is derived, to those people of the other districts. And yet, even with reference to a question of this kind I have put here, so far as it can be done on the basis of white population, the basis of equality of citizens whether they reside here or there. If that will give these districts influence, let them have it. And in the proposition which I favor, we have gone far beyond this. We have been not merely just but we have been most liberal and most magnanimous towards these small counties.
I want to make one explanation in regard to what was said by the gentleman from Lewis in relation to his county. It does happen, unfortunately, that if you adopt the number 54, Lewis county has the largest fraction which is unrepresented. But it is a fraction of less than twenty-one hundred. Now, gentlemen, if you adopt any other number under the sun, there is still some county that is to have the largest fraction unrepresented. Some county must have it. It happened very unfortunately in this case that Lewis was the county; but the fraction which is unrepresented there is only about one-third of that which would entitle Lewis to another delegate. You can adopt no other number that I know of at least with all the trials which I have made that will not leave a larger fraction unrepresented than the number 64 does. Now, Lewis county has on this principle of apportionment an unrepresented fraction of 2099. Ohio county, while she gets three delegates would have an unrepresented fraction of 5285. Which is the better entitled to the additional delegate, Lewis or Ohio? One has a fractional amount which would give her a delegate; the other an amount about equal to one-third of the ratio. I do regret on account of my friend from Lewis that the difficulty has fallen just there. But take any number you please, some county will have the largest fraction unrepresented. That there can be no doubt about. And you cannot adopt any number, I think, by which you can reduce that fraction lower than about one-third.
I have said, Mr. President, I repeat it, and it is the principle which has governed me throughout this matter, that I am willing to accept any fair principle, fairly applied. When we adopt a principle, let it be applied fairly. You have adopted the principle of equality of citizens. I repudiate the principle of the equality of counties. How are these counties formed? Look at the map of the State. Have these county lines been drawn with any reference to the great interests of the State? Or have they been drawn for the purpose of accommodating some gentleman who had property that wanted a court-house on his farm or along side it. And yet we are to abandon this great principle of equality of citizens, this principle of apportioning representation according to population and resort to the old exploded method exhibited in Virginia ever since 1830, of equality not of citizens but of counties.
I have already occupied a great deal of the time of the Convention in reference to this subject, and I do not want to repeat what I have said before. I submit the matter with these remarks.
MR. HARRISON. The gentleman from Kanawha who has just been called from the house requested that I offer this proposition:
"Resolved that the subject of the house of delegates, in the second section, be postponed to Wednesday next. No proposition then to be considered which shall not be made to-day and printed."
The object of the proposition, as I understand it, is simply to defer this subject that he may have a little time to look over these figures and see how it applies. We cannot vote intelligently without more knowledge than we can get by sitting here and making calculations at the same time. I hope it will be the pleasure of the Convention to adopt that resolution.
MR. DILLE. I desire to know whether this was on account of any absence on the part of the gentleman from Kanawha that he desires the postponement of action.
MR. HARRISON. I suppose, sir, that he just desired it to be laid over on account of his absence. He had prepared it himself and was called out on some other business. I think with a view to the settlement of this question it would be better to adopt a resolution of that kind, which could bring the whole subject, and everything that could be brought forward in reference to it up on Wednesday, requiring every one who has any proposition to submit to bring it before the house to-day.
MR. DERING. If we adopted that resolution, would it prevent any other propositions for the amendment of this question?
MR. STUART of Doddridge. (in the chair) Not unless made to do so.
MR. LAMB. I would move to strike out the latter clause of that. Certainly if the matter should be laid over until Wednesday and we can improve our propositions any, we ought to be at liberty to do so.
MR. PARKER. I would say, this morning the President, Mr. Hall, and the gentleman from Kanawha remarked that they wished it could be laid over until Wednesday for the reason that they have some special engagment which will occupy pretty much to-day, and I presume there is a necessity for their being absent, both the President and Mr. Brown with him.
MR. POMEROY. If it is for that purpose, if any members have business that actually calls for attention, I have no objection; but if it is simply for the purpose of letting various propositions be printed here, why, then, I am opposed to it. From this fact, that we are in the midst of this subject of representation and we have the first report we have ever acted on partially completed. If we move from one report we shall have nothing before us in regard to the time we will get together. Let every gentleman present his proposition now and then let the house have any information for or against; and let another proposition come up and let it either be adopted or voted down; and let us proceed from one thing to another until we get through. There is not much disposition to prolong the session, and I am in favor of going on. Let us have the light now; and if these gentlemen are called away of course I am willing to extend any courtesy to any member in the house, but I imagine this discussion, from present appearances will go on until these members should be back before any important vote is taken. Why not discuss, if gentlemen wish to, the amendment to increase to 59? I cannot see we would be any better prepared for the discussion of this subject on Wednesday than you are to-day. I cannot see how you would receive any new light on the subject. It is a matter I think we are just as fully prepared to act on to-day as we will ever be.
MR. DERING. I will state that Mr. Brown had to go away on special business.
MR. VAN WINKLE. I would like to ask whether that business is going to take longer than an hour or two? I understand it is a meeting of the stockholders of the Merchants' and Mechanics' Bank.
MR. POMEROY. It is impossible in a body of this kind to have every member on the floor - at least it is impracticable; and we cannot ask the body to cease operations on account of our absence. I have never yet complained of any vote taken when I was absent. If I sustain any loss by it, I think it is a loss I have to sustain; and I think there will be no important vote involving the interests of this State or the United States, or the rest of mankind - be no such vote taken here during this absence. I have no fears of any injustice being done. If it was a matter of courtesy, I would be one of the first to go for it; but I am in favor of going on. I understand several gentlemen who have not been heard wish to speak on this proposition. If we vote down the increase to 59, as I hope we shall, then we will be prepared to vote on some other proposition.
MR. HERVEY. Was there an amendment offered to the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison?
THE PRESIDENT pro tempore. (Mr. Stuart) The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio.
MR. HERVEY. I desire to know what that is.
The Secretary reported the resolution of Mr. Harrison; then the motion of Mr. Lamb, to strike out the latter clause of Mr. Harrison's resolution: "no proposition then to be considered which shall not be made to-day and printed."
MR. HERVEY. I do not know whether that is designed to apply to propositions coming in before the consideration of the whole report or not. If that proposition is designed to apply to amendments upon the whole report when that report comes up to be considered...
MR. HARRISON. Of course, it is not for that purpose.
MR. LAMB. This proposition merely applies to the house of delegates, not to the senate.
MR. HERVEY. As I understand the rules, on the adoption of any report motions to strike out and insert are in order. If this proposition is designed to cut out the right of the house to alter the report in any particular after it comes up as a whole, then I would be opposed to it. I have no objections to the postponement.
MR. HARRISON. It is not designed for that purpose, and will not have that effect.
MR. HERVEY. Then I have no objection to the proposition. I am perfectly satisfied, sir, that whether this Convention determined on 54, 56 or 59...
THE PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is now on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio.
MR. HERVEY. I have no objection to that, with my understanding of it.
MR. HARRISON. The substitute of the gentleman from Brooke is printed and before the house as to the senatorial apportionment. That might probably be considered with equal propriety.
MR. STEVENSON of Wood. I was going to make a remark on the motion itself, but as the amendment is up shall just say that I favor that. I am perfectly willing to postpone the matter long enough to accommodate those members who are absent and no longer than that. If any gentleman knows and can say whether these gentlemen will be necessarily absent until Wednesday, then I shall favor the motion, but, if not, I am in favor of prosecuting the discussion now and finishing up the matter as soon as possible.
MR. LAMB. Our President Hall told me that he is required to attend a meeting of the stockholders of the Merchants' and Mechanics' Bank, he and Mr. Brown of Kanawha. I see no difficulty in that state of the case of these gentlemen being here at half-past three this afternoon. Certainly they could be here tomorrow. He requested particularly that the vote should not be taken on this subject during his absence; and I hope it will be the pleasure of the Convention to accord that much at least.
MR. HALL of Marion. I do like to be courteous and accommodate everybody, but if we are to turn the steam off here for any gentleman every whip-stitch, we will never get through. We have got something before us; we have to go through it; and we ought to dispose of it at once. We occupy more time in shuffling from one thing to another than we would if we hold on to a thing and did it. Those gentlemen could be spared from the Bank meeting to come here and vote. When we get ready to vote, let us chock the wheels and hold still till they get here and let them vote. I am opposed to passing to anything else. We will save time absolutely by sitting here with our fingers in our mouths until they come back rather than go to anything else.
The amendment proposed is evidently necessary if we are to pass over it, that we should not exclude any proposition that might be made hereafter; because if there is a necessity for time, that very time will lead to new propositions that could not be known and submitted to-day. It is equivalent to asking to continue the matter; we can think of it, but that the result of our thoughts shall not be brought to bear when we are required to act. I hope we will extend every courtesy possible but not leave the subject and that we will send for them when we get ready to vote. I do not know; there is a possibility they may wish to participate in the discussion on this question. But I believe the gentleman from Kanawha has spoken before the body on the principle questions that are involved here and I suppose he is ready simply to vote upon it.
MR. BATTELLE. Mr. President, I am in favor of the amendment; and then, if that obtains, I am in favor of the resolution. I think the Convention ought to extend a courtesy of this kind to two of its members who have virtually asked for it, and I think they can do this without losing any time, perhaps saving time. I differ from some gentlemen who have spoken on this subject in that one point. I believe that sometimes when engaged on a proposition of this sort, or in reference to one department of the Constitution, a long time, that when we have other things pending on which we can enter, we will save time even by letting our minds rest and acting on something about which there will be no difficulty. So far then as the argument of time is concerned, it is my conviction that we should save rather than lose time. As these gentlemen have asked this delay in this matter, and it is one in which they seem to feel a special interest, I should be in favor of extending to them this courtesy, especially when the Convention can do so at no serious expense to itself.
