DUKE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 LIBRARY 
 
 treasure %oorn 
 
/ 
 
 TOEASURr ROOM 
 
 « 
 
TREASUR: ^OOM 
 
 REGISTER OE THE DEBATES 
 
 AND 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE YA. REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 WM. G. BISHOP, OFFICIAL REPORTER.. 
 
 RO. H. GALLAHER, PUBLISHER. 
 
 RICHMOND REPUBLICAN EXTRA— JANUARY, 1851. 
 
 MONDAY, January 6, 1851. 
 At 12 o'clock this day, pursuant to the adjournment 
 of the 4th 'November, 1850, the members of the Conven- 
 tion to revise the Constitution of the State, assembled 
 in the chamber of the House of Delegates, in the capi- 
 tol at Ri'ihmond. 
 
 . ^i t/bLnvention was called to order bj the President, 
 t*?^ ta. JOHN Y. MASON, and the roll being called by 
 the" t ^KEtary, S. D. WHITTLE, Esq., a quorum was 
 fount, y> be present. 
 
 RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS. 
 
 The PRESIDENT announced that during the recess of 
 the Convention, communications had been received by 
 liim, as the presiding officer of the body, from GEORGE 
 W. HOPKINS, Esq., and GREEN B. SAMUELS, Esq., 
 resigning their seats as members of the Convention, and 
 that writs of election, according to law, had been issued 
 by him in each case to supply the vacancies thus created. 
 
 The communications, which are as follow, were di- 
 rected to be entered upon the journal : 
 
 House of Delegates, ) 
 Richmond, December 3, 1850. ) 
 Hon. John Y. Mason, President of the Convention: 
 
 Sir — Having been chosen Speaker of the House of 
 Delegates of Virginia, I beg leave to resign the seat 
 which I have occupied in the Virginia State Convention. 
 
 I am, Sir, very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 G. W. Hopkins. 
 
 Woodstock, Dec. 10, 1850. 
 Sir — I am informed by private advices from Rich- 
 mond, that the General Assembly of Virginia have elect- 
 ed me to the Judgeship of the Fourteenth Judicial Cir- 
 cuit — an office which I have determined to accept. Re- 
 garding the office to which I am just elected as incom- 
 patible with that which I now hold as delegate in the 
 Convention, 1 deem it proper to resign my place as del- 
 egate, which I now do. Allow me to express the hope 
 that the deliberations of the body over which you pre- 
 side, may result in the preservation of harmony and 
 good feeling between all portions of the Commonwealth 
 — a state of things at all times to be desired, but indis- 
 pensable to our safety in the time of trouble and danger 
 which, I fear, we must pass through. 
 
 Respectfully, your most obedient servant, 
 
 G. B. Samuels. 
 Hon. Jno. Y. Mason, President of the Virginia Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 place of meeting. 
 The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the fol- 
 lowing communications addressed to him as the Presid- 
 ing Officer of the body, which were read by the Secre- 
 tary : 
 
 City of Norfolk, to wit : — 
 
 At a meeting of the select and common councils of 
 the city of Norfolk, on the 12th of December, 1850 — 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Bowden, the following pream- 
 ble and resolutions were unanimously adopted, viz : 
 
 Whereas, the citizens of Norfolk would be much grat- 
 ified if the Convention of Virginia, which adjourned to 
 meet in Richmond on the first Monday in January next, 
 would select this city for the discharge of its important 
 duties : and the councils of the city, representing the 
 feelings and wishes of their constituents upon this sub- 
 ject, do most respectfully and cordially tender to the 
 Convention an invitation to assemble here at such time 
 as may suit its convenience, with the assurance that 
 every desirable arrangement shall be made for its accom- 
 modation. 
 
 Therefore, be it Resolved, That the city hall be, and 
 it is hereby, offered to the Convention of Virginia as a 
 suitable place for its deliberations and action, and that 
 the councils of the city will afford every facility in 
 their power during its session, and the citizens general- 
 ly will be proud to contribute to the pleasure and re- 
 creation of the members individually. 
 
 Resolved, That the Presidents of the select and com- 
 mon -councils forward a copy of theee resolutions to the 
 Hon. Jno. Y. Mason, with the request that he will lay 
 the same before the distinguished body over which he 
 presides. 
 
 A copy — Teste, Jos. H. Robertson, 
 
 Register city of Norfolk. 
 
 Corporation of Alexandria, 
 
 In Council, Dec. 27, 1850. 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the Convention, on 
 behalf of this corporation, invite the Convention to re- 
 vise the Constitution of the State, to hold their sessions 
 in the town of Alexandria, and that the most ample ac- 
 commodations be provided for them, in case this invita- 
 tion be accepted. 
 
 Teste, R. Johnston, C. C. 
 
 Alexandria, Va., Dec. 31st, 1850. 
 Hon. Jno. Y. Mason, President of the Convention 
 
 to revise the Constitution of the State. 
 Sir — Prefixed you will find an attested copy of a res- 
 olution passed unanimously by our town council, on 
 the 27th inst. I have only to add, that if it shall please 
 the Convention to accept the invitation, a spacious hall 
 can be furnished capable of seating a thousand persons, 
 and I shall have great pleasure in aiding to carry out the 
 spirit of the resolution. 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 
 RriRT. .Tatwiksov. 
 
 Z £ 3 o I 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 in behalf of the committee, that they had been una- 
 ble to procure any other place than the hall in which 
 the body were then assembled. They had presumed it 
 would answer the purpose, at least until the Convention 
 should take some further action in reference to the sub- 
 ject. He presented the following report on the subject, 
 which was read by the Secretary : 
 
 The special committee to take into consideration the 
 propriety of providing accommodations for the Conven- 
 tion, have had the same under consideration, and beg 
 leave to report, that the committee appointed by the 
 Convention for the purpose of obtaining a hall for its 
 sessions when it re-assemblies, having announced that 
 fitting accommodations cannot otherwise be obtained, 
 your committee with entire disposition to afford the 
 Convention every facility for the convenient and expe- 
 ditious dispatch of the important duties which devolve 
 (-n that body, conceiving the discharge _ of the duties 
 incumbent on the Legislature, without interruption or 
 delay, to be paramount to other considerations, feel con- 
 strained only to advise the offer of the hall of the house 
 of Delegates to the Convention, with the limitations set 
 forth in the following resolution, which they respectful- 
 ly recommend for adoption : 
 
 Resolved, That the use of the hall of the House of 
 Delegates be tendered to the Convention of Virginia, 
 when it re-assembles on Monday, the 6th of January 
 next, from 12 to 1 o'clock; and thereafter the daily use 
 from 4 o'clock P. M. until the meeting of the House of 
 Delegates on the succeeding day. (Laid on the table.) 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I rise for the purpose of sub- 
 mitting a proposition touching the report of the com- 
 mittee which has just been made. I humbly conceive 
 that whatever we do in reference to this matter should 
 be done to-day, for to be well done, " 'twere well if 'twere 
 done quickly," inasmuch as by the favor of those whose 
 peculiar privilege it is to occupy these seats, we are allow- 
 ed to be here at present just 60 minutes, about 15 minutes 
 of which have by this time elapsed, I move that the re- 
 port of the committee be laid on the table and that the 
 following resolution be adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed whose 
 duty it shall be to procure a suitable building (or room) 
 in which the Convention may hold its sittings, and they 
 have the necessary accommodations prepared therein as 
 speedily as practicable and make report thereof. 
 
 The motion to lay the report on the table was agreed 
 
 to 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I move to amend the resolution by 
 inserting after the word " room " the words " in the city 
 of Richmond." 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. " Oh no." 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON. I move to amend the amendment by 
 adding to it the words " or elsewhere." [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I do not accept the amendment. 
 
 A division was then had, and the ayes were 55. 
 
 Mr. FINNEY. Is it too late to call for the yeas and 
 nays ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is, the house being now divi- 
 ded. 
 
 The noes were then counted, and there were, noes 28 
 ^— so the amendment to the amendment was adopted. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I apprehend it is not con- 
 templated by any considerable portion of this body to 
 transfer our sessions to any other point than this city. — 
 The most regular mode of proceeding, in my opinion, 
 will be for the Convention to appoint a committee to 
 make application to the General Assembly to cause some 
 suitable room to be fitted up at once for the use of this 
 body. By the law under which this Convention is con- 
 
 churches in this city. No question I apprehend, was 
 made then, no useful question could have been made af- 
 terwards, as to its authority to do so, but it does seem to 
 me that the most regular mode of proceeding will be to 
 appoint a committee as I have suggested, so that we may 
 cause a suitable room to be prepared under proper legal 
 authority. We have no power to appropriate money, and 
 therefore no power to provide for the compensation that 
 may be charged for the use of any building here or else- 
 where, that authority being confined to the Legislature of 
 the State. I regret that the chairman of the select commit- 
 tee appointed in reference to this subject is not present, 
 but I have understood, and I doubt not correctly, that the 
 proper authorities have tendered to the Convention 
 through that committee, the use of La Fayette hall in 
 this city, a public building not commonly occupied, vacant 
 at present, and of dimensions as I am informed, amply 
 sufficient to accommodate the members of the Convention 
 and a reasonable number of auditors. Our Skgeant-at- 
 Arms this morning exhibited to me a plan of thstdiall, by 
 which it is demonstrated that it is of this sufhV " t ca- 
 pacity. To fit it up suitably and comfortably wily uire 
 a considerable expenditure of money, and that £ ^ >ins 
 to me, had better be made under legislative authority tihasn 
 by any action of the Convention itself. If we act our- 
 selves, and cause this hall to be fitted up for our use, any 
 expense consequent thereupon must in the end be de- 
 frayed by the Legislature and cannot be provided for by 
 us. I undertake to say that upon such a communication 
 being made to the General Assembly, that body will, 
 without a moment's delay, take the necessary steps to pro- 
 vide the room for the use of the Convention. It does 
 seem to me that while the Legislature is in session, and 
 is to occupy these seats within a few minutes of the time 
 in which I now speak, that we should proceed more prop- 
 erly and regularly if we adopt the course that I have indi- 
 cated, and in order to test the sense of the Convention, 
 I will propose the following substitute for the resolution 
 now pending : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to 
 make application to the General Assembly to have La 
 Fayette hall, fitted up for the accommodation of this 
 body. 
 
 This work of preparation will occupy some seven or 
 ten days, during which time I apprehend the Convention 
 will have but little occasion for the use of any hall. At 
 any rate we can occupy this hall during the early part 
 of the session, either between the hours of 9 and 1 2, or in 
 the evening after 4 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. It seems to me better that the Conven- 
 tion should adopt the proposition offered by the gentle- 
 man from Essex, (Mr. Garnett,) as proposed to be amend- 
 ed, rather than the substitute offered by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) The only difficulty suggest- 
 ed by the last gentleman in reference to the direct action 
 of the Convention on this subject, arises out of the ina- 
 bility of this Convention to make appropriations of pub- 
 lic money. Now I take it for granted that we had better 
 make a selection of a room under the management of our 
 own committee, than under the management of a com- 
 mittee of another body, to whom we are in no degree re- 
 sponsible, and which heretofore has entirely failed to 
 make any suitable arrangement for our accommodation. 
 I impute no design, no intention on the part of the Le- 
 gislature not to make proper arrangements for the ac- 
 commodation of the Convention, and I have no doubt 
 that body supposed we could very easily and convey 
 niently discharge our duties at a time of day, when I 
 believe the Legislature of Virginia is not generally very 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 appropriation to defray the expense, after a committee 
 of the Convention shall have provided a room, and this 
 I take it for granted the Legislature will not hesitate 
 for one moment to do, unless they should think the Con- 
 vention had been too extravagant in its action. I sup- 
 pose that the Legislature have no more power to direct 
 where we shall hold our sittings than we have our- 
 selves. The Legislature has no control over the Conven- 
 tion, and we clearly have the best right to say where we 
 shall meet. Certainly it will not be contended that the 
 Legislature have the power to force us to meet in a hall 
 which will not accommodate us. And if we should go 
 and select and fit up some suitable place, I repeat I do 
 not believe the Legislature will hesitate for one moment 
 to make the appropriation requisite to defray the ex- 
 pense thereby incurred. Besides, I would not limit the 
 committee to the city of Richmond in their search for 
 a suitable hall. I prefer to remain here, I believe a 
 large majority of the Convention entertain the same 
 preference, and I am sure we shall remain here if a suit- 
 able room can be provided for us, but we are not cer- 
 tain that such a place can be provided. I take it for 
 granted that a committee will select some room here if 
 possible, but I would leave them some discretion in the 
 matter, so that if no suitable room can be found here, they 
 may go elsewhere, or accept the very liberal proposi- 
 tions made to us by other cities. This Convention ought 
 not to be trammelled in its deliberations for the want of 
 a suitable room in which to hold its sessions. It seems 
 to me that no inconvenience can result from the resolu- 
 tion as proposed by the gentleman from Essex, (Mr. M. 
 Garnett,) while great inconvenience may result from the 
 adoption of the substitute proposed by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) Suppose the Legislature 
 shall say that we shall not sit in this hall ? Then we 
 will all take it for granted that we have the right to go 
 somewhere else. Suppose it fails entirely to make suit- 
 able provision for us, or makes selection of a room un- 
 suitable to us? Why, the Convention certainly is not 
 to be compelled to accept of the arrangement. I shall 
 •sustain the resolution as introduced by the gentleman 
 from Essex, and as proposed to be amended. 
 
 Mr. COCKE. As a member of the Legislature as well 
 as of this body> I feel that some of the remarks just made 
 by my friend and colleague require some explanation. — 
 It will be remembered by the Convention, that on the 
 day before the last of the previous session, a committee 
 was appointed to make suitable arrangements for its re 
 assembling. That committee reported to the Legislature 
 that a suitable room, with proper accommodations for vis- 
 itors, could not be found within the city of Richmond. A 
 committee was then appointed on behalf of the Legisla- 
 ture, to confer and consult with the committee appointed 
 by the Convention, to see if some arrangement could not 
 be made by which both bodies might be accommodated in 
 this hall. The chairman of the Legislative committee — 
 and I make the remark because some intimation has been 
 thrown out that the Legislature was not ready and wil- 
 ling to afford every accommodation in their power to the 
 Convention — suggested the adoption of the very resolu- 
 tion proposed by the gentleman from Fauquier, or in 
 substance the same, and expressed his willingness, and 
 his belief in the willingness of the Legislature, to vote 
 for fitting up any hall in the city of Richmond that 
 would accommodate, not only the members of the Con- 
 vention, but such visitors as might choose to attend. 
 The result, however, of the conferences between the two 
 •committees was the agreement on a report to this body, 
 such as has just been read, viz : that the Convention 
 should have the use of the hall of delegates, from 12 to 
 1 o'clock on the first day of its assembling, and after that 
 day, from 4 o'clock in the evening until 12 o'clock the 
 next day. That seemed to be acceptable to the commit- 
 tee on behalf of the Convention and it was supposed 
 Would be equally acceptable and agreeable to the mem- 
 bers of the Convention, some fourteen or fifteen of whom 
 were fully cognizant of the arrangement. I have said 
 this much in exoneration of the members of the Legisla- 
 
 ture from the charge of any unwillingness on their part 
 to afford such accommodations to us in this hall as they 
 deemed just to themselves and the interests which they 
 represent on this floor. And what is the question now ? 
 For myself, I believe that the city of Richmond is the 
 place where by law, the people of Virginia in August 
 last elected the members of this Convention to assemble. 
 And I believe this is the house and this the hall in which 
 we are to assemble. Sir, what are the objections to the 
 report of the committee ? We are offered this hall from 
 4 o'clock P. M. to 12 the next day. It is well known that 
 for four or five weeks no place will be needed for discus- 
 sion for more than two hours a day, as it will take that 
 time for the committees to prepare business. In the 
 meantime, the Legislature, it is believed, will have fin- 
 ished their business in committee, and will be very near 
 ready to leave. Shall it be said that this Convention 
 cannot meet at 4, because the dinner hour has intervened ? 
 I scorn such an idea. Night is the time for deliberation. 
 I believe this Convention will do more, and do it better, 
 after that time than before. I doubt not the Legislature 
 itself will, after a little while, meet at 9 A. M. Let us 
 adopt the resolution of the gentleman from Fauquier, 
 and see if the result be not as I have stated. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I am one of those who believed at 
 the time the arrangement was entered into by the House 
 of Delegates, tendering the use of tins hall, that it would 
 not be satisfactory to this body, and that the Convention 
 would not be willing to carry on its deliberations within 
 the hours proposed ; but, as a member of the House of 
 Delegates I voted for it, supposing that, when the Con- 
 vention met, they would be ready to make some other 
 provision. I think I may say that the Legislature, so 
 far as I know its sentiments, is ready to make any ap- 
 propriation of money necessary to fit up a proper hall 
 for the accommodation of the Convention. And this it 
 seems to me, whether we remain in Richmond or go 
 elsewhere, is the only question here, and that question I 
 doubt very much if we are prepared now to settle. We 
 ought in the first place to ascertain whether a suitable hall 
 can be obtained in Richmond, and then it will be time 
 enough to discuss the question whether we shall remain 
 here or go elsewhere. In order that we may hav© time to 
 reflect a little more on the subjects I move that the subject 
 be laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I really do not know what is to 
 be gained by that. According to my time, which per- 
 haps is not as good as that "by Shrewsbury clock," we 
 have but 15 minutes to remain here. 
 # The PRESIDENT. This is not a debateable ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I trust the matter will not be 
 laid on the table, 
 
 Mr. LYONS. I hope the gentleman will withdraw the 
 motion to lay on the table. We certainly can dispose 
 in a short time of the question, which I suppose is as to 
 our power to go to any other place. I have no doubt 
 that we have not the power. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I imagine that there is considera- 
 ble difference of opinion in regard to the power of this 
 Convention to leave this city. I have no doubt of our 
 possessing it, but Whether we shall exercise it or not, lam 
 not prepared to say. I must insist on my motion to lay 
 on the table. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I merely wish to say that if the 
 motion to lay on the table shall be voted down, I shall 
 offer an amendment to the resolution, giving to the com- 
 mittee somewhat broader powers than the resolution pro- 
 poses. I propose not to limit them to arrangements for 
 another hall, but to require them also to ascertain wheth- 
 er an arrangement cannot be made with the House of 
 Delegates by which this hall can be occupied at times 
 which will accommodate the Convention better than 
 those proposed. I am inclined to think that such an ar- 
 rangement might be effected — at least it can do no harm 
 to give power to the committee to ascertain. 
 
 The motion to lay on the table was rejected. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I do not myself, nor do I believe that 
 
4 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 any member of the Convention complains of any want 
 of courtesy to us in the course pursued by the Legisla- 
 ture. It has been explained that the Legislature has done 
 all for us that it could do, and I have no doubt of it. I 
 do not complain that they have not yielded their hall to 
 us every day at 12 o'clock ; they have offered us all they 
 could conveniently, and the question is, can we, con- 
 sistently with our duties, accept that offer ? I 
 say we cannot. The gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. 
 Scott) says he does not understand that it is seri- 
 ously in contemplation for this Convention to hold its 
 sittings elsewhere. I apprehend it is seriously in con- 
 templation by this Convention to have a room in this city 
 or elsewhere" where they can hold their sittings at such 
 times as they please, as long as they please, and do their 
 work faithfully. They regard it as more important to 
 do their work" faithfully, than where they do it. I be- 
 lieve that with one accord they would prefer sitting here, 
 But if they cannot be accommodated, if they cannot 
 have the exclusive control of their own time in Rich- 
 mond, then I apprehend, it will be found that they are 
 determined to go elsewhere. I agree also with the gen- 
 tleman from Logan, that we have a perfect right to ad- 
 journ to any other place in this city or elsewhere. When 
 we have adopted a Constitution, I apprehend there will 
 be no inquiry among the people when it is submitted to 
 them, as to where it was made, but rather what is there 
 in it ; and when they have adopted it, I imagine that it 
 will be in vain for the best lawyer in the Com- 
 monwealth to raise his voice and say it is not a 
 legal Constitution, because it was not made in the ca- 
 pitol in the city of Richmond. The law under which 
 we are convened required us to assemble in this hall, 
 and we have complied with that law. Did it require us 
 to stay here ? What is the law ? Will the gentleman 
 from Richmond please read it, as I have it not by me. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. The 10th section of the law is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 10. The persons who shall be elected in pursuance of 
 this act shall, on the second Monday in October next, 
 meet and assemble at the capitol in the city of Rich- 
 mond, in general Convention, to consider, discuss and 
 propose a new Constitution, or alterations and amend- 
 ments to the existing Constitution ol* this Commonwealth. 
 
 Mr. BO COCK. The law reads as I expected. It 
 requires us to assemble in the capitol at Richmond. We 
 have fully complied with that law. We have assembled 
 here, but I do not believe that the law requires us to 
 continue here all the time. We have all been to our 
 homes for two months past, I trust considering, devising 
 and preparing propositions to amend. I do not know as 
 I desire that either, because we have had no lack of pro- 
 positions to amend every day, and I could scarcely hope 
 that anything should have happened to increase the 
 number. [Laughter.] But I have no idea, to be serious, 
 that there is any legal restriction upon us to continue in 
 this city. And if there is, it amounts to nothing, be- 
 cause, if we make a Constitution that the people like, 
 they will take it, whether it is made here or elsewhere. 
 And if we make one that they do not like, they will not 
 accept it, let it be made where it will. I repeat that I 
 am in favor of staying here, if possible, but I begin to 
 apprehend we cannot be accommodated here. The Le- 
 gislature have done all they could do, and the committee, 
 which we left here two months ago to make arrange- 
 ments for us, have found the best thing they can do is to 
 recommend the adoption of the proposition of the Le- 
 gislature. That proposition is not good u enough for us, 
 and I apprehend if they could have done better, they 
 would have done so. I for one am utterly against it. The 
 gentleman from Fauquier proposes to have La Fayette 
 hall fitted up. I never saw the hall, and I do not know 
 whether it is suitable or not. If it is, however, I pre- 
 sume the committee, who had full power in the matter, 
 would have had it fitted up. I am for giving the com 
 mittee full power over the subject. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. If the Convention are in earnest 
 in thinking of leaving the city of Richmond, I am exceed- 
 
 ingly desirous to give the members the benefit of my 
 experience on the occasion of a stampede which the Gen- 
 eral Assembly once took. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. Will the gentleman give way for 
 a moment. 
 
 Mr CLAIBORNE. I shall be done in an instant. 
 Mr. FERGUSON. We have but two minutes of the 
 session left. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I shall be but half a minute. I 
 merely wish to say that if it has been determined here 
 or out of the house to go to another place, I beg gen- 
 tlemen to make at least no arrangement a3 to fixing the 
 price of board. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I rise for the purpose of moving- 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I think the gentleman has had the 
 floor twice. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I merely wish to move that, when 
 we adjourn, it be to meet again to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 If we do not agree upon some such hour, we shall come 
 in conflict with the Legislature. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. There is sufficient time for that 
 I imagine that we are entitled to this hall by law. 
 [Laughter.] The House of Delegates have no right to 
 it whatever, for if the arguments of the gentlemen from 
 Richmond and Fauquier are right, they have, by the act 
 convening this body, given it to us exclusively. If their ar- 
 guments are correct, we can sit no where else, and we can- 
 not therefore move to La Fayette hall. I maintain, then, 
 that we ought not to surrender our legal rights by yielding 
 to the House of Delegates. The lawgiving us that right 
 has been ratified and sanctioned by the people, and the 
 Legislature cannot repeal it or any portion of it, any 
 more than they can pass a law dissolving the Conven- 
 tion. If the construction given to this law by the 
 gentlemen from Richmond and Fauquier be correct, we 
 are entitled to this hall and the Legislature have the 
 power only of voting themselves into another — in the 
 room above stairs, perhaps. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I trust the resolution will be 
 adopted as originally reported — without the proposed 
 amendment — giving the committee simply the power to 
 select a room. I hope there will be no further debate. 
 
 The question was taken on the proposition to amend 
 by adding the words " Richmond or elsewhere, " and it 
 was adopted. 
 
 The question was then announced to be on the substi- 
 tute for the resolution as proposed by Mr. Scott, of Fau- 
 quier. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT of Fauquier. I do not think that the gentle- 
 man from Appomattox (Mr. Bocock) met the difficulties 
 which I sought to present. I did not suppose, that, in 
 whatever place this body might agree upon amendments 
 to the present Constitution, it would enter the head of any 
 man, when that Constitution came to be submitted to 
 the people, to object to it because the Convention which 
 adopted it had held its sessions here or elsewhere. I 
 stated that, according to my reading of the law, under 
 the authority of which we are convened here, that we 
 had no power, no lawful power, to transfer our sessions 
 elsewhere. And if I can understand plain English, that 
 is the result of the statute on this subject. It is there- 
 fore a question of propriety that addresses itself to this 
 body — whether we will seek in a lawful way to have 
 competent authority conferred upon us to make the 
 change, or, to make the change without authority. To 
 make the change will in all probability require an expen- 
 diture of a considerable sum of money. We have no au- 
 thority to make a contract, for the fitting up of any hall ; 
 and if we make a contract we have no authority to make 
 an appropriation to pay the expense. I have not the least 
 doubt that the Legislature will make the necessary ap- 
 propriation, but still the question of propriety meets 
 us. Seeing that the Legislature is here assembled, and 
 is ready to act, — when this body can be subjected to no 
 inconvenience by the delay — is it not respectful to that 
 body to make the application ? I prefer this, not only 
 because it seems to me the proper mode of proceeding, 
 but because it will furnish evidence to the Legislature 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 5 
 
 the limit of the time of session, which its res- 
 on proposes, is not acceptable to this body ; and it 
 2:ive them an opportunity to make another. I am 
 • d that there is no other house, either in this city 
 ■ -where, that will accommodate our sessions as well 
 is tiii.Il, and for one I am extremely desirous of 
 'his matter so arranged as to accommodate the 
 of the Convention as well as of the House of 
 sgates. There are twelve hours in a day. The 
 >use of Delegates reserves to itself only three hours a 
 day, and it does seem to me that a division of time may 
 be made satisfactory to both parties, by which both will 
 be enabled to hold their sessions here. Upon appli- 
 cation being made to the House of Delegates, the ques- 
 tion will be open for that body to propose a different ar- 
 rangement of time. If they adhere to their former de- 
 termination, they can at once, by joint resolution, with- 
 out going through the formality of a regular enactment, 
 make arrangements to have La Fayette hall, or any oth- 
 er house in the city suitable for the purpose, fitted up 
 for the accommodation of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I am disposed to vote for the sub- 
 stitute, with some slight modifications. I move to amend 
 it by striking out the words "La Fayette," and inserting 
 the words " a suitable." 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I accept of that modifica- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. If in order, I move that the Con- 
 vention adjourn until to-morrow at 1 o'clock. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. That is not the ordinary motion 
 for adjournment, and cannot be entertained until the sub- 
 ject under consideration has been in some way disposed 
 oi 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I move then that the resolution 
 and amendments be laid on the table for the present. 
 
 The motion was rejected — a division being had — ayes 
 38, noes 51. 
 
 There was some conversation as to the effect of an ad- 
 journment without fixing a specific time to re-assemble, 
 the rules of the Convention requiring that body to as- 
 semble daily at 12 o'clock, at which hour the House of 
 Delegates would be in the occupancy of the hall, when 
 
 On motion of Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier, the Conven- 
 tion took a recess until 4 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Evening Session. 
 The Convention re-assembled pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 CONTRACT FOR THE REPORTING. 
 
 The PRESIDENT submitted to the Convention a 
 communication from the Secretary in regard to the re- 
 porting and printing of the debates and proceedings of 
 the Convention, as follows : 
 
 Richmond, January 6, 1851. 
 
 Hon. John Y. Mason. 
 
 Sir : By a resolution of the Convention, adopted on 
 the 4th day of November last, I was required under the 
 direction of the President to contract with some compe- 
 tent and responsible reporter to furnish full reports of 
 the proceedings and debates of the Contention. I have 
 accordingly entered into a contract with Mr. Wm, G. Bish- 
 op, and herewith transmit the contract and the bond for 
 its faithful execution. 
 
 I was also required by the same resolution to receive 
 proposals from the conductors of the different newspa- 
 pers in the city of Richmond for publishing the proceed- 
 ings and debates, and enclose herein the proposals which 
 have been made to me. 
 
 Very repectfuly, your ob't serv't, 
 
 S. D. Whittle, Secretary. 
 
 This agreement entered into by "Wm. G-. Bishop, of the 
 first part and S. D. Whittle, Clerk of the Convention of 
 Virginia, held under the authority of an act of Assembly 
 
 of Virginia, passed the of , 1850, the said 
 
 S. D. Whittle, acting for, and in behalf of the said Con- 
 vention, and by authority of a resolution of the said Con- 
 vention, iu the following; words, viz : " Resolved, Ti^at the 
 
 clerk of this Convention, under the direction of the Presi- 
 dent, contract with some competent and responsible re- 
 porter to furnish full reports of the proceedings and de- 
 bates of this Convention, reserving to the Convention the 
 right at any time to annul said contract in case the report- 
 ing shall not be satisfactorily performed, and requiring 
 such reporter to afford facilities to editors of newspapers 
 in the city of Richmond for copying the reports " — of the 
 second part — witnesseth that the said S. D. Whittle has 
 under the authority of the said resolution, and under the 
 direction of J ohn Y. Mason, President of the said Con- 
 vention, entered into a contract with Wm. G. Bishop as 
 follows : 
 
 The said Wm. G. Bishop, on his part, undertakes and 
 agrees by himself, and his assistants as he may furnish, 
 to report fully and accurately all the proceedings and 
 debates of the Convention, from the first Monday in Jan- 
 uary next to the close of the Convention — to deliver 
 the reports of each day's proceedings and debates, to the 
 Secretary of the Convention within a reasonable time, 
 and also to afford to the editors of the newspapers of the 
 city of Richmond, such facilities for copying the reports 
 as the said Secretary may direct. 
 
 On the part of the Convention, the said S. D. Whittle 
 stipulates, that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall pay 
 the said Wm. G. Bishop weekly if required by him, for the 
 reports, at the rate of five dollars per column, each col- 
 umn to be equal to one column brevier type of the Na- 
 tional Intelligencer, published in the city of Washington, 
 but the entire compensation paid, is not to exceed the 
 sum of $250 per week for each week of the session 
 of the Convention, and if in any one week the amount 
 due for reporting at $5 per column exceeds $250, 
 the surplus shall remain in the treasury until the re- 
 porting is completed, or this contract terminated, when 
 so much thereof shall be paid the said William G. 
 Bishop as may be necessary to raise the aggregate 
 sum paid him to $250 per week ; but, in no event is a 
 higher sum than $250 per week to be paid the said Wm. 
 G. Bishop. It is further agreed by and between the par- 
 ties hereunto that the Convention may at any tine ter- 
 minate this contract, in case the reporting shall not be 
 satisfactorily performed. The said Wm. G. Bishop also 
 agrees to give bond and security in the penalty of one 
 thousand dollars for the performance of this contract on 
 his part : In testimony whereof the parties hereunto 
 have set their hands, this seventh day of November, 
 1850. Wm. G. Bishop, 
 
 S. D. Whittle, 
 Scc'ty of Convention. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Proposals for Publishing and Distributing the Debates 
 and Proceedings of the Virginia Reform Convention. 
 
 Richmond, Jan. 6, 1850. 
 To the Secretary of the Va. Reform Convention : 
 
 Sir : In response to your invitation to the Editors of 
 the several political papers of Richmond, to submit pro- 
 posals for publishing the debates and proceedings of the 
 State Convention to re-assemble this day, I herewith 
 hand you, with the concurrence of my cotempora- 
 ries, a proposition to spread before the subscribers 
 of our respective journals, the full debates and proceed 
 ings of the Convention, as reported and written out by 
 the official reporter. 
 
 The terms upon which I propose to publish these de- 
 bates, <fec. have been estimated so as to cover all inciden- 
 tal expenses which may be incurred by the different par- 
 ties in mailing and distributing the supplemental sheets 
 to their subscribers. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Ro. H. Gallaher. 
 
 The subscriber, with the concurrence of his cotempo- 
 raries of the Enquirer, Whig, Examiner, Times and Re- 
 publican Advocate, hereby agrees to publish, in a sup- 
 plemental sheet, to be laid before the subscribers of all 
 of our papers, the proceedings and debates of the Vir- 
 
6 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ginia Reform Convention upon the following terms, to 
 wit: Composition at the rate of sixty-five cents per 
 thousand. Press work at sixty-five cents per token, 
 and paper at an average cost of four dollars and sixty 
 cents per ream — the sizes of the paper used to be of the 
 dimensions of the Whig and Republican Advocate, re- 
 spectively. 
 
 Should this proposition be accepted, the estimated 
 cost to the State, for a session of ten weeks — with three 
 columns of matter per day as an average — is five thou- 
 sand six hundred and ninety-nine dollars. Extra copies 
 of the supplement which may be ordered by the Con- 
 vention, will be furnished at the rate of two dollars per 
 hundred copies, including all expenses for mailing, (fee. 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Ro. H. Gallaher. 
 
 We concur in the above proposal. 
 
 Wm. F. & Thos. Ritchie, Jr., 
 DeWitt & Daniel, 
 Dan'l Woodson, 
 Heath, Elliott, Scott & Co., 
 Wm. C. Carrington. 
 
 It was moved that the communication be referred to 
 the Select Committee raised to consider the question of 
 reporting and printing the debates and proceedings of 
 the Convention, but the motion was rejected. 
 
 The communication was then laid on the table and or 
 dered to be printed. 
 
 PLACE OF MEETING. 
 
 The Convention resumed the consideration of the re- 
 solution in regard to the place of meeting — the question 
 being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Carlile to the 
 substitute proposed by Mr. Scott, of Eauquier, for the re- 
 solution offered by Mr. M. Garnett. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT asked the gentleman from Barbour 
 (Mr. Carlile) to withdraw his amendment, with a view to 
 enable him to offer an amendment which he indicated. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE assented to this proposition and with- 
 drew his amendment accordingly. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT then offered the following amend- 
 ment: — 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five members be ap- 
 pointed by the chair, whose duty it shall be to inquire 
 and report to the Convention upon the practicability of 
 procuring in the city of Richmond, or elsewhere, a suita- 
 ble place for holding the sessions of this body, until the 
 adjournment of the General Assembly. 
 
 The amendment was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. LYONS proposed the following substitute for the 
 pending resolutions : — 
 
 Resolved, That it is the duty of this Convention, un- 
 der the law convening it, to hold its sessions in the capi- 
 tol in the city of Richmond, if it be practicable to do so, 
 and that nothing will excuse its failure to do so but a 
 necessity beyond its control. 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the Convention be re- 
 quested to address a communication to the Legislature, 
 requesting it to make such provision for the accommoda- 
 tion of this Convention during its s 
 
 us in going somewhere else. My own opinion is, that if 
 you can go to La Fayette hall, you can go to Norfolk, Alex- 
 andria or anywhere else, but that you can go to neither, 
 except in such a case as renders it necessary to carry 
 out the objects of the law by which we were convened. 
 Now I cannot agree in the opinion of one member, 
 that this is a mere formality. There ought to be in the 
 proceedings of this body an appearance of dignity and 
 order. We have, it is well known, a very large party 
 ready to rejoice in every false step we may take, for the 
 purpose of breaking down the Convention. We ought, 
 therefore, to be careful to give them no occasion. And 
 although it may be true that a Constitution adopted by 
 this Convention at any place, and accepted by the peo- 
 ple, would be legal, yet I believe we shall not make such 
 a Constitution as will command the respect which it 
 
 ought to receive, if we b( 
 
 by 
 
 : - dino; the law. — 
 
 It seems to me it is not proper for us, in respect to our- 
 selves, in respect to the people who have sent us here, to 
 get up and to go to some other place, without suitable ef- 
 forts to provide for our sessions here. It is our duty to 
 hold our sessions here, unless there is a necessity which 
 we cannot control. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE read a resolution, which he proposed 
 to offer, but 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated that it would not be in order 
 until after the question was taken on the amendment. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS made some statements and inquiries 
 as to the question before the House. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated the question to be on the 
 substitute offered by Mr. Scott as amended. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Then all who have propositions to 
 offer, and I have one which I design to offer myself, must 
 unite in voting against this proposition as amended ; for 
 if that be rejected, the question will be on the resolution 
 as originally introduced by the gentleman from Essex, 
 (Mr. Garnett.) 
 
 Mr. DAVIS asked for the reading of the original pro- 
 position with the amendments, and they were read ac- 
 cordingly. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. If I may be permitted to throw out 
 an intimation, as did the gentleman from Powhatan, I 
 would say, that those who think that this Convention 
 should select for itself some suitable place for its delibe- 
 rations, and not leave to the General Assembly the se- 
 lection, should vote aye. In that way shall my vote 
 be recorded. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. I move the indefinite postponement 
 of this whole subject, and if in order, will submit a few 
 observations as to the propriety of the motion. I 
 agree entirely with those who have expressed the 
 opinion that it is perfectly competent for this Con- 
 vention to sit where it now does, or to select some 
 other place for its sessions, as may be most convenient, 
 in its judgment. Beyond all question this was consider- 
 ed by the Legislature, under whose act we have assem- 
 bled, as the most convenient place to perform the duty 
 which has been assigned us. And they have accordingly 
 directed us to assemble here upon a certain day for the 
 performance of that duty. We have assembled here on 
 sessions, as will enable that day for that pm .p 0se , and if in the performance of 
 it to perform its duties according to the law aforesaid. \ that duty neC essity requires us to assemble in some other 
 
 The PRESIDENT ruled that the substitute was not 
 in order, inasmuch as there was one, that of Mr. Scott, of 
 Fauquier, as amended, already pending. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. It seems to me, sir, that it is the duty of 
 the Legislature to make provision for the sessions of the 
 Convention ; a Convention which is in session according 
 to law. And while 1 do not mean to express anything 
 unkind to that body, still I am free to confess that 
 the Legislature have not done the duty which they ought 
 to have done, to provide for the sessions of this body. — 
 They knew that it was our duty to sit in this city, there- 
 fore it was proper that the Legislature should have made, 
 without being asked, such provision as would be necessa- 
 ry. And now I am for doing nothing more than to ask 
 them to make such provision for the execution of that 
 law, and if they refuse, we have a ease that will justify 
 
 place in Richmond or elsewhere in the State, I consider 
 that we have a perfect right to do so. And conceding 
 our right to do so if necessity requires it, the same rea- 
 sons would authorize us to do so if convenience required it. 
 While this is my opinion, I concur with the Legislature 
 in believing that the city of Richmond, and the capi^ 
 tol of Virginia, and the hall of the House of Delegates, 
 is the most convenient place for holding our sessions, and 
 we ought to sit here, not only because it has been appointed 
 as the place of our meeting, but also because it is the most 
 convenient place for that purpose, if we can sit here con- 
 jointly with the House of Delegates. I think we can. 
 It has been said here, that there are twelve hours of the 
 day, and that they are sufficient for the purposes of both 
 bodies. Then if each body requires five hours of the day, 
 the day is stili long eovugh Uer th,e meeting ©f teth i» 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 7 
 
 this hall. It is most convenient for us in every way to 
 meet here, because this hall has been fitted up for the 
 meeting of such a body as this, and because this building 
 has every convenience for the performance of our duties. 
 For the meeting of our committees, there are committee 
 rooms in this capitol, and there is the public library. 
 Every thing requires that we should meet here, if we 
 can conveniently do so, and I think the hall affords ac- 
 commodation for both bodies. The only question, there- 
 fore, is, whether or not the House of Delegates has done as 
 much for us as it could and ought to have done ? I think 
 it has. I think the resolution which has been already 
 adopted by the House, is sufficient for our accommoda- 
 tion. It was a resolution adopted upon due deliberation, 
 adopted too upon the concurrent opinion of a committee 
 of this body and of the House. It allots to the House 
 but three of the twelve hours, and it gives to us nine 
 out of the twelve or twenty-four as you please. Are 
 these nine hours at such inconvenient seasons of the day 
 as that we cannot avail ourselves of them ? I do not 
 think they are. I think when we are allowed to meet 
 here at 4 o'clock, and to sit as long in the evening as our 
 duties require us to sit, and to meet here at 9 o'clock in 
 the morning, and sit until 12 o'clock, and when we are al- 
 lowed the use of the committee rooms from 12 until 3 
 o'clock, that we have ample time and every convenience 
 for the discharge of our duties. Where is the objection 
 to this arrangement ? The House of Delegates have cho- 
 sen but three hours of the day, and it has located these three 
 hours between 12 and 3 o'clock. Why should we object 
 to that location ? Why should we claim that portion of 
 the day any more than the House of Delegates ? In all 
 human probability for some time to come — perhaps dur- 
 ing the whole session of the Legislature — the three hours of 
 the morning which we will have, from 9 to 12 o'clock, will 
 be ample for the sessions of this body. And we shall 
 have from 12 until night for the sessions of our commit- 
 tees, which will afford them ample time for the prepara- 
 tion of their reports. Then when the Legislature ad- 
 journs, we shall have the full use of the hall during the 
 whole day. Suppose these three hours are not sufficient, can 
 not we take a recess and meet again at 4 o'clock ? Where 
 is the objection to that course ? And when we meet 
 again at 4, if our duties require us, we can dip a little into 
 the night. Where is the objection to that ? The night 
 is long, and we can sit until 9 or 12 o'clock even, and still 
 have time enough for rest. I think this to be the most 
 convenient place for the performance of our duties^ — pre- 
 cisely where we now are, in this hall, and in this capitol. 
 1 think the day is ample for the accommodation of both 
 bodies. I know it would be more convenient and desira- 
 ble to have the entire use of this hall, if circumstances 
 would allow it, but they do not, and we must make the 
 best arrangement we can. But I think even dividing the 
 use of the hall with the House of Delegates, it is still the 
 most convenient place in the Commonwealth for our meet- 
 ing, and that we ought to remain here. I think the ar- 
 rangement that has been made between the committees 
 of the two bodies is as convenient an one as we could ex- 
 pect, and I hope the whole subject will be postponed, and 
 that we shall at once enter upon the discharge of our im- 
 portant duties. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. I concur perfectly with the 
 gentleman from Stafford (Mr. Moncure) in the opinion that 
 the law under which we have assembled, is not mandatory 
 upon us. I can see nothing in the law which requires the 
 Convention to continue its sessions in this capitol, or in the 
 city of Richmond But I differ altogether from him in 
 the opinion he expressed, that we ought to accept the Le- 
 gislative proposition. With respect to the argument that 
 the law is mandatory, what is there in it which requires 
 the Conventign to continue to hold its sessions in this 
 hall, or in the city of Richmond ? What is the language 
 of the law ? It is that the Convention shall assemble 
 in the capitol in the city of Richmond, to consider, 
 discuss and propose amendments to the existing Con- 
 stitution of Virginia. Well, is not that law perfect- 
 ly complied with when we assemble here to consider 
 
 amendments to the Constitution ? Unquestionably it 
 is. Circumstances might occur which would render a 
 continued session in this city indiscreet and impro- 
 per. Some sudden calamity, some fatal disease, might 
 render it inconvenient or dangerous. The Legislature 
 considered these things, and therefore, in my judgment, 
 most wisely committed the entire subject to the discre- 
 tion of this Convention. A wise and sound discretion is 
 to be exercised in reference to the continuance of our ses- 
 sions here. I have no particular objection to continue the 
 sessions of the Convention in the city of Richmond. I 
 concur with the gentleman from Stafford (Mr. Moncure ) 
 in the opinions he has expressed in regard to the conve- 
 nience of this place. But still I maintain that the Legis- 
 lature intended to submit it to the discretion of the Con- 
 vention, because circumstances might occur in the pro- 
 gress of our deliberations, which would render it exceed- 
 ingly indiscreet to continue our sessions here. But I may 
 be permitted to disagree with the gentleman from Staf- 
 ford, that it would be either wise or prudent to accept the 
 Legislative proposition. We are to meet at 4 o'clock, we 
 are then to have long night sessions of this body. My 
 experience justifies me in the opinion that nothing is 
 more objectionable than the night sessions of any delib- 
 erative assembly whatever. I have had some little expe- 
 rience on the subject, and you sir, have had that experi- 
 ence also, and you know, and I know that it is improper 
 that any body should meet and continue its session until 
 nightfall, or during the night. I was very much aston- 
 ished to hear the remark of the gentleman from Fluvan- 
 na (Mr Cocke) that the night was the most seasonable 
 hour for deliberation. The night is the most season- 
 able hour for excitement, not for deliberation. We take 
 our dinners, and we come here, and we are sometimes — I 
 presume the members of this Convention are not unlike 
 the members of any other deliberative assembly — but 
 illy qualified for the performance of our duty. I do not 
 mean to make any improper intimations against the 
 members here, but like other men they are fallible men, 
 and I can only say from my own experience, that it is 
 improper, extremely improper, to hold our sessions after 
 nightfall, and therefore for this reason, I shall oppose the 
 acceptance of the very kind, generous and liberal offer 
 made to us by the House of Delegates. Very liberal sir ! 
 They Jiave reserved the better portion of the day to 
 themselves, and they have given the latter part of it to 
 this Convention— I know not on what principle, except 
 it be that their duties are more important than ours. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. I wish to ask at what time I may in- 
 troduce a proposition ? 
 
 The PRESIPENT. The motion now pending is to 
 postpone indefinitely — if it be decided in the affirmative, 
 it will be in order to bring forward a new proposition. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. I beg leave now merely to remark, 
 that I concur in the very clear opinion expressed as to 
 the legality of changing our place of meeting, by the 
 gentlemen from Richmond (Mr. Lyons) and Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott). We sit here, as it were, under a power of 
 attorney — under a grant of power to do particular things, 
 which grant of power is expressed in certain words by 
 the granting power. We cannot by our action add to 
 or subtract in any respect from the extent of power con- 
 ferred upon us by this grant — the act of Assembly which 
 is our power of attorney. That act says our meeting 
 must take place in the city of Richmond, and it therefore 
 precludes the possibility of any other place of meeting. 
 They wisely confined us to the capitol, and there is not, 
 in my view of this question, the slightest difficulty in 
 the way of the proper performance of their duties on 
 the part of the Legislature, and en the part of this body 
 in this hall. The Legislature never sits more than four 
 hours a day, except under most extraordinary circumstan- 
 ces, and that number of hours may be assumed as the pe- 
 riod of time adequate for the performance of their duty. 
 Giving them four hours and reserving four to ourselves, 
 say, for one, from 9 to 1 o'clock, and for the other, from 1 
 to 5 o'clock, P. M.-^and ample time will be afforded both 
 bodies for the proper discharge of their several duties, 
 
8 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 We have made but one attempt in relation to the divi- 
 sion of time -with the House, and probably on its being 
 suggested that the present division does not suit our pur- 
 pose, they may agree to such an one as will. There 
 is a consideration that weighs with me, and weighs hea- 
 vily, in favor of meeting here in the capitol. If any 
 other place was selected, it would put it out of the pow- 
 er of those members who hold seats in both bodies to at- 
 tend to both. Justice to their constituents demands that 
 we should make such arrangements as will make it pos- 
 sible for them to fulfil the duties devolving upon them. 
 These views may have entered into the minds of the Le- 
 gislature when they passed this bill. These views may 
 have entered into the minds of the people when they 
 approved of that law. They may have selected the ca- 
 pitol, in the city of Richmond, as the best and the only 
 place where the meeting of this body should be held. — 
 These schemes also carry us away from the public re- 
 cords, the public library, and other conveniences, into 
 places where no legislative body ever sat. They raise 
 questions such as that of mileage, which it was proba- 
 bly the intention of the Legislature in appointing this 
 place to avoid. The resolution which I desire to offer 
 at a proper time, is merely the embodiment of the views 
 I have here expressed. 
 
 The PRESIDENT here stated that the motion for in- 
 definite postponement would not reach the report of the 
 select committee, and that it would be in the power of 
 the Convention if that motion was adopted, at once to 
 proceed to the consideration of that report. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON". I differ very widely with my friend 
 from Pittsylvania (Mr. Whittle) in the remark that we 
 sit here under a power of attorney from the Legisla- 
 ture of Virginia. We have a power of attorney from a 
 much higher source than the Legislature of Virginia, 
 however respectable it may be. We sit here under a 
 power of attorney from the people of Virginia to re- 
 vise and form for them a Constitution. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. I said that the people at the polls, 
 when they voted on the question of Convention or no 
 Convention, adopted the. bill of the Legislature, and 
 that, therefore, jn that way they conferred the power 
 of attorney upon us themselves. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON". I do not deny that the people, 
 when they adopted the law calling this Convention did 
 by their vote, to some extent, give their sanction to that 
 law. But the vote of the people alone authorized this 
 Convention to be called. And hence being elected by 
 them, when they had determined, by th^ir votes, that 
 the Convention should be called, we assembled here, not 
 under any warrant from the Legislature of Virginia, but 
 under a warrant from the people themselves. I cannot 
 agree, then, in the construction which gentlemen, have 
 given to the act under which we are assembled. I think 
 they have given a much wider construction to it than it 
 will bear. I acknowledge that it was our duty to assem- 
 ble here ; but, if a suitable hall could not be obtained 
 here, we have power to procure one wherever it can be 
 obtained. I was therefore prepared to vote for the pro- 
 position of my friend from Fauquier (Mr. Scott.) But 
 the gentleman from Stafford (Mr. Moncure) has moved 
 the indefinite postponement on the ground that the Le- 
 gislature has provided for us. I think the gentleman 
 has misunderstood the case. When he properly under- 
 stands it, I think he will agree with me, that he has, con- 
 trary to what he is wont to do, gone off half-cocked.— 
 [Laughter.] I understand that the Legislature have ap- 
 propriated to themselves all the time in the early part 
 of the day up to 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and that 
 they have left us only the rest of the day. You know 
 that it is contended that the sessions of the Legislature 
 after 4 o'clock have been detestable, and that the mem- 
 bers are not fife for legislation after that hour. I think 
 then they have assumed that we are able to do what 
 they cannot do^-we are complimented as being able to 
 do what the Legislature could not do — but I fear that 
 the compliment is not deserved. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. When it shall become absolutely ne- 
 
 cessary to decide this question, about which learned gen- 
 tlemen differ, I shall be ready to take my share of the re- 
 sponsibility, but 1 do not think that time has come, and 
 if I had the same object in view that is proposed by 
 the gentlemen from Pittsylvania, from Richmond, and 
 from Stafford, I should vote for this proposition. What 
 does the resolution propose ? Simply, that five mem • 
 bers be appointed by the Chair, as a committee to pro- 
 vide some suitable place in this city or elsewhere, for 
 the sessions of this Convention, till such time as the Le- 
 gislature may adjourn. Does the gentleman from Rich- 
 mond (Mr. Lyons) know that this committee may not 
 report that this place can be obtained ? Does the 
 gentleman from Stafford (Mr. Moxcure) know that the 
 Legislature will not propose any other time for our 
 meeting in this hall than they have ? This committee 
 will be authorized to receive proposals from the different 
 congregations, and the different halls, and from the Le- 
 gislature themselves. When that committee report to 
 us that this hall cannot be obtained, then the legal ques- 
 tion will properly come up, and not before. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. I had hoped some gentle- 
 man had been informed in regard to what had been done 
 on the part of the city of Richmond, and would have com- 
 municated it to the Convention before the vote was taken 
 on this subject. I feel it my duty before the vote is ta- 
 ken, to state the fact, that there are in the city of Rich- 
 mond two halls much better calculated to accommodate 
 this Convention than this one, and that one of these at 
 least has been tendered to the Commonwealth by the 
 city council of Richmond, I allude to La" -Fayette hall, 
 and I believe that it can be made to accommodate this 
 Convention much better than this hall, with a very lit- 
 tle expense. And since the adjournment of this Conven- 
 tion, a church, not the African church, to which some of 
 my Western friends might not be willing to go — not a 
 church connected with the "mixed basis" — but the Uni- 
 tarian church has been offered to us, and with some 400 
 or 500 dollars expense — an expense that we have incur- 
 red in the discussion of this very grave and important 
 question — it will accommodate us better than this house, 
 I go against the indefinite postponement, for I have no 
 idea of being cooped up here after 4 o'clock lantil 12 
 o'clock at night. I should much prefer the resolution 
 which proposes to appoint a committee of five to provide 
 a room, and I think we had better settle the question at 
 once. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. Gentlemen have said that we 
 were likely to lose our influence over those who have 
 sent us here, by our actions. It is astonishing to me 
 that the venerable gentlemen here assembled should nev- 
 er be able to agree upon anything, even to the election 
 of a doorkeeper, without a long debate. I thought 
 this morning that we would spend the very few 
 moments left to us, in the appointment of this com- 
 mittee. I think the very worst thing we can do 
 for the Commonwealth, is to retard the labors of the 
 Legislature. I want the Convention to be careful of its> 
 own time. I ask no favors at the hands of the Legisla- 
 ture. I look upon it, that we are the people — the direct 
 representatives of the people — sent here by the people, 
 and if they sanction our doings, we have nothing to fear 
 from the Legislature. What are we asking them to do ? 
 Why the very same thing we did ask them to do at the 
 adjournment. What have the Legislature done ? They 
 have offered us the hall for sixty minutes. I ask the 
 yeas and nays on the motion for indefinite postponement. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered, and the question be- 
 ing taken, there were yeas 8, nays 89, as follows : 
 
 Yeas— Messrs. Banks, Braxton, Cocke, Douglas, Hays, 
 Moncure, Pendleton and Whittle — 8. 
 
 Nays— Messrs. Mason, (President,) Anderson, Arm- 
 strong, Arthur, Barbour, Bland, Blue, Bocock, Botts, Bow- 
 den, Bowles, Brown, Byrd, Camden, Caperton, Carlile, 
 Chapman, Cook, Davis, Deneale, Edwards, Faulkner, 
 Ferguson, Fisher, Flood, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fuqua, Gaily v 
 Garland, Muscoe Garnett, Goode, Hall, Hill, Hoge, 
 Trigg, Hopkins, Hunter, Jacob, Janney, Johnson, Jones, 
 
9 
 
 Kenny, Kilgore, Knote, Leake, Letcher, Ligon, Lucas, 
 Lynch, Lyons, McCamant, McCandlish, McComas, Martin 
 of Marshall, Martin of H., Meredith, Miller, Moore, Nee- 
 son, Newman, Price, Rives, Scott of Caroline, Scott of 
 F., Scott of Richmond city, Seymour, Shell, Sheffey, 
 Sloan, Smith of Kanawha, Smith of King & Queen, Smith 
 of Jackson, Smith of Greenbrier, Stanard, Stephen- 
 son, Stewart of Morgan, Straughan, Stuart of Patrick, 
 Summers, Tate, Turn bull, Van Winkle, Wallace, Willey, 
 Williams of Fairfax, Wingfield, Woolfolk, Worsham and 
 Wysor— 89. 
 
 So the motion to postpone the further consideration of 
 the subject indefinitely was rejected. 
 
 The question then recurred on the amendment to the 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. The amendment I understand to be a 
 proposition that a select committee shall be appointed to 
 inquire whether a suitable room can be procured in 
 the city of Richmond, other than in the capitol, for the 
 accommodation of this Convention, and on that subject 
 I beg leave to make a single remark. I may not, as my 
 friend from Richmond (Mr. Sctot) supposes, regard this 
 question correctly. He seems disposed to consider it as 
 making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but I cannot but 
 consider it as one of no little legal importance. We are 
 here without power to amend or pass any law or to 
 make any contract. According to my understanding, we 
 are here with no more authority than is expressed in the 
 precise terms of the act under which we are convened, and 
 whether it be called a large or a small question, I confess 
 I am for adhering rigidly to the terms of that act. And 
 this not merely because of the legal question involved, 
 but because I think it more becoming the dignity of this 
 body to make formal application to the Legislature on 
 this subject, than at once to assume that we are turned 
 out of the capitol, and send a committee to seek some 
 place where we may go. La Fayette hall has been sug- 
 gested as a proper place, but has any one been to see it ? 
 For myself, I have no idea that the Convention can be 
 accommodated there with any comfort at all. It must 
 cost a great deal to make it in any way convenient or 
 comfortable for our use, for every article that will be 
 needed for that purpose will be required to be placed 
 there. And can the Convention contract for the expen- 
 diture of a single dollar for such a purpose ? No one 
 will contend for that ; and so, even if we go on and fit 
 up the room as i3 suggested, we shall be obliged to come 
 to the Legislature in the end and ask them to defray the 
 expense. I think it far preferable and far more in accord- 
 ance with a proper regard for the dignity of this body, to 
 ask the Legislature to do this at once, rather than to go on 
 and make a contract and then ask them to pay the expense. 
 Why, the Senate chamber can be fitted up for us at one- 
 half the cost of any other building, and for one, I had 
 much rather sit there than here. The Senate and the 
 House of Delegates can very conveniently divide the use 
 of this hall between them, and thus leave to us the use 
 of the Senate chamber. Is it not better then, I ask, to 
 g© at once to the Legislature, and to say to them, you 
 are the law-making power — while we have no power to 
 change any law, you have the power to change every 
 law except that upon which the people have passed di- 
 rectly — and we ask you to make provision for the accom- 
 modation of the body whom the people have sent here 
 fo revise and amend their fundamental and organic law ? 
 Should they see proper to give to us the Senate cham- 
 ber, it cau easily be enlarged for our use, and at a small 
 cost. It is only a wooden partition which separates it 
 from the adjoining room, and it can be easily removed 
 and the two rooms thrown into one. This is far better 
 than for us to assume that we cannot sit here, and that 
 ^ve are turned out of the capitol. The law, I say, re- 
 quires us to sit here, and if we can go anywhere else of 
 our own motion, why we can go to any quarter of the 
 State we please, as it suits our convenience. And if we 
 may do that, what is to prevent us from holding our ses- 
 sions even beyond the limits of the State, if we please? 
 If our convenience is to be the only rule to govern us 
 
 and there is no law to regulate the matter, we might 
 find it more agreeable to sit in New York or Philadel- 
 phia during the winter, and if we come back and submit 
 our work to the people, I ask, to use the argument of gen- 
 tlemen here, who will vote against the Constitution, if it 
 shall be a good one, because it was not made in the State ? 
 Gentlemen say that this body is above the Legislature ; 
 but I ask how is it above that body ? We are assembled 
 here by direct authority of the people, and they have no 
 control over us, it is true ; but we are not a law-making 
 power, nor can we expend a single dollar. We must ask 
 them to pay any debt which we may contract, and is it 
 not better, then, to put upon them the responsibility of 
 contracting the debt in the first instance — and the re- 
 sponsibility, too, of saying that, which by my vote I ne- 
 ver will say, that this Convention ought not to sit in the 
 capitol here, and has not an undoubted right to sit here. 
 Put upon the Legislature the responsibility of saying 
 that we cannot sit here ; and when they have taken that 
 step, let them take the additional and necessary step of 
 providing where we shall sit. I do hope, then, that it 
 will not be the pleasure of the Convention to assume at 
 once that we are to go out of the capitol, and send a com- 
 mittee to find a hall, or some place in the town where 
 we may assemble, when, by law, we are expressly com- 
 manded to come here. Let us not, by such an act, place 
 ourselves in a position inferior to the Legislature, a bo- 
 dy sent here to pass laws one day which they can repeal 
 the next, while our duties are the higher ones of propo- 
 sing provisions which shall be organic and permanent. 
 I am not willing to assume that we are to leave the ca- 
 pitol, and it will be time enough for us to go when the 
 Legislature shall, by their action, turn us out. By no 
 vote of mine will I sanction such an assumption. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I think my friend is mistaken when he 
 says the Convention, by adopting the course proposed, 
 will be assuming the position that it must leave the 
 capitol, and that we are not forced to the position 
 which we now occupy by the action of the Legisla- 
 ture. When the proposition was first made to the 
 House of Delegates to give the use of this hall to the 
 Convention, I understand that that body refused to en- 
 tertain the proposition at all. It afterwards, it is true, 
 adopted the proposition which has been reported to us, 
 which gives to us the privilege of sitting here from 4 
 o'clock in the evening until, as some say, 12 o'clock the 
 next day. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. If the gentleman will permit me, I will 
 say that the difference between us is merely this : the 
 Convention has never directly applied to the Legislature 
 on the subject. It appointed a committee, composed 
 mainly of gentlemen who did not reside on the spot, and 
 directed them to make the very inquiry it is now pro- 
 posed another committee shall be raised to make, but no 
 communication has been made directly from the Conven- 
 tion to the Legislature. What i now desire is that the 
 Convention, as the Convention, through and by its pre- 
 siding officer, shall appeal to the Legislature as the Le- 
 gislature, and let them respond in that character to a call 
 made in that character. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I must still understand my friend to 
 be mistaken in the view which he takes of this matter. 
 This Convention, before the recess, appointed a commit- 
 tee for the purpose of making a distinct proposition to 
 the Legislature to secure the use of this hall for the pur- 
 pose of holding therein its deliberations. That committee 
 made a proposition accordingly to the House of Dele- 
 gates, which when it was first made there was not even 
 entertained by that body, but they adopted afterwards, 
 as I understand, a proposition, coming from a committee 
 of their own body, giving to us the use of the hall from 
 4 o'clock in the evening until it should be the pleasure of 
 the Legislature to meet again the next day. It was not, 
 as is supposed by the gentleman from Stafford, (Mr. Mon- 
 cure,) that we should have the use of the hall from 4 
 o'clock in the evening until 12 o'clock the next day, but 
 from 4 o'clock in the evening until some time in the 
 night, when it should be our pleasure to go. The House 
 
10 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 of Delegates may meet themselves at 9 o'clock, A. M. 
 and I suppose in a short time they will do so. I am un- 
 willing that it shall go out to the country that we are here 
 assuming a fact that does not exist, for I think the action 
 of the Legislature is tantamount to saying that they will 
 not give to us the use of this hall for a reasonable por- 
 tion of the day for our deliberations. I take it for grant- 
 ed, from the expression of sentiment which has been 
 made here to-day, that the Convention is unwilling to 
 hold its deliberations after 4 o'clock in the evening, and 
 I understand the gentleman from Richmond as admitting 
 that it is not right and proper that we should meet 
 here at night. I ask, then, if the action of the Legisla- 
 ture ha9 not forced us to the position we now occupy, 
 and if the gentleman is not mistaken in saying that we are 
 assuming a fact which does not exist. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I beg leave to say only a 
 word in explanation of the action of the House of Dele- 
 gates, because, from the remarks of the gentleman last 
 up, I apprehend there is some misapprehension in regard 
 to it. The House of Delegates never has denied to*this 
 body the use of this hall, but when it was announced 
 that the Convention had appointed a committee to take 
 action upon the subject, the House appointed a commit- 
 tee on their part to confer with a committee of this Con- 
 vention, and the report which was submitted to the Con- 
 vention this morning, was the report of the committee 
 raised by the House to the House, made with the con- 
 currence and approbation of the committee of this body 
 It was reported to the House as an arrangement to which 
 the committee on the part of this body yielded their as- 
 sent, and as such was adopted with scarcely a dissent- 
 ing voice. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. Will the gentleman per- 
 mit me to inquire of him whether the fact is not that be- 
 fore this committee was raised the House of Delegates 
 refused to permit the use of this hall by the Convention 
 at all ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I was not in the House, but 
 I understand some proposition was made at a very early 
 period of the session by some member, not as an organ 
 of the committee of this body or as one having authority 
 to apply on the part of the Convention at allfbut of his 
 own mere volition. When it was announced to the 
 House that the Convention had taken action on this mat- 
 ter and had appointed a committee, the proposition was 
 carried at once and a committee appointed immediately 
 on the part of the House, and the^report communicated 
 to us this morning was the report of that select commit- 
 tee to the House, made with the full concurrence of the 
 committee of this body. It does seem to me, therefore 
 since the Convention is dissatisfied with this arran°-e- 
 ment— since it chooses to repudiate the action of its own 
 committee— that it will be but a mark of respect becoming 
 one body to the other to communicate their disagreement 
 to the House, and give them at least an opportunity to 
 re-consider their action and determine whether they "will 
 not make some other distribution of time. 
 
