Daily Republican., 1882-10-26
THURSDAY, OCTOBER % 1854,
MIR, Williams and Representation

Mr.. Williams and Representation
Some days ago Hon. 7. n. Williams
denied through the Every Evening that
he was opposed to increased represent
tation and accused US of misrepresent-
ing him when we said that he
moved to indefinitely postpone Mr..
Bradford's resolution to appoint a Joint
committee to consider the subject and
report bill. We were not SO sure that
we had misrepresented Mr.. Williams,
and hence were not ready to make
hasty apologies. We have looked
through the late House journal and we
are now prepared to state the whole
proceedings. Mr.. Bradford introduced
his joint resolution looking towards in
creased represen' alton for New Castle
county on Thursday, March 10th. Mr.
Williams Immediately objected to the
e consideration of the resolution, when
of course it had to lie over under rule
"a. We are free to admit that we
were wrong in stating that Mr.. Will
lians moved the indefinite postpone
ment of the resolution. He merely OBJ.
jected, which was equivalent to post
ponement but not to any fixed time.
Mr.. Williams states that had he been
present when the vote was taken on the
resolution he would have voted for it.
OF course the object of Mr.. Williams
was to show that he was in favor of the
resolution, but the question arises, why
then amongst twenty one members he
was the first to object to the Considera.
ton of the resolution? Men do not
often act thus with project that they
favor. At any rate the resolution was
prevented from passing when intro
duced by the objection of Mr.. Williams
There is no rubbing that out.
On the following Monday, March
14th, Mr.. Bradford called up his reso.
luton and put it upon its tiual passage
All the members of the House were
present except Mr.. Williams, Demo-
crat of Sussex, and Mr.. Woodkeeper,
Republican of New C7stle. Mr.. Brad.
ford evidently looked upon Mr.. Will
Iiams as being opposed to the resolution;
he knew Mr.. WoCdkeeper was in favor
of it, and therefore one vote offset the
other. Had he known that Mr.. Will.
liams was ia favor Cf the resolution he
would not have r1skPd its passage with
two members absent who were in favor
of it, Mr. Williams may have been in
favor of the resolution, but unfortu
nately neither Mr.. Bradford nor any
other member seemed TO know it, The
vote on the resolution was taken and
the ''ayes" ard "naS 3" = ere as follows
Ayeg-M Messrs. Bradford, Eastburn,
Eliason, Pllling, Register, Swayne,
Townsend, VanBu-kalow and A. G.
Williams.
Nays-Messrs. Cahall, Jones, GEa-
ham, Matthews, McNeal, Moore, Rob
inson, Stay ton, Tomlinson and Speaker
IRsynear Williams).
Absent-Messrs. T. N. Williams and
WOOdkeeper.
The majority against the resolution
was only one. Mr.. Bradford would
have been censurable for pressing his
resolution to vote with Mr.. 7. N.
Williams, who says he was in favor OF
1t, absent. He was too faithful to the
interests of New Castle county to have
taken such a risk. Mr.. Woodkeeper,
as We have already stated, was known
to be in favor Of the resolution, and
hence the absence of him and Mr..
Williams could make no difference in
the relative vote. We ara still disposed
to question the sincerity of Mr.. Will
iiams On the question of representation,
notwithstanding his assertion that he
was in favor of it and would have voted
for 1t had he been present. 1t was no
partisan question, but merely one Of
right and justice to New Castle county.
Amongst the nine affirmative votes in
favor of it were the names Of Messrs,
Register, VanBurkalow aud A. G
Williams, Democrats. There was q
Williams in the affirmative but not T
N. Neither of these three gentlemen
who were really in favor of and voted
for the resolution objected to its pas
sage when it was first introduced, and
there fore the anomaly is not on record
of q m ember opposing and ring the
same resolution. 1t Is gem ly the