OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE T K VI-VII REPRESENTATION IN VIRGINIA JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN HlSTOKICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor History is past Politics and Politics are present History freeman FOURTEENTH SERIES VI-VII REPRESENTATION IN VIRGINIA BY JULIAN A. C. CHANDLER, A. M. BALTIMORE THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS PUBLISHED MONTHLY June and July, 1896 COPYRIGHT, 1896, BY THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS. JOHN MURPHY 4 CO., PRINTERS, BALTIMORE. PREFACE. This monograph represents a few chapters of a larger work on the Constitutional History of Virginia, which the writer has in preparation. The investigation has been conducted in an impartial spirit, and with the desire to state truthfully and unre- servedly the facts in regard to a special field of our State History which has been overlooked. Only representation in the State Legislature, and not Federal representation, has been here treated. This work shows that the following systems of representation have existed in the State : (1). Representation by settlements or plantations with no defi- nite number of representatives from each settlement. (2). Parish and county representation without a fixed number of delegates from either the parishes or counties. (3). Representation by counties only, two representatives from each county, neither more nor less, whether the counties were large or small. (4). Representation to the College of William and Mary in accordance with the English custom of allowing representation to the Universities. (5). Borough representation, granted by the town charters, or by an act of the General Assembly. (6). From 1830 to 1851, an arbitrary system of representation without a constitutional basis. (7). Beginning with 1852, another arbitrary system of repre- sentation to continue till 1865, when the Legislature should make a reapportionment ; but, in case of failure to do so, a plan was provided by which a constitutional basis was to be adopted by the vote of the people. (8). Representation apportioned by the so-called " Underwood Constitution," and based on the registered voters of 1867, with a provision for reapportionments after every census, but with no constitutional basis for such reapportionmente. 5 6 Preface. [260 (9). Representation apportioned in 1878 and 1891 with refer- ence to population and county boundaries. A noteworthy fact in regard to the present system of represen- tation is that there is no constitutional basis, and that the General Assembly has the power to adopt plans for each reapportionment. Throughout this work the attempt has been made to trace the causes and effects of all movements in regard to representation. 1 By this means light is thrown on the internal conditions of Vir- ginia. The different interests of the two great sections, the one east, and the other west, of the Blue Ridge, are shown. The inability to settle upon a satisfactory basis of representation is seen to have been due to the unequal distribution of the slave population between the eastern and western portions of the State. The inequality of representation, from the standpoint of white population, is shown to have produced much discontent in West- ern Virginia during the period beginning about 1800 and lasting till 1851, and, as a result, the division of the State was often spoken of and discussed. In short, the jealousy existing until 1851 between Eastern and Western Virginia had its origin in the representative system. The principal sources used in the preparation of this monograph are the Acts of the General Assembly (1619-1891) ; the Journals of the General Assembly, as many as could be found ; the Pro- ceedings and Debates, and the Journals and Documents, of the Constitutional Conventions of 1829-30, of 1850-51, and of 1867- 68 ; and the contemporary newspapers. Other authorities are also cited in the foot-notes. Thanks are due to Professor H. B. Adams, of the Johns Hop- kins University, and to Messrs. W. W. Scott and W. G. Stanard, of the Virginia State Library, for valuable suggestions. J. A. C. CHANDLER. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD., April, 1896. x To furnish an adequate treatment of the history of representation, I have introduced an account of the several constitutional conventions, detailing at the same time the repeated fights in the Legislature over the convention question. This ought to be of some interest to the present politicians of the State, since the recent Legislature passed, in March, a bill to submit to the voters, in 1897, the question of a convention to amend the present constitution. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Steps to Representative Government Charters of 1606, 1609 and 1612 First Legislative Assembly in 1619 Ordinance of London Company, 1621 9 CHAPTER II. REPRESENTATION IN THE COLONIAL PERIOD AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF 1776. Representation by settlements, plantations, boroughs, parishes and counties Constitution of 1776 General Assembly of two houses Defects of the Constitution of 1776 14 CHAPTER III. THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUALIZING REPRESENTATION, Jefferson's opposition to the county system Madison's attempt for a constitutional convention, 1784 Repeated attempts in the Legislature Petitions The western portion of the State most discontented Winchester and Staunton Conventions of 1816 Senate reapportioned in 1816 Staunton Convention of 1825 Constitutional Convention Bill, 1828 Organization of the Convention 20 CHAPTER IV. THE FIGHT OVER REPRESENTATION IN THE CON- VENTION OF 1829-30. Prominence of the members The different elements in the Con- vention The white basis and the mixed basis Attempts at compromise Failure to adopt a constitutional basis 32 CHAPTER V. THE STEPS TO THE CONVENTION OF 1850-51. Internal Improvements ; their connection with representation Condition of Eastern and Western Virginia Jealousy between the sections due to the system of representation Attempts to reapportion representation in 1840, 1841 and 1842 Lewisburg Convention, 1843 Attempts for a Constitutional Convention Staunton Convention in 1846 Constitutional Convention Bill Approval by the people Organized on the mixed basis... 45 7 8 Contents. [262 CHAPTER VI. THE REFORM CONVENTION OP 1850-51. PAGE. Fight over white and mixed basis West vs. East Compromise Discontent of the East The new system of representation Disappearance of sectional animosity in regard to represen- tation 60 CHAPTER VII. THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF EEPRESENTATION. West Virginia organized as a State Alexandria Government Constitutional Convention of 1867-68 Representation gerry- mandered Apportionments of 1878 and 1891 Comments on the present system 72 REPRESENTATION IN VIRGINIA. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. By a charter dated April 10, 1606, James I authorized the settlement of two colonies in the territory of Virginia. Each colony was to have a resident council of thirteen to govern according to the laws and ordinances constituted by the king. In addition to these, there was to be one supreme council in England having control, under the supervision of the king, of the government of the two colonies. 1 Following this charter, on November 20, 1606, James issued the articles of government for the two colonies. 2 These were the laws by which the colonies were to be governed. James appointed the " Council of Virginia " (the council residing in England), granting it no power or authority except at his pleasure and will. It was simply to have the power to appoint the subordinate councils that were to reside in Virginia, and to give directions for the governing of the same. The king reserved to himself the right to " change, alter, or abolish " the council. 1 Hening, I, 57-67. The two colonies are spoken of as " first " and " second." The " first " colony was to be anywhere between 34 and 41 parallels of north latitude, and was placed in the hands of the London Company. It is with this that we are concerned. * Hening, I, 67-75. 10 Representation in Virginia. [264 The council resident in the colony was granted the right to select annually one of its own members (not being the minister) as president, and to remove him. It also had the right to adopt ordinances for the " better government and peace of the people," provided they in no way had reference to the " life or member " of any party. These ordinances were to remain in force till made void by the king or council in England. The preceding is a brief summary of the machinery of government under which a colony was established at James- town, May 13, 1607. The government was entirely at the mercy of the king, no powers of self-government being delegated to the settlers. The councils in England and Vir- ginia were both restricted in their power of making ordinances. In short, there is no germ of representative government. " The form of government thus provided for the new colony was cumbrous and complicated, the legislative and adminis- trative powers being so distributed between the local council, the crown and Company, as to involve the dangers of delays, uncertainty, conflict and irresponsibility. By the words of the charter, the colonists were invested with the rights of Englishmen; yet, as far as political rights were concerned, there being no security provided by which they could be vindicated, they might often prove to be of no more real value than the parchment on which they were written. However, the government of such an infant colony must of necessity have been for the most part arbitrary; the political rights must for a time have laid in abeyance." l May 23, 1609, James granted a charter 2 organizing the London Company into a corporation. This charter was granted because the colony had not prospered under its former management, and the expense to the Company had been so great, that it applied to the king for an extension of its Campbell, Hist, of Fa., p. 37. 2 Another charter had been granted in 1607, but it was simply to enlarge the Council in England. Hening, I, 76-79. 265] Introduction. 11 privileges and powers ; so the Company was incorporated with stockholders numbering more than six hundred persons and some fifty-six companies : the Company and its successors to be perpetual. A perpetual council, numbering about fifty-two, was established, the king appointing the first members and the treasurer, but afterwards the whole Company was to elect a councillor, or the treasurer, when a vacancy occurred. The Council was authorized to elect all officers for the local govern- ment in the colony and to " make, ordain, and establish all manner of orders, laws, directions, instructions, forms and ceremonies of government" for the colony, or "to abrogate, revoke or change " the same. 1 This charter is very note- worthy because it made the Council and Company self-perpetu- ating, and because the king practically gave up all control over the colony. The powers granted were wide in their scope, and formed the basis for the establishment of representa- tive government in Virginia without recourse to the king. The London Company now changed the form of government in the colony. The local council was removed, and, instead, the colony was to be ruled by a governor, lieutenant governor and admiral. 2 As yet the colony was not sufficiently popu- lated for a legislative body. 3 In 1612, James granted a new charter in order to extend the jurisdiction of the London Company over islands within three hundred leagues of the continent. 4 He reaffirmed all the old powers, but, in addition, established a weekly court to be composed of not less than twenty members, to act upon minor matters, and matters requiring immediate attention. But for matters of greater weight and importance, such as the " manner of government," the Company was to hold four General Courts each year. Full power was granted these 1 Hening, I, 91. 8 Stith, Hist, of Va., 101. 3 The population in 1616 was about 351 ; in 1618, about 400 ; but in 1619, over 2,000. Neill, Lmd. Co., pp. Ill, 181, 410. 50 70 120 population, 1820. J Apportionment without adopting" any constitutional basis. Calcula- tions on an average between mixed basis and white population, 1829. f White population as constitu-" j tional basis. Western plan. Cen- | sus according to Auditor's state- [ment, 1829. '. f Average of white basis, mixed Mr. Upshur's plan... \ ^sis and Federal Numbers as a con- J stitutional basis. Apportionment ac- [ cording to estimate of 1829. {An average of white basis and~| Federal Numbers as a constitutional >- 47 79 126 basis. Census of 1820. j * Debates of Convention, pp. 492 and 572. a Debates of Convention, p. 571. Leigh said that it was talked of outside the Convention, and Doddridge announced that he individually was think- ing of leaving the Convention, since the Eastern members had announced as their ultimatum that they would not apportion the House of Delegates on the white basis, or vote for any measure which would provide for the adoption of that basis at some future time. 49 77 126 56 64 120 48 72 120 40 Representation in Virginia. [294 the two houses, and by the latter a majority of twenty-eight. 1 Of the two the West preferred Gordon's plan, which, further modified so as to give the East on joint ballot a majority of twenty-seven, was finally adopted in the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 49 to 43. 2 This plan was not satisfactory to the Western members, as it provided no basis for future apportionments. They denounced it as a " mere shift and tem- porary expedient," declaring that the adoption of no constitu- tional basis would mean another convention in the near future, and a continuation of the strife between the two sections. 3 Attempts were then made to adopt a basis for future apportion- ments. Many plans were offered, 4 and the Committee of the Whole finally declared for an average of the white basis and Federal Numbers. 5 On the 18th of December, the Committee of the Whole reported Mr. Gordon's plan to the Convention, and it was passed by a vote of 50 to 46. 6 The measure which the Com- 1 Gordon's original plan was a House of Delegates of 120, 50 from the West and 70 from the East ; and a Senate of 24, 10 from the West and 14 from the East : the Senate was afterwards changed to 32 ; 13, West, and 19, East. Upshur's original plan was a House of Delegates of 120; 48, West, and 72, East : a Senate of 30 ; 13, West, and 17, East. He afterwards changed the Senate to 32 ; 14, West, and 18, East. Debates of Convention, pp. 455, 494, 559, 567, 570. 2 Debates of Convention, p. 574. As adopted by the Committee of the Whole, the House of Delegates was to be 127 : 29 from the Trans-Alleghany district, 24 from the Valley, making for the West 53 ; 40 from the Pied- mont and 34 from Tidewater, making 74 for East. The Senate was to be 32; 13, West, 19, East. 3 Debates of Convention, pp. 570, 571. 4 Doddridge proposed after every census to reapportion the House of Delegates on white basis, and the Senate on Federal Numbers. Another plan was to submit to the people after the next census the question which basis was to be used ; another to take the vote of the people on the white basis, when the new constitution would be submitted, and still another was to adopt the white basis for the House of Delegates and to leave the Senate unchanged. Debates of Convention, pp. 570, 574, 575. 5 Debates of Convention, pp. 574, 575. Mr. Upshur's proposal ; but origin- ally suggested by Marshall. 6 Debates of Convention, p. 668. 295] The Fight aver Representation in 1829-30. 41 mittee of the "Whole reported, making the basis for future apportionments an average between the white basis and Federal Numbers, was so thoroughly distasteful to the Western members, and they asserted with so much vehemence that they would not submit to it, that the members from the East were afraid to push it, and it was defeated. 1 Repeated attempts were still made to adopt some basis. All argued that the matter must be settled for good and all, and forever sunk, or else a division of the State would follow; yet they would not agree. 2 A select committee was appointed to draft a constitution from the resolutions that had been passed. 3 In regard to representation they reported that it was difficult to make the apportionment of delegates to the different counties, and there was complaint of injustice done to some counties. 4 No great difficulty was experienced in regard to the Senate. The Con- vention struck out one hundred and twenty-seven as the number for the House of Delegates, 5 and gave the power to the select committee to apportion representation, provided it l lbid., p. 671. 