 Mr. COCKE. I rise simply to answer the question of 
 the gentleman from Richmond, which the gentleman from 
 Fauquier was not able to answer, because he was not in 
 the House of Delegates. The only proposition which 
 was made to the Legislature in reference to any accom- 
 modation to be given to the Convention, was one made 
 by a gentleman whom I now see in his seat from Logan 
 (Mr. Feegusox,) which was, if I remember rightly to 
 tender the use of this hall to the Convention after a 'cer- 
 tain hour each day, without reference to the appointment 
 of any committee to confer with the committee of the 
 Convention. Then— the gentleman will correct me if I 
 am wrong— another member of the House, and also of the 
 Convention, now absent, went to him and proposed a 
 modification of his resolution so as to provide for the ap- 
 pointment^ a committee on the part of the House to 
 confer with the committee of the Convention on the sub- 
 ject ; and that modification of the proposition was carried, 
 as the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) says, with 
 scarcely a dissenting voice. The gentlemau from Fau- 
 
 quier, therefore, is correct in saying that the House of 
 Delegates has never yet rejected any proposition made 
 by the committee appointed in behalf of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. If my recollection is correct, the 
 gentlemen are both wrong [laughter.] Shortly after the 
 meeting of the Legislature, knowing the wishes of the 
 Convention, and that a committee of tins body had 
 been raised to procure this hall for our use" and 
 if they could not succeed in that, then to procure 
 and fit up some other hall ; and understanding too, that 
 the committee had made no arrangements whatever in 
 regard to any other hail, I moved in the House of De- 
 legates a resolution to the effect that the use of tins hall 
 be tendered to the Convention, and that a committee be 
 appointed to confer with the committee of the Conven- 
 tion, and arrange the hours of meeting for the respec- 
 tive bodies. This was the substance, if not indeed the 
 language of the resolution. The suggestion made to me, 
 referred to by the gentleman from Fluvanna, (Mr. Cocke,) 
 I well remember. It was that a committee should be 
 appointed to confer with the committee of the Conven- 
 tion, and report to the House. I did not accept of that 
 proposition, and my resolution was put before the House, 
 and that body, by a decided vote, refused to tender the 
 use of the hall to the Convention in any way. The mat- 
 ter was permitted to sleep on the table for some time, 
 when the Delegate from Spottsylvania, who had made 
 strenuous opposition to the idea of the Convention oc- 
 cupying this hall at all, finally concluded to acquiesce in 
 some arrangement which would leave the House ample 
 time to do its business, and it was on his motion, I be- 
 lieve, that a committee was finally appointed to confer 
 with the committee appointed by the Convention. The 
 result of the deliberations of that joint committee has 
 been this day reported to the Convention. I wish mere- 
 ly to add to this statement the expression of my wish, 
 that tins Convention should select its own place of meet- 
 ing rather than appeal to the General Assembly to do it 
 for them. I am opposed also, to any proposition which 
 looks to the joint occupancy of this hall. It was fitted 
 up expressly for the Legislature, and I am satisfied the 
 experience of a few sittings will amply demonstrate to 
 us all the inconvenience of such a joint occupation. We 
 have an instance of what may frequently occur in the 
 state of tilings to-day. When the appointed hour ar- 
 rives for the meeting of one body, the other may be en- 
 gaged in taking the vote, or in an important discussion, 
 and not be prepared to adjourn, and thus one body 
 would be continually trespassing on the time of the 
 other. More than that, it will take full half an hour for 
 one body to get out and the other to get into the hall, 
 an idle consumption of useful time. And here, too, are 
 the desks in which each member of the House has his 
 private papers and documents which he desires to lock 
 up. He must then either refuse us the use of his desk, 
 or else he must leave it open, to the consequent confu- 
 sion of papers and documents which must necessarily 
 and unavoidably ensue. This is a great inconvenience, 
 and one very strong reason which requires that we 
 should have our own hall. But it seems to me, the most 
 extraordinary proposition in the whole course of this 
 debate, is that made by the gentleman from Richmond, 
 (Mr. Lyons,) that we shall fit up the Senate chamber 
 and bring the Senate here into the hall of the House of 
 Delegates. What would be the consequence ? In a very 
 short time, it will be absolutely necessary to have both 
 the Senate and the House in session at the same time, 
 and I should suppose that the gentleman's own expe- 
 rience in the Legislature would have satisfied him that 
 it was impossible for both bodies to meet in the same 
 hall. They would have, towards the close of the ses- 
 sion, to interchange messages, some 15 or 20 times a 
 day, and thus both bodies would have to be in ses- 
 sion at the same time, and I should like to know how 
 the gentleman proposes they shall get along in that 
 case ? Would he have one body rise and go out to 
 make room for the other, whenever an interchange of 
 messages was necessary? But more than that, the con- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 II 
 
 sent of the Senate to give up their hall, and subject i hall for the meeting of the Convention : Messrs. M. Gab.- 
 
 themselves to this inconvenience, has yet to be obtained, nett, Claiborne, Lyons, Leake and Ferguson. 
 
 I trust the Convention will adopt the resolution last of- ! printing the rules. 
 
 fered by the gentleman from Essex, (Mr. Garnett.) It m HOPKINS moved the printing of the rules of the 
 
 does not confine the committee to any particular place, ' Conyent ion in a convenient form for the use of the mem- 
 
 and allows them also to make a suitable arrangement;^^ A°reed to 
 
 with the House of Delegates for the use of this hall, if ' VA ° ANCIES ' IX the committee on the basis. 
 such an one can be made. I undertake to sav, hovrever, j _ r o^,,,,-^^ . 
 from my knowledge of the House, that they can make . ^ SL MMERb. There were two instances of the re- 
 no arrangement which will be satisfactory to the Con- Pp** 10 ! 1 01 ^embers of the Convention announced by 
 vention. or at anv rate, satisfactory to me. Satisfied \ x \ e lt " happens -that both of the gentlemen 
 
 that we can make no arrangement for the occupation of j^o Jiaye resigned, belonged to the committee of 24 on 
 this hall or of anv other room in the capitol, let a hall the b f 18 a 1 ud apportionment ot representation. I move 
 be selected in Richmond, if possible, if not elsewhere, i n °V^?i ^ vac f ncies on tlie committee thus occasion- 
 Igo further than the gentleman from Stafford, (M^ : f d > be filled oy the appointment of other gentlemen from 
 Moncure,) who says that the Convention have a right \ th %: 5ame d 18 * 1 "* 8 - 
 to meet anv ^vhere its necessities or convenience may j 2J e ^°. n r ^4= reed ** 
 
 require, and I hold that it may meet wherever in- ; PREfelDE^NT remarked ^ that he would announce 
 
 the new members of the committee to-morrow. 
 
 ciination mav lead them. I a°Tee with the gen- 
 
 tleman from" Richmond, (Mr, Lyons,) that this bo- 1 . The Convention then adjourned until to-morrow mor- 
 
 dy is above the Legislature in many respects, and ; mn °' at 10 ° ciockl 
 
 that the Legislature have no control over us. — „,„_, 07 _ T ^ . 
 
 And if the Legislature were to pass a law express-! m „ TUESDAY, January 7th 1851. 
 
 lv forbidding us to meet any where else, as a member of ! £he Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 this Convention I should have no hesitation in voting to j The journal of the preceding day was read and ap. 
 
 remove just where we pleased, in the face of such a law. ;P rOTeo -. 
 
 Suppose the law does require us to meet at the capitol filling of vacancies in a committee. 
 
 —if this building had been consumed by fire, do gentle- ! The PRESIDENT stated that in pursuance of the or- 
 
 men mean to contend that we should have no power to I der of the Convention made yesterday, to fill the vacan- 
 
 meet at all ? No, we could still meet somewhere else, i cies in the committee of 24, on the basis and apportion- 
 
 and we can do it with just as much propriety now, jment of representation, he had appointed Mr. Seymour 
 
 as we could if such an event had actually occurred. I|of Hardy, in the place of Green B. Samuels, Esq., 
 
 believe that when the Legislature required us to meet resigned, and Mr. Floyd of Wythe, in the place of Geo. 
 
 in the capitol, it did not require us to remain here, j W. Hopkins, Esq., also resigned, to fill the vacancies 
 
 They did not give us the power to take a recess, and yet j thereby occasioned. 
 
 we have taken one, and thus exercised power not confer- place of meeting. 
 
 red upon us by law. Yet nobody denied our right to j The PRESIDENT communicated to the Convention 
 
 exercise that power. I trust that without spending a the following telegraphic dispatch from Andrew Kev an, 
 
 great deal more time on this subject, as it is so apparent jEsq., Mayor of Petersburg, which was read by the Secre- 
 
 that the Convention cannot be accommodated in this {tart : 
 
 hall that we shall at once devise some plan by which a » I am authorized by an unanimous vote of the corn- 
 proper hall can be secured. mon council of Petersburg, to invite the Convention to 
 
 Mr. LYOXS. In reference to my legislative experi- j hold its sessions here. We have first rate accommoda- 
 ence, I do not recollect in my whole service in the Sen- ; tions to offer them. Andrew Kevan." 
 
 ate or House, an instance, except when proceeding to an j On motion of Mr. "WALLACE, the communication 
 election on joint ballot, or during the two or three days | waa referred to the Select- Committee raised on the sub- 
 just before the close of the session, when the two bodies j ect 0 f providing a place of meeting for the Convention, 
 -the Senate and the House— were in session together, j printing of the debates. 
 
 It is a verv rare thins;, bills are passed m one House j ^ ^ T ^^^ TT ^- 0 , T _, *,.,,->.,■, „ 
 one dav, and. sent to the other House on the next dav, The PRESIDENT submitted to the Convention a 
 but there is no necessitv that both should be at the same communication from Mr. Wilham CuUey^onthe subject 
 time in se-sion °f publishing the debates of the Convention, which was 
 
 The amendment to the amendment was then agreed | rea0 ^ as follow* : 
 to, as was the resolution as amended. _ „ „ . , Richmond, Jan. 6, 1851. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSOX moved that when the Convention R ™- Joh ^ Y-Jf™™, President of the Convention. 
 adjourn, it adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock to-morrow morn- 
 ing. Agreed to. 
 
 TENDER OF A PLACE OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr, MARTIN, of Marshall, submitted the following 
 communication, which was read : 
 
 Richmond, Jan. 2, 1851. 
 
 Sir — The Convention having authorized the appoint- 
 ment of a stenographer to report the debates, I respect- 
 fully propose to print the same in an octavo form. 
 
 I 'will print daily, if required, 5000 copies of a Jour- 
 nal of Debates, containing as much matter as is compris- 
 ed in eight close columns of the Washington L T nion or 
 National Intelligencer, for the sum of sixty -five dollars, 
 ~ m'1 "TIiT tt "•' " " v "i and mail 2500 copies per dav, to such persons in every 
 
 Gentlemen :-We are willing to rent the tmversahst j f he gtat £ a / the ^legates of the Convention 
 church, on Mayo street, for the use of the Convention, ; designate, without additional charge. I will bind 
 upon such terms as vou may deem liberal, allowing you the " rema ^ 25l , 0 copies at the c i ose 0 f the session of the 
 to make such alterations and changes as you may desire Conventi ^ for twel / e huudre d and fifty dollars. If a 
 for the convenience of the Convention. I ter number of copies should be ordered, I will charge 
 
 Jno. W. Mines in the same proportion for the additional copies. The 
 
 ^ . . . , , *° r ™ e commlttee - ^ole cost of printing 5000 copies and binding 2500 copies 
 
 The communication was referred to the select com- U ^ debate f of the entire session, if it does not last 
 
 ^V^n^p 011 I", 3 f ' +1 . ..' ' longer than fifteen weeks, will not exceed $7,165, provi- 
 
 Mr LETCHER moved to refer the communications Lf^ debates do not aver e dal j more than i/ com _ 
 from the councils of JNorfolk and Alexandria, to the _ ■ ..i ■ -..Li ^i„ mn ^t ti^^n/, +,^. ^fi, n T:«; nn 
 
 same committee. Agreed to. 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PLACE OF MEETING. 
 
 The PRESIDENT announced the following as the Se- 
 lect Go^Bjaiittae en the §ubje«t of proiurincj a proper 
 
 prised in eight solid columns of the fine type of the Union 
 or Intelligencer. A larger sum than this will be brought 
 to the Treasury of the State, if the 25U0 bound volumes 
 alone should be sold at 83 per volume; and there can be no 
 doubt that sueh a limited number could be disposed of, 
 
12 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 I propose to print and bind the debates in an octavo 
 form, of a uniform size with the Journals of the Con- 
 vention and the General Assembly ; the latter body 
 having discarded the quarto form in consequence of its 
 unwieldy proportions. 
 
 The plan I propose, will enable the members of the 
 Convention to spread before their constituents in every 
 county of the State, from day to day, their views on all 
 matters which may come before the Convention, and at 
 the close of the session, to furnish the debates in bound 
 volumes, and in a durable form, for the benefit of the 
 resent and future generations. This mode, I trust, will 
 e considered better calculated to promote the ends of 
 the Convention, than to print the debates in the local 
 newspapers of Richmond, which, however useful in their 
 character as chroniclers of the news of the day, are sel- 
 dom preserved for future reference. It would avoid 
 the objection which is often urged against the policy of 
 patronizing the newspapers of the metropolis, to the in- 
 jury of all the other papers in the State. Besides, the news- 
 papers of the metropolis frequently contain pointed, if 
 not severe criticisms upon the expressed views of the 
 members of the Convention, and therefore, the debates 
 would not go before the people free from bias and prejic 
 dice. They certainly would not be printed in a durable 
 form, so that they could be rendered useful in enlight- 
 ening the minds of posterity in the science of govern- 
 ment, and in supplying the places of the present with 
 future statesmen. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 ¥m. Culley. 
 
 On motion of Mr. MARTIN", of Marshall, the com- 
 munication was referred to the Select Committee raised 
 on the subject ; as were all similar communications lying 
 on the table of the Convention. 
 
 PER DIEM OF MEMBERS. 
 
 Mr. BLUE offered the following resolution : 
 " Resolved, That the members of this Convention are 
 
 not entitled to their per diem pay during the recess just 
 
 taken." 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON". I should like to know of the 
 gentleman who offered that resolution, why it is neces- 
 sary to offer it, and whether there is a member of the Con- 
 vention who would ask his per diem pay during the re- 
 cess ? It seems to me that, if we adopt the resolution, 
 it would imply that a portion of the members are de- 
 sirous of charging their per diem while they were at home 
 attending to their own business. Unless I shall be 
 satisfied that members are desiring to cheat the Com- 
 monwealth, I shall vote for no such resolution. 
 
 Mr. BLUE. It is understood in the country, at 
 least among a portion of the people of the country, 
 that we are to receive our per diem during the recess. 
 I offered that resolution in order to settle this question. 
 Some think that we are entitled to our per diem, others 
 that we are entitled to mileage — some prefer the one, 
 some the other ; and in order to settle the question, and 
 set it at rest at once and enable us to receive one or the 
 other, I offered the resolution. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I do not rise to discuss the pro- 
 priety of the resolution, but simply to state what I 
 have learned of the Clerk of this Convention, who, in 
 order to guide his course in settling with the members, 
 has submitted the question to the Attorney General. 
 That officer has expressed the opinion, that members 
 were not entitled to per diem during the recess, but that 
 inasmuch as the Convention had determined, as it had a 
 right to determine, to adjourn the deliberations of this 
 body, so as to compel the members to return to their 
 homes and come back again at a distant period, they 
 would be entitled to their mileage ; the law being that 
 the members of the Convention are entitled to the same 
 mileage and per diem as members of the General As- 
 sembly. It has been decided that in case of a recess of 
 the General Assembly no per diem should be allowed ; 
 but in the case of a removal to another point, that the 
 mileage conapensatipn should be allowed ; the law being 
 
 ' that the per diem compensation should be for the actual 
 attendance of members, except in case of absence created 
 by sickness — and the law being, further, that all necessary 
 travelling expenses incurred in going to and returning 
 from the sessions, should be paid by the Commonwealth. 
 I understand that this is the opinion of the Attorney 
 General ; and I presume that the Clerk will be governed 
 by the decision of that officer. Such being the case, I 
 presume it will be hardly necessary to take the question 
 on the resolution. I think that the gentleman from 
 Hampshire, (Mr. Blue.) under these circumstances, will 
 think it proper to withdraw his resolution. 
 
 Mr. BLUE. There is an impression abroad in the 
 Commonwealth of Virginia, that possibly members may 
 have received their per diem. It was charged upon me, 
 when I got home, that the members would receive their 
 per diem and mileage while at home. In order to settle 
 the matter, I offered the resolution, and I prefer not to 
 withdraw it. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Then I move to lay the resolution 
 on the table. 
 
 The motion to lay on, the table was agreed to — a count 
 being had, — ayes 5*7, noes 27. 
 
 mileage of members. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSOIST. I have a resolution on the same 
 subject, which I wish to offer, as follows : 
 
 " Whereas, doubts exist in the minds of many as 
 to the right of the members of this Convention to re- 
 ceive mileage for travelling from the capitol in the city 
 of Richmond to their respective homes, and returning 
 again to said capitol, during the recess or adjournment, 
 it is therefore, by this Convention, 
 
 " Resolved, That the said question of mileage be and is 
 hereby referred to the General Assembly for its action 
 thereon." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLASS offered the following as a substitute : 
 Resolved, That this Convention dissents from the At- 
 torney General in his opinion that members are entitled 
 to mileage for going home and returning to this city, 
 since the recess taken by this body. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE I move the indefinite postpone- 
 ment of the resolution and amendment. I understand 
 the amendment proposes to dissent from the opinion of 
 the Attorney General, in which he declares that mem- 
 bers are entitled to their mileage. If I am correct, I 
 feel a personal interest in the postponement of the reso- 
 lution and amendment. I take it for granted that it is 
 a settled fact that the members of this Convention are 
 entitled to their per diem, or to their mileage — one or 
 the other. The Senate meets here annually and takes 
 a recess of from ten to twenty days. The members 
 go home and return, and under the law draw their 
 per diem for the time of their absence from this capitoL 
 The only precedent we have of the Legislature taking 
 a recess for a longer time than three days, I believe, is 
 the recess taken by that body from April to May, some 
 two years ago. They returned to the city of Richmond 
 and moved to Fauquier Springs. On their' return to the 
 city of Richmond, it was settled that they were entitled 
 to mileage for going there and back. The House has 
 just determined to leave this question to be settled by 
 the law-officers of the Commonwealth, by laying on the 
 table the resolution of the gentleman from Hampshire, 
 (Mr. Blue,) and leaving the Secretary of this body to 
 pay the mileage of members under the decision of the 
 Attorney General of Virginia. Now where is the ob- 
 jection to our receiving our mileage? I voted to lay the 
 resolution on the table. I do not ask for a per diem. I 
 wish to abide by the decision of the Attorney General.. 
 I would like to know if the people of this Common- 
 wealth expect their representatives to come here and 
 live like beggars, at their own expense, while they are- 
 discharging this high and important duty to the State.. 
 I despise thi3 effort at bunkum, and the cfench-fistedness 
 which characterises some of the legislation of our 
 country. I take it for granted that, if my ^vviees am 
 worth any thing to the people of my district, they are 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 IS 
 
 worth the pitiful sum of the mileage to the city of 
 Richmond. Since the adjournment, my Convention ex- 
 penses have been twice the amount of my mileage, and 
 I ask the members of this Convention, if for one moment 
 they believe the people of this Commonwealth, and of 
 my district, expect me to come here at this enormous ex- 
 pense, without bearing my expenses, or giving me the 
 pitiful sum allowed for the purpose by the laws of this 
 Commonwealth ? I trust that, after the new Constitu- 
 tion shall have been adopted, this clench-fistedness and 
 niggardly system of paying our officers, will be num- 
 bered with the things that are past, and. that the offi- 
 cers of this Commonwealth will no longer be inmates of 
 poor-houses, or fed upon the charities of the land. I ask 
 the Convention, in the infancy of this work of Constitu- 
 tional reform, to set a good example upon this subject. 
 I trust that it will not be sent forth to the people that 
 we are sitting here discussing a proposition whether we 
 will forfeit our twenty cents a mile for the purpose of secu- 
 ring popularity at home. I love fame as well as most 
 men, but I love self a little better. I do not intend to 
 starve myself for the sake of a little bunkum for the coun- 
 ties I represent on this floor. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I think that if gentlemen 
 will attend to the nature of this body, they will see that 
 all resolutions upon this subject which contemplate the 
 declaration of opinion as to the effect of the law under 
 which the Convention is here assembled, are improper. 
 We have not power as a Convention to decide this ques- 
 tion. We have not the power authoritatively to instruct 
 any of our officers touching this business. We come here 
 under the law of the land, and according to that law we are 
 entitled to certain per diem compensation and to certain 
 mileage. That law refers it to certain accounting officers 
 of this government to determine what per diem we are 
 entitled to and what compensation for travelling. It 
 does not belong to us to construe this law. It does not 
 belong to this body to settle any question relating to the 
 rights of members under that law. If the law gives the 
 right to per diem during the recess, it is the right of any 
 member, and of every member, to prefer his claim ; and 
 if the law gives it and the demand be made, the proper 
 officers will pay it ; and if the law does not give it, the 
 demand will be rejected. And as this is true in regard to 
 per diem, it is equally true in regard to mileage. We are 
 entitled or not entitled to it, under the law, and that law, 
 as I have said before, is to be construed by the proper ac- 
 counting officers of the government, and by them alone. 
 We mistake our powers — we transcend our powers when 
 we undertake by resolution or in any manner to give di- 
 rection to those who are to pass upon this matter. I un- 
 dertake to express no opinion myself, for whether gentle- 
 men mean to prefer their claims for mileage or per diem 
 is a question addressing itself individually to each mem- 
 ber. If he thinks he is entitled to it, he will present his 
 claim to the proper officer. If he does not choose to 
 make the claim, the question will not arise. I object to 
 the resolution as first offered, because it contemplates an 
 appeal to the Legislature. I object to the other, because 
 it dissents from the opinion of the Attorney General, 
 the result of which only has been communicated to 
 us, and merely stated to us by members on this floor. I 
 hope the motion will be concurred in, and the resolution 
 be indefinitely postponed. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLASS. I am sorry to have given rise to 
 any discussion about a matter which some gentlemen 
 think we had better not pass upon at all, but I under- 
 stand that I am here to perform my duties according to 
 my understanding of them, and I do not mean to be de- 
 terred from so doing by the denunciations of any gentle- 
 man on this floor, or by imputations of motives by which 
 I certainly am not cognizant of being actuated. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I wish to say to the gentleman 
 that I had not the slightest intention of reflecting on his 
 object or motive in offering his amendment. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLASS. I am perfectly satisfied with the 
 explanation of the gentleman from Franklin, and I will 
 take this occasion to say that it was certainly very far from 
 
 my intention to make " bunkum" capital in my district 
 by offering this amendment. I was actuated by no such 
 motive. I simply expressed my view of the law in the 
 resolution which I offered, and if I have an opportunity, I 
 will sustain that opinion by my vote. I do not believe 
 that we are entitled either to mileage or per diem, though 
 I am not unwilling to defray all necessary expenses we 
 may have incurred. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I dissent entirely from the views of 
 the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) Whether this 
 is a proper subject to bring before the Convention or not, 
 is a question deserving of consideration and reflection ; 
 but as it has been brought before us, I think it is due to 
 the Convention, to the country, and to ourselves, that 
 our own opinions upon this subject, whatever they may 
 be, shall be expressed in the form of a resolution, by 
 which the people may understand exactly, at least what 
 we think are our rights in respect to this matter. My 
 own opinion is, I confess, that the members of this Con- 
 vention are not entitled to their per diem during the re- 
 cess. I think even if there be no other precedent than that 
 which is furnished by the adjourned session of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, which took place in revising the civil 
 code, that it is a precedent sufficient to guide the ac- 
 tion of this body. At all events, more ought not to 
 be claimed or received by the members of the Conven- 
 tion, than was claimed by the members of the General As- 
 sembly, on the footing of whom we are placed by the ex- 
 press terms of the law under which we hold our seats 
 here. I think it is due to the Convention that this sub- 
 ject should be disposed of. If it be the sense, as it pro- 
 bably is, of the majority of this body, that the members 
 are entitled to their mileage in order to cover the expens- 
 es incurred in going from and returning home, in accord- 
 ance with the precedent furnished by the course of the 
 Legislature during their recess, let the Convention say so. 
 If it is the opinion of a large majority, as I think it is, 
 that we are not entitled to per diem, let us say so at once, 
 or let the Convention say so, for this subject, to my 
 certain knowledge, has already attracted the public at- 
 tention, and it has been said in some of the public prints 
 that the members proposed to claim their per diem du- 
 ring the recess. I presume, however, there is not a gen- 
 tleman here who Avishes to claim his per diem during the 
 recess. My friend who sits by my side, has drawn up a 
 resolution which I will offer — 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It will not be in order to offer the 
 resolution now. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I will then merely read the resolu- 
 lution by way of argument. At the proper time it will 
 be offered either by him or myself, if the motion for in- 
 definite postponement be voted down. 
 
 Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, 
 members are entitled to their mileage, both in going to, 
 and returning from home ; but to no per diem during 
 said recess. 
 
 I trust as this subject has been brought before the 
 Convention, it will be disposed of one way or the other. 
 It must be apparent that if we now dispose of it either by 
 indefinite postponement or any other indirect mode, the 
 imputation will be cast upon us, that it is the purpose 
 of the members of this Convention to claim their per 
 diem. For my part, I do not believe it is the purpose of 
 a single member to make such a claim. I am satisfied 
 that the people do not think that we are entitled to it, 
 and I am unwilling to do anything, either directly or in- 
 directly, to sanction this imputation upon us. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I stated, I think, when I was on 
 the floor before, that I did not believe there was a mem- 
 ber of this body who would claim his per diem during the 
 recess. I said I did not believe the opinion prevailed to 
 any extent, that we were entitled to per diem compensa- 
 tion. I believed then as now that the members of this 
 Convention were entitled to their mileage, and that such 
 was the opinion of a large majority of its members. — 
 Now, I concur entirely in the views expressed by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) that whatever we 
 
14 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 are entitled to, we are entitled to under the law under 
 which we are convened here. That law is in these words : 
 " And moreover, shall be allowed the same pay for tra 
 veiling to and returning from such Convention as is now 
 allowed members of the General Assembly for like ser- 
 vices. " This puts us on precisely the same footing as 
 members of the General Assembly, so far as regards 
 our pay and mileage. I contend then that this is a settled 
 question — the action of the General Assembly growing 
 out of the law as it existed when it met to revise the 
 civil code, being a precedent, and the opinion of the At- 
 torney General being, that that precedent is in accord- 
 ance with the laws of the land. The Legislature ad- 
 journed in March 1849, to meet again on the same day in 
 May 1849, to consider the report of the revisors of the 
 civil code. When we met again, we all received not 
 the per diem compensation for the time we were absent, 
 but exactly the same mileage as if it were a regular ses- 
 sion. When we adjourned from here to meet at the Fau- 
 quier Springs, we received mileage for travelling to that 
 place, but in the interim no per diem compensation. — ■ 
 Now, I contend, as I before remarked, that whatever we 
 are entitled to, we are entitled to under this law, and 
 this Convention has no right to alter or change that 
 law in any particular whatever. Even if three-fourths 
 of the members of this Convention should decide 
 that I was not entitled to mileage, I would deny 
 their right to do it, for they have no power to abridge the 
 rights of any single member under the law. Suppose 
 that a majority of the members should determine that 
 they would have no compensation at all — -that would not 
 bind me. Suppose 134 members should determine that 
 they were not entitled to the per diem, what would be 
 the effect ? Their action would be null and void and of 
 no binding effect in the premises. They have no power 
 over the subject. Each and every member would still be 
 entitled to the per diem under the law which convenes 
 us here, and no action of this body can alter or change 
 that law in any respect whatever. I do not know what 
 the motives of the gentleman are who offers this resolu- 
 tion, but I presume they are proper, and just what he 
 claims them to be, and that he believes such to be the effect 
 of the law. I know motions of this kind in some places 
 are considered very patriotic indeed. To refuse to re- 
 ceive the public money is considered very patriotic, but 
 it is generally regarded, I believe, as having an eye to 
 home. The gentleman disclaims any such motive, and 
 I give him full credit for his disclaimer. But, it matters 
 not what the motives and intentions may be, I contend 
 that this Convention has no power over the subject. — 
 Now, in what situation do we find ourselves ? The Gen- 
 eral Assembly has determined that they are not entitled 
 to per diem during a recess, but are entitled to mile- 
 age — and determined it by acquiescing in the decision of 
 their Clerk, based on the opinion of the Attorney Gener- 
 al at the time. And if I understand the gentleman from 
 Augusta (Mr. Sheffey) correctly, this opinion has been 
 repeated by the Attorney General when called upon by 
 the Secretary of the Convention, and the Secretary has 
 determined to govern his action accordingly. Now, I 
 call upon the members of this Convention to vote upon 
 this motion for indefinite postponement, with this under- 
 standing : All who believe that we are entitled to mile- 
 age and no per diem, will vote for the indefinite postpone- 
 ment, and then if the motion prevails, all will understand 
 what the determination of this Convention is. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLASS. Suppose we were to adjourn from 
 this place to meet at Norfolk, would we still be entitled 
 to mileage ? 
 
 Mr FERGUSON. The gentleman asks, suppose we 
 were to adjourn our sessions to Norfolk, would we still be 
 entitled to mileage ? I have not the slightest hesitation 
 in answering that we would. If we were to adjourn from 
 here to Nova Scotia, we would still be entitled to our 
 mileage, if we had the right to go there. The members of 
 the General Assembly received mileage for travelling 
 from here to Fauquier, and we are entitled to the same 
 pay and mileage, exactly, as they are entitled to. If the 
 
 General Assembly had a right to charge mileage for com- 
 ing here and then for going to and returning from Fau- 
 quier Springs, we unquestionably have the same right to 
 charge mileage on adjourning from place to place and 
 from time to time. If there is any wrong in this thing, 
 that wrong is in the General Assembly, and not in the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. STRAUGHAN. It will be recollected that when the 
 resolution for taking a recess by this Convention was of- 
 fered, I introduced an amendment to it, by which, had the 
 Convention adopted it, this whole matter would have 
 been settled. My opinion as to the proper construction 
 of the law was embodied in that amendment. That opin- 
 ion has been in part sustained by the decision of the 
 Attorney General. I did not then believe, nor do I now 
 believe, that any member has a right to claim any per 
 diem whatever, and for the purpose of settling this ques- 
 tion, I introduced that amendment. But as the Attorney 
 General has decided that we are not entitled to per diem, 
 but only to mileage, I hope the motion of the gentleman 
 from Franklin (Mr. Claiborne) will prevail ; and then, for 
 the purpose of satisfying the country at large as to the ac- 
 tion of this Convention, I hope the gentleman from Rich- 
 mond (Mr. Stanard) will introduce the resolution he read 
 just now, and for which I will give my vote. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. Does the motion for indefinite post- 
 ponement include the amendment offered by the gentle- 
 man from King William (Mr. Douglass) ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT replied that it did. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. Then I ask for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. Before the vote is taken, I would like 
 to hear the resolution proposed by the gentleman from 
 Richmond read. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. It is not in order to offer the reso- 
 lution now, but I will offer it at the proper time. I will 
 read it for the information of the Convention. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 Resolved, That in the opinion of the Convention the 
 members are entitled to mileage, but not to per diem 
 during the existence of the recess. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I purpose to express no opinion what- 
 ever as to the various resolutions submitted to the 
 House, for I feel very little solicitude indeed as to any 
 decision which may be made by the Convention in re- 
 spect to this question. I have never seen the subject of 
 pay up before a deliberate assembly without producing 
 a confusion which every body had occasion to regret. 
 I think, however, that it is very desirable that the Con- 
 vention should arrive at a proper conclusion on this 
 subject. There is some diversity of sentiment in the 
 Convention in regard to the pay the members are con- 
 sidered entitled to; but I think it is only an act of justice 
 the members owe themselves to take the proper mode 
 of adjusting this question and of reaching a just conclu- 
 sion. Anxious as I am that the Convention should de- 
 cide properly upon this quest-ion, I would suggest the pro- 
 priety of referring the whole matter to the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee for them to report what are our rights upon this 
 subject. If the House does not postpone this matter 
 indefinitely, I shall move to refer it to that committee, 
 and shall be willing to submit to their report when 
 made, whatever it may be— -unless indeed they should 
 decide that we are entitled to per diem. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I do not desire to discuss this question 
 now, but simply to ascertain its position* Suppose the 
 motion to postpone is sustained, will it then be in order 
 for the gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Stanard) to 
 move his proposition, or will the whole subject be dis- 
 posed of? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It may then be offered as a new 
 and independent proposition. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. 1 think that we have probably dis- 
 cussed this subject long enough, and I am inclined to 
 believe that a large majority of the Convention coincides 
 with the opinion expressed by the Attorney General, as 
 stated by my friend before me. We are informed also 
 by him that it is the intention of the Secretary of this 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 15 
 
 body to act in accordance with that opinion, unless the 
 Convention reverses it by its action. In order to get rid 
 of the whole subject, and prevent its occupying the time 
 of the Convention at any future period of the session, I 
 move to lay it on the table. 
 
 Mr. SLOAN". In my seat here, I can scarcely hear 
 what is said at all, but I believe I have heard enough to 
 know that this is a question in relation to the law by 
 which the members of this body draw their pay. Now 
 to pass, repeal or alter a law, is the work of legislation, 
 and to judge of a law is a function of the judiciary de- 
 partment of the Government. I believe that this body 
 possesses no legislative power, and I take it that it can- 
 not exercise any function of the judiciary department of 
 the Government. Therefore we cannot judge of or con- 
 strue a law, and I shall vote against this and every oth- 
 er effort of the kind. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. As this vote is to be considered 
 as a test question, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
 motion to lay on the table. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered, and the question be- 
 ing taken there were yeas 10, nays 35, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Mason, (President,) Armstrong, Arthur, 
 Barbour, Botts, Bowden, Brown, Byrd, Camden, Caper- 
 ton, Caiiile, Claiborne, Conway, Deneale, Edwards, Fer- 
 guson, Finney, Fisher, Floyd, Fuqua, Gaily, Garland, 
 Muscoe Garnett, Hall, Hill" Hoge,' Hopkins," Jacob, Jan- 
 Hey, Johnson, Jones, Kenney, Knote, Letcher, Ligon, 
 Lynch, McCamant, McComas, Martin of Marshall, Mar- 
 tin of Henry, Meredith, Miller, Moncure, Neeson, New- 
 man, Pendleton, Price, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Fau- 
 quier, Scott of Richmond city, Seymour, Sheffey, Sloan, 
 Smith of Jackson, Smith of Greenbrier, Snodgrass, 
 Snowden, Stephenson, Stuart of Patrick, Tate, Taylor, 
 Trigg, Tunis, Van Winkle, Watts of Norfolk county, 
 Whittle, Willey, Williams of Fairfax and Wysor— 70. ■ 
 
 Ways — Messrs. Anderson, Banks, Bland, Blue, Bocock, 
 Bowles, Braxton, Chapman, Cocke, Cook, Douglas, Faulk- 
 ner, Flood, Fulkerson, Goode, Hays, Hunter, Kilgore, 
 Leake, Lucas, Lyons, McCandlish,' Moore, Rives, Shell, 
 Smith ofKanawha, Smith of King & Queen, Stanard, 
 Straughan, Summers, Turnbull, Wallace, Wingfield, 
 Woolfolk and Worsham — 35. 
 
 So the motion to lay the subject on the table was 
 agreed to. 
 
 ADDITION OF MR. WISE TO THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN", of Marshall. I beg leave to offer the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That an additional member be added to the 
 Committee on Education. 
 
 It is well known to the President and to this Conven- 
 tion that the member from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) on being 
 called home by an afflicting dispensation in his family, 
 desired that he should not be placed upon any commit- 
 tee of the Convention. He was not placed on any ac- 
 cordingly, but since that time I have consulted with him, 
 and he has consented to serve upon the educational 
 committee, where all must be of opinion his services 
 will be most valuable. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I do not see the necessity of a 
 resolution on this subject. If it is desirable to add Mr. 
 Wise to that committee, a simple motion to that effect is 
 sufficient. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. I will accept of the suggestion, and 
 now move that Mr. Wise be added to that Committee. 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 REMOVAL OF FREE NEGROES. 
 
 > Mr. LETCHER presented a memorial from sundry 
 citizens of Rockbridge, asking for the adoption of a pro- 
 vision in the Constitution authorizing and directing the 
 Legislature to provide by law for the removal from 
 the State of the free negro population. 
 
 The memorial was referred to the committee raised on 
 that subject. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I hold in my hand a memorial from 
 
 some 348 citizens of Monongalia county, on the subject 
 of the basis of representation. It recites the cardinal 
 maxims in our Bill of Rights, viz : that all men are by 
 nature free and independent, that all power is vested 
 in and consequently derivable from the people, and that 
 a majority of that people is the only true basis of the 
 legislative power in Government — and as a consequence 
 of these principles thus recited, they declare that the 
 predication of the legislative power of the Government 
 upon any other basis than that of population, would be 
 a most palpable infraction of the great American doc- 
 trine of popular sovereignty. They take care to declare 
 that property should be amply protected, and express 
 their earnest desire that such protection shall be accom- 
 plished by all proper constitutional securities. This is 
 not the time to discuss these principles, but I may be 
 allowed to say, however, that it is particularly to be re- 
 gretted that our eastern brethren do not appreciate the 
 deep, the heartfelt and the universal earnestness of senti- 
 ment on the other side of the Allegany mountains, on 
 this subject. My friend from the city of Richmond (Mr. 
 Scott) yesterday alluded to the fact that probably we 
 Western gentlemen would hardly be willing to hold the 
 sessions of the Convention in the African church. I say 
 to him that some of us come here with very strong in- 
 structions to carry the war right into the centre of Af- 
 rica — and that location may be appropriate for us on 
 that ground. [Laughter.] I take occasion also to en- 
 dorse not only the principles contained in the me- 
 morial, but likewise the character of the memorialists 
 themselves. The list embraces many men of the highest 
 standing in our community — men of the greatest intelli- 
 gence — and I hope the Convention will allow the me-- 
 morial to be read and referred to the Committee on the 
 Basis. 
 
 The memorial was then read by the Secretary, as 
 follows : 
 
 The undersigned citizens of the county of Monongalia 
 beg leave respectfully to represent to the Virginia Con- 
 vention now sitting "to consider, discuss and propose a 
 new Constitution or alterations and amendments to the 
 existing Constitution of this Commonwealth," that we 
 heartily subscribe to the following truths enumerated in 
 the "Declaration of Rights," now a part of the Constitu- 
 tion of Virginia, to wit : 
 
 "That all men are by nature equally free and indepen- 
 dent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they 
 enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact 
 deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment 
 of life and liberty with the means of acquiring and pos-^ 
 sessing property and obtaining happiness and safety ; 
 "that all power is vested in and consequently derived from 
 the people. 
 
 "That a majority of the community" is the true source 
 of political power : 
 
 "That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive 
 emoluments or privileges from the community, but in 
 consideration of public services." 
 
 Whilst we recognise the duty of every well organized 
 government to protect the rights of the citizens to pro- 
 perty amply and fully, and are willing, nay desirous, that 
 a sufficient constitutional guaranty shall be provided 
 against all improper invasion of their rights, we neverthe- 
 less believe that property is not the legitimate or right- 
 ful source of the legislative power of government. Re- 
 presentation in the law making department, predicated 
 on property as its basis, would be a palpable infraction 
 of the fundamental republican doctrines above recited, 
 and the incorporation of such a dogma into the organic 
 law of this Commonwealth would result in conferring the 
 power of the government on a sectional minority and in 
 inflicting political degradation on a large majority of the 
 people. It would utterly overthrow the cardinal princi- 
 ple of popular sovereignty and virtually give place and 
 power to wealth in legislation to the exclusion of the 
 voice of the majority of the community. 
 
 We would therefore respectfully but earnestly remon- 
 strate against the introduction of the principle of proper* 
 
16 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ty -representation into the organic law of this Common- 
 wealth. We would regard it as subversive of our proper 
 political equality. 
 
 We hope we may be permitted to say that West Vir- 
 ginia is a law-abiding community ; that we are ardently 
 attached to the good old Commonwealth of Virginia ; that 
 the history of the past, when Western men flew to the 
 rescue of their Eastern brethren in the hour of their peril 
 and sacrificed even life itself in defending Eastern cities 
 from fire and sword, and Eastern property from pillage, 
 will amply attest the fidelity of the Western heart to the 
 people, and the honor and welfare of all sections of the 
 State. Yet we dare not say that we may continue our 
 allegiance, if by so doing we are to sacrifice the dearest 
 and highest interests of freemen. We will never submit 
 to live in political slavery. We have learned too well 
 the lessons of political equality, taught us by our fathers 
 from Eastern Virginia, even to acknowledge an infe- 
 riority, either personally or politically, and believing as 
 we do that population is the only true basis of legisla- 
 tive power, and that any other element of representa- 
 tion which would stifle the voice of the majority of the 
 community would be degradation of that majority to a 
 state of political slavery, we appeal in the name of the 
 100,000 of the Western majority of the white population 
 of W ester n Virginia — we appeal to you — to your hearts 
 — to your high sense of honor and justice — to your appre- 
 ciation of the great principles of human freedom and po- 
 litical equality — we appeal to you earnestly but most 
 respectfully — will you inflict such a wrong upon v s ? 
 
 Allow us to assure your honorable body, in terms as 
 respectful as our estimation of your honorable bodv is 
 high and hopeful, that these are not the sentiments of a 
 mometary popular excitement, or of a few ardent indi- 
 viduals, but they are the sober sentiments of the entire 
 Western community, deep-fixed, heartfelt, and unall era- 
 ble. Granting you will so consider them, we shall, as in 
 duty bound ever pray. Signed : 
 
 John Fetty, Mathew Gay, Henry E. Smith, Henry 
 Dering, John Watts, Miller Hall, James H. McKeny, 
 George Hite, Sr., Samuel J. Johnston, Elias Stillwell, 
 E. P. Fitch, Wm. D. Smith, A. E. Thorn, G. R. C. Allen, 
 J. H. Scott, Henry Swindler, Seth N. Stafford, John Bly, 
 J. T; Davis, L. S. Hough, T. F. Hurry, Thos. Lyell, Za- 
 dok Mackbee, George Alexander, Robert Hite, O. B. 
 Johnston, James Watson, Joseph Garland, Cabell Hol- 
 land, Thos. Meredith, Sampson Turner, William Robin- 
 son, Henry Burnell, R. P. Hennen, James McClaskey, 
 Ams. Lollis, Amos Jolliffe, John Lawlis, 0. P. Jolleffe, 
 Jacob Ruble, Isaac Cartright, Geo. S. Dering, W. Wag- 
 ner, Geo. M. Hagans, R. L. Berkshire, James Bodley, L. 
 Seigfried, Jacob Haught, Sr., A. C. Dorsey, E. C. Bun- 
 ker, Richard B. Carr, George Conn, John C. Price, Pur- 
 nell Simpson, Ezekiah Morris, Edgar C. Wilson, Caleb 
 Wight, Wm. S. Tingle, A. Abercrombie, Henry Watson, 
 James A. Hawthorn, Thomas Lazzell, David Lemley, 
 P. H. Keck, JoelRidgway, Edwin Clear, J. M. Trippett, 
 Charles Dewyes, Nathaniel Reed, Jno. Hanway, Daniel 
 K. Jarrett, Amaziah D. Payne, James Evans, E. S. Pin- 
 dall, Joseph Shuttleworth, John St. Clair, Shepard Con- 
 well, Burr P. Marsteller, John Gine, Paul Bayles, Wait- 
 man Fleming, Stephen Warmer, William Bayles. John 
 Meredith, A. M. MacDonald, Asa Hall, John W. Wiley, 
 J. A. Wiley, E. W. Tower, Raleigh Holland, Benjamin 
 Shriver, David Magill, James Johnson, Jr., Reasom Li- 
 ming, William Faulkner, Caleb Tanzey, John M. Waters 
 Andrew Lough, James Arnett, M. R. Chalfant, Wm. E. 
 Grove, John H. Courtney, James Robison, Joseph Snider, 
 Jr., Joseph Frum, Sam. Drabell, Jacob Miller, L. P. Knox, 
 James S. Miller, Jos. Morgan, John Dunn, James Kelly, 
 P. A. Layton, E. Tarleton, John Prentiss, Jas. H. Carroll, 
 Jacob Tenant, Warman Wade, A. P. Clark, John C. How- 
 ell, David Mayers, Jacob Horner, Henry Cunningham, 
 Denune Wade, Jacob Barrickman, Geo. M. Ray, Green- 
 berry Wade, George Costole, Elias C. Finnell, Wm. John, 
 Jesse Holland, John Hare, Jonathan Stansberry, A. Yea- 
 ger, John B. Laugh, Barnett W. Fox, John Statler, Wil- 
 
 son J enkins, Amos A. Vandorvort, Enos Cobun, James 
 Pixler, Wm. Lambert, Seth Stafford, L. H. Dorsey, R. B. 
 Tenant, John Piles, E. S. Brooke, Reuben Finnell, John 
 Heck, Peter Shafer, Jacob Myers, Job Simms, Martin Fox, 
 Sr., Martin P. Fox, Josephus T. Myers, Aaron W. Bills, 
 George Weaver, Hiram Austin, James H. Stafford, A. 
 Lafton, Robert Harvey, Purnell Houston, Philip W. 
 Harner, C. C. Laine, B. C. Brooke, Edward Price, B. F. 
 Baldwin, Edward Gidley, Michael Shisler, Adam Smith, 
 Wm. H. Stewart, Jacob Frederick, A. R. McKeeper, 
 Isaac Reed, Jr., D. B. Lynch, Samuel Darnell, Albert Ma- 
 dera, J. E. Tucker, A. Davarett, Daniel Halderman, 
 Marshall M. Dent, E. B. Tygard, H. J. Combe, John Mc- 
 Masters K Thos. Eastburn, John Able, A. S. Vance, C. B. 
 Tucker, Henry Swindler, W. M. E vans, Wm. Tallyarch, 
 James B. Prier, Geo. M. Dering, H. D. McGeorge, Orlan- 
 do Shay, Joseph R. Mathews, Wattson Carr, Cable Dor- 
 sey, Peter Youst, John Youst, Wm. Barb, D. B. Lynch, 
 F. A. Dering, Milton Rogers, Thomas Lanham, Sr., Tho- 
 mas Lanham, Jr., Moses Steele, J. J. Fitch, LeRoy Kra- 
 mer, Samuel Howell, Wm. Durbin, Henry Daugherty, 
 Draper Cole, George J Williams, George F. Hartman, 
 Wm. Pride, John Lewis, Wm. Park, James Miller, Martin 
 Callendine, Elijah Morgan, George Utt, Thos. Evans, 
 Isaac Haistings, Daniel Tuttle, John J. Gould, B. B. Cox, 
 Jonah Vanderwort, A. Hayes, John F. Cooper, George 
 Hall, J. S. Patterson, Samuel Shackleford, D. B. Stewart, 
 L. "L. John, John J ones, Ezra Stephens, M. Scott, John 
 M. Trowbridge, John Wolf, John Joseph, Thomas Jolliff, 
 Soloman Exline, Joseph Smell, J. G. Allen, John H. Sni- 
 der, John S. Derings, Andrew Frum, W. P. Williams, 
 J ohn Jones, Thomas Reed, Hugh H. Carr, Wm. E. Grove, 
 Benj. F. Milles, John P. Dering, James S. Peery, John D. 
 M. Carr, George Bell, J. W. Demain, Joseph Reed, John 
 Barb, John B. Achesdn, Henry Wise, George Kiger, Rey 
 Stell, Samuel Heart, jr., James M. McVeeker, Joseph 
 Oraball, Wm. J. Dougherty, Wm. Courtney, Wm. P. 
 Hess, J. Pickenpaagh, M. W. Selbey, Hezekiah Sumers, 
 James Johnson, jr., Jonathan Morgan, James T. McKas- 
 key, John Vandewort, Joseph Jacobs, H. B. Allsup, 
 James Miller, Jabez Brown, Andrew Weaver, James 
 Miller, Wm. Haskins, Fielding S. Dawson, F. B. Drutell, 
 John N. Baker, R. B. Carr, C. B. Watts, Alexander Dun- 
 can, Wm, Frum, Joseph H. Jones, Elias Jones, Rezin H. 
 Jones, F. S. Berkshire, Samuel B. Snider, John Jamison, 
 Philip Rogers, jr., George D. Evans, Henry Bunbridge, 
 Eli J. Walls, B. L. Wilson, Izaiah Jones, John S. Coombs, 
 H. F. Martin, Newton Mike, Andrew Mike, Nicholas 
 Shislu, Wm. M. Jones, Hugh M. Dering, Leroy Kiger, 
 George W. Dorsey, Wm. Richardson, John Core, Wm. 
 Vandevert, jr., Jas. M. Hawthorn, Catle S. Price, John 
 Foyle, James Wright, Jacob Smell, Stamsbury S. Low- 
 man, C. Dorsey, P. Gogle, G. W. Morrison, Benjamin 
 Dorsey, jr., G. W. Miller, Nimrod Barrickman, John Bar- 
 rickman, Thomas J. John, Burton Pride, James Barrick- 
 man, Benjamin Griffith, James Botzmer, John Boyd, 
 Ulysses Camp. 
 
 It was then referred to the Committee on the Basis, 
 and ordered to be printed. 
 
 GENERAL LAW FOR CORPORATIONS. 
 
 Mr. VAN WINKLE offered the following resolution 
 and it was referred to the Committee on the Legislative 
 Department. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment inquire and report upon the expediency of re- 
 quiring the General Assembly to provide, by a general 
 law or laws, for the incorporation of any number of in- 
 dividuals, not less than , associated for nuning, 
 
 manufacturing, constructing works of internal improve- 
 ments, banking, insuring or other purposes, useful to the 
 public, and having paid or secured to be paid a certain 
 proportion of their capital stock, subject to such regula- 
 tions, and giving such security, as may be deemed neces- 
 sary or expedient to guard against abuses of the priv ile- 
 leges conferred or the injury of the public, as may be 
 prescribed by the said general law or laws. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 17 
 
 REGISTER OF DEBATES. 
 
 The- PRESIDENT submitted to the Convention the 
 following communication : 
 
 Richmond, Jan. 7, 1851. 
 
 Hon. John Y. Mason — 
 
 Sir: — Contemplating the publication of a Register of 
 the Debates and Proceedings of the Virginia Reform 
 Convention, in octavo form for preservation, I hereby of- 
 fer to furnish the Convention with any number of copies, 
 at the end of the session, in a bound volume or volumes, 
 your body may desire for the use of its members, or 
 for the Commonwealth — the price to be fixed by a com- 
 mittee appointed for that purpose. 
 
 Very respectfully, your ob't servt, 
 
 R,o. H. Gallaher. 
 
 The communication having been read, on motion of 
 Mr. MARTIN", of Marshall, it was referred to the Select 
 Committee having charge of the subject. 
 
 HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE moved that when the Convention ad- 
 journ, it adjourn to meet to-morrow at 10 o'clock, A. M., 
 and at that hour on each subsequent day, until other- 
 wise ordered. Agreed to. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned until to-morrow morn- 
 ing, at 10 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 8, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, &C. 
 
 Mr. HAYS offered the following resolution : 
 " Resolved, That the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment of the Government inquire into the expedien- 
 cy of incorporating into the Constitution a restriction 
 against the process of Ca-Sa, and to provide, that if es- 
 tate should ever be made liable to execution, a home- 
 stead exemption to the amount of dollars shall 
 
 be allowed. " 
 
 PLACE OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT stated that the committee appoint- 
 ed to prepare accommodations for the sessions of the 
 Convention, had discharged the duty devolved upon 
 them, and he desired to submit a report, in favor of 
 which he believed the committee were unanimous. 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary as follows : 
 
 " The committee on providing accommodations for the 
 Convention, together with the several communications to 
 them referred, have had them under consideration, and 
 report as follows : 
 
 "That the thanks of the Convention are due, and should 
 be respectfully tendered to the councils and citizens of 
 Norfolk, Alexandria and Petersburg, for their polite in- 
 vitations to the Convention to hold its sessions in then- 
 towns, and for the courteous and generous offer to pro- 
 vide suitable accommodations, should either of their in- 
 vitations be accepted; and, however tempting the ' pleas- 
 ures and recreations ' so kindly promised the ' members, 
 individually,' the committee are reluctantly constrained 
 to advise that you decline these several invitations. — 
 Your committee have examined the buildings in the city 
 of Richmond offered for the use of the Convention, viz : 
 the Universalist church, and La Fayette hall, and have 
 no hesitation in recommending to the Convention the ac- 
 ceptance of the former. La Fayette hall is a room large 
 enough for the accommodation of the Convention, but 
 totally destitute of every convenience and comfort ; 
 would have to be fitted up entire, which would require 
 considerable time and an outlay of some two or three 
 thousand dollars, and it is very doubtful whether it 
 could then be well used for the purpose designed, owing 
 to the echo and reverberation of every sound made in it. 
 The Universalist church is a substantial building, of am- 
 ple dimensions for the convenient accommodation of the 
 Convention and a large number of spectators, and 
 
 will require but few alterations in its present ar- 
 rangement to make it entirely comfortable and suit- 
 able for the use of the Convention. It has been offer- 
 ed on the most liberal terms, the proprietors being wil- 
 ling to accept such remuneration as the Convention may 
 seem fit and proper, and any permanent improve- 
 ments or repairs which the Convention may make, your 
 committee are authorized to say will be received very 
 cheerfully as part of such remuneration. Your com- 
 mittee are of opinion from information they have obtain 
 ed, that the entire cost attendant upon this removal of 
 the Convention to this church, including the rent of the 
 building and fitting it up, will not exceed, if it reach, the 
 sum of one thousand dollars, and it can be ready for the 
 acceptance of the Convention in a few days. Your com- 
 mittee recommend the adoption of the following resolu- 
 tions : 
 
 " Resolved, That the thanks of the Convention be, and 
 they are hereby respectfully tendered to the councils and 
 citizens of Norfolk, Alexandria and Petersburg, for their 
 polite invitations to this body to hold its sessions in their 
 towns, and for their courteous and generous offer of suit- 
 able accommodations therefor, and that the Secretary 
 of the Convention forward each of the said councils a co- 
 py of this resolution." 
 
 Resolved, That the offer of the Universalist church in 
 the city of Richmond, be accepted, and that the Sergeant- 
 at-Arms be, and he is hereby directed (under the super- 
 vision and advisement of the committee) to have the ne- 
 cessary alterations and improvements made in the said 
 church for the accommodation and reception of the Con- 
 vention as speedily as practicable." 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I do not know that there is 
 any occasion to act at this time on this report. If I 
 understand it, it recommends that we should take mea- 
 sures at once to remove to the Universalist church. It 
 is possible, I may say probable, the House of Delegates 
 will agree to permit the Convention to occupy this 
 house at the hour of 1 o'clock. I think this might 
 suit the convenience of the members of the Convention ; 
 and in order to ascertain whether that arrangement can 
 be made, I move that the report and resolutions be laid 
 on the table. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I hope the gentleman will with- 
 draw that motion for a moment. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I trust that the Convention will 
 at once decide this very trivial matter — trivial in itself, 
 but perhaps important in its consequences. I have yet to 
 see the very first — at least, they are like angels' visits, 
 very few and far between — of those gentlemen who 
 think that we can get along in this hall, while it is oc- 
 cupied by the Legislature, at all. I do not believe that 
 there is a "baker's dozen" who are disposed to sit here, 
 and jointly occupy this hall, at all. Now, let us decide 
 this question at once. I gave my reasons the other day 
 why we could not sit here jointly with the House of Del- 
 egates. Then business occupies all their time. Let 
 them have the hall all the time, and let us go where we 
 can have all our time. I beg leave to say, in further ex- 
 planation of the report, that the Universalist church is 
 not only amply sufficient for the comfort and convenience 
 of the Convention, but of all the spectators who may 
 attend. And I would further state, that the common 
 council of the city of Richmond had a meeting yester- 
 day, and determined, as the road is not very good to 
 that church, to have a plank road made to it. This 
 will be a benefit which we will confer on the owners 
 of the church, on the citizens, and on ourselves. The 
 house we have tried, and the sound of it, and it is 
 one better adapted for us than this, in my humble opin- 
 ion. It is quite as comfortable, I think, in every re- 
 spect. And I do trust that gentlemen will not permit 
 any further delay to be had. Is it not apparent, that so 
 long as we sit here, we shall not get regularly at work ? 
 The opinion of the committee is, that this house can be 
 got ready for your reception by Monday morning, if you 
 will adopt the report and resolutions we have advised. 
 
18 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Then we can go there quietly, masters of our own time, 
 and go to work and begin to do what we were sent here 
 to do ; and which it is very evident that we have not yet 
 commenced. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. With a view to test the 
 sense of the Convention, I will repeat my motion to lay 
 upon the table. I do not think we can be accommoda 
 ted in any other place, with any thing approaching the 
 conveniences we have here. We shall have, for instance, 
 no desks or tables for our use there. I think a period 
 of time in the hall of the House of Delegates may be 
 obtained, which will satisfy the convenience of the Con- 
 vention. And regarding this house as better adapted 
 for our deliberations than any other that can be procur- 
 ed in the city of Richmond or elsewhere, I think we 
 ought to lay this report on the table for this day, and 
 give the House of Delegates an opportunity, if they 
 will, to offer us the hall at some hour which will be 
 better suited to our convenience. With a view, there- 
 fore, to test the sense of the Convention, I renew the 
 motion to lay the report on the table. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH. I trust the report will not be laid 
 on the table. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The motion is not debateable. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I withdraw it. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH. I trust the Convention is prepared 
 to act at once on this question. The very reasons urged 
 by the gentleman from Fauquier, in favor of his motion 
 to lay on the table, are the very reasons which operate 
 against it, in my mind. He thinks we should be better 
 accommodated here than elsewhere. In the first place, 
 it appears to me that there is a manifest propriety that 
 we should retain absolute control of the hall in which 
 Ave sit, to suit our own time, without being limited by 
 the rights of any other body. The gentleman also lays 
 great stress upon the absence of the desks and tables. 
 Now, I would go any where to get rid of desks and 
 tables. I have heard the old men speak of the in- 
 troduction of desks and chairs into Congress, the disor- 
 ganization which it produced in that body, and the hin- 
 drance to the dispach of business. I served here former- 
 ly in this House, when there was a lobby of fifteen or 
 twenty feet, and a large space thirty feet in length, by 
 fifteen in breadth, unoccupied by seats, and when there 
 was abundance of room, and privileged seats within. 
 And before 1829 — for before that time I had not the ho- 
 nor of a seat here — this hall accommodated some 220 
 members. Now, since the introduction of chairs and 
 desks over the whole House, including the lobby and 
 unoccupied space of the former hall, it cannot ac- 
 commodate properly 135 members. We came here to 
 do the public business ; and yet we find the time occu- 
 pied in writing letters, or by legal gentlemen, in drawing 
 legal papers, while the public business is obstructed. 
 This introduction of seats, desks and chairs, is an Ame- 
 rican invention. The Houses of Parliament never permit- 
 ted it. They had nothing but benches and a little board, 
 upon whioh they drew resolutions. That was pretty 
 much the case with the old House of Delegates. I hope 
 that we all desire to transact the business for which we 
 were sent here, and to get home without delay. I hope 
 we shall go somewhere where we can have an arrange- 
 ment of seats in a smaller compass — where we shall not 
 be confined to particular seats, so that gentlemen may mix 
 more together, and become acquainted with each other. 
 I hope we shall go somewhere where we shall get rid 
 of these desks and chairs. And I do not doubt, if we 
 were, by a constitutional regulation, to prohibit, in all 
 legislative bodies, the introduction of desks and chairs, 
 that we should render a much more beneficial service to 
 the State, than by many of the regulations which we 
 shall make. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I renew the motion to lay 
 the report on the table. 
 
 The question being taken on the motion to lay on the 
 table, it was decided in the negative. 
 
 Mr. FISHER. I am constrained to object to the adop- 
 tion of this resolution, because in my humble opinion, 
 
 there are interests connected with the permanent loca- 
 tion of this Convention which ought not be overlooked. 
 I do not wish, at this particular moment, to develop 
 what those interests are, and I shall refrain from any 
 comment upon the matter, and have risen mainly with the 
 view to move an amendment to that resolution by stri- 
 king from it the words ''Universalist church," and in- 
 serting in lieu thereof the words "city hall in the bo- 
 rough of Norfolk." With a view to ascertain whether 
 private convenience shall be sacrificed to the public weal 
 in relation to this question, I beg leave to ask the ayes 
 and noes upon the amendment. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. [Mr. Hopkins tempo_ 
 rarily in the Chair.] Two resolutions have been reported 
 by the committee, and as they refer to separate and dis- 
 tinct subjects, the vote will be taken on each separately. 
 Where all refer to the same subject, however, the prac- 
 tice is to take the question on them aggregately. The 
 first resolution here, returns thanks to the authorities of 
 Alexandria, Norfolk and other places for their kind invi- 
 tations to the Convention, and the second resolution pro- 
 vides for the selection of a place for the meeting of the 
 Convention. The question will therefore be first taken 
 on the first resolution, unless the Convention should desire 
 to pass it over for the present. 
 
 Mr. FISHER. I have not understood that any gentle- 
 man has desired the division of the resolutions. I imagined 
 that the question would arise upon the resolutions joint- 
 ly. My motion is to amend the second resolution, but if it is 
 more in accordance with parliamentary usage to take the 
 question first upon the first resolution, then my amend- 
 ment will apply when the second resolution is considered. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The parliamentary law 
 is very clear on the subject. It is, that the question must 
 be taken separately on each resolution in its order, un- 
 less the House should pass by one, in order to take up 
 the other. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. The gentleman can attain his object by 
 moving to lay the first resolution on the table. The se- 
 cond will then come up, and the gentleman's amend- 
 ment will then be in order. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to pass by the 
 first resolution will be sufficient to attain the end. 
 
 Mr. FISHER. I do not make the motion. 
 
 The question was then taken on the first resolution 
 reported by the committee, and it was agreed to. 
 
 The second resolution was then read. 
 
 Mr. FISHER renewed his resolution to amend by 
 striking out the words "Universalist church, " and in- 
 serting in lieu thereof, the words " city hall, " in the 
 borough of Norfolk. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I would suggest to the gentleman 
 from Mason, that he designate instead of the "city 
 hall," the "mechanics' hall," in the city of Norfolk, as 
 the place of meeting. This motion had been made with- 
 out any expectation on my part that such an one 
 would be made, but I presume _ it is proper in me as 
 a representative in part of the district of which Noiv 
 folk forms a part, and as a citizen of that place, 
 to say to the Convention that there is certainly a room 
 of sufficient capacity in every respect in that city, for the 
 sittings of the Convention ; and that room is the mecha- 
 nics' hall. I need not say in view of the resolutions 
 from Norfolk, laid before this body, and the knowledge 
 which most of the members must have of the citizens 
 of Norfolk, that if it should be the pleasure of the 
 Convention to adjourn to that city, there is no communi- 
 ty in the State of Virginia who will receive them with a 
 more cordial welcome, or make greater exertions tq 
 make their sojourn more pleasant and agreeable. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I think that we are about to ex- 
 hibit to the country, from the demonstrations which are 
 now being made upon this floor, that this is really and 
 truly what may be called an itinerant Convention. We 
 met in the capitol, according to law, and more than two. 
 months ago the Convention took a recess for two mont hs. 
 I voted for that adjournment and recess, and I have no 
 cause, and expect to have none, to regret that vote, 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 19 
 
 Prior to the adjournment of the Convention a committee 
 was appointed for the purpose of securing a hall in which 
 this body was to re-assemble on its return to the city of 
 Richmond. The only arrangement made by that com- 
 mittee was one with the Legislature for the joint occu- 
 pancy of this house during certain hours of the day and 
 the whole of the night. And I beg leave to say here, in 
 courtesy to those gentlemen who have a double duty to 
 perform to their constituents, by the will and choice of 
 their people, that I am prepared to vote either for the 
 report of the committee, or for accepting the proposition 
 of the Legislature with regard to the occupation of this 
 hall. I do not believe as some gentlemen believe, that 
 my constituency require me, after eating and drinking 
 a: dinner, to come here and make a Constitution, nor do I 
 claim to belong to that aristocracy who would imitate 
 the House of Commons of Old England and perform the 
 duties of the Convention at night. But I am willing, if 
 there is any disposition on the part of this body to enter 
 into an arrangement with the Legislature, to meet here 
 either in the morning or in the evening, to discharge the 
 duties that are incumbent upon me as a member of this bo- 
 dy, in this capitol, for the purpose of enabling gentlemen 
 who hold positions in this body and in the Legislature, 
 to discharge the duties they rightfully and lawfully ow 
 to their constituents. I do not blame them for attempt- 
 ing to discharge those duties, since it is the will of the" 
 people that they should hold two positions. But I am 
 satisfied that there is no disposition on the part even of 
 a moiety of the members of this body, to meet in this 
 hall and to accept the offer of the Legislature. Then, 
 as we have been two months and three days preparing a 
 hall for this body to meet in, I think the time at last has 
 arrived when this body should take action as to where 
 they will meet to discharge the duties they owe to their 
 constituents. Four months and more of the session 
 of the Convention have been exhausted, and not 
 one single solitary step has been taken in the dis- 
 charge of our duties. The people of Virginia, who desir- 
 ed this Convention, and who called it into existence, are 
 looking for a reformed Constitution, and to the adoption 
 or vote upon that Constitution by themselves, so that a 
 Legislature may be elected next summer, for the purpose 
 of carrying that Constitution into effect. As a member 
 of the committ ee appointed to ascertain if a house might 
 be procured that would answer the purpose, I went yes- 
 terday, in company with other members of that commit- 
 tee, and examined La Fayette hall, and the Universalist 
 church, in this city, and I take this occasion to say to the 
 Convention, and to those gentlemen who have not visit- 
 ed the Universalist church, that it is a building 85 
 by 40 feet, and that in the body of the church, out- 
 side of the galleries, there is sufficient room to ac- 
 commodate one hundred and thirty-five members of the 
 Convention — every seat, and every man of whom may be 
 immediately in front and directly in the eye of the Pres- 
 ident. On the right and left of the pulpit, su itable ar- 
 rangements may be made for the stenographers, and desks 
 may be prepared for gentlemen who wish to prepare a 
 resolution or write a letter, during the session of the 
 Convention. The brick wall that supports the church 
 is the widest and most substantial that I ever saw in 
 my life. The underpinning of the galleries and the 
 main floor of the building is sufficiently ample to sup- 
 port the weight of 1500 or 2000 persons. The sound 
 of the voice, in every part of the church, is better 
 than in this hall, or in any building that can be 
 procured in the city of Richmond ; and independent of 
 all these qualifications which this building possesses, they 
 have pews well cushioned, and they are long enough to 
 (lire worn-out members an opportunity of taking a nap 
 during the long speeches in the dog days. [Laughter.] 
 Now what inducement is offered to this body to go to Nor- 
 folk, in preference to accepting the Universalist church ? 
 You have been told by the report of the committee, that 
 this church can be prepared, and that all the expense 
 will not amount to more than §1000. 
 
