The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-01-31

and can only be suspended by d two
thirds vote. A roll call was demanded on
The resolution. ami the vote on It's adoD-
ton was - ayes TO 3 noes-Aessrs. Barks-
dale, EggleSton and A1assie voting in the
negative.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
The Constitutional 81 Convention bills
We're taken up as. the special order for
1880 o'clock. The Flood bill provides for
q convention of 100 rlenbe on the basis
of the House apportionment, and the
Sands bill for a convention of eighty
members on the basis OF two to each
OF the forty Senatorial Districts
1t was agreed to first take up the Flood
bill.
Mr.. Egsleston offered an amendment to
hold the election for delegates on May
1st instead of May 23d, the date of the
general election. lie urged that nearly u
month could be saved by this change.
He thought il better to have a separate
election.
Mr.. Flood called attention to the decla-
ration of the Democratic Convention on
economy. The motion was lost.
MEMBERSHIP IN CONVENTION.
Mr.. Lupton offered the following amend
ment: All persons shall BE qualified to
vote for delegates to the convention who
are entitled to vote for members of the
General Assembly. and all persons shall
he eligible to membership in the conven-
ton who are eligible to membership in
the General Assembly inder the Consti-
tuition and laws of the Commonwealth.
AR. Lupton stated frankly that the object
of the amendment was to exclude office
holders.
Mr.. Wickham opposed the passage of
the amendment. and argued that the peo-
pie should be free to send any man they
may desire.
Mr. Flood and Mr.. Clayton also spoke
against the amendment Mr.. LuDtons
amendment was lost.
DELEGATES AT -LARGE.
Mr. Barksdale offered an amendment
providing for ten delegates-at-Iarse.
Mr.. Sands here offered section three Of
his BILL relating to apportionment, as a
substitute for section four of the Flood
bill. The Sands apportionment provides
for two from each Senatorial district,
making a body of eighty, while the Flood
apportionment is according to that OF
the House of Delegates, making a body
of one hundred. Mr.. Sands called
attention to the fact that the precedents
of the conventions of 1929 and 1850 were on
his side He stated that he would even
favor so small a convention as sixty. The
great New York State Convention of 1894
numbered only f5, and was elected by
senatorial districts.
Mr.. Esgieston spoke for Mr..
Barksdase's amendment to provide for
ten delegates at large, and called atten-
ton TO tho danger of small local men
shutting out larger men OF State reputa-
ton.
Mr.. Clayton argued for one delegate
for each congressional district. He thought
the convention should not go ever 100
Mr.. Flood stated he would prefer
apportionnent by senatorial DISTRICTS, and
the ten or twenty additional delegates
given where there have been large in
creases in population, rather than by con-
gresstonal districts or at large for the
state.
Mr. Barksdaie withdrew his amend
ment and Mr. Wicl5ham introduced a
each congressional district. He argued
that this would give the districts which
have> largely increased in population the
proper Representa-
LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES,.
Mr.. Tyler spoke for the Justice of
giving ag additional local representative
TO the large senatorial districts which
have increased greatly in population,
AIMING them Newport News and there
abputs.
Mr. Maynard told of the growth of
Portsmouth and how it should be Ade-
ellately represented.
Mr. Flood called attention to coun-
ties like Rockhridge and AllaehanV, /
which have grown Very much in poplla- /
ton.
Mr. Sands accepted ar wiekham's
amendment.
Mr. Lyle told of the growth OF his
district and the justice OF giving it an
additional representative.
The discussion turned on the question