MR. DILLE. I would have been in favor of this proposition presented to the gentleman from Harrison for the gentleman from Kanawha had it been that he would necessarily have been detained from the business of this Convention until Wednesday. But finding that he and the President of the Convention are only temporarily detained from the business of this Convention, I am decidedly in favor of proceeding at once to the investigation of the subject before us. I am satisfied from what has been said here in this Convention and from conversations with different members of the Convention, and that they are as fully satisfied in reference to the course they intend to pursue in reference to this matter now as they will be hereafter; and I feel inclined to pursue in my action here that course that will the soonest terminate the business of this Convention. It seems to me as though there was a disposition to defer action, a disposition to procrastinate and in fact defer taking hold of propositions which are difficult. We will find difficulty all the time and we may as well take hold of propositions as presented. I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio because it takes part of the proposition away, and I will oppose the original resolution if it is necessary. If the Convention desire to take a vote in the absence of these members, I am willing to extend any courtesy to them and delay the action of the Convention till they can come in and vote with us.
The question was taken on Mr. Lamb's amendment to the motion of Mr. Harrison, and it was agreed to; and the question recurring on Mr. Harrison's resolution, it was rejected.
THE PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question recurs on the amendment of the gentleman from Marion and the amendment to it offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
MR. BROWN of Preston. I have heard, sir, of the sovereignty of the United States. Having once acted with the Breckenridge party, I have heard a good deal of state sovereignty. But now for the first time I hear of county sovereignty, and I shall soon be prepared to hear of individual sovereignty. I ask members to reflect where this thing is leading us, where we are drifting, what will be the result of this thing. I have listened, sir, to the clamors of the people of my county for the last twenty years in reference to this thing of apportioning representation on white population. They regard it as a fair and equitable principle. They are willing to abide by that principle; and, sir, I am not able to evade or avoid this thing. My constituents are just as capable of making calculations on this subject as any gentleman in this Convention, and they will make their own calculations. They will determine how we have settled this question for them. They desire it to be settled on that great principle for which they have been contending so long. They will not be satisfied, sir, when we give a representative power to one single individual in the county of Tucker equal to that of five men in Preston. It is iniquitous. It is unrighteous and unfair. Let us give fair and equal representation all over the territory within the limits of the new State. Let us apply the rule everywhere; and although the great fundamental principle we have adopted must necessarily be subordinated to the necessity of keeping down the number of our house of delegates, let us act on that principle, carry us whither it may.
I am an advocate of the report of the committee on this subject. I have voted steadily for the maintenance of that report, and shall do so to the end. No other proposition meets my approbation. No other will meet with the approbation of my constituents.
MR. STEVENSON of Wood. I wish, Mr. Chairman, to call the attention of the Convention to Section 5, in the report of the Committee on Fundamental Provisions. It reads thus:
"Every citizen of the State shall be entitled to equal representation in the Government, and in all apportionments of representation equality of numbers of those entitled thereto shall, as far as possible, be preserved."
I wish to say, Mr. President, that I have endeavored, as far as possible at least, to discover the true course that ought to be pursued in reference to this somewhat difficult matter by the Convention; and I am better satisfied now than at any previous time in the history of this discussion that the only safe course for the Convention to pursue in reference to this matter of apportioning representation is to adhere to the principle that is found to be embodied in the report of the committee. If that principle, sir, is a correct one - if it is practicable - then unquestionably it is our duty to adhere to it as far as possible and to travel away from it only when its application is either very difficult or impossible; but to have it so fixed that in future we can return to that principle again after the difficulty which prevented its application has been removed.
Now, sir, if the principle of basis of representation on population is not the correct one, what other principle is? If you propose to base it on population and upon property, you invade the rights of the people who are thus represented; but if you base it upon population alone, you have certainly adopted a principle that is right in itself; for I suppose no member of the Convention will say that that is not the democratic principle - or, if you please, the republican principle. But, in addition to that, it is a principle which has prevailed in practice and has worked well in the most prosperous states of the Union. And I believe it is the principle recognized and acted on in the apportionment made by the Congress of the United States.
There is another important truth in this same argument, that if you adopt this principle you not only protect the political rights of the people in the different districts but you have adopted the only plan that will successfully protect the interests and property of those people. If you base representation on population or numbers, you know who the representative is, who the delegate is and you know who his constituents are; you know the representatives and the people. If you base it on any other principle that we can only be said to represent property, or to represent local interests, or territory, then the fundamental rights of the citizens are not protected and you have no just rule for your guidance.
Now, I say, sir, that when you propose here to give a distinct representation to every county without respect to population, you have traveled away from the principle which is laid down here, because you do not propose to base representation on numbers or upon population. The representation is based upon something else and that must be the territory without respect to its people or population within the limits of that county or district. Now, if I have read history correctly it is that very principle, or one very much like it, that led to what is known as the famous "rotten borough" system in England, which resulted eventually in rendering the principle of representation a mere farce or a mockery. Now, let me say, the objections which are generally urged against the application of this principle in other states do not apply to this new State of ours. It was said here the other day, and the argument struck me as a good one - and it would be a good one against this if it applied - that the commercial and manufacturing localities within the new State in consequence of their increase in population would acquire a preponderance in the legislation of the State. Well, I apprehend that does not apply. It is more imagination that reality in regard to our new State. I do not suppose Parkersburg is likely to become a New York or Liverpool very soon. Of course, we expect it to be a place of very considerable note after we have made it the capital of the State. I do not suppose Wheeling is likely to become a Birmingham or Manchester; but suppose these centers do increase in population; suppose that men invest their means and energies in building up particular branches of industry in these localities, why is it not right that these people shall have a representation according to their numbers for the purpose of protecting their interests? Are not these interests just as essential to the welfare of this new State as the other great interest of agriculture? And have the people who have engaged in these particular pursuits of industry not the same right under the Constitution and laws of this State to demand protection for their rights? But let me tell you, sir, that agriculture is the great interest of every state in this country. And, more than that, I believe in every state of this Union it is the most potent interest that is to be found. Even in those states that may be said to be commercial or manufacturing states, even there the agricultural interests is such as to dictate the policy of these states. And I doubt, with all the influence which manufacturing and commercial interests are said to have whether they have any more, even in those states where those interests prevail to the greatest extent, than is necessary for the protection of their particular interests. Now, I apprehend that the farming interests will dictate the policy of this new State for an indefinite number of years to come; and even if it did not, sir, I hold that as there can be neither manufactures nor commerce without agriculture that these great interests of manufacture and commerce will, as a matter of necessity - as a matter of self-preservation - contribute their influence generally to advancing the welfare of the great farming interests of the new State. So that I think if there is anything in that argument that is applicable at all it operates in favor of the principle of representation on the basis of population.
Well, now, Mr. President, as I look upon this question, and upon every other here, as a practical question as well as a question involving principle, I propose here to exhibit in detail some four or five calculations which I have made as to how this thing will work out. But before doing that let me just allude to the principle of representation that is incorporated in this report. For as I said, if that is the correct principle and can be applied, and can be carried all through, the operations of this principle most unquestionably it is the duty of the Convention to adhere to it. Now, will it do it? The committee propose by a simple rule to discover how many white persons in a certain county will be entitled to a delegate in the lower house. They do not stop there. They propose to give a delegate to every county which has a fraction above half the ratio of population to give a delegate. But that is not all. They do not propose to leave any county entirely without representation, as some members seem to think and as I thought myself at first before I investigated the report in reference to this matter. They propose that the counties that have less than half the ratio shall be attached to some contiguous county and have a delegate jointly with that county until a sufficient population is found within the limits of their own county to entitle them to a separate delegate.
Now, sir, if you increase the number - as I hope the Convention will - to 54, you will have but four counties that will be left without a representative; and just the moment their population has increased to over half the ratio they will be entitled to a representative of their own in the house of delegates. Can you devise any principle that is fairer than this to these counties without doing great injustice to other districts? I am willing to admit it looks fair - it seems equitable on the face of it - to give all these counties a delegate without reference to their population; but when you apply the principle as I have done here and endeavor to show the Convention, you will find it will work very great injustice, if not to a majority at least to a great many of the other districts in the State and that it will be a direct subversion of the very principle which I read here as one of the fundamental principles adopted already by the vote of this Convention. What I see particularly in this principle of basing representation upon the numbers of population is this: That all through this report it keeps steadily in view that principle of representation for numbers; it is never lost sight of; it forms a sort of sliding rule which will adjust itself not only at present but hereafter to almost any variety of circumstances that may exist at anytime in the future. It has that advantage, too, over every other proposition which has been offered here.
Now, Mr. President, I did not wish to detain the Convention with any extended calculations. I have some four or five, and you can apply the same principle which I have used here in working out this question, to any number of the larger counties in the State. But I have more especially made a calculation in reference to one matter that was adverted to by the gentleman from Ohio to my county, and it has not been alluded to before in this Convention this morning. But before coming to that let me call your attention to the fact that Clay, Calhoun, McDowell, Tucker and Webster counties under the operation of the amendment which is now proposed having a population of 8736 will be entitled to five delegates. I forget the number proposed to be given to Mason in the amendment of the gentleman from Marion, but in the report of the committee Mason has one. If one is still retained, then these counties having a population the same as that of Mason, with the exception of twenty or thirty, are to have five times the political power in the legislature that Mason would. And if you should increase the delegation of Mason county even to two, it would give the same population in the counties of Clay, Calhoun, McDowell, Tucker and Webster nearly three times the political power in the house of delegates that it would give to Mason. Now, if that is a fair application of the principle of representing the people in the legislature, I confess it does not appear so to me.
Now, further, here are Calhoun, Clay, Pleasants, McDowell, Tucker, Gilmer, Webster and Nicholas. They will under operation of this amendment if it is adopted, have eight delegates, and yet their combined population is only 19,817. Ohio county, with a population of 22,196 - more than that of the eight counties named, will have three or four delegates. So that in any convention or other representative body the same population in those eight counties will have double the political power, double the local power, double the power in every way that it can be voted or applied in the lower house, that Ohio county will have. So you can carry the principle through and apply it to every other county within the limits of the State.
