Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1850-02-18

CONVENTION FOR REFORM.

|
gates has been engaged in an interesting discus.
sion on the Convention Bill. Yesterday an
amendment OF Mr.. Dorman was under consid-
GRAFTON in the Committee of the Whole, Mr..
Shelley i'll the Chair, and Messrs. Hall. Clsi-
borne, Dorman, Wills, Perrow, and Campbell, OF
Nottoway, addressed the House We reached
the Hall near the end of Mr. Campbells speech
and were pleased with the clearness and CO.
gency of his arguments. Gentlemen of taste,
pronounce his speech as among the best deliv-
cred this session. It was his first regular effort
being young member, and gave tokens Of fu-
ture distinction.
! MIR. Dorman had moved to amend the 9th
section, prescribing the apportonment and dis.
tricts, by substituting the following: The ap-
portionment upon the combined basis shall be,
as nearly as possible, one delegate for each ten
thousand one hundred persons and dollars COM.
bined, so that Virginia, east OF the Blue Ridge
shall elect seventy -one delegates-and Virginia
west OF the Blue Ridge sixty-four delegates"
| AS the vote was being taken, Mr. Speaker
Hopkins, who was on the floor defined his posi-
ton. He said he was instructed by both cor
vention and anti-convention meeting of his peo-
pie. Personally, he was for going far to meet
the wishes Of the West, but under the circulu-
presentation on middle ground. lie could inset
the West halfway, and give up one-half the
majority the East now has. He could 90 no
farther. He could not, therefore, 90 for the pro-
position ofthe gentleman from Rockbrdge, and,
between the two competing propositions, should
vote for MIR. StovalFs substitute
Mr.. KlDwELh was glad to see the spirit Of the
gentleman from Pow hatan-~and he argued that
according to Mr.. Dorman's amendment, the
West had gone more than halfway He called
on the East, in a spirit OF compromise, TO meet
the West, and sustain MIR. Dormans PROPOSE
ton.
Mr. PATRICK said, that while he might vote
for Mr.. Dorman's amendment, he would con-
tend for the representation Oh the white basis en-
tirely.
Mr. Price defined his position as being tbs
| same,
Mr. Dorman' amendment was then lost, ayes
55, noes 62 ;; Messrs Price and Srother acting
as teller5.
| MIR. Stovalls substitute was then adopted.
ayes 65, noes 81.
On motion OF Mr. Conway the ecrlamittee rose
and MIR. Shelley, the Chairman, reported to tho
House that the committee had adopted the SUBJ
stilute, MIR Stoyall's, 10 the original bill.
| MIR. Dorman moved the previous question.
| Fluvanna TO the District composed of Albemarle
and Nelson.
! The previous question was sustained.
| Mr.. Conway asked the ayes and nays OH AIr.
Stovalls substitute " hich was adopted, ayes 81,
noes 81.
AyEs.-Messrs. Hopkins, Speaker, Finney,
Allen, Watson, Carter, liurve, Gibson, Flood,
Mitchell, Burwell, Power, Lewis of Brunswick,
Wills, Clarke OF Campbell, Buckner Lacy,
| Is Il u. O.
Clarke OF Essex, Williams of Fairfax, Hume,
Tebbs stillman, Claiborne, Edwards, Clopton,
Massie, Cook OF Greensvile, Stovall, Fleming,
Wickham, Lancaster, Morris of Henry, South
all, Wallace, Howser, Tomlin, Gresham, Ball,
Harris, Stokes Newman, Shepherd, Coleman,
Perrow, Stubs, Happier, Butt VERIFY, Hender-
son, Campbell of Notoway, Pannil, Syms,
Townes Neal, Woston, Rives, Harrison, Stro-
Their, Griffin, Conway, Suite, Wheaton, and
| Nicholson Sc.
| NoEs-Messrs. Layne, MCue, Shelley,
Brown Of B. and H., Hammond, Gran,haln,
Bennett, Wells, Morris Of Cabell, Hill, Guerant,
Wood, Wall, Pendleton. Carroll, Price, Powell.
Stump, Welton, Lewis Of Harrison, Duke, Wos.
thington, Patrick, Minter Ferguson, Schooley,
White, Kidwell, Jones of Marshall, Hicks, War
man, Bierne, Smith, Duckwal, Wheate Bus
well, Robertson, Gackley, Hall; Mayo, Cook OF
Roanoke, Dorman, Patterson, Mar1z ianey,
Herman, CULLEN, Pitman, llass, Campbell Q:
Symth johnson, George, West, Jacobs, Heiskel],
Cook and Boyd-57
Mr.. Dorman said he should now vote against
the bill, and if it was rejected, would move
resolution embracing the principle OF his former
amendment,
Mr. Claiborne moved the previous question.
Mr.. TONNES moved an adjournment. Lost by
a large majority.
Mr.. Ferguson said he was for the best Con-
ven,ion bill he could get. He was willing to lot
the people of the West say whether they would
have Convention or not on the basis fixed IN
the bill. He should therefore vote for the bill.
Mr.. Lewis Of H., said that we must either
take the bill as it is, OF no Convention at all, He
could not sacrifice principle, standing here a. tho
representative of 10000 freemen.
Mr.. Shelley should vote against the engross.
ment of the bil--so as to be able to introduce
fair compromise on this great question. This
involves the principle that property, with per-
sons is a legitimate element of representation,
This doctrine was never preached in Virginia
until 1898 and 49, in the Virginia Legislature
A bill had passed the House in 1916, making
white population the sole basis Of representa-
tion-and in the Convention of 1929, MIR,
Leigh had conceded that the bill was most
fortunate admission ON the part OF the East.
Mr. s. spoke at some length.
Mr.. Haryie moved an adjournmem-lost.
The previous question was sustained
Mr. Dorman called for the ayes and noes on
the engrossment of the bill as amended by the
adoption of Mr. Stoval's substitute.
Several gentlemen saying that the vote could
not be regarded as test question, MIR. D. With
drew it.
| Mr.. Newman renewed the call for the ayes
and NOES, The motion for engrossment was
then adopted, ayes "a, noes 4s--and the HOUSE
adjourned.
| Mr. Stovall's amendment simply submits the
question of Convention or no Convention, and
appertions the representation on the basis OF
kwhte population and taxation combined-ex.
elusive Of merchants licenses.