Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1877-02-01

The Richmond Whig gives the fol-
lowing in its report of the legislative
proceedings on reducing representation
at once:
The proposed re-apportionment of
members of the General Assembly was
up again for consideration in the House
OF Delegates Saturday. Judge Allen,
of Shenandoah, said that there are three
propositions: First. that. of Mr.. Gray. of
Fluvanna, who maintained that the re-
apportionment can be now made to
take effect this year under the con-
stitution; that Of the minority report, as
explained and urged by Gen. Tailiaferro,
of Gloucester, that no re-apportionment
can be made by this Legislature. and
that no re-apportionment can take effect
until 1879; and that Of the majority re-
port, which simply declares that an
apporhonment can now be made to
take effect in 1879 under the constitution
and re-apportionment to take effect inn
mediately under the law. Before dis
cussing any of these propositions he
adverted to the position of Gen.
Taliaferro that Senators and other legis-
lators have vested right in their seats;
and contended that this is not so. for
there is no contract between them and
the State. and they cannot stand in the
way of needed changes. AS to re-
pportlonmcnt, it can now be done
because is not forbidden by the Con-
stitution as it now stands. The old
nf ttnt :,,ct ,.,,Y
stricken out and destroyed as to this
question. and we have nothing to do
with them. The amendments in serted
III lieu Of what is stricken out are the
organic law Of Virginia now. That
organic law authorizes Il re-apportion-
ment by section 4, of article 5, to be
made at the session Of the Legislature
next preceding the November election
Of 1879, scr sooner.' This re-ap-
portionment, whether made at the SEES
sion indicated, ''or sooner" must be
made i'll accordance with the provisions
Of sections and 3 of article 5, which
are the only provisions contained in the
Constitution directing how an apportlon-
ment shall be made, to take effect from
and after the November election, 1879.
There is nothing in the Constitution as
to the apportionment Of the Legislature
Of lS77-'78, and the act of 1901 is
the only existing authority for the meet
ing Of this Legislature at this session,
Or for the existence Of the next Lee
gislature. If that act be repealed there
would be no warrant for the election
and assembling of General Assembly
this year, nor until from and after the
November election, 1879. But that
act is in force until amended or repealed
by the Legislature. The usury law Of
lS69-'70 was held to be binding, by the
courts although the constitutional pro-
vision under which it had been enacted
had been stricken out until repealed by
the acts of 1928. This being the case.
and the Constitution neither forbidding
nor prescribing any apportionment for
the next Legislature, it is perfectly
competent in this General Assembly to
amend the existing apportionmcnt as
may be demanded by the public veal
saving to the State some $4,000
Because the constitution has prescribed
an apportionment for 1879 affords no
implication against an earlier and DIFF
ferent one, or even the same apportion-
ment. 1t Is like the schedule of a rail-
road company, to take effect at GER
tain date. and does not preclude a new
schedule for the intervening time. He
held that under the constitution as it is.
a re-apportionment can be made now
for 1879, and re-apportionment can
be made for 1877 by amending the
existing law.
The house passed the re-apportion-
ment bill with only a few dissenting
votes. 1t is now before the senate
where it will have to run severe ordeal.
Twenty-three of the senators have two
years to serve, which they will lose by
the passage Of this bill. The effect of
it is tolegislate them all out of office.
and commence anew with Is less sena-
tors and 80 less delegates.