Now, sir, I wish to call attention to this fact: While I am opposed to the principle of representation based on property, yet I favor the principle of representation upon population, because that is the only way that you can protect the property of the people. And I maintain it is one of the highest duties of a convention in making a constitution to see that there is no provision that will oppress the property of the people of the State. Now, I wish to call your attention to the matter of revenue in these different counties. I will take, for example. Wood - and I get these figures from the Auditor's report. She paid in the year 1860 into the state treasury as taxes $20,684.65. Let me take Tucker for an example on the other side. Tucker county paid in the same year $2,147.18. Wood county has a population of 10,791, nearly eight times the population of Tucker and pays nearly ten times the revenue that Tucker does. And yet you propose to give Tucker almost as much power, or at least half as much, in the laying of these taxes and in the method of expending them, and in making the laws to govern the people who pay them, that you do the people in Wood.
Now, sir, take Kanawha county. She paid the same year the sum of $25,845.92 towards the revenues of the state. Clay, with a population of 1761, paid the same year $1321.80. Kanawha county has over seven times the population of Clay. She pays nearly twenty times as much revenue as Clay. Yet you propose to give Clay half the power in the house of delegates that you give Kanawha. That looks to me very much like taxation without representation.
Another example is Ohio county. Ohio paid in the same year $43,562.75, and Calhoun paid the same year $2,150.60. The population of Ohio is nearly nine times that of Galhoun and pays more than twenty times the amount of revenue that is paid by Calhoun. And yet it is proposed to give Galhoun one-third or one-fourth the power in the legislature you give Ohio.
Well, now, sir, here is another, and the last - Tyler, on which I tried my hand at the figures. Tucker, Clay, Calhoun, Wyoming, Logan, Boone, Raleigh, Wirt, Pleasants, Hancock, Doddridge and Gilmer paid into the state treasury in 1860, $42,865.30. Here are 12 counties with at least 12 delegates, which pay into the treasury not quite as much revenue as one county which has but three or four delegates. Now, of course, I do not design to use that as an argument that property should be specially represented in the legislature; but what I do is this, that if you propose to protect the interests of the people and one of those interests is the right to own, control and manage property, you cannot do it if you allow sparsely settled counties to go into the legislature with such a delegation as shall load down every proposition that may be calculated to protect the interests of these other districts. So that both in regard to the question of population and the taxes that will be paid into the treasury, there seems to be a principle that ought to prevent the adoption of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Marion.
MR. HERVEY. Simply a remark or two, sir. As my worthy friend from Preston is determined to adhere as nearly as possible to the democratic principle and consequently supports the report of the Committee, it seems to me, sir, that he would look to that report, he will find, although I have no doubt that that report is as accurate perhaps, or very nearly, as it could be drawn, having the arbitrary number of 46 for a basis - but if he would look even at that report he would find at least one very grave departure from the democratic principle. For instance, here is Pocahontas, with a population of 3686, with one representative according to this report; Wirt, with a population of 3728, one delegate; a fraction of population in the county of Greenbrier of 3381, with no representative. How will the gentleman go home to the people of Tucker and advocate that democratic principle. A glaring departure there, two counties with a less population than this fraction have got a delegate. As I remarked a little while ago, I have no doubt the committee have approximated with this arbitrary number as nearly a correct principle as they could do. But, sir, I would say, I am not particular whether the number is 54, 56 or 59. I was in favor of postponing this question until this proposition, worked out, should have been before the Convention. We have no figures to ascertain which of the lowest numbers would approximate the democratic principle. Now, why, I ask the gentlemen, why they stand committed to the number 46? Have they produced any data here to show why they should be tied to that number? I deny it, Mr. President. The data has not been produced. The question of cost perhaps enters into the minds of members of this Convention. Let us. see what we have been doing in that regard under the old constitution. The length of a session by an extension might be 120 days. The cost then would be for each member $480. Per diem under the proposed Constitution $3, 75 days: total cost for each member $225. On the supposition of 45 days, with a probable extension of 30 days, or a reduction of 55 per cent per member. Total cost under the present constitution of a house of 56 members $4 per day $26,880. Under the new Constitution, if we should be so fortunate as to have it adopted a house of 56 members would cost $12,680; difference, as I said before, 55 per cent. Now, it does seem to me that when we reduce the cost 55 per cent or from $26,880 to $12,680 that that argument is entirely obviated. The question of dollars and cents cannot enter into calculation. And as to democratic principle it is violated in this report in three instances flagrantly. I am therefore in favor of either 54, 56 or 59, whichever number will approximate more nearly to this principle, to which I desire to adhere. And as to the question of influence, I consider that not to be talked about.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment to the amendment, because the allotment seems to be arbitrary, without any calculation as to result. This thing of investigating figures without particulars or calculations made is very difficult; but I have drawn up what I think the operation of the amendment to the amendment will be. Having 59 members as the number to be allotted, the ratio will be 5150, the fraction 2575. Now, to show you how this will operate and does as an arbitrary allotment without any regard to principle at all, I see it allots to Jackson two members. Well, take from the population of Jackson 5150 leaves an unrepresented population of 390 - for which this scheme gives an additional member. Take, for instance from Kanawha her two representatives, leaves a population of 3487 - a greater fraction than would be left from Jackson. Still the delegate is given to Jackson. You see how this thing will work. It operates very unfairly and disregards principle and even interest itself. Now, if we take any amendment here, I want to look at I the interest matter; and the amendment of the gentleman from Monongalia will operate very unfairly as it allots to counties delegates that are not even entitled to it under the principle we propose to adopt and excludes others that would be entitled under that principle, so that we are totally unprepared to act on the amendment of the gentleman from Marion unless you have made these calculations and can show how it operates. Now, sir, take the number proposed by the gentleman from Marion, 59, with a ratio of 5150, that ratio will give to Marion three delegates, to Lewis two, to Harrison three, Preston three, Monongalia three, Marshall three, Kanawha three. If you carry out that principle - unless you want to allot arbitrarily, to counties that are not entitled to it under the operation of the amendment of the gentleman from Marion, I will have to oppose the amendment to the amendment at present.
MR. HALL of Marion. I do not desire to detain the Convention, having spoken on the question really involved in this one. Marion county wants nothing but what she is entitled to on fair rules and principles. She wants all she is entitled to under those rules and principles. It does appear to me, sir, we are drifting in this proposition into mere questions of convenience, and looking to ulterior matters, looking to considerations that should really have no influence upon our action when we make a constitution. Now, sir, we are to do this thing on principle or we are to ignore principle. One of these two things we must do. We are doing injustice to ourselves if we say we have not intelligence enough to know that there is such a thing as principle. We can find that thing and know what it is when we find it. We are either to dispose of this matter on some principle or rule, or we are to ignore all principle or rule and dispose of it arbitrarily. We must take one horn or other of the dilemma. Now, sir, the amendment of my worthy colleague, whatever may have been his view of it, I beg leave to say must upon reflection be shown to be a proposition to ignore every rule and principle and distributing this thing by an arbitrary allotment. I understand the motive of my colleague; a very worthy motive it is, a disposition, a very common feeling, to look to the weak, to aid and protect them. And I participate in that feeling. I would aid the small counties to a certain extent but I would not sacrifice the principle and do injustice to all the other counties in an effort to aid them. The gentleman from Wood county very properly remarked - I believe it was the gentleman from Wood - that he had heard of states' rights - the gentleman from Taylor perhaps it was (Mr. Brown of Preston - Rep) - and he had now heard of county sovereignty: This beats the old nest-egg of Secession itself when you propose to recognize as a principle of representation a mere name - the name of a county; when you admit that it is not the persons or even the property or anything there that can demand your attention, but a name as a basis of representation. Now, let me say we are just in the beginning of our new state operation. Are we to ignore the very foundation and principle we have clamored for year in and year out, and the only proper basis of representation and set that as a precedent for those who will follow us, to say nothing of the injustice we do to the people themselves for the time? Are we to build on that false foundation? I trust not. No, sir, though it should leave Marion without a particle of representation. I would say leave her alone until she is entitled to it. I would not give the child, because I wanted to make a man - a giant - of him - I would not set him to legislating until he was old enough to be entitled to give his vote. I would nurse him and not set him to rule over me. There is something in this - I referred to it - my colleague referred to it - I referred to the fact that the people would ask us why we had done this thing. And I should be ashamed of my people if after clamoring year in and year out and denouncing eastern Virginia for this principle, if they would quietly sit down and say we will cross off our account against eastern Virginia, inasmuch as we have now done the same thing ourselves. I say I should be ashamed of my people if they would submit to it. I have had the feeling, and I think it is the spirit of the great body of the people who are to compose this new State that we shall have a government founded on the principles of equality and justice and right; and I do not care what hardships it may be necessary for any of them to endure for a time in vindication of these principles, they will bear it like good and noble citizens until they are entitled to come up to the rule and not pervert the rule down to them. I have too high an opinion of the material of which our people are composed to believe that they would prostitute a principle or rule for any temporary convenience.
