Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1862-01-15
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Twenty-Eiehth Day.
JANUARY IA, 1862

The Convention was opened with prayer !
by Rev. Josiah Simmons, member from
Randolph
The discussion of the apportioument of
representation in the House of Delegates
was resumed.
The question before the House was the
following: The report of the Committee
provided House of forty six members to
be distributed on the basis of the white
population, except that small counties hav-
ing halfthe ratio of representation required
of the populous counties should have del
egate independently, and uniting in dele
gate districts counties whose population
falls below one half of the ratio. Mr.. Lamb
had proposed to substitute fifty-four for
forty-Six, in order to give an additional
delegate to two or three counties which had
large fractions with house of ,forty-six,
and with view of making the apportion-
ment nearer equal. Mr.. Stewart amended
this land the amendment was adopted) so
as to give with house of fifty-four mem
bers, each county ut least one delegate. To
the amendment in this shape Mr.. Brown of
hanawha moved an amendment to add five
more members to the House, so as to give
an additional delegate to several counties,
(Kanawha, Greeubrier Monroe, &c.
On this question of amending the amend
ment by increasing the number of the
House of Delegates to SO, the discussion
took place.
Mr.. PARKER led off in opposition. He
was opposed to the proposition of Mr..
Brown because, while it favored some
counties, it Disseminated against others,
his own (CabelD among them; and OPP
posed to the principle engrafted GU the
amendment by Mr.. Stuart, because it was
at variance with the we'll established prin-
ciple that one free white man was entitled
to as much representation as another
which was violated by giving small coun-
ty as much representation as one double its
population.
Mr.. BRowN of Kanawha, followed. He
advocated giving each of the counties II
delegate as just and equitable principle,
contending that county was unit or en-
tIty, containing separate organization.
lie held that by the adoption of Mr.. Stu
arts amendment, this question had been
settled, and the only question now to be
decided was, whether in addition to this
feature the House should consist of "a or
30 members. He said there were two
principles to be governed by: the one was
representation by population, and the 9TH
er equality of representation for the coun-
ties. These were to be harmouizcd as
well as practicable. The principle of a
representative for each county had been
adopted, and it only remained to be seen
how they could adjust the principle of
representation according to population
among the larger counties, so as to leave
the smallest fractions unreprcscnted.-
Fifty-nine effected this better than fC-
ty-tour, on the general principle that
the larger the House the smaller the
fractions wonld be; but he argued and
produced calculations to show, that 50
would make IL more equitable distribution
OF delegates to the counties entitled by
their population to moro than one, than
either 46 or 50, or any other without fur.
; Their charging the number, and all had
agreed that it would not do to make the
) House too large.
MIR. LAME opposed the amendment for
} exactly opposite the last reason of Mr.. 3. as
given above. His calculations showed a
different result He opposed the principle
OF giving each county one delegate ir-
respective of population, because it WAS n
violation of one of the grandest fundamen-
tai principles of republican government, OF
J equal representation, or representation ac-
cordlng to population, u principle they had
already adopted in the report on General &
Fundamental Provisions, and of which
they had affirmed that it should be adhered
to as nearly as possible The principle
proposed by Mr.. Stuart was one against
which Philip Doddridge and his compeers
IN this part of the State fought in the State
Legislature before 1890, and against which
the people of Western Virginia had ALWAYS
and justly protested. He opposed it too,
because it gave twenty-five counties with
II population of 81 1885, twenty-five repre-
sentatlves in the Legislature, while the
same number of loyal counties with a pop.
ulatlon OF 100000 would have but thirty
two. The small counties would have one
representative for every 1920, while the
loyal ones would have one for every GGS Il
OF their pOpulation-making one white
man in sparscly populated county
equal to two in the more pOpulous.-
lie opposed 1t, too, because the populous
counties of the State contributed to the
State Treasury some $3.50 900 annually.
and the small counties which would have
at least equal representation pay only II
little over 100000, so that the counties
paying less than one-third the revenue,
could easily control the disposition of ali
the revenues of tue State in other words
that one half of the State would furnish
the means and the other half use it,
But he planted his chief opposition on
principle, and il this Fundamental princi-
pie OF democratic government was to be
swept out of existence, and ignored i'll the
new Constitution, for one he could not 90
NAS SOHSttueuIS anu ASK them to
adopt that Constitution, which would place
them lower in the scale of representation
than the negro of the South is placed in
the Constitution of the United States.
Air. STUART of DOddridge, replied briefly,
adducing calculations to show that grave
Inequalities of representation existed even
under the plan of the committee, advocated
by Mr. Lamb.
Mr.: BATTELLE protested against the
principle of representing county lines in
stead of people. The question to be de-
clded he regarded as a most momentous
one. The proposition of AR Stuort :;