The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-01-18
GhtqntelIiqst
ReappOrtionment OF Repres:crh'dt-
alton In the House Of Deie

Reapportionment OF Rcprescn1t- +
alton In the House Of Deie
gates.
The Weston Democrat of last week con-
tains the report Of the special senate
committee to whom was referred, at the
late session Of the Legislature, the ques-
tiou whether the present appoFtionment
Of rspre.entatiOn in the House OF Dele
oate. ouch. to be changed so as to give
certoin counties a representation more
nearly corresponding with their present
popuiation. This committee consisted
Of Messrs. J. N. Bennett (chairman),
David Goa, NJ. S. Grantham, George
Loomis, Ira ]. McGinnis, Winston Shell
ton, r. F. Dennis and Alfred Caldwell.
All Of these Senators, except Mr.. Cald-
we'll, reported in favor Of reapportioning
the representation so as to give each
county in the State at least one delegate,
and also in favor OF adding one delegate
to the following counties, viz: Wetzel,
Taylor, Barbour, Lewis, Ritchie, Wood,
Jackson, Cabell and Greenbrier. Mr..
Caldwell dissented on the following
grounds, as stated by himself:
"I claim that the county OF Ohio should
have two additional delegates, and dis
sent from 80 much of the report as re-
commends that each county shall have
one delegate at least"
The new apportionment would make the
total number Of delegates Il instead ot 65
as now. OF these the First Congressional
District would have %, the Second %,
and the Third 81. Ohio county would
have, as now, four delegates, and Kama
wha and Wood would have three each in
stead Of . as now, while Barbour, Berke-
ley, Cabell, Greenbrier, Harrison, Jack
son, Jefferson, Lewis, Marion, Marshall,
Mason, Monongalia, Preston, Richie and
Wetzel would have two each, and all the
remaining counties one each.
The present representation is based
upon the census OF 1870, at which time
the population Of the State was 1904,
giving to each delegate IN average consti'
tuency Of G,S9O. The committee assume
from the number OF tithables returned to
the Auditors office for 1875, viz: l0O,5lO,
that the present population is 526,957
and that the same rate Of progression vii
give US for this year 547,44S. Dividing
this number by G,sOO would give til,
State II delegates. Mr.. Caldwell con
tends that Ohio county with an estimated
population this year of Ss,o25, should
have, in order to be on equality with sucl
county as Lewis, (the estimated pop
ulation Of which is set down at 1851 fol
thisyear) six delegates, inasmuch MS the
same division, viz: 6,SOO, will give Ohio
county 3 &c and Lewis county l SO. But
Mr.. Bennett 1--WE take it the figures in the
Democrat arc his) contends that this ruiz
does not apply, but that the rule of ex'
ce,ses ought to govern. That is to say
that while Lewis county would have an
excess of 5,771 over hOr present ratio, oil
say sc upon her one representative
Ohio county would nothayc quite one
half upon each one of her present repre-
sentatives.
The argument of territory, as well al
population, is combined with that oi
excess" by Mr.. Benefits committee
This argument (Of territory is probably
admissible, as it is the same observed ii
tie representation of States in the Fed
eral Union, but it is not an argument
why ll,725 excess of population should
be DISTINGUISHED in this county. Mr.. Ben
netts excess Of 5,771 persons in Lewis
county, over and above his divisor oil
$500, is Just as much and no more enti
tied to an additional delegate than is ou
ll,725 OF excess to two delegates. 1t i
said in the Democrats article that
"The four counties OF Taylor, Green
brier, Richie and Jackson represen
62,l2O inhabitants, which exhibits an ex
cess Of 24,920 unrepresented, and the ag
gregate excess in Ohio is II, 1926"
The fallacy Of this statement consist
in this, that when the 52,l2O inhabitant
referred to are given s delegates las pro
posed) there will be no excess at al
There will actually be small excess" o'
the wrong side of the books, because
will only divide into 52,l2O about G,5lt
times, instead Of the $500 thatit ought te
Now the point We make is this, viz
that inasmuch as there is no excess what
ever, in the four counties named, to b
uuroprcscnted under the new apportion
ment proposed, why should the excess il
this county be unrepresentedS