Well, now, it has been argued again - a thing that I think is a fallacy - and the cry goes out that there are portions of the counties in the proposed new State that have no representation. That argument has been answered by the gentleman from Wood (Mr. Stevenson). I beg gentleman to remember that there is not a particle of truth, in fact, in that idea - that it is an idea, and an empty idea only. I asked when I spoke on this question before, what is the great and impassable barrier in a county line that happens to separate two communities with a common interest that no man who lives on one side of it cannot see the interests of the people who are on the other side of this imaginary line. Why, sir, on the same principle I will ask those people who live in the several districts of my county - and it is made up of three - the eastern, western and the "Forks" - . We often have some scuffling there. One side says we are entitled to the representative, Fairmont says we want. the representative to do this thing; the other says, we are going to have the representative. What will they all do? Well, sir, these little questions will arise; I care not if you have no county lines and divide a district, these questions will arise over lines you will draw yourselves within the county. Is any part of Marion not represented? Well, sir, I think not. I do not think they feel it. It is an idea. Where you have a small county, while you may not get the representative living in your county that is not a matter of so much consideration if you get a man who will represent the interests of your county. They will be able to compel, to coerce, the larger county to look after their interests wherever there is a desire on the part of candidates in the larger county that leads them to ask for votes. Hence they will have the balance of power, and they may choose between two; and if there is no man in the large county that is capable of representing them they will have it in their power to select whom they please. They will vote for that man in whom they have confidence, who will represent their peculiar and local interests. And so in lieu of it being a hardship, the small county will have the power in spite of the large county. But we are told we must give a representative to these smaller counties to build them up and develop them. In the name of conscience, why, what and how? Will the fact that they are permitted to send from within the limits of their own county to serve in the legislature a few days a member who gets three dollars a day, is that going to make that county rich? For what is he going to do? It will not aid them one particle in any respect, if it be true that they are enabled to secure faithful and good representatives within their district. But then it is said again that we must not only pet them up but we must do another thing; and I confess it struck me as rather a sensible argument. The proposition is that because Ohio has been petted by the general and state governments until she has grown to be a giant, therefore we shall give her another representative; and because Joseph has got one striped coat we will give him two; and then because these others have not been petted, and we get them to be giants too, we will have to give them another - and another - and another. And the suggestion is that these other counties which are wholly under the proposed arbitrary rule that is to be substituted for a principle that will leave large fractions unrepresented - they will have just to stand still and buy striped coats for Joseph on the right and Joseph on the left eternally.
The people of Marion do not want any advantage of anybody. She will not ask it; she would not accept it. But she will not see anybody have advantage of her at the sacrifice of any principle.
I hope we will determine on this question; that the gentlemen will vote on this amendment - it will detain the Convention but a moment - that the Convention will determine whether we are to make the white population the basis of representation, or whether we are to forget population and not take the negro in as they used to do in eastern Virginia, not take property either as a basis, but take a name. I hope we will determine that question; and if the white population is the proper basis, let us say so and stand by it.
Another gentleman says you cannot apply it; that is a good rule but you cannot apply it. Now, I don't believe any such thing. You cannot come up to the thing without a fraction unless, as the gentleman from Kanawha suggests unless you have an order of survey. There is no great hardship in throwing away these fractions until they get big enough to entitle a county to a representative or another. It will operate equally on all, but to ignore the principle - to claim that you cannot avoid these fractions and must therefore discard the rule, would do what? We profess a religion that we look to as the rule of our lives; that every man no matter what he professes, whether he enjoys it or not, he will guard as most worthy, noble and important yet upon this very doctrine, because you cannot live without sin, you are to ignore your religion and throw it away. The argument leads strictly to the same thing. There can be no justice - no uniform and regular justice - there can be no avoiding evils and troubles but by adopting a principle and following that as nearly as you can; and any local or temporary inconvenience for the time is a matter of so much less importance that it should be over-looked, and every good citizen be willing to submit to a temporary inconvenience for the sake of maintaining the rule.
The hour for it having arrived, the Convention took a recess.
The Convention reassembled, the President in the Chair.
THE PRESIDENT. When the Convention took a recess it had under consideration the amendment of the gentleman from Marion to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio. The question is on the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.
Several members called "Question."
MR. SOPER. I will say but few words, sir; and I will sustain the amendment with a view of giving every county a delegate. Gentlemen talk here much about the democratic principle of representation according to population. Why, sir, if we should carry out that principle when we are electing a legislature for a state you ought by general edict to distribute around the State as the people would be pleased to have them, and then, sir, a majority according to democratic principle would prevail and you would get a strictly democratic representation in your house of delegates. But we are met with this difficulty: aside from our state organization, we have got county organizations. They united together make up the state organization. The experience of wisdom on this subject has led us to the true and proper course of having our legislature chosen from counties. Why? Because they are separate organizations. And they are scattered over all portions of the State. Being so, having representatives from the counties, you are sure to get the expression and desire of the people from every part of the State. Now, I am one that stands up for a county organization. I stand in favor of the rights of county organizations; and I say that in the legislature the county ought to be represented. Now, let us, sir, look a little further at the report of your Committee on County Organization. In that report do you make any distinction between a large county and a small one? I apprehend not. All your counties have got the sheriff, the clerk, surveyor and commissioners of revenue. It makes no difference whether the county be small or large, you recognize the principle of a county organization and you give it the same officers. Turn to your report on the Judiciary. Do you make any distinction there between the large and small counties? Do you not propose to give in every county the same number of circuit courts - the small county an equal number with larger county? Usually you do, sir. Why is it? It is because here is a regularly organized county and it has got its rights, and the affairs of the county are to be managed by a certain set of officers the same as you have in all the counties. Well, now, why should you try to make any distinction when you come to the legislature? But say gentlemen that stick up for this report on representation on population, we have got to go down into the counties when we get our delegates and so we cannot carry out the principle fully unless we draw lines through counties. If we adhere to the boundaries of counties there must be some fractional odds. Well, then, we hear from the chairman of the committee of this report saying that he sees and feels the necessity of having small counties represented, and he has stretched the matter as far as he can; he is going to the limit that he can to the violation of this democratic principle of representing according to population, and he has said that he has made his apportionment according to this; and he has given to each county which has a population of one-half the ratio that would entitle it to a member for that one-half. Well, now, why did not the gentleman extend a little farther and give it to all. If he can violate the principle in one respect, why not for another? The gentleman says if we adopt the figure 54 with a ratio of representation based on that number, there will be but four counties in the State without a representative. You are aware we are now basing this representation on the census of 1860. Those counties must necessarily be led to believe they now contain a much larger population than they did in 1860. They have a right to infer that. The chairman is willing for a house of 54 members. If I understand him he says the ratio then will be five thousand and some hundreds. Then take his view that one-half that number would give a delegate and you get one for two thousand some hundreds. The gentleman will get my idea, and that is all I want to impress. Here we have Tucker with about 1500 inhabitants. It has had the increase of the last two years, and as it has been said here there is a proposition to annex some other county to it. I should not be surprised after this session if that county should contain more than the ratio that would entitle it to a delegate according to the terms of the committee report. But I can ask the question: Where is the great difference between two thousand and some hundred and the proportion of any county as reported here? Is it worth this, whether we should be, day after day, talking without acting? Why not get right down to it and give every county a delegate? Is there not any wrong in that? I think considerable. The gentleman from Wood intimated that representation ought to be according to taxes paid as well as population. I abominate the principle, take care of the rich and let the rich take care of the poor. I do not believe in that doctrine in a republic. And that is it in point of fact. Would these counties if each had a delegate have the effect indicated by the gentleman? No, sir. This mode of representation is applicable to the house of delegates. If you give every county in the State, here will be some ten or twelve additional delegates by distributing according to population, giving to every county that would be entitled to a delegate by having the full number, and if it had not half the number giving the counties the largest fractions delegates. There would be no danger to result to the house according to the terms I now lay down. But look further, and when we come to apportion the senate I am for apportioning that through the whole state according to population as nearly as may be; and if gentlemen are so afraid of the influence of the delegates from the poor counties let them cut lines through counties so as to be sure and have a delegation in the senate that will be strictly according to population. I go with them if they have these fears; but I apprehend their fears are imaginary. The senate will be, as near as can be, apportioned according to the report. And that senate will always be a check on any hasty or one-sided legislation from the lower house. So that you will find that while we are protecting the weak counties we are not endangering the strong counties, because they have got their strength in the house if it becomes necessary to use it and prevent any danger that may be sought in the legislation of the lower house.
Now, gentlemen, look at this thing fairly, and is there anything wrong in our giving to every county here a delegate? Well, sir, any man that casts his eye over the map of Virginia will see that it is doubtful whether we create any more new counties in this State; every portion of it seems to be divided up into very small counties. I judge, sir, in passing my eye over the map it is cut up in small territory and there is no room for an accumulation of counties. Well, now, sir, our counties are constantly increasing in population. Our numbers of delegates ready fixed cannot be increased, so that every year we grow in age, why we will grow nearer to this equality of representation, taking if you please the basis of the report of the committee. Well, now, sir, gentlemen have said they cannot increase the number beyond 46. And then they look round and say that here are large counties that have smaller numbers comparatively. But they appear to be startled at the idea that, here, look at Pennsylvania, and Ohio and New York, large and powerful states, where the number of the legislature are limited, and here we are starting a state with but little over three hundred thousand inhabitants and we are giving in proportion a larger number of representatives in our legislature. Why, I think if gentlemen will go back to the time those states were first organized as territories and when as young as we will be, they will find there was a larger representation in their delegation; and when we get to be as old as those states you will not hear the complaint that we have got too many members in our legislature. The difference is more one of age than anything else.
