Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-02-12

thoroughly persuaded that the yi.w IAaye aust IA.
ken is sound and correct. 49,
How, then, does the question stand in thi, nevo
aspect of the case? What amount of represen,o
ton has this united middle colnty in the house ~
delegates, under the new or amended cons,;tn,;s
The answer IS, the same quantity of power Whit,
would have been assigned it by the ''white b,yis,,
60 nomms, by the white basis. not of 1890, bot of
1884, Xhe proof consists IN the mere COLLATION. of
few figures.
The white population of the stnte in 1880,
have estimated ut Ssop,s
Yhe half of the white population is the,e
fore aoa on,
The uuissd middle country contains just one half
thus: '
The valley contains, in 1880, ,ss sas
ieo"Ao''' VI inc "iooie country, 7B9,36a
r, Amount of both sea7aa
The united middle country is therefore entitled, ON
tree white people, to BALI of the representation
In the House OF Delegates, sixty Sc zen members
a! And 1t has what it is entitled to-thus:
The new constitution assigns to the yalhev OK
70 Piedmont or the middle country, a.
Amount of both ~
ter. The subject is copious one, and frauab. viii,
great interest to you as well as myself "A'
January 81, $780, JOHN R. COOKE.
r. 8. Since closed my second letter have learn,
ca WITH surprise and concern, that the conc uins.
part of my first has been understood bv some JcG
more properly Misunderstood in sense untr;enaI;,
10 my colleagues and other gentlemen represent;nn;s
the valley districts who voted against the consttntr
ter is as follows: r - ''s 'sl+
Zone remark, and one only, on the u,er;,. IF ,b,.
subject, will make before close this brief iptra
uuctory letter. 1t U.s. that whatever NAV he thu rer
s OF the amended constitution when compared wifi,
That Which the western delegation as uartv sono1t
TO obtain IN lieu of it, an superintendent of
representation according to white population in the
aouse OF Delegates and according to federal MN,
bers in the Senate there cannot be doubt nhout Ire
superiority to the old constitution. | presume dp
not hazard much in saying that not sipole deco,te
10 the convention from ''the valley will vote for ia
rejection" 80 80
ihe IDEA of those who understand this uararrnnh
va On uh1rendy sense rs that there is an imputation
% tncous1Stetey to those gentlemen in sayino that
they WILL In my opinion, vote far that cunst;fpt;a
at tue polls, which they voted against IN the conven
tioh. NO Imputation of inconsistency was intended
NOR can L. for my life. see how the two acts wonId
be IN the slightest degree Inconsistent Q,,ose r,to
.iennen voted against the constitution, % its Ae,.
0pe from the purest and most prasewortTv natives
In the hope that when they had effected its rdee
ZION, they would be able, immediately in the cum
Vehtion TO carry what they thought better, in li,rf
OF IT, Ihe comparison, then in the co7ruertion uRs,
oeltoeen IL aud better. That better constitution
having oeen found unattainable the comma rsou NOM
Is between the amended constitution and tho -
Which thought all persons united in tbirkna ,rct
aooTSe Than the amended consultation I adw;, tbo4
Tue remark mad been better omitted sin1nv for fbs
feasoo, that some gentlemen may consider the nre
sent constitution defective in itself as for
PIE because 1t wants good rule for future annortir
inent, that they not be able Ia reror.;ar ,I,a
selves to voting fer il. 1t was not rieht tha,sf
IN me, TO undertake to judge for them in this partc
uar' oy expressing public opinion how thew would
vote IL was an inadyertence and take the fstxf
| opportunity of correcting il. s~