 If we leave ths capitol and go to Norfolk, a distance 
 
 of more than 10-0 miles, this Convention goes there at a 
 cost of forty dollars per member to the State of Virginia, 
 an amount eight or ten times as much as the whole ex- 
 pense of procuring a hall in the city of Richmond. I ne- 
 ver saw the hall in the city of Norfolk, but I am satisfied 
 that it cannot possibly offer any greater inducements in 
 the shape of convenience, than the Universalist church. 
 Then what advantages do the city of Norfolk present 
 over the city of Richmond ? I am a thousand times 
 obliged to the hospitable, generous, and kind people of the 
 city of Norfolk, for the invitation that they have extend- 
 ed to us ; and I have no doubt, that if we were in that 
 city, we would meet with all the cordiality and kindness 
 that we could expect, and a good deal more than we were 
 entitled to. The whole sum and substance of it is this, 
 that there is no other advantage offered to the Conven- 
 tion by Norfolk, except, perhaps, a larger supply of Tay- 
 lor's best brand of French brandy, and fresh oysters. 
 [Laughter.] But I believe this extra supply of superior 
 provender, will add nothing to the wisdom of the fra- 
 mers of the new Constitution. I recollect very well, 
 when a boy, that whenever they failed to give me bis- 
 cuit and butter for breakfast, I always learned my les- 
 son, but if I was well fed, I was very apt to neglect it. 
 [Laughter.] I hope that this Convention, for the sake of 
 good oysters and better diet, will not say to the people 
 of Virginia, that after a five months' session, they have 
 thought proper to make a stampede of a hundred miles, 
 to a remote position, almost upon the very line of the 
 Commonwealth itself. Are there not advantages pre- 
 sented in the city of Richmond, even if there was no ne- 
 cessity on the part of the Convention to remain here, that 
 should influence its course ? The public printer is here. 
 Your contract with him has been solemnly ratified, and 
 you are bound to abide by that contract. You have bet- 
 ter facilities of sending forth to the people the proceed- 
 ings of this body, than you would have at any other 
 point ; and I trust that, in the absence of every considera- 
 tion that would justify this movement of the Conven- 
 tion, you will proceed to act upon the report of this 
 committee ; and I do hope, that this body will not think 
 of leaving Richmond, when it can be accommodated 
 within its limits, quite as well, if not better, than else- 
 where. 
 
 Mr. WATTS. There are two propositions before the 
 Convention — one to adjourn to the Universalist church 
 in Richmond — and the other to remove to Norfolk. As 
 between the two, I find no difficulty in deciding in favor 
 of the latter. The inquiry has frequently been raised 
 by members of this body, can the Convention be enter- 
 tained in Norfolk ? I cannot consent to discuss such a 
 question here. It is enough for me to know that the in- 
 vitation comes from the councils of the city of Norfolk. 
 This was of itself a sufficient pledge, that every accom- 
 modation would be provided for the comfort and conve- 
 nience of the Convention, if the invitation should be ac- 
 cepted. It was not for B to question the capacity of A 
 to entertain him, with the invitation of the latter in his 
 hand. Mr. Claiborne, the gentleman from Franklin, said 
 he could anticipate no advantage from the assembling of 
 the Convention in Norfolk. I can. There is not a 
 State in the Union whose people know so little of each 
 other, as those of Virginia ; especially of the Eastern ' 
 and Western portions of the State. There is but little 
 intercourse between them — none between the city of 
 Norfolk and the West. Let the Convention assemble in 
 Norfolk, and it will bring together extremes which never 
 before met. It would bring about a community of 
 feeling which would be no less advantageous than happy. 
 There are other advantages, but it is unnecessarv to 
 enumerate them. I have not risen to press the invitation 
 by a speech, but to endorse it, and to suggest that, if it 
 be accepted, the place of meeting in that city should be 
 left to the election of the councils. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I regret very much to see the man- 
 ifest impatience of this body to adopt, or at least to take 
 a vote upon the report of the committee, to transfer 
 our sittings from this hall to the Universalist church. 
 
20 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 I regret that the motion of the gentleman from Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott) to lay the report on the table did not pre- 
 vail, particularly when accompanied as it was by the 
 statement which I understood him to make, that the 
 House of Delegates were willing to give to the Conven- 
 tion the use of the hall from 9 to 1, or from 1 until 
 12 the next morning. Now, it does seem to me, that 
 this is by far the best arrangement that can be made for 
 the convenience and comfort of the members of this 
 body. There are many members of this Convention, 
 probably, who are not by experience informed of the 
 difficulties we will have to encounter if we meet else- 
 where than in this hall. No place can be fitted up so 
 well in the short time it is proposed to fix up the Uni- 
 versalist church, where the same comforts and conve- 
 niences can be had as are here furnished by the people for 
 the General Assembly and also for the deliberations of 
 this body, by the very act of the Assembly which called 
 this Convention. There is another reason that should 
 have some weight, it seems to me, with the members of 
 this Convention upon this subject. "Where an actual ex- 
 pense is necessary to be incurred, no member is more wil- 
 ling to vote to incur that expense than I am. But where 
 there is no necessity for incurring expense, I hold it to 
 be the bounclen duty of the members of the Convention and 
 the representatives of the people who are to pay the cost, 
 to save that amount, whatever it may be. Then, by 
 meeting here, no additional preparation will be necessary 
 to be made, and there would be no expense incurred in 
 preparing a hall for the meeting of this body. I main- 
 tain that it is but respectful to the General Assembly and 
 the appropriating house, who now offer to divide with 
 us the use of this hall, a division which will not retard 
 in the slightest degree the progress of the public business 
 in either body ; nay, that it is the bounden duty of this 
 Convention to accept that offer. If this hall is occupied 
 by the Convention from 9 until 1 o'clock, our committees 
 can meet in the afternoon while the Legislature is in ses- 
 sion, or, if the Convention should prefer to meet 
 at 1 o'clock, then the committees of the Conven- 
 tion can meet in the morning, and thus would not 
 interfere with the committees of the House of Delegates. 
 I apprehend that it is not seriously entertained by 
 any. member of this body that we should remove or 
 transfer the sittings of the Convention to the city of Nor- 
 folk or any other place in the State of Virginia, but I 
 shall vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
 from Mason, (Mr. Fisher,) and then I shall vote against 
 the resolution as amended, and I trust that all who 
 think that we should occupy this hall under the arrange- 
 ments tendered by the House of Delegates, will so vote. 
 The gentleman from Albemarle (Mr. Randolph) seems 
 to think that this hall is too convenient, and he refers to the 
 time when 220 members occupied this hall. Now it seems 
 to me that we are packed as close as it is desirable. At 
 any rate, I would not like to be transferred to the Uni- 
 versalist church or any where else where we would be 
 less conveniently seated and provided for than we are 
 here. I trust, therefore, that the members of this Con- 
 vention who think it is not only better for our own comfort 
 and convenience to remain in this hall, but that no ap- 
 propriation of money should be made for fitting up any 
 other place, since this hall has been fitted up and ten- 
 dered to us, as well as those who believe it is but re- 
 spectful to the House of Delegates, who made us this 
 offer, to accept of it, will vote for the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Mason, (Mr. Fisher,) to go to Norfolk, 
 and then vote against the resolution as amended. By 
 taking that course, we may defeat the resolution of the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I believe the question under the 
 rule can be divided, so that a vote may be taken first on 
 striking out. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. It can be so taken if a 
 division is asked for. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. Then I call for a division of the 
 question. I do not rise to make a speech, for I do 
 trust that gentlemen have by this time made up their 
 
 minds on this subject. Indeed I am very much tempted 
 to do what I have never done before, and that is to move 
 the previous question, but I hope the hint will be suffi- 
 cient. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I do not understand that the question 
 whether we will go to Norfolk is now before this body. 
 "We have adopted the first resolution, I understand. Am 
 I correctlv informed ? 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes sir. 
 Mr. BOCOCK. Then will not the Chair bear me out in 
 saying that the first resolution expressly declines the in- 
 vitation to go to Norfolk ? Now then, we have adopted 
 a resolution which expressly declines the invitation to go 
 to Norfolk, and we are asked to adopt a second resolu- 
 tion by which we accept that invitation. The gentle- 
 man from Barbour will hardly expect that we should 
 adopt a resolution right in the teeth of the one we have 
 just now passed. I observed there was very little divi- 
 sion of opinion on the first resolution. I think there is 
 very little prospect of our putting ourselves in a po- 
 sition so contradictory. I presume that we under- 
 stand what we are doing;, and the Convention having 
 decided the question of going to Norfolk, I will say no- 
 thing on that point. In regard to fitting up the church, 
 I think our first duty to ourselves and those who sent 
 us here is to make such an arrangement as in the most 
 speedy manner possible, to get at the work we 
 have to do. Our next duty is, to arrange, so far as we 
 can reasonably do so, in justice to ourselves and our du- 
 ties to our constituents, so as best to accommodate every 
 one of our own members. I am willing to do that. am 
 willing to pursue the course which will best accommo- 
 date those members who have other duties entrusted to 
 them by the people to perform. But should that prevent 
 our fitting up the church ? I saw the chur ch yesterday 
 in company with the conunittee, though not a member of 
 it, and I know it will accommodate us better than we are 
 accommodated here. I think therefore we ought to pro 
 ceed at once to the adoption of this resolution. It does 
 not force us to move either to-day or to-morrow, but it 
 gives us a hall to go to when we can no longer do our 
 work here. So long as we can sit here consistently with 
 the performance of our duties, I trust we shall continue 
 to do so ; and perhaps it would be more convenient to do 
 so while the committees are engaged in preparing the 
 work. It is said the House of Delegates will give us the 
 hall at 1 o'clock. Probably that will answer our pur- 
 pose for some time. But we can have the church ready, 
 and then we can determine at any time we choose, when 
 it is best for us to go there. The adoption of this resolu- 
 tion does not oblige us to go there immediately. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I ask the Secretary to read the res- 
 olution adopted by the common council of the city of 
 Richmond on this subject. 
 
 The Secretary read it accordingly, as follows : 
 At a called meeting of the city council, held Tuesday, 
 7th inst., the following resolution, on motion of Mr. Bo- 
 sher, was unaimously adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to 
 confer with the committee already appointed by the Con- 
 vention, assembled in this city for amending the State 
 Constitution, to provide a suitable hall in which to hold 
 the meetings of that body, and to render all proper aid 
 by the city iu providing and fitting up such hall as may 
 be acceptable to the Convention ; and also to contract for, 
 and have made at the city cost, ready and comfortable 
 access to such hall, when prepared. 
 
 A committee was accordingly appointed of Messrs. Bo- 
 sher, Denoon, and Carrington. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I have had that communication read 
 simply to place the corporate authorities of Richmond in 
 the position they are entitled to occupy before this body. 
 I certainly shall not occupy the time of the Convention, 
 in discussing the question whether we shall remove from 
 the capital, the seat of government, where _ all the ar- 
 chives are, and where the public library, &c. is, and go to 
 the city of Norfolk, or any where else, because that 
 question has been ably discussed already, and besau^e we 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 21 
 
 have already passed upon it by the adoption of the 
 first resolution of the committee. I hope therefore, 
 that, when the Convention sees that it has the report 
 of its committee in favor of this church, and when it sees 
 that there is as much disposition manifested by the cor- 
 porate authorities here to accommodate them, and to ex- 
 tend to them every facility for the dispatch of their busi- 
 ness as in any other city, it will be satisfied to dispose of 
 this whole question by at once voting down the proposi- 
 tion to amend the report. If the proposition is insisted 
 upon, I shall deem it my duty to call for the yeas and 
 nays on the question. 
 
 Mr. RIDLEY. While gentlemen seem so anxious to 
 designate some place for the meetings of the Convention, 
 it seems to me they have lost sight entirely of the fact 
 that the whole business of the body rests now with 
 the committees, and we have not yet heard of any ar- 
 rangement being made for their accommodation. They 
 cannot meet in the morning in the committee rooms of 
 the capitol, because those committee rooms are used by 
 the legislative commitees. I can see no reason for our 
 daily assemblage here. "What have we to do until the 
 committees have reported ? Is there any business be- 
 fore the Convention ? I merely throw out these sug- 
 gestions and I most respectfully inquire whether it enter- 
 ed into the consideration of the committee who have 
 charge of this matter, to accommodate the committees at 
 the same time that they were providing for the conve- 
 nience of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I take pleasure in saying that we 
 did make some inquiry into this matter of the conve- 
 nience of the committees, but we did not feel ourselves 
 authorized to make the necessary arrangements. We 
 sire informed, however, that very convenient rooms for 
 the accommodation of our committees can be obtained 
 in the Odd Fellows' hall in this city. Certain it is that 
 the committees of the House of Delegates and the 
 committees of the Convention cannot all sit in the capi- 
 tol together, and either one or the other must be ex- 
 cluded. 
 
 Mr. ARMSTRONG. The question before the House, 
 as I understand it, is, upon the amendment submitted by 
 the gentleman from Mason, (Mr. Fisher,) proposing that 
 this Convention shall adjourn to the city of Norfolk. 
 When I came here, I had made up my mind to vote that 
 the Convention should go to Norfolk. Finding that there 
 was no place provided for holding the sessions of the Con- 
 vention here, I thought it due to the people of Virginia that 
 we should go where a suitable building and every accom- 
 modation had been tendered us. But since the declara- 
 tion made here by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. 
 Claiborne,) and by the committee who have this subject 
 in charge, I have come to a different conclusion. I think it 
 but right and proper that the Convention should at once 
 select a place where we may go to work and do the busi- 
 ness for which we were sent here. In relation to occupying 
 this hall with the members of the Legislature, I think it 
 would be entirely useless to attempt it. If the Legis- 
 lature dispatch the duties for which they were sent here, 
 I am sure they cannot afford us the time necessary. 
 They have no right to deprive themselves of this hail, 
 and to put it out of their power to discharge the du- 
 ties enjoined upon them. It seems but just and proper 
 that they should retain it, and if we occupy it with them 
 and thus trespass upon their time, we shall but protract 
 their session as well as the session of this body. If I 
 was a member of the House of Delegates, I would not 
 vote to give the Convention the time which has been 
 stated. In relation to those gentlemen who are mem- 
 bers of both bodies, they have been placed in this situa- 
 tion by their constituents, and they must account to 
 them, but I think it would be doing ample justice to 
 those gentlemen to select the place for our meeting where 
 the committee have recommended. Before I take my 
 seat I will ask the gentleman from Mason if under the 
 circumstances he will not withdraw his amendment, and 
 then I hope a vote will not be pressed on this resolution 
 to-day, but that it will be laid on the table temporarily, 
 
 so that members may have an opportunity to examine 
 this building for themselves, and see whether it is a prop- 
 er place in which to hold our meetings. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN. I have been deterred from offer- 
 ing for the consideration of the Convention, an amend- 
 ment to the amendment which is proposed to the se- 
 cond resolution, in consequence of the evident incon- 
 gruity in the action of the Convention. The Conven- 
 tion, as has been remarked by a gentleman who has 
 spoken, has almost unanimously declined the invita- 
 tions from Alexandria, Norfolk, &c, and now, that that 
 vote has been taken, a proposition right in the teeth of 
 it is made that we adjourn to Norfolk ! If this thing 
 is to be persisted in, I shall feel it my duty on many 
 considerations, personal, local, national and patriotic, to 
 move to amend the amendment, by substituting the 
 words " the town of Alexandria;' in the place of the 
 words " the city of Norfolk ;" and I would suggest that, 
 in addition to many other reasons which might be given 
 why we should adjourn to that good old town, that in a 
 national sense, it will be highly expedient and proper. 
 I am exceedingly desirous that the Congress of the Uni- 
 ted States should have so near a neighbor in a body 
 from which they might learn so many useful lessons of 
 propriety, dignity, order and decorum. (Laughcer.) 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I do not think the fact, that any 
 member of this Convention holds a seat in the Legisla- 
 ture, ought to influence this body, in any vote which will 
 be given in regard to the place of meeting. Our consti- 
 tuents have sent us here in this double capacity, and we 
 have voluntarily taken upon ourselves the discharge of 
 this double duty ; and in every vote which I have given, 
 and which I shall give, I shall give it without any refer- 
 ence to the fact that I occupy a seat in both bodies, or 
 that any other gentleman occupies a seat in that way. 
 Since this question of adjournment to Norfolk has been 
 raised, I feel it due to the people of Norfolk to say, 
 that I have not the slightest doubt, not only that a 
 suitable hall can be obtained in that city to accom- 
 modate the Convention, but that every other accom- 
 modation which may be required, will be extended 
 to its members and the visitors that may attend its 
 sittings. I was requested when I was there, to visit 
 the Mechanics' hall, and express an opinion as to its 
 capacity to accommodate the Convention. I did so, 
 and I am satisfied that it is a better hall than can be 
 obtained any where in the city of Richmond. It will 
 accommodate a larger number of people than any 
 place which can be selected in this city. As to the 
 other accommodations, such as board &c, I was assured 
 there, and I have been assured since, that not only the 
 Convention can be accommodated with rooms, but that 
 they can accommodate as many visitors, who are not 
 members, as would be likely to attend its session. 
 Having said thus much, I do not mean to say, however, 
 at this time, that I am prepared to vote for the adjourn- 
 ment to Norfolk at all. I believe that we are acting 
 prematurely upon this question. I think that we ought 
 to wait and deliberate, before we conclude to take any 
 steps in regard to an adjournment from this city. I 
 think we ought in the first place, to go in a body and 
 examine the Universalist church, and test its capacity 
 to accommodate the Convention. I, for one, should 
 very much prefer that course. I have no doubt of the 
 capacity of the gentlemen on the committee to select a 
 hall, but still I prefer to make an actual test by visiting 
 that church, and seeing for ourselves, whether we can be 
 accommodated there or not. It may be if we adopt 
 the suggestion of the committee, that we may not be 
 satisfied with the building, and then these gentlemen 
 might feel uncomfortable, after having taken us to a 
 house and place with which we were not satisfied. 
 Now, it seems to me, that the true policy at this time 
 is, to lay the report of the committee on the table, and 
 go in a body this evening and test the capacity of the 
 house, and see whether we can be accommodated there 
 or not. I move, therefore, that the report of the com 
 mittee be, for the present, laid on the table. 
 
22 
 
 C01NV NTION. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. By way of testing this question, 
 I call for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I understand that such a motion has 
 been made and voted down by the Convention, and I 
 inquire if it is in order to make it a second time ? 
 
 THE PRESIDING- OFFICER. Certainly sir; a 
 motion to lay on the table, may be made ad infinitum. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then ordered, and the ques- 
 tion being taken, there were yeas 16, nays 95, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Armstrong, Blue, Byrd, Camden, Car- 
 lile, Davis, Ferguson, Fisher, Hays, McComas, Neeson, 
 Scott of Fauquier, Snodgrass, Watts of Norfolk county, 
 Williams of Fairfax, Wysor, and Trigg — 16. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Arthur, Banks, Barbour, Bland, Bo- 
 cock, Botts, Bowden, Bowles, Braxton, Brown, Burgess, 
 Caperton, Chambliss, Chapman, Chilton, Claiborne, Con- 
 way, Cook, Deneale, Douglas, Edmunds, Edwards, Faulk- 
 ner, Finney, Flood, Fulkerson, Fuqua, Gaily, Garland, 
 M. R. H. Garnett, M. Garnett, Goode, Hall, Hill, Hoge, 
 Hopkins, Hunter, Jacob, Janney, Johnson, Jones, Ken- 
 ney, Kilgore, Knote, Leake, Letcher, Ligon, Lucas, 
 Lynch, Lyons, McCamant, McCandlish, Martin of Mar- 
 shall, Martin of Henry, Meredith, Miller, Moncure, 
 Moore, Morris, Newman, Price, Randolph, Ridley, Rives, 
 Saunders, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Richmond city, 
 Seymour, Shell, Sheffey, Sloan, Smith of Kanawha, Smith 
 of King and Queen, Smith of Jackson, Smith of Green- 
 brier, Snowden, Southall, Stanard, Stephenson, Stewart 
 of Morgan, Straughan, Stuart of Patrick, Summers, Tate, 
 Taylor, Tunis, Turnbull, Van Winkle, Wallace, White, 
 Whittle, Willey, Wingfield, Woolfolk and Worsham — 95. 
 
 So the motion to lay on the table was not agreed to. 
 
 Mr. FISHER. I wish to submit a few remarks to 
 the Convention previous to the vote being taken, which I 
 hope will be excused, inasmuch as I have consumed, here- 
 tofore, none of the time of the body in discussion. Various 
 objections have been urged to my amendment, one of which 
 is that it was proposed too late. Now the Convention 
 was about adopting a resolution which would have pre- 
 cluded all action on this subject in the future, and my 
 amendment was offered to avoid that. I am not anxious 
 that it should be acted upon now, indeed I voted to lay it 
 on the table, and should prefer that the Convention 
 should take a day or two to reflect upon the mat- 
 ter, but as it seems the vote must come on this oc- 
 casion, I desire to mention briefly one or two of the 
 reasons which induced me to offer that amendment. 
 Before doing so, however, permit me to answer a remark 
 made by a gentleman from a county which I will not 
 attempt to name, lest I should make as great a mistake 
 as you have, Mr. President, in assigning me to a certain 
 county. The remark was, that the prospect of fine fish 
 and oysters might be an inducement for gentlemen to go 
 to Norfolk. Such an idea had no influence whatever on 
 my mind, for I can assure gentlemen that we have as 
 fine oysters on the Ohio river as can be procured in the 
 city of Norfolk. We eat them there every day and they 
 are brought to us, not from Norfolk, nor from Richmond, 
 but through the bounty of the city of Baltimore in the 
 construction of a railroad westward, over which I have 
 no hesitation in saying a half a million of dollars worth of 
 oysters are passed annually to the West and are there 
 consumed. My principle objection to remaining in the 
 city of Richmond exists in the fact that I believe it will 
 be utterly impossible for the Legislature and the Con- 
 vention to operate harmoniously together and with a 
 proper dispatch of business. The joint occupancy of this 
 hall is utterly impossible, and an alternate occupancy of 
 it by the two bodies would — I came very near saying — 
 be mere humbug. And suppose we go to the church, 
 why when any question of interest was being debated 
 in the Convention, you would find the hall of the House 
 of Delegates emptied of its members. Let one of these 
 railroad questions come up in the House, in which the 
 W r est has a deep interest, and you would see how few 
 votes we should have in the Convention. The western 
 members would be found in the hall of the House of 
 Delegates when the vote was to be taken, urging their 
 
 eastern brethren to do them that justice which they 
 think has long been withheld from them in that body. 
 And let an exciting debate arise in this body, particularly 
 on the basis question, and you will find the hall of the 
 House of Delegates emptied of all its members who 
 will have poured in upon the Convention. Thus, each 
 body will be retarding the dispatch of business in the 
 other, and doubtless each will have no little influence on 
 the action of the other. Under these circumstances, 
 who will be to blame for this waste of time and money of 
 the Commonwealth ? The Legislature, as I understand 
 it, must remain here and cannot remove, while the Con- 
 vention can, and as I think, ought to move. The joint 
 occupancy of this hall would be worse, and I have been 
 much amused at the remarks of gentlemen who have com- 
 mended the liberality of the House of Delegates in 
 awarding to us, for some 16 or 18 hours out of the 24, the 
 use of this hall. I wonder it never occurred to any of 
 these gentlemen that the House might very properly 
 work 16 or 18 hours a day themselves, as to require it, by 
 implication of the Convention. Let them, for instance, 
 give us the hall from 12 until 3 o'clock, and let them 
 occupy it for the balance of the 24 hours. But, suppose, 
 as is suggested, the House of Delegates shall tender us 
 the use of the hall from 1 o'clock P.^M. until the hour of 
 meeting the next day, what is the necessary consequence ? 
 Why that you curtail the time of the House and limit 
 the amount of business which they may transact. Thus, 
 you curtail the time of both bodies and they mutually 
 retard each other to the public detriment, and in a great 
 measure, to the entire obstruction of the progress of busi- 
 ness in both bodies. While up, I will add a single other 
 remark in connection with this matter. I doubt ex- 
 tremely, with all due respect to the city of Richmond, 
 whether the Convention ought to remain here at all. It 
 is a city in winch millions upon millions of the public 
 money have been expended, and yet it possesses not a 
 single building in which to receive the Convention. It is 
 a city which has not taken the first step, so far as our 
 accommodation is concerned, until last evening, as 1 un- 
 derstand from a communication to the Convention read 
 this morning, and which perhaps was produced from the 
 disposition manifested by a portion of the Convention to 
 remove to other places where more politeness and alac- 
 rity in tendering a hall for the accommodation of the 
 Convention has been evinced. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. Will the gentleman give way for a 
 moment ? 
 
 Mr. FISHER. With pleasure sir. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I am sure the gentleman does not 
 mean to do injustice to the authorities of Richmond, and 
 he will be therefore gratified to be informed that the 
 corporation of Richmond tendered to the committee of 
 the Convention the only public hall in the city, at their 
 disposal — La Fayette hall — as soon as they were informed 
 that a place was desired for the meeting of the Conven- 
 tion. The city hall, the building on the opposite side 
 of the street, was always at the service of this body, but 
 any one who will take the trouble to look at it, will see 
 at once that it is impossible to fit it up for the use of the 
 Convention. La Fayette hall, recently erected, is the 
 only building at the disposal of the city, and I venture 
 to affirm that it is quite as comfortable as any building 
 which can be procured either at Norfolk or Alexandria. 
 That hall was tendered to the Convention by the corpor- 
 ate authorities, on their learning that this body desired 
 to have a place for its sessions other than this house, and 
 the resolution to which the gentleman refers, was adopted 
 by the council, on being informed that upon examination 
 the Convention were of opinion that the Universalist 
 church was more acceptable than La Fayette hall. The 
 fact is that the council have proposed to aid in preparing 
 any building for the reception of the Convention which 
 might be selected, and to arrange a proper access to it. 
 I have made this explanation as a matter of justice, and 
 beg leave to say in behalf of the city of Richmond, that 
 while it is unquestionably indebted to the State for the 
 expenditure of money here for the benefit of the State, 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 23 
 
 in the shape of great works of public improvement, yet 
 it never can be said that it called on Hercules without 
 putting its own shoulder to the wheel. 1 venture to 
 affirm that there is not within the United States, and I 
 doubt whether there is beyond the limits of the United 
 .States, any city of the same size in which the corporate 
 taxes are so onerous as in Richmond. And it is mainly 
 on account of the subscriptions which the city itself has 
 made for carrying on those public works in aid of the 
 subscription made by the State. When gentlemen talk 
 of the expenditures of public money in Richmond. I 
 trust they will do the city justice and say at least that she 
 has contributed a fair share of it in the burdens imposed 
 on her own citizens. Gentlemen Would be startled 
 at the amount of corporate taxes annually raised in 
 Richmond, and which is expended, nearly every dollar 
 of it, in subscriptions to these works of internal im- 
 provement. 
 
 Mr. FISHER. What is the rate per cent, of those 
 taxes ? 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I do not recollect precisely, but I 
 will state that I know of private residences, or of one at 
 least, on which the corporate tax alone amounts to nearly 
 $150 per annum, and this exclusive of State or any other 
 taxes. Gentlemen may form some idea from this state- 
 ment of the amount of taxes paid here. The rate per 
 cent, is 56 cents on the $100, I am informed by a friend. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, (in his seat.) We pay 50 cents on the 
 $100 in Norfolk, and we get nothing in return. 
 
 Mr. FISHER, This episode compels me to make a 
 single remark and that is, that I believe we pay more 
 taxes in the corporation in which 1 live, than are paid 
 even in the city of Richmond. I pay $10 of corporate tax, 
 and what I am taxed for I do not know. I know, however, 
 that I pay it. [Laughter.] And I am told by a gentle- 
 man from the .district adjoining mine, that this onerously 
 taxed city of Richmond is only taxed 6 cents on the 
 $100 more than the town of Parkersburg. The tax 
 there last year was 50 cents on the $100. I have made 
 some inquiries in reference to this branch of our politi- 
 ical economy and if I am not mistaken, in the city of 
 New York they only pay 80 cents on the $100 of cor- 
 porate tax. But this has little to do with the matter 
 before us. The only remark I made in reference to 
 Richmond, and it certainly was not in an unfriendly 
 spirit to the city, was, that I had not perceived that its 
 corporate authorities had began to move in this matter 
 until last night. To be sure, they have tendered us La 
 Fayette hall, a cold, cheerless, unfurnished room, without 
 one single solitary comfort about it. It may be that the 
 gentleman from Albemarle, (Mr. Randolph.) who would 
 provide neither chairs nor desks for our use, in order that 
 we might set in the same manner aft do the members of 
 the British House of Commons, was consulted. [Laugh- 
 ter.] I trust, however, that when the committee is ap- 
 pointed to fit up this Universalist church, if it is to be our 
 fate to go there, that he will not be on the committee to 
 deprive us of those articles of comfort, and compel us to 
 sit as they did under the ancient regime in the House of 
 Delegates. [Laughter.] The city of Norfolk has ten- 
 dered us a comfortable, convenient place of meeting, and 
 I think we ought to accept their invitation. The Ohio 
 Constitutional Convention is now sitting in Cincinnati, 
 whilst the legislature of that State is sitting in Columbus. 
 I imagine that the public interest would be greatly 
 promoted, also, if this body should adjourn to some other 
 place — J care little what place, — whether it be, Norfolk, 
 Alexandria, Lynchburg, Petersburg, Fredericksburg or 
 any other, so long as the public business may be done. 
 1 trust the Convention, if it is determined to act on this 
 matter at this moment, will adopt the amendment 1 
 have proposed, but I will, if in order, move again to lay 
 the report on the table, with a view of ascertaining 
 whether the Convention will not suspend its judgment, 
 in order that we may have time to reflect and see the 
 practical bearing and operations of two deliberative 
 
 bodies meeting in the same hall and town. I make that 
 motion. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. What is the Question ? 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion to 
 lav on the table. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I am satisfied if it cuts off debate. 
 My object in rising was to bring this debate to a close 
 by moving the previous question. I care not what the 
 question is, so long as we bring the debate to a close. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion to lay the report 
 on the table was negatived. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. What is now the question before 
 the Convention ? 
 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is on the motion 
 to strike the words " Universalist church " from the 
 second resolution of the committee, and to insert in lieu 
 thereof the words "mechanics hall in the city of 
 Norfolk." * * 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I ask for a division of the ques- 
 tion- — the vote to be taken first on striking out. 
 Mr. CONWAY demanded the previous question. 
 The call was sustained, the main question ordered, 
 and the Convention refused to strike out the words 
 referred to. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. Will it be ; J3 order now to offer 
 an amendment ? 
 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Fes sir. 
 Mr. CARLILE. I move then the following as a 
 substitute for the 2nd resolution. 
 
 "Resolved, That the Convention will continue its 
 sessions in the hall, provided that the House of Delegates 
 will agree to give it to the Convention at 1 o'clock on 
 each day. 
 
 This will settle at once the question, whether the 
 Convention will meet in this hall or any where else, 
 and upon that amendment I ask for the yeas and nays. 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I rise only to say that I cannot 
 see how the question is to be settled by the adoption of 
 this substitute. The gentleman proposes a substitute 
 for the committee's resolution. That resolution is that 
 we go to the Universalist church, the gentleman's sub- 
 stitute is that we shall remain here in case the House of 
 Delegates will give us the hall after 1 o'clock. Well, 
 suppose we adopt the substitute and reject the commit- 
 tee's resolution and the House of Delegates will not 
 agree to give us the hall after 1 o'clock, will the 
 question be settled, or will we not have to occupy one or 
 two more days discussing where we shall go ? If the 
 object is to settle the question, this seems to be the very 
 worst way to accomplish the purpose. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I will only detain the Convention to 
 answer the gentleman last up. It has been stated here 
 by a member of the Legislature, who is also a member of 
 this body, that the House of Delegates were willing to 
 give the Convention the use of this hall from 9 to 1 
 o'clock, or after 1 o'clock on each day. I grant that this 
 was not officially communicated to us from the House of 
 Delegates, but I take it that such is the determination of 
 this Assembly, or it would not be stated to the Conven- 
 tion by a member of the House. The gentleman asks if 
 the adoption of the substitute which I have offered will 
 settle this question, and I say it will settle it so far as tins 
 Convention is concerned. It will say that this Convention 
 prefers to occupy this hall provided for the deliberations 
 of the people's representatives by the people themselves, 
 and that it will not subject the people to the expense of 
 fitting up another building for that purpose. For myself 
 I am not prepared to say that I will go to the Universal- 
 ist church or any other building in this city, upon the re* 
 commendation of any committee. I happened to be a 
 member of the House and you, sir, (Mr. Hopkins) was the 
 Speaker of it, when we adjourned to the Fauquier 
 Springs. Every promise possible was made that we 
 should be comfortable there, yet you will bear me 
 witness that members were not only greatly inconve- 
 nienced, but that the deliberations of the body could 
 have been brought to an earlier close and the public but 
 
24 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 smess more readily despatched if it had continued it- 
 sessions in a hall like this. Members are not aware oi 1 
 the inconveniences to which they will be exposed by 
 leaving this building and going to one that is not and 
 cannot be fitted up in a suitable manner. When you sit 
 on chairs during a long sitting, you may change your 
 position somewhat ; but pack you down on benches in a 
 church, and you have no relief. Go to that church, anc 
 in a week there will not be ten members who will nol 
 wish themselves back to this hall. How are our sessions 
 here to retard the public business ? Is it not known 
 to every one that for the next three or four weeks members 
 will be engaged in the committee rooms instead of in the '. 
 House ? Have not the committees first to carve out the 
 work, and will they not occupy a certain portion of 
 every day in the discharge of those duties ? As for the 
 committee rooms, they can be occupied by the commit- ; 
 tees of the House while the Convention is in session, and 
 by the committees of the Convention while the House is 
 in session, so that there can be no conflict there. It is 
 useless to disguise the fact, that as a general thing, nei- 
 ther the House nor the Convention will occupy more 
 than three hours a day in sitting in this hall. The work 
 has first to be done in the committees, and for no purpose 
 of exhibiting to the country that we are sitting from 9 
 o'clock A. M. to 6 P. M., am I going to record my vote in 
 favor of leaving this hall, particularly when we are in- 
 formed that the House of Delegates are willing to change 
 their hours of meeting expressly to accommodate us. 
 My experience goes to show that the House does not 
 average three hours a day in its sessions, and the residue 
 of the day will leave us ample time to transact all our 
 business. I trust that not only those who desire to re- 
 main here and avoid the expense which must necessarily 
 be attendant on the fitting up of any other building, but 
 those who desire time to look into the subject and see 
 whether a better arrangement than that proposed by the 
 committee cannot be made, will vote for the substitute I 
 have submitted. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I ask for the previous question. 
 I desire that we shall get at our labors at once. Here we 
 have been three days deciding where we shall hold our 
 sessions. 
 
 The call for the previous question was sustained, the 
 main question ordered, and the vote being taken on the 
 substitute proposed by Mr. Carlile, there were yeas 16, 
 nays 95, as follows : — 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Caperton, Carlile, Conway, Davis, 
 Faulkner, M. R. H. Garnett, Jones, Lyons, McCamant, 
 Miller, Moncure, Shell, Stanard, Trigg, Turnbull, Whittle, 
 —16. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. John Y. Mason, (President,) Anderson, 
 Armstrong, Arthur, Banks, Barbour, Bland, Blue, Bocock, 
 Botts, Bowden, Bowles, Brown, Burgess, Camden, Cham- 
 bliss, Chapman, Chilton, Claiborne, Cook, Deneale, Doug- 
 lass, Edmunds, Edwards, Ferguson, Finney, Fisher, Floyd, 
 Fulkerson, Fuqua, Gaily, Garland, M. Garnett, Goode, 
 Hall, Hays, Hill, Hoge, Hopkins, Hunter, Jacob, Janney, 
 J ohnson, Kenney, Kilgore, Knote, Leake, Letcher, Ligon, 
 Lucas, Lynch, McCandlish, Martin of Marshall, Martin 
 of Henry, Meredith, Moor e Morris, Neeson, Newman, 
 Price, Purkins, Randolph, Ridley, Rives, Saunders, Scott 
 of Caroline, Scott of Fauquier, Scott of Richmond city, 
 Seymour, Sheffey, Sloan, Smith of Kanawha, Smith of 
 King & Queen, Smith of Jackson, Smith of Greenbrier, 
 Snodgrass, Snowden, Southall, Stephenson, Stewart of 
 Morgan, Straughan, Stuart of Patrick, Summers, Tate, 
 Taylor, Van Winkle, Wallace, Watts, of Norfolk county, 
 White, Willey, Williams of Fairfax, Wingfield, Woolfolk, 
 Worsham, and Wysor — 95. 
 
 So the substitute was rejected. 
 
 Mr. FISHER moved that the Convention adjourn. — 
 The motion was not agreed to. 
 
 The question was then taken on the second resolution 
 proposed by the committee, and it was agreed to, as was 
 the report of the committee. 
 
 On motion of Mr. GOODE, the Convention adjourned 
 until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock 
 
 THURSDAY, January 9, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was then read and 
 approved. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. LUCAS presented a memorial of Messrs. John J. 
 Palmer and Colin, Baptist & Nolan, in relation to the 
 printing of the debates and proceedings of the Conven- 
 tion, which was read as follows : — 
 To the Hon. the PresH and Members of the Convention : 
 
 The undersigned beg leave most respectfully to repre- 
 sent, that they are desirous of submitting a proposition 
 to your honorable body for the publication of the pro- 
 ceedings and debates of the Convention. That we are 
 at a loss to know what form, plan or mode will be most 
 acceptable to the Convention for the proposed publica- 
 tion^ whether it be the newspaper, the supplemental, 
 the quarto or the octavo form. It is not for us to say 
 which plan combines the greatest advantages for accom- 
 plishing the purposes of the Convention. That is a 
 question which remains to be determined by the Con- 
 vention itself ; and when determined, when the most 
 desirable plan shall be fully ascertained, we conceive it 
 but fair and just, that propositions should be entertained 
 for the publication, and thus fair competition for the 
 work allowed to prevail. In determining upon the plan, 
 we would respectfully suggest to the Convention the 
 importance of understanding in advance, its details, and 
 also to inquire whether equal benefits will accrue to all 
 portions of the Commonwealth that have to pay an 
 equal portion of the expense of the proposed publication. 
 If the proceedings be published in or circulated with, 
 the papers published in Richmond, will that give an 
 equal benefit to all portions of the Commonwealth. A 
 list of their subscribers, we think, would show, that a 
 particular section, adjacent to the metropolis, would 
 receive the principal part of the advantage of said publi- 
 cation. We believe it entirely within the power of your 
 body to adopt a plan which will ensure equal benefits 
 to all and every portion of the Commonwealth ? And 
 we hope that it may be the pleasure of the Convention 
 to ascertain in the first place, its own wishes upon the 
 subject, what plan will be most acceptable and advisable 
 for it to adopt, in order to accomplish most effectually 
 the purposes of the proposed publication; to what 
 amount they are willing to go in the cost of the same ; 
 to understand thorougly the details in connexion there- 
 with ; and then receive propositions from all the offices 
 capable of excuting properly the duties required. We 
 are aware of the proceedings upon the subject at the 
 close of the first session of your body in November last. 
 But we are not aware that the Convention decided upon 
 any matter at that time finally, further than the ap- 
 pointment of their own reporters. In any event, how- 
 ever, we presume it is entirely competent for, and within 
 the province of your body, to adopt any plan for the 
 proposed publication, which subsequent reflection and 
 consultation may suggest. We then submitted a prop- 
 1 osition, and if it shall be the pleasure of the Convention 
 , now to indicate, in the first place, what mode of publi- 
 cation it prefers, we shall submit other propositions, 
 which we must be excused for believing will recommend 
 themselves to your favorable consideration. We will 
 add, however, if it be determined to adopt the news- 
 1 paper or supplemental form, we will perform the same 
 1 duties proposed to be done by R. H. Gallaher, Esq., 
 at the rate of 50 cents per thousand, and 50 cents per 
 token for the press work, and at a less cost for the pa- 
 ' per. Still, we can give no assurance, that even at these 
 reduced rates, the entire cost will only be between five 
 i and six thousand dollars. Candor compels us to say 
 i that the cost in that case would most likely amount to 
 more than double that sum. The fear that if a specified 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 25 
 
 amount were to be offered, (as in the case of the Mary- 
 land Convention, $4000 being the limit of that body for 
 the publication of their proceedings,) no one would be 
 willing to accept the contract for $10,000. 
 
 All of which is most respectfully submitted. 
 
 John J. Palmer. 
 
 Colin, Baptist & Nolan. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN. The committee to whom this sub- 
 ject Was referred, have had one meeting already, and 
 are now engaged in its consideration. I move that this 
 memorial be referred to the same committee. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 CORRECTION OF THE REPORTS. 
 
 Mr. STANARD called the attention of the reporter to 
 an error in the report of the proceedings of Tuesday, 
 whereby some remarks made by Mr. Ferguson were as- 
 cribed to Mr. Stanard. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated that it was a typographical 
 error, which had been already corrected. 
 
 RE-PAYMENT TO THE CONTINGENT FUND. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I desire to offer a resolution affect- 
 ing the business of the Convention, which I will read as 
 follows : — 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to certify to 
 the First Auditor for payment, the sum of $195 02 in 
 favor of the Governor of the Commonwealth, that sum 
 having been advanced by the Governor out of the Con- 
 tingent Fund, placed at his disposal by law, to pay for 
 stationery heretofore furnished for the use of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 The Convention directed the Secretary to furnish 
 them with stationery, and the Secretary proceeded to 
 execute that order. Before taking the recess, the Con- 
 vention failed to pass a resolution allowing the account, 
 and it was paid out of the contingent fund by the Gov- 
 ernor. This resolution is designed merely to return that 
 amount of money to the Governor. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 FORM OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS. 
 
 Mr. RIDLEY offered the following resolution, and it 
 was referred to the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment be instructed to inquire into the expediency ot 
 providing that every law enacted by the Legislature 
 shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed 
 in the title ; and that no law shall be revised or amended 
 by reference to its title, but in such case, the act revised 
 or section amended shall be re-enacted and published at 
 length. 
 
 PLACE OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. No member of this body is more re- 
 luctant to produce an unprofitable discussion than I am, 
 and I hope that the motion which I am about to sub- 
 mit may not produce protracted debate. The minds of 
 the members of this body, I am satisfied, are made up— 
 at least all who have had the opportunity to examine 
 the hall which the resolution of yesterday directed us to 
 use in future — and my object is, to move a re-considera- 
 tion of that resolution, because I believe, from a visit 
 which I have made to that hall, that the minds of the 
 members, at least of many of them, may have been 
 made up prematurely. I have reason to believe that 
 many of them entertain a different opinion from that 
 which they entertained yesterday. It does seem to me 
 that during the whole session of this body, this hall is the 
 most convenient place for dispatching the business which 
 we are assembled to transact, that could be offered ; and 
 that we could use this hall conjointly with the House of 
 Delegates, without any kind of inconvenience to either 
 body. If we choose to meet here at 10 o'clock and ad- 
 journ at 12, it would be sufficient until the committees 
 have reported. Until ^ that time, it seems to me better 
 that we should use this hall. And I understand, from 
 conversation with members of the House of Delegates, 
 that that house will probably be willing to make such 
 
 arrangements that we might use this hall either fro m 
 9 o'clock till 1, or from 1 till 9 the next morning- 
 Either arrangement I think would be far better than 
 that proposed by the resolution adopted yesterday. 
 That resolution requires us to go to a church that I have 
 visited, where we would be huddled together, a number 
 of members in the same pew, without the conveniences 
 for the dispatch of business — where it would be difficult 
 to pass by the members without subjecting them to great 
 inconvenience, while the papers daily distributed we 
 would have to hold in our hands or put on our seats and 
 sit upon them. (Laughter.) If the arrangement is 
 made to occupy this house, then we shall have the joint 
 use of these desks during the session. No member of the 
 Legislature would hesitate to offer us that facility. I 
 say, therefore, without desiring to produce debate on the 
 question, that it seems to me more convenient to occupy 
 this hall ; and I therefore move a re-consideration of the 
 resolution adopted yesterday. It has already been sug- 
 gested, and it does seem to me, that it would be exceed- 
 ingly inconvenient for the two bodies to be in session at 
 the same time in different places in this city. When an 
 exciting discussion is expected in the Convention, the 
 members of the Legislature will be drawn there ; whenever 
 an interesting debate occurs in the Legislature, the mem- 
 bers of this body will be drawn there ; and the conse- 
 quence will be that both bodies will frequently find 
 themselves without a quorum. In my judgment, we 
 would be kept here at least one month longer than we 
 would if an arrangement were made for using this house 
 alternately. That is my conviction at least, and I think 
 we had better make an experiment of using this hall for 
 a month, and not incur the serious expense proposed, 
 when it may be unnecessary. I understand that, if we 
 use that church, it will cost some thousand or fifteen hun- 
 dred dollars to fit it up. I hope, therefore, we shall re- 
 consider the resolution adopted yesterday, before any ex- 
 pense is incurred ; and if so, I shall present a resolution 
 for the appointment of a committee to wait upon the 
 House of Delegates and ask that body to give us the use 
 of the hall from 9 o'clock till 1, or from 1 to 9. 
 
 A MEMBER. Say from 12 until 3 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I would with pleasure if I thought 
 We could get it. I have been told by members of the 
 House of Delegates that that body are willing to make 
 the other arrangement to which I have referred. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Did the gentleman vote in the 
 majority on this question ? 
 
 Mr CONWAY. Yes sir. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated the question to be on re-con- 
 sidering the vote of yesterday, adopting the following 
 resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the offer of the Universalist church 
 in the city of Richmond be accepted, and that the Ser- 
 geant-at-Arms be, and he is hereby directed (under the 
 supervision and advisement of the committee) to have 
 the necessary alterations and improvements made in the 
 said church for the accommodation and reception of the 
 Convention, as speedily as practicable. " 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I have heard a great deal said 
 about economy and expense here, but it appears to me* 
 that we are pursuing the most extravagant course that 
 was ever pursued by any public body, in this or any oth- 
 er Commonwealth. We have been told that it would 
 cost about 1,200 or 1,500 dollars to fit up this church ; 
 yet what have we done but expend more than that 
 since we have been here, and we have not commenced 
 our business, or even determined where we shall hold 
 our sessions. Suppose you re-consider the resolution 
 passed yesterday and send a committee to the House, 
 why that body will consume this whole day in the dis- 
 cussion of the subject, at an expense of $1000 to the peo- 
 ple of this Commonwealth. And if they do not make an 
 arrangement suitable to us, this entire discussion will be 
 had over again here, and we shall be one whole week 
 discussing, resolving, and re-discussing, and re-resolving 
 as to where we shall hold our sittings. Now I am Eot 
 disposed to continue this child's play any longer. Let 
 
26 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 us not show to the people that we are resolving one thing 
 one day and the contrary the next. The signs of the 
 times are very ominous. I entertain myself very great 
 doubts whether this Convention is competent to discharge 
 the duties for which they are elected. [Laughter.] 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is not in order for any gentle- 
 man to make reflections upon the competency of this 
 body. 
 
 Mr WOOLFOLK. If we cannot determine the ques- 
 tion where we shall sit, we certainly are not compe- 
 tent to transact the more iinportant business for which we 
 were sent here. If it takes a week to decide this prelim- 
 inary question, how will it be when we come to the con- 
 sideration of those grave questions which will arise in the 
 adoption of a new Constitution ? If this course is to be 
 pursued, I have no hopes of getting away from here be- 
 fore the first of December, and I think it would be 
 far better to take another recess till the Legislature ad- 
 journs, and then come here and stay till next Christmas, 
 than to attempt to interfere with the sessions of that bo- 
 dy, by the joint occupation of this hall. I trust that 
 this resolution will not be re-considered, but that the 
 vote of yesterday will be allowed to rest, that we may 
 get at the business for which we were sent here. We 
 have appointed a committee for the purpose of procuring 
 a place for our sessions. That committee have examined 
 the Universalist church and report that it is a place of 
 ample dimensions, capable of accommodating not only 
 the members of this body, but all who may wish to at- 
 tend our sittings. Let us, at least, make a trial of it, and 
 if we find it is not suitable, it will then be time enough 
 to come before the Legislature to beg the use of this 
 hall. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I concur fully in the remarks made 
 by the gentleman who has just taken his seat, except as 
 to the competency of the Convention to perform the bu- 
 siness for which it has assembled. It seems to me a 
 very extraordinary thing that a church erected in the 
 city of Richmond to accommodate a large congregation 
 cannot contain 135 members of the Convention. I pre- 
 sume there is not a church in this city which is not of 
 ample dimensions to accommodate this Convention, so 
 far as its members are concerned, though there may be 
 some difficulty with respect to the audience who may 
 attend upon its deliberations. I submit in that respect 
 however to the opinions and report of the committee ap- 
 pointed to consider this subject. They have reported to 
 us that the church is ample in all respects both for the 
 Convention and the audience. The gentleman from 
 Spottsylvania (Mr. Conway) objects to the proceedings) 
 of going to the church upon the ground that it will cause 
 additional expense, because it will cost some thousand 
 or fifteen hundred dollars — 
 
 Mi'. CONWAY. If the church would properly ac- 
 commodate the Convention, I should not care if the ex- 
 pense amounted to even $5,000. My constituency would 
 not object to it, if it was necessary. My objection is, 
 that we shall incur the expense without receiving any 
 benefit in return. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I was about to meet that question. 
 I apprehend that, if the two bodies were to meet in this 
 hall, it would operate to delay the business of both, to 
 the extent of at least thirty days. I believe that the ex- 
 pense of the House of Delegates is about $1,000 per day, 
 and that of the Convention about $800. This, according 
 to my calculation, would amount to $54,000, an ex- 
 pense which would all have to be borne by the peo- 
 ple of this Commonwealth. For the two bodies to meet 
 in this hall, therefore, would not be good economy. It 
 is better that we should expend a thousand or fifteen 
 hundred dollars in going to the church, than to delay 
 each other by meeting in this hall. You and I, sir, are 
 acquainted with the proceedings of legislation here, and 
 we well know that in case of a protracted debate, a ques- 
 tion may be sometimes settled by continuing the discussion 
 a reasonable, time beyond the usual hour ofadjournment — 
 when, by postponing the taking of the question by an ad- 
 
 journment, the debate will be re-opened afresh, and con- 
 tinued perhaps for days afterwards. I believe that ev- 
 ery day we have met in Convention since our re-assem- 
 blage, we have adjourned at an hour beyond the time 
 prescribed to us by the resolution of the House of Dele- 
 gates. This will continue, and the two houses will tres- 
 pass on each other, and greater delays and consequently 
 greater expense incurred. I trust that this Convention 
 will hold on to the decision which it made yesterday, and- 
 by a decided vote direct the carrying out of the arrange- 
 ment entered upon on that occasion. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. But for the fact of my occupying a 
 position on the committee, I should not think it my du- 
 ty to say a word ; nor do I design now to do more 
 than to make a simple statement of facts. Yesterday, 
 this Convention, by a vote of 9& to 16, decided that they 
 would not hold their sessions in this hall, although 
 the Legislature might agree to give them the use of 
 it from 9 until 1 o'clock. Your committee, thinking 
 that your minds were fully made up on the subject and 
 that you would not be, as the sailors say, "backing and 
 filling" all the time, in discharge of their duties met the 
 committee appointed on the part of the common council 
 of the city of Richmond, and that committee have taken 
 charge of the church, and are now at work, I doubt not, 
 putting it in order. All that I have to say is, that if 
 you are going to continue this game of "hold fast and 
 let go," and do nothing, the sooner you say so the bet- 
 ter, lest we incur expense for fitting up the church and 
 then not occupy it. I am very well satisfied that the 
 minds of most gentlemen are made up. A very large 
 number of gentlemen have visited that hall, and the 
 gentleman from Spottsylvania (Mr. Conway) is the very 
 first man whom I have heard declare that it is unfitted 
 for the purpose for which it Was selected. On the con- 
 trary, all with whom I have conversed, seem to feel that 
 we shall be quite as comfortable there as we would be 
 here, and perhaps more so. I tender my thanks to the 
 gentleman from Orange (Mr. Woolfolk) for his sugges- 
 tions. If we have so much difficulty in deciding where 
 we shall meet, I think the very best thing we can do, 
 however much people may be disappointed, is to adjourn 
 sine die. I hope that the House will decide one way or" 
 the other immediately, in order that we may go to work 
 somewhere, for as to holding the Convention here, that 
 is totally impracticable. I speak in all candor, when I 
 say, that I cannot distinguish here between the members 
 of the Convention and the members of the Legislature, 
 and I doubt not you, sir, find the same difficulty. I 
 hope that, whatever the Convention may do to-day, it 
 will be something positive upon which we can depend. 
 
 Mr. STRAUG-HAN demanded the previous question. 
 
 The call was sustained, the main question ordered to 
 be put, and the vote being taken, the Convention reject- 
 ed the motion to re-consider the vote of yesterday, as- 
 moved by Mr. Conway, 
 
 USE OF THE SEATS IN THE CHURCH. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH. I desire to offer the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That in the house to be fitted up for the 
 use of this Convention, all the seats shall be open to be 
 occupied indiscriminately by members, who shall hold 
 possession for the time being. 
 
 Several gentlemen under the practice which has existed 
 in this House, have already occupied, by their cards, seats 
 in the church that is to be occupied by the Convention ; I 
 too, seeing the general tendency of the thing, have taken 
 possession there, by my card, of my seat, which I consider 
 one of the best in the house. It seems to be one of the 
 privileged benches, and no doubt belongs to the high dig- 
 nitaries of the church. [Laughter.] But I believe that 
 the dispatch of the public business will be very much 
 forwarded by our occupying seats indiscriminately ; we 
 shall then be enabled to become acquainted with each 
 other ; and we may then understand and compromise our 
 views upon the various and difficult questions which may 
 arise between the different portions of the country. But 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 if we persist in this practice of selecting permanent seats, 
 we shall become acquainted with but few beyond the im- 
 mediate circle around us. It is also unjust that those 
 who have been the more thoughtful, should occupy the 
 best seats in the Convention. 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 THAXKS TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS, Yesterday, a resolution was adopted, 
 tendering the thanks of this Convention to the cities of 
 Norfolk, Alexandria and Petersburg ; but none, I believe, 
 have been tendered to the House of Delegates for the of- 
 fer which they have very kindly made us of the use of 
 this hall. 
 
 A MEMBER. Include the city of Richmond too. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. That I supposed was embraced in the 
 resolution of yesterday. I have one here tendering the 
 thanks of the Convention to the House of Delegates 
 which I will offer, as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due 
 and are hereby tendered to the House of Delegates for 
 the offer of their hall to the Convention, but deeming it 
 incompatible with the proper despatch of business that 
 both bodies should hold their sessions in the same haU, 
 the Convention will accept the offer of the House of 
 Delegates only so lon<y as may be necessary to prepare 
 the Universalist church for its deliberations. 
 
 Resolved, That the Clerk of this Convention certify 
 a copy of the foregoing resolution to the House of Dele- 
 gates. 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. I think the resolution could be im- 
 proved by striking out the words "House of Delegates, ' 
 and inserting the words " council of the city of Rich- 
 mond, " and by striking out, also, all of the latter clause 
 of the resolution. As I do not see that we are under any 
 obligations to the House of Delegates at all, I cannot per- 
 ceive the necessity for voting them our thanks. [Laugh- 
 ter.] 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman propose an 
 amendment ? 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. Oh, no sir. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. It strikes me that this resolution con- 
 tains two distinct propositions : one returns thanks to the 
 House of Delegates, and the other is a declaration, in 
 which a good many gentlemen do not concur, that it is in- 
 compatible with the public business for the Convention 
 to occupy this hall, according to the offer of the House of 
 Delegates. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman ask for a di- 
 vision of the question ? 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I should prefer that the question 
 should be divided, if it can properly be. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is susceptible of division. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I Will not ask for any division of the 
 question, but I will move to lay the resolution on the 
 table. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I was about to ask a division of the 
 question myself. The first part of the resolution I ap- 
 prove, but the second part I cannot go for. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The second branch of it is rather 
 a reason than a question. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Will the gentleman withdraw the 
 motion to lay on the table. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I will sir. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I am willing to put the resolution in 
 any shape in which it will please the Convention. If 
 gentlemen desire, therefore, I will withdraw the last clause 
 of it, so that the resolution shall read : 
 
 " Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due, 
 and are hereby tendered to the House of Delegates for 
 the offer of their hall to the Convention. " 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. This seems to me— with all due de- 
 ference to gentlemen — to be a very small business 5 and I 
 move the indefinite postponement of the subject. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I sincerely trust, however much mem- 
 bers on this floor may have deprecated the introduction 
 of such a resolution, that this Convention will not be guil- 
 ty of the discourtesy of indefinitely postponing a resolu- 
 
 tion of courtesy to the House of Delegates. However 
 much we may regret the introduction of such a resolu- 
 tion, I should be very sorry to see it treated with disre- 
 spect after it had been introduced. I trust, therefore, 
 that the gentleman from Rockbridge (Mr. Letcher) will 
 Eot persist in his motion, the very submission of which, 
 is calculated to increase the angry feelings of discontent 
 and jealousy which I am sorry to say, already exists on 
 the part of "certain members of the House of Delegates 
 towards this Convention. I know that.such a state of 
 feeling does exist, but let us at least preserve our records 
 from such an act of discourtesy towards one of the 
 branches of the State Government. I trust the motion 
 to postpone indefinitely will be withdrawn, and that the 
 resolution will be adopted without a dissenting voice. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. It is perhaps proper that I should say 
 a word more in relation to this matter. I have no re- 
 grets myself in offering this resolution. I think it is right 
 and proper in itself, and that it is due to the House of 
 Delegates. The quetion has arisen which body was en- 
 titled to the use of this hall, and it is one which can ne- 
 ver be decided except by the two bodies themselves. But 
 by the very terms of various acts of Assembly, and in com- 
 mon parlance throughout the State, this hall is known as 
 the hall of the House of Delegates. They have assembled 
 here according to former laws, and are in possession of 
 the hall. They have offered us the use of it such por- 
 tion of the time as they judged compatible with the dis- 
 patch of the business required of them by law. And as 
 we have determined to decline the offer, courtesy re- 
 quires that such a resolution as the one I have offered, 
 should be adopted, and adopted unanimously. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER, As my motion is likely to produce 
 a day's discussion, I will withdraw it. N 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I move to lay the resolution on 
 the table, and let it sleep the sleep of death. _ 
 The motion to lay on the table was negatived. 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. It seems to me that the 
 latter part of the resolution that has been stricken out 
 by the member, is proper to be retained. The law under 
 which we are convened, directed us to meet here. We 
 met here according to the requirements of the law, and 
 this unforseen conflict has occurred. Before you adjourn- 
 ed, you appointed a committee to ascertain, among other 
 things, whether the House of Delegates would not find 
 it compatible with the public duty to divide the time of 
 the occupancy of this hall with this body. That com- 
 mittee acted in obedience to your direction. A commit- 
 tee was raised on the part of the House of Delegates, 
 which conferred with your committee, and the result 
 of the action on the part of the House was only to con- 
 firm what your committee proposed. It is a fact that 
 the proposition which has been rejected by the Conven- 
 tion was one proposed by the committee of the Conven- 
 tion, and coming to the House of Delegates under that 
 sanction, that the House approved it. In approving it, 
 it has debarred itself from the use of this hall during cer- 
 tain hours of the day. You have determined that you 
 are dissatisfied with this resolution, and that you will go 
 elsewhere. Does not respect to ourselves as well as to the 
 other body, require us to communicate information in 
 an authoritative manner to the other House, of the reasons 
 for our decision ? Does not propriety require us to com- 
 municate this decision to the House of Delegates, that they 
 may occupy this hall all the time, if they desire to do 
 so ? I move to restore that part of the resolution which 
 the mover has withdrawn, deeming it manifestly pro- 
 per and respectful to the House, and becoming m us to 
 make that response to the offer which has been made us. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I agree entirely -with the gentleman 
 from Fauquier. I did not agree to the motion to strike 
 out because I thought the clause improper, but I con- 
 sented to strike it out simply to save time, and because 
 some gentlemen objected to it and said they were willing 
 to vote for the other part of the resolution, but not for 
 this. It does not appear- to meet the general views of the 
 Convention that it should be stricken out, and as it is 
 
28 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 proposed to reinsert it, I accept of that modification as 
 I have a right to do. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The resolution will then stand as 
 originally introduced. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I rise for the purpose of making 
 one single remark and then I shall ask for the yeas and 
 nays. I cannot vote what I do not believe ; in other 
 words, I cannot in my conscience vote a lie. That reso- 
 lution declares that the thanks of this body are due to 
 the House of Delegates for their offer to us of the use of 
 this hall. We have not come to that point when thanks 
 are due to every body for doing their duty. But in this 
 case I do not believe the Legislature have done their 
 full duty to the people and the Convention on this sub- 
 ject and I shall not vote for that resolution. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. The fault is with your com- 
 mittee and not with the House. They accepted the pro- 
 position of your committee. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. Well, the committee, I understand, 
 made the very best terms they could. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Wot at all; the committee 
 proposed the arrangement themselves. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. The proposition ought to have 
 come from the House in the first place, without an ap- 
 plication from the Convention, for they were aware that 
 we were required by law to assemble in the capitol. It 
 was their duty, therefore, to have provided us with a 
 hall, either here or elsewhere, knowing that this body 
 would be in session at the same time as themselves. If 
 they had even done that, I should regard them as hav- 
 ing done no more than their duty, and I should not feel 
 ourselves under any obligation to thank them. I do not 
 feel that thanks are due to them or to any of the public 
 servants for the simple discharge of their duty, and be- 
 lieving that, I certainly cannot vote for a resolution 
 which I believe to be untrue. I ask for the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Mr. COX. I have been absent from the sittings of 
 this body on account of sickness in my family. I was 
 desirous of being here at the commencement of the ses- 
 sion, because I had been appointed chairman of a com- 
 mittee to procure a room for the meetings of the Con- 
 vention on its re-assembling here on Monday last. In 
 answer to the remarks which have fallen from the mem- 
 ber who has just taken his seat, I would say, that when the 
 Legislature first met, I think on the first or second day 
 of its session, a gentleman who is a member of the House 
 of Delegates and also a member of the Convention, in- 
 troduced a resolution asking for the use of this hall from 
 the House of Delegates. At that time a member of 
 the House of Delegates from Spottsylvania, as the re- 
 cord will show, proposed to make an appropriation to 
 fit up a hall in this city for the use of the Convention. 
 That proposition was laid on the table of the House at 
 the instance of a member of the committee appointed by 
 this body to provide suitable accommodations for the 
 Convention on its re-assembling. I came here to unite 
 with the members of that committee in providing a suit- 
 able place. I did not think it necessary to apply to the Le- 
 gislature for the use of this hall after the action taken by 
 it on the first or second day, and hence it was that the 
 committee looked round and selected a place in this city, 
 and, as I thought, directed a place to be fitted up. After 
 that time the Legislature appointed a committee to meet 
 the committee of this House. In my absence these com- 
 mittees met and determined upon this arrangement. It 
 was an arrangement that did not meet my views, an ar- 
 rangement which I believed then and in fact could not 
 believe otherwise, would be unsuitable and inconvenient 
 for the deliberations of this body. But a majority of the 
 committee appointed by this body did confer with the 
 committee appointed by the House, and did make the ar- 
 rangement with that committee which was sanctioned by 
 the House of Delegates. I think, under the circumstances, 
 we ought to return our thanks to the House, and pass 
 the resolution in the shape in which it stands. If blame 
 is to be attached any where, it belongs to the committees 
 
 of this body and of the House. The House of Delegates- 
 did all that the committees of the two bodies required 
 them to do, and all we had a right to ask them to do. I 
 am perfectly willing, therefore, to say to that House, 
 that we thank them for the arrangement they have been- 
 willing to enter into with us, though we failed to adopt 
 it because we thought some other arrangement would 
 be better. I was in favor of some other arrangement be- 
 fore, yet being overruled by a majority of the commit- 
 tee, I had to yield. In my opinion courtesy requires 
 that we should unanimously adopt the resolution, and. 
 bring about the state of feeling that ought to exist be- 
 tween the two bodies, which nothing that has occurred^ 
 as yet should disturb. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I feel some solicitude that this resolu- 
 tion should be adopted unanimously, or as nearly so as 
 possible. In regard to the objection of my friend from 
 Orange, (Mr. Woolfolk,) I do not know that I can say 
 anything that will remove it; but my friend from Bar- 
 bour (Mr. Carlile) has raised an objection which, I think, 
 he may very easily waive. If I understood that gentle- 
 man correctly, he said he could not vote for the resolu- 
 tion, because he believed that this hall was the most 
 suitable place for the deliberations of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I was misunderstood by my friend. 
 I said that I could have voted for the first branch of the 
 resolution but not for the second ; and, therefore asked, 
 as I had a right to do, for a division of the question. If 
 the question is divided, I shall vote aye on the first branch, 
 and no on the the second. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. If the gentleman from Preston- 
 will excuse me for a moment, I will respond to the re- 
 quest of the gentleman from Barbour (Mr. Carlile.) 
 He has requested a division of the question. There are 
 two propositions embraced in the resolution. The first 
 part declares that the thanks of the Covention are due, 
 and tenders them to the House of Delegates. The se- 
 cond part is but the statement of the fact that the Con- 
 vention has deemed it incompatible with the public in- 
 terests to hold the sessions of the two bodies in the same 
 hall, but that it will accept the offer of the House until 
 the church is arranged for its use. It is a reason sub- 
 mitted, and not a proposition for the action of the Con- 
 vention. The question will be taken first on so much 
 of the resolution as returns thanks to the House of Del- 
 egates. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I will withdraw the request for a 
 division of the question. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. With a view to meet the objection 
 of my friend from Orange, (Mr. Woolfolk,) I will sug- 
 gest that by unanimous consent of the Convention, 
 there be inserted after the words " thanks due," the word& 
 "in courtesy," so that it shall read "thanks due in 
 courtesy." I never meant any thing else than that. 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. " Oh no !" 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I will not consent to say " thanks 
 due" I have frequently given my thanks in courtesy 
 where they were not due, and I am willing to do so on 
 this occasion. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Objection being made, I will with- 
 draw my suggestion. , 
 
 THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Preston 
 (Mr. Brown) is entitled to the floor. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Oh sir, as I understand the gentle- 
 man from Barbour (Mr. Carlile) to have withdrawn 
 his call for a division of the question, I have nothing 
 further to say. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I am exceedingly anxious that 
 this discussion be brought to a close, and that, whatever 
 action the Convention may take, may be unanimous, or 
 nearly so as possible. Though I am perfectly ready 
 to vote for the resolution as it stands, yet if by the 
 addition or change of a single word, any objections 
 can be removed, I presume every member will acquiesce 
 in such change. Now, if I understand the gentleman 
 from Orange, he is willing to vote for the resolution 
 tendering thanks, and with the omission of the word 
 " due." According to his view, in which, I confess, I 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 29 
 
 do not concur, thanks are not due, though he is wil- 
 ling, as a matter of courtesy, to tender them. And by 
 striking out the words " are due," and leaving it to read 
 "thanks are hereby tendered," I hope a unanimous 
 wote will be secured for the resolution, and I suggest to 
 the mover, if he had not better so modify it. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I am willing to do anything in 
 the world to bring this matter to a close, and if possible 
 to a unanimous vote. If there is no objection from 
 .any quarter, I will therefore give my most hearty 
 assent to the suggestion of the gentleman from Richmond 
 .and modify the resolution so as to strike out the words 
 ; " are due," and simply say that ''thanks are hereby 
 tendered." 
 