Now, again, sir, I submit to the Convention to just take a look at this matter. If we adopt the amendment of 59 I understand that then every county in the State may have a delegate. I understand also that many of those counties with large fractions will have two delegates. That I understand will be the result. Now, sir, with that view I am for going for the amendment; and if I cannot get anything else I will be satisfied with the number 56. And I hope the convention will so dispose of this matter as to give every county a delegate. And I think from the few words that I have dropped out here that in doing so we will do exact justice to all portions of the State without placing one portion of the State within the control of any other; that in the two houses we have got that balance, that control in all matters of legislation that will take care of all the interests of the State. I am, therefore, sir, in favor of the amendment.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech, sir. I have no taste for repetition. If the members of this Convention will only reflect that before an intelligent body repeating an argument over and over again does not advance the interest of the cause at all, we will get along much better. I have nothing to add here, but simply to say to the gentleman from Tyler that if he desires to give to the small counties a delegate the very amendment he proposes to support now will have the effect of excluding those counties, because it is not necessary to support this amendment in order to give a representative to these counties. I shall vote against this amendment, not because I am not willing to vote that the small counties shall have a representative but because it is so unfair I am not willing to support anything of this character in order to carry out my views in relation to small counties. I am inclined to think the gentleman will support almost any proposition to give the small counties a delegate. This has such unfairness on its face that I cannot support it; such arbitrary rules connected with it. It allots to certain counties two delegates, which under the ratio takes it from larger counties entitled to it. Consequently it is unfair - perfectly unfair, as I remarked before to-day. I would say to gentlemen on the floor who desire to give to small counties one delegate, you render it impossible by voting for this amendment; because if it is adopted the motion of the gentleman from Ohio is amended by this amendment in such a way that a majority of this body will be compelled to vote against it. I would suggest to vote down the amendment and then you can offer another amendment to that of the gentleman from Ohio that will embrace the object you desire.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the gentlemen from Doddridge to have the amendment to the amendment reported. The Chair is under the impression he is mistaken, that the amendment provides the names of the counties.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. Yes, I understand it perfectly. It makes the number of the house 59; allots to the various counties the numbers they ought to be entitled to. For illustration, it allots to Jackson two delegates, when under same ratio Kanawha would be more entitled to three than Jackson to two. The same way with many other counties. This amendment is unfair in every feature. It carries unfairness on every principle by which you judge it. The principle of allotting members to each county has some fairness to it but the amendment of the gentleman from Marion is unfair in every respect; for it is arbitrary in its allotment and assigns delegates where they ought not to be.
MR. HERVEY. I would state, Mr. President, that I was not in when the amendment was offered.
THE PRESIDENT. Will the Secretary report it.
The Secretary reported Mr. Haymond's motion as follows:
Substitute the following:
"RESOLVED, That the house of delegates shall consist of fifty-nine members, to be divided among the counties as follows:
Ohio county four delegates; Marshall, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Harrison, Wood, Jackson, Barbour, Mason, Kanawha, Greenbrier and Monroe counties, two delegates each; and Hancock, Brooke, Wetzel, Taylor, Ritchie, Doddridge, Wirt, Roane, Calhoun, Gilmer, Tucker, Pleasants, Tyler, Lewis, Braxton, Upshur, Randolph, Putnam, Clay, Nicholas, Cabell, Wayne, Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Mercer, McDowell, Webster, Pocahontas, Fayette and Raleigh, one delegate each."
MR. HAYMOND. Mr. President. In offering this resolution this morning, my object was to secure to each county in the State of West Virginia one member of the house of delegates, and nothing else. If it can be done, as some of my friends seem to think, with 54 or 56, I would prefer it; but I think it cannot be done. If this plan is defeated, the whole will be defeated.
Mr. President, I am from the county of Marion - a large county. I do not come here to form a constitution for the county of Marion but to help form a constitution for the State of West Virginia; and I am for forming such a constitution as will be an advantage to the whole State and not to the large counties alone. If you give the large counties the lead, they will always keep it. I desire to see a constitution formed for the new State of West Virginia on liberal terms that will cause it to grow up and be a powerful state. Sir, we cannot make a great state of this unless we improve it. It must be improved beyond your cities or large and populous counties. You must bring up the county of Tucker, which some men appear to think should be out of existence. Sirs, I recollect - which was but a few years ago - when the great county of Preston only gave 400 votes. She now can give 2500 votes.
Mr. President, I, this morning was surprised at my esteemed and faithful friend from Preston, who told us this was not a democratic measure, and that he had been a Breckenridge democrat, and he could not go for this measure. Sirs, I regret it very much. I want to hear no voice here that a man is a Democrat or a Whig; I want to hear no voice say he is a Republican or Democrat or Whig. I want there to be but one voice in this country, and that is my country and my country's cause. That is my voice, and that is where I intend to die and no other place.
MR. BROWN of Preston. I call for the yeas and nays on this question.
The yeas and nays were ordered and taken with result as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. John Hall (President), Brown of Kanawha, Hansley, Haymond, McCutchen, Stephenson of Clay, Soper, Taylor, Walker - 9.
NAYS - Messrs. Brown of Preston, Brooks, Brumfield, Battelle, Chapman, Carskadon, Dering, Dille, Hall of Marion, Harrison, Hubbs, Hervey, Irvine, Lamb, Lauck, Montague, Mahon, Parsons, Powell, Parker, Paxton, Pomeroy, Robinson, Ruffner, Sinsel, Simmons, Stevenson of Wood, Stewart of Wirt, Stuart of Doddridge, Trainer, Van Winkle, Warder, Wilson - 33.
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I offer the following amendment to the amendment - simply the one which was offered before, to insert after the word "members," in the 7th line the words: "and to be so distributed as to give to each county at least one delegate."
MR. HALL of Marion. I ask for the yeas and nays.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I would simply ask if calling the ayes and noes prevents a statement of the reasons for the amendment. I do not intend to make an argument. I expect the gentleman will oppose the amendment.
MR. HALL of Marion. If it does, I am willing to withdraw the call if it is in my power.
THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman can proceed by general consent. I
MR. STUART of Doddridge. Simply an explanation. In making 54, which was the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, I believe the ratio is 5637, giving a fraction of 3092 (?). Now, if we go on and apportion according to this ratio without the amendment as offered by myself it would give to Barbour an additional delegate and to the county of Greenbrier an additional delegate, Monroe, with a fraction of 3889, an additional delegate, Pleasants, with 2926 a delegate; Raleigh a delegate, Mason with a fraction of 3115 a delegate, and Ohio, with a fraction of 5285, a delegate. Wyoming is the next largest fraction, 2797. Well, now, sir, it has been argued here that this is an arbitrary measure giving to these small counties a delegate and that it will act oppressively against the larger counties. Let us look at it. I call attention to one fact that has not been observed. Taking the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio it gives to Mason for a fraction 3115 an additional delegate. Taking Calhoun and Gilmer together, they have a population of 6177. A delegate to Mason for a fraction of 3115 and a delegate each to Calhoun and Gilmer for a population of 6177 is giving equal representation. A fraction of 2926 in Pleasants has a representative, while Clay and Braxton have but one with a population of 6646 - almost three times the population of Pleasants. I mention this merely to show you that the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio acts oppressively and arbitrarily on the small counties. .If we lean towards any of them let us lean towards the smaller counties. If a fraction of 2926 is to have a delegate, my amendment simply proposes to divide the fractions of two counties, which is 6167 and give each county a delegate. It does appear to me the amendment I have proposed will not operate as the gentleman from Wood and the gentleman from Ohio have represented it. The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio gives to these large counties for a small fraction a delegate, while the districts, like the county of Gilmer and Calhoun - for there is six or seven of them - have some three times the number in their counties that entitles these large counties by their fractions to a delegate. And I see no impropriety in the world in giving one to the small counties. The number gives to the small counties every one a delegate and leaves to Wood two delegates and the others as distributed by the report of the committee. I am in favor of the amendment to the amendment.
MR. LAMB. The objection of the gentleman from Doddridge is exclusively to the 5th section of this report. It is not properly an amendment to the amendment which I offered; but the question which his amendment raises will distinctly come up on the consideration of the 5th section. That section provides:
"5. For the election of delegates, every county containing a white population of less than one-half the ratio of representation for the house of delegates, shall, at each apportionment, be attached to some contiguous county or counties, to form a delegate district."
If we have a county such as McDowell with a white population of 1585, we must attach it to some larger county. Then comes in the argument that a larger county ought to have a delegate by itself and you must detach the smaller. Now, Calhoun and Gilmer are put here together to make a delegate district. If we adopt the number 54 and the ratio of representation is 5637, the population of Calhoun and Gilmer entitle that district and leave an excess of 640. This is the subject of complaint. Take the two counties which lie adjacent; which perhaps form a more natural district than Calhoun does a separate county by itself - a district homogeneous in its interests - and they are fully represented except this fraction of 540. Is there any very particular hardship here? The other case which he mentioned, that of Clay and Braxton, I ought perhaps to mention here in this connection that it is represented by the member from Clay and also the member from Nicholas that a better arrangement of this delegate district would be to attach Clay and Nicholas together, and Braxton and Webster, instead of Webster and Nicholas and Clay and Braxton. They all lie in a square and can very naturally be arranged in either way. Attach, then, Clay and Nicholas, and we have a delegate district of 6280, and that population is fully represented according to the population of the State, regarding the ratio, with the exception of 599. If you adopt this principle at all you can certainly apply it in no other manner; and the two excesses here amounting to a little over a thousand are compensated over and over again in apportioning representation to the other small counties. The working out of this proposition of 54 and apportioning it among the different counties according to the rule embodied in the 5th and 6th sections of this project, leads to something like this result on the whole; not to call attention to any extreme cases.
The small counties, with a population of 47,777, will have eleven representatives in the house of delegates - which is one for every 4343 of their population. Taking the matter as a whole, the other counties with a population of 256,656 will have one representative for every 5833. For every representative that is given to a large county she loses nearly 1500 as a bonus to these smaller counties. Now, gentlemen, if we have done anything amiss in this matter it is in sacrificing too much of our principle for the purpose of being liberal, magnanimous, towards the small counties. It is not, as was argued by the gentleman from Tyler, a question whether these small counties shall be represented or not. They are to be represented anyhow. Why this county of Tucker, with 1396 inhabitants, has always voted with Randolph. She has never been separately represented. This county of Webster, with 1512, has always voted with the counties from which she was formed, a part of her votes with Nicholas and part with Braxton and part with Randolph. The county of Clay also votes with the county from which it was taken. The county of McDowell, which is one of these counties, has hitherto voted with Tazewell. Tazewell, unfortunately, is not in our State at present; but the county of McDowell is now placed alongside another county of much smaller population; will have much greater influence, therefore, in the election of a delegate. Such having been the practice heretofore, have we heard any loud complaints from these counties in reference to this measure heretofore? They are represented if they give their full vote in favor of any candidate that was before their people in the district; and that full vote has its full weight in determining who shall represent that district. Does the fact of; a mere imaginary county line separate their interest from the residue of the district? Are they not as fully and fairly represented in voting in this manner as one portion of the county of Ohio is represented when the whole county votes for its delegates? Is there not just the same claim for the people on Short Creek to say that they are not represented at all in the legislature because they are not entitled to choose a delegate separately from Ohio? As there is for these counties when they are joined in districts to which they naturally belong, with which the connection is a natural one, and when they have their full weight in electing the representatives of that district?
