Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1866-01-23
A CONGRESSIONAL REPORT ON THE
STATUS OF JEFFERSON AND BERKE-


State of West Virginia This report is
mainly based upon errors of fact-doubtless
caused by the wilful Misrepresentation made
to the Committee by the persons who have
espoused the cause of the new State; and
these errors are SO many, and are influencing
the opinions of the members to such extent,
that we think Congress owes it to itself, as
we'll as to the people of the two counties, to-
order testimony to be takenupon all the facts
bearing upon the question.
The report comedies that Jefferson county
was not transferred to West Virginia by rea-
son of any legislation prior to the Virginia
Act of February i, 1868. 1t contends, how
ever, that the assent of Congress was pre-
viously given to the transfer, by virtue of
provision in the Constitution of West Vir-
ginia, which permitted the addition of new
territory to its limits. Tt is true that this
Constitution was before Congress at tho
time of the admission of the new State,
but as it forms no part of the bill
of admission it cannot be fairly construed as
any such assent Of Congress, and that the
House of Representatives did not so regard
it is evident from their adoption of the report
OF the Committee on Elections, of which Mr..
Dawes was chairman, submitted at the session
Of 1S63-Gf, in the case of the contested cleo
ton between Kitchen and Mackenzie. The
bill names forty. eight counties of the old State,
and erects then, into the State of West Vir-
ginia and neither Jefferson or Berkeley Is
embraced in the list.
The act of February i, 1868, which gives
the consent of Virginia to the transfer of
Jefferson, and which the report regards as
conclusive of the case SO far as Virginia is
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS that the election, by
which the sense of the voters of the county
was to be obtained, as condition precedent
to the transfer, should be held on the 4th
Thursday of May, 1868, and that ga poll
should be ope"cA at each place Of votimg IN
the County," The Report says that polls
were opened in Jefferson 20 in accordance with
the provisions of the above act" This is
wide of the truth, ard shews that the Com
mittce have been purposcly deceived There
are eight places Of voting in Jefferson, and
polls were opened at t,co only of these places,
and no attempt was made to open them at
any OF the others. One poll was opened at
Shephcrdstown and one at Harpcr's Ferry
aud, during the day Of election, less than 100
votes were polled, out Of voting population
ranging from 1900 to 1900. These two
polls are both north of the Baltimore and
Ohio railroad-a line that was closely and
strictly guarded by a chain Of military SEN
tinels, through which it was almost impossi-
bic to obtain the privilege of passing No
notice Of the intended election was ever given
to the people living south and west Of the
road, and no poll was ever opened this side of
that chain of sentinels; and We venture tho
assertion that there is not one man in each
hundred of those living at and near the
county seat, Charlestown, kabletowu, aud
Smithheld, that ever heard Of the intended
election, until long after the day on which it
was held had passed. Is this, then. TO be re-
gardcd as hn!d:ng an election " in accord
ancc with the provisions of the act Of Fcbru-
airy I, 1868 ?" 1t ia true, We admit that
Governor Picrpoint proclaimed that the cleo
ton was so held, but that Is by no means
proof of the fact, and should not be so cs-
teemcd by Congress. The Governor was
easily imposed upon; but even if lie had ia
ken the trouble to examine the poll-books,
he would have there had proof that polls
were opened at neither Of the other sic, and
but slight further cxcrtion on his part would
have satisfied him that, owing to the Mill
tary occupancy of the greater portion OF the
county, it would have been impossible to hold
anV fair election at that time
The State Of West Virginia accepted the
transfer, thus Illegally made, by formal act
of Nov. I'd, 1868. In the estimation of the
Committee this settles the whole question
at least so far as the two States are concerned
The Report argues that Virginia had 10 right
to withdraw her consent, and says: mo
principle OF law is better settled than that nm
executed grant cannot be rcrokcd by tic
gr0nt0r 1cuhoW the consent ofhe yyuntce"-
This may be good law; but is it appIiea-
bic to this case? The contract, compuct, or
grant, if You choose so to call it, was not ccc-
cu'eI at the time Virginia withdrew from it
and is not yet. 1t was merely in process of
execution; and there is another principle of
law that gives to any party to a contract the
right to withdraw from it at any time before
it is fully cxccutcd-for instance: if three
men design contracting for any purpose, two
ofthem signing the contract, either of them
can erase his signature and withdraw before
the third party signs. In this case the third
party required by the Constitution to COM
pletc the contract, Congress, not having con-
tracted, or consented to the compact, either
Of the other two has the undoubtcd right le>
gally speaking, to withdraw any consent pre-
Viousy given.
Virginia having repealed the Act of Feb
ruary +: 1868, before any action of Congress
on the subject was had, and Congress having
been officially notified OF the fact, We cannot
see what right now exists in Cocgrcss to sane
ton the transfer. But should Congress pass
the bill as reported by the Committee, docs
that act complete the transfer? We think