2 B. W. Leigh presented a plan for a House of Delegates of 139, 56 from the West and 83 from the East. The East was to have no more new counties, but ten could be formed by the Legislature in the West. As population increased, representation could be increased provided the House never exceeded 160. This meant that 21 more members could be added to the House of Delegates. Should the West get all, the East would still have a majority of 6, consequently this plan was not satisfactory to the West. Doddridge offered White basis for the House of Delegates and Federal Numbers for the Senate, to take effect after 1840 ; another proposal was Federal Numbers for the House and white basis for the Senate ; another that in 1840 and every ten years after, a census of the qualified voters be taken and the Legislature make an apportionment in both houses on this basis; and still another, that the Senate be a fixed body, and the House be based on the qualified voters. (Debates of Convention, pp. 675, 676, 680, 681, 689, 690, 705, 749, 751, 765.) 3 Debates of Convention, p. 777. The committee was Madison, Marshall, Doddridge, Chapman Johnson, B. W. Leigh, Tazewell and Cooke. 4 Debates of Convention, p. 798. 5 Debates of Convention, p. 799. 42 Representation in Virginia. [296 was done so as to retain the relative proportion for the four districts of the State. The House of Delegates, however, was not to exceed one hundred and fifty. 1 The committee made the House of Delegates one hundred and thirty-two : thirty from the Trans- Alleghany district, twenty-five from the Val- ley; forty-one from the Piedmont, and thirty-six from the Tidewater section. 2 The Convention changed this by adding one to the Trans- Alleghany district, and one to the Piedmont. 3 It was also agreed that, in 1841 and every ten years after, the Legislature should have the power to reapportion representa- tion, provided no change was made in the number from any district. 4 There was a strong desire to adopt some plan for a reapportionment of the whole State without reference to the districts; so finally a resolution, proposed by Mr. Madison, was carried and introduced into the constitution, that the " General Assembly after the year 1841 and at intervals thereafter of not less than ten years, shall have authority, two-thirds of each house concurring, to make reapportionments of delegates and senators throughout the commonwealth so that the number of delegates shall not at any time exceed one 1 Ibid., p. 808. 2 Ibid., p. 820. 3 Ibid., pp. 847, 848, 898. The clause on representation in the constitu- tion thus made the House of Delegates 134, apportioned as follows: The district west of Alleghany (Trans-Alleghany) . The district between Alleghany and Blue Ridge (Valley) The district between Blue Ridge and Tidewater (Piedmont) The Tidewater section 36 delegates j 26 counties, 31 delegates 14 " 25 " 29 " 42 " 36 counties and three West, 56. - East, 78. The Senate of 30 : West, 13 ; East, 19. This gave the East a majority of 28 in the Legislature. The apportionment was on the census of 1820, according to which the population (white) of the East was 349,073, and of the West 254,208. An apportionment on the white population as it then stood (1830) would have given the West 62 and the East 72 in the House, and in the Senate, the West 15 and the East 17 ; an Eastern majority of only 12. 4 Debates of Convention, pp. 828, 836. 297] The Fight over Representation in 1829-30. 43 hundred and fifty, nor of senators, thirty-six." l These amendments were not satisfactory to the Western members who claimed that it would be impossible ever to get the Legislature to agree, or to get a two-thirds majority. 2 When the final vote was taken in the Convention on the constitution the Western men voted against it because of the failure to settle the basis question. 3 January 15, 1830, the Convention adjourned sine die, and at the April elections (1830) the new constitution was submit- ted to the people and ratified by a vote of 26,055 to 15,563. 4 Of the forty Western counties, only eleven gave majorities for the constitution, and in these the vote was close, 5 while all the Eastern counties gave majorities for the constitution, most of them very large majorities, except Warwick and Lancaster which voted for rejection. 1 Debates of Convention, pp. 849, 854. 8 Ibid., p. 850. 3 The constitution passed the Convention by the vote of 55 to 40. Cooke was the only Western man who voted for it. Doddridge was sick, but would have voted " no." Thirty-four Western men voted against it, one Tidewater man, Stanard, and five from the Piedmont. (Debates, p. 882). The white-basis men claimed 49 members of this convention, but a few were unwilling to pass their basis without a decided majority, hence the white basis was not adopted. (Debates, p. 694). The West had only 36 ; the others were from the Piedmont. At one time there was a white-basis man from Tidewater, Robert B. Taylor of Norfolk, but his constituents forced him to resign. (Debates, pp. 234, 235). The West remembered his stand, and in the next Legislature with some Eastern members elected him a circuit judge for the Norfolk district in spite of opposition to him from that circuit. 4 Debates of Convention, p. 903. (Official poll of each county. ) The vote of the West was 13,282 for rejecting and 5,985 for ratification ; of the East, 2,281 for rejecting and 20,070 for ratifying. The vote for ratification in the West would not have been so large but for the clause extending suf- frage. The vote shows the difference in the sentiment of the two sections. 8 These eleven counties were Alleghany, Augusta, Botetourt, Frederick, Hampshire, Jefferson, Lee, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah and Washington; all Valley counties except Lee and Washington. These counties were all large and would gain by the new system of representa- tion. 44 Representation in Virginia. [298 The new constitution, though in many respects a failure, made improvements in representation. It reduced the House of Delegates from 214 to 134, and thus cut down the expenses of the government. Glaring inequalities of representation were removed, such, for instance, as two delegates from War- wick, while Loudoun, with twenty-two times as large a white population, had only two delegates. In fact, throughout the State the counties had representation apportioned more nearly in accord with their respective populations. With reference to the two great divisions of the State, the apportionment was better. The West, under the old constitution, had about 33 per cent, of the members of the Legislature. It was now given 41 per cent. Had the apportionment been made on the white population as it then stood, the West would have received about 46 per cent., hence that section never became reconciled to the new constitution. No reapportionment could be made before 1841, and not even then could the numbers from the different sections be disturbed, unless two-thirds of the Gen- eral Assembly concurred ; and, since a large majority of the Legislature were Eastern members, the chances of are appor- tionment were meagre. The great misfortune was that the Convention could not agree upon some constitutional basis, and it is a noteworthy fact that but for slave property a basis of representation would probably have been embodied in the constitution. CHAPTER V. THE STEPS TO THE CONVENTION OF 1850-51. The adoption of the new constitution by no means settled the basis question. The reapportionment was far more equit- able than the previous county system, and for that reason the West was quieted for a while. The accusation was still brought, however, that the power was too thoroughly centered in the wealthy classes of the East, and the advocates of inter- nal improvements saw that no great scheme could be carried through, while much money would be wasted by the iniquitous "log-rolling" system. Internal improvements became the principle of division between the sections. Western Virginia was undeveloped, and the wealth of that section was too small for extensive works to be executed by private enterprise, so the fight in the Legislature was for State appropriations to assist in the work. 1 All the power being in the hands of the East, these appropriations were hard to get, hence the West felt bitterly the apportionment of representation. Eastern Virginia was in a state of premature decay, and the West claimed that this condition was due to the commercial non- intercourse of the two sections. 2 An effort was made to 1 Enquirer, Jan. 27, 1831. 2 Enquirer, Feb. 8, 12, March 15, Dec. 28, 1831; Jan. 5, 7, 10, 31, Feb. 4, 1832. The intercourse was so poor that in going from the eastern to the western portion of the State one was often compelled to go through Mary- land and Pennsylvania. Western Virginia trade went to Baltimore. In 1831 an internal improvement convention was held at Lewisburg, which emphasized the decline of Eastern Virginia and the necessity for closer connection between the sections. A scheme was proposed to have a canal 45 46 Representation in Virginia. [300 establish a commercial route between the sections, but the Eastern majority in the Legislature strenuously opposed large appropriations ; so the scheme finally came to naught. 1 The question was one of great importance, and The Enquirer, the leading paper of the State, declared in favor of giving the West an Eastern market, instead of letting the trade go to Baltimore. 2 The situation was grasped by some Eastern Vir- ginians, who saw that either Norfolk or Baltimore had to be the emporium for Western trade, and that without a liberal policy on the part of the General Assembly it was sure to be Balti- more. 3 The politicians of Eastern Virginia, however, took too much of a local view of the matter, so that great schemes of internal improvements were appealed for in vain. Every section was for itself, and the interest of the State, as a whole, was overlooked. In vain did the people of the West try to from Richmond to Lynchburg, and a railroad from there to the Ohio Biver. (See memorial in Jour. H. of Del., 1831-32, Doc. No. 8.) The Western people persisted in efforts for these improvements, and said that the "mongrel principle" of representation prevented them from accomplish- ing their purposes, and that they hoped the East would show a spirit of liberality. (Enquirer, Jan. 31, 1832.) l Jour. of H. of Del. (1831-32), p. 131. The matter was before the Assembly frequently, and they acted favorably on it, but never pushed it with energy. 2 Editorial in Enquirer, June 1, 1832. 3 Enquirer, June 8, 1832. It seems plain to us that an effective commer- cial route connecting the East and West would have been the making of Norfolk and Richmond, but sixty years ago Eastern Virginians failed to see it. On the other hand, they argued that it would be to their interest to keep out Western products, as the prices of their products would be reduced. (Enquirer, May 17, 1833.) The truth is: Eastern Virginia was, at the time, essentially an agricultural section, and a man's highest ambi- tion was to be a large slave-holding planter. The profits to the State, as a whole, to be gained by making the towns centres of trade and industries, were seen by few in the East, and the result was that few efforts were made to advance the interests of the cities. In 1833 a traveller in the Valley might see long trains of wagons winding their way to Baltimore instead of to Richmond. (Enquirer, May 17, 1833.) 301] The Steps to the Convention of 1850-51. 47 enlist the East in their schemes of improvements, 1 but they could succeed in getting only small appropriations by means of the so-called " log-rolling." 2 The importance of the subject of internal improvements 3 in connection with representation is this : The Western people finding that their desires for internal improvements were not going to be granted, began within ten years after the adoption of the new constitution to agitate the basis question once more. They wished to have representation based on white population so that they might have the power to execute their own measures in spite of the opposition of the East. During the period from 1830 to 1850, there was strong feeling of jealousy between the sections of the State, and much talk of separation on the part of the West. 4 Yet there is no x The papers of the West, The Kanawha Banner and The Welkburg Republican, entreated, even demanded, a liberal and enlarged system of internal improvements. Meetings were held in many places to arouse interest in the proposed commercial route. (Enquirer, Sept. 13, Oct. 18, 25, 1833, and Sept. 9, 1834.) 2 The principle of "log-rolling" was that sections having pet schemes would unite and pledge themselves to vote for each other's schemes, and thus get a majority. Piedmont was very anxious for internal improve- ments, and would often combine with the West, promising some petty appropriations for its support. Tidewater always resisted these measures. 3 The question of internal improvements was one of some importance several years before the Convention of 1829-30, but it was not till 1831 that the matter began to attract so much attention, which it con- tinued to do for a quarter, of a century. Conventions after conventions were held on the subject. An examination &f Enquirer from 1830 to 1850, the Reports of the Board of Public Works, the Journals and Documents of the House of Delegates and the Governors' Messages, shows how much the matter was agitated in Virginia. 4 Lewis : Hist, of West Virginia, pp. 323-325. He tells us that separation was agitated principally by the politicians west of the Alleghany ; (1) because so much money was appropriated for internal improvements in the East, while a Western delegate had to be satisfied with a few hundred dollars for a mud turnpike ; (2) because all the public buildings were in the East except the Insane Asylum at Staunton ; (3) because from 1776 to 1850 the West had been politically ostracized. The West had in this period only two United States Senators, Moore and Penny backer (Lewis says one, 48 Representation in Virginia. [302 doubt that a majority of the Western people remained firm in their allegiance to their mother State. They turned their eyes, however, to another constitutional convention to redress their grievances. Equal political rights, equal representation on the white basis, became their cry. The Legislature of 1839-40 had the subject of representation brought before it. Two fruitless attempts were made to take some action on the matter ; one for a constitutional convention, 1 the other for reapportionment of representation by the Legis- lature. 2 The session of 184142 was also petitioned by many counties to reapportion representation throughout the State, 3 and a special committee was appointed to consider the matter. 4 It reported for a reapportionment on the suffrage basis (i. e., on the qualified voters of the State). 5 A minority report made Moore ; for election of Pennybacker, see Jour. H. of Del., 1845-46, p. 20), and both from the Valley. Only one man was governor from the section west of the Alleghany. This was Joseph Johnson who was not governor till 1850. The Enquirer in 1845 had begged the Legislature to recognize the West, and elect a governor from that section. (Enquirer, Nov. 2, 1845.) 1 Enquirer, Feb. 23, 1841. 2 Enquirer, Feb. 26, 1841. The West, according to the census of 1840, had a white population of 371,570, and the East, 369,398 ; so that in a House of Delegates of 134, the West on this basis would have been entitled to 67 instead of 56, and in the Senate of 32 to 16 instead of 13. 3 Enquirer, Jan. 6, 18, 22, March 1, 1842. Sixteen petitions. Some were bitter, declaring that, as representation stood, the Western people were but slaves of the East. (See Lewis County Resolutions: Enquirer, March 1, 1842.) 4 Enquirer, Jan. 6, 1842. B The tenor of the report was that the West in 1840 had a small majority of the white population ; that, since every voter had the same right at the polls, every voter should be equally represented. Representation as it then stood, gave the East (with a voting population of about 44,032) 78 delegates, and the West (with a voting population of 42,016) only 56 delegates. Each Eastern delegate represented 564 voters, at which ratio the West should have had 74 instead of 56 delegates ; or, in other words, the 56 delegates from the West at the ratio of 564 voters for each delegate, represented only 31,584 voters of the 42,016, thus leaving about one-fourth of the qualified voters of the West unrepresented. (See Report of Committee: Enquirer, Jan. 27, 1842.) 303] The Steps to the Convention of 1850-51. 49 by the Eastern members of the committee advocated the mixed basis ; and, since the apportionment, as it then stood, was practi- cally on that basis, no change at all was thought desirable. 1 Thus the old fight was once more to be waged, and it was still to be a contest between the sections. The West, having a slightly larger white population than the East, contended for the larger "representation. The East, paying twice as large a per capita tax, claimed the larger representation. In spite of the efforts made by the Western members of the House of Delegates, the matter was postponed indefinitely. 