I amoccupying much more of the time of the Convention on this subject than I ought, but I trust the Convention will allow me to make an explanation or two in regard to the number 64, if it is to be distributed according to the principles embodied in the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department.
In the first place, then, comparing the number 46 with 54 you find that the number 46 leaves unrepresented fractions of 3881, 2908, 2542, 2134, 2111; and all these fractions that are left unrepresented upon the 46 number exceed the very highest fraction unrepresented upon the 54 number. The very highest fraction which is unrepresented on the 54 number unfortunately falls on Lewis county and amounts to 2099. The county of Greenbrier and the county of Pocahontas have been taken in by this Convention without asking the consent of the people of those counties. Greenbrier has a population of 10,499; Pocahontas, which is adjoining, 3686. And yet they are both to be represented in your legislature on the 46 number with exactly the same number, one delegate each. Now, when we come with our Constitution to the people of Greenbrier and Pocahontas both, I want them to be satisfied that that Constitution is based on fair republican principles. You have taken them into the new State without their consent. You have given a delegate to Pocahontas for 3600 inhabitants; to Greenbrier with three times as many you have given only one delegate. What idea will they form of your Constitution, the principle on which it has been based? I will say nothing in regard to the particular case of my friend from Wood. He has spoken on this subject himself, and he is able to speak for himself; but it will relieve the case there of all difficulty at once. Wood would get two, Pleasants would be separated, having more than half the ratio, 5637, and 2818 half. Pleasants would have over 2900. She would be entitled to a delegate herself on the principles embodied in the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department. Pleasants would get one and Wood would get two. That would satisfy both these districts.
It has been contended the census has not done Mason justice. The census gives her 8752 inhabitants. The gentleman from Kanawha (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Mason also I understand insist that the census is wrong; that Mason really has a population of over twelve thousand. If you adopt the ratio of 54 you get rid of this difficulty. Mason would be entitled to two delegates whether she has 8752 as put down in the census of 1860 or 12,000 as claimed.
Now, let us look at the operation of these numbers on the other side of the mountains. Suppose, Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire and the others vote themselves in and you come to apportion representatives there. You have Berkeley, with a population of 10,606; and upon the 46 number you can give her but one representative. You give to Greenbrier with 10,499 but one, and you can give to Berkeley but one. Jefferson has a population of 10,092, and you can give her but one. Then right alongside these counties is Morgan with a population of 3613. You must give her a representative too. You go to those counties and present your Constitution and ask themselves to vote themselves in. Will they not be very apt to ask you what sort of a basis of representation is this you are giving to us? Here are two counties alongside of Morgan having over ten thousand inhabitants each . . .
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I do not desire that there should be an impression got up here - that is a mistake. On the basis of 46 the ratio is 6618 a fraction over 3300. It would give to Berkeley and Jefferson two representatives. You are mistaken. Although I have been governed by your figures, in that matter you are mistaken.
MR. LAMB. You are to apply this in the same manner to the counties on the other side of the mountains that you do on this. On this side it does not admit any county to have two delegates unless its population is over twelve thousand.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. The gentleman is mistaken again. It gives to Wood county two. That has but ten thousand and something.
MR. LAMB. No, sir. Fifty-four would give Wood two; 46 gives it but one.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I am not mistaken. Fifty-four does give two; but you put Pleasants on it.
MR. LAMB. It gives to Wood and Pleasants jointly two, because the joint population exceeds twelve thousand. The gentleman complimented me the other day on my skill in figures. Now I must insist upon presuming a little on that now. He will find it impossible to work out the 46 and give Wood county two on the principles designated in this report. We may as well speak of this matter as it is. The number 46 was adopted in the committee. Forty-two was proposed, and the committee generally preferred it; but 46 was adopted because it allowed the giving of two delegates to Monongalia and Marshall and to the county of Marion. It is just the number, applied on this side of the mountains, which will give Marion two delegates; but it will give no county with a less population than over twelve thousand two delegates any way you can work it out, on this side of the mountains; and it must be applied, of course, in the same way on the other.
Now, Jefferson, with 10,092 inhabitants cannot have two representatives; and Greenbrier, with 10,499 but one.
I have said in reference to this matter that the simple reason for my supporting 54 instead of 46 is that it is carrying out these principles more fairly; it is a nearer approximation, at least, to the principle of apportioning according to white population. As a mere question of interest, gentleman, I know that the interests of Ohio county would be with the number 46; but I am not going to enter into this matter as a mere squabble for interest. I am willing to consent to any fair principle which shall be fairly applied; but I want this matter regulated on principle. This Constitution, I hope, if it shall be accepted by the people, will govern this State for many a long year. I want to put down plain and definite rules in the Constitution upon which representation may be hereafter apportioned; and rules that will produce such a result that we can say that this, even as an arithmetical question, does approach as nearly as possible the principle of apportioning representation according to white population. Nor does it weaken my attachment to that principle of apportioning according to white population that we cannot carry out that principle exactly in this apportionment. Still, I think it is of the utmost importance that we should so arrange our rules and adhere to them when we have adopted them as at least to approximate it as near as we can.
I must say that I object entirely to the argument of the gentleman from Tyler. Carry that argument to its fair conclusions and it leads to this, that we ought to strike out a fundamental rule and apportion representation, not according to population, but according to county lines. He referred you to the judiciary that you had to regulate according to county lines. He referred you to the report of the Committee on Township Organization, that this is regulated by county lines; and his inference, therefore, was that representation in the legislature will have to be regulated by county lines too. That is an idea that I am utterly opposed to. Where it is impossible to ignore entirely the fact of these county lines, I submit to the necessity of it; but I want wherever it is possible to do so to adhere as far as we do to the principle of apportioning representation, according to population. I am as anxious as any man that the new State should get into operation. In the Convention, in August last, when I said that I felt as sensibly as any man could do the injury we had sustained from eastern Virginia, that I felt as anxious as any one could do to dissolve the connection with the eastern portion of the State, I meant what I said, though I did urge that this was not the proper time for agitating the matter and that as we were now no longer subjected to the control and domination of eastern Virginia we could afford to wait until we could see a little further into the future before we tried to push this question, to agitate and divide us. But when I entered into the compromise committee I gave up there this question of time, and since that I have come here with the determination, so far as I could effect it, not merely to carry out the plan of the new State fairly but to expedite it if I could. But I want, gentlemen, when you send me a constitution to lay before my people, I want to be able to say that it is based on such principles as they ought to adopt. If you depart from these principles, above all if you base representation not upon population but upon county lines, I tell you it requires no prophet to see what will be the vote of each county when your Constitution is submitted for their ratification or rejection.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. Mr. President, if the indication from the gentleman from Ohio be correct, I am afraid that Ohio county will vote against the proposed Constitution any way that it is proposed to settle it; because I am satisfied the plan before us does not carry out the very principle of the report. It is a mere approximate to it and a very defective one at that. I feel, sir, somewhat in doubt as to how to vote on this question as now presented to the house, and for the reason that it is a new proposition that I have not figured on again. Before dinner, we were discussing the proposition, and at dinner we had occasion to test it by carrying it out. The motion of the gentleman from Marion, I believe gave so many delegates specifically, one to each county, and then so many others, designating them but to see how far it carried out the principle was a matter for calculation afterwards. I looked over that and unfortunately came in while the vote was being cast. Upon that point I was content to vote in the affirmative, as I did. But if I cannot get that, then the next best proposition that is before my mind is that submitted by the gentleman from Ohio, as I understand it. The introduction now by the gentleman from Doddridge of a third proposition, intermediate, is one which may perhaps defeat one of the ends I had in view. It attains one of the ends proposed but will defeat another; and I am not able to say without running that through to see how far it applies or more definitely than that of the gentleman from Ohio or the one we have voted down. I confess the large vote very decidedly given on the last proposition rather settles in my mind the determination of the house in regard to the question raised by the gentleman from Doddridge. The one thing that moves me to insist on a larger house was the fact which struck me as a manifest injustice to Greenbrier and Monroe that have no representatives here, and for us in their absence, having taken them in without their consent to fix a house of representatives and leave them with the largest fractions unrepresented of any counties in the State. This did look a little like taking advantage behind their backs, and I would rather give them a benefit over and above any of the others than take advantage of them in their absence. Now, by the adoption of the 59 proposition each of these counties was to secure an additional delegate and therefore I was content to vote for it. The proposition of the gentleman from Ohio, as I understand it, a 54 house apportioned on the plan of this report will accomplish I believe the same end if I am not mistaken, but the amendment of the gentleman from Doddridge will not accomplish that end.
MR. LAMB. Upon the 54 plan worked out on that system, Monroe would get one delegate for the first 6618 inhabitants, white population; she would then have one delegate for a fraction of 3839; so that she is favored so far as that is concerned. So it will be with Greenbrier. She gets one delegate for the first 6618, and one delegate for a fraction of 4862.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. That was my understanding of your proposition. Now, how these delegates will fall in the proposition of the gentleman from Doddridge I am not prepared to say; but it occurs to me by that these counties will be cut off and will get but one delegate.
MR. LAMB. Yes, sir.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. And we are actually increasing the inequality instead of diminishing it if that were so. Well, I should feel very averse while seeking justice to others to actually increase the wrong to these. I infinitely prefer the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio to that of the gentleman from Doddridge. It does attain the end I had in view in both cases. But this will defeat a very important one, one for which there is no one to answer for. I, therefore, between the two propositions, prefer that of the gentleman from Ohio.