 A MEMBER. Will you give thanks where none are 
 due ? Is that not mere child's play. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I hope the gentleman from Powhatan 
 will permit his resolution to stand in its original shape. 
 I think there is no necessity to modify it. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Some gentlemen desire it to stand, 
 and others desire it to be changed. I am willing to 
 have it either way . I said I would make the change, 
 if no objection was made — objection has been made 
 and I will submit the question to the Convention and 
 not accept the modification. 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolution of Mr. 
 Hopkins, and it was adopted. 
 
 LIQUIDATION OF THE STATE DEBT. 
 
 Mr. TRIGG offered the following resolution, and it 
 was referred to the Committee on the Legislative Depart- 
 ment : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment of the Government be instructed to inquire 
 into the propriety of incorporating into the Constitution a 
 provision requiring the Legislature to provide annually a 
 fund of not less than $1,000, to be applied to the pay- 
 ment of the principal of the State debt. 
 
 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall. I rise for the purpose of 
 moving that when the Convention adjourns to-day, it be to 
 meet on Tuesday next at 12 o'clock in the Universalist 
 church, which I understand will be fitted up for our 
 accommodation by that time. I do think that if any 
 doubts have heretofore existed in the minds of any here, 
 as to the impropriety of holding the sessions of the 
 Convention in this hall, they must be now entirely 
 dissipated. I feel satisfied that no good results can 
 proceed from our deliberations here. That we cannot 
 deliberate here must be manifest to every one. There 
 is no .necessity for convening here every morning and re- 
 enacting the scenes we have witnessed to-day and every 
 day since our meeting here. The committees can meet 
 in the recess and be transacting their business, and it will 
 be ample time for us to re-assemble when the church 
 shall be ready, which I understand will be on Tuesday. 
 I move therefore that when this body adjourns to-day, it 
 "be to meet on Tuesday next in the Universalist church. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I hope the gentleman will not make 
 that motion to-day, because it is the intention of the 
 committee appointed to prepare accommodations for the 
 Convention, to procure committee rooms, and if they 
 succeed in that, it is desirable that they should report 
 to-morrow. I hope he will at least allow his motion to 
 lay on the table for to-day. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall. To accommodate the com- 
 mittee, as suggested by the gentleman from Essex, I will 
 withdraw my motion, with the understanding that I shall 
 renew it to-morrow. 
 
 THANKS TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND. 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. In order that we may liquidate all 
 debts of thanks and courtesy, I will offer the following 
 resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be ten- 
 dered to the common council of the city of Richmond 
 for their offer of La Fayette hall for the use of this Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. M. G ARNETT. As I understand this to be the last 
 
 debt to be paid, I would suggest that we may just as 
 well go a little further, and thank the council for the 
 appointment of a committee to arrange the church for 
 us. 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. If it will suit the gentleman better, 
 he may modify the resolution by adding to it the words , 
 '•and to all others to whom thanks are due." 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman adopt that 
 as a part of his resolution ? 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. No sir ; I prefer it as it reads. 
 
 The question being then taken, the resolution was 
 adopted. 
 
 PUBLIC MEETING IN MONONGALIA COUNTY. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I have received the proceedings of a 
 meeting of a portion of the citizens of the county of 
 Monongalia. They consist of certain resolutions devel- 
 oping their views respecting sundry matters of Consti- 
 tutional reform, accompanied with instructions to myself 
 and the delegates from the district which I have the ho- 
 nor in part to represent, to conform our action in this 
 body to those views. They declare that population is 
 the only true basis of representation, and they state that 
 they believe that representation based on any other prin- 
 ciple would be an infraction of the great doctrines 
 of true republican principles so marked as to be sub- 
 mitted to by no free people. They allege however, that 
 the citizen should be protected in the enjoyment of his 
 property by ample constitutional securities. They in- 
 struct us to observe that inasmuch as all power is vested 
 in the people, and as magistrates are their servants and 
 amenable to them only, therefore all officers should be 
 elected by the people. They have directed me to vote 
 on all proper occasions for the extension of the right of 
 suffrage, and also indicate as their opinion that the ses- 
 sions of the Legislature should hereafter be biennial. I 
 am happy to say for myself, and I feel assured that my 
 colleague will concur with me in opinion and feeling on 
 the subject, that I can cheerfully conform my conduct 
 to these requisitions of the constituent body, not only 
 because I am instructed to do so, but because these opin- 
 ions of my constituents harmonize perfectly with my 
 own. I am unacquainted with the rules on this subject, 
 and I would inquire if these proceedings will be printed 
 under the rules, or will it require a motion for the pur- 
 pose ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It will require a motion. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I move then that the proceedings be 
 laid on the table and printed. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Will my colleague move to refer them 
 to the Committee on the Basis ? 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I understand them to be referred es- 
 pecially to us. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I presume they will go as a matter of 
 course to that committee. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The paper will be referred as a 
 matter of course, unless it be laid on the table and or- 
 dered to be printed. It can be printed without laying 
 on the table, however. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I hope the gentleman will make no 
 motion for the printing. He submitted a similar me- 
 morial two days since, and no motion for the printing 
 was made, yet we rind it printed in the debates. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The document referred to was 
 ordered to be printed by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, As that is the case, I have no desire 
 to make any distinction. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The paper being the proceedings 
 of a public meeting, and not a memorial, it cannot be 
 referred without a special motion. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I do not perceive that it can be re- 
 ferred with propriety, as it embraces such a variety of 
 subjects, and is moreover addressed to certain delegates es- 
 pecially as a guide for their course. I do not therefore 
 desire its reference, and will move its printing. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Then if my colleague declines, I will 
 make the motion that it be referred to the Committee 
 on the subject of the Basis and Apportionment 
 
30 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I ask that the memorial may be 
 read. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I would say that it is not a memorial, 
 but simply the proceedings of a public meeting, embrac- 
 ing a variety of instructions to the delegates here from 
 that district. I cannot therefore see the propriety of 
 reading or referring it, though I am prepared to yield to 
 the better judgment or greater legislative experience of 
 others. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. If it is to be printed at the ex- 
 pense of the Convention, or referred, I desire to have it 
 read. 
 
 The paper was then read by the Secretary, as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 At a large and highly respectable meeting of the citi- 
 zens of Monongalia county, held at the court house in 
 Morgantown on the fourth Monday in November, 1850, 
 (the same being court day,) pursuant to public notice, Hon. 
 E. C. Wilson called the meeting to order and explained 
 its object, and, on his motion, John Watts, Esq., was ap- 
 pointed Chairman, and L. S. Hough, Secretary. 
 
 Guy R, C. Allen then arose and submitted the follow- 
 ing series of resolutions, and supported the same by a few 
 brief and pertinent remarks. 
 
 Resolved, That " all power is vested and consequently 
 derived from the people," and therefore population is the 
 only true basis of legislative power. 
 
 Resolved, That representation in the Legislative De- 
 partment of Government predicated on property or tax- 
 ation, or on taxation and population combined, is an in- 
 fraction of the great American principle of popular sove- 
 reignty, that cannot be tolerated by a free people. 
 
 Resolved, however, That whilst property is not entitled 
 to representation, it is nevertheless entitled to and should 
 receive just and full protection in every properly organ- 
 ized government. 
 
 Resolved, That " Magistrates are the trustees and ser- 
 vants of the people, and amenable to them," Therefore 
 all public officers should be elected by the people, wheth- 
 er legislative, executive or judicial. 
 
 Resolved, That the right of suffrage should be extended 
 to every free white male citizen of the United States in 
 the Commonwealth, over the age of twenty-one years, not 
 of an unsound mind, nor a pauper, or non-commissioned 
 officer, soldier, seaman, or mariner, in the service of the 
 United States, or persons convicted of an infamous of- 
 fence. 
 
 Resolved, That the sessions of the Legislature should 
 hereafter be held once in two years instead of annually, 
 with the power to call special sessions in case of special 
 emergencies. 
 
 Resolved, That our Delegates in the Convention soon 
 to re-assemble to consider, discuss and propose amend- 
 ments to the Constitution of Virginia, be, and they are, 
 so far as this meeting is concerned, instructed to conform 
 their action to the principles of the foregoing resolutions ; 
 and we believe that the same views and opinions are en- 
 tertained by all the people in this district. 
 
 On motion, the above resolutions were unanimously 
 adopted, and the proceedings of the meeting directed to 
 be published in the " Monongalia Mirror," and a true copy 
 thereof, placed in the hands of W. T. Willey, Esq., one 
 of our delegates in the Convention, with a request to lay 
 the same before said Convention, when it shall re-assem- 
 ble in January next. 
 
 On motion of Hon. E. C. Wilson, the meeting adjourn 
 ed sine die. John Watts, Chairman. 
 
 L. S. Hough, Secretary. 
 
 Mr. BROWN". With the consent of my colleague, if I 
 understand him rightly, the motion to print will be 
 withdrawn, as the paper will be printed as a matter of 
 course among the proceedings of the Convention. I 
 will therefore move, if my colleague does not, that it be 
 referred to the Committee on the subject of the Basis. 
 
 The motion to refer was agreed to. 
 
 And then on motion of Mr. CARLILE, the Conven- 
 tion adjourned until to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 10th, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 The journal of the preceding day was then read and 
 approved. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE POWER TO CREATE STATE INDEBTEDNESS. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. I have a resolution on the subject of 
 the Basis of Representation, which I will read before it is 
 presented, and which I wish to have referred to the com- 
 mittee having charge of that subject. It is as follows ; 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Basis and Ap- 
 portionment be instructed to inquire into the expedien- 
 cy of inserting the following provisions in the Constitu- 
 tion, to wit : 
 
 "The Legislature shall pass no act the effect of which 
 shall be to subject the State to debts or liabilities, amount- 
 ing in the aggregate, with any previous debts or liabili- 
 ties, to a sum exceeding millions of dollars, except 
 for purposes of war, or to suppress insurrections ; and it 
 shall be the duty of any court of record established un- 
 der this Constitution, or the laws made in pursuance 
 thereof, upon a proper case made before it, to pronounce 
 such act null and void. 
 
 " It shall further be the duty of the Legislature, at its 
 first session after the adoption of this Constitution, or as 
 soon thereafter as practicable, to make provision by law 
 for bringing such questions before said courts, in behalf 
 of any tax payer who may elect to proceed at his own 
 costs — and providing in favor either of the State or of 
 the party complaining, the right of appeal to the court 
 of last resort, without regard to the sum of money in 
 controversy. 
 
 " And, moreover, it shall be the duty of the Legislature 
 to provide by law for the publication, at the end of each 
 session, of an official statement showing the debts and 
 liabilities referred to in the foregoing section. 
 
 " This section shall not be construed to refer to any 
 money that has been or may be deposited with the State 
 by the Government of the United States. 
 
 " The Legislature shall pass no bill appropriating the 
 public money, or in any other way affording peculiar aid 
 to any road, canal, or other work of internal improve- 
 ment, until each of the following pre-requisites shall have 
 been fully complied with, to wit: The projected work shall 
 be thoroughly examined by some one or more competent 
 engineers, in the employment of the State, and not ap- 
 pointed with relerence to any particular improvement — 
 such examination to be by reconnoisance, as full and ac- 
 curate as possible, short of actual instrumental surveys. 
 
 " The report of such engineer or engineers (to be made 
 to the Legislature) shall show by estimate, with as much 
 accuracy as practicable, not only the cost of constructing 
 the whole work, or contemplated line of works — and, in 
 case of a railroad, of supplying the motive power — but 
 also the probable amount of trade and travel which will 
 pass over such work, or in other form contribute to the 
 income to be derived from it within years next after 
 the same shall have been completed. 
 
 " Such report shall further show that according to the 
 estimates and reconnoisance above directed, the project- 
 ed work will yield a net average return of not less than 
 per centum per annum upon the expenditure re- 
 quired for its construction and motive power, as herein 
 before mentioned, for the years next succeeding the com- 
 pletion thereof. The accuracy and fairness of such re- 
 port, according to its purport, shall in all cases be veri- 
 fied by the affidavit of the engineer or engineers making 
 the same. 
 
 "The Legislature shall have power to discriminate as 
 to what property or persons shall be the subjects of taxa- 
 tion, but all taxes upon property shall be levied upon the 
 ad valorem principle, either according to its absolute or 
 annual value, as the Legislature, in reference to each de- 
 scription of property, may deem most just and equita- 
 ble : Provided, however, that in no case shall slaves be 
 subjected to higher taxation than real estate; nor shall 
 any slave under the age of — years, or which from iu« 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 31 
 
 firmity or disability lias become of less annual value than 
 the charge of maintenance, be subject to taxation." The 
 motion was referred to the Committee on the Basis. 
 
 [The PRESIDENT here left the Chair, Mr. Goode 
 presiding in his absence.] 
 
 PAY OF THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON". It seems that when the Convention 
 adjourned in November, the Sergeant-at-Arms was re- 
 quested by the President to remain in this city during 
 the recess, but no provision was made by the House, and 
 in consequence, the Secretary was not able to give his 
 certificate of pay for his compensation. I have arisen on 
 behalf of the Committee on the Compensation of Officers, 
 who have received a letter from the President on the sub- 
 j ect, which has been presented to the committee, and they 
 have directed me to report the following resolution ; 
 
 I request the Clerk to read the letter of the Presi- 
 dent, and move that the resolution be adopted. 
 
 The letter of the President was then read as follows : 
 Richmond, Jan. 9th, 1851. 
 
 Dear Sir : When the Convention, having determined 
 on taking a recess, was considering questions touching 
 the compensation of some of its officers during the sus- 
 pension of business, a motion was made in favor of the 
 compensation of the Sergeant-at-Arms. My opinion be- 
 ing asked, I stated from the Chair, that the presence of 
 the Sergeant here during the recess, would be required, 
 and the motion was withdrawn. As the presiding officer 
 of the Convention, I informed Mr. Samuels that I consid- 
 ered his presence here necessary for the performance of 
 duties which might devolve on him. He remained ac- 
 cordingly. The Secretary did not feel at liberty to give 
 him his certificate to draw his pay, and I considered it 
 proper to leave the question of the pay of the Sergeant- 
 at-Arms for the committee and the Convention. 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. Y. Mason. 
 
 The resolution was then read as follows : 
 ; Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be allowed his per 
 diem during the recess of the Convention, having been 
 required to remain in the city of Richmond by the Presi- 
 dent of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON". I believe the resolution fixing the 
 compensation of the Secretary, pays him so much per 
 week, and not per day. I would suggest that this reso- 
 lution be so arranged as to give the Sergeant-at-Arms the 
 same compensation during the recess as he would be en- 
 titled to during the session. I think the resolution would 
 read better if it were worded as follows : 
 _ Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of this Conven- 
 tion be allowed the same pay during the recess, as he is 
 entitled to during the session. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. I can see no difference between the 
 two. so far as the result is concerned. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I think the first resolution is right. 
 The Sergeant-at-Arms receives his pay, if I understand 
 it, by the day, the same as the members of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. No, by the week. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. He receives two dollars a week 
 more than the members. He receives thirty dollars, and 
 they twenty-eight. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the gentleman 
 accept the amendment ? 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. T do not know that I am at liberty 
 to do so, without consulting the committee. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. It seems to me that striking out 
 the words "per diem" and insert "pay," I would 
 prefer the original resolution. It also has this additional 
 recommendation, that it suggests the reason on its face, 
 why this thing is done, which I prefer for one. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON. I acquiesce in the suggestion, and 
 withdraw my amendment. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the mover of the 
 resolution accept the amendment proposed by the gentle- 
 man from Richmond ? 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. Yes sir, I accept it. 
 
 Mr. FISHER. Pardon me for asking a single question ? 
 It is this : I care nothing about this matter, nor have I 
 any interest in it whatever ; but I wish for my own sat- 
 isfaction to know. Previous to the adjournment of the 
 Convention, if I understood the President, he declared in 
 the presence of this house, the necessity of the Sergeant- 
 at-Arms remaining in this city during the recess, and sta- 
 ted that he would be entitled to his pay for so doing ; in 
 which, as I understand, the Convention acquiesced. It 
 would be a matter of very considerable interest to me to 
 know why it is that the Secretary has given a different 
 interpretation of the law from the President and the whole 
 of this body ? 
 
 The resolution was then adopted. 
 
 BANKS AND BANKING INCORPORATIONS. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN offered the following resolution, and it 
 was referred to the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Legislature be 
 instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing 
 by the Constitution, that in case of the insolvency of any 
 bank or banking association, the bill holders thereof shall 
 be entitled to preference in payment, over all the credi- 
 tors of such bank or associations. 
 
 BETTING ON ELECTIONS. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. I have a resolution for preserv- 
 ing the purity of elections. I observe that the Constitu- 
 tions of several of the States contain provisions for pre- 
 serving pure the right of suffrage. And as I suppose we 
 are about to extend the right of suffrage, I should like to 
 see a similar provision inserted in our own Constitution. 
 It is for the purpose of preserving this right pure that I 
 offer the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on the right of suffrage 
 inquire into and report upon the expediency of prohibit- 
 ing by Constitutional provision, any person from voting 
 at any election upon the result of which such person shall 
 have made any bet or laid any wager, or who is directly 
 or indirectly interested in such bet or wager. 
 
 The resolution was referred to the Committee on the 
 Right of Suffrage. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN. The committee to whom the subject 
 of publishing the reports of the debates authorised by the 
 Convention was referred, have directed me to make a re- 
 port. 
 
 The report was read by the Secretary as follows : 
 
 The committee to whom were referred the various 
 propositions for publishing the debates and proceedings 
 of the Convention, have had the same under considera- 
 tion, and respectfully report : That, in their opinion, the 
 debates and proceedings should be published and distri- 
 buted, so as to be read by as large a number of the peo- 
 ple as can, at a reasonable cost, be supplied with them. 
 The means they think best suited to effect the object 
 are, first, to make use of the circulation of the six politi- 
 cal papers printed in this city ; and, second, to distri- 
 bute extra copies of the reports, in order to supply, as 
 far as practicable, + hose persons who may not be subscri- 
 bers to the Richmond papers. Your committee have as- 
 certained that the Richmond political presses issue forty- 
 three thousand papers each week ; this number includes 
 their daily, semi-weekly and weekly issues. These is- 
 sues are so distributed as to reach fifteen thousand five 
 hundred subscribers. 
 
 It is proposed that a separate sheet shall be issued, 
 twice each week, containing the authorized reports of 
 the stenographer to the Convention, and to be styled 
 " The supplement to the Enquirer, Whig, Examiner, 
 Times, Republican Advocate, and Republican." 
 
 The six papers named, are to be employed as agencies 
 for distributing " the supplement," so that their fifteen 
 thousand readers may be furnished with full reports of 
 the debates and proceedings of the Convention. 
 
 It is also proposed that each member be furnished 
 with twenty copies of " the supplement," to be wrappad, 
 
32 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 mailed and directed by the publishers, as the members 
 may direct. In this way, 2700 copies in addition to the 
 15,500 copies already named, will be distributed 
 
 Your committee submit the following statement of 
 the cost of diffusing this information among the people. 
 Supppose the daily debates and proceedings to amount 
 to matter equal to six columns of " the supplement," 
 (specimen copies of which have been laid before the mem- 
 bers of the Convention,) and that the session shall con- 
 tinue fifteen weeks, it is proposed by the proprietors of 
 the six papers named, to furnish and distribute "the 
 supplement" at the following rates : 
 For composition of matter equal to six co- 
 lumns a day, for fifteen weeks, $2,106 00 
 For press-work, folding, &c, of 31,000 copies 
 
 a week, for fifteen weeks, 2,418 00 
 
 For paper for 31,000 copies a week, for fifteen 
 
 weeks, 4,450 50 
 
 For 2700 extra copies twice a week, for fifteen 
 
 weeks, at 2 cents each, 1,620 00 
 
 Total, $10,594 00 
 
 The aggregate cost, therefore, of publishing and distri- 
 buting, during a session of fifteen weeks, 15,500 copies 
 of the supplement through the agency of the six papers 
 named, and 2700 copies as the members of the Conven- 
 tion may direct, will, in case the matter does not exeeed 
 six columns a day, amount to $10,694 50. 
 
 Should the session be shorter, or the matter be less 
 than the estimate, the cost will be proportionably les- 
 sened ; and on the contrary, should the session be longer, 
 and the matter greater than the estimate, the cost will 
 be proportionably increased. 
 
 Having stated the facts for the consideration of the 
 Convention, your committee recommend the adoption of 
 the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary contract with Robert H. 
 Gallaher, and the proprietors of the other papers named 
 in this report, for the publication and distribution of the 
 debates and proceedings of the Convention, in the man- 
 ner and at the rates of charge herein before set forth, 
 and that he take bond and security for the faithful per- 
 formance of the contract. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. I move that the report and reso- 
 lution be laid on the table and printed. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS IN GERMAN. 
 
 Mr- KNOTE. I desire to offer the following resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary be and is hereby instruct- 
 ed to contract with Mr. George Deitz, editor of the "Vir- 
 ginia Staats Zeitung," to print in the German language 
 copies of such public documents as may be order- 
 ed to be so printed by this Convention, together with the 
 new Constitution when it shall be completed : Provided 
 such contract can be made at prices not higher than are 
 now paid for the public printing, by the General Assem- 
 bly of Virginia. [Laughter.] 
 
 I suppose that this is somewhat a novel proposition to 
 be offered a body like this, from the manner in which 
 it has been received. But there is in this Commowealth 
 a pretty large number of this population. There are 
 in the town of Wheeling, in which I reside, and in 
 th<3 vicinity, perhaps some four thousand Germans 
 and I am informed that there is at Alexandria, and in 
 the city of Richmond, and at Petersburg, and at Norfolk, 
 and I presume some other towns, a very considerable 
 number of this population, — men who have settled among 
 us and are not able to read in the English language. 
 They are, notwithstanding, good citizens, very useful 
 citizens, in my estimation; and it is important that 
 they understand the Constitution we may submit to 
 them, before they will be properly qualified to vote upon 
 it. This people, wherever settled, are well known to be 
 an industrious and frugal population, contributing, by 
 their industry, economy, and taxes, to the wealth and re- 
 sources of the State, And in my humble opinion, it is no 
 
 | more than right and just, that while we are providing for 
 the general publication of our proceedings, we should, at 
 a very inconsiderable cost to the Common wealth, also 
 give them facilities for understanding the Constitution 
 that we shall adopt. It seems to me but just. Other- 
 States of this Union have thought proper to publish in 
 this language, not only their constitutions, but the pro- 
 ceedings of their legislatures and other public documents- 
 at considerable expense. The State of Ohio, I am inform- 
 ed, publish almost all their public documents in the Ger- 
 man language. I am informed, also, that the entire de- 
 bates of the Constitutional Convention of Pennsylvania,, 
 some sixteen volumes, were published in that language. 
 Thus these States manifest a disposition to treat with 
 kindness and affection this class of population, and they 
 are by this means drawn to those States, and settle and 
 become permanent and valuable citizens. The State of 
 Illinois, I believe, has pursued the same course. The- 
 State of Texas I know has. They, by this means, show 
 a regard to this kind of people ; and by this regard they 
 are attracted to settle within those States. They come 
 to this country with no inconsiderable amount of money, 
 and they bring with them also all the elements of 
 wealth in their persevering industry, and a much more 
 valuable acquisition of capital to the State. They set- 
 tle in different States, deposit their wealth, and there 
 expend their strength and labor. It appears to me to 
 be just to this people, and for the good of the State 
 to pursue this policy, and by manifesting this kind- 
 ness to them, to encourage them to settle within our 
 borders. It appears to me but just to this class of 
 citizens to adopt this resolution. Whether it is the 
 best calculated to reach the object proposed I do 
 not know. Other members can perhaps judge bet- 
 ter than myself on this point. I have put in the resolu- 
 tion the name of Mr. Deitz, as the person in whose paper 
 it shall be printed, and for this reason : Mr. Deitz is*a gen- 
 tleman, and a scholar every way well qualified to translate 
 correctly from the English into the German language. 
 This "Virginia Staats Z eitung," or Virginia State News- 
 paper, as it is translated, is the only newspaper in the State 
 of Virginia, I believe, printed in that language. If there 
 are other papers I do not know that their editors are 
 competent to make a correct translation. Mr. Deitz pro- 
 poses, if this Convention will give this printing to his 
 paper, to do the translation gratis, and not put the State 
 to any expense on that account, and I do not know of any 
 other paper that will perform this service gratuitously. 
 Then this paper is printed in the town of Wheeling, and 
 in that location there is a larger portion of this kind of 
 population than in any other section of the State. It is 
 therefore proper to give it to him. And besides, he pro- 
 poses to print them gratuitously in his paper, so that the 
 information will be carried wherever the paper is circu- 
 lated, and in that way be distributed among the German 
 population generally, of the State. I should have pre- 
 ferred to put in the resolution the titles of the documents 
 that I should wish to have printed ; but that is impos- 
 sible, as they are not yet all before the body. I pre- 
 sume, however, that the assessments reported to us here 
 and the census returns will be proper documents to be 
 thus published. I take this occasion to say it is, not my 
 desire to make this a matter of expense. Perhaps the cost 
 will not exceed one, two or three hundred dollars in all. 
 I only desire that the most important information should 
 be afforded to this population, and I have specified such doc- 
 uments as the Convention shall from time to time order. 
 I have specified the Constitution when it shall be com- 
 pleted here, because I believe that to be not only an im- 
 portant matter to that class of the people, but useful to 
 the State. As to the prices, I have provided in the reso- 
 lution it shall be done at prices not higher than those paid 
 for the printing done for the Legislature of the State. I am 
 aware that the printing of this Convention is done lower 
 than the printing of the Legislature, and gentlemen may 
 suppose that this ought also to be done at that price ; but 
 they should bear in mind that the corr'ect translation 
 of this matter is of some importance ; and if we should 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 33 
 
 employ a translator it would cost as much as the printing 
 does. But Mr. Dietz proposes to do that work gratuitously, 
 and I do think, that if the printing is done at the prices 
 paid by the General Assembly, it certainly would not be 
 more than a fair equivalent for the services performed. 
 I can assure this body that it is not designed by myself, 
 or those at whose instance I make this motion, that this 
 shall be a matter of speculation. It is a mere matter of 
 justice to that portion of the population. As this print- 
 ing will be done at a very small expense, I hope this re- 
 solution will be adopted, and that the State of Virginia 
 will show the same disposition to treat with kindness and 
 attention this class of population, which has been shown 
 by other States. 
 
 "Mr. JACOB. I wish to inquire of my colleague, 
 whether he proposes to take denmtive action upon this 
 resolution at this time, or to ask the House to lay it on 
 the table, and let it come up at some future time, with 
 the other matters relating to this subject ? I would pre- 
 fer to request the House to lay it on the table and print 
 it. I believe, myself, although the whole House seemed 
 inclined to smile at this proposition when the resolution 
 was offered, that when it is understood, it will not be ob- 
 jected to. It will occasion but a very slight expense, and 
 a more worthy, industrious and useful population, can- 
 not be found in any State, than the German population 
 which are settled within our borders, so far as my own 
 experience goes. I do think it is the policy of the State 
 to encourage the settlement of the Germans among us. 
 I know it is a policy favorable to our "Western districts. 
 I believe there is a manifest difference in asking for the 
 publication of a few important documents, such as the 
 Constitution, Census, tfcc, and that of publishing the 
 whole proceedings. At all events, I think the resolution 
 is worthy of that consideration which would be mani- 
 fested by allowing it to lie on the table and be printed. 
 And I am in hopes that, when the House shall consider 
 it, they will see its justice and propriety ; especially 
 when they understand how small will be the expense, 
 and how useful a portion of our population will be grati- 
 fied by it. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I have no particular choice in the mat- 
 ter. I have taken the present occasion to offer the reso- 
 lution, because there appeared to be no particular busi- 
 ness before the Convention. I do not see why it cannot 
 be as well considered now as at any other time. I am 
 perfectly willing, however, that it shall be laid upon the 
 table, as proposed by my colleague. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. If the question is to be now taken, I 
 ask gentlemen to notice that this resolution does not pro- 
 pose to publish any thing but what the House shall di- 
 rect, except the instrument we shall adopt as a Constitu- 
 tion. If any other document is to be printed in German, 
 it will be for the Convention to direct. I make this ex- 
 planation, that the House may see that they will not 
 commit themselves to an extravagant expenditure. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. Will the Secretary please to read the 
 resolution, leaving out the name that it is impossible to 
 understand. 
 
 The resolution was again read. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I shall with great pleasure vote for 
 the resolution ; but I submit to the gentleman whether 
 he had not better let it lie over and come up when the 
 other question of printing shall come up. Then I 
 shall vote for it, though there is not a Dutchman in the 
 whole district in which I live. I move that the resolu- 
 tion be laid on the table and printed. 
 
 The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. Is it to be printed in the German lan- 
 guage ? [Laughter.] 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The resolution is to be printed as 
 it stands. 
 
 DECLINATION OF SERVICE ON A COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. SEYMOUR. My appointment as a member of 
 the committee on the basis of representation makes it 
 necessary that I should decline further service upon the 
 committee on the legislative department. I ask to be 
 
 excused from further service on that committee, and 
 that the President of the Convention supply the vacancy 
 thus occasioned. 
 
 The gentleman was excused accordingly. 
 
 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall. It will be recollected that 
 yesterday when I consented to withdraw my motion for 
 an adjournment till Tuesday next, it was with the un- 
 derstanding that I should renew it again to-day. 
 Circumstances have since transpired to render it inex- 
 pedient to renew that motion at present, unless the 
 House will agree to take up the report in relation to 
 printing and act upon it to-day. That report is required, 
 from the necessity of the case, to be acted upon speedily, 
 in order that the printers may make their arrangements 
 fur the publication of the proceedings ol the Convention. 
 As it has been expected that I would renew the motion 
 to-day, I state this fact by way of explanation. If 
 this House will not agree to take up the report on 
 printing, and act upon it immediately, I shall move 
 that this House adjourn till to morrow morning at 10 
 o'clock. If it shall be the pleasure of the House to 
 take up the report, I will withdraw the motion. 
 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The report has been 
 ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. Well, then, I move that the House 
 adjourn to meet on Monday at 10 o'clock. 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. Oh, no, let us act on the 
 report. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. If it is the pleasure of this Conven- 
 tion to consider this report, now, I should like to have 
 it taken from the table and acted upon. In order to 
 test the sense of the Convention, I move that it be now 
 taken up. I think it can be disposed of at once, and 
 we can then proceed to other business. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. I move that this House do now 
 adjourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the Convention ad- 
 journed until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 SATURDAY, January 11, 1851. 
 The Convention assembled pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Earley, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was then read and 
 approved. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The unfinished business before 
 the Convention when it adjourned yesterday, was the mo- 
 tion of Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall, to take up the report 
 of the Select Committee on printing the debates of the 
 Convention. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion to proceed to the 
 consideration of the report was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. Is it in order— the report of the 
 committee having just been read in the journal, and it 
 being in the hands of every member of the Convention — 
 to move to dispense with its reading at this time, so that 
 the resolution of the committee will be immediately be- 
 fore the Convention. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. This can be done, unless some 
 gentleman shall insist upon the report being read. 
 
 [Here Mr. Sheffey took the Chair in the temporary 
 absence of the President.] 
 
 The question was then put on the resolution of the 
 committee, and the Presiding Officer was about to an- 
 nounce the result, when 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT said that he apprehended the ques- 
 tion was not under? cood, and asked that it might be sta- 
 ted again. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, The question is on 
 agreeing with the resolution reported by the committee 
 on the publication of the debates of the Convention, 
 which is in the words following : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Secretary contract with Robert 
 
34 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 H. Gallaher, and the proprietors of the other papers 
 named in this report, for the publication and distribution 
 of the debates and proceedings of the Convention, in the 
 manner and at the rates of charge hereinbefore set forth, 
 and that he take bond and security for the faithful per- 
 formance of the contract." 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. Is it in order to call for the yeas 
 and nays ? 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not in order, the 
 Convention having divided on the question. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I supposed that the question not 
 being understood, was about to be taken over again. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. The rule as laid down by the Chair, 
 is correct, but I understood the vote was to be taken 
 over again, the Convention before not having properly 
 understood the question. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Convention had 
 certainly divided on the question, but as gentlemen ge- 
 nerally "did not seem to understand it, and as the resolu- 
 tion was read in order that it might be understood, I pre- 
 sume the question can very properly be taken now by 
 yeas and nays. Does the gentleman from Orange de- 
 mand the yeas and nays ? 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. Yes sir. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then ordered. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. Is it too late to make any observation ? 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I was in hopes that some gentleman 
 who is familiar with this subject, would have favored us 
 with an explanation fuller, and with reasons more at 
 large, than any that have been given us here. I do not 
 profess to understand it myself. I am not clear, howev- 
 er, that I can vote at present for the resolution. I have 
 looked at the reports of the last three or four days, and 
 where I thought they would not have made over two 
 columns a day, I find six solid columns. What it will 
 be when we get fully under way, is more than I can 
 tell ; but I should think ten or fifteen. I beg leave to 
 submit to the Convention whether they have duly con- 
 sidered this matter ? Again, the resolution provides for 
 giving to each member 20 copies of this supplementary 
 sheet. Now I do not know what good these 20 copies 
 will do. I do not want them, and I use my own case as 
 illustrative of my arguments on this subject. If I should 
 attempt to distribute them, I should only send to twenty 
 voters in my district — a very small proportion of the 
 whole number — and I should have to discriminate between 
 my constituents, or else send them to different persons 
 at different times, and thus give the proceedings in such 
 broken fragments that they would be of no use. So far 
 as that provision occasions any expense, I think it had 
 better be stricken out. I do not know what the expense 
 will be, but it occurs to me, from the little examination 
 I have been able to give the subject, that it will occasion 
 not less than one-fourth or one-fifth of the whole ex- 
 pense ; and that would be something to us. Again, there 
 is another radical difficulty to my mind. You send out 
 these reports only to a portion of the people of the State ; 
 to those, and to none other than those who now take the 
 political papers published in the metropolis of the State. 
 These six papers have a circulation at present, of only 
 about 15,500, and shall we pay 10,000 or $15,000, to send 
 our proceedings only to those subscribers ? Those sub- 
 scribers will be pretty well informed of what takes place 
 here, in any event, while the mass of the people 
 will be without any information of the proceedings 
 of this body. I was in hopes that some plan would 
 be devised to send our proceedings to those who do not 
 take the papers. I do not say this can be done, but I 
 really do not see the propriety of expending $15,000 to 
 $20,000, merely to furnish our proceedings to the present 
 subscribers of the papers in this city. 
 
 iMr. STEWART. I desire to make a few remarks on 
 th s subject. I agree with the remarks of the gentleman 
 from Ohio [Mr. Jacob] in regard to this resolution. This 
 is altogether a business matter, and it is right and proper 
 that this Convention should proceed to the consideration 
 of it in a business manner. I am very well aware 
 
 of the inconvenience to which our delay is subjecting 
 the gentlemen engaged in this enterprize, and I wish 
 very much to see the Convention decide this matter 
 speedily ; yet, at the same time, I think it is altogether 
 wise and proper that while we act with suitable speed 
 in regard to it, we should also proceed with becoming 
 discretion and judgment. Now, I cannot see how this 
 Convention is prepared, at this time, to decide upon this 
 subject. The report has been printed and laid on the 
 table this morning, and we are called upon in a few mo- 
 ments after this has been done, to vote upon it. We can- 
 not vote understandingly on this proposition now, be- 
 cause we have had no time whatever to investigate its 
 merits. Let us take this paper to our rooms and exam- 
 ine it, and let us have time and opportunity to see all 
 the other propositions that have been submitted, and 
 then we can judge how to proceed in the end. In order 
 to enable the Convention to act understandingly in the 
 matter, I move to lay the report and resolutions on the 
 table, to be taken up at some other time, perhaps Mon- 
 day, when we meet again. This will enable us to in- 
 vestigate the subject. It will enable us also to examine 
 other propositions which have been or may be laid be- 
 fore us. The cost of this matter may seem very small 
 to some gentlemen, but when we take into consideration 
 the cost of this printing, and all the other costs of this 
 Convention, and of the proceedings consequent upon the 
 adoption of a revised Constitution, it will be found to 
 amount to a very considerable sum. But whether the 
 cost shall be small or great, it is a duty we owe to the 
 people who sent us here, to take care that this Convention 
 costs as small a sum as possible. The object I have in 
 view in wishing to have time to consider this matter is, 
 that we may do this business as a set of business men. 
 No man in this Convention ought to look at this thing 
 with any view of favoritism. For my part I have no 
 personal ends to answer. For the editors and publish- 
 ers of the papers in this city I have the highest respect, 
 and it is not to embarrass their proceedings in any way 
 that I wish to have this matter laid on the table, for the 
 present. I am satisfied that this supplemental sheet 
 before us here is a creditable work, but whether it will 
 serve the purposes of the Convention and the people, is 
 quite another question. One great object in publishing 
 the debates is, that we may inform the people of the 
 State what we are doing here, and that we may enable 
 them to judge of the various questions which may come 
 before us for consideration. Now, how are we to attain 
 this object? The circulation of twenty copies by each 
 member of the Convention will be but a mere drop 
 in the sea, and will not accomplish this object. 
 It will only enable us to offend a portion of our con- 
 stituents, those to whom we do not send them, instead 
 of to spread information among the mass of them. We 
 have 20 copies to send to a large district comprising 
 perhaps some five or six counties, and to whom shall 
 we send them ? We shall be forced to make a discrim- 
 ination. To send to one man one day a paper contain- 
 ing a portion of a debate, and to another on the next 
 day another portion, would be a mere mockery. If I 
 am to send these proceedings to my constituents, I 
 wish to send them in a connected form, and not give it 
 to them in the form of disjecta membra. Now, how are 
 we to do this ? I have heard from a variety of sources 
 that the newspaper press of this city would not circulate 
 the proceedings of this Convention to more than half 
 the people of this State. I wish to know how this 
 matter stands. I wish to know the truth of this, but 
 I think I know sufficient of the circulation of the papers 
 in this city, judging from like causes which produce 
 like effects in every thing, to say that it is confined to 
 the Eastern part of the State. If this is so, how in the 
 name of common sense will the people of Western 
 Virginia — that great extent of country from the Ohio 
 to the Tennessee line, and from the Blue Ridge to the 
 Ohio again — obtain a knowledge of the proceedings of 
 this Convention? Now, some gentlemen seem to look 
 upon us as though we were all reformers beyond the 
 
\ 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 35 
 
 mountains. "Well, I am glad to say that I believe that 
 nineteer.-twentieths of the people of Western Virginia 
 are reformers • but at the same time we are not such 
 thorough, educated and intelligent reformer?, that we 
 can do without hearing anything of the proceedings of 
 this Convention. The fact that our people are so 
 thoroughly in favor of reform, is the very reason why 
 they wish to know why it is and upon what ground the 
 anti-reformers — if there be any in the Convention— are 
 so opposed to their peculiar views. We are as much 
 interested in hearing the views of our Eastern friends 
 as they are in hearing ours, and while we seek to spread 
 information before the people, let us spread it before a 
 whole and not a portion of them. And if we have all 
 these plans before us, we can see which will accomplish 
 the greatest good to the greatest number, and that I 
 am in favor of and will vote for, whoever may be bene- 
 fited by it. On the subject of printing, I am aware 
 that there is great error in the minds of men who 
 know nothing or have no experience in regard to it. 
 I tell you that it is a labor not so cheaply to be accom- 
 plished as many may suppose, and I am opposed to 
 making a contract with an editor or publisher upon 
 starvation prices. As the gentleman from Franklin 
 (Mr. Claiborne) said the other day, I am opposed to 
 all starvation laws. I wish to give any printer who 
 may undertake to do our work, such a price as will 
 enable him to do it well, and make some money for 
 himself. " The laborer is worthy of his hire," whether 
 he sets type, practices law, pegs shoes, or does any 
 thing else, and I imagine none of us in this Convention 
 would work for nothing and find ourselves. While I 
 would not wish editors or printers to speculate upon 
 us, yet I am in favor of giving them fair, living 
 prices, such as will not only enable them to do our 
 work well, but to make a respectable profit, such as 
 any man might expect to make in a similar business. 
 With these considerations, I hope this report will be 
 laid upon the table, and that sufficient time may be 
 given the Convention to get all these plans and propo- 
 sitions before them, so that they may judge which is 
 best calculated to answer the purpose intended. I 
 make the motion to lay on the table. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. This is a matter in regard 
 to which I have very little information — 
 
 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to lay 
 on the table is not a debateable one. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I hope then that the gen- 
 tleman will withdraw it for the present. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. Certainly sir. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I think it must be appa- 
 rent to us all that the debates when we get under way, 
 will very largely transcend six columns of the supple- 
 ment, and I do not know why it is that the estimate 
 has been formed upon that number of columns. I 
 should like to be informed by the committee who have 
 made this report, as to the relation which the prices 
 set down in this report bear to the prices at which the 
 public printing of this body is now being done. It will 
 be recollected by all of us, that the public printing of 
 this body is now being executed by contract, and if I 
 am rightly informed, it is executed at a cost greatly less 
 than that at which it is proposed to be done by this 
 report. I had supposed that the best mode by which 
 the Convention could give circulation to these debates, 
 would be through the medium of the political press in 
 this city. Together I understood they had a large 
 circulation throughout the different portions of this 
 Commonwealth. I had supposed that the publishers of 
 these papers would derive a profit of no inconsider- 
 able amount by means of the extension that would 
 be given to their circulation, by reason of the publi- 
 cation of these debates ; and in looking to that source 
 of profit, they would find it compatible with their 
 interest to publish these debates at a rate at least as 
 low as the public printing of the body is now being 
 done under contract. It is with a view to elicit infor- 
 mation upon this point, more than any thing else, that I 
 
 have troubled the Convention with these remarks. I 
 repeat, that I should like to know from the chairman 
 of the committee, or some member of it, what relation 
 the prices of this report bear to the prices at which 
 the public printing of this body is now done. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN. I really always feel a very great 
 reluctance to trouble the Convention, but I suppose on 
 this occasion it is necessary that I should make some an- 
 swer to the question which my friend from Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott) has proposed. I presume that the object of 
 preparing the reports and publishing them in any form, 
 is to give such information with regard to the proceed- 
 ings and deliberations of the Convention, as may enable 
 the voters of the State to vote understandingly upon the 
 Constitution which we may submit to them. The first 
 question that presents itself is, in what manner shall 
 we get these proceedings most extensively before the 
 people ? I confess that I have not heard any mode pro- 
 posed that appears likely to accomplish this object so 
 well, as that of submitting it to them through the me- 
 dium of the political papers of the city of Richmond. 
 By that means we accomplish a circulation of fifteen 
 thousand five hundred weeklv — 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. "Thirty-one thousand week- 
 ly. The circulation of these papers is fifteen thousand 
 live hundred semi- weekly. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN. That is it— thirty-one thousand week- 
 ly — fifteen thousand five hundred semi-weekly. The 
 members of the Convention have then no difficulty or 
 trouble in making a discrimination with regard to their 
 constituents. By this means, this information is diffused 
 broadcast throughout the State, and diffused too, with- 
 out any additional trouble or tax, so far as postage and 
 mailing is concerned. I can think of no better plan than 
 this. Now, with regard to the expense : I presume that 
 the number of six columns was proposed because it was 
 supposed, that in a session of from 12 to 3 o'clock, 
 there would be about that amount of speaking dai- 
 ly. That, I understand, is about what is the experi- 
 ence in the Congress of the United States, and is the 
 calculation made by the reporters and publishers at 
 Washington. I understand that the printer for the Le- 
 gislature gets sixty-two and a half cents for what the pub- 
 lishers of the proposed supplement would receive sixty- 
 five cents. The two and a half cents additional is add- 
 ed to cover the extra labor attendant on the mailing and 
 distributing of them ; so that, taking this into consider- 
 ation, it is nearly if not quite as cheap as the prices 
 charged by the public printer. I have no particular de- 
 sire that the plan recommended by the committee should 
 be adopted, if any other feasible plan can be suggested. 
 But the committee very carefully looked over the whole 
 ground, and examined the several plans that have been 
 proposed, and really there was none in their judgment 
 which combined all the advantages of this one, at the 
 same time with its cheapnesss. There are objections to 
 it, I admit, but there are a great many other and strong- 
 er objections to any other mode which I have heard pro- 
 posed. On the whole, I think this to be the cheapest 
 and best plan, considering all things, that we can adopt. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I may not quite understand the pro- 
 posed plan that is before the Convention. But it does 
 seem to me that the Convention is incurring the expense 
 of publishing this work for the benefit of the subscribers 
 to the metropolitan papers. Now, in many parts of the 
 State, the metropolitan press is not read to any great ex- 
 tent, and to that portion of the State these extras will 
 not go. The extras accompanying the papers of this city, 
 will only go where the circulation of the papers of this 
 city goes. Now, it seems to me that this would be a 
 very unequal distribution of papers published at the pub- 
 lic expense. Suppose in my district there should be but 
 very few subscribers to the city papers, why the inform- 
 ation would not be distributed there at all. We must 
 all see that there is great difference in the circulation of 
 the metropolitan papers in different parts of the State ; 
 that while in some districts they circulate largely, in oth- 
 ers they ffo not circulate at all. The effect of the prop- 
 
36 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ositionthen is, that we are to use the public money for the 
 benefit of a particular class of readers, the subscribers to 
 the city papers. This I think we should not do. I should 
 be glad to know, however, if I have understood this prop- 
 osition correctly. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. My friend from Alexandria 
 (Mr. Sxowden) either did not understand me, or he has 
 failed to respond to the inquiry which I made. The ques- 
 tion which I propounded related to a comparison of the 
 prices estimated in this report, with the prices at which 
 the printing of this Convention is done under contract. I 
 understand my friend from Alexandria to make the com- 
 parison between these prices and the prices at which the 
 public printing is done for the Legislature. Now we 
 know the prices at which that work is done. We know 
 the manner in which the contract for the legislative 
 printing has been entered into. We know how the pub- 
 lic printer of the State is appointed, by whom he is ap- 
 pointed, by whom his compensation is fixed, and how he 
 is paid. We know also that when this body, desirous of 
 having its printing done at a less cost, caused an adver- 
 tisement to be made for proposals, the contract was ta- 
 ken at prices greatly less th<*n the public printing of the 
 State is now and has for years been done. I desire to 
 know why it is that the printer for this Convention, 
 who has given, as I understand, abundant security for 
 the faithful performance of his duty, and who is now in 
 the actual discharge of these duties, can find it to his in- 
 terest to do this printing at a price reduced so much be- 
 low that at which the printing of these debates is pro- 
 posed to be done. It seems to me, as I said before, that 
 when we look to the fact that by means of the publica- 
 tion of these debates in their papers, in all probability a 
 much wider circulation will be given to the city press, 
 and a large number added to the list of their subscribers, 
 that the profit derived to them by this extended circula- 
 tion, in the shape of additional numbers of subscribers, 
 would put it in their power, and make it compatible with 
 their interest, to print the debates at a price at least as 
 low as those perform the work who now are engaged in 
 the public printing for this body. I agree entirely with 
 my friend from Alexandria, (Mr. Snowden,) and with 
 the committee, that the most feasible, if not the only 
 feasible mode by which the object which the Convention 
 has in view to communicate extensively information of 
 their proceedings, is to be accomplished, is by the circu- 
 lation of those proceedings by means of the political 
 press of this city. And if, as the gentleman from Pres- 
 ton (Mr. Brown) says, it will operate unequally among 
 the various sections of the State, that inequality is to be 
 guarded against or obviated by persons who desire in- 
 formation concerning our proceedings becoming subscri- 
 bers to these papers during the sessions oi this Conven- 
 tion. If they have not curiosity enough, or if they have 
 not desire enough to get information in regard to our pro- 
 ceedings, sufficient to cause them to become subscribers 
 for a limited time, for some one or other of the papers 
 published here, it does seem to me that they would not 
 have the interest or curiosity to read them if they were 
 furnished them gratis. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. I presume the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier will understand that in various parts of the State, 
 there are other papers taken and read than those pub- 
 lished in the city of Richmond. He will perceive there- 
 fore that those who take the papers of this city for their 
 general news, will have this extra information grati', 
 while those who take and are well supplied with other 
 papers, published at different points than Richmond, will 
 be compelled to subscribe for an additional paper from 
 the metropolis in order to obtain this information. This 
 they will have to do, when the regular eubscribers to the 
 metropolitan press get it thrust upon them even with- 
 out their asking for it. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. And it is for the reason, that 
 the people in all parts of the State will, in a measure, be 
 laid under obligation to subscribe for these papers, that I 
 think they can afford to do our printing cheaply. It is im- 
 possible for us, without an expenditure costing beyond 
 
 what will be justified by the occasion, to provide for the 
 publication of these debates in all the papers of the State. 
 But if we were to select a smaller number than those pro- 
 posed, we should put it in the power of all the people of 
 the Commonwealth, at a very small expense, to possess 
 themselves of the proceedings of this body. We cannot 
 give it to them all gratuitously, but by a very small ex- 
 pense, small when compared with the great object' in 
 view, we can put it in the power of all, at a very small 
 cost, to possess themselves of this valuable information.- 
 And when we do that, in my judgment, we do all that 
 can rightly be required of us. I adhere, therefore, to 
 the opinion, that the best form in which this circulation 
 can be procured, is through the medium of the papers 
 published here. But I do not see why the proprietors 
 of these papers cannot do this printing as cheaply as the 
 contractor who has given his bond to us does our other 
 printing. I presume that the political papers of Rich- 
 mond, if we fail to give them this contract, will scarcely 
 preserve a silence on the subject of the proceedings of 
 this Convention. They would be scarcely doing justice 
 to their readers, and they would find the consequence 
 of such a procedure visited upon them by a diminution 
 of their list of subscribers. I take it for granted, there- 
 fore, that whether we give them this contract or not, 
 that the leading papers of this city will, to a great ex- 
 tent, furnish their readers with the principal matter of 
 the debates here, And when I advocated, before the ad- 
 journment, the separation of the contract for the publi- 
 cation of the debates from the contract for reporting 
 them, it was in the expectation that the proprietors 
 of these papers would, in the interval of our recess, con- 
 fer together, consider this matter, and come to the con- 
 clusion that they would be enabled, in consideration of 
 the consequent increase of their list of subscribers, to do 
 this work at a small cost. But when I come to look at 
 the proposals embodied in this report, if I understand the 
 explanation of the chairman of the committee, they pro- 
 pose to do it at a cost, not only exceeding that at which 
 the printing for the Convention is done, but at a rate ac- 
 tually exceeding that given to the public printer of the 
 Commonwealth ! Under these circumstances, it does 
 seem to me that this matter ought to undergo some fur- 
 ther revision, and that through the agency of the com- 
 mittee who have made this report, further communica- 
 tion should be had with these proprietors, in order to 
 ascertain whether, in view of all the circumstances of the 
 case, they cannot do this work at a less price than they 
 now propose. 
 
 [Mr. Sheffey here yielded the chair to Mr. Watts.] 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I have no objection to the re-com- 
 mitment of this matter, if it be the judgment of this 
 Convention that the idea indicated by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) shall prevail — that is, that 
 this report shall be re-committed to the committee, for 
 further consultation with the editors and proprietors 
 of the six political papers in this city. I can assure 
 you, as far as I am concerned, I have been guided, as 
 I think every member of the committee was, by the 
 great consideration of diffusing as far as possible these 
 debates and proceedings through the great channels of 
 information, to the people of the Commonwealth. At 
 the short session two months ago, a resolution was 
 adopted by which the editors and proprietors of the po- 
 litical papers of the city of Richmond were requested 
 to submit their proposals for the publication and cir- 
 culation of the debates and proceedings of this body, 
 This proposition was made with the joint concurrence 
 of the proprietors of all the political papers of this 
 city, and we questioned the proprietors of these papers 
 in regard to the cost of publication and circulation. 
 I will not undertake to say any thing in regard to the 
 contract for the printing of the public documents by 
 the printer of this Convention. I only inform the mem- 
 bers of this Convention of afactwhich I received from 
 the proprietors of the political papers, that they pay 
 to the compositor for setting up the matter, within one 
 cent and a quarter a thousand ems, of the price the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 37 
 
 public printer receives for his entire compensation. 
 And they say that the public printer may take this con- 
 tract, so far as they are concerned, for they cannot do 
 it for less than the contract for your legislative print- 
 ing. Sixty-two and a half cents per thousand ems is 
 the contract price of the public printer to the General 
 Assembly. Sixty-five cents is charged in this case, 
 being two cents extra, and for what? Why, for the 
 trouble and cost of circulating per week 31,000 addi- 
 tional copies to their ordinary circulation. They will 
 be compelled, as the clerks in all the different offices 
 have informed me, to employ additional force in order 
 to circulate this matter, and the additional charge of 
 two and half cents will not pay for half this additional 
 labor. You have employed a stenographer at two hun- 
 dred and fifty dollars per week, and according to the 
 estimate made here for fifteen weeks the amount you 
 will pay to him is §3,750. The cost of publication, ac- 
 cording to this estimate, will amount to $10,594, mak- 
 ing about §14.000, for the reporting, publication, and 
 distribution of these documents through the channel 
 of the city papers, and the extra circulation of 2,700 
 copies of each number of the supplement. My friend 
 from the county of Preston (Mr. Brown) has stated, 
 that as a western member, he objects to the diffusion of 
 this information throughout that particular portion of 
 the State where the largest circulation of the city pa- 
 pers, he presumed, existed. I, as a western man, want 
 these papers to go into that very region of the Com- 
 monwealth. Our people, as has been stated on this 
 floor, 
 
 Mr. BROWN. If the gentleman will permit me, I 
 will say that I have no objection to this information 
 going to any part of the State. I raised the objec- 
 tion that it followed the city press wherever it might 
 go, and that it was connected with the metropolitan 
 press. I did not object to the information going to 
 any particular quarter of the country. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I agree perfectly with the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) that the agency of the 
 metropolitan press is the only agency we can employ 
 for the general circulation of these debates through- 
 out the Commonwealth. Suppose the proposition sub- 
 mitted was to employ the provincial press as it is call- 
 ed, could that press do the publication to half the ex- 
 tent required, even at a cost that would exhaust the 
 public treasury ? Why, no sir. Suppose you were to 
 send the reports of the proceedings to the Staunton 
 Spectator, Lynchburg Republican, to the Winchester, 
 the Clarksburg, and other papers? Why their circu- 
 lation is a hundred fold more limited than the city 
 circulation. If you were to employ any other medium 
 of circulation than the metropolitan press, giving 
 the debates the same circulation, you would swell the 
 cost to the Commonwealth to one or two hundred 
 thousand dollars. The question then is between that 
 plan, and the extra sheets to be issued from the press 
 of this city, and to be circulated by members of this 
 Convention. Now, I undertake to say, that my friend 
 from the county of Ohio (Mr. Jacob) would find 
 himself just in the same difficulty in distributing two 
 
 cheerfully acquiesce. I do not believe that the price 
 can be reduced, but I am perfectly willing as a mem- 
 ber of that committee to make the effort and do my 
 best to promote the public interests. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I ask the gentleman to with- 
 draw his motion and allow me to offer a substitute. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I withdraw the motion. 
 