2 This aroused the West. In the summer of 1842, the strug- gle over representation was continued with renewed energy. The Western newspapers advised the people to throw aside all party affiliations and, whether Democrat or Whig, to concen- trate their forces for Western rights. Feeling ran so high that separation was feared. 3 The people of Kanawha County held a public meeting to discuss representation. A committee of correspondence, con- sisting of ten men, was appointed to issue an address. 4 This address stated that great wrongs were being perpetrated on the West, and that there was no hope of the Legislature doing 1 The minority report claimed that "persons and property are alike sub- jects of legislation and entitled to like protection." The East paid more taxes than the West, and should have more representation. Taxation per capita in 1841 was for Tidewater, $1.2125 ; for Piedmont, $1.1044; for the Valley, $0.7171 ; and for the Trans-Alleghany, $0.3910 : i, e., for the East, $1.1543, and for the West, $0.5913. (Minority Keport: Enquirer, Jan. 27, 1842.) The vote for postponement was 68 to 56. (Enquirer, March 10, 1842.) The Eastern members asserted that the West should not force a reapportion- ment upon them. A bill to call a constitutional convention was brought in, but was defeated by a vote of 66 to 57. The Western members were so enraged that fifty of them placed a protest on the Jour, of H. of Del., because of the refusal to consider the plan for reapportionment, or for a convention. The protest declared that there was a fixed determination on the part of the East to ignore the West and not to equalize representation at all. (Enquirer, Feb. 17, March 10, 29, and April 1, 1842.) 3 Enquirer, July 12, 1842. 4 Ibid. 4 50 Representation in Virginia. [304 justice. The people of Western Virginia were asked to send delegates to a convention at Lewisburg to consider representa- tion. 1 Accordingly, a convention met in Lewisburg, August 1, 1842. Twenty counties were represented by some fifty or sixty delegates. 2 Resolutions were adopted asking the Legis- lature to pass a bill, submitting to the vote of the people the question of a constitutional convention to equalize representa- tion on the white basis. 3 At the next three sessions of the General Assembly, efforts were made to pass a bill for a constitutional convention, but all in vain. 4 In 1845, the state of representation was warmly discussed. The Enquirer came out in forcible terms against the existing system of representation, and said it was folly for the East to try to keep the system unchanged, since it engendered discord, and produced such a strong local and sectional feeling. 5 To 2 The counties were Harrison, Monongalia, Ohio, Montgomery, Cabell, Mercer, Kanawha, Logan, Greenbrier, Monroe, Alleghany, Fayette, Ran- dolph, Wood, Wythe, Mason, Jackson, Page, Augusta and Wayne. (Enquire)-, Aug. 18, 1842.) 3 Enquirer, Aug. 19, 1842. 4 At the session of 1842-43 the proceedings of the Lewisburg Convention were presented, and petitions from Scott, Harrison, Monongalia, Randolph, Marion, Lewis and Greenbrier counties, asking for a convention. Western members worked hard, but the convention bill was defeated in the House of Delegates by a vote of 66 to 55 (a sectional vote). (Enquirer, Dec. 13, 15, 1842; Jan. 14, Feb. 2, March 4, 9, 1843.) At the session of 1844-45 petitions for a convention were presented from Hampshire, Lee, Isle of Wight, Fairfax and Monongalia. A special committee was appointed to consider them. It reported in favor of a bill to submit the question to the people, but the matter was indefinitely postponed in the House of Delegates by a vote of 64 to 63. (Jour, of H. of Dd. (1844-45), pp. 17, 18, 23, 53, 86, 25, 27, 44 and 106 : also Bill No. 23, appended to Journal.) 6 Editorial in Enquirer, July 22, 1845. This pointed out that the Con- stitution of 1829-30 created, instead of reducing, a stronger sectional feel- ing, in that it divided the State into four divisions on the supposition that they had conflicting interests. Thus there were, so to speak, separate states confederated together in one, and each section was made to believe, 305] The Steps to the Convention of 1850-51. 51 show the condition of the State in 1845, 1 quote the following : " The section below Tidewater which was once populous is in many places almost deserted. The property and the wealth are shifting to other divisions. The section beyond the Alle- ghany, once the resort of the wolf and the bear, is fast filling up with an industrious, high-souled, thriving population whose wealth is rapidly accumulating and whose immense resources are being daily more and more developed, and yet the same ratio is to be preserved. The people of the East may rely upon it, this state of things cannot last, this injustice will not be sub- mitted to." x These utterances are very significant considering that they are from an editorial in an Eastern newspaper. Memorials were now circulated in the State, some for and some against a convention. County meetings were held in regard to the basis question. 2 One section was arrayed against the other. The West was unanimously in favor of the white basis. From the newspaper discussions we are able to get the following in regard to the East : (1). A majority was opposed to a constitutional convention to settle the basis question. 3 unless an improvement was brought within it, it was being taxed for the benefit of the others entirely. The same editorial spoke of the absurd- ness of an apportionment, by which it mattered not how much the popula- tion or wealth of a section might change, yet representation must remain unchanged. 1 Enquirer, July 22, 1845. 8 Enquirer, July 29, Aug. 1, Nov. 25, 28, 1845. The Resolutions of Kana- wha County illustrate well the Western position. They stated that the system of representation as it stood was an injustice to the West; that the white basis was the only one that would satisfy that section, but it was will- ing to give a guarantee to the East that slave property should not be overtaxed by the " adoption of a uniform system of ad valorem taxation." (Enquirer, July 29, 1845.) Amelia County resolutions show that the East distrusted the West, and was opposed to a convention; (1) because, if the West had control of legislation, appropriations for internal improvements would be too large ; and (2) because the East with six times as many slaves as the West, could not afford to let the government pass from its hands. (Enquirer, Aug. 1, 1845.) 3 Enquirer, Aug. 5, 1845. Some went so far as to denounce the Western people as would-be tyrants, wishing only to get hold of the pocket-book of the East. 52 Representation in Virginia. [306 (2). Quite a respectable element was for taking the sense of the people on a convention ; and, since the East held the Legis- lature, it could control the convention and adopt its own basis. 1 (3). Some in the East preferred separation from the West to a surrender of their principles. 2 (4). Others favored a convention with the express understanding that the mixed basis was to be adopted. 3 (5). A few Eastern men favored a con- vention to adopt the white basis with a guarantee that slave property should not be overtaxed by the insertion in the con- stitution of a clause for ad valorem taxation on all kinds of property. 4 On the opening of the General Assembly (1845-46), Gover- nor McDowell in his message urged that the convention question be submitted to the vote of the people. 5 Some petitions were presented asking for a convention. 6 A bill was reported for taking the vote of the people, but it also provided that should the people decide for a convention, the organization of it should be on the mixed basis. 7 This was an Eastern 1 Enquirer, Sept. 2, and Oct. 30, 1845 (Fairfax Resolutions.) 2 Enquirer, Sept. 2, 1845. At this time the desire for a division of the State was quite strong in the West. (Resolutions of Greenbrier County, Enq., Sept. 2, 1845.) A majority of the Western people, however, were opposed to a division. (Enq., Nov. 4, 1845.) 3 Enquirer, Oct. 4, 10, 1845, and (Resolutions of Brunswick), Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1845. 4 Enquirer, Aug. 12, 22 ; Sept. 26 ; Oct. 10, 1845. There is no douht, how- ever, that a majority of the Eastern people opposed a convention. They saw that the chief desire was to change the basis of representation ; and, although they favored other reforms, they preferred to endure the existing evils in order to keep representation unchanged. Enquirer, Nov. 7, 1845. and (Cumberland Resolutions) Enquirer, Nov. 18, 1845. 5 The Governor said that the people were the actual parties of the govern- ment, and that the Legislature had no right to refuse to let the sovereigns hold a conference on a convention. He wished to see the principal question of dispute, the basis of representation, rearranged in an amicable and satisfactory way, so that the political divisions as they then stood might be forever obliterated. Jour, of H. of Del. (1845-46), pp. 14, 15. 6 Journal, pp. 18, 26, 28. ''Journal, 20; Bill No. 132 (appended to Journal) : Enquirer, Dec. 5, 1845 ; Jan. 31, 1846. 307] The Steps to the Convention of 1850-51. 53 measure to get control of the proposed convention. The West offered a substitute to have the convention organized on the white basis, claiming that a constitutional convention should be controlled by a majority of the citizens and not a minority. 1 This substitute was defeated by the Eastern members. 2 The whole matter was then indefinitely postponed. 3 There is no doubt that the bill would have passed, had the West been willing to accept the mixed basis for the organization of the convention. But a majority of the Western delegates was in favor of a convention on the white basis or none. The Eastern members would not grant this, and some even asserted that rather than have a convention on the white basis, they would prefer a division of the State. 4 The discussion, and county meetings and resolutions of 1845, had had no effect. The West could have had a convention, but refused it unless on the white basis. Some of the Western people, however, wanted a convention on any basis, and criti- cised their delegates for having stood so firmly for the white basis only. Yet a majority in the West did not care for a convention without their plan of organization. 6 A change now occurred, and the East took a firm stand for a convention, 6 but to be organized on the mixed basis. In the West there was a want of harmony : some favored a postponement of a con- 1 A minority report, Document No. 27 in the Appendix to Journal : Enquirer, Jan. 31, 1846. 2 Journal, pp. 143, 144. An attempt was made to let the people decide on what basis the convention should be organized, but the Eastern members voted this down. (Journal, p. 124.) 3 Journal, pp. 144, 155 ; Enquirer, Feb. 20, 1846. The motion for post- ponement was made by Mr. Flowers of Harrison County, and 31 out of the 56 Western delegates voted for it. Another attempt was made for a conven- tion. A bill to submit simply the question of a "Convention" or "No Convention " was introduced, but this was not satisfactory as neither the East nor the West was willing to pass a bill which did not provide the basis of organization for the convention. 4 Enquirer, Feb. 20, 1846. b Enquirer, Feb. 27, March 6, 1846. 6 Enquirer, March 16, 31 ; May 12, 1846. 54 Representation in Virginia. [308 stitutional convention till after the census of 1850, which would show more plainly the great inequality in representation ; others rather than have no convention were for the legislative basis (i. e., delegates apportioned for the convention just as they were in the House of Delegates) ; others for white basis only as the plan of organization ; while others were for any basis of organization, provided they got the convention for reforms. 1 Once more counties began to hold meetings on the question of representation and a constitutional convention. The spirit displayed in the West seemed more liberal than ever, and some of the western counties passed resolutions in favor of a compromise basis for a constitutional convention. 2 A convention 3 to discuss the question of representation met at Staunton in December, 1846. Some sixty delegates were present, representing some eighteen or twenty counties. Reso- lutions were passed, asserting that the white people were the only parties. in the social compact, and that they only ought to be recognized as a basis for apportioning representation throughout the State. The resolutions also expressed opposi- tion to a constitutional convention (unless organized on the white basis) until after the census of 1850. 4 1 Enquirer, Aug. 28, 1846. 2 Kesolutions of Ohio County (Enq., Aug. 28, 1846), and of Marshall County (Enq., Dec. 3, 1846). The Enquirer (Sept. 1, 1846) quotes the Wheeling Argus as advocating a compromise basis for a convention. This paper ( Argus) proposed Federal Numbers. The parties in the West, according to it were : (1) Reformers, for white basis or none ; (2) Divisionists, who wanted a separate State ; (3) Reformers (conservative), for a convention on any basis and for all reforms that they could get ; and (4) Federalists, for Federal Numbers as a basis for a constitutional convention and the same for the basis of representation in the General Assembly. 3 A convention to meet at Staunton in August had been proposed by Berkeley County, but so much discussion occurred as to when and where it should meet, and so many different propositions were made in newspapers, that very few delegates assembled at Staunton in August, so they adjourned to reassemble in December. (Enquirer, July 29; Aug. 1, 11, 28, 1846.) 4 Proceedings of Staunton Convention : Enquirer, Dec. 15, 1846. 309] The Steps to the Convention of 1850-51. 55 At the next three sessions of the Legislature, bills were introduced to call a constitutional convention, but on each occasion they were rejected. 1 Eastern Virginia now began strongly to advocate a con- stitutional convention, not to grant the demands of the West on representation, but to institute other reforms. 2 The matter was urged by the press in all parts of the State. 3 When the Legislature met in December, 1849, the Governor's Message brought to its attention the expediency of a convention for 1 At the session of 1846-47, the Governor in his Message advised a con- vention. (Enquirer, Dec. 8, 1846.) The matter was considered by the House of Delegates. There was great division among the Western mem- bers. Some favored taking the sense of the people without any plan of organization for the convention, while others were for postponing the ques- tion till after the census of 1850, and expressed fear that the East would force a convention upon them before that time. (Enquirer, Dec. 10, 15, 1846 ; Jan. 30, 1847.) At the session of 1847-48, an attempt was made to reapportion representation, and a committee was appointed, but at its request was discharged. (Enquirer, Jan. 21, 1848.) At this session the West became incensed at an action of the East. The constitution provided that the number of delegates from the different sections should neither be increased nor diminished except by two-thirds vote of the Legislature. But now one delegate was given to Alexandria, which had just been given back to Virginia by the Federal Government. This increased the Eastern delegation by one, making the House of Delegates 135. Mr. J. M. Stephen- son, a Western delegate, entered a protest, declaring the whole proceeding unconstitutional, since it had passed by a vote of 60 to 59, and not a two- thirds vote. The West considered this an act of injustice. (Enquirer, Dec. 21, 27, 1847 ; Feb. 25, 1848.) At the next session (1848-49), Governor Smith in his Message advised a convention ; a committee was appointed, but reported that it was inexpedient to call a convention at that time, so the matter was dropped. (Jour, of H. of Del, 1848-49, pp. 29, 115, 117, 326.) 'Eastern reformers were for: (1) extension of suffrage and prevention of double voting, (2) reform in county courts, (3) limitation on the Legisla- ture in regard to taxation, (4) reform of the judicial system, (5) abolition of Executive Council, and (6) election of Governor and other officers by the people. (Resolutions of Powhatan County; Enquirer, Jan. 22, 1850.) 3 The Charlottesville Jeffersonian, The Lynchburg Republican, The Peters- burg Republican, The Lynchburg Virginian, The Danville Register, The Staun- ton Vindicator and The Rockingham Register as quoted by Enquirer, Dec. 4, 14, 21, 28, 1849. 56 Representation in Virginia. [310 reform. 