Los Angeles herald., 1892-01-31

BY B. A. CECIL -STEPHENS-ARTICLE XIII. |
The history of the separation OF West
Virginia is as follows:
In May, 1861, the state of Virginia
passed an ordinance of secession, which
was drawn by convention and ratified
by the people. The vote was by no
means unanimous, for in the convention
it stood: Ayes, 8S; noes, 55. The pop
ular vote was 6,750 for secession and
GA 1868 against. Immediately on the pas
sage of the ordinance, Governor Letcher
seized all federal property in the state of
Virginia. Representatives of forty loyal
counties met in convention at Wheeling
in June, 1861, and repudiated the Rich
mond ordinance of secession, and reor-
ganized the government of the loyal
state with F. H. Pierpont as governor.
The legislature of the loyal state met
and elected two United States senators.
The congress of the United States nat
urally recognized the loyal state. On
May 13, 1862, the legislature of the loyal
etate of Virginia consented, under the
clause in the national constitution "for
the Remembering of the large states"
to the division of the state and the for
nation of the new state of West Vir-
ginia. Under the provisions of the
same clause (article iv, section 81 of the
national constitution, congress, by act
of December 81. 1862, assented
to the proposed division of the loyal
state of Virginia, on the condition, how
ever, that the new state should incor-
porate an anti-slavery clause in it's con-
stitution. This condition being ratified
by the people of West Virginia, the new
state was admitted to the union py the
proclamation of President Lincoln on
April 20, 1868. Governor Pierpont at
once removed the capital of the loyal
state of Virginia from Wheeling to Alex
andria. CONDENSED from the Amer.
Cyc.)
The subsequent admission of the coun-
ties of Berkeley and jefferson was con-
tested by Virginia, but the federal
supreme court decided in favor of West
Virginia. (See Am. Cyc.) The legal
history of the contest between the states
of Virginia for the possession of these
counties is found in the United States
supreme court reports, by Stephen K.
Williams, book 20, page 67, ct seq. The
commonwealth of Virginia, complainant,
VS.. the state of West Virginia. Juris-
diction of state over counties.
There was an agreement between the
old state and the new that the counties
of Berkeley, Jefferson and Frederick
should become part of latter state, SUBJ
ject to the condition alone that the
voters OF said counties should consent.
Congress, by the act of December 81,
1862, consented to the admission of the
state of West Virginia, with the contin-
gent boundaries provided for in its con-
stitution, and in the statute OF Virginia,
and consented to the agreement of those
states on that subject
Bill in chancery. The bill in this
case was filed in this court by the COM
plainant, to establish jurisdiction over
certain counties claimed as a part Of
West Virginia. The act passed May 13,
1852, contained these sections:
SO. Be it further enacted, that the
consent OF the legislature of Virginia be,
and the same is hereby given, that the
counties of Berkeley, Jefferson and
Frederick ehall be included in and form
part of the state of West Virginia,
whenever the voters of said counties
shall ratify and assent to the said con-
stitution, at an election held for the pur-
pose, at such time and under such reg
ulations as the commissions named in
thesschedule may prescribe"
The act passed January 81, 63, pro-
vided for an election in Berkeley county.
The act passed February 4, 1868, pro.
vided for an election in certain other
counties, including Jefferson and Fred
erick.
The act passed December 5, 1866, re-
cites that the conditions prescribed in
the above acts had not been complied
with, that the consent of congress had
not been obtained, so that the proceed
ings heretofore had on this
subject are simply inchoate. .
repealed all the said statutes above
named. and withdrew all consent to the
transfer Of any of said counties.
March 10, 1866, congress passed a
resolution asserting to the transfer OF
the said counties to West Virginia. Vir-
gnia at that time had no representation
in congress.
The attorneys for Virginia argued that
the acts of states in reference to
their territory are not to be
interpreted by technical rules,
words. The legislation of
fHSlIld, dS W bu6 Ccs6lOu VI iIc COuu-
ties of Jefferson and Berkeley to the
state of West Virginia, was only a pro-
posal to become operative as a transfer
OF territory upon certain conditions.
The general duty of state to
preserve itself in all its parts, and not
to cut off by cession of territory and
Jurisdiction any of it's people and their
property is clear and acknowledged. The
duty, yields only to some necessity in
cumbent on the state, or to considera-
tions arising from the wishes OF that
part OF Its people where cession is in
question.
The attorneys for the respondent ar
gued that by the acts OF January and
February, 1868, the governor Of the
state was made the exclusive Judge to
decide whether the elections directed
by those laws to be held in the counties
in controversy, Jefferson and Berkeley,
were duly held and conducted, and
whether majority Of the people at such
elections voted in favor Of annexation
to Went Virginia. They denied