Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-05-08
sease Convention.
Friday, May 2.


y =
STOPPING DEBATE.
Mr.. Tredway offered resolution that al
debate in Committee Of the Whole on the
pending proposition, shall close to-day a,
one o'clock.
Mr.. Tredway stated that il was not his
purpose to limit the gentleman from Ka-
nawha (Mr. Summers.) from whom he
had understood that he did not expect to
occupy the floor till one.
Mr.. Price could see no propriety in fet-
tcr1ng the debate. The vote must soon be
taken, and it wasproper that discussion
should be heard on the proposition Of Mr..
Gealc. He moved to lay the resolution on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table failed by
tie vote. ayes 81 noes 81.
Mr.. Fisher called the attention of the
Convention to the act they were about to
perpetrate. The first attempt Of the East
10 smother us Of the West, was rule n
dopted in Convention to restrict debate in
Committee Of the Whole. The next was
20 fix upon members an hour rxle. And
now he declared that nothing whatever-no
basis that might be fixed in the Constitution
would produce SO much Indignation and
excitement in the West, as the adoption Of
this resolution. He referred to the con-
trary course Of the majority in the U. S.
Senate, in Gen, Jackson's day, when the
utmost freedom Of debate was allowed
What, he asked. was the expenditure of a
million Of dollars compared with the du-
ties thew had TO perform.
Mr.. Leakc (quietly. in his seat) moth
'ng to those who havn't got to pay it.
Mr.. Hoge moved to amend the resolu-
ton by substituting Tuesday next for TO-
day, but at the request offricnds around
him. he said he would Withdraw the mo
ton.
Mr.. Fisher. Yes, you'd better. Laugh
Mr.. Camden moved to lay the resolu-
tion on the table, and on this motion the
ayes and noes were ordered and the mo-
ton prevailed ayes 81, noes SO.
The Convention then resolved itself into
Committee Of the Whole.
BASIS QUESTION.
Mr.. Summers took the floor in reply to
the remarks made by Mr.. Scott of f., yes
terday. He expressed his surprise at the
irritation Of manner which he thought the
gentleman had displayed. 1t might have
been the natural result of the disappoint-
meDt Of defeat, or possibly the bugle note
to recall to the attack or defence. A wit
ness (Mr. Randolpb) had stood up from a.
mongst themselves, and testified against
them. He was one of their own number
lmany Eastern members in their seats
said no, we disown him. Mr.. S. went on
to re,ort upon Mr.. Scott by quoting vari-
Gus expressions used by him early in the
session, which he charged, were the first
taunts thrown out in the debates. He re-
PEELED the imputation that the Western
members had endeavorcd to array classes
against each other, by arguing that the
principle of the mixed basis did that very
thing. 1t distinguished the property hol-
der from the poor man; and SO it was es-
tecmcd by his people. AS STAKEHOLDER
and property holder he asked Eastern gen.
tlemen toreflect in what a position he and
others in his situation would be placed, if
this principle. SO odious to the Western
people. were fixed upon them. Would it
not tend to break down that protection to
property which gentlemen thought so ne
ccssary! He contended that the affections
Of the people were the best protection; and
the suffrage basis alone would ensure it
In regard to Mr.. SCOTS argument from the
Federal constitution, he insisted that the
case Of the States forming a government
was very different one from that Of the
people Of one State. He regarded the
federal government as blended system of
Independent State sovereignties, and ma
uonal union 1t was sovereign as to all
exterior concerns, but the States were SOW
crcign as to domestic affairs. The condi-
ton Of the slaves was a matter entirely
domestic, The Northern States had no
authority to inquire into the social position
of Southern slaves. The slaves were in
habitants. and as such the representatives
of separate States were bound to regard
them Had he been member of that
Convention, with his present views, he
should have insisted upon the representa-
ton ofall the slaves. The Southern dele
gates, however, agreed to a compromise,
by estimating three fifths of them. But
the people of Virginia had consolidated
government, in which slaves were regard
ed as property alone, and they ought not
to be admitted into representation. Mr.. S.
said he was sick of the cant about what
Greedy and other unmitigated abolitionists
would say il Virginia should adopt the suf-
fragc basis. Had that basis in Kentucky,
Alabama and other Southern States been
held to weaken their loyalty to the South
crnintcrcstsl In reply to the remaks made
by Mr.. Rives, on a former occasion, con-
corning the action Of the Legislature con-
quest upon the Southampton affair, Mr..
Sviewcd with the proceedings at length,
to show that the West then declined to in
tcrpose in the matter and gave the East
Earle blanche to do whatever it pleased; that
the proposition for emancipation came
from the East and was chiefly advocated
by Eastern men; and that it was sustained
by the Enquirer, the great press of the
State. He read from the speeches of Gen.
Brodnax, John Thompson Brown and
others, and from various memorials from
the counties, to prove that it was an East
ern movement A memorial from Lou
douh, and one from Fauquier contained lam
guagc and signatures that excited some
surprise. The Fauquier petition was for
the ucneral Governments being invested
with power, To buy SLAVES and send them
TO Africa.
IMr, Wise reminded Mr.. S. that peti-
ton had been largely signed by members
ofthis body, making precisely the same
proposition.
Mr.. S. stated that the amendment moved
by Col. Randolph Of Albemarle, in the
House of Delegates, for submitting to the
people a scheme of post matt emancipation
was In accordance with resolutions adopt