1 The House of Delegates took the matter up, and appointed a committee to bring in a bill. 2 The bill, as reported, was to submit to the vote of the people two questions : (1) whether there should be a constitutional convention or not, and (2) whether it should be organized on the white or mixed basis. 3 The Western members spoke for a convention, but said that, while the East wanted reform in the judicial system, etc., they wanted a change in representation, and would not be satisfied with the mixed basis for the organiza- tion of the convention, but were willing to take the vote of the people to decide what basis should be used. 4 However, the Eastern members moved and carried a substitute adopting the mixed basis for the convention. 8 The convention bill, thus amended, passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 78 to 42, 6 and the Senate by 17 to II. 7 The act provided that, at the April elections (1850), the vote of the people should be taken on a constitutional convention, and that the returns be made to the Governor, who, on or before the third Monday in June, should proclaim the result. If a majority was found for a convention, on the fourth Monday in August an election was to be held for delegates. The total number of delegates was to be one hundred and thirty-five. The act then enumerated the districts and the number of delegates for each. 8 The sup- posed white population in 1849 was 887,717, and the Revenue Governor Floyd's Message, Documents of H. of Del. (1849-50): Doc. No. I, p. 10. 2 Enquirer, Dec. 7, 1849. 3 Enquirer, Feb. 26, 1850. 4 Enquirer, Dec. 7, 1849. 3 Enquirer, Feb. 12, 1850. The vote was 65 to 57. The Western mem- bers voted unanimously against it. 6 Enquirer, Feb. 19, 1850. Most of the votes against a convention were from the West, but some twenty voted for it, as they preferred a convention on the mixed basis to none at all. ''Enquirer, March 15, 1850. The 11 votes against the convention were from the West. 8 Acts of Assembly (1849-50), p. 9, et seq. 311] The Steps to the Convention of 1850-51. 57 Tax was $472,516.31 ; 1 and, since the apportionment for the convention was to be on the mixed basis (taxation and white population combined) every $7000.24 elected one delegate, and every 13,151 white persons, one delegate. This meant that in the convention every white person was to have just a little more than half as much weight as a dollar in taxes. The apportionment was for Tidewater, thirty-eight delegates; Pied- mont, thirty-eight ; the Valley, twenty-four, and the Trans- Alleghany district, thirty-five. Had the apportionment been on the white basis, Tidewater would have had twenty-nine ; Piedmont, thirty-two ; the Valley, twenty-five, and the Trans- Alleghany district forty-nine. 2 In other words, the conven- tion organized on the mixed basis was to have seventy-six delegates from the East and fifty-nine from the West, an Eastern majority of seventeen ; but on the white basis, the East would have had only sixty-one, and the West seventy- four, a Western majority of thirteen. No wonder the West fought so hard for the white basis and said so much against the East. 3 On the other hand, is it strange that the East, 1 Doc. No. 31, Documents of H. of Del., 1849-SO. Tidewater district had a white population (1849), 192,660, and paid taxes (1849) $163,977.25. Piedmont district had a white population (1849), 209,970, and paid taxes (1849) $155,512.07. Valley district had a white population (1849), 160,557, and paid taxes (1849) $77,512.36. Trans-Alleghany district had a white population (1849), 324,530, and paid taxes (1849) $75,454.63. 2 Cf. Documents Nos. 31 and 40; Documents of H. of Dei., 1849-50. 3 Enquirer, Feb. 22, 26; March 1, 1850. Many Western members of the General Assembly denounced in strong terms the action of the Eastern members in forcing upon them a conven- tion on the mixed basis simply (as they thought) to protect slaves. They were hurt to think that the East could not trust them for fear they would be plunderers of property. A bitter feeling existed, and fear was expressed that the Trans-Alleghany section would not submit to the convention plan at all. The reforms advocated at this time by the East (i. e. extension of suffrage, election of Governor and county officials by the people, etc.) were 58 Representation in Virginia. [312 paying twice as large a tax as the West, and conscientiously believing that property should be an element in representation, should have striven for the mixed basis ? The fight over the convention was quite vigorous through- out the State. Many in the West were endeavoring to defeat the measure, 1 while the East hoped to have the convention bill approved by the people. 2 When the elections were held in April, quite a good majority was cast in favor of the conven- tion. 3 With some exceptions the counties in the Trans-Alle- ghany district gave large majorities against the convention, 4 but the whole Valley and all the Eastern counties except two 3 were in favor of the convention. for the most part what had been championed by the West in the Conven- tion of 1829-30, and were conceded to be the true republican principles. Bat that representation should be based on the white population, the East as yet did not accept, and the "West believed that it was not from principle but from distrust. 1 The West opposed the measure, thinking it a trick on the part of the East to have a convention before the census of 1850, and also that the mixed basis of organization was only an indication of what the East would put in the new constitution. (Enquirer, March 5, 1850.) The West wanted the people to vote on the basis question, and, since the East was afraid to allow this, it talked of separation. (Enquirer, April 9, 1850.) The Trans-Alle- ghany district was especially opposed to a convention organized on the mixed basis, because each of its delegates would represent 9,292 whites, while each Tidewater delegate would represent only 5,070 whites. (Doc. No. 40, p. 9: Documents of H. of Del, 1849-50.) 2 The people of the East were urged to vote for a convention, since there was no fear that the West would control it ; that then was the chance to get the mixed basis adopted and to put through some needed reform. (Enq., April 18, 1850.) There was also a desire in the Valley for the convention. The population and wealth of the Valley was such that either the white or mixed basis gave it practically the same representation, hence this portion of the West, though preferring the white basis, voted for the convention. (Enquirer, April 19, 1850 : Doc. 30, Documents of H. of Del., 1849-50.) 3 Returns (MS.) : State Papers (1850). Returns are wanting for 9 coun- ties : 4 from the Trans- Alleghany, 3 from the Valley, and 2 from the East. 4 Returns for 43 counties west of the Alleghany. Twenty -nine gave majorities against the convention, and in these only a few votes were cast for the convention. 5 Warwick and Amelia counties. 313] The Steps to the Convention, of 1850-51. 59 In August delegates were elected to the convention. The candidates declared through the papers, and on the stump, their views on the basis question, which was made the main issue in the elections. 1 In the East only one man came out in violent opposition to the mixed basis. 2 This was Henry A. Wise of Accomac. He advocated the suffrage basis which the West had advocated in the Legislature of 1841-42. He wanted, however, a constitutional guarantee to prevent exces- sive taxation. 3 The West rejoiced in the support of so eminent a man, but in the East he was spoken of as the " modern Jack Cade." 4 Yet Wise was so popular among his constituents, that, in spite of the fact that his views were contrary to theirs, he was elected a member of the convention. He was the only man elected in the East in opposition to the mixed basis. 5 Not a member elected from the West favored the mixed basis. 1 The Whig (June 1, 18; July 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 30, 31 ; Aug. 6, 9, 13, 20, 1850) contains announcements from candidates advocating the mixed basis and letters to the number of twenty-seven. The Whig was for the mixed basis or none. For the white basis we find in The Whig of the above dates only three articles, two of these announcements from candidates. *See his Announcement: Whig, June 1, 1850. 3 Ibid. 4 Whig, June 18, July 19, 1850. 8 Whig, Sept. 13, Oct. 18, 1850. CHAPTER VI. THE REFORM CONVENTION OF 1850-51. The Convention met in Richmond on the 14th of October, 1850. Of the one hundred and thirty-five members, six had been members of the Convention of 1829-30. 1 John Y. Mason was elected President. 2 It was decided to wait for the census, so the Convention adjourned November 4, 1850, and reassem- bled January 6, 1851, and remained in a continuous session till August 1, 1851. This Convention is usually spoken of as the " Reform Convention " because of the many salutary reforms accomplished. 3 The fight was chiefly on the basis of representation, which consumed most of the time and attention of the Convention. Eight committees were appointed to con- sider the different questions of interest. 4 The most important was the " Committee on the Basis and Apportionment of Representation," consisting of twenty-four members. George W. Summers of Kanawha was Chairman. This Committee reported February 6, 1851. 5 It was unable to agree, one half holding to one basis, while the other half advocated a different basis. Two propositions were, therefore, submitted ; one 1 John Y. Mason, William O. Goode, J. Boyer Miller, James Saunders, William Smith and Archibald Stuart. Cf. Lists : Proceedings and Debates of Convention (1829-30), pp. 3, 4, and Journal of Convention (1850-51), pp. 423, 424. 2 Journal, p. 5. 3 Extension of suffrage, Governor to be elected by the people, abolition of the Executive Council, reform of the judicial system, and the election of county officers by the people. 4 Journal, pp. 58, 59. s Journal, p. 107 : Debates, pp. 145, 146. 60 315] The Reform Convention of 1850-51. 61 marked " A," that advocated by the Eastern members of the Committee, and the other marked " B," the Western proposition. 1 Proposition " A " was a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty members chosen biennially, and a Senate of fifty-one chosen for four years. Both houses were to be apportioned on the mixed basis, and, in 1862 and every ten years after, a reapportionment was to be made on this basis. 2 Proposition " B " was a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty-six, and a Senate of thirty-six. The qualified voters were to be the basis of representation (suffrage basis). The apportion- ments reported with " B " were based on the white population which was to continue till an enumeration of the voters could be made ; but, in 1855 and every ten years after, an enumeration of the qualified voters should be made, and the following General Assemblies were to reapportion on this basis. 3 1 See the Documents of Convention for both propositions. 3 One-seventy-fifth part of the whites was to elect one delegate, and one seventy-fifth part of the taxes raised by the Legislature (deducting there- from all taxes on licenses and law processes) to elect one. The Senate was to be distributed in the same way. The amount of taxes was to be estimated by an average of the ten preceding years. The House of Delegates on this basis was: The West for a white population of 494,763 would have 41.42 delegates, and for $185,316.37 taxes, 26.09 delegates, making 67.51 ; i. e., 68, delegates. The East for a white population of 401,104, to have 33.58 dele- gates, and for $347,348.09 taxes, 48.91 delegates, making 82.49 ; i. e., 82 delegates. (See Proposition " A " in Appendix to Journal.) Thus the East had a majority of 14 with a white population less than the West by 93,559. The Senate on the same basis was to be 23 from the West and 28 from the East. This plan meant that every 70 cents in taxes was to have a repre- sentation equal to one white person. (Sheffey's Speech, p. 9 : Debates.) 3 Journal (Documents in Appendix) : Debates, pp. 146-147. By this plan every delegate was to represent 5,740 white persons, and every senator, 24,870. This gave the West 85 delegates and the East 71 ; the West 19 senators and the East 17. (Documents.) Now the mixed basis, as seen in the note above, gave the East in the House of Delegates a majority of 14, while the white basis gave the West a majority of 14 ; hence it is at once plain why the fight between the sections was so sharp. 62 Representation in Virginia. [316 The basis question was taken up in the Committee of the Whole, and, from the 17th of February to the 16th of May, the discussion was almost exclusively on this subject. 1 The debate 3 is too long for anything like a full synopsis, so only a few of the main features will be presented. The East advo- Here it may be well to state the sources for this Convention. There is a Journal in two volumes. The first volume contains the Journal proper and some documents, while the second volume contains documents only. In the Va. State Library there is one volume of the Debates of this Convention. This contains the speeches from Jan. 6, to Feb. 24, 1851. The rest of the debates, printed in the so-called " Supplement " which was sent out with all the newspapers, I have been unable to find. 1 Every effort was made by both the East and the West to carry their points. Public meetings were held by the counties throughout the State to express their views and to instruct their delegates on the basis question. No less than 37 meetings were held while the Convention was in session. These were reported to the Convention and their resolutions printed in the papers. These were often bitter and opposed to any compromise. The Eastern counties contended for mixed basis or none, while the Western counties were for the white or suffrage basis. A good specimen of the Western resolutions is those of Pocahontas County, which, after stating that the East intended to force the mixed basis on the West, passed the follow- ing : " Resolved, That defective as is our State policy in many other re- spects, we regard the basis of representation as paramount to all others, and we will accept no constitution that does not contain the white popula- tion as the basis of representation in the councils of the State; and we hereby pledge ourselves to do everything in our power to defeat the adop- tion by the people of any constitution which does not confer equality of political right upon the people of every portion of the State." ^References for this note: Journal, pp. 107, 180, 192, 193, 185, 159, 233, 243, 244, 247, 251, 264, 265, 270: Debates, pp. 57, 100, 307: The Whitj, April 8; May 13, 30; June 10, 13, 17, 20, 27; July 1, 4, 15, 22, 25, 1851. z The debate was well arranged. To quote a contemporary account: "The Battle of the Basis is fought with as much science, system and leisure as the campaigns of Marlborough. The speeches are elaborate ; they contain little that is new, or calculated to retain attention of men who have ridden on the basis, slept on the basis, dined on the basis for six months past ! " ( Whig, March 24, 1851.) The people of the State became tired of the debate, and even the members of the Convention paid little attention after they had made their speeches. " Those who have discharged their duty to their constituents, look with interest to the historical records of the forthcoming ' Supplement,' and chew peanuts in all the dignity of perfected renown." ( Whig, March 24, 1851.) 317] The Reform Convention of 1850-51. 63 cated the mixed basis on the following grounds: 1 (1). One principle of government is protection of property, and this can be done best by allowing it representation. 2 (2). The white or suffrage basis would give control to a section paying about one-third of the taxes, which would be unjust. 3 (3). By suffrage or white basis a numerical majority would rule, while a minority having a majority of interests and wealth would be ignored. 4 (4). It would be unsafe to trust the gov- ernment to the West as it might increase the State's burdens for internal improvement. 5 (5). Western Virginia being essen- tially a non-slaveholding section, the government once in its hands might overtax or abolish slavery. 6 (6). The West traded with Baltimore ; and, if it once controlled the govern- ment, appropriations might be made to extend the railroad connection between Winchester and Baltimore so as to take all the trade from the West and Southwest out of the State. 7 1 The speeches used on the mixed basis are those of Messrs. Stanard, Barbour, Perkins, Beale, and Scott of Fauquier. 8 Debates, p. 284. 3 Debates, p. 284. 4 Barbour's Speech, p. 7 (in Debates). 5 Ibid., p. 10. The West offered guarantees to be embodied in the con- stitution that the burdens of the State should not be increased, and that slave population should not be overtaxed. The East considered these as nothing, as, the power once in the hands of the West, another constitu- tional convention could be called and all restrictions removed. (Barbour's Speech, p. 11.) 