 [Here Mr. Sheffet resumed the chair, which had 
 been temporarily occupied by Mr. Watts.] 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I offer the following substitute: 
 Strike out all after the word Resolved, and insert the 
 following : 
 
 " That the Secretary be authorized to contract for 
 the publication of 300 copies of the debates and pro- 
 ceediEgs of the Convention in pamphlet form, for the 
 use of the members." 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I now move to re-commit the report 
 and resolution, together with the amendment just of- 
 fered. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. I hope there will be no 
 difference of opinion in the Convention in regard to re- 
 committing this report, together with the amendment of- 
 fered by the gentleman from Franklin. (Mr. Claiborne.) 
 because I am perfectly satisfied that the more this sub- 
 ject is investigated, the more thoroughly the minds of 
 members will become convinced that the report of the 
 committee as it now stands, proposes the most efficient, 
 and at the same time the cheapest mode of distributing 
 this information throughout the Commonwealth. I wish 
 to make one remark in reply to what has fallen from 
 the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) in regard to 
 the expense attendant upon this plan. You are having 
 your printing done now at such rates, that I undertake 
 to prophecy here tc-day, and I beg gentlemen to bear 
 it in mind, that before the Convention adjourns, appli- 
 cation will be made either here or to the Legislature by 
 the printer to the Convention, for more pay than his con- 
 tract now gives him. You have contracted with him 
 that he shall do the work at thirty-five cents a thousand, 
 when the public printer to the Legislature is allowed 
 sixty -two and a half cents a thousand ; and, as was prop- 
 erly remarked a little while ago by the gentleman from 
 Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) the thirty-five cents is within a 
 cent and a half, certainly not exceeding two cents, of 
 the whole cost of setting up the type, without including 
 any other of the expenses of printing. This is an in- 
 stance of putting up printing to the lowest bidder, and 
 I think it is a strong evidence of the impropriety of 
 the system. The debates of the Convention are new be- 
 ing reported, and you are paying at the rate of §250 per 
 week for the last six days' reporting here ; and unless 
 you adopt some plan for their publication and distribu- 
 tion, I shall vote — although originally a decided advo- 
 cate of having the proceedings of the Convention report- 
 ed — to do away with the reporting. I have no idea of 
 paying that price, and at the end of the session after we 
 have got through and paid ?3,750 for 15 weeks' report- 
 ing, find left on our hands a mass of matter which will 
 not get before the people. If this reported matter is not 
 to go to the people for the purpose of informing them as 
 
 hundred as in distributing twenty copies 
 have to select his friends — his two hundred favorites 
 — in his district to supply with this matter, or have 
 numbers enough printed to supply every reading man 
 in his district. Again, I believe that every such 
 publication, unless issued as a supplement to an estab- 
 lished newspaper, will be chargeable with pamphlet 
 postage, to be paid either by your constituents, or 
 out of the public money by order of this Convention. 
 The postage upon this amount of matter, upon each 
 number, Avould more than make up the difference 
 betAveen the charge which these proprietors make 
 and the cost as estimated by other gentlemen. I have 
 no partiality in regard to this proposition, and if the 
 gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) desires to make 
 a motion to re-commit the report to the same committee , 
 in order that further conference mav be had with the 
 
 He would w ^ a * Ave are doing here, the contract becomes a to- 
 tally useless one. Before the question is taken on the 
 motion to re-commit, I ask the indulgence of the Conven- 
 tion for a moment while I refer briefly to the report of 
 the committee, for I am satisfied that if the minds of 
 members are once brought to its consideration, they will 
 be fully satisfied with the practical effect of the plan 
 which it proposes. The calculation is that 15,500 copies 
 of the reports of the debates are to be published semi- 
 weekly, making an aggregate of 31,000 copies weekly. 
 Now I put this question to every gentleman in the Con- 
 vention, can the wit of man devise any other mode by 
 which 31,000 copies of the debates of the Convention can 
 I be distributed in any single week ? Can you put this 
 information before the people at a less cost and with 
 I less trouble than is here proposed ? No, it cannot 
 I be done. It not onlv secures the information to the 
 
 proprietors of these papers to ascertain whether ! subscribers of the papers of the city, but it provides that 
 the price which is charged cannot be reduced, I shall '2700 copies shall be distributed semi-weekly, making 
 
38 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 5400 copies weekly, among the members of the Conven- 
 tion, for them to circulate among their constituents. 
 Twenty copies are to be distributed to each member 
 twice a week on the days on which the semi-weekly pa- 
 pers of the city are issued. Now from the district of 
 Norfolk— I take that district by way of example mere- 
 ly — there are five members, and into their hands, by this 
 arrangement, 100 copies of the reports of the debates are 
 placed for the purpose of distribution among their people. 
 This, it will be remembered, is in addition to the circulation 
 given them by the city press through their regular sub- 
 scribers, If gentlemen desire more copies, if they 
 desire to double the number they shall receive, the ex- 
 pense will not be very greatly increased. They can then 
 take their 40 copies if they please, and the publisher 
 will forward them to such persons as the members may 
 direct. And if the gentleman from Preston (Mr. Brown ) 
 who has objected to this plan as giving only a partial 
 distribution, will submit an amendment providing that 
 that there shall be sent to one or more of the papers in 
 his district, regularly, a number of copies correspond 
 ing with the amount of their circulation, I will vote for it. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. (In his seat.) So will I. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. I am willing to put the 
 press of the gentleman's district on the same footing pre- 
 cisely with the press of the district from which I come. 
 Then let the gentleman designate the papers, let him 
 give the number of their circulation, and then let the 
 copies of the supplement be sent them by mail. If he 
 will make that proposition I will vote for it, for I desire 
 of all things, if this scheme is to be executed at all, that 
 it shall be thoroughly executed, and this information be 
 diffused throughout every quarter of the Commonwealth. 
 I have submitted these considerations for the reflection 
 of gentlemen before this question shall come up, because 
 I trust that when it does come up again, we shall pass 
 upon it finally, for until we do so, there is nothing con- 
 nected with this matter that is certain and fixed. I will, 
 before I conclude, add another remark in reply to the in- 
 quiry of the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) I 
 do not believe there is among the political press of Rich- 
 mond, an establishment, besides that of Mr. Gallaher's, 
 that can do the work. I am satisfied that neither the 
 "Examiner," "Enquirer," "Whig," nor any other political 
 paper of this city, possesses the means of doing this work, 
 and that Mr. Gallaher's is the only establishment among 
 them that can do the work efficiently and properly. I 
 prefer therefore to contract with him, yet I will not do 
 anything that will look like pressing the question pre- 
 maturely upon the Convention. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I desire very briefly to give my 
 reasons for offering an amendment to the report of the 
 committee. When this question was under discussion 
 before the adjournment of the Convention, the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) remarked, that he was 
 not willing to discriminate among his constituents. This 
 is my principal reason for voting against the report of 
 the committee. I am not willing to discriminate in fa- 
 vor of twenty of my constituents, and against twelve 
 hundred and eighty. The county in which I live, alone 
 of my district, has thirteen hundred voters. I am to 
 receive by this report, twenty copies semi- weekly, of the 
 supplement containing the debates and proceedings of 
 the Convention, and if I furnish these twenty copies to 
 twenty of my constituents, I shall be obliged to discri- 
 minate in favor of twenty particular ones, against the re- 
 maining 1280. I must either do this, or send the pro- 
 ceedings to them by piece-meal— sending one uumber of 
 the supplement on one day to one man, and another, 
 and a different number, on the next day, to another man, 
 and so on, until every man in my district may perhaps 
 be supplied with an unconnected fragment of our debates. 
 This, in my humble opinion, would be worse than no- 
 thing. Now I presume, that the 15,500 copies of the 
 political papers of this metropolis that now go out into 
 the State twice every week, will, in any event, contain, 
 if not a full report of the debates of this Convention, at 
 least a sketch of the most important of what has been 
 
 done here. I take it for granted that every press in this 
 Commonwealth, copying from the first Richmond paper 
 that reaches it, will give to its readers a history of all 
 that is transpiring in the Convention. I presume that 
 those who subscribe to those papers, are entitled to that 
 much at the hands of their editors ; and I take it for grant- 
 ed that they will get it, without our being called upon 
 to pay $10,000 for the purpose of enabling these gentle- 
 men to furnish matter to their readers that they are 
 bound to furnish them. I do not care about sending to 
 the peoj)le of Virginia a part of the report of our pro- 
 ceedings unless we could send them all. I am not wil- 
 ling to send one number one week to one man, and ano- 
 ther number another week to another man. I am not 
 willing to furnish one man with information upon the 
 legislative department, another upon the executive, and 
 the third upon the judicial department. I am not wil- 
 ling to send a copy of this supplement, containing the 
 debates of this body for the last four days, to any man 
 in my district. And although I do not doubt that I have 
 participated as much as any member in those debates, 
 yet I have no desire that the discussion should reach the 
 eye of a single solitary individual in the district I repre- 
 sent. I presume, notwithstanding I give this body cre- 
 dit for more intelligence, patriotism and judgment, than 
 my friend from Orange, (Mr. Woolfolk,) that the peo- 
 ple do not desire to see every thing that will be uttered 
 while we are in session. My proposition is, to print 300 
 copies of the debates and proceedings of this Convention, 
 semi- weekly, in pamphlet form, for the use of the mem- 
 bers of the Convention. I propose to give each member 
 a copy for his own use, and not for the purpose of send- 
 ing home. I do not propose to send them home and 
 oblige gentlemen to discriminate among their consitu- 
 ents, but to preserve them either for their own use here, 
 or to carry home after the session has closed. I voted 
 for the appointment of a stenographer, and I will not 
 retrace my steps upon that subject. I desire that the 
 debates of this body should be preserved, and even if 
 they should be found to turn out perfectly worthless, 
 when we build another monument to the memory of 
 Washington, they will do to put among other documents 
 to be deposited in the corner stone, or to preserve among 
 the archives of the State. It is just and it is right, that 
 they should be deposited in the libraries of the State 
 and in the archives of the Commonwealth, and I am wil- 
 ling to pay the price we have agreed to pay the stenog- 
 rapher, for the purpose of placing them there. How 
 can you adopt any plan by which you can send this in- 
 formation to the country, without forcing me, and for- 
 cing other members of this Convention, to discriminate 
 in favor of one portion, against another portion of our 
 constituents ? Suppose we adopt this plan, what will be 
 its practical operation, taking my own case as an illustra- 
 tion ? I shall receive, during a session of fifteen weeks, 
 600 copies of the semi-weekly supplement, and if I 
 were to circulate the whole of them only in the county 
 of Franklin, leaving out the balance of my district, and 
 send each copy to a different individual, still I should 
 only be able to supply less than one-half of my consti- 
 tuents. I ask gentlemen if there is any good to grow 
 out of this thing, and if it is not, therefore, an utter 
 waste of money ? I am the last man in the world to 
 stand back for a few dollars, and if a proposition shall 
 be introduced to furnish every man in this Common- 
 wealth with this supplement, cost what it will, I am 
 prepared to vote for it. If w T e are to go into this busi- 
 ness at all, we ought to furnish the whole people with the 
 information, and not discriminate in favor of a part. But 
 I think the people would be satisfied if we go to work 
 and prepare a Constitution for them. No body intends 
 that they shall gulp down the Constitution without look- 
 ing at it, or that the vote shall be taken upon the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution the day after the Convention 
 adjourns; but we propose to give time to the people to 
 examine it, give time to the papers of the State to ex- 
 press an opinion upon it, and to give the members of the 
 Convention an opportunity to go home and tell their tale 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 3 f J 
 
 with regard to the reforms proposed. For one, I trust 
 that ample time and opportunity will be afforded the 
 people to pass judgment upon the Constitution adopted 
 by this Convention, before they shall be called upon to 
 give their final vote for or against its ratification. I ask, 
 then, if we are to expend the public money in this way, 
 whether the price we shall have to pay, and the number 
 of copies we are to receive of this supplement, will jus- 
 tify us in discriminating among our constituents, or an- 
 swer the purposes which the committee intended ? 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I desire to say a word or two, more es- 
 pecially as I have had some hand in exciting this discus- 
 sion and opposition to the report of the committee. I 
 desire to say to the gentleman from Richmond city, (Mr. 
 Scott,) that my hostility to the report grows out of no 
 hostility to the city press — the metropolitan press as it 
 is called by some. I have no feelings of that kind what- 
 ever. There is a homely proverb which illustrates my 
 view of that subject. It is this : " The shoemaker's wife 
 is always the worst shod of any woman in the parish. " 
 I have found in regard to the city of Richmond, so far 
 as my experience has gone, that she gets as few favors 
 as any other portion of the Commonwealth. I have no 
 difficulties on that score, therefore, but, it is true that 
 I am not willing, at the public expense, to do that which 
 in fact does little more than facilitate the circulation of 
 the report of our proceedings and debates among the 
 present readers of the metropolitan press. That was the 
 true foundation of my objection at the time. If, howev- 
 er, you cannot devise any other plan effectual for circu- 
 lating a history of what we do and say, among the peo- 
 ple, then I will submit to it. But I am under the im- 
 pression that something more can be done, and indeed 
 that so far as spreading this information among the pre- 
 sent readers of the city press is concerned, it can be done 
 without aiy public expense. I am not old, though some 
 people think I am, [laughter] yet I am old enough to re- 
 member the proceedings of a Convention that held its 
 sessions here 20 years ago. I recollect the discussions 
 had in that body, and I thought before the country was 
 agitated in reference to this present Convention that I 
 remembered pretty well the debates of that body. It is 
 true, after the close of its sessions I bought a volume of 
 the debates at one of the bqpk-stores in the country, but 
 I never looked into it until within the last ninety days. 
 When I did take up the book and commenced reading the 
 debates, I found that my general information of what was 
 done in that body was quite correct. Where did I get 
 it ? From one of the Richmond papers — the Richmond 
 Enquirer. And if I am not misinformed, the publication 
 of the debates of that Convention cost the public no- 
 thing. 
 
 A MEMBER. But the printer lost a great deal of mo- 
 ney by its publication. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. Now, I was under the impression — 
 though that impression maybe wrong — that when we em- 
 ployed a stenographer to report our proceedings, some 
 plan could be devised by which our reports might be pub- 
 lished in the newspapers here and elsewhere — they thank- 
 fully receiving them from us — without our paying the full 
 price for their printing. Such impressions were on my 
 mind. They may be wrong, but still I think there is some- 
 thing in them. Again, I have moved a re-commitment of 
 the report to the committee, and among other reasons, for 
 the following : I was in hopes that the committee might 
 not only be able to enter into a new arrangement of some 
 kind which would cost less, greatly less than that now pro- 
 posed, but possibly some discrimination might be made 
 as to what should and what should not be published. 
 Now, for instance, as has been remarked by the member 
 over the way, in his seat, the proceedings of this body 
 for the last six days, have clearly been of no importance 
 to the public, and there was no use, so far as I can see, 
 of their making six solid columns. I do not know that 
 we can discriminate, and yet I can well imagine that the 
 Convention might devise some plan by which the volume 
 of the reports might be reduced one half at least. I 
 wish time also to consider that proposition. As to the 
 
 remark of the gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) 
 that I would find as much difficulty in circulating 200 
 newspapers as 20, so far as my constituents were con- 
 cerned, I have this to say : In the first place I.objectedto 
 the 20 copies not with the expectation that I was going' 
 to get 200. Not at all. But if you will give me the 200 
 copies, I think I can show that my constituents will be 
 pretty well provided for. There are about 4000 voters 
 in the District which I, in part, represent, and there arc 
 four of us to represent it. If we each send 200 copies, 
 making 800 in all, we can send a copy into each neigh 
 borhood of four or five, and thus give every man in the 
 district an opportunity of reading it, and of thoroughly 
 understanding what we are doing here. I should desire 
 to give every opportunity to all classes in the District to 
 read the account of our proceedings, but I beg leave to 
 say that my object in objecting to the resolution of the 
 committee was not to secure the 200 copies, or the adop- 
 tion of the plan I have indicated. My objection to it 
 was, that I did not wish to be obliged to discriminate in 
 favor of a small portion of my constituents and against 
 all the residue. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall. I do not rise to make a speech 
 on this question, but merely for the purpose of giving 
 the Convention some information in relation to the dif- 
 ferences in the prices proposed for this printing and that 
 which has been contracted for with the printer to this 
 body, and the reasons for the difference, as they strike 
 my mind. I do so in answer to the gentleman from Fau- 
 quer, (Mr. Scott,) who wishes to know why it is that al- 
 most double the price is proposed to be charged for this 
 printing that is charged for the printing done for this 
 Convention under the contract. I will state a fact that 
 may not be known to every member of this body. The 
 printer to this Convention if he prints a resolution 
 of three lines on a page, is entitled, I believe, to pay 
 for the whole page. Hence he can print these three 
 lines cheaper than the whole page. In addition to 
 that, I understand, our printer, in order to make up 
 the deficiency of his contract — a deficiency which must 
 be apparent to every practical man — prints, perhaps a 
 resolution, on one page of a sheet, doubles the sheet to- 
 gether, and charges the Convention for every page in it, 
 blank and all. This is evidently for the purpose of ma- 
 king up the deficiency in his bid for public printing. It 
 remains to be seen whether this Convention will agree to 
 the payment of those charges, but this should satisfy ev- 
 ery member of the Convention and every man acquainted 
 with printing, that they are intended to cover the defi- 
 ciency in the bid. I am satisfied from the best informa- 
 tion I am able to obtain as a member of the committee 
 that this printing is proposed to be done as cheap as it 
 can be done by the press of this or any other city, and if 
 this information is to go among the people at all, it must 
 go in some such form as this. The people of Virginia 
 are to be denied the privilege of knowing what is trans- 
 piring in this body, and, according to the proposition of 
 the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Claibornk,) the reports 
 of our proceedings are to be preserved in bound volumes 
 and laid among the dusty archives of the State. And 
 for what purpose ? For that of enlightening the public 
 mind ? No — but for the purpose of concealing from 
 the public mind, as it were, a knowledge of our proceed- 
 ings. I do not object to a full and fair report of our 
 proceedings, for the last three or four days, going before 
 the people of Virginia. It has not been very interesting 
 to us, but it must be interesting to every reader in the 
 Commonwealth to know what is going on here, and why 
 this delay in the prosecution of the work for which we 
 were convened ? I have no objection to re-commit this 
 
 report to the committee, and I am willing that we shall 
 avail ourselves of all the means that can be furnished us 
 to ascertain whether a cheaper and more efficient plan 
 can be procured for the dissemination of this informa- 
 tion, but I am utterly opposed to suppressing this matter 
 and depriving the people of Virginia of the fullest and 
 most accurate account of our proceedings here. I hope 
 that the report will be re-committed, and I have made 
 
40 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 this statement of facts merely with a view to unde 
 ceive the minds of the members of the Convention as 
 to this matter of charges for the public printing, and to 
 6how why more is charged for doing this work than is 
 received by the printer to the Convention according to 
 his contract. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I am not satisfied either that any 
 good can result from the re-commitment of this report, 
 or that the motion itself is in order. I understand the 
 motion is to re-commit without instructions, that is, mere- 
 ly to send the report back to the committee, who have 
 already duly and fully considered the subject, and pre- 
 sented" this report as the result of their deliberations. 
 Now I apprehend that the committee will do no more 
 than they have done, if the motion to re-commit should 
 prevail. This report is the result of their judgment, of 
 their deliberations, and the best they could do, and if we 
 send it back to them, they will, I suppose, report back to 
 us nearly the same thing again. I rose to inquire, hoAV- 
 ever, whether tin's was not a select committee, appoint- 
 ed expressly to consider this subject? If it was, and 
 there can be no doubt about it, the parliamentary rule 
 upon the subject is, that a select committee appointed 
 to consider any particular subject, is, from the time it 
 reports, absolutely dissolved, and cannot again act with- 
 out an express vote of the House reviving its authority. 
 [He read from Scob. 51, and Grey 4, 361, to sustain his 
 view.] 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee did not 
 report fully, but only in part. They designed to make a 
 further report in respect to the Register of Debates. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. That fact, of course, removes the 
 case entirely from the application of the parliamentary 
 rule to which I referred. Still, it seems to me, that we 
 are going backwards and forwards in relation to this mat- 
 ter, more than is necessary. I prefer the motion of the 
 gentleman from Morgan (Mr. Stewart) to lay the mat- 
 ter on the table, so that members may have time to con- 
 sider the subject and get all the information they can, 
 in relation to it; and I will therefore renew the motion 
 to lay the whole subject on the table for the present. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. Will the gentleman withdraw that 
 motion for a moment ? 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. With pleasure, sir. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. I am in favor of a very liberal scheme 
 of printing and distributing the debates and proceedings 
 of this Convention, and I am willing to pay therefor a 
 reasonable compensation, but I think we should consider 
 well the exact nature of any contract that we may make. 
 Entertaining this view, I am in favor of re committing 
 this report to the committee from which it emanated, 
 but I agree with the gentleman from Powhatan, (Mr. 
 Hopkins,) that we ought to give the committee some in- 
 structions in relation to their action. I have, therefore, 
 drawn up some instructions which I propose to offer to 
 the committee, and which I will read for the information 
 of the Convention. My proposition is, to strike out all 
 after the word " resolved," in the resolutions of instruc- 
 tion proposed by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. 
 Claiborne,) and substitue in lieu thereof, the following: 
 
 Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Printing 
 and Publishing the Debates and Proceedings of the Con- 
 vention, be re-committed to the said committee, with in- 
 structions to consider of a plan for printing said debates 
 and proceedings in a suitable form for binding and pre- 
 servation, and for furnishing the country press with co- 
 pies thereof for distribution amongst their subscribers — 
 and to ascertain and report a proper division of the 
 2700 extra copies among the members of the Conven- 
 tion, acccording to the number of voters in their respec- 
 tive districts. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proper motion will 
 be to re-commit the report and resolutions, with the in- 
 structions proposed. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. I will make that motion them 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I will merely remind the Convention, 
 that if this subject be re-committed to the committee, 
 tksy will perhaps have it under consideration, for several 
 
 days, when they will report it back to the Convention 
 in probably the same form in which it now exists, and a 
 debate arise upon it in which several days will, it is like- 
 ly, be consumed. I have consulted with the chairman of 
 the committee, since I made the motion to lay the sub- 
 ject on the table, and he informs me, as he has before 
 stated to the Convention, that the committee have tho- 
 roughly considered the matter in all its bearings, and 
 have submitted this report as the result of their best de- 
 liberation and soundest judgment. It seems to me, then, 
 that we had better adopt the suggestion of the gentle- 
 man from Morgan, (Mr. Stewart,) and lay the whole 
 subject on the table, and permit members to consi- 
 der upon it until Monday. Then we can again take it 
 up and dispose of it, probably, in a few moments. This 
 course, I think, will greatly facilitate the dispatch of the 
 business, while, to refer the subject back again to the 
 committee, will be attended with great delay. I there- 
 fore again renew the motion to lay the whole subject on 
 the table. 
 
 The question being then taken, the motion to lay on 
 the table was agreed to. 
 
 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I move that when the Convention 
 adjourns to-day, it be to meet at the Universalist church 
 on Wednesday, the 15th inst., at 12 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I hope the Convention will not de- 
 termine to adjourn from this hall to any other, until it 
 is compelled to do so, but that it will continue its ses- 
 sions here until the committees are ready to report. 
 Until then, it will not be required of us to meet more 
 than one hour each day, and that will give ample time 
 and opportunity for such gentlemen as may desire, to ex- 
 ercise their speaking talent, preparatory to the discus- 
 sions of the great questions w 7 hich are to come before us. 
 As for the Universalist church, I doubt if many members 
 know where it is. It is the next thing to the • 'jumping 
 off place," so far as Richmond is concerned — at all events, 
 you have to get pretty well out of Richmond to find it. 
 [Laughter.] I hope, until the committees are ready to 
 report, at any rate, this Convention will hold its sessions 
 here. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. The hour of 12 is now striking, and I 
 move that the Convention adjourn. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the gentleman 
 withdraw his motion until a report from the 1st Audi- 
 tor is communicated to the Convention ? 
 Mr. BOCOCK. Certainly sir. 
 
 REPORT OF THE FIRST AUDITOR CENSUS RETURNS, AC. 
 
 The following communication from the first Auditor, 
 was then read by the Secretary: 
 
 Auditor's Office ) 
 Richmond, Jan. lltb, 1851. f 
 SiR: Since the date of my last communication, (during 
 the recess of the Convention) I have furnished to the Sec- 
 retary of the Convention, as required by resolution of 
 that body, a "corrected table showing the amount that 
 would be pava^e bv each county, city, and town, under 
 the recent assessment of lands, at the rate of * axation 
 now prescribed by law ;" also a table showing " the 
 amount of taxes accruing on each subject of taxation, for 
 the year 1850 ;" also a table showing "the disbursements 
 through this office, from the first day of October, 1849, 
 to the 30th day of September, 1850 inclusive, clasr-ified 
 as far a9 practicable by counties, cities and grand divis- 
 ions." The tabular statement showing the free white, 
 free colored, and slave population of each county, city and 
 town of this Commonwealth in the years 1790, 1800, 
 1810, 1820, 1830, 1840 and 1850," is complete except as to 
 population in 1850 of the counties of Stafford, Isle of 
 Wight, Lunenburg, Halifax and Patrick. I have fur- 
 nished to the printer of the Convention, with the consent 
 of the Secretary, the two completed divisions of this ta- 
 ble, and will furnish him with the other two divisions, in 
 their incomplete condition as soon as he desires to go to 
 work on them, with the expectation of being able to fill up 
 the blanke before fee is ready to pt.rike off tbe document 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 41 
 
 I have pursued this course that there may be as little 
 delay as possible after completing the table in furnish- 
 ing it to the Convention for the use of its members. 
 With high respect, I am your obedient servant, 
 
 Ro/ Johnson, First Auditor. 
 Hon. John Y. Mason, President of Va. State Convention, 
 The question was then on the motion of Mr. Claiborne 
 to adjourn until Wednesday next, which motion that 
 gentleman "withdrew at the request of Mr. Floyd. 
 
 DECLINATION OF SERVICE ON A COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. FLOYD. I ask to be excused from further ser- 
 vice on the Executive Committee, as I have been ap- 
 pointed to fill a vacancy in the Committee on the Basis 
 and Apportionment of Representation. 
 
 The Convention excused Mr. F. as requested by him. 
 
 FILLING OF A VACANCY IN A COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. FLOYD. I have a colleague who is the only mem- 
 ber of this body whose services are not required on any 
 committee, and I would suggest that he (Mr. Trigg) be 
 placed on the Executive Committee, to fill the vacancy 
 occasioned by my resignation. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Trigg was ac- 
 cordingly appointed a member of the Executive Com 
 mittee. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier, the Convention 
 adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 MONDAY, January 13, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 The journal of the proceedings of Saturday was read 
 and approved. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN moved that the report of the com- 
 mittee on printing the debates and proceedings of the 
 Convention, be now taken up for consideration. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated the question to be on the 
 resolution proposed by Mr. Camden as a substitute for 
 the resolution of instruction to the committee on print- 
 ing, proposed on Saturday by Mr. Claiborne. 
 
 Mr. Claiborne's resolution was read as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary be authorized to con- 
 tract for the publication of three hundred copies of 
 the debates and proceedings of the Convention in 
 pamphlet form, for the use of the members. 
 
 Mr. Camden's substitute for the above was read as 
 follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Print- 
 ing and Publishing the Debates and Proceedings of the 
 Convention, be re-committed to said committee with 
 instructions to consider of a plan for printing said de- 
 bates and proceedings in a suitable form for binding 
 and preservation, and for furnishing the country press 
 with copies thereof for distribution amongst their sub- 
 scribers — and to ascertain and report a proper division 
 of the 2700 extra copies among the members of the 
 Convention according to the number of voters in their 
 respective districts. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. My object in submitting the amend- 
 ment was to have the proceedings of the Convention 
 printed in a suitable form for binding and preservation. 
 1 learn, however, that this is not to be effected except 
 at a very heavy additional expense, an expense which 
 T am not willing to incur — 
 
 Mr. STEWART. Tf the gentleman from Harrison 
 (Mr. Camden) will allow me a moment 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. Certainly sir. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. In regard to this question of print- 
 ing, I have been animated solely by a desire to get at 
 the best scheme and to do justice to all parties, — to 
 ourselves and to the different gentlemen offering com 
 peting propositions here. I beg leave to send to the 
 Chair the following paper, and ask that it may be read, 
 when the gentleman from Harrison can judge whether 
 it meets his views or not. 
 
 The Secretary then read the paper referred to, as 
 follows : 
 
 To the Hon. the President and Members of the Convention: 
 The undersigned, in November last, proposed to pub- 
 lish the proceedings and debates of your honorable 
 body, in a Conventional Register, on the plan of the 
 Congressional Globe. Believing still that this plan 
 combines advantages, in a very great degree, over any 
 other plan which has been submitted, we beg leave to 
 renew our proposition for the publication in that form. 
 It is a form, which, while it accomplishes fully all the 
 purposes of the newspaper supplement, recommended 
 by a committee of your body, will, at the same time, 
 be a convenient form for binding into a book of neat 
 and portable size, for the use of libraries, offices, &c, 
 at the close of the publication. We have caused to be 
 placed on your Secretary's table, a book, as a speci- 
 men of the size and form which we allude to, to 
 which we invite your attention. It is, we repeat, a 
 convenient and enduring form, which all who receive 
 the paper, can have bound up as soon as the publica- 
 tion shall be completed, into an admirable, and cer- 
 tainly valuable book. If printed in large, unwieldy, 
 newspaper supplemental sheets, the probability is, that 
 few, if any, will ever assume the form of a book, but 
 that they will most likely be blown and scattered about 
 like the leaves of the forest. 
 
 We, therefore, propose to your honorable body, to 
 print the Register in quarto form. (We do not be- 
 lieve, in view of the many grave and important sub- 
 jects which you have to deliberate upon and discuss, 
 that the proceedings and debates of your body could 
 be embraced in a book of smaller size ; that is to say, 
 in one volume of octavo form ; and it certainly is de- 
 sirable that the whole should be embraced in one book.) 
 We propose to furnish, if desired, such newspapers as 
 may be designated, Avith any number of copies for dis- 
 tribution with their papers, as extras ; to furnish, if 
 required, the members of your body with any specified 
 number of copies ; or to comply with such regulations 
 in regard thereto, as you may think proper to adopt. 
 And this we propose to do on the following terms : 
 50 cents per thousand ems for the composition, 
 50 cents per token for the press work — and 
 $ 4 per ream for the paper. 
 
 These are rates, below which the work cannot be 
 done neatly, correctly and properly in all respects, 
 without a sacrifice. We propose to print the Register 
 in a larger and plainer type than is contained in the 
 book which we present as a specimen. 
 
 We are prepared to execute the work as rapidly, and 
 in as good style, as it can be done in any office in Vir- 
 ginia. 
 
 All of which is most respectfully submitted. 
 
 John J. Palmer, 
 Colin, Baptist & Nolan. 
 
 Richmond, Jan. 13, 1851. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. I was stating to the Convention, when 
 I was up before, that I had supposed that to print these 
 debates in a form suitable for binding, would cost much 
 more than I was, for one, prepared for, and I was 
 about to ask leave of the Convention to withdraw the 
 proposition I submitted on Saturday. The proposition 
 that has just been read, however, may change my vote, 
 if I an* satisfied that it is practicable to print these de- 
 bates in the form indicated at no additional expense. 
 This matter of printing, however, is one with which I 
 am wholly unacquainted, and I can therefore form no 
 opinion with reference to the probable cost of the two 
 propositions. If I am satisfied that it can be printed in 
 the form I desire, at the same, or with but little addi- 
 tional expense, I should prefer it. For the present, there- 
 fore, I will make no motion on the subject. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. I hope the gentleman will not with- 
 draw his motion, but that this whole subject, including 
 all the propositions and resolutions submitted, will be 
 re-committed to the select committee for further exami- 
 nation and report. I sm satisfied that the proposition 
 which has just been read to the Convention is about the 
 best we have had. It is the one I submitted to this Con- 
 vention before we adjom-ned for the recess, on the last 
 
4:2 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM COVNENTION. 
 
 day of our meeting, and which went by the board amid 
 the hurly-burly which prevailed here on that day. The 
 only object I have, for I care not who gets this printing, 
 is that we may get our work done right, in a creditable 
 manner, and in some portable, neat style, which will 
 enable us to have it bound in book form, as well as 
 to send to our constituents and enable them to do the 
 same. This supplement, it is manifest, can never be of 
 any use in that way, for it will be so unwieldy that the 
 people will never have it bound up. And if we do or- 
 der these 15,000 or 30,000 copies — which will only serve 
 a temporary purpose, and then, it is most likely, be used 
 for waste paper — they will, the greater part of them, 
 be distributed in Eastern Virginia, for, by the best cal- 
 culation that can be made, not more than 4,000 of them 
 will go West of the Blue Ridge. Now the idea that we 
 might thus prevail on the public mind in that quarter to 
 listen to the arguments in favor of the white basis, I 
 have taken into consideration, yet at the same time, 
 while the white basis has a large majority in its favor 
 west of the mountains, we are not afraid to have the ar- 
 guments in favor of the mixed basis go there, but rather 
 wish them to go there. And I wish all the arguments 
 on all questions to go before the people ; and if we are 
 to expend the public money in having our debates pub- 
 lished at all, I ask that it may be done in some manner 
 and in such a shape as will be creditable to this body and 
 to the city of Richmond also. For that reason, I do not 
 believe there is any necessity for our being in great 
 haste in this matter. It is better that we should take 
 the thing calmly and considerately, and frame some plan 
 which will enable us to have the work done as it ought 
 to be. I hope, therefore, that this whole subject will be 
 re-committed to the committee, and that the proposition 
 just read will also go before them for consideration. I 
 care not, I repeat, who gets this printing, so long as it is 
 done creditably. The gentleman who is at the head of 
 this s upplement publication proposes also to publish a 
 register of the debates in the form of the Congressional 
 Globe ; other gentlemen have proposed the same thing, 
 and with that form I am satisfied the Convention will be 
 better suited than with the supplement. This plan 
 seems to have been adopted for the accommodation of 
 the different papers here, but does it accommodate them ? 
 Does it send the debates regularly by the mails ? I am 
 informed that it does not, and that it is impossible to 
 print the full quantity of supplements in time for the 
 mails. I ask that if any gentleman has any information 
 on the subject he will give it to the Convention. We 
 have not come here to play into the hands of any one, 
 and it is our duty to give this information to all, without 
 favor. Let us have this work done in a manner that will 
 accommodate the Convention and the people ; and I am 
 satisfied that we shall do this if we have it published in 
 some such form as the Congressional Globe. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I suppose I will be in order to move 
 to re-commit the whole subject, including the report 
 of the committee and every thing relating to it. This 
 is a subject upon which I have very little information, 
 but I desire to publish our debates, and I prefer doing 
 it on the cheapest plan. A new proposition has come 
 in this morning, and I think the Committee on Printing 
 ought to take it into consideration. I therefore move 
 that the whole subject and every thing appertaining to 
 it, be re-committed to the committee. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The proposition of the gentle- 
 man from Harrison (Mr. Camden) is not in the form 
 of an amendment. It is a proposition to re-commit 
 with instructions, and the motion just made is to re- 
 commit without instructions. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. Under these circumstances I will 
 withdraw the instructions. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The motion to re-commit with 
 instructio is being withdrawn, the question would be on 
 the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. 
 Claiborne,) but the gentleman from Greenbrier moves 
 the re-commitment of the whole subject. 
 
 The motion to re-commit was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. PRI^E. As we seem to have no business to 
 transact I suppose our sitting here will be productive 
 of very little good, and I therefore move that the Con- 
 vention adjourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to — 
 _ And the Convention adjourned until to-morrow morn- 
 ing at 10 o'clock. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 14, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Doggett, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The Journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 1 
 
 THE INDIAN TRIBES OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I have a resolution which I ask to 
 have printed and referred to the Legislative Committee. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Bill of Rights be 
 instructed to inquire and report if anv, and what provi- 
 sions are necessary to be inserted in the new Constitu- 
 tion, concerning the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Indians or 
 any other remnants of the old tributary Indians, who 
 may be still remaining in this Commonwealth. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The Legislative Committee, as gentle- 
 men must be aware, has already had too much referred 
 to it, and this proposition, I think, ought to be referred 
 to some other committee. I do not see that the duties 
 of the Legislative Committee have any proper connec- 
 tion with the tribes of Indians. 
 
 Mr. ^DOUGLAS. I had supposed that this subject 
 might be taken into consideration together with the sub- 
 ject of free negroes. The Indian tribes, I am aware, are 
 entitled to certain immunities, but there are very few 
 persons except mulattoes and free negroes in the two 
 Indian towns in King William county. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I move to amend the resolution by 
 striking out the words "Legislative Committee," and in- 
 serting in lieu thereof, the words " Committee on the Bill 
 of Rights." As has been suggested to me with very 
 great propriety, there is no people under the sun whose 
 rights have been more outrageously abused than the In- 
 dians, and therefore, it is very proper that the commit- 
 tee on the natural rights of man should take the subject 
 under their consideration. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I will accept the amendment of 
 the gentleman from Mecklenburg, (Mr. Goode.) 
 
 The resolution was modified accordingly and referred 
 to the Committee on the Bill of Rights. The Convention 
 however, refused to print it. 
 
 LIQUIDATION OF, AND LEGISLATIVE POWER TO CREATE, STATE 
 DEBT. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH. I desire to offer a series of resolu- 
 tions, which I ask may be printed and referred to the 
 appropriate committee. They are as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the following resolutions be referred to 
 the Committee on the Legislative Department of the Go- 
 vernment for inquiry and report. 
 
 Resolved, That there shall be set apart annually, by the 
 Auditor and disbursing officers of the Treasury, from the 
 revenue accruing from taxation and the fund for inter- 
 nal improvements, a sum equal to eight per cent, of the 
 State debt existing on the 1st day of January, 1852. 
 The fund thus set apart shall be called the sinking fund, 
 and shall be set aside and applied by the officers afore- 
 said, to the payment of the interest of the State debt 
 and the principal of such part as may be redeemable. If 
 no part be redeemable, then the residue of the sinking 
 fund, after the payment of interest, shall be invested in 
 the bonds or certificates of debt of this Commonwealth, 
 or of the United States, or of some of the states of this 
 Union, and applied to the payment of the State debt, as 
 it shall become redeemable. For the purpose of setting 
 apart, making and superintending this investment, the 
 said officers shall constitute a board, with all necessary 
 power to carry into effect this article, the organization of 
 which board may be prescribed by law. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 43 
 
 Whenever a debt shall be contracted after the first 
 day of January, 1852, the said officers shall, in like man- 
 ner, set apart, annually, for 24 years, a sum equal to 
 eight per cent, of the debt, at the time of its contraction, 
 for the space of 24 years from that time, which sum 
 shall be a part of the sinking fund, and shall be applied 
 in the manner before directed. The revenue thus appro- 
 priated, shall not be subject to appropriation by the Le- 
 gislature, except in time of war, insurrection or invasion. 
 
 2nd. Resolved, That the Legislature shall not pledge 
 the faith of the State, or bind it, in any form, for the 
 debts or obligations of any company or corporation 
 whatever. 
 
 3rd. Resolved, That the Legislature shall not contract 
 loans, or cause to be issued certificates of debt, or bonds 
 of the State, irredeemable at the pleasure of the State, 
 for a period greater than twenty-four years. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. This is a subject which has attract- 
 ed much attention out of, as well as in the Convention, 
 and as it is one of very great importance, I move that 
 the resolutions be printed. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. That is the motion already before 
 the Convention. 
 
 Mr. STROTHER. I would suggest to the mover of 
 these resolutions, that they be laid on the table and print- 
 ed. I should like to have an opportunity to examine 
 them and see what they are, in order to determine on 
 the question of reference. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I would suggest to my friend from Rap- 
 pahannock, (Mr. Strother,) if it be allowable to say a 
 word pending a motion to lay on the table — 
 
 Mr. STROTHER. I will withdraw the motion, sir. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I desired to say, that this subject is al- 
 ready under consideration in one of the committees in 
 this body, but it has been deemed as one of sufficient 
 magnitude to present to the consideration of the mem- 
 bers generally, and I would therefore suggest to the mo- 
 ver, the propriety of having his resolutions printed, so 
 that the attention ot members generally, may be direct- 
 ed to the subject. The committee have already acted on 
 the question to some extent, and i would prefer that 
 these resolutions should also be referred to them. And 
 if they be thus disposed of, it will be fully competent for 
 any member, in the future action of the committee, to 
 offer them as an amendment or substantive proposition. 
 I hope, therefore, it will be the pleasure of the Conven- 
 tion to refer the resolutions. 
 
 Mr. STROTHER. I have no particular objection to 
 the resolutions going at once to the committee, but I 
 thought, as they embraced very important propositions, 
 it was desirable that they should be laid on the table and 
 printed, so that the Convention might not only consider, 
 but also, if it was thought proper, vary or add to them. 
 I thought, upon the consideration of the subject, sug- 
 gestions might occur to members of value and impor- 
 portance connected with it, and it was with that view 
 that I suggested that the resolutions should be laid on 
 the table ; but I am indifferent as to what disposition 
 shall be made of them, and will not renew the motion. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The resolutions in the form in 
 which they now stand, would operate as an instruction 
 to the committee. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I move then, to make them resolutions 
 of inquiry, 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH. I designed that the resolutions 
 should be in that form. 
 
 The resolutions were then modified so as to direct the 
 committee to inquire and report upon the subject, and 
 in that form were referred to the Legislative Committee, 
 and ordered to be printed. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN, from the committee appointed on 
 the subject of printing and publishing the debates of the 
 Convention, stated that the committee had had another 
 meeting, and came to a further determination in relation 
 thereto, and desired him to submit the following report, 
 which was read by the Secretary : 
 
 The committee appointed to consider and report a 
 plan for printing and publishing the debates and proceed- 
 ings of the Convention, have again considered the sub- 
 ject, and respectfully report: That after having weighed 
 the various schemes submitted to their consideration, 
 they adhere to the plan recommended in their former 
 report. They believe that it will secure the most prompt, 
 correct and impartial publication of the authorised reports ; 
 that it will place these reports in the hands of the great- 
 est number of readers ; that it will put it out of the 
 power of the Richmond press to exert its potent influence 
 on one side, to the exclusion of the other side, of any 
 great question of reform ; that it will remove from its 
 editors the temptation to make improper, or what will, 
 by some, be deemed improper discriminations, by publish- 
 ing only what will accord with their peculiar views, and 
 thereby it will keep down discontents in the Convention, 
 promote the harmony of its deliberations, and the pros- 
 pect of unanimity, in preparing and adopting a wise 
 Constitution. 
 
 In addition to circulating 18,200 cojDies of the supple- 
 ment, proposed in their former report, the number may 
 be greatly increased at a very trifling additional expense. 
 At a cost of four cents a week, or sixty cents for a ses- 
 sion of fifteen weeks, any person in the Commonwealth, 
 who is not a subscriber to either of the Richmond pa- 
 pers, may procure, through his representative in the 
 Convention, or otherwise, full and perfect reports of all 
 that is said and done in the Convention. 
 
 In the table of charges exhibited in their former re- 
 port, the committee have ascertained there was an error. 
 The cost of composition was set down at $2,106. It 
 ought to have bsen $1,823.20. The error originated out 
 of a mistake in supposing that a column of the supple- 
 ment contained six thousand, when it contains only five 
 thousand two hundred. 
 
 The committee will further state, that if the Conven- 
 tion desire it, Mr. Gallaher will reduce the charge for 
 paper, but that an inferior sort of paper must necessarily 
 be furnished. Your committee decline recommending any 
 change in this item of charge, as they suppose the Con- 
 vention wish the work well done, if done at all. In this 
 connexion it may be remarked, that in almost every ream 
 of paper there are a greater or less number of damaged 
 sheets. Mr. Gallaher proposes to charge the Common- 
 wealth only with the paper that is used, and to bear the 
 loss of the imperfect sheets. It will also cost Mr. Galla- 
 her sixty dollars a week to distribute the supplements 
 through the offices of the city press. The committee 
 will now proceed to show that there exist very exagge- 
 rated ideas of the cost of disseminating these reports 
 among the people. It will be remembered that it was 
 proposed in the former report to publish the supplement 
 twice a week, and the calculation was based upon the 
 supposition that each issue would contain eighteen col- 
 umns, or matter equal to the size of six columns a day. 
 The charges, after correcting the error referred to in a 
 former part of this report, were as follows : 
 
 Composition, - - - $1,823 20 
 
 Press work, etc, - 2,418 00 
 
 Paper, &c, 4,450 50 
 
 Total for 31,000 copies a week, - $S,691 70 
 It has been supposed that if two columns a day be 
 added to the matter, the cost will be increased thirty- 
 three and a half per cent., when, in fact, the only addi- 
 tional cost will be that of the composition for the two 
 columns, the paper and press-work being the same. Six 
 columns a day would make eighteen columns to each 
 semi-weekly issue, leaving a blank space for six columns. 
 Eight columns would make twenty -four columns each 
 issue, which would just fill the sheet of the supplement. 
 The additional cost then of eight over six columns a day 
 for a session of fifteen weeks would be only $610.40. 
 
 Your committee, therefore, recommend the adoption 
 of the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary contract with Robert H. 
 Gallaher, and the proprietors of the Richmond Whig, 
 
44 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Enquirer, Times, Examiner, and Republican Advocate, 
 for the publication and distribution of the debates of the 
 Convention as set forth in the report heretofore made by 
 this committee, and at the following rates : Three dol- 
 lars and thirty-eight cents for composition of matter 
 equal to a column of the supplement ; $4.60 per ream for 
 paper actually printed, the paper to be of first quality ; 
 sixty-four cents a token for press work, folding, <kc.\ and I 
 two cents a copy for 2100 copies of the supplement to be 
 wrapped, directed, and mailed by the publishers as mem- 
 bers of the Convention may direct ; and that the Secreta- 
 ry take bond with security for the faithful performance 
 of the contract. 
 
 The PRESIDENT announced the question to be on 
 the adoption of the resolution reported by the commit- 
 tee. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I confess I have an insuperable objec- 
 tion to one portion of that report. It is in regard to the 
 manner in which the information is to be distributed to 
 the people of Virginia. I have no objection to pay the 
 editors, nor have I any objection to the manner in which 
 the printing shall be done by what has been termed the 
 " allied powers " of the press of this city. I have no ob- 
 jection, not a particle of objection, to its being print- 
 ed by the six political editors, nor have I any objec- 
 tion to the pay, I would not care if the amount were 
 twice or three times as much, but I do object to the 
 mode of distribution, and I hope that this Convention, 
 being a Reform Convention, will not permit the informa- 
 tion to be diffused to any favored class of the community. 
 I trust that this Convention will take upon itself the la- 
 bor of distributing such information as we have to offer 
 to the people, at least fairly ; that we shall not select a 
 class of persons who shall first be supplied with the in- 
 formation emanating from this body, and then if there be 
 any remnant left, that we will distribute that remnant to 
 a class not so favored as the subscribers of the political 
 press of this city. We shall have a most ardent contest 
 here, perhaps, before the ides of March — certainly, we 
 shall have a most ardent contest, if the signs of the times 
 do not deceive us, before the labors of the Convention 
 shall be brought to a close — and can any one question, 
 that after we shall have formed a Constitution, we will 
 not have to fight the battle over again before the body of 
 the people ? Is there any man here who can expect that 
 the work which we shall turn out will be received with- 
 out objection? If there is any man in this Convention 
 who can flatter himself that we shall be able to reform 
 the abuses of our government — that we shall be able to 
 enact a Reform Constitution which will be received with- 
 out the most ardent opposition — I beg leave to say to 
 such member, he greatly deceives himself, at least in my 
 humble judgement. I, "for one, am for preserving this 
 body in all its popularity with the working men of this 
 community. I am for cherishing the good opinion of 
 the people towards this body down to the humblest me- 
 chanic who may have a right to cast his vote for or 
 against the Constitution we shall make, if we shall be 
 fortunate enough to make one at all. Send out your in- 
 formation to a favored class, and to whom do you address 
 yourselves ? Why, too often, I think, it will be found 
 you address yourselves to the persons who are in pos- 
 session of this government ; you address yourselves to 
 those men who are the very last in the community to be 
 satisfied with any amendment that you mav propose to 
 the existing form of our government, and who will be dis- 
 pose^ from the very first incipient stage of our debates, 
 to ridicule this body and bring it into contempt before 
 the masses of the people. Let us then diffuse our infor- 
 mation at least fairly to the people ; let us make no se- 
 lections of a favored class ; let us take upon ourselves 
 the labor of distributing, at least fairly, that information 
 which may emanate from this body" There are inanv 
 gentlemen in this community who are subscribers to some 
 half dozen newspapers. To such an individual you send 
 half a dozen of these extra sheets of the supplement, 
 and thus he has the distribution of them, not because he 
 is a voter, but because ha is a subscriber to half a dozen 
 
 political papers, while to his indigent neighbor, who is 
 perhaps equally intelligent, equal by nature at least, you 
 send no paper at all. I ask whether such an individual 
 might not inquire, why is it that my wealthy neighbor 
 has the distribution of half a dozen of these supplements 
 and I have none ? — why is it that this man who used the 
 utmost of his power to prevent the election of Mr. such 
 a one and such a one who is elected to the Convention, is 
 favored with some half a dozen supplements to distribute 
 to his neighbors, while he who exerted himself to the ut- 
 most of his whole ability to secure the election of a re- 
 form candidate, is favored with no information at all. 
 I think that it will be well calculated to do injury to the 
 work which we may turn out and to render this body an 
 unpopular body, and for that reason I am opposed to the 
 mode of distribution. In every other respect I am in fa- 
 vor of the report of the committee, but as to the mode of 
 distribution, I must beg leave to enter my dissent. I 
 will not assent to a proposition that shall give to one 
 class of this community advantages over any other por- 
 tion of the community. I think, with all the deference 
 and the high respect I entertain for the committee, that 
 the plan of the report will have this effect. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. I believe that no goodwill come to 
 the people from the adoption of this resolution, but 
 that it will be a matter of speculation for the printers. 
 The Convention has employed a reporter to report the 
 proceedings of our debates, and furnish facilities to the 
 editors and printers here to publish them. If they do 
 not choose to avail themselves of these facilities, some 
 other papers will. I, therefore, move the indefinite post- 
 ponement of the whole subject, and call for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Mr. FERGUSON". If the object of the gentleman is 
 to prevent the proceedings of this Convention being 
 published at all, then he has fallen upon a happy expedi- 
 ent to effect his purpose. If he desires, however, that 
 the proceedings of this Convention shall go forth and be 
 read by the people, he must advocate the proposition 
 contained in the report of the committee. I took the 
 trouble, yesterday, to visit the printing offices, and ex- 
 amined the process of printing. That examination satis- 
 fied me that the committee had adopted the only feasi- 
 ble plan for the distribution of the proceedings of this 
 Convention among the people. If the gentleman will 
 take the trouble to examine the amount of matter that 
 has been furnished for publication during the proceed- 
 ings of this Convention thus far, he will have no diffi- 
 culty in satisfying himself that the publishers of the 
 papers cannot, and will not, appropriate their columns 
 to the publication of these proceedings. And if we re- 
 fuse to adopt the report of the committee, and leave it 
 to the papers to publish the proceedings at their own 
 expense, without being paid for it in any form by the 
 Convention, then they will be necessarily compelled 
 either to select such speeches, and such parts of the de- 
 bates, as they shall prefer to select and publish in their 
 papers, or they will have to give the whole the go-by, 
 and send the people no information whatever of the de- 
 bates of this body.. These papers cannot appropriate 
 their columns in any other way to the publication of 
 these proceedings than in this extra sheet, which is pro- 
 vided for in the report of the committee. Now, I de- 
 sire the proceedings of this Convention to be published 
 and distributed among the people. I care not for the 
 amount that it may cost the State. It is true I should 
 not be in favor of a wasteful expenditure of the public 
 money ; but I am willing to pay what amount is neces- 
 sary to put the people in possession of our proceedings, 
 so that they may understand them when they are called 
 upon to vote for the Constitution which we shall submit 
 to them. I have always been, and still am, opposed to 
 any system under which editors will be compelled to 
 make selections among the speeches made in this body 
 to give to the people, or compel them to refuse to publish 
 the proceedings at all, and thereby leave the pet pie in 
 the dark as to the reasons, or motives, which operate 
 
VRGIINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 15 
 
 upon the minds of members in their action Upon the 
 various questions which may come before us for con- 
 sideration. I imagine that the minds of the members of 
 this Convention have been sufficiently directed to this 
 subject, and that they are now prepared to act upon it, 
 I did not rise with the hope that I could throw any light 
 upon the subject, but to enter my protest against the 
 proposition for an indefinite postponement of the whole 
 subject, unless the mover desires thereby to prevent any 
 publication whatever of what is done in this Convention. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I approve very much the views of the 
 gentleman from Richmond city upon the subject of this 
 report. I have not heard from the chairman of this com- 
 mittee, or any member of it, the reason why this parti- 
 cular number or class of men, the subscribers to the city 
 papers, have been singled out as the special objects of 
 the favor of this Convention. I think, if the opinions 
 of the members around me are entitled to any respect, 
 that this plan, so far from costing the' State only §10,000, 
 in all probability will cost §20,000, or probably, as a 
 gentleman at my right suggests, $30,000. By making a 
 calculation, according to this report, there are 15,000 per- 
 sons singled out arbitrarily who alone are to receive 31,000 
 copies weekly, of the whole amount of the supplement con- 
 taining the proceedings of the Convention. That is to say, 
 you arbitrarily take 31,000 copies weekly, and give them 
 to 15,000 subscribers, which multiplied by the number 
 of weeks we shall be in session is 465,000, to be given to 
 these 15,000 voters. What provision is there made here 
 for the other 65,000 voters of the Commonwealth? I 
 presume no gentleman here suppose that after these 
 15,000 have been provided for, that there will not be 
 65,000 voters standing in as much need of enlightenment 
 from this body as the favored 15,000. Now what provi- 
 sion is to be made for the 65,000 voters who are not subscri- 
 bers to the city press ? The committee propose that the 
 members shall receive 5,400 copies of the supplement 
 weekly, which in a session of 15 weeks, would amount 
 to 81,000, and these are to supply 65 or 70#00 voters, 
 giving each individual only a single sheet, by which he 
 is to form his judgment upon the great work of this 
 Convention. It is impossible then that any one man, 
 according to this mode of distribution, would get more 
 than a very partial knowledge of the proceedings of this 
 body. He might get a speech on one great question, 
 but that he could get a connected view of any one ques- 
 tion is impossible. In this form the work of this Conven- 
 tion would be thrown out by piece-meal, and in scraps, 
 and only a partial view of it would be given to the 
 voters of the country. Instead of a source of informa- 
 tion and knowledge to the people, it will give them a 
 partial view and be a source of error to them in forming 
 their judgment upon the work of this Convention. 
 I have been asked how this matter was managed in 
 lS29-'30. I do not know that there was any provision 
 on this subject then, but I believe that then, as now, if 
 the subject was left as a fair matter of competition among 
 the political editors here, that self-interest would prompt 
 some one or more of them to take up this business of pub- 
 lication, for as all know, there is a very anxious desire 
 throughout the country to ascertain the labors of the 
 Convention in some regular form. I say then, as the 
 gentleman from the city of Richmond (Mr. Davis) said, 
 that I do not desire to distribute by order of the Conven- 
 tion 31,000 copies of this report weekly to any particu- 
 lar class of persons. I should prefer that they be given 
 to the members of the Convention, for each" to distri- 
 bute according to his knowledge of the wants of his con- 
 stituents. You will find this to be the most feasible 
 plan, and if you make this order, you will find in less 
 than 20 days from this time, that the 15,000 persons who 
 it is proposed by the committee shall be so especially the 
 objects of the favor of the Convention, will be provided 
 for by the regular issue of the papers to which they are 
 subscribers. Then this vast amount of matter ordered 
 by the Convention may be thrown into other portions of 
 the country where it is needed much more than it is by 
 those to whom it is proposed to be distributed. I repeat, 
 
 I think the plan of the committee a most exceptionable 
 one, inasmuch as it proposes to give to a class of people 
 in the Commonwealth of Virginia — the subscribers to the 
 city papers — for intelligence and wealth not surpassed by 
 any other perhaps, this information exclusively, and to 
 withhold from the remaining 65 or 70,000 voters of the 
 State all the information which would enable them to 
 form a correct opinion as to the work of the Convention, 
 or to send it to them in a disconnected form, from which 
 no man could receive a connected view of our labors. 
 Such a plan in my opinion is worse than none at all. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. It is very easy, with a telescope, to 
 see spots upon the sun, but very hard I imagine for gen- 
 tlemen to make a better one. The gentleman can pick 
 flaws and find defects in almost any work of human con- 
 trivance, but I would like him, or some other gentleman, 
 to get up and propose a better scheme for the printing 
 and distribution of the debates than the one now pend- 
 ing. What is the argument of the gentleman ? Why, 
 that by sending 15,500 copies of these reported debates 
 afloat through the agency of your city press, you are 
 arbitrarily distinguishing between different portions of 
 your people. And how does he propose to remedy that? 
 Why, by supplying 15,000 copies of these reports to 
 members on this floor to do the very same tiling — to 
 make an arbitrary distinction — 
 
 Mi*. HILL. Permit me to explain. I said if there 
 was to be any distribution under this plan at all, that I 
 preferred that the members of the Convention should 
 distribute for themselves, rather than by a general order 
 of the Convention. I am not for the scheme of the com- 
 mittee, any how. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Then the gentleman is for no scheme 
 which will disseminate this information among the peo- 
 ple. Aye, that is the secret of this objection to any 
 scheme that is proposed. It is not desired by certain 
 gentlemen upon this floor that these debates and pro- 
 ceedings should be circulated among the people. Other- 
 wise, while objecting to this scheme, if they desired to 
 accomplish the great result of diffusing this information 
 among the people, why do they not submit some other 
 scheme ? I defy the ingenuity of gentlemen to propose 
 a scheme which will enable any man in this Common- 
 wealth, who desires to see what the representatives of 
 the people are doing in this hall, to accomplish that pur- 
 pose for the low charge of 4 cents per week, or 60 cents 
 for a session of 15 weeks. If the gentleman's constitu- 
 ents are extremely anxious to know what has been done 
 in this hall, they can do so under the plan proposed by 
 the committee at a charge of 4 cents per week or 60 
 cents for a session of 15 weeks. Show me a cheaper 
 scheme than that. If the people are thristy for infor- 
 mation, they can slake their thirst almost without money 
 and without price. But the gentleman says that there 
 are 80,000 voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 
 that we propose, through the instrumentality of the city 
 press, to supply only 15,000, and that the remaining six- 
 ty-five thousand would thus have a right to complain of 
 such a distribution. Well, if the gentleman is in favor 
 of issuing 80,000, here is at it. If he is in favor of sup- 
 plying every man in the Commonwealth that can vote, 
 with this information, why I agree that it should be done, 
 if it can be done within the reach of the treasury of the 
 Commonwealth. But, in attempting to diffuse such in- 
 formation, we must always act as practical men, and do 
 it in the best practical mode, to accomplish the general 
 result — that of giving the people the opportunity — yes, 
 the opportunity, of learning what is said and done here. 
 In 1829-30 it is said that the debates and proceedings 
 were published, not at public cost, but by private en- 
 terprise. Yes, they were published by Mr. Ritchie, 
 and in doing so Mr. R. sunk just what Messrs. Palmer, 
 Colin, Baptist <fe Nolan offer to print this matter for, 
 about 87,000. Is it expected that the six political prin- 
 ters in this city will go on and buy fifteen hundred dol- 
 lars worth of type, and new presses, each incurring an 
 expense of 88000 apiece, for the purpose of disseminating 
 this information, with the hope of possibly getting ten 
 
46 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 or fifteen hundred additional subscribers ? They cannot 
 afford to do it ; it cannot be done, — and therefore it is 
 that this Convention is resorted to for the purpose of ac- 
 complishing this great result. The press of this city will 
 afford the facility of their circulation to the Convention 
 for disseminating this information. And one of the pro- 
 prietors of the Richmond press, who is alone able, hav- 
 ing alone the means to accomplish this work, agrees to 
 do it at the rates which you pay the public printer of the 
 General Assembly, and furnish extra sheets for all the 
 other presses in the city, at his own charge, in order that 
 these proceedings may go abroad to the people. Well, 
 now, select any other plan that you choose, or lay the re- 
 ports of your stenographer upon the table, to be picked 
 over by the editors of these papers, and what, then, will 
 be the hue and cry ? Why the same that assailed the 
 gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) at the first session 
 of this Convention. It was then said that the Richmond 
 press, under the resolution of the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, would have the opportunity of doing injustice to 
 certain great measures of public policy to be agitated in 
 this Convention, and that they would select certain 
 speeches which suited their views or the views of a ma- 
 jority of their readers and publish only those. I say such 
 must be the result. These Richmond papers will publish 
 certain portions of the report, and they will publish those 
 portions which will be most in accordance with their own 
 views or most agreeable to their readers. But, we wish 
 to compel the entire press of the city of Richmond, by 
 obligation as contractors with this Convention, to do 
 equal and ample justice to every great interest and every 
 great measure of reform which may be agitated upon 
 this floor. We wish the antidote to go with the poison, 
 side by side and column by column. And if any editor 
 in this city shall choose to sway the potent influence he 
 may exert over the public mind against my view, or the 
 view of any other gentleman on the subject of constitu- 
 tional reform, this will be the means of counteracting it. 
 Any other scheme opens the door for unjust and improper 
 discrimination. I trust the Convention will adopt this 
 scheme. Not that it is without defect — nobody pretends 
 that it is — but because, as I believe, it will accomplish the 
 great result of diffusing this information among the larg- 
 est number of people. It will operate most beneficially 
 in promoting harmony amongst the members on this floor, 
 and in avoiding that jealousy and discontent, in respect to 
 the conduct of the Richmond press to the prejudice of mem- 
 bers on this floor, which have already been experienced 
 by members heretofore. I trust that this resolution will 
 be adopted, and that the Convention will thus dispose of 
 this question at once. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. If it were not that I unfortunately 
 find myself differing from my worthy colleague over the 
 way, (Mr. Hill,) I should remain silent on this subject. 
 When it was before us a few days ago, I certainly had 
 not made up my mind as to the vote which I should 
 give on the question. Since then, however, I have 
 duly and thoroughly considered, so far as I can do so, 
 as to the best mode to be adopted by this Convention 
 for the circulation of this information, and I have come 
 to the conclusion that the plan reported by the com- 
 mittee is the most feasible, the most extensive in its 
 operation, and the cheapest that can be adopted by this 
 Convention. I am never backward when a question 
 arises as to circulating information among the people, 
 to give that information the most extensive range 
 which can be accorded to it, and it seems to me that 
 there can be no other mode devised — certainly none has 
 been either presented or suggested here — that can so 
 thoroughly accomplish this end as the plan of the com- 
 mittee. And I agree with my friend from Augusta, 
 (Mr. Sheffy,) that the question now to be settled by 
 this Convention, is whether this plan shall be adopted, 
 or whether any plan at all for the diffusion of this in- 
 formation among the people, shall be adopted. We 
 were graphically told by a gentleman at a very early 
 day of the meeting of the Convention, that the anxiety 
 of the people as to the proceedings of this body was 
 
 intense, and I believe it to be true. Our action is of 
 vital importance to them and if there is any one thing 
 which the people now desire more than any other, it is 
 to see and understand our proceedings and delibera- 
 tions. My worthy colleague objects to this scheme as 
 partial in its operations, inasmuch as it selects a certain 
 class of people as those to whom this information shall 
 be extended, and excludes all others. Now I apprehend 
 that no scheme can be presented to this body that is not 
 liable to the same objection, and which will not, to a 
 greater or less degree, distribute this information to what 
 may be termed a favorite class of people. We know 
 very well that the general reading classes of the com- 
 munity are subscribers to the newspapers. They 
 subscribe to them for the purpose of getting full infor- 
 mation of the news of the day ; but does not every man 
 know that the information thus received is not imparted 
 alone to the subscriber to those papers? Do not the 
 neighbors of the men who subscribe for the papers call 
 on them for the loan of these papers, and are they not 
 thus scattered over each neighborhood? Thus, even if 
 we send this information to one man in a neighborhood, 
 he will not be silent but will freely communicate it to 
 others, so that when we put this scheme in operation, 
 this publication will penetrate to the remotest quarters 
 of the Commonwealth, giving to the people as much in- 
 formation as can be diffused. Now let me call the 
 attention of the Convention to the fact, that already we 
 have employed a stenographer for the purpose of re-_ 
 porting our debates and proceedings, at a cost which 
 may amount at the end of a session of fifteen weeks to 
 $3,750. And what utility can there possibly be, let me 
 ask, in employing a stenographer for the purpose of tak- 
 ing down the proceedings of the Convention, if no plan 
 shall be devised for the purpose of diffusing this report 
 among the people ? Clearly the amount of money 
 to be paid him will be an entire loss, for no sort of 
 benefit to the people can result in consequence of if. 
 This is but the second step in carrying out the action of 
 the Convention in the employment of a stenographer. 
 Now if we rely upon the city press alone to publish the 
 reports of our proceedings, do we not know that their 
 publication will be partial? Do we not know that if 
 they undertake to publish all our proceedings in their 
 regular issues, that they can publish no other political 
 matter whatever ? And can we suppose that the editors 
 of these papers are going te devote their columns entire- 
 ly to the proceedings of the Convention ? Have they not 
 to report and publish the proceedings of the Legislature 
 now in sessions and who are likely to remain almost as 
 long in session as we shall, and can they publish in their 
 papers the proceedings of both the Legislature and the 
 Convention? No sir, the result would be that they 
 would give mere abstracts of the doings of the Conven- 
 tion, which would not inform the people of more than 
 one-tenth of our proceedings, and that too in a form per- 
 haps not at all satisfactory to the country, inasmuch as 
 it would not be done by reporters responsible to us. 
 Let us carry out the plan originally suggested. Having 
 employed a competent stenographer to take down our 
 proceedings in a proper and accurate form, let us now 
 give that report the most extensive circulation that we 
 can through the medium of the political press of Rich- 
 mond. Is there any other mode by which we can fur- 
 nish this information to the people ? There are 15,500 
 subscribers to the papers here, who will receiv e a sup- 
 plement twice a week, containing the proceedings of the 
 Convention. They will give their neighbors access to 
 that supplement, and thus, instead of furnishing the in- 
 formation merely to those 15,500 subscribers, three or 
 four times that number of people will receive it. Now 
 as to the suggestion of my colleague (Mr. Hill) that we 
 shall adopt in lieu of that plan the idea of furnishing 
 our published proceedings to members here, that they 
 may themselves distribute theffr to their constituents, if 
 carried out how will it operate ? My friend receives 50 
 or 100 copies of our proceedings, and he sends one copy 
 to one man and another to another man, and so on, and 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 47 
 
 thus in all probability no one man will receive more than 
 a report of a single day's proceedings of the Convention. 
 "What information will that give him ? Here is a session 
 of more than a week — we send the proceedings contain- 
 ed in one issue of the supplement to one man, and that 
 will be his quantum of information. W e send another 
 day's proceedings to another man, and that will be his 
 share of the information — and after they shall have been 
 thus distributed throughout the Commonwealth, no man 
 perhaps will have received more than the proceedings of 
 one or two sittings of the Convention ! Of what bene- 
 fit to him will that be ? But if we adopt the mode pro- 
 posed by the committee, then this supplement will go 
 regularly into the hands of the subscribers to these pa- 
 pers, will be retained and filed, and in this way we shall 
 furnish to each man a full report of the proceedings of 
 the Convention from the beginning to the end of its ses- 
 sion, and thus enable him to comprehend the entire range 
 of our proceedings here. It does seem to me therefore 
 that this is the only plan that can be devised, and that a 
 refusal to adopt it will be equivalent to a declaration 
 that we will send forth no information whatever to the 
 people. The view of my friend from Augusta (Mr. Shef- 
 fey) is entitled to great weight in another respect. If I 
 understand the report of the committee, any man who 
 desires to receive this supplement can do so at a most in- 
 significant cost. He can have the entire proceedings of 
 the Convention from beginning to end, for a session of 
 fifteen weeks, at a cost not exceeding sixty cents. And 
 I believe that a vast number who do not take the Rich- 
 mond papers, would be glad to take this supplement, at 
 a price so low as sixty cents for the session. Again, gen- 
 tlemen are mistaken in supposing that this information 
 will be confined to subscribers to the city press for an- 
 other reason, as they will find upon reflection. This sup- 
 plement will go forth to the editors of every paper in 
 the Commonwealth, — to those beyond the Alleganies, 
 through the Valley, and the entire East, — and all will 
 publish the most important part of these proceedings, 
 and thus the subscribers to all other newspapers will be 
 furnished with our proceedings as well as those to the 
 press of this city. I concur most heartily with my friend 
 from Augusta, that we should be careful how we give a 
 vote here, by which we shall exclude light from the peo- 
 ple. I desire that all the debates, documents, statistics 
 and information of every sort before the Convention, 
 which will enable the people to form a wise and cor- 
 rect judgment upon the subjects we are to act upon 
 here, shall be diffused among them, East and West. 
 I trust, therefore, that we shall all agree to settle the 
 question at once, by adopting the plan proposed by 
 the committee. You appointed a very competent com- 
 mittee to examine and inquire into this question, and 
 they, after duly and thoroughly considering it, gave 
 us a report, a few days ago, containing the result of 
 their best judgment on the subject. After discussing 
 the subject, we referred it again to that committee, they 
 again considered it, and they have again given us the re- 
 sult of their deliberation, examination and judgment, re- 
 porting back to the Convention the same plan they at 
 first recommended. For myself, I shall vote to concur 
 in the recommendation of the committee, with entire 
 willingness and pleasure. 
 
 _ Mr. ANDERSON. What authority has this Conven- 
 tion to appropriate money to the newspaper editors of 
 Richmond, to publish our reports ? I must confess that 
 I have not been able to ascertain their authority. The 
 act calling this Convention authorizes themPto fix the 
 compensation of their officers, and unless gentlemen can 
 show that these newspaper editors are to become officers 
 of this Convention, we have no authority whatever to ap- 
 propriate money to pay them for publishing the debates. 
 I can readily understand that your reporter is an officer 
 of this Convention. He has been appointed for the pur- 
 pose of reporting and writing out the debates of this 
 Convention. But it is not the particular province of this 
 officer, nor is it the duty of the Convention, to have its 
 debates published in all the newspapers in the Common- 
 
 Wealth. I cannot therefore vote for appropriating a 
 large, or even a small sum of money, to the editors of 
 these papers for publishing these debates. I take it for 
 granted that it will be for their interest to publish such 
 parts of these debates as will interest the people of this 
 Commonwealth. I have no doubt they will do so, and I 
 am therefore willing to leave it to the editors as a question 
 of self-interest, whether they will publish any part of 
 these debates or not. I was for the appointment of 
 a reporter, and am anxious to receive reports of our 
 proceedings, so that the Convention may dispose of them 
 as they think proper. Your reporter can, in short hand, 
 report the debates of the Convention, and then write them 
 out in full, and the debates in manuscript can be filed in 
 the Secretary's office as part of the archives of the gov- 
 ernment ; and the Legislature can hereafter make such 
 disposition of them as they may think proper. In the 
 mean time we have made it the duty of our reporter to 
 afford editors of papers the privilege of securing a copy 
 of his reports, and they may avail themselves of this 
 privilege or not, as they may think proper. 
 
