The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-02-27
Mr. GIbson's Vote on the Capital Bill.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES,
WHEELING, February 26. I
70 Tue Editor OF the Intolligencer:

To the Editor OF the Int0lligencer:
A recent attack upon the Hon. Mr..
Gibson, of Preston county, by cores
pondent OF the INTELLIGENCER, on ac-
count OF the vote hG cast upon the Capt.
tai question, seems to call for brief
recital of the facts connected with the
case. On the second day of the session,
resolution was introduced in the
House, expressing as the sense of the
members that they were in favor of
location of the Capital during this ses-
sion, and pledging themselves to do all
in their power to secure 1t. This reso-
luton was adopted without dissenting
voice, virtually binding every member
of the House to cast his vote for that
place which showed the greatest
strength in the House. Some voted,
during the entire progress of this Dill,
without regard 10 this resolutions; 9TH
ers, acknowledging it's binding effect,
cast their votes in accordance with
their conscientious convictions. Let
Gibson. whom your correspondent,
Chas. Hooton, criticises with some seve-
rity. Every vote that he cast upon the
Capital question was given for Grafton,
when that place was in nomination.
He eloquently urged its claims upon
the Legislature and worked earnestly
and with effect to secure its location
there. Can the same be said of Mr..
Crane, whose conduct the winter before
YourlcOrrespondent contrasts with that
of Mr.. Gibson? He voted for Grafton
but twice during the entire session,
throwing his influence and votes for
Buckhannon. l do not cite this as
reflection upon Mr.. Crane he had
right to do it. But, If Grafton was the
first choice of Preston county, as your
correspondent asserts, then hei Crane
did not represent the wishes of his con-
atituents in but two ballots.
Mr.. Gibson did not vote for Parkers-
burg except upon the final passage of
the bill, and then, under the following
circumstances. Twenty-eight votes had
been cast for Parkersburg; one OF the
friends of that place Mr.. Ballard,
of Logan county, was absent that day
on account of illness. AS it lacked one
vote for the election-Mr. GibsOn's vote
was yet recorded against it-a motion
was made, before the announcement of
the vote by the chair, to hold the bal
lot open, under the rule, until the next
day, with n view to obtain Mr.. Bal
lard's presence, if possible, and thus
decide the question. The yeas and
nays were taken upon this motion and
it was lost; but before the announce,
ment of the vote Mr.. Gibson, who had
been informed of the result of the vote
TO keep the ballot open, changed his
vote, and announced the reason, sub
St0nLlally III Iue lOllO"luP "OEus'
fined that the passage of this bill lacks
but one vote.aOnl the second day of
this session we unanimously adopted
a resolution, pledging ourselves to set,
tie this question this session. find
that my vote will now do it, and that
the defent of this bill will defeat location
this session. In accordance with the
obligations OF my vote on that resolu-
ton and in accordance with the prompt
ings OF AN approving conscience,
now ask to have my vote recorded in
favor of the passage of the bill, believ-
ing that in doing so, 1 reflect the sentl-
ments of my constituents in removing
this vexed question from legislative
influence" If Mr.. Ballard had been
present, Mr.. Gibson's vote would un-
dOubtedly have been recorded against
the bill. No member on the floor of
the House perfarmed more efficient
labor in behalf OF his favorite locality
than did Mr.. Gibson. His whole action
was that of an honorable and upright
man, and, l believe, ;hat the unani-
nous sense of the House would be that
his course has been consistent, and his
obligations to his constituents been
faithfully discharged. a MEMBER.