6 Barbour's Speech, p. 12. There was a feeling in the West for the aboli- tion of slavery. In 1832, when a bill was introduced in the Virginia Legislature to provide for the abolition of slavery every man from the West voted for it. The Trans- Alleghany district, if it continued to increase in population as it had, would at some day with the white basis have full control of the government, and this the East argued would be ruinous to slave property. (Stanard's Speech, p. 16.) The Trans-Alleghany district had, according to the census of 1850, only 24,436 slaves, and the rest of the State, 450,155 slaves. The white population west of the Alleghany was 331,586, and the rest of the State 567, 548. Distrust of this Trans-Alle- ghany section seems to be the main reason why the East stood for the mixed basis to protect property. 7 Stanard's Speech, p. 20. 64 Representation in Virginia. [318 The West argued for the suffrage or white basis, and had a very staunch ally in Henry A. Wise, who evidently had con- siderable influence from the fact that, although he favored a Western measure, he was an Eastern man. 1 The arguments 2 for the suffrage or white basis were some- what as follows : (1). The government resides in the people, and the laws are for their protection. The origin of the social compact was for personal rights, the preservation of life and liberty, and not for the protection of individual property, as the right to separate or individual property was a concession of society. 3 (2). All voters in the eyes of the government should be equal, and, therefore, every voter should have an equal representation without regard to property. 4 (3). The mixed basis meant a rule of the minority which was unrepub- lican. 5 (4). Slave property would not be endangered by the suffrage or white basis. The Valley and some few of the Trans-Alleghany counties had so many slaves, that they with the East would amply protect slavery. 6 The ad valorem system 1 Wise spoke for five days. The Whig said his speech was revolutionary in doctrine and socialistic, and that the whole burden was abuse of the rich, the aristocrats. Yet we are told that his speech produced a great impres- sion, and, though Booth was playing Hamlet at the theatre, Wise drew the crowd. His speech was spoken of as undoubtedly one of the best delivered. Whig, May 2, 1851. 2 For these we have consulted the speeches of Messrs. Sheffey, Willey, Lucas, Carlile, and Smith of Greenbrier ; also as much of Wise's speech as was accessible. George W. Summers was a faithful champion of the West, but we have not been able to find his speech. 3 Shefley's Speech (Appendix to Debates), pp. 3-5. Sheffey thought that the best plan was to refer the whole matter to the vote of the people ; that they were the sovereigns and ought to decide what principle of representa- tion they wanted. 4 Proposition " B " in Documents. The suffrage basis was the Jeffersonian principle of representation, and was in accord with the natural rights of man. (Debates, p. 468.) 5 Sheffey's Speech, p. 6. 6 Sheffey (Speech, p. 16) said that the average portion of slave property was 33 per cent. Fifteen counties West had nearly this. These in a House of Delegates of 156, on the suffrage basis would have 22 delegates, and the East 70, so the slave portion of the State would dominate. 319] The Reform Convention of 1850-51. 65 of taxation would be another protection. Whatever oppressed the majority in society would oppress the minority, and vice versa, when taxation is equal on all classes. 1 (5). The inter- nal improvements would be benefited, "log-rolling" would be broken up, and the great schemes would be carried through at no greater cost. 2 The arguments of both sides were repeated over and over again, each member feeling that it was his duty to add some- thing to the debate for the cause of his constituents. On the 17th of February (the day on which the debate began), Mr. Scott of Fauquier proposed a plan as a substitute for those reported by the Committee. This was nothing more than "A' 1 (the mixed-basis plan) with restrictions on repre- sentation from towns, as was the case in South Carolina. 3 The debate continued on this till about the first of April, when some Eastern (mixed-basis) men expressed a desire for a com- promise basis rather than restrict town representation. 4 It also became evident to some that, if the mixed basis was forced upon the West, it would result in a division of the State. 5 So, on the 21st of April, John Minor Botts proposed a compro- mise which was to give equal representation in both houses of the General Assembly to each of the great sections. 6 A vote was taken on propositions " B " (suffrage basis) and " C," and both were defeated. 7 Botts now withdrew his amendment to 1 Sheffey's Speech, p. 8. 2 Sheffey's Speech, p. 12. It was further argued that the interests of the two great sections of the State were not so different that one section should be afraid to trust the other, and that, unless the Western people were treated as Virginians, and not as plunderers of property and abolitionists, a division of the State would ensue. (Debates, pp. 355-57.) 'See Debates, p. 254: also Documents, "C." * Whig, April 8, 1851. * Whig, April 15, 1851 (Botts's Letter to his Constituents). 6 See Botts's Amendment in Documents, and Whig, April 22, 1851. This plan was first suggested by Tazewell Taylor of Norfolk. ( Whig, April 8, 1851.) 7 Journal, Appendix, p. 3. Mixed-basis men voting against " C " were Messrs. Chilton, Bowden, Saunders, Botts and Randolph. 5 66 Representation in Virginia. [320 await the will of his constituents in Richmond, where a poll was to be taken on the basis question. 1 There was now much confusion. 2 No plan was being considered except proposition "A" (mixed basis). The East had the power to adopt this, but did not do so for fear the West would withdraw from the Convention. 3 At this point, May 8, Mr. Summers proposed as a compromise from the West that a constitution be adopted and submitted to the people without any basis, but, at the same time, that a separate poll be held to allow the people to decide between the suffrage and the mixed basis. This was rejected by the Eastern members. 4 On the 9th of May a motion was made to strike out propo- sition " A," but failed by a vote of 58 to 62. 6 It seemed certain that the mixed basis would now be adopted ; but the West became so aroused, and affairs were at such a crisis that, on May 10, when the Convention met, it was thought advisa- ble to adjourn for the day. 6 A caucus was held by the mixed basis advocates, and they invited the suffrage-basis party to a conference. 7 Compromise propositions were then submitted by both sides. 8 A comparison of the plans shows that the 1 Whig, May 2, 1851. * Ibid. 3 The Whig (April 9, 1851, Remarks of Mr. Scott of Fauquier) states that a month before this the Governor-elect, Joseph Johnson, of Harrison County, and other members from his section had threatened to leave the Conven- tion, and to advocate a division of the State unless the suffrage or white basis was adopted. 4 Journal, Appendix, pp. 7, 8. 5 Ibid., pp. 9-10. 6 Whig, May 27, 1851 ; Randolph's Letter to his Constituents : also Stanard's Speech (Debates), p. 26. 7 Ibid. 8 Whig, May 23, 1851 ; and Stanard's Speech, pp. 33-34. The East subi- mitted the following plans of compromise: (1) House of Delegates, 156; suffrage basis : Senate, 50 ; taxation alone as basis. (2) House of Delegates, 150 ; 85 to West and 65 to East : Senate, 50, based on taxation only. In 1862 and every ten years after, the House to be apportioned on suffrage basis, and Senate on taxation. (3) House of Delegates, 150, on mixed basis; Senate, 50, on suffrage basis : Reapportionment every ten years on the same plan. The West proposed: (1) House of Delegates on mixed basis, and 321] The Reform Convention of 1850-51. 67 East proposed no plan which would ultimately provide for the adoption of the suffrage or white basis, while the West was unwilling to accept anything which did not provide for the suffrage basis or for submitting the question to the vote of the people. The result of the conference, therefore, was that each side rejected the plans of the other. The Western mem- bers in their caucus then passed resolutions, declaring that they would not accept any compromise which did not eventually provide for the adoption of the suffrage basis or for submitting the question to the vote of the people. 1 On the 12th of May a committee of eight was elected to prepare a compromise plan. 2 On the 15th of May they 3 reported a plan providing for a House of Delegates of one hundred and fifty members, eighty-two from the West and sixty-eight from the East, and a Senate of fifty, thirty from the East and twenty from the West. In 1865, the Legisla- ture should reapportion representation in both houses, and, if unable to agree, the question was to be submitted to the peo- ple whether apportionments should be on the suffrage or mixed basis. This was rejected by the close vote of 55 to 54. 4 On motion of Henry A. Wise, proposition " A " which had remained before the Convention was rejected. 5 Botts's amend- Senate on suffrage basis, but, in 1862 and every ten years after, both houses to be reapportioned on suffrage basis. (2) Same as the first, except in 1862 the vote of the people should decide whether the mixed or suffrage basis should be adopted. (3) House of Delegates, 156, on suffrage basis : Senate, 50, on taxation alone, but in 1862 both houses to be reapportioned on the suf- frage basis. (4) Mixed basis for both houses till 1862, when both were to be reapportioned on the suffrage basis. 1 Whig, May 13, 23, 27, 1851. 8 Seeing that the Convention was in danger of separation on the basis question, Mr. Martin of Henry, a mixed-basis man, made the motion for this committee, four from the East, and four from the West. Messrs. Summers, Martin of Henry, Wingfield, Lucas, Finney, Caperton, Chilton and Letcher were elected bv the Convention as this committee. (Journal, pp. 206, 208, 216.) 3 All concurred except Finney. ( Whig, May 16, 1851.) 4 Journal, Appendix, pp. 11, 12. 5 Journal, Appendix, p. 13. 68 Representation in Virginia. [322 ment was now brought up and rejected. Wise and Finney offered plans, but both were defeated. The proceedings became ridiculous, proposition after proposition being proposed and rejected. 1 Mr. Chilton now introduced a plan, the same as the report of the committee of eight, except, should the Legis- lature in 1865 fail to reapportion representation, the Governor should submit to the people four propositions : (1) the suffrage basis, (2) the mixed basis, (3) the white population and (4) taxation only. This was carried in the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 55 to 48. 2 In the Convention this was amended so that, should the Legislature in 1865 fail to agree on a reapportionment, each House should propose its schemes of representation, and transmit them to the Governor who should submit them to the vote of the people. If the Legis- lature neither apportioned representation nor proposed the schemes, then the Governor should submit to the voters the following: (1) The suffrage basis for both Houses; (2) the mixed basis for both Houses ; (3) taxation only for the Senate and the suffrage basis for the House of Delegates, and (4) the mixed basis for the Senate and the suffrage basis for the House of Delegates. In case none of these propositions received a majority of the votes cast, the two having the largest number of votes were to be again submitted to the people. 3 As thus adopted, the clause on representation was embodied in the constitution with one change ; namely, the House of Delegates was increased to one hundred and fifty-two, giving one dele- gate more to each of the two sections. 4 This compromise 1 Journal, Appendix, pp. 14-17. * Journal, Appendix, pp. 18-22. The mixed-basis men who voted for it were Messrs. Arthur, Bowden, Chilton, Claiborne, Martin of Henry, Ran- dolph and Wingfield. ( Whig, May 23, 1851.) 8 Journal, pp. 220-225. 4 Journal, p. 409 ; Code of Va. (1860), pp. 39-43. The constitution pro- vided that the General Assembly should meet biennially. The delegates were to be elected biennially, but the senators for four years, half every two years. Any qualified voter except a minister of the gospel, or an officer of a banking corporation, or an attorney for the commonwealth, could be a 323] The Reform Convention of 1850-51. 69 gave the West eighty-three delegates and the East sixty-nine. The apportionment for the House was on the suffrage or white basis, according to the census of 1850. The Senate, thirty from the East and twenty from the West, was based on an arbitrary apportionment, giving a majority to the East less than on taxation alone, but twice as large as on the mixed basis. The people of the East expressed strong disapproval of this compromise. They urged a division of the State rather than submit to it. 1 Every influence was brought to bear on the member of the House of Delegates, or of the Senate provided he was 25 years old. Suffrage was extended to all persons (male whites) over 21 years of age. The Governor was to be elected for four years by the vote of the people. 1 About 14 Eastern counties passed resolutions in opposition to this com- promise, contending that the East should hold fast to the mixed basis and not yield anything to the West. Some counties urged their delegates to vote for a sine die adjournment of the Convention so as to keep the Consti- tution of 1830 in force, and some declared for a division of the State rather than accept a compromise. ( Whig, May 30; June 5, 17, 24, 27 ; July 1, 4, 22, 1851.) Kockingham County, for instance, said that a division would be the " best solution of existing difficulties, and the most soothing compromise of conflicting and otherwise irreconcilable interests." Letters in the news- papers also show the Eastern opposition to the compromise. According to these the white basis had been really established, and slave owners would no longer be recognized in the government, and their property would be op- pressed. ( Whig, May 30, 1851.) Those Eastern Virginians who had voted for the compromise were branded as "base Judeans" and "vile traitors." ( Whig, May 30, June 17, 27.) It was thought advisable to organize the two sections into two states, since the difference in the character and inter- ests of the people was so great. The West would be an abolition state and would harbor fugitive slaves, but this would be better than Western domina- tion. This, of course, was not the feeling of the majority of the Eastern people, but some of the older inhabitants have informed me that the senti- ments expressed in these letters were prevalent in the East. The mere fact that Littleton W. Tazewell ( Whig, July 1) should have advocated a di- vision, and that resolutions passed by four Eastern counties, Southampton, Buckingham, King and Queen, and Mecklenburg ( Whig, June 17, July 1, 4, 22) should have favored the same in preference to a surrender of the mixed basis, shows that the divisionists in the East were not wholly insig- nificant. 70 Representation in Virginia. [324 Convention to get it to reconsider the basis question, 1 but the Convention would not reopen the discussion, and the com- promised plan, as stated above, went into the constitution which was adopted by the Convention, August 1, 1851. 2 The new constitution, on the 4th Thursday in October, 1851, was ratified by an overwhelming majority, 75,748 votes being cast for ratification, and only 11,063 for rejection. 3 The West had won in the fight, and now had a majority of four on joint ballot of the two houses of the General Assembly. Under the former system of representation the West had only 41 per cent, of the members in the Legislature ; it now had 51 per cent. 1 A public meeting in Albemarle by an almost unanimous vote instructed their delegate, T. J. Randolph, who had voted for the compromise, to move a reconsideration of the same. ( Whig, May 30, and July 15, 1851.) Glou- cester County asked its representative, Bowden, to resign. ( Whig, June 10.) Wingfield, another Eastern man who had voted for the compromise, was re- quested by his constituents to move a reconsideration. ( Whig, July 4.) These attempts were made several times, the last on July 26, just five days before the Convention adjourned sine die. (Journal, p. 385.) 3 The vote for the final adoption of the constitution by the Convention shows that all the members from the West except one, and about one-half of the Eastern members voted for the constitution. (Journal, p. 419.) 