MR. HERVEY. If I understand the proposition of the gentleman from Doddridge it proposes to give each small county one delegate. The proposition of the gentleman from Ohio makes the number of delegates 54. It then leaves unrepresented, if I have got the right calculation, the counties of Clay, McDowell, Tucker, Webster. I believe that is correct. It gives Pleasants a delegate for 2923 population. I would suggest to the gentleman from Doddridge whether or not all interest could not be accommodated by adopting the number 58. That would carry out the calculation of the gentleman from Ohio so far as he has gone, and also the calculation of the gentleman from Doddridge, to give each of the counties a delegate. Consequently, I think the gentleman from Kanawha is mistaken when he says that the proposition of the gentleman from Marion would accomplish it. I think it would be one more than would accomplish that purpose. If the amendment of the gentleman from Doddridge fails, I shall certainly support the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio. I would like to accomodate all sides here as nearly as possible, and consequently I want to be guided by the best lights we can gather on this subject; accommodate all the different interests as near as possible, and if that will meet the views of the gentleman from Doddridge, and if it will meet the views of the gentleman from Ohio to increase the number four, I certainly would have no objections so far as my own county is concerned. It is no difference at all. It would not change our district one iota. I would desire, however, that every interest be accommodated as near as possible. I think the number 59 does not reach the case, as the gentleman supposed.
THE PRESIDENT pro tempore. (Mr. Hall of Marion in the chair.) The question is on the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I will support the amendment to the amendment. If the amendment to the amendment is voted down I will support the amendment. But I like the amendment to the amendment better than the amendment, and for that reason I am going to support it. It is the very proposition that I had up on Saturday; and I find the gentleman from Kanawha has forsaken the proposition, and it needs perhaps that I should still explain it. The gentleman from Ohio, who has figured so much over this matter and who has been training me so long that I think before I leave Wheeling I will be able to square the circle - he has got me into the habit of making figures, and I think a good many members have not made the calculations and seen how the thing will apply. If they would work at it so hard as the gentleman from Ohio and I they would understand it thoroughly.
The gentleman from Ohio supports his amendment because the fractions are not so large. To carry out that principle you should make it at least 100 or 150 members. The more you increase the number of the house, the less the fractions will be. I do not care how you do, and just in proportion as you increase the number of members in that proportion will the fractions be reduced. That is true. Then if you want small fractions increase your number, from 50 to 100, just as you see proper and the higher you get the less the fraction will be. But take the report of the committee, as it has been reported here and it will not operate any more unfairly than to take 54. Not a particle, because the fractions will be just in proportion to the number of delegates you may say there shall be. But my amendment, in giving to these counties a certain number of delegates, according to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, it gives on an arbitrary rule to the county of Monroe for a fraction of 3889 an additional delegate.
That is arbitrary. Well, sir, if we are to adopt arbitrary rules here assigning delegates, I say that fraction of three thousand in Monroe is no more entitled to that delegate than Calhoun and Gilmer with a population of 6177. It seems to me the gentleman fails to answer that argument. Clay and Braxton have a population of 6646. Now, if we were to assign arbitrarily delegates to these counties, why not give it to these instead of giving it to Monroe for her three thousand? My amendment proposes to remedy these fractions, while the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio does not remedy it at all, but leaves the fractions to operate oppressively against these small counties whom you have placed into districts. You give to one fraction, according to his amendment, in a large county a delegate, while you still leave two or three counties collected together with a population from six to seven thousand without a delegate, and my amendment proposes to assign it to that people. If I go arbitrarily and assign delegates I want to lean, if possible, towards the smaller counties and not to the largest ones. Now, if we adopt an arbitrary rule, let us give it to the larger fractions; and I must say that those delegate districts have larger fractions than Monroe and many other counties that you give it to.
MR. LAMB. Will the gentleman excuse me. The delegate district composed of Calhoun and Gilmer has a fraction of 540. Monroe has a fraction of 3889. Correcting the new district, as has been suggested, and putting Clay and Nicholas together, there is a fraction there of 591 against 3889.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. Well, I admit the gentleman can teach me something yet in figures. I know it, although he has trained me pretty well. The fraction for which a delegate is given in Barbour is three thousand. Well, I will be exact. The fraction for which you assigned a delegate to Barbour is 3092. That is right?
MR. LAMB. Yes, sir.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. Well, sir, now for this fraction you give a delegate. Now, take the delegate districts of Clay and Braxton, which is 6646 - more than double the amount of the fraction of Barbour, to whom you assign one delegate. Now, sir, where is the greatest justice? Assigning it to these two or giving it to Barbour? Can you not understand the proposition that the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio proposes to assign to Braxton one delegate for a fraction of 3092, while my amendment proposes to give to Clay and Braxton, who has a population of double the amount of that fraction one each. Then if you were to adopt an arbitrary rule here, let us give it to these counties which have a greater fraction taking into consideration the number for which you assign a delegate to Barbour.
Now, sir, the argument of the gentleman in regard to the counties over the mountains - Berkeley and Jefferson - we have not assigned delegates there yet. We have not allotted the number they shall have; but there is a population of 10,600 and something in the one and ten thousand and something in the other. Take the ratio of 6618 they have a delegate and then a fraction greater than a few. When we come to apportion delegates to that district, I would be willing to give them, as we almost invariably have given here, a delegate for a fraction exceeding half the number of the ratio. That need be no argument here to bear against my amendment. Because when we come to assign the number of delegates there, we can do that thing because it has been done in almost every instance here except one or two; and that was carrying out the argument of the gentleman from Lewis that the gentleman's principle is a matter of accident sometimes. It will not work exactly right. But I am not going to appeal to that. I only want it understood that my reason for the amendment I have proposed is that if we assign delegates arbitrarily we shall give them to the smaller counties. I want you to understand again that adopting 54 with my amendment gives these smaller counties a delegate to every one, and leaves one to dispose of - assigns to Wood two; and there will be a fight between Ohio and Greenbrier for the other. I believe the members understand the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I would suggest an amendment for the gentleman's acceptance. I think perhaps it would avoid a difficulty as suggested by the gentleman from Brooke, that take the number 58 it will accommodate this question, it will give a delegate to each county and it will give a sufficient number to be apportioned on the plan that is reported by the committee on the rule already laid down, and give to these other counties by their fractions the delegates they desire. Less than 58 would not do it. Fifty-nine I think does it better, as proposed by the gentleman from Marion, I am satisfied.
THE PRESIDENT. It would not be in order to argue on the suggestion unless the amendment is accepted.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I cannot accept it, sir, at present.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. Then, sir, I beg leave to say, in reply to the gentleman that while he and I have parted company, I only regret that the gentleman parted company with me on the motion that was voted down the object of which was to attain the very thing he now proposes. If I could see - 1 have not had the opportunity this gentleman has - to see how this rule applies so as to accomplish what he claims for it, I should not hesitate; but I apprehend it will not. At the very first glance over it, it struck me Greenbrier and Monroe would get an additional delegate and it would really be increasing the number of delegates among the other counties. One of the grounds of our objections was that there was such injustice with even 46 that we ought to add one delegate for each of these counties; and one gentleman proposed that, and one to Wood, and stopped. Even that would accommodate one of the objections that the gentleman's amendment does not attain at all. I hope we will yet get a house that will give each county a delegate and still attain to full representation to these counties without a fraction that is so glaringly large.
THE PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment to the amendment, and on this the yeas and nays have been demanded. Is the Convention ready for the question?
The vote was taken and resulted:
YEAS - Messrs. John Hall (President), Brumfield, Dering, Dolly, Hansley, Haymond, Harrison, Hubbs, Hervey, Lauck, Montague, McCutchen, Parsons, Parker, Robinson, Simmons, Stephenson of Clay, Sheets, Soper, Stuart of Doddridge, Taylor, Walker, Warder, Wilson - 24.
NAYS - Messrs. Brown of Preston, Brown of Kanawha, Brooks, Battelle, Chapman, Garskadon, Dille, Hall of Marion, Irvine, Lamb, Mahon, Powell, Paxton, Pomeroy, Ruffner, Sinsel, Stevenson of Wood, Stewart of Wirt, Trainer, Van Winkle - 20.
So the amendment to the amendment was adopted, and the question recurred on the amendment.
The President resumed the chair.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I believe the section is not amendable?
THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the amendment as amended, to strike out 46 and insert 54, with the addition made on the motion of the gentleman from Doddridge.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I desire to inquire whether it would be in order now to strike out 54 and insert 58?
MR. VAN WINKLE. It is certainly in order.
THE PRESIDENT. The question will be then on the separate amendment to strike out 54 and substitute 58.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. Very well, sir.
MR. SINSEL. I do not understand that the house had decided by this vote that it would give each county a delegate unless they adopt 54.
MR. LAMB. Vote down 54 and then it will stand as reported by the committee.
MR. VAN WINKLE. Certainly; but while the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio is open for separate amendment, that is to say, one at a time. The gentleman from Doddridge proposed an amendment in addition to the section. This was carried. The gentleman from Kanawha now proposes another and different amendment. That is certainly in order. He proposes to substitute 58 for 54 in the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair has no doubt about it.
MR. HERVEY. I hope this house will so understand this proposition that there may be no difficulty at all in voting. I desire, sir, to carry out the programme of the gentleman from Ohio County up to the number 54; that that shall be the apportionment, and then add to that the number four, which will supply those counties.
MR. VAN WINKLE. That is substantially the amendment of the gentleman from Kanawha.
THE PRESIDENT. That is the substance of the amendment to the amendment.
MR. HERVEY. If my impression is correct the gentleman from Kanawha will furnish a different basis for calculation. Now, sir, I desire to carry out, so far as the gentleman from Ohio county has done the number 54; and that they shall be distributed as the gentleman from Ohio county has distributed them except that the four counties not provided for by the report shall be apportioned to the other four.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. What four counties does the gentleman allude to?