 Mr. COX. I ask the gentleman who made the motion 
 for indefinite postponement to withdraw it, at least for 
 the present. It is clear that some provision must be 
 made for the publication of the report of the proceedings 
 of the Convention. We have already employed a re- 
 porter, and the reports taken by that officer must go to 
 the people, or all goes for nothing ; and, as I understand 
 it, the only question is, shall we send them to the peo- 
 ple in the form designated by the report of the commit- 
 tee, or in some other. It strikes me, such being the case, 
 that if the report of the committee be not such an one 
 as meets the sanction of this body, it is at least in a shape 
 in which the body could mould it to their own views. 
 The subject is before us, and if the plan of the committee 
 does not suit the Convention, let it be so altered as that 
 it will suit them. I am opposed to the scheme of the 
 committee as it at present stands, but I believe it can be 
 so amended as to meet generally the views of the Conven- 
 tion. I am in favor of sending this information to the 
 people, and I will say to the member from Augusta (Mr. 
 Sheffey) that I am not only willing, but anxious that 
 all the proceedings of this Convention shall be known to 
 my constituents, and I am willing to give it to them in 
 the fullest possible form. And 1 go even further than 
 the gentleman from Augusta, for I am in favor, not only 
 of giving this information to the people of the whole 
 State, but of giving it to them in such a shape as that 
 they can bind and preserve it. And if the motion for 
 indefinite postponement shall be withdrawn or voted 
 down, I will offer an amendment to secure the transmis- 
 sion of this information to the people in a publication of 
 octavo form, in which it can be bound and preserved. 
 It may be better for the popularity and reputation of 
 many of us that the publication should be in a form as 
 perishable as possible, so that no record of our sayings 
 and doings here shall be preserved ; but I have no such 
 desire. I desire that all my constituents shall hear what 
 I say, and I do not object to my future popularity being 
 based on the votes I shall give in this body. I do not 
 make this motion therefore because I wish to withhold 
 information from the people, but because I desire that 
 our proceedings shall be published in such a shape that 
 they may be able to preserve them for future reference. 
 The proposition I have to offer, if the motion to post- 
 pone shall be withdrawn or voted down, is as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the report be re-committed to the 
 same committee with instructions to receive proposals 
 for publishing the proceedings and debates of the Con- 
 vention in octavo form, or in a form convenient to be 
 bound and preserved. 
 
 If such a proposition be adopted, then I will go for the 
 report of the committee. As for this supplement, it 
 must be obvious to all that it cannot be bound or pre- 
 served. I hope, therefore, the motion to postpone will 
 be withdrawn, or voted down. 
 
 Mr. JANNE Y. I confess that when the report of this 
 committee was first presented, I had very serious ob- 
 
48 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 jections to it. But I have bestowed upon it the best re- 
 flection which I am capable of; and I think the true issue 
 now is, shall this form be adopted, or shall the people be 
 without this information ? I do not think it possible for 
 the wit of man to conceive of any plan by which the 
 people of this Commonwealth can be put in possession of 
 these debates at a less expense than four cents per week. 
 There is, however, one view of the subject that is parti- 
 cularly important, and I have risen solely for the pur- 
 pose of presenting it to the Convention. Unfortunately 
 for the last eighteen months, in the Commonwealth of 
 Virginia, all the discussions upon questions involving any 
 reforms, have been ex-parte discussions. Gentlemen on 
 the western side of the Blue Ridge have discussed in their 
 own way the merits of their peculiar basis of representa- 
 tion, and the reforms which they desire. And so, I may say, 
 with very few exceptions, gentlemen on the eastern side 
 of the BLue Ridge have discussed the m erits of their pe- 
 culiar basis of representation, and the reforms which 
 they desire. And thus it is, that on the two sides of the 
 Blue Ridge, but one side only of these questions has been 
 presentea for the consideration of the people. If you 
 do not take this, or some kindred form, the same result 
 precisely will happen for the next six months, or nine 
 months to come, that has for the six months past. Some 
 gentlemen say the editors of the political papers in the 
 city of Richmond will publish just such speeches as they 
 please. Well, suppose they do, what then ? They can- 
 not publish all, and they will not. No man expects any 
 such thing at all. And what will they do ? They 
 will publish just such of the leading speeches as favor 
 their own peculiar views and the opinions of their sub- 
 scribers, and they will publish none else. I hold in my 
 hand a paper which has been laid upon my table this 
 morning — a new paper, the Republican Advocate — which 
 has been established since our adjournment in October, 
 as the organ of our friends on the western side of the 
 Blue Ridge. If their anticipations are realised, and I 
 trust most sincerely that they may be, this paper will 
 go into the hands of every man who can read West of 
 the Blue Ridge. And if we adopt this scheme, every 
 subscriber will receive the arguments and views of the 
 members on this side of the .Blue Ridge. So it will be 
 on the eastern side. Publish all, and every argument 
 made here by western gentlemen will go into the 
 hands of every reader on the eastern side of the Blue 
 Ridge. Now I submit the question to the Convention for 
 consideration, if the object of publishing these debates 
 at all is to enlighten the minds of the people with re- 
 gard to what we are doing here, ought we not to give 
 them both sides of the question ? And is there any 
 better plan by which to gain that object, than the one 
 proposed by the committee, or some kindred scheme ? 
 1 do not" see that any of the other propositions before 
 this Convention promise to do this. The committee is 
 an enlightened and intelligent one, one in which we ought 
 to repose confidence, and I shall vote for their report 
 with great pleasure. As to the expense, it is my 
 opinion that whatever complaint the people may make 
 about our expenses here, no man will ever utter a soli- 
 tary murmer against the cost of publishing these de- 
 bates. I hope and trust that the report of the com- 
 mittee will be adopted. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I wish to explain, in a few words, 
 the grounds of the vote I shall give on this ques- 
 tion. It has been intimated that those who are op- 
 posed to the resolution in question, secretly desire to 
 suppress our proceedings, or their circulation. For my- 
 self I say, fearlessly, that I desire no such thing. I do 
 desire, if I desire any thing whatever, that our proceed- 
 ings, or a knowledge of them, should go forth to every 
 reader within this Commonwealth. And it is precisely 
 in consequence of the liability of having the motive for 
 the vote I shall give, called in question, that I rise to 
 make this explanation. I myself, I apprehend, before 
 the proceedings of this Convention shall close, will be 
 found quite radical enough for the most of gentlemen 
 here. I should be false to my own nature, owning my- 
 
 self a radical, not to desire that our proceedings should 
 be published as extensively and as universally as possi- 
 ble. But, my objection still is the same in the main 
 that I intimated the other day, that this mode of distri- 
 buting or circulating the information that we desire to 
 be placed before the people, is not equitable. No gen- 
 tleman has yet satisfied me that it is equitable. Satisfy 
 me of this fact, and strong as my objections are to the 
 expense, I am willing to go it. I will not, like some 
 gentlemen here, say that I care nothing about the ex- 
 pense ; I confess I do care something about it. I do 
 think I see very plainly, that the expense will be very 
 heavy, but heavy as it may be, if there is no other mode 
 of giving this information to the people, I may submit 
 to it. I have said that I think it inequitable, and I will 
 as briefly as I can, explain myself. If I understand the 
 report of the committee, they propose to send out twice 
 a week fifteen thousand five hundred sheets as a sup- 
 plement to the city press, exclusive of twenty-seven 
 hundred given to the members for distribution. The fif- 
 teen thousand five hundred go to the city press, and I 
 apprehend that I should not greatly err, were I to sup- 
 pose that one half of these subscribers reside within half 
 a mile of the capital, or within the county of Henrico, 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I apprehend that the gentleman la- 
 bors under an entire mistake. I believe that- the circu- 
 lation of these Richmond papers is less, in proportion, in 
 Henrico county, than in almost any other part of the 
 Commonwealth. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. As to the good people of Henrico 
 county, as contradistinguished from the people of Rich- 
 mond city, I will say nothing, because I know nothing. 
 But I apprehend still, that my supposition is true to a 
 sufficient extent to illustrate my argument. If you 
 please I will make another supposition. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. If the gentleman will permit me 
 to interrupt him — 
 
 Mr. JACOB. Certainly. I permit any gentleman to 
 interrupt me as much as he pleases. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I wish merely to state a fact as a 
 foundation for his argument. The daily circulation of 
 the Richmond Whig is about 150 to 800 ; while the se- 
 mi-weekly, that goes out of the city, ranges from three 
 thousand five hundred to four thousand. The daily cir- 
 culation of the Richmond Enquirer is less than that of 
 the Whig ; while its semi-weekly is as large, if not lar- 
 ger. So that the gentleman is equally mistaken in say- 
 ing that a large majority of the circulation of these pa- 
 pers centre in the city of Richmond. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I admit every word that the gentle- 
 man has said, and it is a perfect non sequitur that what 
 I have said is untrue. It may be, that the number of 
 daily and weekly subscribers to these papers is j ust 
 what the gentleman says, and yet that the distribution 
 among the good people of this Commonwealth may be 
 just as inequitable as I have supposed. I ask if gentle- 
 men will inform me what is the exact proportion — I do 
 not care about accuracy — accuracy, as the lawyers say, 
 to a common purpose or intent, will answer my purpose 
 — let me know whether it is not true, for example, that 
 more than half the circulation is within fifty or sixty 
 miles of Richmond. I will give one example to illustrate 
 what I mean by saying that this mode of distribution ia 
 unequal. I think I do not err when I say, that my dis- 
 trict has perhaps in it about four thousand voters. I 
 think I do not err materially in stating, that there are 
 not probably fifty papers of the city press circulated 
 in that district. But you may suppose that it is much 
 more than fifty, and you will still see that the propor- 
 tion is not fair ; or that my position is true that the dis- 
 tribution is not equal. Well, now, I have not been able 
 to see why it is that — with the number of supplements 
 proposed to be published, if we must print 18,200 co« 
 pies twice a week, for that I understand to be the 
 substance of the proposition — some more equal plan 
 of distribution among the people of all the counties of 
 this State cannot be adopted, without materially increas- 
 ing the cost, than that of distributing them to the pre- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 49 
 
 sent subscribers to the Richmond press. Something has 
 been said, that it is necessary to fall upon this plan, in 
 order to prevent the charge of partiality on the part of 
 the press in the city of Richmond. I never made any 
 complaints of that sort — I never have felt any jealousy 
 in regard to their partiality. I am free to confess that 
 I have been willing, and am still willing, to leave it to 
 the Richmond press to publish what they please, if we 
 do not employ them. But I beg leave, in this connection, 
 to make this remark : I take it for granted, that notwith- 
 standing this supplement is printed, the newspapers of 
 this city will rmblish the speeches of many gentlemen 
 on this floor. Is it to be understood, and if it is, I should 
 like to hear some gentleman declare it, that by entering 
 into this arrangement, the newspapers of Richmond are 
 to publish no speeches whatever ? I take it, the news- 
 papers of this city will take the liberty, regardless of this 
 supplement, to publish just such speeches as they please. 
 This is my opinion. If I am in error, I will cheerfully 
 stand corrected. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Does the gentleman desire informa- 
 tion as he goes along? 
 
 Mr. JACOB. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I imagine that the Richmond papers 
 will hardly be so silly as to publish in their regular 
 sheet, the speeches that their subscribers will find in their 
 accompanying supplement. I do not suppose that the 
 Richmond press will print one column of speeches except 
 in the supplement which will accompany each issue. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. If the gentleman means to pledge the 
 city press to that course, that is sufficient. But the very 
 statement of the fact, that the supplement will accom- 
 pany the Richmond papers, does not negative the suppo- 
 sition that the city papers may publish the speeches of 
 many gentlemen. I see nothing either silly or foolish in 
 the editors of the city papers publishing the speeches of 
 certain gentlemen. I can well imagine that there will 
 be speeches made on this floor, that the editors of the 
 city papers will publish, because they favor the party to 
 which they belong, or from personal partiality, or from 
 taste, judgment, or any other motive. Then, again, it 
 has been said that, because no better plan has been sub- 
 mitted, therefore no better plan can be submitted. I am 
 not so sure of that, and really, it does seem to me, that 
 the committee have shown a very strong attachment to 
 their own favorite on this occasion. They have report- 
 ed the same thing back to us and nothing more. I am 
 desirous to aid in disseminating fully and freely over 
 this Commonwealth, a knowledge of our proceedings, 
 and if a fair and equitable plan can be devised for this 
 purpose, it shall have my support. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I understand the question before 
 the Convention to be on the indefinite postponement of 
 the various propositions before us, and I understand also 
 that motion to be brought forward to test the sense of 
 the Convention as to whether it will adopt the report of 
 the committee or not. Now, for one, I am prepared to 
 say, and I mean to say it by my vote on this occasion, 
 that I cannot give my support to that report. I shall 
 vote for the indefinite postponement for another reason, 
 and that is, I am inclined to think that until there is 
 some expression of opinion on the part of the Convention 
 adverse to the proposition or scheme of the committee, 
 we shall n othave any other plan before us. I think, 
 therefore, that the proper course will be, to test the 
 sense of the Convention at once upon this proposition. 
 When it shall be ascertained, as I trust it will be upon 
 this vote, that the Convention are not disposed to a,dopt 
 this scheme, then we may get some other plan less ob- 
 jectionable. I confess I have listened with some sur- 
 prise to the remarks of gentlemen on this floor, who as- 
 sume to represent those who are not disposed to sanc- 
 tion the proposition of the committee, as inclined to with- 
 hold light from the people with respect to our debates 
 and proceedings here. One would really suppose, to listen 
 to the remarks of some gentlemen, that the people of 
 Virginia were deeply agitated with respect to the publi- 
 cation of our proceedings. Now, does any man suppose 
 
 that if we do not pay the newspaper proprietors here for 
 publishing our debates, that they will not go before the 
 people ? Have the people of Virginia ever complained 
 that they were not fully apprised of the proceedings of 
 the Legislature ? 
 
 A MEMBER. Yes, often. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. The gentleman has been more fortu- 
 nate or unfortunate than I, for I have never heard the least 
 complaint on the subject. But if they do complain, what is 
 the difference in their position with respect to the proceed- 
 ings of the Legislature and in the position in which they 
 stand with respect to the proceedings of this body ? The 
 legislative proceedings have been reported by such report- 
 ers as the press of the city have furnished at their own 
 expense — gentlemen not practical stenographers cer- 
 tainly, and who take imperfect sketches — and that press 
 have published these reports. Our reports are offered to 
 them, however, as taken by an accomplished stenogra- 
 pher, employed by this body at the expense of the peo- 
 ple. For years past, up to the very period at which I am 
 now speaking, no deliberate body that ever met in this 
 State has ever had the benefits of the reports of a ste- 
 nographer — I mean of one employed at the public ex- 
 pense. Now we have employed a most accomplished 
 gentleman to report our proceedings and provided that 
 he shall furnish his report to all of the editors who choose 
 to copy it ; and I ask if it is not worth while to try the 
 experiment and see whether some of them will not avail 
 themselves of that offer? I think, at all events, we can 
 secure the publication of those reports without subject- 
 ing the people to a cost that, in my opinion, will not fall 
 short of $30,000, if it does not exceed that sum. And I 
 will tell you why I think the cost will reach that amount, 
 in a very few words. The report of the committee is 
 based on the supposition that our session is to continue 
 for fifteen weeks, and that we are to publish six columns 
 a day at an expense of $10,500. Now I put it to any 
 gentleman to say, whether he believes that this Conven- 
 tion, from any indication that has been given or from any 
 thing that has been said on this floor or elsewhere, is go- 
 ing to set only for so short a time as fifteen weeks — one 
 of which has already expired ? Fifteen weeks will bring 
 us to the middle of April, and I think it requires no spirit 
 of prophecy to say that we shall be in session for a long 
 time beyond that. But we are not only, according to 
 this estimate, to set but fifteen weeks, of which one has 
 already transpired, but we are not to publish more than 
 six columns a day. Now, I am informed upon most cred- 
 itable authority, that the slowest and most ordinary 
 speaker in the Senate of the United States speaks about 
 four columns in forty -five minutes, and I am also inform- 
 ed that a fluent and rapid speaker will speak full six 
 columns in an hour. Thus you will perceive, that instead 
 of six columns a day even twelve columns a day will not 
 cover the extent of the report, when we get to sitting 
 three or four hours a day, in the discussion of the great 
 questions which we are to decide here. Twelve columns 
 a day, then will be the average, and that will double the 
 expenses, even if you sit only fifteen weeks. Thus in- 
 stead of $10,000, you will find that $30,000 will not foot 
 the bill of expenses, even taking the committee's esti- 
 mate of the length of the session. For one, I am not pre- 
 pared to impose that expense upon the people of Vir- 
 ginia if it can be avoided, and I believe it can. "What are 
 the facts with respect to the proceedings of the last Con- 
 vention? Did the people know nothing of their pro- 
 ceedings ? So far from that, every man knows that the 
 discussions in that Convention were circulated through- 
 out the length and breadth of the land, and acted on the 
 public sentiment, which public sentiment re-acted again 
 on the members of that body. Those debates were pub- 
 lished and disseminated from one end of the country to 
 the other. Were they thus disseminated by a reporter 
 and printer employee! by the State ? No sir ; they were 
 reported by a gentleman employed by one of the papers 
 of the city, the members themselves revising and writing 
 out their speeches in a great measure, and the publisher 
 printing them at his own expense. Whether he lost by 
 
50 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 it or not is a question between him and the Common- 
 wealth ; but in the present case no one can lose except 
 the Commonwealth, for we pay the salary of our re- 
 porter and do not ask any editor to be at that expense 
 in the dissemination of our proceedings to the people. 
 Now, instead of having this matter entrusted to private 
 enterprize as we have in years heretofore, we have here 
 employed a most competent gentleman to report our pro- 
 ceedings and made it a part of his duty to furnish the 
 papers with copies of his report. Who shall say then 
 that we suppress information and desire to withhold 
 light from the people, unless we consent to go to an ex- 
 pense of forty, fifty or sixty thousand dollars — or rath- 
 er, unless we agree to its publication in the form as pro- 
 posed by the committee ? For one, if gentlemen are 
 right, which I do not believe they are, in saying this 
 scheme must be adopted or none will be adopted, I am 
 ready to meet the issue on this motion for indefinite 
 postpone men". I am not prepared to say that another 
 sehem e cannot be adopted. I shall say nothing on that 
 point, though I have much objection to the present form 
 of the publication, but treating the question in the as- 
 pect in which it is presented to us, that is as a question 
 whether we shall or shall not adopt this particular 
 scheme, I shall most cheerfully vote, for the reasons 
 I have stated, for the motion to postpone indefinitely. 
 I am willing to try the experiment, at least for a short 
 time longer. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I should like to know if the motion 
 for indefinite postponement should prevail, whether the 
 gentleman from Richmond will give us the benefit of his 
 reflections on this subject? 
 
 Mr. STANARD. There is one very simple suggestion 
 to offer on this subject. As to the details of this scheme, 
 I certainly prefer, if the debates are to be published at all, 
 the pamphlet or book form. But I will say to the gen- 
 tleman from Augusta (Mr. Sheffey) that not having the 
 honor to be a member of the committee, I do not profess 
 to have given the subject that attention which perhaps I 
 ought ; nor am I here to put any particular scheme be- 
 fore the committee. I rise to meet the issue presented 
 by the committee, and urged with such pertinacity again 
 and again and again reported to us as the only scheme 
 that can be devised. Let this test question be decided 
 against this plan, and then another scheme may be 
 brought forward disconnected from the difficulties which 
 arise, from the fact that this particular scheme has its ad- 
 vocates in this hall. So long as there is a probability of 
 our adopting this scheme, no other one will be proposed. 
 Let us dispose of this one and we shall probably get 
 another and a better plan. At all events, we shall not 
 be worse off than we now are. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. 1 shall vote against the motion to post- 
 pone indefinitely. And at the same time I announce my 
 determination, under no circumstances whatever, to vote 
 for the report of the committee. I can answer the ques- 
 tion of the gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Sheffey) as 
 to a better mode of having these proceedings published; 
 and in that answer consists my only objection to the re- 
 port of the committee. It is to the perishable form 
 in which it is presented. If the motion to postpone be 
 voted down, and the amendment of the gentleman from 
 Chesterfield (Mr. Cox) shall be adopted, I shall then 
 be prepared to vote for the report of the committee 
 with that amendment. Up to this time we have had 
 this supplemental sheet furnished to us, containing, on 
 an average, about two columns of reading matter con- 
 nected with the proceedings of this Convention, and some 
 eight or ten or more columns of advertisements, which 
 we have been required to distribute throughout this 
 Commonwealth, and in which we have no interest. Now, 
 for the first time, we have a supplemental sheet filled up 
 on both sides with these reports. And yet I perceive a 
 species of economy is practised in this sheet by the 
 printer, that of printing it upside down on one side, in 
 order to print two sheets at a time, leaving no margin 
 by which it is possible to have it preserved by being 
 bound up. And if it could be done, the reader would 
 
 have to turn his book upside down every time he read a 
 page. [Laughter.] Now, what I desire to know is this : 
 The publisher of this supplemental sheet has already 
 proposed to publish a " Register of Debates," and 
 has appointed, as I perceive from his own columns, nu- 
 merous persons as agents to obtain subscribers for that 
 Register. He is the employee of the Convention, and de- 
 rives his emolument from this Convention for publishing 
 these very debates which he is to publish in his Register. 
 And I desire to know why we are to be treated worse 
 than his subscribers to the Register of Debates. If Ave 
 pay him for the publication, why are We to receive these 
 supplemental sheets in perishable from, when he gives it 
 in a better form to those who come after us ? Why, this 
 Register of Debates will be as useful to us as to the peo- 
 ple of the Commonwealth to whom, he proposes to send 
 it. We shall want the Register for our own use, during 
 the debates, for Constant reference. A gentlemen pre- 
 sents his views upon an important question to-day, to 
 which another gentleman may not have an opportunity 
 of replying, perhaps, for several weeks — does he not want 
 a report of that gentleman's remarks constantly before 
 him, in order that he may not misunderstand and mis- 
 represent him ? Can you have it in this supplemental 
 form ? I am not one of these advocates of that rigid 
 system of economy in State affairs, which generally con- 
 sists in letting out at the bung, while you stop at the 
 spigot. [Laughter.] We have already spent more than 
 enough in this discussion to pay the difference between 
 this form and the pamphlet. I do not practice this 
 species of economy at home, and I will not practice it 
 for the State; and I would rather spend a $100 of the 
 public money than $10 of my own, because the State 
 can better afford it. [Laughter.] I will have this thing 
 done well, or I will not vote to have it done at all. I 
 shall, therefore, as we have gone to the expense of em- 
 ploying a reporter at the price, I think, of two hundred 
 and fifty dollars a week, require, if these proceedings 
 are to be published at all, that they be published for our 
 use, as well as for the use of our constituents ; and pub- 
 lished too in a form in which they can be preserved. 
 Why, what is to be the consequence ? I do not mean to 
 say that there is any object in it— I make no charge, or 
 imputation on any one whatever — but what is to be the 
 consequence? The register of these debates is to be 
 published and every member of this Convention, who 
 desires to procure a copy, is to become the purchaser 
 from the very individual whom we employ to publish 
 this sheet for us. It looks to me very like a specu- 
 lation on this Convention that I am not prepared to 
 submit to. I do earnestly trust that if we incur the 
 expense of publishing at all, that we will not be guilty 
 of a niggardly economy for saving a few hundred dollars 
 rather than having it in a form in which it can be service- 
 able to us now and hereafter. I hope, therefore, the 
 motion for indefinite postponement will be voted down, 
 and that the amendment of my friend from Chesterfield 
 (Mr. Cox) will be adopted, let the Cost be what it may. 
 I take it for granted that we shall not pay more than it 
 is worth ; what it is worth I am ready to pay, but I 
 would rather pay more than it is worth, than to have it 
 in the form proposed by the committee. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. The bell has just struck 12 o'clock 
 and I move that the Convention adjourn. 
 
 The motion to adjourn was lost. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. Since I was last up, a communica- 
 tion has been handed to me relating to this subject, 
 which I desire to have read. It is from Messrs. J. J. 
 Palmer, and Colin, Baptist & Nolan. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. The hour of 12 having arrived, and 
 this beino- the hour to which the House of Delegates ad- 
 journed here, and it being apparent to every gentleman 
 that we cannot dispose of this question to-day, I think 
 it is due to that House that we should adjourn. As to 
 the communication, there have been a great many— I be- 
 lieve we receive one daily — from the same firm, and I 
 prefer giving it due consideration, and therefore move 
 that the Convention now adjourn. 
 
VRGIINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 51 
 
 The motion to adjourn was negatived — a count being 
 had — yeas 43, nays 70. 
 
 The communication presented by Mr. STANARD was 
 then read by the Secretary, as follows : 
 To the Hon. President, 
 
 and Members of the Convention : 
 
 The subject of " the printing the debates," being before 
 the Convention, we beg leave to present the following 
 plan, which will secure the greatest general circulation 
 (which seems now to be the great object) and by giving 
 more time to the printers, secure the most desirable of 
 all objects, perfect accuracy and correctness ; the re 
 porters having time to examine the proof sheets. We 
 propose to print in book form (octavo or quarto) the pro 
 ceedings and debates (during the session of the Conven 
 tion) at the following rates— 50 cents per thousand ems 
 for composition, and 50 cents per token for press work 
 the Convention prescribing the quality of paper and the 
 number of copies desired. The whole to be ready for 
 distribution and delivery with the laws of the General 
 Assembly. J ohn J. Palmer, and 
 
 Jan'y 14, 1851. Colin, Baptist <fe Nolan. 
 
 Mr. BR AXTON. I am at all times disposed to gratify 
 my friend from Chesterfield, (Mr. Cox,) but I was surprised 
 to hear such a request come from tkat source. If he has 
 any other proposition to offer, he can present it after 
 this question shall have been disposed of, and therefore 
 I must decline to withdraw the motion to postpone in- 
 definitely. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion to post- 
 pone indefinitely the further consideration of the subject, 
 and there were yeas 43, nays 80, as follows : 
 
 Yeas— Messrs. Anderson, Banks, Barbour, Bocock, Bow- 
 den, Braxton, Chambers, Claiborne, Davis, Douglas, Ed- 
 munds, Edwards, Faulkner, Flood, Fuqua, Garland, M. R. 
 H. Garnett, Goode, Hill, Jacobs Jones, Kenney, Kilgore, 
 Ligon, Lynch, McCandiish, Miller, Moncure, Morris, 
 Newman, Saunders, Sloan, Smith of King & Queen, 
 Southall, Stanard, Strother, Taylor, Turnbull, Wallace, 
 Whittle, Wingfield, Woolfolk, Worsham— 43. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. J. Y. Mason, (Pres't,) Armstrong, Arthur, 
 Beale, Bland, Blue, Botts, Bowles, Brown, Burges, Cam- 
 den, Caperton, Carlile, Carter of Russell, Carter of Lou- 
 don, Chambliss, Chapman, Chilton, Cocke, Conway, Cook, 
 Cox, Deneale, Ferguson, Finney, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz> 
 Gaily, M. Garnett, Hays, Hoge, Hopkins, Hunter, Jan- 
 ney, Johnson, Knote, Leake, Letcher, Lionberger, Lucas, 
 Lyons, McCamant, McComas, Martin of Marshall, Martin 
 of Henry, Meredith, Moore, Murphy, Neeson, Pendleton, 
 Petty, Price, Randolph, Ridley, Rives, Scott of Fauquier, 
 Scott of Richmond city, Seymour, Shell, Sheffey, Smith 
 of Kanawha, Smith of Ja«kson, Smith of Greenbrier, 
 Snodgrass, Snowden, Stephenson, Stewart of Morgan, 
 Stuart of Patrick, Summers, Tate, Trigg, Tunis, Van 
 Winkle, Watts of Norfolk Co., Watts of Roanoke, Wil- 
 1 ey, Williams of Fairfax, Wise, Wysor — 80. 
 
 So the motion for the indefinite postponement was not 
 agreed to. 
 
 Mr. COX. I now move the re-commitment of the re- 
 port, with the following instructions to the committee : 
 
 " Resolved, That the report be re-committed to the 
 same committee, with instructions to receive proposals 
 for publishing the proceedings and debates of the Con- 
 vention in octavo form, or in a form convenient to be 
 bound and preserved." 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I move that the Convention now 
 adjourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 15, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Dibrell, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 printing of the debates. 
 
 The PRESIDENT remarked that the first business in 
 order was the consideration of the report of the Commit- 
 tee on Printing, that being the unfinished business of yes- 
 terday. When the Convention adjourned, the question 
 pending was on the motion of Mr. Cox, to re-commit the 
 report with instructions. 
 
 Mr. COX. I ask leave to withdraw the proposition 
 which I offered yesterday, for the purpose of offering in 
 effect the same proposition, but in a form less crude and 
 I think better suited to accomplish the object. 
 
 There being no objection, the original proposition was 
 withdrawn, and the following substituted in lieu thereof : 
 Resolved, That the report and resolution be recom- 
 mitted with instructions to the committee to receive pro- 
 posals for publishing numbers of the daily debates 
 
 and proceedings of the Convention in octavo form, or a 
 form convenient for binding and preservation, to be dis- 
 tributed weekly among the members of the Convention ; 
 
 and also for numbers to be published, folded and 
 
 addressed as directed by members, each member being 
 entitled to the same number of copies. 
 
 Mr. NEWMAN. I have drawn up a resolution which 
 I will offer as a substitute for that offered by the gentle- 
 man from Chesterfield, (Mr. Cox). The main difference 
 between the two is in relation to the distribution to be 
 made of the publication. The substitute is as follows : 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Reporting, &c, be 
 directed to receive proposals for printing in octavo form 
 copies of the debates of the Convention and ascertain the 
 cost thereof, which copies shall be disposed of as follows : 
 Copies to be furnished to the members of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Copies to be furnished to subscribers, $ per copy. 
 Copies to bound for sale at $ per copy. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I simply desire to know whether 
 this is a proposition to re-commit. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The proposition is to re-commit. 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I prefer the substitute, and although 
 at first view I would have been willing to have taken the 
 proposition of th© gentleman from Chesterfied (Mr. Cox) 
 yet upon reflection, I consider it just as objectionable as 
 the original resolution. Now, I presume that no mem- 
 ber would design to distinguish between his constitu- 
 ents. The proposition of the gentleman from Chester- 
 field, if adopted, will devolve upon us the duty of ma- 
 king a distinction between our constituents the same as 
 the other plan. I do not like that. The trouble and odium 
 attending it is what I am not willing to encounter. My 
 own opinion is that the substitute will answer all the 
 ends desired. Under the plan it proposes we can have 
 this printing done in a manner satisfactory to all par- 
 ties. We can rule the prices down to such a rate to 
 subscribers to the debates that all who desire can pro- 
 cure them. Any gentleman who has curiosity enough 
 to desire a knowledge of the proceedings of this body, 
 will be perfectly willing to pay a dollar or a dollar and 
 a half for a copy. And the printers could furnish it at 
 that price, in consideration of the fact that we will pay 
 for the setting up of the types, which is the great matter 
 in the cost of publication. This will be the result if we 
 adopt that substitute. The printers will be enabled to 
 furnish the debates at a cheap rate, and every constituent 
 we have, who has curiosity to read them, will write to 
 his representative to enter his name as a subscriber for 
 this publication. Adopt the resolution offered by the 
 gentleman from Chesterfield (Mr. Cox) and the result 
 will be that you will impose upon the members of this 
 Convention the labor and. trouble and the odium of dis- 
 tinguishing between their constituents ; for you cannot, 
 and I presume no gentleman here supposes we can, sup- 
 ply to every man in the Commonwealth a copy at the 
 cost proposed. And if you should attempt any such 
 thing, much of it will be labor lost, for there are hun- 
 dreds and thousands who will not read ; there are many 
 who cannot read, and there are also many who can read 
 them but who cannot divert the time and attention ne- 
 
52 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 cessary for that purpose from their business. I trust 
 that the substitute will be adopted — adopted at once, 
 and then we shall put it in the power of every one of 
 our constituents who desire it, to procure the debates 
 and proceedings at a very cheap rate, we having paid for 
 the setting up of the types. I will not detain the Con- 
 vention with further remarks. 
 
 The question was then taken on the substitute, and it 
 was rejected. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I suppose that it wiM be just as 
 well for the Convention now to determine whether 
 they will choose the sheet form or supplement, or 
 the octavo form, on the motion to instruct. Well, 
 there is the sheet in the octavo form, [holding it up to 
 view.] You will see that there is a plantation with one 
 long vacant avenue running through it, and three others 
 equally large and vacant, cutting across it at right an- 
 gles, with the main avenue, almost as broad as Pennsyl- 
 vania avenue, and as barren. You pay for paper and 
 press work, to cover these vacancies, for just in propor- 
 tion as these avenues exist on the face of the sheet, you 
 must place your type some where else. It will increase 
 the cost of paper, which is the most expensive item in 
 the whole charge, being about one-half of the whole 
 cost. It will increase the expense of press-work, which 
 is the second principal item of charge in this work, in 
 the same ratio. Again, the sort of paper that will an- 
 swer for the supplement, at a moderate price, will not 
 answer for the pamphlet form, which is to be bound and 
 preserved. The paper on which the public documents 
 are printed for the House of Delegates, costs the Com- 
 monwealth from five to five and a half or six dollars a 
 ream ; and if these debates are to be put in pamphlet 
 form, you must have pamphlet paper, and the flimsy 
 paper that does for the newspaper form, will not do to 
 put up in the form of pamphlet for permanent preser- 
 vation. So that, in every aspect of the case, you must 
 inevitably increase the cost, and the burden upon the 
 Treasury. I think, that the committee's proposition will 
 be found in the result, a great deal cheaper ; and I predict 
 that it will be found impracticable to work off the num- 
 ber that we desire for circulation among the comxiunity, 
 namely, thirty-one thousand copies a week ; and that for 
 the reason that the working off the pamphlet, and the 
 folding in pamphlet form, must necessarily consume a 
 great deal more time, than the running a common sheet 
 through the press. If I know any thing about what 
 the people desire, it is, that they may be informed of 
 the current business of the Convention from day to day. 
 But in this form your proceedings will be delayed so 
 long, that the interest and excitement which gave rise 
 to the debate will have died away, and it will never be 
 read at all. I hope that the exhibit I have made 
 will at once induce those who believe that the supple- 
 mental sheet will answer all the main purposes we have 
 in view, to Vote against the motion to re-commit, with 
 instructions. 
 
 Mr. COX. I shall detain the Convention but a very 
 few moments, either in reply to the gentleman who has 
 just taken his seat, or in the advocacy of the plan offer- 
 ed by myself. It seems to me, that the gentleman, in 
 the setting out of the argument, begged the question. 
 He has assumed the fact that the publication of the pro- 
 ceedings in the shape which I desire to have them pub- 
 lished, will cost the Commonwealth more money than 
 in the flimsy and perishable form in which he proposes 
 to publish them. This is begging the question. Now, 
 what does my amendment contemplate ? And what does 
 it direct ? It directs the committee to receive proposals 
 for publishing these debates in a certain form. Wot un- 
 til these proposals have been received, can we tell 
 whether his plan or my plan will cost the most. When 
 they have been received, I take it that the committee, 
 according to the resolution, will submit them to the Con- 
 vention, and we will then determine whether we wdl ac- 
 cept the proposals or not. The resolution does not leave 
 it to the discretion of the committee to accept proposals 
 for publishing the reports of these proceedings — it mere- 
 
 ly directs them to receive them and report them to 
 this body. We can accept them, or not accept them, 
 as we please. If we find that it must encumber 
 the Treasury with debt, and cost immensely more, 
 as the gentleman has said, than his plan, we can re- 
 ject it, and adopt his plan, or any other. As far as 
 my opinion goes, I think the plan proposed by me will 
 cost less than his plan. When these proposals are re- 
 ceived, I think you will find that, in pamphlet form, and 
 done even on the good paper he speaks of, the work 
 will cost a less amount of money than on the perisha- 
 ble sheet and indifferent paper, under the plan propo- 
 sed by the committee. Let us try the experiment. We 
 can do it in a very few days. The gentleman thinks 
 that in the pamphlet form, it cannot be published in the 
 short time necessary for distribution. I differ from the 
 gentleman in this. I see no reason why it cannot be 
 printed as readily and expeditiously in this form as any 
 other. If the printers have now no proper press, I have 
 no doubt that they can get one in a few days. There is 
 one great objection to the form of the supplement in the 
 fact that it is merely paying the papers of this city for 
 publishing in their papers, what they will publish, if we do 
 not pay them. It is a bonus to them which we do not offer 
 to the editors of newspapers in other cities. You pay the 
 editors of the newspapers in this city for publishing 
 the reports and proceedings of this Convention, when 
 this same information will be published by the editors 
 of papers in Petersburg, Alexandria, and Norfolk, and 
 they get no pay for it. We give them the reports in 
 manuscript, and they charge for publishing them. The 
 papers in those other cities and provincial towns, get 
 the matter in a printed form, and receive no pay for 
 publishing it. If you will pay the editors of this city, 
 I shall move that you pay the editors of my city. If 
 you give a bonus to the editors in this city, you should 
 give the same bonus to the editors of the newspapers in 
 my city, and the gentlemen from the towns of Alexan- 
 dria and Norfolk, will have the same right to claim 
 a bonus for the newspapers in their cities. I think 
 the most speedy way of finishing this matter, would 
 be to send it back to the committee, instructing them 
 to receive proposals for the publication of these pro- 
 ceedings ; and then, when these proposals are received, 
 we can accept or reject them, as we think best. I ask 
 for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Mr. COX. I would inquire, whether the blanks 
 ought not to be filled before the question is put ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. They can be filled after the re- 
 solution is adopted. 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolution offer- 
 red by Mr. Cox, and there were — yeas 67, nays 50, as 
 follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Banks, Barbour, Beale, Bland, 
 Bocock, Botts, Bowles, Byrd, Carter of Loudoun, Cham- 
 bers, Claiborne, Cocke, Cox, Davis, Deneale, Edwards, 
 Finney, Flood, Fultz, Fuqua, Garland, Goode, Hill, Hoge, 
 Jacob, Jones, Kenney, Letcher, Lionberger, Lynch, Mc- 
 Camant, Mc Comas, Martin of Henry, Miller, Moore, New- 
 man, Pendleton, Petty, Price, Ridley, Rives, Saunders, 
 Scott of Fauquier, Sloan, Smith of Kanawha, Smith of 
 K. & Q., Smith of Jackson, Smith of Greenbrier, Snod- 
 grass, Southall, Stanard, Stephenson, Stewart of Mor- 
 gan, Strother, Stuart of Patrick, Summers, Tate, Turn- 
 bull, Wallace, White, Whittle, Williams of Fairfax, 
 Woolfolk, Worsham, Wysor— 67. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Mason, (President,) Armstrong, Arthur, 
 Blue, Bowden, Braxton, Brown, Burgess, Camden, Carter 
 of Russell, Chambliss, Chapman, Chilton, Conway, Cook, 
 Douglass, Edmunds, Ferguson, Floyd, Fulkerson, Gaily, 
 M. Garnett, Hopkins of Powhatan, Hunter, Janney, 
 Johnson, Kilgore, Knote, Leake, Ligon, Lucas, Mc- 
 Candlish, Martin of Marshall, Moncure, Morris, Neeson, 
 Purkins, Scott of Richmond city, Seymour, Shell, Shef- 
 fey, Snowden, Taylor, Trigg, Tunis, Van Winkle, Watts 
 of Norfolk county, Willey, Wingfied, Wise— 50. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 53 
 
 So the resolution to re-commit the report with in 
 structions, was agreed to. 
 
 _ The PRESIDENT. There are blanks in the resolu- 
 tion. What is the purpose of the Convention, to fill 
 them, or to refer it to the committee as it is ? 
 
 Mr. COX. I am perfectly willing that it should go 
 to the committee as it is, unless some gentleman would 
 prefer a definite number. 
 
 AMOUNT OF TOWN, CITY AND COUNTY TAXES. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I have received a communication 
 from the Auditor of Accounts, to be laid before the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 The Secretary read the communication as follows: 
 Auditor's Office, ) 
 Richmond, Jan., 14, 1851. J 
 Sir : Herewith I have the honor of handing to you the 
 table showing the amount of taxes assessed for each 
 county, city and town in the Commonwealth of Virgi- 
 nia, iii the years 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820, 1830, and 1840, 
 called for by resolution of the Convention, passed on 
 the 17th day of October last. 
 I am, with high respect, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Ro. Johnston, First Auditor. 
 To the Hon. John Y. Mason, 
 
 President of the Virginia State Convention. 
 The PRESIDENT. What disposition shall be made 
 of the communication ? The accompanying documents 
 have already been handed over to the printer. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I move that the communication and 
 accompanying document belaid on the table and printed. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I move that an extra number of two 
 thousand be printed. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I should like to hear some reason 
 for printing so large an extra number of these documents. 
 I do not know why so large an extra number is neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I understand the gentleman to in- 
 quire for some reasons for publishing an extra number 
 of these documents. The reason simply is, to enlarge 
 the circulation as much as possible. There is conside- 
 rable interest felt on this subject among the people, and 
 great anxiety for the information which is furnished by 
 this document. By printing an extra number of two 
 thousand, you can give a larger circulation, and of 
 course satisfy this desire. I have no particular desire 
 for the exact number proposed. If any other gentle- 
 man desires a smaller number than that, if it will only 
 accomplish the end in view, I shall be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I think, if I understand the 
 Chair, these documents are already printed and distri- 
 buted. Does the motion to print embrace the letter, or 
 simply the accompanying documents? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The motion embraces the letter 
 and the accompanying documents. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I withdraw the motion to print, as 
 to the former. 
 
 A MEMBER. I would inquire whether the docu- 
 ment is very voluminous ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is sir. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I was under a misapprehension 
 as to the nature of the document. I understood it was 
 only a conjectural estimate of population. I find I was 
 mistaken, and I will make no opposition to the motion 
 to print. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I will remark that the Conven- 
 tion directed, before its adjournment, that the commu- 
 nications received on this subject, during the recess, 
 should be presented to the printer, and the printing 
 executed under the direction of the Secretary. When 
 they were received accordingly, the accompanying docu- 
 ments Avere placed in the hands of the printer, in order 
 that the members might be more expeditiously accom- 
 modated with the documents. The question on this 
 document is now presented, and it is necessary for the 
 Convention to decide whether it shall be printed or not. 
 The first motion was to lay on the table and print for 
 
 the use of members. The gentleman from Marion made 
 his motion to print two thousand copies. The question 
 will first be taken on the motion to lay on the table and 
 print. 
 
 The question was taken and the President was about 
 to declare the motion negatived — 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. I am satisfied that the question was 
 not understood. There certainly can be no objection to 
 the motion to lay on the table and print. 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS expressed the same opinion. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. As the question seems to have 
 been misunderstood, it will be again taken. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. It seems to me there is a misappre- 
 hension as to the state of the facts. If I understood, 
 the motion made to print was put and carried ; and the 
 gentleman from Marion, after the vote was taken, moved 
 for the extra copies. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. That is not the recollection of 
 the Chair. The Chair was stating the motion of the 
 gentleman from Kanawha, and was about to put the 
 question, but before it was announced, the gentleman 
 from Marion offered his resolution to print two thousand 
 extra copies. If a divison of the question is called for, 
 it will be made. 
 
 A MEMBER. It is. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. A division of the question is re- 
 quested. The first question is, on laying on the table 
 and printing the usual number, five hundred copies. 
 
 This motion was decided. in the affirmative. The ques- 
 tion then recurred on the motion to print two thousand 
 extra copies, and it was decided in the negative. 
 
 PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS IN GERMAN. 
 
 M.i. KNOTE. I move to take up the resolution I of- 
 fered the other day relating to the printing of certain 
 documents in the German language, and which was laid 
 on the table. 
 
 The motion was agreed to by the Convention, and the 
 resolution was read by the Secretary, as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary be, and he is hereby in- 
 structed to contract with Mr. George Deitz, editor of 
 the " Virginia Staats Zeitung," to print in the German 
 language copies of such public documents as 
 
 may be ordered to be so printed by this Convention, to- 
 gether with the new Constitution, when it shall be com- 
 pleted: Provided, such contract can be made at prices 
 not higher than are now paid for public printing by the 
 General Assembly of Virginia. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I wish to say but a word or two. I 
 have been asked since I offered this resolution, where 
 this paper was printed. I presumed that this was un- 
 derstood at the time that I offered the resolution. The 
 paper is printed in Wheeling. Again, I have been asked 
 how these documents, if they are so printed, shall be 
 distributed to the people who desire them ? j will an- 
 swer that. These documents, if printed, will be folded 
 and directed, and mailed at Wheeling, by the editor, 
 free of charge. And if members who have constituents 
 desiring the documents, will send me their names, I will 
 send them to the editor, and they will receive them at 
 any place in the State at the same rate and at the same 
 postage as they would if they were printed in the 
 capital. I do not desire to say anything more on the 
 subject at present. I presume it is fully understood, 
 and I hope the resolution will be adopted by the Con- 
 vention without discussion. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman propose to 
 fill the blanks in his resolution himself ? 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I will move to fill the blank that oc- 
 curs in the resolution with five hundred. 
 
 Mr. KENNEY. I propose to fill the blank with 
 five thousand. There are other gentlemen who have 
 German constituents, besides the gentleman from Ohio. 
 Many of my constituents are industrious intelligent 
 Germans, who cannot read the English language, who 
 would like, I have no doubt, to familiarize themselves 
 with the reasons for the various changes which we may 
 make in the Constitution. Every person who has at? 
 
54 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 tained the age of twenty-one, and undertakes to acquire 
 a knowledge of another language, finds how difficult it is 
 to understand any new document in that language. In- 
 deed, we find that the best scholars, whose attention has 
 been directed to the Trench, Greek, or other languages, 
 when any difficult question is to be examined, still 
 prefer seeing it in the language with which they are 
 most familiar. This is the case with my constituents. 
 I therefore hope the Convention may indulge us with 
 that number. We ask it, at least some of us, as a per- 
 sonal favor, in order that all our constituents may be 
 able to know wh^t is going on here. We ask not for the 
 entire debates, but for some three or four documents 
 which the gentleman from Ohio has pointed out. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I represent about a thousand 
 Dutchmen, and I rise to ask the gentleman from Wheel- 
 ing if all the Dutchmen speak the same language. I am 
 ignorant of the different languages spoken among the 
 Germans ; but those in my district are what are called 
 the " High Dutch," and if they speak the language in 
 which the gentleman from Wheeling proposes to have 
 this printing done, I am bound to vote for the resolu- 
 lution, but if not, then I shall vote for the printing of 
 our documents in the language of the " High Dutch." 
 
 Mr. D ENE ALE. It is immaterial to me with what 
 number the blanks may be filled, but I do question the 
 policy or propriety of that resolution. I can see no ve- 
 ry great benefit that can flow from it, and I conceive it 
 to be the true policy of this government to invite the 
 adoption of one and our own language rather than to en- 
 courage, or perpetuate, or aid in perpetuating any other 
 or a multiplicity of languages among us. Again, this 
 publication is to be effected in a remote town, and in 
 order that they may be distributed, we shall be under 
 the necessity of sending our drafts or orders to be filled 
 up, at that distance. It is true there are some of our 
 German population who cannot read the English lan- 
 guage, but necessity has forced them to give their chil- 
 dren an English education, and if they do not read, they 
 perfectly understand the English. I cannot see the 
 propriety of encouraging a variety and multiplicity of 
 languages in our own State. I prefer that our people, 
 language and everything else, shall become homogene- 
 ous. 
 
 Mr, DOUGLAS. I beg leave to say a word for a pe- 
 culiar class of my own constituents. My colleague and 
 myself, I believe, are the only gentlemen upon this floor 
 who represent any portion of the Indians. It will be 
 recollected that the resolution I offered yesterday, in 
 reference to those Indians, was referred to the Commit- 
 tee on the Bill of Rights," and I suppose therefore they 
 are to be recognized as a portion of our citizens. If so, 
 I hope we shall have a few documents published in the 
 language of the Pamunky and Mattaponi Indians. 
 
 Mr, MARTEN", of Marshall. We cannot very well hear 
 in this part of the house, but I think, if I understood the 
 gentleman correctly, he wished to offer an amendment 
 to the resolution, proposing to print these documents in 
 the language of the Indians he represents. I think there 
 is a vast difference between printing these documents in 
 the German language and in the Indian language. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman did not move any 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall. I do see great propriety in 
 printing these documents in the German language for 
 reasons which must appear obvious to every member of 
 this Convention. The German citizens of Virginia, and 
 they are a large proportion, will be called upon to vote 
 upon this Constitution, for its adoption, or rejection and I 
 would like to know how gentlemen expect they can un- 
 derstand what they are Voting upon when they cannot 
 understand the language in which it is presented to 
 them. They will vote, I presume, as I have been com- 
 pelled to vote on two or three occasions this morning, 
 without hearing or knowing anything about the subject 
 — by guessing. There is no impropriety in the Conven- 
 tion's imposing the small burden on the Commonwealth 
 of Virginia, which will be imposed upon it, by printing 
 
 a few documents in that language — the Constitution for 
 instance, and other important documents, which will be 
 understood when these voters will be called upon at the 
 polls, to vote for the adoption or rejection of this Con- 
 stitution. I believe it is not proposed to print the de- 
 bates, but only such documents as the Convention may 
 deem absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of 
 the Constitution when it shall be presented to them. I 
 favor the largest number with which the blank is pro- 
 posed to be filled, and I hesitate not to say that 500 will 
 not accommodate, in all probability, the German popu- 
 lation of my district. Why, there is a German popula- 
 tion scattered over the whole State which should be in* 
 formed upon this subject and who can be informed from 
 the distant city of Wheeling. In that city, I believe, is 
 published the only German paper in the State of Vir- 
 ginia, and from that point can be distributed these doc- 
 uments in their own language, to the German voters in 
 every county, city and town in this Commonwealth, so 
 that when they are called upon to vote upon the Con- 
 stitution, they will vote as we vote, understanding^, 
 for its adoption or rejection. It is a subject in which 
 they are as deeply interested as we can be, and I hope 
 the motion of the gentleman over the way to insert "five 
 thousand" instead of "five hundred," will prevail. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I am in earnest in my willingness 
 to support the proposition of the gentleman from Wheel- 
 ing. I presume that my friend from King William 
 (Mr. Douglas) was jesting when comparing the Indian 
 population of his district — to whom no man would be 
 willing to extend the right of suffrage — with the best 
 portion of the population of this Commonwealth, as far 
 as honesty and industry are concerned. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I will relieve the gentleman's anx- 
 iety. I do not wish to put the Indians of my district 
 upon a level with either the high or the low Dutch of 
 the Commonwealth. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I represent in this Convention 
 three hundred German voters, remarkable for the sim- 
 plicity of their religion, their honest deportment, and 
 their industry. They cultivate their lands, own the 
 best farms, and make as good citizens as any member on 
 this floor represents, I care not whether they belong to 
 the chivalry, to the old hunkers, to the democrats, to 
 the whigs, or to any body else. I protest, there- 
 fore, against putting my German constituents on an 
 equality with the Indians of the country who have 
 never been entitled under the laws of this State to 
 the privileges of the white citizens of the Common- 
 wealth. I believe that nine-tenths of the Germans in 
 my county speak the English as fluently as they do the 
 German language. But I am not willing to keep from 
 that portion of our population who have become identi- 
 fied with the people of Virginia — whose interests are 
 our interests, whose feelings are our feelings, and who, 
 thank God, are almost to a man, democrats — any of the 
 light emanating from this Convention which we pro- 
 pose to give to others. If this Convention shall deter- 
 mine to print its debates and proceedings for the use of 
 the people of the Commonwealth, I agree with the gen- 
 tleman from Wheeling (Mr. Knote) that they should be 
 furnished to every man-— to the Dutchman as well as the 
 American. And the only objection I have to the propo- 
 sition of the gentleman from the city of Wheeling, is the 
 locality of his printing press. I beg leave to ask my 
 friend from Richmond — and he will excuse me for nam- 
 ing him — -Mr. Scott, if printing cannot be done in the 
 German language in the city of Richmond? [Laughter.] 
 If the gentleman is not in the house, I will say that I 
 understand there is no difficulty in having these docu- 
 ments printed in German in the city of Richmond ; and 
 I ask my friend from Wheeling to so modify his resolu- 
 tion as to require the committee to inquire into the ex* 
 pediency and cost of having the documents and debates 
 of this Convention printed in that language in this city. 
 I ask it, so that gentlemen here having a German con- 
 stituency, may have an opportunity of sending a few of 
 them to their constituents. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 55 
 
 Mr. JACOB. It will be observed that the resolu- 
 tion in question provides for the certain publication of 
 nothing but the Constitution itself. It depends upon a 
 subsequeat order of this body whether any other docu- 
 ment shall be printed. I take it, it is the desire of this 
 body that every man in the Commonwealth, who can 
 read or who desires to read the Constitution, if we ever 
 make one, shall have an opportunity so to do. I agree 
 with the gentleman from Rockingham, (Mr. Deneale,) 
 that it is not the policy of the State to encourage among 
 us the existence of various languages. That is a very 
 sound argument when applied to the publication of our 
 ordinary legislative proceedings every year, but it loses 
 all its force when applied to the question of publishing 
 the great fundamental organic law of the State, after it 
 has undergone revision — which I hope will not happen 
 oftener than once in twenty years at least. Whether 
 you shall furnish a population who cannot read English 
 but who can read German, with' an opportunity to un- 
 derstand a matter in which they have so deep an inter- 
 est as the Constitution of the State, is a question which 
 admits, in my opinion, of but one side. Again, the Ger- 
 man population of the State, such as reside in my dis- 
 trict — even their very children — have not been long 
 enough in the country to learn to read our language, 
 and if we intend to enable them to read the instrument 
 for themselves, we must print it for them in a language 
 in which they will understand it, and not in one of 
 which they do not understand a word. I am afraid that 
 the motion of the gentleman over the way will overload 
 the resolution of my colleague, and I will observe to the 
 gentleman from King William, who has directly com- 
 pared the German population of the State with the In- 
 dian population of the country — 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask the gentleman to give way 
 for one moment. I supposed that the proposition of the 
 gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Claiborne) was made in 
 j est, and mine was made in the same spirit. I had no 
 idea of comparing the Pamunky and Mattaponi Indians 
 with the German population, and I had always intended 
 to vote for the resolution. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. Done in jest? Had the gentleman him- 
 self been compared to the population which surrounds 
 him — those Indians — though in jest, he would not have 
 relished the joke. [Laughter.] Jests made at the ex- 
 pense of a respectable portion of the population of the 
 Sbate, and as respectable as any other portion, are al- 
 ways in bad taste. I would ask that gentleman — to 
 show the force of his jest — whether he would have a 
 committee of this house directed to inquire whether 
 some provision should not be inserted in the Constitu- 
 tion by which we may look to the possible expulsion of 
 the German population from the State. Such a resolu- 
 tion he moved yesterday, I believe, with respect to the 
 Indians of his district; and that very resolution should 
 have shown him that he ought not attempt to joke at 
 the expense of one portion of the good people of this 
 State, who comprise in at least an equal proportion, as 
 much of what is pure and patriotic and honorable and 
 useful in the elements of population as any other por- 
 tion of our citizens. 
 
 Mi-. KNOTE. Before the vote is taken on this resolu- 
 tion, I beg leave to say a word or two. I have no ob- 
 jection to the adoption of the proposition of my friend 
 from Rockingham, (Mr. Kenney,) if the number propos- 
 ed is not thought too large. My own opinion was, 
 that a smaller number would be sufficient. I will say, 
 for the information of the Convention, what I have al- 
 ready said, that it is not my design to make this matter 
 a burden upon the Treasury of the State. I desire that 
 only a few of the most important documents shall be 
 published, and then, only in such numbers as will be ac- 
 tually useful. If it is thought that five thousand will 
 riot be too many, I am perfectly willing to have that 
 number printed. I believed that two or three thousand 
 would have been sufficient for the purpose. It is my in- 
 
 new Constitution, when it shall be printed." This was 
 my design originally, and I had thought that five hun- 
 dred or a thousand copies of the important documents, 
 would be sufficient to distribute in different portions of 
 the State. Five hundred or a thousand of the most im- 
 portant documents, with five thousand copies of the new 
 Constitution, I had supposed, ought to be sufficient to 
 meet the object. I will state, in reply to the gentleman 
 from Franklin, (Mr. Claiborne,) that the German popu- 
 lation of my district, are a part of what is called " Low 
 Dutch," and a part of what is called " High Dutch," and 
 that although they speak the language somewhat differ- 
 ently, yet they read it alike. I believe the written and 
 printed language is the same, chiefly. All portions of 
 them understand the German language as printed by our 
 community. In reply to what has been said in regard 
 to doing this printing, in this city, instead of the city of 
 Wheeling, I would say, I do not see the uecessity for any 
 inquiry on the subject. In the first place, there is no 
 German paper printed in this city, and there is in the 
 city of Wheeling. I stated, that if the printing was 
 given to the editor of this paper, he proposed to pub- 
 lish in his paper the same documents, which of course 
 would be sent to all his subscribers. Od this account 
 the printing had better be done there. It will be easy 
 for members who wish to furnish their constituents with 
 these documents, to hand to myself, or to my colleague, 
 or send to the editor directly, the names and directions 
 of the individuals to whom they desire documents to be 
 furnished. In this way, his German constituents will re- 
 ceive the document with no more inconvenience or ex- 
 pense to himself than if sent from the city of Rich- 
 mond — the postage being the same from the city of 
 Wheeling as from the city of Richmond, to any portion 
 of the Commonwealth, except the city of Richmond 
 and the county of Henrico. Seeing that this paper is 
 printed there, and on this account that the printing can 
 be done better, and without any inconvenience to the 
 people of the State, I trust that this resolution, without 
 being referred, will be adopted, I am willing to adopt 
 the amendment of my friend from Rockingham, (Mr. 
 Kenney,) to fill the blank. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I have intended to vote for this 
 proposition in some form or other, and to ascertain what 
 will be the best, I move that the resolution, with all 
 the amendments, be referred to the Committee on Print- 
 ing. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I would much prefer settling the mat- 
 ter now. It is a very small matter, so far as expense is 
 concerned, and small indeed in the estimation of many 
 members ; but it is not small in my estimation, nor in 
 the estimation of many of my constituents, and I desire 
 very much that it be disposed of now. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I feel it my duty to respond to the in- 
 quiry made by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Clai- 
 borne,) of the senior member of the delegation, (Mr. 
 Scott,) representing this district. My colleague I do 
 not see in his place, but I am equally with him in- 
 formed of the fact, that there is a printing press in the 
 city, printing the German language, at which any quan- 
 tity of printing can be done, which members of this 
 body may desire. And while I am up, permit me to 
 say, that I am in favor of printing the proceedings of 
 this Convention in the German language. I will not de- 
 termine whether they shall be printed in what is called 
 the high Dutch or low Dutch, for although I speak a 
 little Dutch myself, yet I confess I have found some 
 difficulty in understanding as thoroughly as I have desir- 
 ed to understand, some portions of that highly respec- 
 table class of men whom I have the honor in part to re- 
 present here. I do not think that 500 copies would sup- 
 ply my constituents. We have a large portion of our 
 people who read in Dutch, and they are most respecta- 
 ble, industrious and intelligent men — many of them, I 
 understand, are very scientific men, and they have a 
 
 least 
 
 tention to move, at the proper time, to add to the fourth | press at which most excellent printing is done — at leas 
 line after the word "with," the words " 5000 copies of the I can bear testimony, that they printed very well during 
 
56 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the late canvass. [Laughter.] I hope that at least 3000 
 copies will be printed, as I think 500 too small a num- 
 ber. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion to refer to the 
 Printing Committee was agreed to. 
 
 FORMATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I have a paper which I wish to offer to 
 the consideration of the Convention, with a view of hav- 
 ing it printed and referred to the Committee on the Le- 
 gislative Department, as a subject of inquiry. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 The Legislature shall be formed of two distinct branch- 
 es, and shall be called the General Assembly of Virgi- 
 nia. 
 
 One of these shall be called the House of Delegates 
 and the other the Senate. 
 
 Each House shall be divided into two chambers — one 
 to be composed of the members chosen for and by the 
 counties, cities, towns, and electoral districts, situa- 
 ted East of the Blue Ridge of Mountains, and the other 
 of the members chosen for and by the counties, cities, 
 and electoral districts, situated West of the Blue Ridge 
 of mountains. 
 
 On all money, bills and propositions, to raise money by 
 taxes, loans or otherwise, and on all measures for the ap- 
 propriation of public money, the vote shall be taken by 
 chambers. A majority of such chamber shall be neces- 
 sary to pass in the affirmative any such bill, measure or 
 proposition. 
 
 On all other occasions, a majority of the whole House 
 shall be competent to pass the question in the affirmative, 
 provided that twenty members of the House of Dele- 
 gates, or ten members of the Senate concurring, shall 
 have the right to demand that the vote shall be ta- 
 ken by chambers, on any question pending before the 
 respective Houses. And on every such occasion, a ma- 
 jority of each chamber shall be requisite to pass the 
 question in the affirmative. 
 
 Resolved, That the foregoing paper be referred to the 
 Committee on the Legislative Department, with instruc- 
 tions to inquire into the expediency of engrafting such 
 provisions on the Constitution. 
 
 I do not propose to detain the House with any re- 
 marks on the proposition I have submitted, at the pre- 
 sent time. If it shall receive the favorable consideration 
 of the Convention, I shall, on a proper occasion, express 
 my opinion and the reasons on which it is founded. I 
 only ask that it may be printed for the use of members, 
 and referred to the Legislative Committee, with the in- 
 structions therein named. 
 
 The resolution was referred, as a matter of course, 
 under the rule, and the motion to print was agreed to by 
 the Convention. 
 
 OPENING OF THE SESSIONS WITH PRAYER. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I desire to make an inquiry of the 
 Chair. In the early part of our first session, a resolu- 
 tion was adopted inviting the clergymen of the city to 
 open our daily sessions with prayer, and I wish to in- 
 quire whether the President considers that resolution as 
 still in force ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Yes sir, and arrangements have 
 been made accordingly during the present week. 
 
 ADDITION OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE ON PRINTING. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I wish to inquire whether it is in order 
 to move an enlargement, or an addition to the number of 
 the Committee on Printing our Debates. 
 
 The PRESIDENT replied that it was. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I then move that the gentlemen from 
 Chesterfield (Mr. Cox) and from Pendleton (Mr. New- 
 man,) be added to the committee. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 ROOMS FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEES. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I desire to offer a resolution 
 which I hold in my hand, in order that the chairmen of 
 the several committees may suit themselves as to rooms 
 in which, to hold their meetings. There are some six or 
 
 seven rooms in the immediate neighborhood of the church 
 to which we are about to remove, and which the commit- 
 tees can procure if they cannot find sufficient accommo- 
 dation here. In addition, I would state that one of the 
 largest and best rooms in Odd-Fellow's hall may be pro- 
 cured, which would be well adapted to the purposes of 
 the Committee on the Basis, at a cost not exceeding $2 a 
 week. The resolution is as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the chairmen of the several commit- 
 tees be. and they are hereby authorized to procure rooms 
 for the meetings of said committees at a cost not exceed- 
 ing two dollars each per week. 
 
 The resolution was agreed to. 
 
 ADJOURNMENT TO THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I now move that when the Con- 
 vention adjourn to day, it be to meet at the Universalist 
 church to-morrow at 12 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Is it not the Unitarian and not the 
 Universalist church ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Essex, (Mr. 
 Garnett,) is the chairman of the committee who hired 
 the church, and certainly ought to know. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I ask the gentleman if it is not the 
 Unitarian church? 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. We contracted with them as 
 Universalists, at all events. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. LYONS. I would suggest to the chairman of the 
 committee, that he withdraw his motion for the present. 
 I do not think the building will be ready as early as 12 
 o'clock to-morrow, judging from the condition in which 
 it was at dusk last night, and from the statement made 
 to me by the chairman of the committee on the part of the 
 city who are supervising the work. He told me that it 
 was probable, though not certain, that it would be ready 
 by Friday. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I have no desire to press the mat- 
 ter, but I was at the church this morning, and from what 
 I saw, believed it might be got ready for our reception 
 by 12 o'clock to-morrow. I think the gentlemen there, 
 as well as elsewhere, sometimes need a little hurrying up. 
 I withdraw my motion. 
 
 And then on motion, the Convention adjourned until 
 to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 16, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 The Journal of the preceeding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I have received the proceedings of a 
 meeting of the people of Pocahontas county, held at the 
 court house, pursuant to previous notice; the resolu- 
 tions adopted at which, relate to constitutional reform. 
 They are short and expressive, and I ask that they may 
 be read and referred to the Committee on the Basis of 
 Representation. 
 
 The proceedings were read by the Secretary as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 At a meeting of the citizens of Pocahontas county, 
 held at the court house in pursuance of a previous 
 public notice. On motion, George W. Amiss, Esq., was 
 called to the Chair, and Robert F. Dennis was requested 
 to act as Secretary. Mr. Amiss, on taking the Chair, 
 made a few very appropriate remarks, explaining the 
 object of the meeting. On motion, a committee consist- 
 ing of Messrs. D. A. Stofer, John Gayr, Sampson L. 
 Matthews, Capt. Cockran, James Edminston, and Hugh 
 McLaughlin, was appointed for the purpose of pre- 
 paring a preamble and resolutions for the action of the 
 meeting. 
 