3 See Eeturns (MS) : Stale Papers (1851). The small vote for rejection was principally in the East, but even here only five counties, Amelia, Louisa, Prince George, Southampton and Warwick, gave majorities ' for rejection. Others probably would have given majorities against the con- stitution, but for the fact that all to whom suffrage has been extended voted for the constitution. Suffrage was extended by more than 50 per cent. The newspapers from the adjournment of the Convention till the election in October show the state of feeling at the time. The East had cooled down, and did not urge the rejection of the constitution so violently as one might suppose after the heated strife in the Convention. However, we find some advocating the rejection of the constitution on account of the princi- ples of representation, though the other reforms were considered whole- some. Yet all thought that the constitution would be adopted, and both the Democrats and Whigs held conventions, and nominated candidates for the offices to be filled under the new constitution, even before its ratification. ( Whig, August 29 ; Sept. 20, 1851.) 325] The Reform Convention of 1850-51. 71 The basis question was now settled, or rather a plan was adopted for its final settlement. Sectional feeling ceased. Every one rejoiced that at last there was peace in the State. A division, however, was near at hand, a division which showed that a greater part of the people of the Trans-Alle- ghany district, the section which the East claimed was espe- cially antagonistic to slave property and filled with " Northern ideas," was really of a different sentiment from the rest of the State. CHAPTER VII. THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION. The provisions of the Constitution of 1851 in regard to the basis of representation were never carried out. The secession movement came on, and February 13, 1861, a Convention was called at Richmond, which, after vain efforts for reconciliation, finally passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 81 to 51. 1 The section west of the Alleghany Mountains opposed seces- sion, so organized a government to act in concert with the Union, and called it the Government of Virginia. 2 Francis H. Peirpont was made Governor. 3 A constitutional conven- tion was called, and a constitution for West Virginia adopted, February 18, 1862. 4 Then in May, 1862, a Legislature met at Wheeling, claiming to be the Legislature of Virginia, though composed entirely of men from the Trans- Alleghany counties (about one-third of the counties of the State), and passed a bill giving the consent of the State of Virginia to the 1 Code of Virginia (1873), pp. 2, 8. * Ibid., pp. 8, 9. 3 Ibid., p. 11. 4 Ibid., p. 13. In regard to representation this constitution stated that white population should be the basis. There were to be 18 senatorial districts as nearly equal as possible in white population, and in the House of Dele- gates every county was given a representative or representatives where it was possible. But where several counties were made into districts to equalize the population, the constitution provided for rotation between the counties in electing delegates in proportion to the population of each county. For example, if two counties together elected one delegate, and one county had twice as large a population as the other, a resident of the larger county was to be elected for two terms and a resident of the smaller county for one term. (West Va. Constitution: Poorefs Constitutions, II, p. 1981.) 72 327] The Present System of Representation. 73 formation of this new State. 1 By a proclamation of the Presi- dent of the United States issued the 19th of April, 1863, West Virginia was to become a part of the Union in sixty days after this proclamation. 2 The Peirpont Government, having accomplished the dis- memberment of Virginia, was, in 1863, transferred from Wheeling to Alexandria. 3 The General Assembly held at Alexandria passed a bill calling for a convention to frame a constitution for the remaining portion of Virginia. 4 A con- vention accordingly assembled at Alexandria, February 13, 1864. 5 Very few counties were represented, 6 but a constitu- tion 7 was adopted. This was never submitted to the people for ratification. 8 This Alexandria Constitution was never considered as the constitution of the State, although President Johnson by his proclamation recognized the Alexandria Government as the legal government of the State, and Peirpont as Governor. 9 This Government at the close of the civil war was moved to Kichmond. Over this was the military commander, Gen. J. M. Schofield, and by his appointment Peirpont was superseded, April 6, 1868, by H. H. Wells. 10 By two acts of Congress (one of March 2 and the other of March 27, 1867) the Federal Government provided for the reorganization of the State Governments. 11 The commander in each military district was instructed to take, before Septem- ber 1, 1867, a registration of all persons entitled to vote. 1 Code of Va. (1873), p. 14. Under the constitution of U. S. it was neces- sary that the Legislature of Virginia should consent to the new State (U. S. Const., Art. IV, Sect. 3, cl. 1.) ; hence we see one-third of the State claiming to be the State. s Code of Va. (1873), p. 15. An act for the admission of West Virginia as a State had passed Congress, Dec. 31, 1862. 3 Code of Va. (1873), p. 18. 'Acts (Alexandria), 1863-64, p. 4. 5 Code of Va. (1873), p. 18. Ibid. ''Constitution in Acts (Alexandria), 1865-67, p. 757, el seq. 8 Code of Va. (1873), p. 18. 9 Ibid., p. 23. I0 Ibid., p. 25. "See Acts in Documents of Convention, 1867-68, p. 8, et seq. 74 Representation in Virginia. [328 But all persons who had held any military or civil office (no matter how insignificant) under the United States or any State and had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States, and afterwards had in any way aided the " rebellion," were dis- franchised. An election should then be held to take the sense of the registered voters for calling a constitutional convention and to elect delegates to the same. The basis of representa- tion for the convention was to be the registered voters. 1 The provisions of these acts were carried out in Virginia by General Schofield, and October 22, 1867, was appointed as the day for the election of delegates and for taking the sense of the qualified voters on a convention. 2 Schofield ap- portioned the one hundred and five delegates of which the convention under the acts of Congress was to be composed. He was accused of gerrymandering, but for this accusation there seems to be no grounds. 3 The vote of the people declared in favor of the convention. The contest was between the races, the whites against the con- vention, and the blacks almost unanimously for it. 4 The Convention assembled in Richmond, December 3, 1867, and remained in session till April 17, 1868. It was composed of eighty-one whites and twenty-four negroes. 5 According to parties there were sixty-eight "Radicals" or Republicans, and thirty-seven Conservatives or Democrats. Thirty-three mem- bers were non-natives of the State, persons who had come to 1 This basis did great injustice to the whites, as so many had been dis- franchised. All the negroes, however, over 21 years of age had the right to register ; hence taking the registered voters as the basis for the conven- tion was a measure favorable to the blacks and much disliked by the whites. 'Documents of Convention (1867-67), p. 15. "Dispatch, Oct. 31, 1867. 4 The numbers of registered voters were 225,933; whites, 120,101, and colored, 105,832. At the election on the convention, 76,084 whites and 93,145 negroes voted. The vote for the convention was 107,342, of which only 14,835 were whites, and against the convention was 61,887, of which only 638 were negroes. See Documents of Convention (1867-68), pp. 52, 56. ^Dispatch, April 20, 1868. 329] The Present System of Representation. 75 Virginia from the North immediately after the civil war. 1 The " Radical " party of sixty-eight contained only fourteen white Virginians. Putting it another way, fifty-four 2 out of the one hundred and five members of the Convention, were the incomers from the North and the negroes. 3 The Conven- tion was thus controlled by an element entirely opposed to the interests of the best people of the State, and they (the whites) were very violent in their denunciations of the Convention 4 and its President, Judge J. C. Underwood, who was thoroughly hated by the Virginia people. In this Convention the question of a basis of representation had assumed a different aspect. There was no longer any Western Virginia to fear, no slave property to protect by keeping the government in the hands of Eastern Virginia ; but it now became a question of white or negro domination in the State, whether the whites or the negroes should control the General Assembly. Some had no fears provided all the whites were given the right of suffrage, and then it became simply a question of party rule. The native Virginians, those who had fought for what they considered their rights, were appre- hensive lest the Northern incomers with a few native whites by means of the negro vote would rule the State. In short, l Dispaich, April 10, 1868. *At first sight one would think that, since there were 33 Northern in- comers and 24 negroes, this element would be 57 instead of 54; but the facts in the case are that there were 30 non-native whites, 3 non-native negroes, and 21 native-born negroes. 3 The Republican leaders were Underwood, Hunnicutt, Hawxhurst and Allan. The negro leaders were Lewis Lindsay and Dr. Sam Bayne. The speeches of the negroes are amusing and the English rich. They were a great source of annoyance to the white Republicans and of amusement to the Democrats or Conservatives. Dr. Bayne was so irrepressible that on one occasion a motion was made not to allow him to speak more than five times a day on one subject. (Dispatch, March 25, 1868.) On another occasion, J. C. Gibson, a Conservative, who was occupying the Chair in the Commit- tee of the Whole, called Dr. Bayne to the Chair, much to the discomfort of the Republicans. (Dispatch, April 2, 1868.) 4 Dispatch (Dec. 3, 1867) called the Convention a farce. 76 Representation in Virginia. [330 the question was whether the Democratic party, composed of the great mass of whites, or the Republican party (then termed Radical), composed chiefly of negroes and Northern incomers, should govern the State. The Convention referred the question of a basis of repre- sentation and the apportionment to a special committee. Two reports were made, a majority and a minority report. 1 Neither report proposed a fixed basis to be embodied in the constitu- tion, but differed in the number of members for each house and the way in which they should be apportioned. The majority report, which was the Republican plan, pro- posed a House of Delegates of one hundred and thirty-eight, and a Senate of forty-two elected from thirty-nine senatorial districts. The minority report (the Democratic plan) favored a House of Delegates of eighty-four and a Senate of twenty- five. The majority report made the apportionment on the voters registered under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, while the minority report took the census of 1860. The majority report was adopted by the Convention with some changes, so it alone will be discussed here. The Senate was apportioned at the ratio of one senator for every 5,400 voters. The House of Delegates was apportioned in a more peculiar fashion, to be a " compromise between population and counties." To quote the report : " The method adopted in allotting the members of the House of Delegates was to give one delegate to every 1800 voters, and, where the fraction over in a county exceeded nine hundred voters, to give another delegate, and to every county in which the number of voters was between nine and eighteen hundred, a delegate each. After making this allotment, it was found that nine counties, having less than nine hundred, were so situated that they could not be formed into suitable districts, and it was thought best to give each a delegate." The apportionment made by the Committee according to this 'Reports in Documents of Convention (1867-68), pp. 270-275. 331] The Present System of Representation. 77 scheme was highly favorable to the Republicans, but, as modi- fied and adopted by the Convention, was still more so. The apportionment was a gerrymander in the following instances : (1). There were fifteen counties with less than 900 voters. Of these nine were certainly Democratic. The others had such a large colored vote that it was probable that they would be Republican. The apportionment was so made that the six Republican counties would elect six delegates, while the nine Democratic counties would elect only six. 1 (2). The Republicans were benefited by making the House of Delegates so large that the small counties could have one delegate each. Mr. Hawxhurst, Chairman of the Committee on Representation, admitted in a speech that the House of Delegates was made large for that purpose, as most of the small counties with less than 1800 voters were Republican. 2 (3). The Committee on Representation reported two dele- gates for Henrico County, and six for Richmond City. But a new registration in Richmond was completed just before the Convention had finished its labors, and it was seen that the 1 The counties were King George, Lancaster, Middlesex, New Kent, War- wick, James City, Bland, Greene, Warren, Highland, Bath, Alleghany, Craig, Buchanan and Wise. The first six were Kepublican. Of course this was calculated on the basis of the registered voters of 1867, and on the expectation that many of the whites would be disfranchised. But when President Grant allowed the people to vote separately on the disfranchising clause of the constitution, and it was rejected, some of these became Demo- cratic. Bland, Greene and Warren, Democratic counties, were given a delegate each. Bath and Highland, Buchanan and Wise, Craig and Alle- ghany, were made districts to elect three delegates. Cf. List of counties with number of registered voters (white and colored), Documents of Conven- tion, 1867-68, p. 52 ; Report of Committee on Representation, Documents, p. 271, and Constitution, Code of Fa. (1873), p. 76. Warwick was afterwards put into a district with Elizabeth City, but they were given two delegates, and, since Elizabeth City had a colored majority of 1,224, it only made Republican success surer. 4 See Hawxhurst's Remarks in the Convention, Dwpalch, March 25, 1868 ; and Documents, p.. 51. 78 Representation in Virginia. [332 whites would probably be able to control the city ; and, since the colored voters in Henrico had a majority of 650, the two were made into one district and given eight delegates. 1 (4). The Committee on Representation reported in favor of one senator from Henrico, and two from Richmond ; but, when these two were made into one district to elect delegates, they were also put into one senatorial district to elect three senators, thus giving the control of all the representatives for Richmond to the colored voters of Henrico. 2 (5). The Committee on Representation reported two dele- gates for Chesterfield and one for Powhatan. Chesterfield was a doubtful county ; but Powhatan was largely Republican, the colored voters having a majority of 722. The Convention made these two counties into one district, electing three dele- gates. 3 With representation thus apportioned, 4 and without any basis for future apportionments, 5 the constitution was adopted by the Convention. The whole system of representation was entirely unfavorable to the whites. The result was that the citizens of Virginia were urged to do their best to reject the Registered voters in Richmond in 1867 were, whites, 5,571; negroes, 6,284 ; in 1868, whites, 6,571 ; negroes, 6,607. Cf. Documents, pp, 52, 271 ; Code of Fa. (1873), p. 76, and Dispatch, March 16, April 3, 4, 20, 1868. 2 Of. Documents, p. 51, 52, 271 ; Code of Fa. (1873), p. 78; Dispatch, March 16, April 3, 4, 20, 1868. 3 Cf. Documents, p. 51, 52, 271 ; Code of Fa. (1873), p. 76. The accusation was also brought that taking the registration of 1867, by which so many whites were disfranchised, instead of the census of 1860 was to give larger representation to the counties having a large colored popu- lation. (Dispatch, March 23, 1868.) 4 The Convention made one change in the report of the committee in regard to the Senate. Instead of 39 districts and 42 senators, the number of districts was made 40, and senators, 43. See Constitution : Code of Fa. (1873), pp. 78, 79. 5 The constitution provided that reapportionments should be made by the first sessions of the General Assembly after every census, but did not state that the population must be the basis of the reapportionments. (Con- stitution: Code of Fa., 1873, p. 79.) 333] The Present System of Representation. 79 constitution, 1 aiid it is probable that a large vote would have been polled against the constitution had it been immediately submitted to the people. However, by a proclamation of General Schofield, it was announced that no elections would be held, as Congress had made no appropriations to defray the expenses. 