MR. HERVEY. The four not provided for in the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio are Clay, McDowell, Tucker and Calhoun.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I would say to the gentleman they are provided for by the amendment that has already been adopted.
MR. HERVEY. The house has decided that these counties shall have a delegate; and, consequently, if I understand the proposition, it will make 58. What I desire is that the programme of the gentleman from Ohio shall be carried out, and that the four additional members shall be given to these small counties that I have named.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would remark to the gentleman that the small counties are all provided for by the action just taken; but that the four proposed to be added, if the Chair understands the motion, is to be added to four counties that have already a representation - that have to be increased that much.
MR. VAN WINKLE. With 58 number, every county will have one at least.
I would suggest to the gentleman from Kanawha that it will require five additional ones.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I will take the 59, for I rather thought so myself. I take it the gentleman from Brooke thought that 58 would accommodate the case.
Several members explained to Mr. Brown that the number 58 accomplished what was desired.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. Then I will stand on 58, and I think that will work it out. I think now the house have given an expression that I hope it will stand by of fixing a delegate for each county. Now, one of the grounds of objection to this report and to the house as adopted last week, and to the number 56, and one of the grounds that seemed to impress every gentleman's mind who has spoken in this house, was the manifest injustice to Greenbrier and Monroe on the rule prescribed with a house of 46. Now I think we have determined to give each county a member and to increase the house. I think it will be ascertained incontrovertibly that upon a house of 54 it will make that injustice and distinction more glaring and apparent than now in those two counties; that it will appropriate to the counties that are represented here all the delegates and will add nothing but the rule to the counties of Greenbrier and Monroe. Therefore, it necessitates the fact that we must increase the house to avoid that difficulty, and then they having the largest fractions to come in for the full delegates. This is the only way I can possibly see you can attain it, unless, as the gentleman from Brooke proposes, you just give them so much. Then you are departing from the rule again; while if you take 58 you will attain the same end and adhere to the rule.
I hope, therefore, it will be the pleasure of the house to continue to advance and adopt 58.
MR. VAN WINKLE. Did the gentleman change the number to 58?
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I would prefer it.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I would suggest that . . .
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would remark that in. his opinion the 59 would be in order. It would not be the precise question divided.
MR. BROWN of Kanawha. I will make it 59 then, because I prefer that. On the proposition of the gentleman from Marion - which I understand to be substantially this proposition - I think this will work out exactly what he put down as a fact, though I am not certain that is the case, for they may not fall to the same counties; but I think it falls generally throughout the state on the same ratio and that Greenbrier and Monroe will have the largest fractions and be entitled to two delegates; where the other will fall, I am not able to say now. I am satisfied the number 59 does attain the end. It might be possible 58 might fall short.
MR. VAN WINKLE. I want, if the motion prevails, that it shall be 59; for we understand what 54 would do, and then we know that by adding to the counties that are doubles - which are five in number - if 54 simply was adopted, several counties would be relieved. Then there would be five counties still left that would not have a separate representative - five pairs, of course. Now, by adding five to the 54, I can tell how it is going to work out, I think, because the gentleman has told us several times how the 54 would work. Taking the table furnished by the committee, 54 would clear out Wood and Pleasants and take Raleigh out of the 4th delegate district. Then there would be the 1st delegate district to receive an addition of one, the 2nd to receive an addition of one, the 3rd to receive an addition of one, having received one already; the 5th to receive an. addition of one, and the 6th to receive an addition of one, make five. That would be the operation of it. Greenbrier and Monroe will receive each an additional delegate. Wood will receive an additional delegate.
I am inclined to favor this amendment, if I understand that the house has established the principle that every county is to have a representative; because the increased number renders the inquality less glaring and the people could more readily reconcile themselves to it. I also favor it, sir, in preference to any proposition that has stood by itself that proposed to give those counties each a delegate on the ground that it leaves the comparative representation between the other counties as it was. It seems to me fairer that if each county is to have a representative the proposition now before us is the fairest we have yet had. Perhaps the more proper way would have been to have voted in, sir, a definite number, say 54, and then voted a separate motion that so many be added; but as the effect will be precisely the same, I do not care about the form. We are not strictly in order, sir, as we will have to strike out the 5th section, which contradicts this. But as we have gone so far, I do not raise any question of error on it. It will attain the same end and express the sense of the house.
MR. SINSEL. I am still opposed to this amendment. It takes 53 number to give to each county a delegate, leaving the balance as arranged by the committee. Well, that six more will add an additional delegate to Kanawha, and she will have three; Mason will have two; Jackson will have two; Greenbrier will have two; Barbour will have two; and Ohio three. You know exactly where they will go. Ohio will get one of these. She has three; Greenbrier will get one, Barbour one, Monroe one and Jackson one. So persons now in voting will know exactly where they are voting this addition to go, for there is precisely where it will go; and it leaves the inequalities in the balance of the counties still greater for what remain than just as they were reported by the committee with a ratio of not much over five thousand; so too the fraction in every other large county will be larger just as you increase the number and assign the addition as you propose to do.
MR. HERVEY. The only difference appears to be a matter of calculation. Taking the data of gentlemen whom I may justly denominate the mathematician of this Convention, the gentleman of Ohio, he in his arrangement of 54 gave the county of Pleasants with a population of 2926, a delegate. Now, sir, if you look at the remaining counties unprovided for, you will find that there is but four of them.
MR. VAN WINKLE. The gentleman forgets the counties in the 4th district.
MR. HERVEY. Then, sir, there must be a county of larger population than Pleasants not provided for.
MR. VAN WINKLE. There is Raleigh. Fifty-four provides for Raleigh.
MR. HERVEY. Certainly. Take the counties which have a less population than 2926 and you will find the number is but four. I cannot find them. I cannot find where that other delegate is to go.
MR. VAN WINKLE. Calhoun is one. Clay is two, McDowell is three, Wyoming is four, Tucker is five. Wyoming, which is the largest, has 2797, which is less than Pleasants. There are five certainly.
MR. HERVEY. Correct, sir.
MR. LAMB. It certainly takes 59 to accomplish the object of the gentleman from Wood. The result, then, of the matter is this: we have twenty counties with a population of 72,751. To them we give a delegate for every 3637 whites. We have 24 counties, with a population of 231 thousand and upwards, and to them we give a delegate for every 5940 whites. This is the principle that is to be adopted by this Convention. The counties which have a population of 231,000 are the counties that raise your revenue. The others are to have the distribution of it and say where it is to go. In the favored district three white men count more than five in the other portion of the Commonwealth. We have not even the poor right of being ranked on an equivalent with the negro in the Constitution of the United States. And I am asked if a principle of this kind is put into this constitution to go before the people of Ohio county and tell them they ought to vote for such a Constitution! Sir, if I wanted to defeat your new state project this is the plan I would be supporting. For I tell you the result of this measure - and it ought to be the result - would be an unanimous vote of the people of Ohio against any constitution that embodied this principle; that brought us back to the old principle we fought against so long, that every county in the State however insignificant should have a delegate; this principle of the equality, not of the people, but of counties. We contended against that for years, under the leadership of Philip Doddridge; and we are not, gentlemen, going to take your new Constitution with that principle embodied in it!
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I am sorry, sir, that the gentleman from Ohio appears to manifest so much feeling in this matter.
MR. LAMB. I have good cause for it.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. I want to reconcile him if possible. I represent the county of Doddridge; and because five men in that county are only equal to one man in Tucker, that is no reason why I am going to oppose this Constitution. I have it in my power now if I choose to do it - I mean the Convention - to refuse to the county of Tucker this representation; but if we give up to her, it is the part of magnanimity on our part and it is not forced upon us. And because we choose to be generous towards three or four little counties in our State, is that a reason that we shall assign that our people should vote against the constitution, simply because we are magnanimous towards two or three little counties, when we have it in our power to keep the representation from these little counties? It is a matter of gratuity on our part. It is not sought to be forced upon us by those counties. I pray you from the county of Ohio to be reconciled.
MR. LAMB. Will the gentleman excuse me a moment? It is not because of a single instance of this kind that I have said what I have. It is because your representation is apportioned to twenty counties on the principle I have mentioned. You give these twenty counties a representation in which every three men there count more than five men here; and they are just the counties which do not contribute largely to your state treasury. One set of counties are to raise the money; another set are to say where it shall be expended. It is because of the unequal manner in which you are fixing it; because it becomes a substantial injury to all the large counties; not because it applies to Ohio alone, for it applies to Marshall, to Preston, to Marion, to Harrison, to Kanawha, to all the large revenue producing counties.
MR. STUART of Doddridge. That is all true. You have given that as your reason a great many times, and we perfectly understand it. But I am only trying to reconcile him now to not get into a bad humor here simply because we extend this courtesy to those few little counties. I am willing to adopt an arbitrary rule simply to give these few unrepresented counties a delegate. And I want the gentleman from Ohio to become reconciled; and let me say to him now that the three or four, they all could certainly not rob Ohio; I am sure they cannot; and I do not see they are not satisfied. It seems because a certain number pay a greater amount of revenue than others that they must have an additional amount of representation. Is that the principle we are to go on here? That was the doctrine of eastern Virginia. I do not know what amount of revenue may be raised in Ohio and what in McDowell; but I presume there is a large amount of property there that pays little or no revenue that would be unrepresented; a large amount of property in these small counties that have large territory but would not be represented by population. The amount of property is not given the amount of population, because of many citizens living in other portions of the State that own property there. They will soon take it up; and perhaps if you take it on the principles proposed by the gentleman from Ohio those counties upon the amount of revenue would be entitled to a delegate, and not on population. I do not know how that is. I have not investigated that. These figures - the gentleman from Ohio has not induced me to look into it. The question is upon us and I want to dispose of it in some form or other. And I want to get the gentleman reconciled. I am satisfied the three or four delegates Ohio will have will attend to her interests. If you give her a dozen more, she will not be any better attended to.
MR. BATTELLE. I move the Convention adjourn.
The motion was agreed to and the Convention adjourned.
|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