 The committee, after a short consultation, reported 
 through their chairman the following : 
 
 Whereas, we believe the fundamental doctrine of Re- 
 publicanism to be, that the white population of the 
 State is the sole depository of political power ; that 
 the representation in the councils of the State should 
 be based upon its free white inhabitants ; and that this 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 57 
 
 is the only doctrine compatible with the bill of rights 
 of Virginia ; and whereas, we have every reason to be- 
 lieve that our brethren of eastern Virginia will insist, 
 through their representatives in the Convention, now 
 assembled, upon the odious principle of the mixed or 
 combined basis being incorporated in our State Consti- 
 tution, upon which they have met to deliberate, utterly 
 regardless of tht rights of the West, and opposed to 
 every principle of Republicanism. Be it therefore, 
 
 L Resolved, That, defective as is our State policy in 
 many other respects, we regard the basis of representa- 
 tion as paramount to all others, and we will accept no 
 Constitution that does not contain the white population 
 as the basis of representation in the councils of the 
 State ; and we hereby pledge ourselves to do every thing 
 in our power to defeat the adoption, by the people^of any 
 Constitution which does not confer equality of political 
 right upon the people of every portion of the State. 
 
 2. Resolved, That while we will accept no Constitu- 
 tion, except it contains the white basis principle, we 
 will sanction no guarantee to the East, other than the 
 advalorwn system of taxation. 
 
 3. Resolved, That we regard our Eastern brethren 
 entitled to equal rights with ourselves, ana we consider 
 ourselves "their equals in every respect, ana claim the 
 same acknowledgment on their part." 
 
 4. Resolved, That all the counties comprising this 
 conventional district, be requested to co-operate with 
 us in the opinions and determinations herein expressed. 
 
 5. Resolved, That the delegates from this district be 
 furnished with these proceedings, and the same be 
 signed by the Chairman and Secretary, and sent to the 
 Lewisburg Chronicle, Kanawha and Richmond papers 
 with the request that they publish the sam e. 
 
 Before the vote was taken upon the adoption of the 
 foregoing preamble and resolutions, the meeting was ad- 
 dressed by Messrs. Dennis, Skeene, Slater, Reynolds and 
 Cockrane. They were then adopted unanimously. 
 
 Geo. M. Amiss, Chairman. 
 
 R. F. Dennis, Secretary. 
 January 7, 1851. 
 
 The paper was then referred to the Committee on the 
 Basis. 
 
 INVIOLABILITY OF CONTRACTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF DEBT. 
 
 Mr. M'COMAS offered the following resolution, and it 
 was read and referred to the Committee on the Legisla- 
 tive Department : 
 
 Resolved, That the Legislative Committee inquire 
 into the expediency of prohibiting the Legislature from 
 passing any law, impairing the remedies for the en- 
 forcement of contracts or the collection of debts, which 
 existed and were in force at the time of the execution of 
 such contracts, or the creation of such debts. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER offered the following resolutions, and 
 they were read and referred to the Legislative Commit- 
 tee : 
 
 COMMISSION TO SETTLE CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE. 
 
 1st. Resolved, That the Legislative Committee be in- 
 structed to inquire into the expediency of organizing a 
 commission for the settlement of all private claims 
 against the State, and of requiring the Attorney Gener- 
 al to represent the State before such commission to pro- 
 tect it against all illegal, fraudulent, or unjust claims 
 which may be presented. 
 
 PROHIBITION* OF LEGISLATIVE GRANTS OF DIVORCES. 
 
 2d. Resolved, That the said committee inquire into 
 the expediency of prohibiting the Legislature from 
 granting divorces. 
 
 DISCONTINUANCE OF ALLOWANCES FOR CONVICT SLAVES. 
 
 3d. Resolved, That the said committee inquire into 
 the expediency of prohibiting the Legislature from mak- 
 ing any allowance to the owners of convict slaves sen- 
 tenced to death or transportation. 
 
 ADJOURNMENT TO THE UNIVERSALIST CHURCH. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I roove that whan the House adjoura 
 
 to-day, it be to meet on Monday at 12 o'clock, at the 
 Universalist church. 
 
 I Mr. M. GARXETT. I am not aware of any good rea- 
 son why we should adjourn now until Monday. The 
 church is now ready for our use, and we might have gone 
 I there at 12 o'clock to-day, as I moved yesterday. At 
 \ all events it will be ready, swept and garnished for us 
 , to-morrow, and I trust we shall go there then, and not 
 adjourn until Monday. While I am up, I will say to the 
 chairmen of the committees, that I have been informed 
 : by the owner of the law buildings, that there are sev- 
 eral excellent rooms there which can be procured for 
 | their uses at the price designated by the Convention. 
 Other rooms have been tendered, and there seems to be 
 'no difficulty in getting abundance of accommodation. 
 , I move to amend the resolution by striking out the word 
 ••Monday*' and inserting "to-morrow." 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I am surprised that the gentleman 
 | from Essex (Mr. Garnett) can see no good reason why 
 I we should adjourn. I do not know to what committee 
 : he belongs, but if he was a member of the one of which 
 [my friend from Stafford (Mi - . Moncure) is chairman, 
 i he would find enough to do to employ all his time with- 
 out meeting here daily. This daily meeting when we 
 have no particular business to transact, interferes with 
 j the sessions of the committees, in which more labor can 
 'be profitably performed than here. 
 
 Mr. M. GARXETT. I can only say that I belong to a 
 committee who have not yet met, and who I do not be- 
 lieve will meet until you have settled down in some reg- 
 ular place of meeting. \Ye shall make no progress, in 
 my opinion, in our regular business, until Ave get settled 
 down in our own quarters, and the sooner we do that the 
 
 I better. The very best farmer in my county, one who 
 i generally makes the best crops, usually begins all his 
 work at the last of the week. If he has to weed a corn 
 crop, he has it begun on Saturday, and thus all is ready 
 
 ion Monday morning for the prosecution of the work. 
 
 I I think it would be well for us to copy his example. 
 
 ; Mr. VOOLFOLK. I move to lay the resolution on 
 ■ the table. I think we should make no provision for any 
 ! extended adjournment until we have disposed of this 
 ! question of printing the debates. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion to lay on the 
 table was not agreed to. 
 
 The question was then taken on the proposition to 
 amend the motion of Mr. Taylor to adjourn until Monday, 
 by striking out "Monday "and substituting therefor 
 i " to-morrow," and it was agreed to — a count being had — 
 ayes 45, noes 33. 
 
 The motion as amended, was then agreed to. 
 And then on motion, the Convention adjourned to 
 | meet in the Universalist church to-morrow, at 12 
 o'clock. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 17, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment in the 
 ! Universalist church. 
 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Bailey, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND IMPRISONMENT FOR 
 DEBT. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS offered the following resolution, and it 
 [was referred to the Legislative Committee : 
 
 Resolved. That the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment of the government be instructed to inquire into 
 1 the expediency of adopting a provision in the Constitu- 
 : tion for abolishing capital punishment and imprisonment 
 \ for debt. 
 
 DELINQUENT AND FORFEITED LANDS. 
 
 Mr. VAX WIXKLE offered the following resolution, 
 and it was adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That the auditor of public accounts be re- 
 quested to report to the Convention what amount of mo- 
 ney has been received into the treasury for Lands sold by 
 
58 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the commissioners of delinquent and forfeited lands, un- 
 der the acts of 1837 and 1838, concerning the western 
 land titles ; the number of acres of land sold, and what 
 portion of the proceeds of the said sales has been paid to 
 the original owners of such lands. 
 
 ADDITIONAL BUREAUS IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. WISE offered the following resolution, and it was 
 read and referred to the Executive Committee : 
 
 Resolved, That the Executive Committee inquire into 
 the expediency of incorporating into the Constitution the 
 following provision, to wit : In the Executive Depart- 
 ment of the State, there shall be a bureau of agriculture ; 
 a bureau of statistics ; a bureau of manufactures and arts ; 
 a bureau of trade and commerce ; and a bureau of civil 
 engineering and surveys ; the duties and operations of 
 which, shall be organized and regulated by law. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF WORKS OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 Mr. WISE then offered the following resolution, and it 
 was read. 
 
 Resjved, That the Legislative Committee be instruct- 
 ed to inquire into the expediency of incorporating into 
 the Constitution the following provision, to wit : All works 
 of State internal improvement shall be classed by a com- 
 petent chief of civil engineering and surveys, into four 
 classes. No appropriation entirely from the State trea- 
 sury, shall be made to any works of internal improve- 
 ment except to those of the first class. None shall be 
 made to those of the second class, unless individuals 
 shall subscribe, and actually pay in money, two-fifths of 
 their cost of construction. None shall be made to works 
 of the third class, unless individuals shall subscribe and 
 actually pay in money, three fifths of their cost of con- 
 struction ; and none shall be made to works of the fourth 
 class, unless individuals shall subscribe, and actually pay 
 in money, four-fifths of their cost of construction ; and 
 none shall be made to new works of internal improve- 
 ment, until the works of previous appropriations, in the 
 same class shall have been fully completed, and the State 
 liabilities therefor shall have been fully paid and dis- 
 charged. 
 
 STATE DEBT FIRE INSURANCE REPUDIATION, &C. 
 
 Mr. WISE also offered the lollowing resolution, and it 
 was read. 
 
 Resolved, That the Legislative Committee be instruct- 
 ed to inquire into the expediency of incorporating into 
 the Constitution the following provision, to wit : No 
 State loan or public debt whatever, shall be created by 
 the Legislature, without, at the same time, in the same 
 law, providing the means upon which, alone, the public 
 faith of the State shall be pledged for the debt or loan, 
 and whereby it shall be redeemed and paid ; and to se- 
 cure and preserve inviolate the public faith and credit of 
 the State, the Legislature may, whenever it deems pro- 
 per, resort to a tax, in the nature of a premium of mu- 
 tual insurance, not exceeding per cent upon all 
 
 houses and other property of the State, capable of in- 
 surance by the State to its citizens ; against losses by fire 
 or otherwise, as may be regulated by law. And though 
 at all times the existence or fact of a public debt may be 
 contest ed or controverted by the State at law or inequity, 
 yet the repudiation of a public debt or the interest there- 
 on, in any form or degree whatever, by the State go- 
 vernment, or by any of its departments, tribunals or 
 officers, hereby is expressly and solemnly prohibited 
 
 Mr. WISE. With the permission of the Chair and of 
 this body, I beg leave to explain as briefly as possible, 
 the objects and operation, if I can, of a principle intro- 
 duced into that resolution, which may appear to gentle- 
 men objectionable, because it is novel. Sir, the State of 
 Virginia is now burdened with a debt of at least eighteen 
 millions, if not more, and she also is waking up a spirit 
 of improvement that demands, and ought to demand a 
 very great increase of that public debt. And created 
 however it may be, for whatever purpose, and whatever 
 end, however beneficial, however benificent or necessary, 
 the amount of public debt that is actually required for 
 
 the . benefit of the people and the honor of the State, in 
 a very few years, must be very large and very onerous. 
 Every man of the least foresight must acknowledge this 
 fact in the prospective. And there is a fact of the past, 
 which he must also acknowledge, and it is that, as yet, 
 compared with the people of other States of this Ui*ion, 
 the people of the State of Virginia scarcely know what 
 the burthen of taxation is. We may entertain great con- 
 fidence in ourselves, we may impose implicit reliance 
 upon the people of this State, that they will fortify 
 themselves by the best bulwarks of public faith, honor, 
 and credit ; but they have yet, I repeat, to be tried ; 
 and that is warning enough to sober-minded men ! God 
 forbid that they should be tried as some of the States of 
 this Union are tried, have been tried, and are to be tried ; 
 and that we should rely alone upon the weakness of 
 poor human nature to maintain public credit and pub- 
 lic honor. A tax-paying people must be fortified them- 
 selves in order that they may fortify f he public credit 
 and public honor. Looking ahead, then, to one of the 
 most important interests and concerns of this State, and 
 this people, I look to that great question which has ne- 
 ver been provided for yet — a permanent source of revenue. 
 One of the principles contained in that resolution is an 
 old principle well settled and well recognized, about 
 which I presume there will be no difference of opinion — 
 a principle that no loan shall be negotiated and no debt 
 created, without at the same time providing the means 
 for its redemption and payment. I fear no difference of 
 opinion upon the recognition of that provision, but the 
 question arises, how shall the means be provided ? how 
 may the means be provided ? I have looked with anxiety 
 and with all the reflection of which I am capable, to the 
 means whereby the public debt may be paid, and the 
 public honor and credit be permanently secured and for - 
 tified. And like every other inventor, perhaps I am 
 seized with a one idea ; but like inventors of the present 
 day, at all events, I boldly advance it for what it is worth. 
 And I ask the committee to whom that resolution is re- 
 ferred, seriously to take up the principle which I suggest, 
 to think and to reflect upon it, and see if it be with- 
 out objections which cannot be easily overcome. What 
 is it ? It is that the State in future may have the pow- 
 er — that it shall be within the competency of legislation, 
 not making it imperative upon the Legislature, but 
 merely to give them power, in case of emergency and ne- 
 cessity — to lay a real estate tax in such form as shall 
 secure the property that is taxed against all loss, on the 
 principle of mutual insurance. You have now two hun- 
 dred and seventy-six millions, as reported — I state it in 
 round numbers — of real estate. One half of the value of 
 that real estate, at least — counting the towns and cities — ■ 
 consists of the value of houses. One hundred and thir- 
 ty-eight millions of real estate, consisting of houses. 
 One half of one per cent, upon that amount, in case of 
 emergency, would yield to the State of Virginia, six 
 hundred and odd thousand elollars. This would give 
 you two hundred thousand dollars per annum to relieve 
 ordinary taxation; two hundred thousand dollars to cover 
 the average annual loss by fire or otherwise ; and would 
 give you two hundred thousand dollars as a sinking 
 fund, for permanent investment. Not only that, but you 
 book every man in the Commonwealth that is taxed by 
 the State as the insurer. You can provide by law that 
 process shall issue, in case of burning down a house in- 
 sured, by a writ of ad quod damnum, that a jury be sum- 
 moned to ascertain whether there be fraud or no fraud, 
 and what amount of loss ; and the report of the jury to 
 the court, and the judgment of the court, and the certi- 
 ficate of the clerk, shall be taken as a sufficient voucher 
 for the payment of the loss. More than that, you strike 
 down one of the most infamous crimes on the calender, 
 malum in se, the motive for the crime of arson. But 
 this is a mattter for your consideration. I present it to 
 you, gentlemen, for what it is worth, as a principle, which, 
 if carried out — a power which if exercised — only for a 
 few years, will secure every house in the Common- 
 wealth, town or county, against loss by fire. It may 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 59 
 
 secure the wheat in the ricks, the com in the stacks, the 
 farmer's homestead, and his yearly product. If, I say, 
 the power is exercised for a few years, it will not only 
 give this permanent security, but will yield a fund 
 which itself will yield an interest sufficient to relieve 
 you from all premium on insurance whatsoever. And in 
 case of war, it will be a principle that would exercise 
 the duty of protection by government to the citizen, in a 
 mauner that could not be exercised so well in any other 
 way. I am sure that the last principle in the resolution 
 will not be objected to by any body, and that we will, 
 in all our moral sense, and by all the conventional pow- 
 er we can exercise, forever repudiate, and permanently 
 repudiate, the possibility of the repudiation of the pub- 
 lic debt. 
 
 The resolution under the rule was referred, as a mat- 
 ter of course, to the Legislative Committee. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. It seems to me that the resolution 
 just submitted by the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. 
 Wise,) embraces very important propositions, which can- 
 not be well understood by members of the Convention 
 generally, unless they are printed. I am aware that 
 these resolutions go to the committee to be there acted 
 on, yet if they are printed, members also will be able to 
 have their minds drawn to the consideration of them. 
 I therefore move that all the resolutions offered by the 
 gentleman from Accomac, be printed for the use of the 
 Convention. 
 
 The motion to print the resolutions was agreed to. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. SNOWDEN. The members of the Convention 
 probably expect a report from the Committee on pub- 
 lishing and Printing the Debates of the Convention this 
 morning, but I would inform them that the committee 
 still has the subject under consideration, have been en- 
 gaged with it all the morning, and hope to have their 
 report ready by to-morrow. 
 
 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I desire to make a motion, which I 
 hope will be attended with better results than the same 
 motion made by me yesterday. I move that when the 
 Convention adjourn to-day, it be to meet on Monday next 
 at 12 o'clock. I would state for the information of mem- 
 bers, that I believe all the committees now are actively 
 engaged in the prosecution of their labors, and I believe 
 that the public service would be much better promoted 
 "by enabling the members of the committees to be in 
 session in committee, than by compelling them to re- 
 main here when there is nothing to be done. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I move to amend the motion by 
 striking out 12 and substituting 10 o'clock, so that it 
 shall provide that when the Convention adjourns, it be 
 to meet on Monday morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. That is destruction to my argument. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON I prefer that our regular hour of 
 meeting shall be 10 o'clock. I do not suppose that this 
 Convention will be required to sit more than an hour a 
 day until the committees shall report, and it will be 
 much more convenient to meet early here, in order that 
 the committees may hold their sessions at once after we 
 adjourn. To meet at 12 o'clock would be dividing the 
 time, and interfering with the sessions of the committees, 
 and in my opinion, it would be far more convenient to 
 assemble here at 10 o'clock, receive what propositions 
 gentlemen may be disposed to offer, and then adjourn. 
 I am satisfied that if that rule was adopted, we should 
 dispatch business much more speedily, and the commit- 
 tees be enabled to make their reports at a far earlier pe- 
 riod than would be the case if we met at 12 o'clock. 
 
 Mi*. TAYLOR. With the consent of the gentleman, 
 I will modify the resolution so as to provide that we 
 shall meet at 1 o'clock instead of 12. 
 
 The resolution was modified accordingly. 
 
 Mr JACOB. Believing that by to-morrow we shall 
 perhaps receive and dispose of the report of the Com- 
 mittee on Printing, I prefer to meet here for that pur- 
 
 pose. With the view of securing that end, I move that 
 the Convention now adjourn. 
 
 The motion to adjourn was agreed to — a count being 
 read — ayes 63, noes 41. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned until to-morrow at 12 
 o'clock. 
 
 SATURDAY, January 18, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Mr. MARK BIRD, the delegate elected to fill the va- 
 cancy in the Shenandoah district, was duly qualified, and 
 took his seat. 
 
 The journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read 
 and approved. 
 
 HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 The PRESIDENT announced the unfinished business 
 of yesterday to be first in order, being the resolution in- 
 troduced by Mr. Taylor, providing that when the Con- 
 vention adjourn, it be to meet on Monday at 1 o'clock, 
 P. M. The President remarked, that the resolution pro- 
 posed an adjournment from Friday to Monday, and this 
 being Saturday, he supposed it would be considered as 
 having fallen, and it would be so considered if it was not 
 objected to. 
 
 A MEMBER. It fixes a different hour of meeting. 
 The PRESIDENT. In that view then, the resolution 
 is of force. It will be considered as before the Conven- 
 tion, and the question is on the motion of Mr. Anderson 
 to amend it by striking out 1 o'clock, P. M., and insert- 
 ing 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 The motion to amend was negatived. 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I suggest whether it is not proper 
 to make the resolution a permanent rule of the Conven- 
 tion. As it now stands, it provides that on Monday next, 
 only, the Convention will meet at 1 o'clock. There 
 ought to be some pro vision for our regular hour of meet- 
 ing hereafter ; and I move, therefore, to amend the reso- 
 lution by adding after the words " 1 o'clock ; the words, 
 "and so from day to day, until otherwise ordered." 
 
 The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution as 
 amended was adopted. 
 
 ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND IMPRISONMENT FOR 
 DEBT. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. It will be recollected that on yes- 
 terday, the gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) offered 
 a resolution which had for its object the abolition of 
 capital punishment and imprisonment for debt. I de- 
 sire to see a resolution antagonistic to that before the 
 Convention, also ; and I hold in my hand one which I ask 
 to be read, and then I design to give the reasons why I 
 think it should be adopted. 
 
 The Secretary read the resolution as follows : 
 Resolved, That there should be provided in the amend- 
 ed Constitution, that the person of a debtor, where 
 there is not strong presumption of fraud, shall not be 
 confined in prison after delivering up all his estate for 
 the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall be 
 provided by law. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I think it very important that this 
 Convention should take some action on this subject. It 
 is known that we have now in Virginia, under the re- 
 cent act of the General Assembly, no imprisonment for 
 debt, and I undertake to say, that there is not a lawyer 
 within the sound of my voice, who has had experience 
 under the provisions of that act, who will not agree with 
 me, that in effect it amounts to a denial of justice to the 
 creditor, and an invitation to fraud on the part of the 
 debtor. I have had some little experience in endeavor- 
 ing to prosecute a case under it, and I believe we are 
 but at the commencement of the troubles and difficulties 
 that are to result from it. An examination of the act 
 of Assembly, to which I have referred, will convince gen- 
 tlemen of this fact, and I think, therefore, we should in- 
 sert in our Constitution the principle of imprisoning a 
 man who fails, or refuses to surrender all he has for the 
 benefit of his creditors. 
 
GO 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's resolution is in 
 the shape of an affirmance of the proposition. Does he 
 desire it to be in that form or in the form of an inquiry? 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. My motion is not to adopt the 
 resolution, but to refer it to the Committee on the Le- 
 gislative Department. 
 
 Mr. HAYES. If I understand it, the resolution is one 
 positively affirming the proposition which it contains. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. That is all, and my motion is, 
 that it be referred to the Committee on the Legislative 
 Department. 
 
 Mr. HAYES. The resolution perhaps, is not precise- 
 ly in the form in which it was intended by the mover it 
 should be. It seems to make it imperative on the commit- 
 tee to report such a proposition. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. If the gentleman will allow me, 
 I will modify the resolution so as to make it simply one 
 of inquiry, as I designed it to be in the first instance. 
 
 The resolution was modified accordingly so as to read 
 as follows: 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment, inquire into the expediency of so providing in 
 the amended Constitution, that the person of a debtor, 
 where there is not strong presumption of fraud, shall 
 not be confined in prison after delivering up all his es- 
 tate for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as 
 shall be provided by law. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I have no objection to the adoption of 
 the resolution in the form in which it is placed by the 
 modification — as a matter of inquiry — while I dissent 
 entirely from the proposition which it contains. I do 
 not think this a proper time to enter upon the discussion 
 of the question, nor am I in the slightest degree inclined 
 to do so ; but, as the gentleman has accompanied his re- 
 solution with a very brief explanation, I avail myself 
 of the opportunity to explain my opinion and views in 
 regard to the resolutions which I offered yesterday, as 
 briefly as possible. My mind is by no means made up 
 on the first branch of that proposition ; that is, in regard 
 to the abolition of capital punishment. I am very much 
 inclined to the belief that capital punishment ought to 
 be abolished; but my principal object in offering the re- 
 solution, was to have the Convention maturely consider 
 and discuss it. I would greatly prefer, myself, that the 
 matter should be left entirely to the decision of the le- 
 gislative department of the government ; if I could see 
 the slightest possibility that the Legislature would be 
 disposed to make an experiment on the subject ; so that, 
 if the experiment did not answer a good purpose, they 
 might return to capital punishment again, if necessary. 
 I do not believe, from any experience I have had on the 
 subject, and from the whole course of my observation, 
 that any good has yet resulted from capital punish- 
 ment. I look upon it as one of the relics of a very bar- 
 barous age, and I have seen infinite mischief grow out 
 of it. Illustrations of this fact might be furnished no 
 doubt, by most gentlemen here, from occurrences that 
 have taken place in their own vicinities, and under their 
 own personal observation. Here are two persons ar- 
 raigned before a court — one for the commission of a 
 very aggravated offence, the punishment of which is 
 death and nothing but death. There must be a verdict 
 for hanging or a verdict for acquittal. Now we do 
 know that a very large portion of the people of Virginia 
 are entirely opposed to capital punishment, and the conse- 
 quence is that these offenders against the law in the most 
 aggravated form, are frequently acquitted because of the 
 rigor of the punishment. On the same day perhaps, 
 another jury is empannelled before the same court for 
 the trial of an offence much less aggravated in character, 
 and the offender is sent to the penitentiary for perhaps 
 five or ten years. It is this unequal administration of 
 law, growing out of the condition of the public mind, 
 which induced me to bring the subject before the 
 Convention for its mature consideration and deliberation. 
 I take occasion to repeat, that if I believed the legisla- 
 tive department of the government would be disposed 
 to ascertain by an experiment the true policy to be es- 
 
 tablished, I should prefer it to the incorporation of any 
 provision in the Constitution on the subject. In regard 
 to the other branch of the proposition I submitted, that 
 of imprisonment for debt, I have a very firm conviction 
 and I imagine, or at least I trust, the gentleman from 
 Essex (Mr. M. Garnett) will find himself in a lean minor- 
 ity upon this subject. I am willing that the whole 
 subject shall go to the committee for consideration 
 and when they shall have reported upon it, it will be 
 time enough to discuss it. When I offered the propo- 
 sition yesterday, some gentleman expressed to me the 
 opinion that it was entirely unnecessary to offer any 
 such proposition, because the subject had been already 
 provided for by law, and there was no probability that 
 the public sentiment would be so far violated by the 
 Legislature as ever to restore imprisonment for debt; 
 yet I was not willing to trust to the discretion of the 
 Legislature. They have it in their power, without a 
 provision of this sort in the Constitution, whenever 
 they choose to exercise it, in their discretion, to restore 
 imprisonment for debt, and for that reason I desire to 
 guard against any such exercise of power. 
 
 The resolution was then referred, under the rule, 
 to the Legislative Committee. 
 
 WESTERN LAND TITLES, &C. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN offered the following resolution, and it 
 was read and referred to the Committee on Western 
 Land Titles. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Western Land Titles, 
 (fee, inquire into the expediency of limiting for a period 
 of twenty years action for the recovery of land lying 
 west of the Alleghany mountains to five years next, after 
 the time at which the right of action accrued ; and after 
 the expiration of twenty years, to make the limitation 
 of such actions uniform throughout the Commonwealth. 
 
 Resolved, That the committee also inquire into the 
 expediency of prohibiting in future the issuing of grants, 
 for land, except to actual settlers or bona fide occupants. 
 
 FILLING A VACANCY IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The resolution which was adopted for 
 the organization of the Legislative Committee, provided 
 that it should consist of nineteen members. Some days 
 since a gentleman who was placed on that committee 
 from the county of Hardy, (Mr. Seymour,) was excused 
 from further service on it, and transferred to the com- 
 mittee on the basis question. There is therefore a 
 vacancy now in the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment, which, I understand, the President has de- 
 clined heretofore to fill, in consequence of the absence 
 of a member of the Convention who is not now included 
 on any committee. I am informed that the gentleman 
 is now present, and I will suggest to the President the 
 propriety of now filling the vacancy to which I have 
 referred. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Mr. Byrd is appointed to fill 
 the vacancy referred to by the gentleman. 
 
 COMMUNICATION FROM THE U. S. CENSUS OFFICE. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I have received a communication 
 addressed to me as President of the Convention, which 
 I beg leave to lay before the body. 
 
 The Secretary then read the communication as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Census Office, Department of Interior, ) 
 Washington, Jan. 13th, 1851. J 
 Sir — I have the honor to enclose to you herewith a 
 statement of the population of the counties of Western 
 Virginia. 
 
 I regret that circumstances preclude the possibility 
 of my making out for you to-day, a return of the popu- 
 lation of the remaining portion of the State; but I am 
 sorry to have it to say that the returns from a large 
 number of counties in Eastern Virginia have not yet 
 been forwarded to this office. 
 
 It is impossible to say where the negligence exists, but 
 I am very well satisfied that the Secretary of the Inte- 
 rior will not overlook the failure in any instance, with- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 61 
 
 out being perfectly assured that insuperable difficulties 
 have interposed to delay the execution of the work be- 
 yond the time prescribed by the act of Congress. 
 
 The moment the returns of the Eastern portion of 
 Virginia are received, I will forward you an abstract 
 thereof. 
 
 I am sir, with great respect, your ob't serv't, 
 
 Joseph C. G-. Kennedy. 
 Hon. John Y. Mason, Pres't State Convention, Richmond, 
 Virginia. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I deem it proper to remark that 
 I have had myself, officially, no communication with the 
 Department, but no doubt some call has been made in 
 a responsible form for this information, in reply to 
 which this communication has been sent to me for the 
 use of the Convention. It will receive such disposition 
 as the Convention may choose to make of it. 
 
 Mr. VAN WINKLE. I would inquire whether this 
 is not the same information which the Auditor commu- 
 nicated to us the other day ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair is not informed. 
 
 Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move that the communica- 
 tion be referred to the Committee on Printing. 
 
 The motion to refer was agreed to. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. In the absence of the chairman of 
 the committee upon this vexed question, of reporting 
 a plan for printing the proceedings and debates of the 
 Convention, I have been requested to state what 
 the committee has done. You can very readily imagine 
 the perplexity of the committee when plunged into the 
 mysteries of the printing craft. In conformity with 
 the order of the Convention, we proceeded yesterday 
 morning to advertise to receive proposals irom the 
 printers of the city, for the printing and distribution of 
 the debates and proceedings of the Convention, in octa- 
 vo, quarto, or some other suitable form for preservation 
 and binding. Yesterday, between breakfast and noon, 
 the committee received various propositions, which 
 were in printer's lingo, and which the members of the 
 committee did not thoroughly comprehend. Thereupon, 
 I was requested to go from office to office and ascertain 
 what this term meant, and what that term meant ; 
 and I believe I may conscientiously say, that du- 
 ring almost my entire spare time since that session 
 of the committee, I have been on the look out for 
 information in respect to the elements of calcula- 
 tion to report to the Convention. I thought this 
 morning I had come to a result in my calculation 
 which was submitted to the committee, that would 
 prove satisfactory. On my way to this hall, however, 
 I was intercepted by one of the bidders, who informed 
 me that I had made an egregious blunder in respect 
 to the calculations founded upon his bid. Therefore, 
 although I intended to make a report, I state this as a 
 reason for declining to make a report upon the proposi- 
 tions for printing the debates and proceedings of this 
 Convention. But there was another matter referred to 
 this committee upon which I beg leave to make a report. 
 It is in relation to the resolution offered by a gentleman 
 over the way, (Mr. Knots,) providing for the publishing 
 of certain public documents and the proposed Constitu- 
 tion in the German language. The committee having 
 had the resolution under consideration, report as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 PRINTING OF DOCUMENTS IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 (The Secretary read the report as follows : 
 The committee appointed to report a plan for print- 
 ing the debates and proceedings of the Convention, have 
 according to order had under consideration the follow- 
 ing resolution :) 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary be and he is hereby 
 instructed to contract with Mr. George Deitz, editor of 
 the " Virginia Staates Zeitung," to print in the German 
 
 language, copies of the public documents as may be 
 
 ordered to be so printed by this Convention, together 
 with the new Ooastitution when it shall be completed, 
 
 provided that such contract can be made at prices not 
 higher than are now paid for the public printing by the 
 General Assembly of Virginia ; and have agreed to the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary contract with Mr. 
 Geo. Deitz, editor of the Virginia Staates Zeitung, or 
 some other person, on terms most favorable to the 
 Commonwealth, and at rates not exceeding those paid 
 to the printer to the General Assembly, for printing in 
 the German language such public documents as may 
 from time to time be ordered; and also for the printing 
 of the new Constitution when adopted ; the documents 
 and copies of the Constitution so printed, to be deli- 
 vered by the printer to the members of the Convention 
 for distribution. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The question will be upon the 
 adoption of the resolution recommended by the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. I desire to know before we vote on 
 that resolution, if this printing is to be done in Wheel- 
 ing, how we are to give circulation to these documents ? 
 I suppose the gentleman who made this report is pre- 
 pared to inform us. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. The latter clause of that resolution 
 requires the printer to deliver the documents to the 
 members of the Convention, for distribution. If they 
 have German constituents they will take charge of and 
 distribute them. Those members who have not, like my 
 friend over the way, (Mr. Deneale,) need not be troubled 
 with them. 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. I would ask how the printer is to 
 deliver to this Convention the new Constitution proposed 
 to be distributed after the Convention has adjourned. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. They are to be delivered to the mem- 
 bers of the Convention, and not to this Convention. I 
 suppose the members will be living entities after the 
 Convention has adjourned — at least I hope so. 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. Who is to pay the postage?— 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. The resolution I proposed sometime 
 ago has been somewhat modified by the committee, 
 and I do not know that I can answer the question of 
 the gentleman, exactly. My own view of the matter 
 was, that those members of the Convention who had 
 German constituents, might furnish the editor with the 
 names of those constituents. If they should be printed 
 by Mr. Dietz, of Wheeling, he would fold and direct 
 them, and put them into the post-office there, and they 
 would go as direct from that point as if they were sent 
 by the members from the city of Richmond. There is 
 certainly no difficulty on that score. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I rise for the purpose of making an in- 
 quiry. Do I understand the gentleman from Augusta 
 (Mr. Sheffey) as presenting this in connection with the 
 subject of printing the debates as embodied in the same 
 report, or are there two distinct reports. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is a distinct report. The res- 
 olution was referred to the committee, and as modified 
 by them, has been reported for the consideration of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. The object of my inquiry was to ascer- 
 tain whether it would be in order, if the two were 
 connected, to make a motion to lay that report upon 
 the table. If the two had been connected, a motion to 
 lay one subject on the table would have carried the 
 other with it. I have a very large number of 
 German constituents myself, but if these German 
 constituents do not choose to become Americanized and 
 acquire the English language, it is their own fault, and 
 they must remain in ignorance. They have every 
 opportunity offered them for the purpose. It is the 
 true policy of this State to foster and encourage for- 
 eigners who come among us to Americanize themselves 
 as soon as possible, and become acquainted with our 
 language and institutions, in the form in which they are 
 presented to our own citizens. I therefore propose 
 that the report be laid on the table. 
 
62 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. KEISHSTEY. Will the gentleman withdraw his 
 motion for a moment ? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Certainly sir. 
 
 Mr. KEOTEY. I think it is desired by a large por- 
 tion, if not a majority, of my constituents, and I believe 
 it applies to the constituency of many other members 
 from the Valley, that this Constitution should be print- 
 ed in the German language. During this next summer 
 they will have to pass judgment upon it. They have to 
 examine one of the most important questions that has 
 ever been presented to them. They wish to have it in 
 a language in which they can understand what they are 
 about to do. Suppose a grand inquest was held, and the 
 witnesses spoke a foreign language, would not any court 
 of justice, before whom they presented themselves, deem 
 it a duty to have an interpreter sworn, that they might 
 understand what evidence was given in to them \ And 
 so it would be in reference to any other proceedings, or 
 any document in a foreign language, on which they 
 were required to give an enlightened judgment. The 
 fact is, that, in the counties of Rockingham, Page and 
 Pendleton, which I in part represent, I venture to say, 
 there are five hundred German voters, and as worthy citi- 
 zens, I know from my own acquaintance with them, as 
 any in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and even some 
 learned men, who cannot read the English language. I 
 merely wish to give them an opportunity of passing an 
 enlightened verdict upon this subject — a subject which 
 must be submitted to them during the coming summer. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I should be very glad if all the citizens 
 of Virginia were able to read the English language. But 
 I know well that they are not — that there are many 
 good citizens of this State who cannot read the Constitu- 
 tion and these documents in the English language, under- 
 standing^. I do think that, since it can be done at the 
 small expense we propose, this information ought to be 
 afforded to these men in the language that they do un- 
 derstand. I know very well that it is the opinion of 
 many that men ought to be forced to learn the language 
 of the country ; and I admit that, so far as it can f it 
 ought to be done. But you cannot, by any system you 
 may adopt, force this class of the citizens of Virginia 
 now to learn the English language in time to become ac- 
 quainted with this important document that is to be 
 passed upon by the voters, before many months. The 
 opinion I know is entertained that, by printing these 
 documents in the German language, we encourage these 
 Germans to put off learning the English language ; but 
 I am well satisfied, from what I have known and do know 
 of these i people, that such will not be the effect. You 
 give these documents to these people in a language that 
 they do understand, and they will become acquainted 
 with them, and in consequence they will feel interested 
 in them ; and hence, they will deem it more important 
 that they become acquainted with the language of the 
 country than they would otherwise. Men do not feel in- 
 terested in the institutions of a State till they become 
 somewhat acquainted with them ; and they cannot be- 
 come acquainted with them until they have these things 
 in a language which they understand. And I will re- 
 peat what I have before stated, that it is not my object 
 or desire that many documents should be printed. I 
 think it would be well to print the census and assess- 
 ment tables, and perhaps the tables of the titheables and 
 tax-payers of the State. There may be one or two oth- 
 ers ; but that is for the Convention in their wisdom to 
 decide whenever the question shall arise. 
 
 Mr. DENEALE. The resolution, as I understand it, 
 is certainly inefficient for the purpose intended, and can- 
 not, in many instances, result in any good. What does 
 it propose ? It proposes to print a certain number of 
 copies of the new Constitution, which we are about to 
 frame, in the German language. And after publishing 
 them they are to be forwarded, if I understand the gen- 
 tleman who made the report, to each one of the members 
 of this Convention. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Will the gentleman allow me to say 
 that it does not propose any thing except this : — that the 
 
 Secretary shall enter into contract with somebody to 
 print in the German language, under the order of the 
 Convention hereafter to be made, such documents and 
 such public matter as the Convention may order, and in 
 the manner that the Convention may order. And it al- 
 so refers to the printing of the Constitution when adopt- 
 ed — declares that it is expedient that it be done ; but the 
 modus operandi is within the discretion of the Convention. 
 The only object is, to employ an officer to do your work, 
 and the only question which occurred to me, and I beg 
 leave to say it was suggested by the President, is, 
 whether the committee ought not to have consulted Mr. 
 Wm. Culley, the printer to this Convention, to ascertain 
 whether he could not do tins printing in the German lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I consulted with Mr. Culley myself, 
 and he informed me that he could not do printing in the 
 German language. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. # Well, the only thing, getting rid of 
 our public printer, in relation to this matter, is the ques- 
 tion, will the Convention authorize the Secretary to em- 
 ploy some person to print in the German language such 
 documents as they may choose to have printed % That 
 is the whole proposition embraced in that resolution. As 
 to the mode in which the Constitution shall be distribu- 
 ted, and as to the printing of the other documents and the 
 number of them, the Convention will hereafter deter- 
 mine. 
 
 Mr. DENE ALE. The other day, I expressed my dis- 
 approbation of the policy of this measure. And if in 
 the publication of these documents, they are to be dis- 
 tributed about in every portion of the Commonwealth in 
 a large majority of cases it will be entirely useless. But 
 looking at the question in a national and enlarged view, 
 I think the policy is wrong. It should be our policy to 
 render, as far as possible, at least and first of all, our 
 language one and the same. And as I remarked the oth- 
 er day, there are but few instances, I believe, in Virginia, 
 where much would be lost by having the publication of 
 these documents altogether in the English language. 
 Almost every family has some member in ' it who can 
 read the English language well, that can read at all. 
 But, it is with the Convention to determine what course 
 they will pursue. As far as my own county is concerned, 
 there seems to be a disposition — for actions speak louder 
 than words — to conform to the English language, there 
 not being one single, solitary instance in the entire valley 
 of Virginia, of a German school taught at this day. 
 There seems from this, to be, among this class of popu- 
 lation, a desire to render our language homogeneous, as 
 far as possible. 
 
 Mr. GALLY. It was not my intention when my col- 
 league introduced this proposition, to have disturbed the 
 Convention with any remarks on the subject, as I then 
 supposed it would not have excited debate, but would 
 have been at once disposed of; but inasmuch as it 
 has not taken this course, and as many of my German 
 constituents are interested in the question, I deem it my 
 duty to add my feeble support to the measure and to 
 urge the gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) not to in- 
 sist on laying this report on the table at this time. My 
 colleagues, three of them, I believe, have already com- 
 mented on the character of this class of population, and 
 that leaves me nothing to say on that point iurther than 
 to join in their general commendation. Yet I may say 
 that if any portion of our fellow-citizens are entitled to 
 the favor of this Convention, for the reasons suggested 
 by the mover of this resolution in the first place, or on 
 account of meritorious elements of character, this people 
 are so entitled. Besides, many of them are now voters, 
 and they will shortly be called on to unite with the elec- 
 tors of the State in approving or disapproving of the 
 work of this Convention. They have paid their just pro- 
 portion of the burthens of government, since they have 
 become citizens among us, they have acquired their title 
 to citizenship under the law, and it does seem to me have 
 some title to receive proper information, with regard to 
 the proceedings of this body. No gentleman expects eveD 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 63 
 
 his American constituents to vote on the work of this 
 Convention without proper information, and with what 
 show of reason then, can he require it at the hands of 
 his German constituents ? If they are citizens, if they 
 have paid their just proportion of the taxes, I can see no 
 good reason why they should be excluded from the bene- 
 fits provided by this general contribution. I cannot see, 
 for the life of me, where the objection to this resolution, 
 in a national point of view, as urged by one gentleman 
 here, applies. Will the publication of the Constitution 
 of a'free State in another language, one that is not the 
 language generally used in the country he has chosen to 
 adopt, weaken the attachment of the adopted citizen to 
 the country of his adoption ? If I understand rightly the 
 history of the emigrating Germans, the motive which led 
 them to settle among us, was incited by the various pub- 
 lications made here in their own language which reached 
 them beneath the shadows of a throne and inspired a 
 love of liberty where it was not recognized by the insti- 
 tutions of the country. I can well imagine how the pub- 
 lication of our documents in the German would have a 
 bearing on our literature, but how it can affect the per- 
 manency of republican institutions, I am at a loss to per- 
 ceive. I favor the adoption of the report of the commit- 
 tee not merely because it will be a favor to the 
 Germans now in the State, but because it will in- 
 duce others to settle among us — a very valuable 
 class of population, one pre-eminent for their industry, 
 their mechanics and general thrift in every State 
 in the Union. Moreover, it will indicate a relaxation of 
 that rigid policy which has always characterized Virgi- 
 nia, folding herself in inglorious pride, and in ostenta- 
 tion, to the neglect of the arts, mechanics and industry 
 of her citizens, while permitting the stranger to pass by 
 and enrich other states. Look, if you please, at the causes 
 Which have developed the vast resources of Ohio, Indi- 
 ana and Pennsylvania, and almost every state but Vir- 
 ginia, and tell me what they are? Simply the en- 
 couragement of emigration, and the increase of its popu- 
 lation, the substance of the national greatness of this 
 Union. Let us do the same, and we may transplant, in 
 many instances, this population from the states to which 
 it now goes, and as they come into our country, induce 
 them to come here and expend their labor, toil and indus- 
 try upon our barren hills until our wilderness shall blos- 
 som as the rose. There are high political considerations 
 which ought to induce the Convention to hold out an en- 
 couraging hand to this floating population, as it passes 
 through, to turn and bestow their industry on our naked 
 and now fruitless mountains. Let that genius which has 
 yielded so much to the manufactures and the arts of Eu- 
 rope, be employed to develope the mineral wealth which 
 forms the substrata of our hills, and Virginia will expe- 
 rience a regeneration which can flow from no other influ- 
 ence. Then let us invite this population, for we want it 
 among us. 
 
 Again let me recur to the idea with which I first 
 started, and that is, that these people are entitled to 
 this at the hands of the Convention. For what do 
 they pay taxes if it is not for the privileges of citi- 
 zens. It is not their fault that they do not speak 
 our language. If there is fault anywhere, it is our 
 fault. We have denizenized them according to law, 
 and required of them the performance of all the duties 
 which are required of other citizens, and is it not justice 
 on our part to give them the necessary information to en- 
 able them to perform those duties under standingly and 
 correctly ? To do anything less, would better become the 
 spirit of the age when kings required their subjects to 
 make bricks without straw. I am for this resolution, not 
 for <l bunkum, " but because it is an act of justice, and be- 
 cause of high political considerations which ought to ad- 
 dress themselves to every man. I hope, therefore, the 
 gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) will relax his strict 
 American views, and that the other gentleman, (Mr. 
 Deneale,) with whose locality I am not acquainted, will 
 also yield his national objections to this policy, and give 
 us a population out of which to make a nation by in- 
 
 ducing them to come here and settle our barren and waste 
 places. Let us not drive them off, as we have heretofore 
 done, by conforming our legislation to that very picture 
 and image of the " first family, " in which I do not think 
 you can trace a single lineament of the people. 
 
 Mr. LIONBERGER. I merely wish to remark that 
 there is in the district which I in part represent, prob- 
 ably as many Germans as in any other district in Vir- 
 ginia, yet I do not recollect of any paper ever having 
 been published in that language, in that district ; nor have 
 we had the sale there lately of any books published in the 
 German language. There have been, I mean, no German 
 books bought or sold there, and the only Dutch publica- 
 tion which I know anything at all about, coming into my 
 county or the bordering counties, was during the last Presi- 
 dential election. There were then some documents pub- 
 lished in Dutch, and they were very filthy. [Laughter.] 
 And I wish to enter my protest, if the resolution passes, 
 against any of these documents being sent into the coun- 
 ty of Page. There have been, I repeat, no books of any 
 sort, not even the common Almanac, in that language, re- 
 cently sold in the county. Formerly there were some, 
 but a very few German publications sold there. Our peo- 
 ple do not need the publication of this Constitution and 
 these documents in the German language. They can 
 all, I guarantee you, w T ell understand every proposi- 
 tion which will come forth from this Convention in re- 
 gard to the Constitution, and will under si and it thorough- 
 ly, though it be not printed in the German language. 
 They will be perfectly content with it printed in the 
 English language alone. And I hope this Convention 
 will not incur the cost of publishing it in the German 
 language, without any necessity for it. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to say only a very few words. I 
 rather regret that the motion to lay on the table came 
 from me, as it in some degree imposes upon me the ne- 
 cessity of making a few remarks in reply to what has 
 been said. I desire to remind gentlemen, not only those 
 who are the advocates on this floor for the printing of the 
 Constitution and documents connected with the proceed- 
 ings of the Convention in the German language, but eve- 
 ry other member of the Convention, that the German 
 population is not the only foreign population that we 
 have among us, and that this is not the only foreign lan- 
 guage that is spoken. And I beg to know why the in- 
 vidious distinction is to be made between the German, 
 the French, the Italian, the Norwegian, the Swede, and the 
 Hebrew. I have perhaps as many Hebrew as German 
 constituents, and I believe if this Constitution and docu- 
 ments connected with it should be printed in the German 
 language, I should be under the necessity of insisting upon 
 it that they also be printed in the Hebrew language, the 
 French language, the Italian language, and in every other 
 language spoken among us, so as to accommodate all my 
 constituents. Why, if the object of the gentleman from 
 Ohio (Mr. Gally) could be accomplished merely by pub- 
 lishing the Constitution in the German language, — if you 
 could populate the hills in Ohio county — if you could 
 disembowel its mountains of their vast mineral resources, 
 by the publication of the Constitution in the German lan- 
 guage, — I would be the last man in the world to oppose 
 it. [Laughter.] Has the gentleman a German press in 
 his county ? 
 
 Mr. GALLY. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. What good has resulted, in disembow- 
 eling the mineral resources of the mountains from his 
 German press ? Does not that give the German popu- 
 lation, as they are passing on to the Western country, 
 all the opportunity for information they desire ? If not, 
 let the gentleman and his constituents, by their individu- 
 al enterprise, establish another and another and anoth- 
 er press, until all the information is imparted to the 
 floating German population as it passes through the 
 town of Wheeling. This is not the first attempt to pub- 
 lish the public documents of the country in the different 
 foreign languages that have become common to our peo- 
 ple by the influx of foreign population. For the last ten 
 or twelve or fifteen years, as my friend who sits behind 
 
64 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 me (Mr. Wise) knows, the effort has been made annually in 
 the Congress of the United States, to have the President's 
 message and the accompanying documents published in 
 the different foreign languages which are spoken by those 
 who have become citizens of the United States. Even 
 so late as the last session, if not the present, I recollect 
 an animated debate in the United States Senate upon a 
 proposition to print the President's message and accom- 
 panying documents in French, for the benefit of the 
 State of Louisiana; while there was another proposition 
 to print in German, for the benefit of the German pop- 
 ulation of the State of Pennsylvania ; and another and 
 still another to print in some other language, for the 
 benefit of some other foreigners, in some other part of 
 the country. It has been discountenanced in every in- 
 stance, and I trust in God it will be discountenanced in 
 every instance, wherever the proposition is made. If the 
 gentleman desires to afford encouragement to the Ger- 
 mans and other foreign population to reside among us, 
 let him offer them encouragement to become American 
 citizens in every sense of the word — Americans in lan- 
 guage as well as Americans by adoption. Let them be- 
 come familiar with our language and our institutions, 
 thro gh the medium of our language, and that affords 
 them the best encouragement to settle among us. Nor 
 do I believe their interests will be promoted by th« 
 distinctions that must exist in every community where 
 the different languages are spoken and read; so long 
 as this is the case, they must remain a distinct and 
 an isolated class, cut off and deprived of many of the 
 advantages of the native citizen. I do not know that 
 it is worth while to carry this discussion any further. 
 My object in moving to lay on the table was to prevent 
 any further discussion upon the subject. I take it 
 for granted that every gentleman has made up his 
 mind in regard to it, and is prepared to vote either 
 for the proposition or against it. And as I regard- 
 ed it an useless waste of time, and supposing there would 
 be some disposition to discuss the other question with re- 
 gard to printing, I moved to lay it on the table. I with- 
 drew it as a matter of courtesy, and I now renew the 
 motion to lay on the table. 
 
 Mr. KENNEY. I call for the yeas and nays. 
 The yeas and nays were ordered, and the question be- 
 ing taken, there were yeas 19, nays 29, a9 follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Arthur, Banks, Barbour, Bird, 
 Beale, Bland, Blue, Bocock, Botts, Bowles, Braxton, Bur- 
 gess, Caperton, Carlile, Carter of Russell, Carter of Lou- 
 doun, Chambliss, Chapman, Chilton, Cocke, Conway, De- 
 neale , Douglas, Edmunds, Flood, Fultz, Fuqua, Garland, 
 M. R. H. Garnett, M. Garnett, Goode, Hall, Hays, Hill, 
 Hoge, Hopkins of Powhatan, Hunter, Janney, Jones, Li- 
 gon, Lionberger, Lucas, Lynch, McCamant, McCandlish, 
 Martin of Henry, Meredith, Miller, Moore, Pendleton, 
 Petty, Price, Purkins, Randolph, Ridley, Rives, Saunders, 
 Shell, Sloan, Smith of Kanawha, Smith of Jackson, South- 
 all, Stewart of Morgan, Summers, Taylor, Tredway, 
 Trigg, Tunis, Van Winkle, Wallace, Watts of Roanoke, 
 White, Willey, Williams of Fairfax, Wingfield, Wise, 
 Woolfolk, Worsham, Wysor — 19. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Mason, (President,) Armstrong, Brown, 
 Byrd, Camden, Cook, Davis, Floyd, Fulkerson, Gaily, Ja- 
 cob, Johnson, Kenney, Knote, Letcher, McComas, Martin 
 of Marshall, Neeson, Newman, Scott of Richmond city, 
 Seymour, Sheffey, Smith of Greenbrier, Snodgrass, Stan- 
 ard, Stephenson, Tate, Turnbull, Watts of Norfolk coun- 
 ty— 29. 
 
 So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 
 
 THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENSUS BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. VAN WINKLE. In consequence of a suggestion 
 made to me, I am inclined to think that the communica- 
 tion from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior 
 has taken the wrong direction. It is quite probable that it 
 contains some information not contained in the auditor's 
 report. It is probably a report supplying information not 
 therein contained. I therefore move for a re-cousideration 
 of the vote by which that communication was referred to 
 the Committee on Printing, with the view of having it re- 
 
 ferred to the Committee on the Basis ; and if there is any 
 thing in it additional to what has been already printed, 
 they will request the printing of it. 
 
 The resolution to re-consider was agreed to ; and the 
 communication, on motion of Mr. Van Winkle, was re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Basis. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I can see no reason why we should con- 
 tinue in session longer to-day ; and I therefore move that 
 the Convention adjourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, 
 
 And the Convention adjourned until Monday at 1 
 o'clock P. M. 
 
 MONDAY, January 20, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 The J ournal of the preceding day was then read and 
 approved. 
 
 PRIVILEGED SEATS. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Under the first rule, gentlemen, 
 it is made the duty of the President of the Convention, 
 to set apart seats in the hall for the members of the 
 General Assembly, the Executive of this State, the 
 Judges of this State, and of the United States, and such 
 other persons as he may think proper to invite within 
 the hall. The privileged seats will be construed as open 
 to occupation by officers of the Federal and State Go- 
 vernments, whether they belong to the Executive, Le- 
 gislative, or J udicial Departments of the Government. 
 There is a disposition, I am certain, on the part of the 
 members of this body, to afford every possible facility to 
 their fellow-citizens to witness their proceedings, and*' 
 hear their debates. In common with them, I entertain 
 the strongest desire to gratify the wish of every indivi- 
 dual who may be desirous of witnessing our proceedings, 
 but there must be some arrangement for the purpose of 
 accomplishing this object, and at the same time, of pro- 
 tecting the deliberations of this body from the distur- 
 bance that must ensue, if there be no exclusive seats for 
 the members of the Convention. I shall therefore direct 
 that one tier of seats on the inside of the bar, and other 
 seats in the Hall, shall be opened to privileged persons — 
 I mean those persons who have been designated — the 
 members of the Legislature, of Congress, and the Judi- 
 cial and Executive Departments of the Government. I 
 shall instruct the officers of the Convention to preserve 
 the other seats in the body of the hall, for the use of 
 the members of the Convention. I make this announce- 
 ment, in order that the members of the Convention 
 themselves, may understand what the order is, and that 
 they may not, in the spirit of courtesy, which I know ac- 
 tuates every member of this Convention, interfere with 
 the rules by which Ave are to be governed, by inviting 
 their friends and constituents within the body of the 
 hall, which will inevitably, with the limited accommo- 
 dations we have, interfere with the comfort of the mem- 
 bers of the Convention, and produce disturbance in our 
 proceedings. 
 
 COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENSUS OFFICE. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I have received from Mr. Kennedy, 
 who signs himself Superintendent of the Census Office 
 for the Department of the Interior, a communication 
 stating that, in the table which he sent me a few days 
 ago, and which I laid before the Convention yesterday, 
 there are some mistakes which he desires to correct. 
 MANY MEMBERS. Yes, plenty of them. [A laugh.] 
 The communication was read by the Secretary, as 
 follows : 
 
 Census Office, Dep't of the Interior, ) 
 January 18, 1851. ) 
 
 Hon. John Y. Mason, 
 
 Sir — I have the honor to send you herewith, a state- 
 ment of the population of the several counties of West- 
 ern Virginia. 
 
 It is believed that the statement is nearly correct in 
 every essential particular, as it is made out with much 
 care, and from the returns themselves. The other state- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 65 
 
 meat, sent some days since, was made out in part from 
 the certificates of the Marshal, which in a few instances, 
 were found inaccurate. 
 
 I have the honor to be, Sir, 
 
 Very respectfully, your obd't serv't, 
 
 Jos. C. (x. Kennedy, 
 Sup't of Census. 
 
 Hon. John Y. Mason, 
 
 President of the Virginia Convention. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The communication from that gen- 
 tleman, which was laid before the Convention on Satur- 
 day, and referred to the Committee on the Basis, was 
 found to be grossly inaccurate in very many respects. 
 The population of some of the counties was given at 
 less than one half the population, as shown by the re- 
 turns of the Auditor. There is a table purporting to be 
 a return of the population of the Western district of 
 Virginia ; and among the counties was found the county 
 of Middlesex, which belongs to the tide-water portion of 
 the State. The document now presented, may correct 
 these errors. I move, therefore, that it be referred to 
 the Basis Committee — that it take the same direction as 
 the communication received on Saturday. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I presume that some communica- 
 tion has been made to the Department of the Interior, 
 asking for this information. I have made none ; and I 
 know nothing of Mr. Kennedy, except as he describes 
 himself there, as an officer of that department. I have, 
 however, felt it my duty to lay it before the Convention. 
 The motion is made to refer it to the Committee on the 
 Basis. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion to refer was 
 agreed to. 
 
 plement, the cost of the supplement will be as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 Composition at 62^ cts. per 1000 ems, $155.99 
 Press work at 62£ cts. per token, 155.00 
 Paper for 31,000 copies a week, at $4.60 a ream, 296.10 
 
 Cost of 31,000 copies of supplement a week, $607.69 
 Or for 15 weeks, $9,115.35 
 2. Nye & Elliott propose to print the matter in octa- 
 vo form, on paper to cost $3 a ream, and on each sheet 
 of which paper would be eight pages, containing 3,300 
 ems a page, at 45 cts. per 1000 ems, and 45 cents per 
 token for press-work. The cost under this proposal of 
 printing and distributing weekly, as much matter as 
 would be contained, according to the foregoing estimate 
 in the supplement, would be as follows : 
 Composition at 45 cts. per 1000 ems, , $112.32 
 
 Press-work at 45 cts per token, for matter equal 
 to what 31,000 copies of supplement would 
 contain, say 70,000 sheets a week, or 560 to- 
 kens, 252.00 
 Paper 70,000 sheets a week, at $3 a ream, 437.50 
 
 VACANCY IN THE COMMITTEE ON WESTERN LAND TITLES. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The Committee on Western Land Titles, 
 is not full. Mr. Samuels, late a member of this body, 
 has resigned his seat, and has thus created a vacancy in 
 that committee. I move that the vacancy be filled by 
 the Chair. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It will be taken to be the sense 
 of the Convention, unless objection is made. The Chair 
 appoints Mr. Camden, of Harrison, in place of Mr. Samu- 
 els, on the Committee upon Western Land Titles. 
 
 Cost per week, $801.82 
 Or for 15 weeks $12,027.30 
 To which must be added, $70 a week for folding, if the 
 sheets are required to be folded, and one dollar a thou- 
 sand for directing and mailing such copies as are re- 
 quired to be mailed. The additional charge for postage 
 on these pamphlet sheets, over the supplement sheets, 
 would be $320 a week. 
 
 3. Colin, Baptist & Nolan propose to print the de- 
 J bates and proceedings in octavo form, on super royal pa- 
 per, each sheet to contain 16 pages of matter of 3,900 
 ems each, at 50 cents per thousand ems, and 55 cents per 
 token ; the paper to cost $6 a ream. According to this 
 proposal, a token is 250 copies of 16 pages : if, however, 
 the matter required to be printed, should, at any time 
 of publication, be only eight pages, the charge for press 
 work will be the same as for 16 pages. The cost of this 
 proposition is as follows : 
 
 Composition at 50 cts. per 1000 ems, $124.80 
 Press-work at 55 cts. per token, 136.40 
 Paper at $6 ream, 387.33£ 
 Cutting at 2 cts. per 100 copies, 12.40 
 
 PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I am instructed by the 
 
 committee, 
 
 m obedience to the order of the Convention, to make a 
 report with reference to the proposals or bids for the 
 printing of the debates and proceedings of the Conven- 
 tion. The resolution adopted by the Convention in- 
 structed the committee simply to receive proposals or 
 bids for the work, and the committee, according to that 
 order, advertised for bids, and have instructed me to 
 make the following report : 
 
 The report was read by the Secretary, as follows : 
 The Committee on Printing and Publishing the De- 
 bates of the Convention, have, in conformity with the 
 resolutions of instructions adopted by the Convention, 
 received certain proposals for printing said debates and 
 proceedings, which they herewith submit for the consi 
 deration of the Convention, accompanied by estimates of 
 cost, founded on the respective bids. 
 
 The committee report the following facts, to enable 
 the Convention to make its own calculation of cost. In 
 one column of the supplement there are 5200 ems — in 
 24 columns of the supplement there are 124,800 ems. 
 A ream of paper contains 480 sheets. A token of press 
 work is 250 copies: the press work of 250 sheets makes 
 500 copies, or two tokens. 
 
 Suppose then, the matter reported, equals eight co- 
 lumns of the supplement a day, the committee will 
 now state the cost of the various plans as proposed by 
 the bidders. 
 
 1. It being understood that the proprietors of the city 
 papers will not charge for the distribution of the sup- 
 
 Cost per week, $660.93£ 
 Or for 15 weeks, $9,914.00 
 
 If the quarto form were adopted, the press-work 
 would be 50 cts. a token. To the above charges must be 
 added 1^ cents per copy, for directing and mailing extra 
 copies for members ; and also, $320 a week, additional 
 postage, to be paid by the Convention or the people. 
 
 4. Robert H. Gallaher proposes to print the debates 
 and proceedings in octavo form, on super royal paper 
 each sheet to contain 16 pages of matter, of 3,900 ems 
 each, at 62^ cents per 1000 ems, and 62^- cents per token 
 for press-work ; the paper to cost $6 a ream. — According 
 to this proposal, a token is 250 copies of sixteen pages ; 
 if, however, the matter required to be printed, should, 
 at any time of publication, be only eight pages, the charge 
 for press-work will be the same as for sixteen pages. 
 
 The cost of this proposition is as follows : 
 Composition 62£ cts. per 1000 ems, $156.00 
 Press- work, at 62- 1 cents per token, 155.00 
 Paper at $6 a ream, 387.33£ 
 
 Cost per week, $698.33£ 
 Or for 15 weeks, $10,475.00 
 
 To this must be added an extra charge for mailing and 
 directing, say 50 cents a hundred copies. 
 
 The charge for postage on this matter, over that on 
 the supplements, will be $320 a week. 
 
 5. Mr. William Culley proposes to print 25,000 copies 
 in octavo form, twice a week, during a session of fifteen 
 weeks, for $10,000, provided the matter does not exceed, 
 weekly, eighteen close columns of the National Intelli- 
 
65 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 gencer. The foregoing calculate ns are based upon the 
 supposition, that 15,5u0 copies in octavo form, twice a 
 week, during a session of fifteen weeks, for $10,000, pro- 
 vided, the matter does not exceed, weekly, eighteen close 
 columns of the National Intelligencer. 
 
 The foregoing calculations are based upon the suppo- 
 sition, that 15,5UU copies would be issued twice a week; 
 in proportion to his written offer, it is presumed Mr. Cul- 
 ley would furnish 15,500 copies a week, for $413.33^, 
 each week : the matter to equal eightee columns of the 
 Intelligencer. But in the present ca.Culations, it is sup- 
 posed the matter will equal forty-eight columns of the In- 
 telligencer. A rateable increase of charge for the addition- 
 al matter, would make Mr. Culley's bid amount to about 
 $1000 a week, or §15,000 for a session of fifteen weeks. 
 It is proper for your committee to add, that Mr. Cul.ey 
 iusists that under his contract with the Convention, he 
 has a right to print the debates and proceedings, as well 
 as the ordinary printing of the Convention. 
 
 All of winch is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. 1 move that the report be laid on 
 the table. 
 
 MANY MEMBERS. Oh no. Oh no. Let us act upon 
 it now. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I desire to follow up the motion 
 with some resolutions, if the Convention de ire that the 
 report should be printed before action s'hall be taken on 
 these resolutions, 1 have no objection. I ask simply that, 
 for the present, it may be laid on the table, in order that 
 I may submit certain resolutions. 
 
 The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I offer the following resolutions : 
 
 1. Resolved, That Robert H. Gallaher be and he is here- 
 by appointed publisher of the debates and proceedings 
 of *he Con veil. ion. 
 
 2. Resolved, That the said publisher shall publish, or 
 cause to be published semi-weekly, in the Richmonu 
 Whig. Enquirer, Examiner, Times, Republican Advo- 
 cate, and Republican, or m a supplement to those pa- 
 pers, the debates and proceedings ol the Convention, so 
 that the readers of said papers, whether they be subscri- 
 bers to the daily, semi weekly, or weekly issues, shall 
 have distributed to them each week, the debates and pro- 
 ceedings of each week. 
 
 3'. Resolved, That the compensation to the publisher, 
 shall be as follows : &3.2S for composition of matter, 
 equal to a coluihu of the supplement heretofore issued, 
 $4.60 cents a ream for paper of the size of the Rich- 
 mond W hig, or &4.20 (a ream) for paper of the size ol 
 the supplement — only so much paper to be paid for as 
 is actually used in printing ; and 62-J cents a token Im- 
 press-work : the amounts to be settled and allowed by 
 the Secretary weekly, and to be verified by the affidavit 
 of the foreman or clerk of the publisher. 
 
 4. Resolved, That the said publisher shall also furnish, 
 twice each week, twenty copies of the debates and pro 
 ceedings to each member, and shall wrap, mail and di- 
 rect the same, according to the instructions of members, 
 at a charge not exceeding two cents a copy. 
 
 5. Resolved, That the said publisher shall also furnish 
 six hundred copies of " the Register of Debates" in oc- 
 tavo form, at a price hereafter to be fixed by the Con- 
 vention, for press-work and paper — no additional charge 
 to be made for composition, except for correctiuii — 
 said Register to be published at sufficient intervals, after 
 the publication of the same matter in the newspapers, 
 or the supplements as aforesaid, to afford an opportunity 
 for th« correction of errors therein ; one copy of said 
 Register to be delivered, as published, to each member 
 and officer of the Convention ; one bound copy to be fur- 
 nished to eacli member and officer at the close of the 
 session; and the residue of the six hundred copies to be 
 bound and delivered to the Governor of the Common- 
 wealth, subject to the order of the General Assembly. 
 The cost of binding shall not exceed sixty cents a vo- 
 lume. 
 