2 April 10, 1869, Congress passed an act to have the constitution submitted to the qualified voters. 3 The act provided that President Grant should designate the time for the elections, and might also set apart such clauses of the constitution as he saw fit, to be voted on separately. By far the most objectionable features of the constitution were the disfranchising clause 4 and the " ironclad " oath. 5 By Grant's proclamation 6 these two clauses were submitted separately to the voters, and rejected, 7 whereas the rest of the constitution was ratified by an almost unanimous vote, July 6, 1869. The apportionment of representation as embodied in the constitution lasted only two years. In 1871, the General 1 The Democratic members of the Convention issued an address pointing out the defects of the constitution (representation being one), and urged the whites to vote for rejection. (Dispatch, April 20, 1868.) 2 Dispatch, April 5, 1868. 3 Code of Va. (1873), p. 26. 4 The disfranchising clause had been put into the constitution in order to keep the government, if possible, in the hands of the Northern incomers and negroes. Schofield went into the Convention in 1868, and tried to persuade it to remove this clause. He was hissed and called " King Scho- field" by the Republicans and negroes. (Dispatch, April 18, 1868.) This clause disfranchised everyone who had been an officer, Federal, State or County, previous to or during the war and had afterwards aided in the "rebellion." See Code of Va. (1873), p. 26. 5 Schofield had also opposed this. It provided that every officer here- after elected should swear that he had never voluntarily borne arms against the United States. (Code of Va., 1873, p. 28.) This was a Republican measure to keep the best out of office, as only negroes, Northern incomers, and a few others would be eligible. 6 Code of Va. (1873), pp. 26-27. 7 The vote on the disfranchising clause was 84,410 for, and 124,360 against, and on the "ironclad oath" 83,458 for, and 124,715 against ; for the rest of the constitution the vote for ratification was 210,285, and for rejection, 9,136. 80 Representation in Virginia. [334 Assembly made a reapportionment. 1 The House of Delegates was reduced from one hundred and thirty-eight to one hun- dred and thirty-two. The number of the Senate, forty-three, remained unchanged. 2 The gerrymander of the constitution was broken up. Richmond and Henrico were separated for the election of delegates, Richmond being given five and Henrico two, but they continued to form a senatorial district electing three senators. Chesterfield and Powhatan counties were no longer to be one district for the election of delegates, but Chesterfield was to elect two and Powhatan one delegate. The districts of Alleghany and Craig, of Highland and Bath, and of Buchanan and Wise, each electing one delegate remained unchanged, but Charles City and New Kent, and York and James City were made districts electing one delegate each, while the district of Warwick and Elizabeth City was reduced from two delegates to one. 3 The constitution provided for annual sessions of the General Assembly, although the delegates were elected biennially, and the senators for four years, half of the districts electing every two years. 4 In 1875, an amendment to the constitution was suggested by the General Assembly, reapproved by the same 1 See Code of Va. (1873), pp. 79, 135. The plan of this reapportionment was to give as near as possible one delegate to every 12,000 persons, and one senator to every 36,000. (Dispatch, Jan. 31, 1871.) 2 The power resided in the General Assembly to change the numbers since the constitution gave the right to reapportion, and did not definitely fix the number for each House. See Constitution: Code of Va. (1873), pp. 75, 79. 3 Cf. Apportionments in Code of Va. (1873), pp. 76-79, and 134-137. The other changes were one delegate less to Pittsylvania, and to Norfolk County and Portsmouth. In the Senate the districts were differently arranged and numbered. Under the constitution the plan was that all the senatorial districts bearing odd numbers should elect at one time, and all with even numbers at another. By the reapportionment they were so arranged that all districts numbered from one to twenty inclusive should elect at one time, and all from twenty-one to forty inclusive at another. Code of Va. (1873), p. 137. 4 Constitution : Code (1873), pp. 75, 78, 80. 335] The Present System of Representation. 81 body in 1876, and then ratified by the vote of the people. 1 By this amendment the General Assembly was to meet biennially, unless specially called by the Governor. The members of the General Assembly were to be elected as previously. The House of Delegates was to be composed of not more than one hundred nor less than ninety, and the Senate of not more than forty nor less than thirty-three. Another reapportionmeut was to be made at some time previous to 1879 and again in 1891, and every ten years thereafter. February 17, 1878, the General Assembly, in accordance with this provision, reapportioned representation throughout the State, giving one hundred delegates to the House and dividing the State into thirty-nine senatorial districts, each electing one senator except the thirty-fifth district, composed of Richmond and Henrico, which was to elect two senators. 2 When this apportionment was made, the population was largely guesswork, so the principle used was somewhat of a reversion to the old county system of representation. The plan was that "representation should, when it was possible, be given to small counties even at the expense of the larger, so that every distinct community within limits should have its voice heard in the Legislature." 3 An attempt was made to revert almost entirely to the old county system. A bill was intro- duced to give four delegates to Richmond, and to take dele- gates from all counties and cities having more than one, and so to distribute them as to give all the small counties, with a few exceptions, one delegate each. This was defeated, as it gave too much power to the minority, it being estimated that l Acti of Assembly (1874-75), pp. 399-403, and Acts (1875-76), pp. 82-93. For this method of amending the constitution, see Constitution : Code (1873), p. 100. 'Acts of Assembly (1877-78), pp. 111-114. 1 Report of Committee : Dispatch, Feb. 18, 1878. The committee said that, as far as practicable, they desired to get back to the principles of the Constitution of 1776. 6 82 Representation in Virginia. [336 one-third of the population would elect at least one-half of the delegates. 1 In 1891, another reapportionment was made. The number of members for both houses remained the same, but the dis- tricts were differently arranged in order to meet the rapid increase in population in some sections of the State. 2 The basis taken in allotting representation was the population according to the census of 1890 ; one senator for every 40,000 persons, and one delegate for every 16,000, but this was con- siderably modified by county limits. 3 A glance at the history of representation in Virginia shows that, as much as the basis question has been agitated, there has never been a basis of representation except in the Constitution of 1776, which made the basis for the House of Delegates two from each county, while no basis was adopted for the Senate. The present constitution provides for reapportion- ments after every census, but does not state that the popula- tion is to be the basis. The whole power is in the hands of the Legislature, and thus opportunities are afforded for fraud. Any political party in power at the time of a reapportionment has the power to adopt any basis for that reapportionment, and to gerrymander the State for party aggrandizement. 4 Although the basis question in Virginia has lost its interest since the civil war and the abolition of slavery, yet it seems best that every constitution should embody some basis of repre- sentation. To some, population as a basis seems so generally recognized, that a constitutional basis appears useless. By no means is population the general basis for State legislatures. In the whole of the New England, there is not a State in which the present system of representation is based entirely on popu- l Dispatch, Feb. 19, 1878. 'See Acts of Assembly (1891-93), pp. 56-60. The Times, Dec. 11, 1891. 4 That the Democrats had such an idea in 1891 is shown by the remarks of some of the Democratic leaders in the halls of the Legislature at the time of the reapportionment. See Dispatch, Dec. 20, 1891, and Times, Dec. 20, 22, 23, 1891. 337] The Present System of Representation, 83 lation. The large towns in some instances have no greater number of representatives than the small ones, while, in other instances, a maximum number of representatives is established, and it matters not how .large the population of any town may be, this maximum cannot be exceeded. 1 In Maryland, Balti- more is not represented in proportion to its population. In Virginia, some improvement might be made in regard to the election districts for both the Senate and the House of Delegates. It often occurs that the larger county or counties in the districts secure all the representatives to the detriment of the smaller counties. In county relationship the minority should be recognized as well as the majority, and, therefore, some form of proportional representation between the counties in election districts should be adopted. The principle of rota- tion between counties in the same district, as seen in the West Virginia constitution, is good. 2 In Massachusetts a well estab- lished custom determines that there shall be " rotation within the district so that each town shall have its turn in sending as representative one of its own residents once in every few years." 3 Each county in Virginia, with a few exceptions, has its own peculiar interests, and it is nothing but just and proper that each should have a constitutional right to send to the General Assembly, at stated periods, a representative from its own limits. 1 G. H. Haynes : Kepresentation in the New England Legislatures, Annals of Am. Academy; Sept., 1895. 8 Supra, p. 72 ; Note 4. 3 G. H. Haynes : Annals of Am. Academy ; Sept., 1895. THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS OF I. American Journal of Mathematics. S. NEWCOMB and T. CRAIG, Editors. Quarterly. 4to. Volume XVIII in progress. $5 per volume. II. American Chemical Journal. I. REMSEN, Editor. 10 nos. yearly. 8vo. Volume XVIII in progress. $4 per volume. III. American Journal of Philology. B. L. GILDERSLEEVE, Editor. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XVII in progress. $3 per volume. IV. Studies from the Biological Laboratory. 8vo. Vol. V complete. $5 per volume. V. Studies in History and Politics. H. B. ADAMS, Editor. Monthly. 8yo. Vol. XIV in progress ; $3 per volume. Fourteen extra volumes of this series are also ready. VI. Johns Hopkins University Circulars. 4to. Monthly. Volume XV in progress. $1 per year. VII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 4to. Monthly. Volume VII in progress. $1 per year. VIII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume VI in progress. $5 per volume. IX. Contributions to Assyriolpgy, etc. Volume III in progress. X. Memoirs from the Biological Laboratory. W. E. BROOKS, Editor. Volume III ready. XI. Annual Report of the Johns Hopkins University. Presented by the President to the Board of Trustees. XII. Annual Register of the Johns Hopkins University. Giving the list of officers and students, and stating the regulations, etc. A NEW CRITICAL EDITION OP THE HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Edited by Professor Paul Haupt. Prospectus on application. ROWLAND'S PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NORMAL SOLAR SPECTRUM. Ten plates. $20. DESCRIPTION OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL. J. S. Billings, Editor. 116 pp., 56 plates. 4to. Cloth, $7.50. THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES (complete facsimile edition). J. Eendel Harris, Editor. 110 pp. and 10 plates. 4to. Cloth, $5.00. REPRODUCTION IN PHOTOTYPE OF A SYRIAC MS. WITH THE ANTILEGOMENA EPISTLES. I. H. Hall, Editor. Cloth, $4.00. THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN. 48 pp. 16mo. 50 cents. THE OYSTER. By William K. Brooks. 240 pp., 12 plates. 12mo. Cloth, $1. ESSAYS AND STUDIES. By B. L. Gildersleeve. 520 pp. 4to. Cloth, $3.50. STUDIES IN LOGIC. By members of the Johns Hopkins University. C. S. Peirce, Editor. 123 pp. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00. GEOLOGICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS OF BALTIMORE AND VICINITY. $1.00 each. ESSAYS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. J. Franklin Jameson, Editor. Cloth, $2.25. THE GENUS SALPA. By W. K. Brooks. 396 pp. 4to. 57 plates. $7.50. GEOLOGY AND PHYSICAL FEATURES OF MARYLAND. By G. H. Williams and W. B. Clark. $1.00. A full list of publications will be sent on application. Business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hop* kins Press. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES ZPTJBILIC A-TIOIET W#A intermission from July to October inclusive. DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF ENGLISH, GERMAN, AND TUB ROMANCE LANGUAGES. A. MARSHALL ELLIOTT, Managing Editor. JAMES W. BKIQHT, H. C. G. VON JAGEMANN, HENRY ALFRED TODD, Associate Editors. This is a successful and widely-known periodical, managed by a corps of professors and instructors in the Johns Hopkins University, with the co-operation of many of the leading college professors, in the department of modern languages, throughout the country. While undertaking to maintain a high critical and scientific standard, the new journal will endeavor to engage the interest and meet the wants of the entire class of serious and progressive modern- language teachers, of whatever grade. Since its establishment in January, 1886, the journal has been repeatedly enlarged, and has met with constantly increasing encouragement and success. The wide range of its articles, original, critical, literary and pedagogical, by a number of the foremost American (and European ) scholars, has well represented and recorded the recent pro- gress of modern language studies, both at home and abroad. The list of contributors to MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES, in addition to the Editors, includes the following names : ANDERSON, MELVILLE B., State University of Iowa; BANCROFT, T. WHITING, Brown Univer- sity, R. L; BASKERVILL, W. M., Vanderbilt University. Tenn.; BOCHER, FERDINAND. Harvard University, Mass. ; BRADLEY, C. B., University of California, Cal; BRANDT, H. C. G., Hamilton College, N. Y. ; BROWNE, WM. HAND, Johns Hopkins University. Md. ; BURNHAM, WM. H., Johns Hopkins University, Md.; CARPENTER, WM. H., Columbia College, N. Y. ; CLEDAT, L., Facultfi des Lettres, Lyons, France ; COHN, ADOLPHE, Harvard University, Mass. ; COOK, A. S., Yale University; COSIJN, P. J., University of Leyden, Holland, CRANE, T. F., Cornell Univer- sity, N. Y. ; DAVIDSON, THOMAS, Orange, N. J.; EGGE, ALBERT E., St. Olafs College, Minn.; FAY, E. A., National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C.; FORTIER, ALCKE, Tulane Uni- versity, La.; GARNER, SAMUEL, U. S. Naval Academy; GERBER, A., Earlham College. Ind.; GRANDGENT, CHARLES. Harvard University, Mass. ; GUMMERE, F. B., The Swain Free School, Mass. ; HART, J. M., University of Cincinnati, Ohio : HEMPL.GEO., University of Michigan ; Huss, H. C. O., Princeton College, N. J. ; VON JAGEMANN, H. C. G., Harvard University; KARSTEN, GUSTAF, University of Indiana, Ind. ; LANG. HENRY R., The Swain Free School, Mass. ; LEARNED, M. D., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; LEYH, EDW. F., Baltimore, Md. ; LODEMAN, A, State Normal School, Mich.; MORFILL, W. R., Oxford, England; McCABE, T., Johns Hopkins University, Md.; MCELROY, JOHN G. R., University of Pennsylvania, Pa.; O'iX)NNOR, B. F., Columbia College, N. Y. ; PRIMER, SYLVESTER, Providence, R. I.; SCHKLK DE VERB, M., University of Virginia, Va. ; SCHILLING, HUGO, Wittenberg College, Ohio ; SHELDON, EDW. S., Harvard University, Mass.; SHEPHERD, H. E., College of Charleston, S. C. ; SCHMIDT, H. University of Deseret, Salt Lake City, Utah: SIKVERS, KDUARD, University of Tubingen, Germany ; SMYTH, A. H., High School of Philadelphia, Pa. ; STODDARD, FRANCIS H., University of City of New York ; STURZINGER, J. J., Bryn Mawr College, Pa. ; THOMAS. CALVIN, University of Michigan, Mich.; WALTER, E. L., University of Michigan, Mich.; WARREN, K. M., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; WHITE, H. S., Cornell University, N. Y. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE ONE DOLLAR AND FIFTY CENTS PER ANNUM, Payable in Advance. FOREIGN COUNTRIES $1.75 PER ANNUM. SINGLE COPIES TWENTY CENTS. Specimen pages sent on application. Subscriptions, advertisements and all business communications should be addressed to the MANAGING EDITOR OF MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHEOLOGY AND OF THE HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OP ARCHEOLOGY is the organ of the Archaeological Institute of America. It contains original articles by archaeologists of established reputation both in Europe and America, also the Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Corres- pondence, Book Reviews, and News of excavations and discoveries in all countries. CONTENTS OF VOL. X., No. 4, OCT.-DEC., 1895. J. P. PETERS. The Court of Columns at Nippur. T. D. GOODEI.!, AND T. W. HEERMANCE. Grave Monuments from Athens. J. C. HOPPIN. A Kylix by the artist Paiax. Book Reviews. Archaeological News. CONTENTS OF VOL. XL, No. 1, JAN.-MARCH, 1896. R. NORTON. Andokides. V. J. EMERY. The Great Fire in Rome in the Time of Nero. R. B. RICHARDSON. Inscriptions from the Argive Heraeum. Archaeological Notes. Published Quarterly. Annual Subscription, $5.00. Address for Literary Communications A. L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr. For Business Communications ALLAN MARQUAND. Princeton, New Jersey. PUBLICATIONS OF THE American Economic Association, SIX NUMBERS ANNUALLY. The following are the most recent numbers : VOLUME IX (1894.) HAND-BOOK AND REPORT OF THE SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING. Price 50 cents. Nos. 1 and 2. PROGRESSIVE TAXATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. By EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Ph. D. Price $1.00 ; cloth $1.50. No. 3. THE THEORY OF TRANSPORTATION. By CHARLES H. COOLEY. Price 75 cents. No. 4. SIR WILLIAM PETTY : A STUDY IN ENGLISH ECONOMIC LITERATURE. By WILSON LLOYD BEVAN, M. A., Ph. D. Price 75 cts. NOS. 5 and 6. PAPERS READ AT THE SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING. " The Modern Appeal to Legal Forces in Economic Life," (President's An- nual Address), by JOHN B. CLARK, Ph.D.; "The Chicago Strike," by CARROLL D. WRIGHT, LL. D. ; " The Unemployed," by DAVIS R. DEWEY, Ph.D.; "Population and Capital," by ARTHUR T. HADLEY, M. A.; "The Pope and the Encyclical on Labor," by JOHN GRAHAM BROOKS. Price $1.00. VOLUME X (1895.) HAND-BOOK AND REPORT OF THE SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING. Price 50 cents. Nos. 1, 2 and 3. THE CANADIAN BANKING SYSTEM, 1817-189O. By R. M. BRECKENRIDGE, Ph. D. Price $1.50. No. 4. POOR LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW YORK. By JOHN CUMMINGS, Ph. D. Price 75 cents. TO APPEAR SOON. 1. LETTERS OF DAVID RICARDO TO JOHN RAMSAY McCuLLOCH, 1816-1823. Edited, with annotations, by J. H. HOLLANDER, Ph. D., Instructor in Economics, Johns Hopkins University. 2. THE RACE TRAITS AND TENDENCIES OF THE AMERICAN NEGRO. By FREDERICK L. HOFFMAN, F. 8. S., Statistician to the Pru- dential Insurance Company of America. The annual membership fee of three dollars (life membership fifty dollars) entitles one to all the publications of the Association, as they appear, and to a discount of one-sixth if one wishes to purchase back numbers or volumes. For general information regarding membership, etc., address SECRETARY AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION; Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. All orders and inquiries for monographs and subscriptions should be addressed to the publishers, MACMILLAN & CO., No. 66 Fifth Avenue, New York. Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society. No. I, 1893. Contains the following papers: Address of the President, Hon. OSCAR S. STRAUS. The Settlement of the Jews in Georgia, CHAS. C. JONES, JR., LL. D. Mickoe Israel Congregation of Philadelphia, Rev. SABATO MORAIO, LL. D. Some unpublished material relating to Dr. Jacob Lumbrozo of Maryland, Dr. J. H. HOLLANDER. Beginnings of New York Jewish History, MAX J. KOHLER. Notes on the Jews of Philadelphia, from published annals: The first publication of a Jewish character printed in Philadelphia, Prof. MORRIS JASTROW, JR. Jews mentioned in the Journals of the Continental Congress, Dr. HERBERT FRIEDENWALD. A Landmark, N. TAYLOR PHILLIPS. An Act allowing natu- ralization of Jews in the Colonies ; A Document concerning the Franks family, Hon. SIMON W. ROSENDALE. Jewish beginnings in Kentucky, LEWIS N. DEMBITZ. Jews in the American Plantations between 1600-1700; Americana at the Anglo-Jewish exhibition ; A Political Document of the year 1800, Dr. CYRUS ADLER. The Settlement of the Jews in Canada, ANDREW C. JOSEPH. 80. 143pp. $1.50. No. 2 1894. Contains the following papers: Address of the President, Hon. OSCAR S. STRAUS. A sketch of Haym Salomon, Prof. H. B. ADAMS. History of the Jews of Chicago ; The Jewish Congregation in Surinam ; A Sermon by Moses Mendelssohn printed in Philadelphia 130 years ago, Dr. B. FELSENTHAL. The Civil Status of the Jews in Maryland, 1634-1776, Dr. J. H. HOLLANDER. Kev. David Mendez Machado, N. TAYLOR PHILLIPS. Note concerning David Hays, SOLOMON SOLIS-COHEN. The Colonization of America by the Jews, Dr. M. KAYSERLING. Phases of Jewish Life in New York before 1800; The Lopez and Rivera families of Newport, MAX J. KOHLER. Letter of Jonas Phillips to the Federal Convention ; Jacob Isaacs and his method of converting salt water into fresh water; Memorials presented to the Continental Congress, Dr. HERBERT FRIEDENWALD. Columbus in Jewish Literature, Prof. RICHARD GOTTHEIL. Settlement of the Jews in Texas, Rev. HENRY COHEN. Aaron Levy, Mrs. J. H. ROSENBACH and A. S. W. ROSENBACH. Documents for the Public Record Office (London), Dr. CHARLES GROSS. Memoir of John Moss, LUCJEN Moss. 80. 207 pp. $1.50. No. 3, 1895. Contains the following papers: Address of the President, Hon. OSCAR S. STRAUS. Some further references relating to Haym Salomon, Dr. J. H. HOLLANDER. The earliest Rabbis and Jewish writers of America, Dr. M. KAYSERLINQ. The American Jew as Soldier and Patriot, Hon. SIMON WOLF. Points in the first chapter of New York Jewish History, A. M. DYER. An early ownership of Real Estate in Albany, N. Y., by a Jewish trader, Hon. SIMON ROSENDALE. Phases of Jewish Life in New York before 1800, II, MAX J. KOHLER. Correspondence between Washington and Jewish citizens ; The relation of Jews to our National monuments, LEWIS ABRAHAM. Early Jewish literature in America, G. A. KOHUT. 80. 173 pp. $1.50. NO. 4, 1896. Contains the following papers : Chronological sketch of the history of the Jews in Surinam, Dr. B. FELSENTHAL and Prof. RICHARD GOTTHEIL. The Jews in Texas, Rev. HENRY COHEN. The Jews of Richmond, JACOB EZEKIEL. The trial of Jorge de Almeoda by the Inquisition in Mexico (with an illustration), Dr. CYRUS ADLER. Incidents illustrative of American Jewish Patriotism, MAX J. KOHLER. Jewish Martyrs of the Inquisition in South America, G. A. KOHUT. The Levy and Leixas families of Newport and New York, N. T. PHILLIPS. A biographical account of Ephraim Hart, G. N. HART. 80. 243 pp. $2.00. All communications should be addressed to the Corresponding Secretary, Dr. CYRUS ADLER, 943 K St., N. W., Washington, D. C. REVUE POLIT1QUE ET PARLEMENTAIRE, 110, RUE DE L'UNIVERSITfr- PARIS. Directeur: MARCEL FOURNIER. Abonnements. Un an ; 2O fir. Union postale : 25 fr. A. COLIN ET ClE, 5, RUE DE MEZIERES PARIS. Sommaire du n 22 (Avril). I. LA CRI8E ITALIENNE, par M. Napoleone Colajanni, Depute au Parlement Italien. II. LA FRANCE ET L'ANGLETERRE SUR LE NIGER, par M. Gus- tave Regelsperger. III. DEMOCUATIE ET LIBERTE, par M. Eugene d'Eichthal. IV. LA POLICE A PARIS ET LA REORGANISATION DE LA POLICE PARISIENNE (Suite et fin), par M. Georges Graux, Depute du Pas- de- Calais. V. LES ASSURANCES MUTUELLES OUVRIERES, par M. Eugene Rochetin. VI. LES BANQUES COLONIALES, par M. G. Francois. VII. LA DEUXIEME PORTION ET LES DISPENSES QUI ONT TIRE UN BON NUMERO, par M. F. Valegeas. VIII. VARIETES: 1 EN ROUMANIE, par M. Camille Guy. 2 LA SITUATION DU TRANSVAAL AU POINT DE VUE INTERNA- TIONAL, par M. I.-V. Povolni. 3 LE TARIF HYPOTHECAIRE ITALIEN DE 1895, par M. Flour de Saint-Genis. IX. REVUE DES PRINCIPALES QUESTIONS POLITIQUES ET SO- CIALES: 1 REVUE DES QUESTIONS FINANCIERES ET MONETAIRES, par M. A. Raffalovich. 2 REVUE DES QUESTIONS AGRICOLES, par M. D. Zolla. X. LA VIE POLITIQUE ET PARLEMENTAIRE A L'ETRANGER: 1 BRESIL, par M. A. Guanabara, Depute au Parlement Bresilien. 2 HONGRIE, par M. A.-E. Horn. 3 TRANSVAAL, par M. E. de Morpurgo. XI. LA VIE POLITIQUE ET PARLEMENTAIRE EN FRANCE: 1 LA POLITIQUE EXTERIEURE DU Mois, par M. Francis de Pressense. 2 CHHONIQUE POLITIQUE INTERIEURE, par M. Felix Roussel. 3 LA VIE PARLEMENTAIRE, par XXX. XII. CHRONOLOGIE POLITIQUE ETRANGERE ET FRANCAISE, par XXX. XIII. BIBLIOGRAPHIE. STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECOIOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW, EDITED BY THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. VOLUME I BOUND, $2.5O; UNBOUND, $2.OO. I. THE DIVORCE PROBLEM : A STUDY IN STATISTICS.* By WALTER F. WILLCOX, PH.D. Price, 50 cents. II. HISTORY or TARIFF ADMINISTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES, FROM COLONIAL TIMES TO THE MCKINLEY ADMINISTRATION Bnx.* By JOHN DEAN Goss, PH.D. Price, 50 cents. III. HISTORY OF MUNICIPAL LAND OWNERSHIP ON MANHAT- TAN ISLAND.* By GEORGE ASHTON BLACK, PH.D. Price, 50 cents. IV. FINANCIAL HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS. By CHARLES H. J. DOUGLAS, PH.D. Price, $1.00. VOLUME II. BOUND, $2.5O; UNBOUND, $2.OO. I. THE ECONOMICS OF THE RUSSIAN VILLAGE. By ISAAC A. HOURWICH, PH.D. Price, $1.00. II. BANKRUPTCY: A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE LEGISLATION. By SAMUEL W. DUNSCOMB, JR., PH.D. Price, 75 cents. III. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS : A STUDY IN MUNICIPAL FINANCE.* By VICTOR ROSEWATER. Price, 75 cents. VOLUME III BOUND, $2.5O; UNBOUND, $2.OO. I. HISTORY OF ELECTIONS IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES. By COUKTLANDT K. BISHOP, PH.D. Price $1.50; bound, $2.00. II. THE COMMERCIAL POLICY OF ENGLAND TOWARD THE AMERICAN COLONIES. By GEORGE L. BEER, A.M. Price, $1.00. VOLUME IV. BOUND, $2 5O ; UNBOUND, $2.OO. I. FINANCIAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA. By W. Z. RIPLEY, PH.D. Price, 75 cents. II. THE INHERITANCE TAX. By MAX WEST, PH.D. Price, 75 cents. IH. HISTORY OF TAXATION IN VERMONT. By FREDERICK A. WOOD, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. VOLUME V. I. DOUBLE TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES. By FRANCIS WALKER, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. Other numbers will be announced hereafter. Numbers marked * are not sold separately. For further particulars apply to PROF. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, COLUMBIA COLLEGE, OB TO MACMILLAN & CO., NEW YORK. NOTES SUPPLEMENTARY TO J. H. U. STUDIES. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND. By Dr. ALBERT SHAW. SOCIAL WORK IN AUSTRALIA AND LONDON. By WILLIAM OBEY. ENCOURAGEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION. By Professor HERBERT B. ADAMS. THE PROBLEM OF CITY GOVERNMENT. By Hon. SETH Low. THE LIBRARIES OF BALTIMORE. By Dr. P. R. UHLKR. WORK AMONG THE WORKINGWOMEN IN BALTIMORE. By Professor H. B. ADAMS. CHARITIES: THE RELATION OF THE STATE, THE CITY, AND THE IN- DIVIDUAL TO MODERN PHILANTHROPIC WORK. By Dr. A. G. WARNEB. LAW AND HISTORY. By Dr. WALTER B. SCAIFK. THE NEEDS OF SELF-SUPPORTING WOMEN. By Miss CLARE DE GBAP- FENREID. THE ENOCH PRATT FREE LIBRARY. By Dr. LKWIS H. STEINEB. EARLY PRESBYTERIANISM IN MARYLAND. By Rev. J. W. MclLVAIN. THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THE U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. By Professor O. T. MASON. UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE. By RICHARD G. MOULTON. THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION. By Dr. WILLIAM T. HARRIS. POPULAR ELECTION OF U. S. SENATORS. By JOHN HAYNES. A MEMORIAL OF LUCIUS S. MERRIAM. By J. H. HOLLANDER and others. IS HISTORY PAST POLITICS ? By Professor HERBERT B. ADAMS. ANNUAL SERIES, 1883-1895. SERIES I. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pp. 84.00. SERIES II. INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pp. 84.00. SERIES III. MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 595pp. 84.00. SERIES IV. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE. 600pp. 83.50. SERIES V. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 569 pp. 83.50. SERIES VI. THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 540 pp. 83.50. SERIES VII. SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERN- MENT. 628 pp. 83.50. SERIES VIII. HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625pp. 83.50. SERIES IX. EDUCATION, POLITICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 640 pp. 8350. SERIES X. CHURCH AND STATE, COLUMBUS AND AMERICA. 630 pp. 83.50. SERIES XI. LABOR, SLAVERY, AND SELF-GOVERNMENT. 574 pp. 8350. SERIES XII. INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY. 626pp. 83.50. SERIES XIII. SOUTH CAROLINA, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA. 606pp. 83.50. The set of thirteen series is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use, for 839.00. The thirteen series, with fourteen extra volumes, twenty-seven volumes, in cloth, for 858.00. All business communications should be addressed to THE JOHNS HOP- KINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. Subscriptions will also be received, or single copies furnished by any of the following AMERICAN AGENTS: New York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. Cincinnati. Robert Clarke Co. Boston. Damrell & Upham: W. B. Clarke Indianapolis. Bowen-Merrill Co. & Co. Chicago. A. C. McClurg & Co. Providence. Preston & Rounds. Louisville. Flexner Brothers. Philadelphia. Porter & Coates ; J. B. Lip- New Orleans. George F. Wharton. pincott Co. Toronto. Carswell Co. (Limited). Washington. W. H. Lowderrnilk & Co.; Montreal. William Foster Brown & Co. Brentano's. EUROPEAN AGENTS: Paris. A. Herman ; Em. Terquem. London. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner A Berlin. Puttkammer & Muhlbrecht; Mayer Co.; G. P. Putnam's Sons. AMiiller. Turin, Florence and Rome. E. Loescher. Leipzig. F. A. Brockhaus. EXTRA VOLUMES OF STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. I. THE KEPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. By CHARLES H. LEVER- MORE. 342 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. II. PHILADELPHIA, 1681-1887. By EDWARD P. ALLINSON, and BOIES PENROSE. 444 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. III. BALTIMORE AND THE NINETEENTH OF APRIL, 1861. By GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN. 176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.00. IV-V. LOCAL CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By GEORGE E. HOWARD. Volume I. Development of the Township, Hundred and Shire. 542 pp. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. Volume II. In preparation. VI. THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND. By JEFFREY R. BRACKETT. 270 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. VII. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY. 124 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25. VIII. THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE U. S. AND JAPAN. By INAZO (OTA) NITOBE. 198 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25. IX. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZERLAND. By JOHN MARTIN VINCEXT. 225 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. X. SPANISH INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST. By FRANK W. BLACKMAR. 380 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. XI. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTION. By MORRIS M. COHN. 250 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. XII. THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. By C. M. ANDREWS. 280 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. XIII. AMERICA : ITS GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY, 1492-1892. By WALTER B. SCAIFE. 176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. XIV. FLORENTINE LIFE DURING THE RENAISSANCE. By WALTER B. 'SCAIFE. 256 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. XV. THE SOUTHERN QUAKERS AND SLAVERY. A Study in Insti- tutional History. By STEPHEN B. WEEKS. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. The set of thirteen series is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use, for $39, and including subscription to the current (fourteenth) series, for $42.00. The fourteen series, with fourteen extra volumes, altogether twenty- eight volumes, in cloth as above, for $60.00. All business communications should be addressed to THE JOHNS HOP- KINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. 9 61 DATE DUE MTED IN U.S.A. UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 000 823 047 6