 _ 6. Resolved, That the Secretary take bond with suffi- 
 cient security, from said Robert H. Gallaher, for the 
 
 faithful performance of the duties prescribed in the fore- 
 going resolutions, and that he procure the- agreement in 
 writing, of the proprietors of the papers hereinbefore 
 named, to distribute the debates and proceedings hi the 
 manner set forth in the second resolution. 
 
 I ask that the question may be taken separately on 
 the resolutions, so that gentlemen may agree to such 
 portions of them, as, in their opinion, may be proper. I 
 will state that I still adhere to the opinion that the sup- 
 plemental form will be the best form for the publication 
 of these debates and proceedings, and, as the report 
 shows, the cheapest form. It will also be seen, that the 
 provision for an additional number of twenty copies for 
 each member, is the subject of a separate resolu.ion. Some 
 objection having been made the other day to that part of 
 the proposition, lhave thrown it into the shape of a sepa- 
 rate resolution, so that, if the majority are opposed to the 
 distribution of twenty copies to each member, they can 
 vote that resolution down. But 1 consider the fifth re- 
 solution as extremely important, because it provides that 
 the publisher, at no additional charge to the Common- 
 wealth for the composition of this matter, but merely on 
 being paid for the additional press-work and paper, shall 
 furnish to the Convention six hundred copies of the 
 " Register of Debates, ' to be published at such intervals 
 alter the first publication in the supplemental sheet, as 
 may enable members to correct any errors that may be 
 made in reporting our debates, however accurate our re- 
 porter may be in the report of our remarks. This will 
 be a permanent record of the debates and proceedings 
 of this Convention. I submit, for the consideration of 
 the Convention, these resolutions, and ask that the ques- 
 tion be taken on them separately. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gemleman from Augusta 
 asks that the question be taken on the resolutions sepa- 
 rately. The Clerk will read the first resolution. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I do not wish to delay the proceedings 
 of this body, but the printer to this Convention has 
 placed in my hands a communication, with the request 
 that I should submit it. I am not acquainted with its 
 details, but suppose it is a proper time to present it to 
 the Convention now, before any vote is taken upon the 
 resolution. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Is it exactly in order, while the Convention 
 is dividing on a proposition, to read another proposition ? 
 The FRESlDh-NT. The Convention was not dividing. 
 Mr. WTSE. The Chan- was in the very act of putting 
 the question. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The question had not been put. I 
 understand that the paper which the gentleman from 
 Ohio offers, has a bearing, either as a matter of argu- 
 ment, or explanation, upon the question before the Con- 
 vention, upon which we are now about to take a vote, 
 and it will be too late to consider it after the vote is ta- 
 ken. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. That was my understanding. I do not 
 know that it bears upon it, but I suppose so, from what 
 the gentleman told me, who put it into my hands. 
 
 The Secretary then read the following communication 
 from Mr. W r m. Culley : 
 
 PETITION 
 
 To the Hon. the President and Members of the Virginia 
 Constitutional Convention. 
 
 The undersigned would respectfully represent : That on 
 the 16th of October last, the Convention passed a reso 
 iution to appoint a committee to receive proposals for 
 the execution of " all" the printing of the Convention, 
 and that all such printing should be let to the " lowest 
 bidder ;" 
 
 1 hat under this resolution, the undersigned became 
 the contractor for " alb' the work in this line, which 
 may be Grdered by the Convention ; 
 
 that at the time of his entering upon his duties, a ' 
 large portion of the work had accumulated in the hands 
 of the Secretary, including all the Journal up to the 25th 
 of October, and fourteen tabular reports of clerks of 
 [ courts, rule and figure work of a difficult and tedious 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 67 
 
 nature, which had to be set up from the Journals of the 
 House of Delegates for the last thirteen years, and that 
 in respect to most of these reports, oniy a single copy 
 of a bound book could be obtained at a time, so that 
 only one compositor could work on one report at a time ; 
 
 That notwithstanding this difficulty, the undersigned 
 has printed all this accumulated and tedious matter, to- 
 gether with all the reports from the several depart- 
 ments, except two, which are now m hand, and will be 
 struck off in a few days ; 
 
 That the reports of the several departments of the 
 State government, are all rule and figu:-i9 work, and like 
 the reports of the clerks of courts, of difficult con- 
 struction ; 
 
 That the undersigned has observed that a committee 
 of the Convention has advertised for proposals for the 
 execution of a portion of the plain printing of the Con- 
 vention, of easy composition, and the most profitable 
 part of the work, to wit — the debates ; 
 
 That the undersigned conceives that it would be a vi- 
 olation of his contract to give this part of the work to 
 another person or firm ; 
 
 That he has entered into an agreement with Messrs. 
 Elliott cfc Nye, for the use of their power press and hand 
 presses, together with their compositors, to aid him in 
 the printing of the debates, and ail other work of the 
 Convention which may be ordered; 
 
 That the undersigned submits it to the fairness and 
 justice of the Convention, whether it would be right to 
 take away from him the most profitable part of the 
 printing, since he has executed the most difficult and 
 most unprofitable portion of the work, and has made a 
 considerable expenditure for materials, which will be of 
 no use to him for any work but that of the Convention ; 
 
 That the undersigned has submitted to the commit- 
 tee on reporting and printing, a proposition to print the 
 debates in an octavo form, (which plan was first propos- 
 ed by him,) and to strike off a semi-weekly edition of 
 twenty-five thousand copies, embracing as much matter 
 weekly as is contained in eighteen solid columns of the 
 Union or National Intelligencer, for a session of fifteen 
 weeks, for the sum of ten thousand dollars ; and to strike 
 off a greater quantity of matter, and a greater number 
 of copies in the same proportion ; 
 
 To this sum is based upon his contract prices (thirty- 
 five cents per thousand ems, thirty-five cents per token, 
 and two dollars and fifty cents per ream, for paper of 
 medium size,) together with a moderate and reasonable 
 sum fur folding, stitching and mailing the same to every 
 county in the State, and for envelop paper and twine ; 
 
 And the undersigned therefore appeals to the Conven- 
 tion to give him the debates to print, and in duty bound, 
 he will ever pray, etc. William Culley, 
 
 Printer to the Convention. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The question will be on the adop- 
 tion of the first resolution. 
 
 MANY MEMBERS. " Question ■" " question ;" "ques- 
 tion." 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I should like to know of the 
 gentleman who has submitted this report, whether he 
 has considered this question in relation to the contract 
 with the printer to the Convention I 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I do not think that the contract for 
 printing would cover this question at all. The propo- 
 sition now before this Convention is, for the publication, 
 in the newspapers of this city, in order to afford infor- 
 mation to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
 of the proceedings and debates held on this floor. Now, 
 neither in contemplation of law, nor in fact, was the 
 performance of such work, or such duties ever designed 
 to be devolved upon the printer to this Convention — 
 your ministerial officer. His duty is to furnish you with 
 copies of public documents. I do not think there is any 
 thing in the question of law to affect this question at 
 aft 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I do hope that this Convention 
 will not take this question now. I feel as anxious as 
 
 jany body to expedite this business, but we have sub- 
 mitted this matter to a committee of this body, and they 
 [have called upon various printers in this city to furnish 
 proposals for printing the debates and proceedings of 
 the Convention. And now, alter these proposals are 
 offered, we treat them with so little consideration, that 
 we proceed to vote in a manner which virtually rejects 
 all proposals, without giving ourselves time to examine 
 the report of the committee. Again, if the first resolu- 
 tion be adopted, it affirms a principle which was reject- 
 ed by the Convention three days ago, on the motion of 
 the gentleman from Chesterfield (Mr. Cox.) Again, a 
 i legal question has been submitted here. Is the delay of 
 one day, when we are waiting for the reports of our va- 
 rious committees, when, in fact, we have nothing to do 
 in this body, of so much importance to this Common- 
 wealth, that we should hurry over this question, which, 
 with all due deference to my friend from Augusta, (Mr. 
 Sheffey,) does not seem to be one entirely free from 
 difficulty. We have appointed an individual printer 
 to this body, and taken from him bond and security 
 to do the work. What work ? The work ordered by 
 the Convention, to be paid for by this Convention. 
 What is the work which we mean to entrust to Mr Gal 
 iaher \ Is it not the property of this Convention ? Is 
 it not the debates for which we pay a gentleman two 
 hundred and fifty dollars a week to report ? Is not this 
 work the property of the Convention, to be delivered by 
 the Secretary to somebody to print ? Is not the Con- 
 vention to pay for this printing \ I-do not say that the 
 gentleman from Augusta is wrong, but I say that there 
 is sufficient in this question at least, to justify us in giv- 
 ing it one day's deliberation ; and not, by hasty action, 
 involve ourselves in a dilemma, by doing injustice to any 
 individual, however humble he may be, and perhaps 
 causing an application to the Commonwealth for damages 
 which he has sustained. I hope it may be the pleasure 
 of the Convention to let the report of the committee, 
 and the resolutions of the gentleman from Augusta — I 
 do not know whether they are the authorized resolutions 
 of the committee, or his own re solutions — lie on the table 
 and be printed for the use of the members ; and when 
 sufficient time has been allowed to consider all the pro- 
 posals, and the legal question raised, then we may be 
 better prepared to vote on them. I therefore move that 
 the report of the committee, and the resolutions of the 
 gentleman from Augusta, be laid on the table and print- 
 ed for the use of the members of the Convention. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The report of the committee has 
 already been laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I will then move to lay the resolu- 
 tions on the table, and to print them both. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion to lay on the ta- 
 ble, was decided in the negative. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I am afraid of another long debate about 
 printing. 1 move the previous question. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The previous question is moved. 
 Does the gentleman desire that it shall apply to the 
 whole of the resolutions ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. To all of them. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. There is but one before the Con- 
 vention, and that is the first. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I hope that we will take the question 
 upon all the resolutions without further debate. I am 
 tired to death with debate upon this very small question. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. A division of the question has 
 been demanded — can the previous question be ordered 
 upon the whole of the resolutions at once ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is competent for the member 
 from Accomac to demand the previous question upon 
 the whole of them. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. Do I understand the Chair, that 
 it is competent for the member from Accomac (Mr. Wise) 
 to demand the previous question on the whole of the re- 
 solutions ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. There is but one question before 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the Convention, a division having been called, and the first 
 resolution being alone before the Convention, the previous 
 question I believe, can only apply to it. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I am afraid of a debate on that, and I ask 
 the previous question on the first resolution. 
 
 The call for the previous question was seconded, and 
 the main question ordered. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I call for the yeas and nays on the 
 first resolution. 
 
 The first resolution was then read as follows : 
 
 1. Resolved, That Robert H. Gallaher be and he is 
 hereby appointed publisher of the debates and proceed- 
 ings of the Convendon. 
 
 The question being then taken on the above resolution, 
 there were — yeas 65, nays 45, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Blue, Brown, 
 Burges, Camden, Capertou, Carlile, Carter of Russel, 
 Carter of Loudoun, Chambliss, Chapman, Cook, Deneale, 
 Flood, Fulkerson, Fultz, Gaily, Hays, Hoge, Hunter, Hop- 
 kins, Jacob, Janney, Johnson, Kenney, Kilgore, Knote, 
 Letcher, Lionberger, Lucas, McCamant, McComas, Mar- 
 tin of Marshall, Martin of Henry, Meredith, Moncure, 
 Moore, Morris, Murphy, Neeson, Newman, Pendleton, 
 Petty, Price, Ridley, Scott of Richmond, Seymour, Shell, 
 Sheffey, Smith of Kanawha, Smith of Jackson, Smith of 
 Greenbrier, Snodgrass, Stevenson, Summers, Tate, Trigg, 
 Van Winkle, Watts of Norfolk, Watts of Roanoke, Wil- 
 ley, Williams of Shenandoah, Wise, Wysor — 85. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Arthur, Banks, Barbour, Beale, Bird, 
 Bland, Bocock, Botts, Bowden, Claiborne, Cocke, Conway, 
 Davis, Douglas, Edmunds, Floyd, Fuqua, Garland, M. R, H. 
 Garnet, Goode, Hall, Hill, Jones, Lig'on, "Lynch, Ran- 
 dolph, Saunders, Scoggin, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Fau- 
 quier, Sloan, Southall, Stanard, Stewart of Morgan, 
 Strother, Stuart of Patrick, Taylor, Tredway, Turnbull, 
 Wallace, Whittle, Williams of Fairfax, Wingfield, Wor- 
 sliam — 45. 
 
 So the first resolution was agreed to. 
 
 The second resolution was read as follows : 
 
 2. Resolved, That the said publisher shall publish, or 
 cause to be published, semi-weekly, in the Richmond 
 Whig, Enquirer, Examiner, Times, Republican Advocate, 
 and Republican, or in a supplement to those papers, the 
 debates and proceedings of the Convention, so that the 
 readers of said papers, whether they be subscribers to 
 the daily, semi-weekly, or weekly issues, shall have dis 
 tributedto them each week, the debates and proceedings 
 of each week. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. On the adoption of that resolution 
 I ask for the ayes and noes. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 The question being taken, there were yeas 68, nays 3*7, 
 as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Bland, Blue, 
 Brown, Burges, Camden, Caperton, Carlile, Carter of 
 Russel, Carter of Loudoun, Chambliss, Chapman, Cook, 
 Deneale, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz, Gaily, Hays, Hoge, 
 Hopkins of Powhatan, Hunter, Jacob, Janney, Johnson, 
 Kenney, Kilgore, Knote, Letcher, Lionberger, Lucas, 
 McCamant, McComas, Martin of Marshall, Martin of Hen- 
 ry, Meredith, Moncure, Moore, Murphy, Neeson, New- 
 man, Pendleton, Price, Ridley, Scott of Fauquier, Scott 
 of Richmond, Seymour, Shell, Sheffey, Smith of Kana- 
 wha, Smith of Jackson, Smith of Greenbrier, Snodgrass, 
 Southall, Stephenson, Stuart of Patrick, Summers, Tate, 
 Trigg, Tunis, Yan Winkle, Watts of Norfolk, Watts of 
 Roanoke, Willey, Williams of Shenandoah, Wise, Wy- 
 sor— 68. 
 
 Nays.— Messrs. Arthur, Banks, Barbour, Beale, Bo- 
 cock, Bowles, Claiborne, Conway, Davis, Douglas, Ed- 
 munds, Flood, Fuqua, Garland, Muscoe R. H. Garnett, 
 Goode, Hall, Hill, Jones, Ligon, Lynch, Petty, Randolph, 
 Saunders, Scoggin, Scott of Caroline, Sloan, Stanard, 
 Stewart of Morgan, Strother, Taylor, Tredway, Turnbull, 
 Wallace, Whittle, Williams of Fairfax, Worsham — 37. 
 
 So the second resolution was agreed to. 
 
 The third resolution was then read, as follows : 
 
 3- Resolved, That the compensation to the publisher 
 
 shall be as follows: $3.25 for composition of matter, 
 equal to a column of the supplement heretofore issued , 
 $4.60 cents a ream for paper of the- size of the Richmond 
 Whig, or $4.20 (a ream) for paper of the size of the sup- 
 plement — only so much paper to be paid for as is actu- 
 ally used in printing ; and 624 cents a token for press 
 work : the amounts to be settled and allowed by the 
 Secretary weekly, and to be verified by the affidavit of 
 the foreman or clerk of the publisher. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. I ask for the reading of the contract 
 with Mr. Culley. The first resolution, as I understand it, 
 appoints Mr. Gallaher as the publisher of the debates 
 of the Convention. The resolution we are now about to 
 act upon, provides for printing, as I understand it. And 
 before we vote upon that question, I wish to know 
 whether w r e are not already under obligation to give the 
 printing of these proceedings to Mr. Culley ? 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. The third resolution provides for the 
 payment for the performance of the duties required by 
 the first and second resolutions. The gentleman should 
 have raised hi> question on the second resolution. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The contract is in the possession 
 of the Secretary, but as he has no place in the hall to 
 keep his papers, it is at his lodgings. It will be sent for 
 if it is desired. Does the gentleman desire that the 
 contract shall be sent for? 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR. No sir. 
 
 The question being taken on the third resolution, it was 
 agreed to without a division. 
 
 The fourth resolution was then read as fellows : 
 
 4. Resolved, That the said publisher shall also furnish 
 twice each week, twenty copies of the debates and pro- 
 ceedings to each member, and shall wrap, mail and di- 
 rect the same according to the instructions of members, 
 at a charge not exceeding two cents a copy. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I move to pass by that resolution. 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. "No, no, let us dispose of 
 it at once." 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. Would a motion for indefinite post- 
 ponement be confined to that resolution alcne ? 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. Oh let us take the question. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. Well, I will make no motion. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I wish to make an inquiry before the 
 question is taken on this resolution. Vv 7 e have provided 
 for the publication of our debates in the papers of this 
 city, and now we are about providing that each member 
 shall have 20 copies per week. I should like to know 
 before we decide this matter, at what price Mr. Gallaher 
 will furnish these debates to those who wish to subscribe 
 for them, and thus receive the entire proceedings ? 
 There are very many men who do not take the Richmond 
 papers, but who would yet be very anxious to have the 
 debates, and will therefore wish to subscribe for them 
 alone, if they can get them at a cheap rate. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. The gentleman will see in the prece- 
 ding report, that Mr. Gallaher proposes to furnish the 
 subscribers the supplemental sheet at two cents a copy, 
 on the same terms indicated in that resolution. Any 
 menber may furnish a list of names to the publisher and 
 he will have them wrapped and directed and mailed at 
 two cents a copy. 
 
 Mr. KNOTK I am aware that that was the proposi- 
 tion in a previous report, but that is not before the Con- 
 vention, having been passed by. I do not kiow, but pos- 
 sibly Mr. Gallaher, having the contract for this work, 
 and alone having it in type, and the other papers having 
 nothing of the kind, would have a monopoly of this pub- 
 lication, and might ask so high a price for his paper as to 
 render it a costly matter to 'his subscribers. I desire to 
 understand this thing, and as we are to pay for setting 
 the types, <fec, to guard, if possible, against such occur- 
 rence. 
 
 Mr, TREDV/ AY. I ask for the yeas and nays cn the 
 fourth resolution. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. Will it be in order to move an amend- 
 ment to this resolution ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Yea sir. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 69 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I desire to have it so amended that Mr. 
 GaKaher shall be required to famish these supplements 
 to subscribers at two cents per copy. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. If the Secretary will add at the end 
 of the resolution the words, " and at no higher price than 
 two cents per copy to others," it will accomplish the gen- 
 tleman's object. 
 
 Mr. KNOTE. I will accept of that modification. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be modified 
 as indicated by the mover, (Mr. Sheffey,) if there be no 
 objection. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH. This resolution requires Mr. Gal- 
 laher to furnish each member that desires it, twenty copies 
 of the supplement. For my part I do not desire them, 
 and I would pay him something not to send them. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I will be much obliged to the gentleman 
 if he will send them to me. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I rise for the purpose of moving 
 the indefinite postponement of the resolution. I desire, 
 if I am incorrect in my understanding of the resolution 
 just adopted by the Convention, to be corrected. I under- 
 stand, and that is my reason for moving the indefinite 
 postponement of the resolution under consideration, that 
 by the first resolution Mr. Gallaher is appointed publish- 
 er for the Convention. I understand by the second reso- 
 lution, that we are to pay the terms stated in the third 
 resolution to the city papers for publishing and furnishing 
 to subscribers in supplemental form the debates and pro- 
 ceedings of the Convention. Now, if I am correct in 
 that, we have offered a bribe to the people of this Com- 
 monwealth to subscribe to the city papers, and if their 
 subscription is, in the next ten days, brought up to five 
 hundred thousand, you will have to pay out of the treas- 
 ury for publishing these reports of the debates and pro- 
 ceedings in these additional papers, and every man who 
 subscribes for them will not only get the city papers and 
 all the news at the ordinary price, but even this supple- 
 mental sheet as a bribe for subscribing to them. If I am 
 correct, I trust the Convention will stop before it 
 goes further with this expenditure, and that we will be 
 satisfied with furnishing to the subscribers of the city pa- 
 pers at the public expense, the debates and proceedings 
 of this Convention, and that we will not be compelled 
 further to violate our feelings by taking twenty copies 
 and discriminating among our constituents. Am I to 
 send to one of my constituents a supplement containing 
 the whole speech of one gentleman and half a speech of 
 another, and to another constituent a part of the speech 
 of my friend from Accomac and a part of the speech of 
 my friend from Fauquier, or some other gentleman. If I 
 am to do this, the whole plan is a humbug, and no good 
 whatever is to result from it to the readers in my dis- 
 trict. But, if, on the contrary, I am to send a complete 
 set of these papers to one person, or if I am to save these 
 twenty papers for as many different persons, then I give 
 the whole information to these twenty persons alone, and 
 I am thus forced by the action of this Convention to dis- 
 criminate against twenty -nine hundred and eighty voters. 
 I am not prepared to do it. I do not believe that the 
 people will sustain and carry me out in doing it, and I 
 hope the Convention will be satisfied with the money al- 
 ready indirectly appropriated by that third resolution, 
 and vote down this proposition to force us to discrimi- 
 nate among those who sent us here and whom we repre- 
 sent here. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman submit the 
 motion for indefinite postponement. 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I do, sir. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I rise to a question of order. Here 
 is a series of resolutions, all relating to the subject of 
 printing, and part of them have been adopted. It would 
 not be competent therefore, I suppose, for a single mem- 
 ber, at this stage of the proceedings, to move a division 
 of the question, and the Convention alone can call for it. 
 And much less would it be competent to move the inde- 
 finite postponement of one of the resolutions at this time. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I am willing to withdraw the 
 motion for indefinite postponement, and that the ques- 
 
 tion shall be taken upon the resolution, but I am bound to 
 think that the gentleman from Powhatan (Mr. Hopkins) 
 is wrong in his question of order. This question is the 
 only one before the Convention, and I do not understand 
 that there is any question that can come before the Con- 
 vention to which a motion for indefinite postponement 
 will not apply. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 The question was then taken on the fourth resolution, 
 and there were yeas 56, nays 52, as follows; 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Armstrong, Bird, Bland, Blue, Brown, 
 Burgess, Camden, Caperton, Carter of Russel, Chapman, 
 Cook, Davis, Deneale, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz, Gaily, 
 Garland, Hays, Hoge, Hopkins of Powhatan, Hunter, Ja- 
 cob, Johnson, Kilgore, Knote, Letcher, Lionberger, Lucas, 
 Lynch, McCamant, McComas, Martin of Marshall, Mere- 
 dith, Moore, Murphy, Neeson, Pendleton, Petty, Price, 
 Scott of Fauquier, Scott of Richmond, Seymour, Sheffey, 
 Smith of Kanawha, Smith of Jackson, Smith of Green- 
 brier, Snodgrass, Stephenson, Stuart of Patrick, Sum- 
 mers, Tate, Trigg, Van Winkle, Watts of Norfolk, Wil- 
 ley, Williams of Shenandoah, Wise, Wysor — 56. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Anderson, Arthur, Banks, Barbour, Beale, 
 Bocock, Botts, Bowles, Carter of Loudoun, Chambliss, Clai- 
 borne, Cocke, Conway, Douglas, Edmunds, Flood, Fuqua, 
 Garland, Garnett of Essex, Goode, Hall, Hill, Janney, 
 Jones, Kenney, Ligon, Lynch, Martin of Henry, Mason, 
 Moncure, Newman, Randolph, Ridley, Saunders, Scog- 
 gin, Scott of Caroline, Shell, Sloan, Southall, Stanard, 
 Stewart of Morgan, Strother, Taylor, Tredway, Tunis, 
 Turnbull, Wallace, Watts of Roanoke, Whittle, Williams 
 of Fairfax, Wingfield, Worsham — 52. 
 So the fourth resolution was agreed to. 
 The fifth resolution was then read as follows : 
 
 5. Resolved, That the said publisher shall also furnish 
 six hundred copies of " the Register of Debates" in oc- 
 tavo form, at a price hereafter to be fixed by the Con- 
 vention for press-work and paper — no additional charge 
 to be made for composition, except for corrections — said 
 Register to be published at sufficient intervals, after the 
 publication of the same matter in the newspapers or the 
 supplements as aforesaid, to afford an opportunity for 
 the correction of errors therein ; one copy of said Re- 
 gister to be delivered, as published, to each member 
 and officer of the Convention ; one bound copy to be fur- 
 nished to each member and officer at the close of the ses- 
 sion ; and the residue of the six hundred copies to be 
 bound and delivered to the Governor of the Common- 
 wealth subject to the order of the General Assembly. 
 The cost of binding shall not exceed sixty cents a vol- 
 ume. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I would suggest that the 
 direction be to deliver the six hundred copies to the Li- 
 brarian of the Commonwealth, and not the Governor. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I accept the modification to strike 
 out the word "Governor," and insert the word "Sec- 
 retary." 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be consid- 
 ered as so modified, unless objection is made. 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolution as mod- 
 ified, and it was agreed to. 
 
 The sixth resolution was then read, as follows: 
 
 6. Resolved, That the Secretary take bond with suffi- 
 cient security from said Robert H. Gallaher, for the 
 faithful performance of the duties prescribed in the fore- 
 going resolutions, and that he procure the agreement in 
 writing of the proprietors of the papers hereinbefore 
 named, to distribute the debates and proceedings in the 
 manner set forth in the second resolution. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I would inquire of the mover what 
 would be deemed sufficient security ? Is the Convention 
 to determine, or is it to be left to the Secretary ? Would 
 it not be better for us at once to decide it, rather than to 
 leave it to the Secretary, whom it might involve in diffi- 
 culties ? Is it to be left to the Secretary's discretion ? 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. The gentleman can name any amount 
 he desires. 
 
70 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I have no motion to make, for I am 
 no judge of such matters. 
 
 The sixth resolution Avas then agreed to. 
 
 THE PUBLIC EXPENDITURES CORRECTION OF A STATEMENT. 
 
 Mr. CHAMBLISS. A resolution was passed on the 
 17th of October, requesting the Auditor of Public Ac- 
 counts to send to this Convention the expenditures of the 
 Commonwealth for the year ending the 12th of Septem- 
 ber, 1850. This statement has been printed, but it does 
 not give the aggregate in each county. The Auditor has 
 given the aggregate in each district, but does not give the 
 aggregate for each county. He gives the separate items 
 of expenditure in the counties, but not the aggregate 
 amount. There is no means of testing the accura- 
 cy of this calculation without making an addition ol 
 these tables. I therefore move that this resolution be 
 sent back to the Auditor with in: tructions to furnish a 
 detailed, statement of the counties, cities and towns in 
 the Commonwealth — showing the aggregated expendi- 
 tures in each. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 THE COMMUNICATION FROM MR. WM. CULLEY. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I am requested by the printer to the 
 Convention, to move to lay on the table his communica- 
 tion, presented a short time since by me. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 COMPENSATION AND EXTRA ALLOWANCES TO PUBLIC OFFICERS. 
 
 Mr. CARTER, of Scott, offered the following resolu- 
 tion, and it was referred to the Legislative Committee: 
 
 Resolved, That the Legislative Committee inquire into 
 the expediency and propriety of giving the Legislature 
 the power to provide by law for the compensation of all 
 officers, servants, agents, and public contractors, not pro- 
 vided for by the Constitution, and of expressly with- 
 holding from the Legislature the power to grant extra 
 compensation to any officer, servant, agent, or public 
 contractor, after such public service shall have been per- 
 formed, or such public contract entered into for the per- 
 formance of the same. And also of withholding from the 
 Legislature the power to grant by appropriation or other- 
 wise any amount of money out of the treasury of the 
 State on any claim real or pretended, when the same 
 shall not have been provided for by pre-existing law. 
 And also of withholding from the Legislature the power 
 to increase or diminish the salaries or fees of any officer, 
 employment, agency or trust during the existing term of 
 the same. 
 
 THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENSUS OFFICE. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. There is a communication from one of 
 the departments at Washington which I believe was laid 
 on the table this morning, which should be printed. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The communication has been dis- 
 posed of in the same manner as was the first communi- 
 cation from the same source — referred to the Committee 
 on the Basis — to examine whether the same information 
 has not already been communicated to the Convention by 
 the Auditor, and printed. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I hope the committee will see the ne- 
 cessity for the printing. 
 
 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT. 
 
 Mr. COCKE. I rise to move, that when this Conven- 
 tion adjourn to-day. it adjourn to meet again on Saturday 
 next. We have disposed now of the printing matter, and 
 as it is known that all the committees of the Convention 
 are now busily engaged all the time that they can be, in 
 the consideration of questions of importance referred to 
 •them, I believe, to meet here day after day till these com- 
 mittees are ready to report, will be a useless consumption 
 of our time, and will materially delay the real business of 
 the body.^ We meet here at 1 o'clock, the time fixed for 
 the meeting of the committees is 10 o'clock, and very 
 many members do not enter the committee rooms till 
 near 11 or after, that, and by the time we are ready 
 to take any action, we have to come down here. There 
 fore I trust that the sober judgement of the house will 
 
 see the propriety of the motion which I now submit. I 
 am not particular about Saturday, but I moved that day 
 because I thought some of the committees might be able 
 to report by that time. I hope some of our committees, 
 at least the Judiciary Committee, and possibly two or 
 three others, will be ready to report by that time, and 
 we may then go on uninterruptedly in the discharge of 
 our duties. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. I hope it will be the pleasure of 
 the Convention to agree to the motion submitted by my 
 friend from Fluvanna, (Mr. Cocke.) I think it will very 
 much facilitate the action of the committees — the most 
 important action the Convention can now have. Until 
 we can hear from one of these committees, there will be 
 nothing before the Convention, and we can make no ef- 
 fectual progress. I do not see the object of meeting here 
 from time to time when there is no call for it. If any 
 more resolutions are to be offered, they can as well be 
 offered on a future occasion as now. The committees 
 have ample work before them, and it is for the interest 
 of all that they be as little interrupted as possible. To 
 meet here at 1 o'clock every day is a very serious in- 
 terruption to the committees. It breaks in upon the day, 
 and they can do nothing effectually afterwards — 10 
 o'clock is the hour for the meeting of the committees, but 
 they do not get organized before II, and then by half 
 after 12 or 1, they have to come down here. And 
 if we adjourn, we lose an hour and a half or two hours 
 here, and the day is completely broken up. I trust it will 
 be the pleasure of the Convention to agree to vote for 
 the motion of my friend to adjourn till Saturday. Any 
 adjournment over would be better than meeting here 
 from day to day. I am very well satisfied with Satur- 
 day. Monday has been suggested, but I am not anxious 
 to change the dav specified in the motion. 
 
 Mr.SHEFFEY. I do not think there would he much 
 harm in our coming here on Thursday. There might be 
 some suggestions thrown into the shape of resolutions 
 and referred to the committees between this time and 
 Monday next. It will not be very troublesome for the 
 Convention to meet here an hour a day, and if any reso- 
 lutions should be offered, refer them to the cemmittees 
 before they make out their final reports. We could 
 meet here on Thursday at 2 o'clock, and receive any 
 resolutions that any gentleman may wish to have referred 
 to the committees. I move to substitute Thursday for 
 Saturday. 
 
 Mr. MOtfCURE. Will Friday suit you? This will 
 give the committees three days. A committee may be 
 ready to report on Friday. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Well, if the gentleman thinks they 
 will be ready to report on Friday, it will be better to 
 meet on Thursday; a new idea might then be furnished 
 the committee. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. Well, if you prefer Thursday, I have 
 no objection. 
 
 The question was taken on the motion to strike out 
 Saturday and insert Thursday, and decided in the nega- 
 tive — a count being had — ayes 36, nays 47. 
 
 The question recurring on the resolution of Mr. Cocke, 
 it was agreed to — a count being had — ayes 54, noes 29. 
 
 On motion of Mr. CARTER, of Loudoun, the Conven- 
 tion adjourned until Saturday, at 1 o'clock. 
 
 SA'I UKJJA y, January 2bth, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 ASSESSED AVERAGE VALUE OF LAND PER ACRE. 
 
 The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the fol- 
 lowing communication from the Auditor's Office : 
 
 Auditor's Office, ) 
 Richmond, January 25, 1851. \ 
 Sir — I have the honor of furnishing you herewith, 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 71 
 
 for the use of the Convention, "a statement showing the 
 assessed average value of lands per acre for the years 
 1800, 1820, 1840 and 1850; the value of buildings on 
 other than town lots, added to the value of lands in 
 1820, 1840 and 1850, in ascertaining the average value 
 thereof, and also the value of buildings or town lots in 
 1820, 1840 and 1850." I have also enclosed to you here- 
 with "a table showing the aggregate amounts expend- 
 ed, by the Commonwealth, through this office, in each 
 county, city and town thereof, during the fiscal year end- 
 ing on the 30th September, 1850." 
 
 I am with great respect, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 Ro. Johnston, First Auditor. 
 
 Hon. Jno. Y. Mason, President of the Va. Convention. 
 
 The communication and accompanying documents 
 were, on motion of Mr. Bi r RD, laid on the table and or- 
 dered to be printed. 
 
 EXPENSES OF FITTING UP THE CHURCH. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I hold in my hand the bill for the car- 
 penter's Avork done in preparing this church for the ac- 
 commodation of the Convention. It was done under the 
 direction of Mr. Bosher, the chairman of the committee 
 on the part of the city council, and that gentleman cer- 
 tifies that the prices charged are in accordance with the 
 agreement made by him with the carpenters. Most of 
 the charge is to reimburse the actual outlay of money on 
 their part in the purchase of materials, which money 
 they are anxious to receive. The whole amount of their 
 bill is $159.78. This charge does not include the cost 
 of the carpet and other fixtures for our accommodation 
 here, which were furnished by other persons. As this 
 Convention has no power to make appropriations of the 
 public money, I offer the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Legislature be requested to make 
 an appropriation to pay to Poindexter & Kerr, one hun- 
 dred and fifty nine dollars and seventy-eight cents, the 
 a mount of their carpenter's work, done for the accom- 
 odation of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall. There have been other 
 expenses incurred in the work of re-fitting this church, 
 besides that proposed to be provided for here, and I 
 would suggest whether it is not better to embrace them 
 all in this resolution, so that it may cover all the expense. 
 <fec, that has been incurred. It strikes me it would be 
 better than to have each item the subject of a separate 
 resolution here and of a separate bill before the Legis- 
 lature, and I would suggest to the mover of this resolu- 
 tion that he modify it as I have indicated. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. The gentleman's suggestion might be 
 adopted if we knew the exact amount of expense. In 
 the absence of such information, I think the Conven- 
 tion ought not to pass upon any resolution of that kind. 
 Any amount which the Legislature may be called upon 
 to appropriate, ought to have the express sanction of 
 the Convention. The persons who performed this car- 
 penter's work were subjected to an outlay of some $90 
 or $100 of money out of their own pockets, in the pro- 
 curing of materials, and this amount they are anxious 
 to have refunded to them as speedily as possible. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Marshall. I will move that the 
 resolution be laid on the table. In all probability by 
 Monday we shall know the exact amount of expense in- 
 curred in fitting up this church, and then we may have 
 the whole subject disposed of by the Legislature in a 
 single bill. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I deem it proper to state to the 
 Convention, that I have had a conversation with the 
 chairman of the committee on finance, I think it is called, 
 of the House of Delegates, who informed me that his 
 committee had determined to report, and he had no 
 doubt the General Assembly would pass, an act appro- 
 priating a sum of money to be placed at the disposal of 
 the Convention to defray its expenses. In view of this 
 and the fact that it is proper for the Convention to retain 
 the vouchers of these amounts on its records, the pay- 
 ments being made by its own officers, it is worthy of in- 
 
 quiry whether it is not better to wait the action of the 
 Legislature before adopting this resolution. I have 
 made this statement so that members might act under- 
 standing^ in the premises. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I, of course, knew nothing of the ar- 
 rangement to which the President has referred, or I 
 should not have offered this resolution. I acquiesce ful- 
 ly in the motion to lay it on the table. 
 
 The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 
 
 REMOVAL OF FREE NEGROES. 
 
 Mr. LUCAS. I hold in my hand a petition from a re- 
 spectable portion of my constituents, citizens of the coun- 
 ty of Jefferson, praying for the removal of free people of 
 color from beyond the borders of the Commonwealth. I 
 ask that it be referred to the Committee on the Legisla- 
 tive Department. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the petition referred 
 accordingly. 
 
 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to present a report from the 
 Committee on the Executive Department of the Govern- 
 ment. In presenting it, I am requested by some of the 
 members of the committee to state that they do not con- 
 cur in all the propositions reported. It was not, I sup- 
 pose, expected by the Convention, that there would 
 be a unanimous concurrence in sentiment by the com 
 mittee. 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Article 1. — Governor. 
 Sec. 1. The chief executive power of this Common- 
 wealth shall be vested iu a Governor. He shall hold his 
 office for the term of four years, to commence on the day 
 of next preceding his election, and he shall be in- 
 
 eligible to that office after his second term shall have ex- 
 pired, an I to any other office during his term of service. 
 
 2. The Governor shall be chosen by the electors of the 
 members of the General Assembly, at the times and places 
 when they respectively vote for members thereof. The 
 returns of every election shall be sealed and transmitted 
 by the proper returning officer to the Secretary of State, 
 who shall deliver them to the Speaker of the House of 
 Delegates, on the first day of the session of the General 
 Assembly, then next to be holden. The Speaker of the 
 House of Delegates shall open and publish the within 
 one week thereafter, in the presence of a majority of the 
 Senate and House of Delegates. The person having the 
 highest number of votes shall be Governor ; but if two 
 or more shall be equal and highest in votes, one of them 
 shall be chosen Governor, by joint vote of both Houses of 
 the General Assembly. Contested elections shall be de- 
 cided by both Houses of the Legislature in such manner as 
 may be prescribed by law. 
 
 3. No person shall be elegib 1 e to the office of Governor 
 unless he shall have attained the age of thirty years, shall 
 be a native citizen of the United States, and shall have 
 been a citizen of Virginia for five years next preceding 
 his election. 
 
 4. The Governor shall reside at the seat of govern- 
 ment, and shall receive for his services the sum of five 
 thousand dollars for each year of his term, and shall not 
 receive within that period any other emolument from 
 this or any other State or government. 
 
 5. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully exe- 
 cuted ; shall, from time to time, communicate to the Leg- 
 islature the condition of the Commonwealth, and recom- 
 mend to their consideration such measures as he may 
 deem expedient; he shall be commander-in-chief of the 
 land and naval forces of the State ; shall convene the 
 Legislature on application of a majority of the members 
 of both houses of . the General Assembly, or when, in 
 his opinion, the interests of the Commonwealth shall re- 
 quire it. He shall have power to embody the militia, 
 when, in his opinion, the public safety shall require it ; 
 to remit fines and penalties, under such rules and regu- 
 
72 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 lations as may be prescribed by law ; to grant reprieves 
 and pardons, or commute the punishment, except 
 when the prosecution shall have been carried on 
 by the House of Delegates, or the law shall other- 
 wise particularly direct ; to conduct, either in per- 
 son or in such other manner as shall be prescribed by 
 law, all intercourse with other and foreign states ; and, 
 during the recess of the Legislature, to fill, pro tempore, 
 all vacancies in those offices for which the Constitution, 
 and Laws make no provision : Provided, That his ap- 
 pointments to such vacancies shall be by commission to 
 expire at the end of thirty days after the commencement 
 of the session of the Legislature next preceding the date 
 of such commission. 
 
 6. Commissions and grants shall run in the name of the 
 Commonwealth of Virginia, and bear teste by the Gover- 
 nor, with the seal of the Commonwealth annexed. 
 Article 2 — Lieutenant Governor. 
 
 1. A Lieutenant Governor shall be chosen at every 
 election for a Governor, in the same manner, continue in 
 office for the same time, and possess the same qualifica- 
 tions. 
 
 2. In case of the impeachment of the Governor, his re- 
 moval from office, death, refusal, or inability to qualify, 
 resignation, or absence from the State, the powers and 
 duties of the office shall devolve upon the Lieutenant 
 Governor, and the Legislature may by law provide for 
 the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability of 
 both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, declaring 
 what officer shall then act as Governor ; and such officer 
 shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a 
 Governor shall be elected. 
 
 3. The Lieutenant Governor, or other officer discharg- 
 ing the duties of Governor, shall, during his administra- 
 tion, receive the same compensation to which the Govern- 
 or would have been entitled, had he continued in office. 
 
 4. The Lieutenant Governor shall, by virtue of his 
 office, be President of the Senate, but shall only have a 
 casting vote therein ; whenever he shall administer the 
 Government or shall be unable to attend as the Presi- 
 dent of the Senate, the Senators shall elect one of their 
 own members as President of the Senate for the time 
 being. 
 
 5. While he acts as President of the Senate, the 
 Lieutenant Governor shall receive for his services the 
 compensation allowed to the Speaker of the House of 
 Delegates. 
 
 Article 3 — Secretary of State, Treasureer, and Auditor. 
 
 1. A Secretary of the Commonwealth shall be chosen 
 at every election for a Governor, in the same manner, 
 and continue in office for the same time as the Governor. 
 He shall keep a fair record of the official acts of the Gov- 
 ernor, which shall be attested by the Governor and by 
 the Secretary. He shall, when required, lay the said re- 
 cord, and all papers, minutes, and vouchers relative to 
 his office, before either house of the General Assembly, 
 and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 2 A Treasurer and an Auditor of Public Accounts 
 shall be elected by joint vote of the two houses of the 
 Legislature, who shall hold the offices two years, unless 
 sooner removed. The powers and duties of said officers 
 shall be such as now are, or may be hereafter, prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 Article 4 — Board of Public Works. 
 The Legislature shall, at its first session after the adop- 
 tion of this Constitution, organize a Board of Public 
 Works, to be composed of three commissioners, prescribe 
 their duties and fix their compensation. The said com- 
 missioners shall be elected by the qualified voters of the 
 State, one of whom shall hold his office for two years, one 
 for four years, and one for six years. They shall meet 
 
 at the capitol on the day of next after the 
 
 election, and shall decide by lot which shall hold his of- 
 fice for two years, which for four years, and which for 
 six years; and there shall be elected biennially thereaf- 
 ter, one commissioner who shall hold his office for six 
 
 years. All officers acting in behalf of the interests of 
 the State in the various public improvements, shall be 
 appointed by said Board. 
 
 Article 5 — Militia. 
 All company, battalion and regimental officers shall 
 be elected by those persons who are subject to military 
 duty, within their respective companies, battalions and 
 regiments, and all other militia officers in such manner 
 as may be prescribed by law. 
 
 PAYMENT OF A PRINTING ACCOUNT. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I desire to offer a resolution of a bu- 
 siness character, as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary certify to the First Au 
 ditor for payment of the account of Robert H. Gallaher, 
 publisher, for work executed up to this day. 
 
 The resolution was agreed to. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF RETURNS OF POPULATION. 
 
 Mr. BYRD offered the following resolution, and it was 
 adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That the First Auditor be, and he is hereby 
 requested, to furnish for the use of the Convention a ta- 
 ble, showing in separate columns the free white, free CO' 
 lored and slave population of each of the counties, cities 
 and towns in the four great districts of the State, in the 
 years 1830, 1840, and 1850, and the amount and per 
 centage of increase, or decrease in each, between those 
 periods respectively ; and also showing the aggregate 
 amount of taxes payable in each county in the year 1840, 
 and what would have been payable in the year 1850, at 
 the same rate of taxation, taxing land according to the 
 value, ascertained by the recent assessment, together with 
 the amount and per centage of increase or decrease in 
 the taxes, so ascertained, at the two periods aforesaid. 
 
 DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNTY COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEYS 
 FROM SERVICE IN THE LEGISLATURE. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON". I wish to offer a resolution, and 
 I will remark, for the purpose of calling the attention of 
 the committee to whom it shall be referred, to the sub- 
 ject, that it relates to prohibiting Commonwealth attor- 
 neys in county courts' from serving in either house of 
 the General Assembly. The construction placed upon 
 our present Constitution makes a distinction between 
 Commonwealth attorneys in circuit courts, and in coun- 
 ty courts ; prohibiting those of circuit courts from serving 
 in the Legislature, but allowing those of county courts 
 to do so. This distinction, I understand, to be based on 
 the idea that as the attorney in the circuit court receives 
 his ex officio compensation from the State treasury, 
 while those in the county courts receive theirs by coun- 
 ty levy, the office of the latter is therefore not one un- 
 der the State, and thus, under the Constitution, the in- 
 cumbent has the right of being returned to the Legisla- 
 ture. I think there is as much reason to exclude from 
 this privilege the attorneys of the Commonwealth in the 
 county courts as those in the circuit courts ; and, for the 
 purpose of having the subject considered, I offer the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Right of Suf- 
 frage inquire into and report upon the expediency of pro- 
 hibiting Commonwealth attorneys in the county courts 
 from serving as members in either House of the General 
 Assembly. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. I suggest to the gentlemen from 
 Scott, (Mr. Fulkerson,) whether the resolution ought not 
 to go to the Committee on the Legislative Department. I 
 cannot perceive that the Committee on the Right of Suf- 
 frage can have any thing to do with the subject. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. I have no choice as to the com- 
 mittee to whom it shall be referred, and will adopt the 
 suggestion of my friend with pleasure. 
 
 The resolution was then modified accoidingly and re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Legislative Department. 
 
 SEPARATE DAY FOR JUDICIAL ELECTIONS. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY offered the following resolution, and it 
 was referred to the Committee on the J udiciary. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 73 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary inquire 
 into the expediency of providing, that no other election 
 shall be held on the day appointed for the election of 
 judicial officers. 
 
 REMODELING OF THE COUNTIES REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, 
 
 DEATHS AND MARRIAGES. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS offered the following resolutions, and 
 they were referred to the Committee on County Courts 
 and County Organization : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on County Organi- 
 zation, (fee, be instructed to inquire into the practica- 
 bility and expediency of re-constructing the several 
 counties of the Commonwealth, so as to make them as 
 nearly uniform in territorial extent as may be, having 
 regard to natural boundaries. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on County Organization, 
 <fcc, inquire into the expediency of inserting a clause in 
 the Constitution, requiring provision to be made by law 
 for the registration of births, marriages and deaths in the 
 several counties, cities and towns within the Common- 
 wealth. 
 
 THE VETO POWER. 
 
 Mr. WISE offered the following resolution, and it was 
 referred to the Committee on the Legislative Depart- 
 ment : 
 
 Resolved, That the Legislative Committee inquire into 
 the expediency of inserting the following provision in 
 the Constitution : 
 
 Every bill which shall have passed the General As- 
 sembly, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to 
 the Governor ; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not 
 he shall, within clays, return it with his objections 
 to that house in which it shall have originated, who 
 shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and 
 proceed to re-consider it. If after such re consideration a 
 majority of the whole number of members of that house 
 shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with 
 the objections, to the other house, by which it shall like- 
 wise be re-considered, and if approved by a majority of 
 that house, it shall become a law. But if any bill shall 
 not be returned by the Governor within days (Sun- 
 days excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, 
 or the General Assembly shall have adjourned for 
 days before he returns his objections, the same shall be 
 a law in like manner as if he had signed it. 
 
 MODE OF LEVYING TAXATION. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. Al an early day of the session of the 
 Convention in October, I took occasion to submit some 
 resolutions in relation to the principle or mode of taxa- 
 tion. The resolutions were not in the form of sugges- 
 tions, but of affirmative propositions, and I believe, under 
 the construction of the resolution passed heretofore, none 
 but resolutions of inquiry are referred as a matter of 
 course, to the appropriate committees. I therefore move 
 that the resolutions introduced by me, to which I have 
 alluded, be referred to the Committee upon the Legisla- 
 tive Department, with instructions to inquire into the 
 propriety of adopting and reporting them as provisions 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I can inform the gentleman from Mar- 
 ion, (Mr. Neeson,) that the Legislative Committee now 
 have this subject under consideration. It has been re- 
 lerred to them by three or four resolutions. I was not 
 aware that the resolution of the gentleman was manda- 
 tory in it" terms, nor have the committee acted under 
 the impression that they were required by any resolu- 
 tion of the Convention to report the principle of taxation 
 proposed by his resolution. I do not suppose it is ne- 
 cessary for the resolution to undergo any modification ; 
 the committee will act upon it and report such result as 
 in their best judgment they think calculated to pro- 
 mote the public good. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. The resolutions to which I have referr- 
 ed were laid on the table at my request ; they were affirm- 
 ative resolutions, and not merely suggestive of an inqui- 
 
 ry, and therefore were not referred to the appropriate 
 committee. Thei-e are some distinguishing characteristics 
 belonging to those resolutions that I do not perceive con- 
 nected with any other on the same subject. The proper 
 motion, I suppose, is to take up the resolutions and refer 
 them to the Committee on the Legislative Department. 
 
 The motion to take up the resolutions was agreed to. 
 They are as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That no capitated tax should be imposed on 
 the free white citizens of the State, unless authorized by 
 a vote of two-thirds of the most popular branch of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 Resolved, That the taxes for the ordinary support of 
 the government should be levied exclusively upon pro- 
 Derty. 
 
 Resolved, That the taxes imposed by the Legislature 
 should be uniform throughout the State, so that all pro- 
 perty subject to taxation should be liable therefor, accord- 
 ing to one uniform rate on its actual valuation. 
 
 The resolutions were referred to the Committee on 
 the Legislative Department. 
 
 And then on motion of Mr. NEESON, the Convention 
 adjourned until Monday at 1 o'clock. 
 
 MONDAY, January 27, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 EXPENDITURES FOR FITTING UP THE CHURCH. 
 
 Mr. HAYS. I have been requested to offer a resolu- 
 tion for the consideration of the Convention. It is to 
 authorize the Secretary to audit an account for coal, and 
 other articles of fuel, and glasses, pitchers, &c, which, I 
 am told by the Sergeant-at-Arms, have been furnished 
 for the use of the Convention. The resolution is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention be 
 authorized to certify for payment the within account in 
 favor of A. H. Thornton, being for articles furnished for 
 the use of the Convention, amounting to $49.84." 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. However correct the account may 
 be, it should be examined by some committee of the 
 Convention, and I hope the resolution will be referred to 
 the committee of which Mr. M. Garnett is chairman, 
 whose duty it was to superintend the refitting of this 
 building. I think that all of our accounts, whatever 
 they may be, should be examined by some committee 
 appointed for that purpose, and even then, I doubt much, 
 if, without an act of the General Assembly, the Auditor 
 will pay these accounts. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It may be doubted whether the 
 select committee of which Mr. M. Garnett was chair- 
 man, is not functus officio. I would suggest the proprie- 
 ty of the raising of a Committee on Accounts, to consist 
 of three members. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I suppose the select committee is 
 functus officio, and I will therefore move to lay the reso- 
 lution on the table, with a view to cariy out the sug- 
 gestion of the President. 
 
 Mr. HAYS. I have ko objection to that disposition 
 of it. 
 
 The resolution was laid on the table. 
 
 APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTS. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I now move that a committee of 
 three members be appointed to examine and report upon 
 all accounts for the incidental expenses of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and— =- 
 
 The PRESIDENT appointed the committee to consist 
 of the following named gentlemen* Messrs. M. Garnett, 
 Snowden and Meredith : 
 
 UNIFORM SYSTEM OF TAXATION. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. It will be recollected by the Convention, 
 
74 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 that when it was in session in the month of October last 
 I submitted a resolution of inquiry, which was referred 
 to the Committee on the Legislative Department, upon 
 the subject of a uniform system of taxation. It was 
 my purpose at the time, to have followed up that resolu- 
 tion with some other resolutions connected with*the sub- 
 ject, but the Convention however adjourned, before I 
 had matured in my own mind, the form in which those 
 resolutions ought to be presented. The Legislative 
 Committee I learn, have the subject now under conside- 
 ration, and I beg leave to offer the accompanying resolu- 
 tion, which is a modification, in some particulars, of the 
 resolution which I first submitted. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment of the Government, be instructed to inquire 
 into the expediency of incorporating in the Constitu- 
 tion, the following provision : 
 
 There shall be a uniform system of ad valorem taxa- 
 tion on every description of property, real, personal and 
 mixed, except such as may be specially exempted, by a 
 vote of two-thirds of the whole number elected of each 
 branch of the Legislature; provided that every white 
 male adult shall be liable to a tax, in a sum not less 
 than cents. 
 
 I will simply state, in explanation • of the exemption 
 which this resolution proposes to make, that it has oc- 
 curred to me, that there might be some articles which 
 it would be verv proper to exempt from taxation, and 
 which without the exemption proposed here, this provi- 
 sion would impose upon the Legislature the necessity of 
 taxing. For example, such articles as wearing apparel, 
 family provisions, mechanics' tools, libraries, and some 
 of the descriptions of public property, might very pro- 
 perly be exempted, and I therefore desire to put it in 
 the power of the Legislature, by a vote of two-thirds of 
 both branches, to make that exemption. The accompa- 
 nying resolution is as follows : 
 
 "It shall not be lawful for the Legislature to create 
 a public debt, without, at the same time, making such 
 an increase in the per centage of taxation, as will be 
 sufficient to meet the payment of the same, when it be- 
 comes due." 
 
 The object of this, is to make those persons responsi- 
 ble for the debt who create it. I think it will perhaps 
 have the effect of preventing extravagant and injudi- 
 cious outlays of public money, and at the same time, 
 strengthen public confidence in the credit and stocks of 
 the State. The other proposition is as follows : 
 
 " No bill making an appropriation, or creating a pub- 
 lic debt, for a sum exceeding dollars, shall be- 
 come a law. without the sanction of a majority of the 
 whole number elected, of each branch of the Legisla- 
 ture." 
 
 I offer these resolutions, and ask their reference to the 
 Committee on the Legislative Department. 
 
 The resolutions were so referred under the rule. 
 
 PRINTING THE TABLES OF POPULATION RETURNS. 
 
 Mr. "WATTS, of Roanoke, offered a resolution provi- 
 ding for the printing of 1500 extra copies of the tabu- 
 lar statements of population, but subsequently withdrew 
 it, on the ground that he was informed that the state- 
 ment referred to was inaccurate, and needed correction. 
 
 REGULATIONS OF EXPENDITURES BY COUNTY AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Mr. CARTER, of Russel, offered the following resolu- 
 tion, and it was referred to the Committee on County 
 Courts : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on County Courts in- 
 quire into the propriety of withholding from the county 
 courts, overseers of the poor, and all other county tribu- 
 nals, the power to grant extra compensation in any case 
 after any public service has been performed, or after any 
 contract entered into for the performance of the same. 
 And also, of withholding from them the power to grant, 
 by appropriation or otherwise, any amount of money, on 
 any claim, real or pretended, where the same shall not 
 have been provided for by pre-esisting order. And also, 
 
 of withholding from them the power to increase or di- 
 minish the compensation, fees, or other allowance, of 
 any office or employment during the then existing term 
 of the same. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON". If there is nothing before the Con- 
 vention, I move that it now adjourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the Convention ad- 
 journed until to-morrow at 1 o'clock. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 28, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. When the gentleman from Halifax, 
 (Mr. Edmunds,) the chairman of the Committee on the 
 Executive Department of the Government, presented 
 his report on Saturday, he accompanied it with the re- 
 mark, that the report was dissented from by several 
 members of the minority of the Convention. Since that 
 time, I, as one of the dissenters, together with the gen- 
 tlemen fi 'om "Washington, (Mr. Trigg,) Taylor, (Mr. Arm- 
 strong,) Rockingham, (Mr. Kenney,) and Accomac, (Mr. 
 Wise,) have had a conference, and we have agreed to 
 present a substitute for certain portions of that report, 
 embodying our views on the subject, It embodies the 
 views of all of us, except as to the third section, from 
 which the gentlemen from Rockingham and Accomac dis- 
 sent. I ask that the substitute may be read, laid on the 
 table and printed: 
 
 The amendment was then read by the Secretary. 
 
 Amendment intended to be offered by Mr. Letcher, to the 
 report of the Executive Committee. 
 
 Strike out the first section of the first article of the 
 report of the Executive Committee, as follows : 
 
 "1. The chief executive power of this Commonwealth 
 shall be vested in a Governor. He shall hold his office 
 for the term of four years, to commence on the day 
 of next preceding his election, and he shall be in- 
 
 eligible to that office, after his second term shall have 
 expired, and to any other office during his term of ser- 
 vice." 
 
 And insert the following in lieu thereof, viz : 
 Sec. 1st. The chief executive power of this Common- 
 wealth shall be vested in a Governor, to be elected by 
 the qualified voters. He shall hold his office for two 
 years, to commence on the day of next suc- 
 
 ceeding his election. He shall be re-eligible for a second 
 term, and ineligible to any other office during his term 
 (»f service. 
 
 Strike out the 3rd section of article 1st, as follows : 
 
 " No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor, 
 unless he shall have attained the age of thirty years, 
 shall be a native citizen of the United States, and shall 
 have been a citizen of Virginia for five years next pre- 
 ceding his election." 
 
 And insert in lieu thereof the following, viz : 
 
 Sec. 3rd. No person shall be eligible to the office of 
 Governor, unless he shall have attained the age of thirty 
 years, shall be a citizen of the United States, and shall 
 have been a citizen of this Commonwealth for ten years 
 next preceding his election. 
 
 Strike out the whole of the 3rd article, as follows : 
 Article 3 — Secretary of State, Treasurer and Auditor. 
 
 " 1. A Secretary of the Commonwealth shall be cho- 
 sen at every election for a Governor, in the same man- 
 ner, and continue in office for the same time as the Go- 
 vernor. He shall keep a fair record of the official acts 
 of the Governor, which shall be attested by the Gover- 
 nor and by the Secretary. He shall, when required, lay 
 the said record, and all papers, minutes and vouchers, 
 relative to his office, before either house of the General 
 Assembly, and shall perform such other duties as may 
 be prescribed by law. 
 
 " 2. A Treasurer and an Auditor of Public Accounts, 
 s hal l be elected by joint vote of the two he-uses of the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 75 
 
 Legislature, who shall hold the offices two years, unless 
 sooner removed. The powers and duties of said officers 
 shall be such as now are, or may. be hereafter prescribed 
 by law." 
 
 And insert in lieu thereof the following, viz : 
 
 Sec. 1st. A Secretary of the Commonwealth, Treasu- 
 rer, and Auditor of Public Accounts, shall be chosen at 
 every election for a Governor, in the same manner, and 
 continue in office for the same time. 
 
 Sec. 2nd. The Secretary of the Commonwealth shall 
 keep a fair record of the official acts of the Governor, 
 which shall be attested by himself and the Governor. 
 He shall, when required, lay the said record, and all pa- 
 pers, minutes and vouchers, relative to his office, before 
 either house of the General Assembly, and shall perform 
 such other duties, as may be prescribed by law. 
 
 Sec. 3rd. The powers and duties of the Treasurer and 
 Auditor of Public Accounts respectively, shall be such 
 as now are, or may hereafter be pi-escribed by law. 
 
 Sec. 4th. The Secretary of the Commonwealth, Trea- 
 surer and Auditor of Public Accounts, may be removed 
 by a concurrent vote of both houses of the General As- 
 sembly. 
 
 Strike out article 5th, as follows : 
 
 " Article 5— Militia. 
 
 " All company, battalion and regimental officers shall 
 be elected by those persons who are subject to military 
 duty, within their respective companies, battalions and 
 regiments, and all other militia officers in such manner 
 as may be prescribed by law." 
 
 And insert in lieu thereof the following, viz : 
 
 All militia officers shall be elected by those persons 
 subject to military duty, within their respective compa- 
 nies, battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions, in such 
 mode as shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr. WISE, i should like to inquire of the gentleman 
 from Rockbridg3, (Mr. Letcher,) whether these proposi- 
 tions are offe ed as amendments now, or as propositions 
 which will be hereafter offered as amendments, when the 
 report of the committee shall be considered. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Rockbridge, 
 in behalf of himself and other members of the minori- 
 ty of the committee, asks to lay these amendments on 
 the table, and that they may be printed, with a view 
 to their being offered when the report of the committee 
 shall come up for consideration. 
 
 The amendments were ordered to be laid on the table 
 and printed. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. Dissenting in some particulars from 
 the report of the Committee on the Executive Depart- 
 ment, as well as from the amendments submitted by 
 the gentleman from Rockbridge, (Mr. Letcher,) I have 
 drawn up the following amendments, which I design to 
 offer at a proper time, and which I ask now may be laid 
 on the table and printed. The first section of article 1, 
 as reported by the committee, is as follows: 
 
 " Article 1. — Governor. 
 
 " 1. The chief executive power of this Commonwealth 
 shall be vested in a Governor. He shall hold his office 
 for the term of four years, to commence on the day 
 of next preceding Ms election, and he shall be 
 
 ineligible to that office, after his second term shall have 
 expired, and to any other office during his term of ser- 
 vice." 
 
 My amendment is to strike out, after the word " inel- 
 igible," the words " to that office after his second term 
 shall have expired, and:" This will leave the question of 
 the eligibility of the Governor, to the decision of the 
 people, where I think it properly belongs. By the re- 
 port, he is eligible for a second term, but no longer, and 
 I believe a similar provision is contained in the substi- 
 tute proposed by the gentleman from Rockbridge, (Mr. 
 Letcher,) I believe the wider the field tor selection, the 
 better, and I think in practice, it would be very seldom 
 found that any gentleman would be fleeted to the office 
 more than twice, and if be was, the result would show 
 
 that he ought to be. The 4th section of the 1st article 
 of the committee, is as follows: 
 
 " 4. The Governor shall reside at the seat of govern- 
 ment, and shall receive for his services, the sum of five 
 thousand dollars for each year of his term, and shall not 
 receive within that period, any other emolument from 
 this or any other State or government." 
 
 My amendment is to strike out all after the word " ser- 
 vices," and insert in lieu thereof, the words " a compen- 
 sation to be fixed by law, which shall neither be increased 
 nor diminished during his continuance in office." By the 
 report of the committee, the compensation allowed to the 
 Governor is $5,000 per annum. Wow I do not think the 
 people of this Commonwealth should be put to the neces- 
 sity of calling another Convention for the purp ise, if they 
 should desire it, of either increasing or diminishing the 
 salary of the Governor. -$5,000 to-day may be as much 
 as 110,000 a few years hence, or it may be a great deal 
 less ; and I think it is better in this respect, to follow 
 the present Constitution, and leave the Governor's sala- 
 ry to be fixed by law. I move to strike out ,! "he 2nd sec- 
 tion of the 3rd article as reported by the committee, as 
 follows : 
 
 " 2. A Treasurer and an Auditor of Public Accounts 
 shall be elected by joint vote of the two houses of the 
 Legislature, who shall hold the offices two years, unless 
 sooner removed. The powers and duties of said officers 
 shall be such as now are, or may be hereafter prescribed 
 by law." 
 
 And in lieu thereof, I would insert a section authorizing 
 the people of the Commonwealth to select their Treasurer 
 and Auditor, as well as their Governor and Secretary, as 
 I believe them just as capable of performing that duty 
 as the Legislature. The section I propose, is as follows : 
 
 A Treasurer and an Auditor of Public Accounts shall 
 be chosen by the electors qualified to vote for members 
 of the General Assembly, at the same time, and in the 
 same manner, and hold their offices for the same term, as 
 the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Their duties shall 
 be prescribed by law. 
 
 The amendments were laid on the table and ordered 
 to be printed. 
 
 PAYMENT OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I understand that no order has been 
 entered by the Convention, directing the Secretary to 
 settle and certify to the accounts of the public printer. 
 It is necessary that such authority should be granted, 
 before the Secretary can is=ue his certificate, and for 
 that purpose, I offer the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary settle and certify to the 
 auditor for payment, the accounts of the public printer, 
 ind that hereafter he settle and certify said accounts 
 from time to time, without further order. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 EXPENSES OF FITTING UP THE CHURCH. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. There is a resolution in relation to 
 some accounts of expenses incurred in fitting up this 
 church, offered yesterday, by the gentieman from Gil- 
 mer, (Mr. Hays.) now laying on the table, which I move 
 to take from thence, and refer to the Committee on Ac- 
 counts. 
 
 The resolution was so referred, after being read, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention be 
 authorized to certify for payment the within account in 
 favor of A. H. Thornton, being for articles furnished for 
 the use of the Convention, amounting to $49.84." 
 
 The PRESIDENT. There was a similar account pre- 
 sented by the gentleman from Goochland, (Mr. Leake.) 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I presume the order just taken will 
 include both. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Very well. 
 
 PAYMENT OF AN ACCOUNT. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON. At the time the Committee on 
 Compensation made their report, in the early part of the 
 session, it was not known that an individual was em- 
 
76 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ployed in attending to the fires in the capitol for the 
 Convention. The committee were first apprised of it 
 this morning, and they have instructed me to submit the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the following account be certified by 
 the Secretary to the Auditor, for payment. 
 Virginia State Convention, 
 
 To Richard Matthews, Dr. 
 
 For attending hot air furnace to heat the hall of the 
 House of Delegates, during the sitting of Convention 28 
 days, at $1— $28. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 EXTENSION OF THE POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE OX COUNTY 
 COURTS, &LC. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. Under the resolution by 
 which a Committee of Thirteen, on County Courts and 
 County Taxation, &c, was created, a difficulty has arisen 
 in the committee, in reference to the extent of their pow- 
 ers in acting upon the subject of corpora ion courts, and 
 cities and towns incorporated without a corporation court. 
 For the purpose of removing that difficulty, I have 
 been instructed, on the part of the committee, to ask 
 that its powers may be enlarged, and to that end, that 
 the Convention will adopt the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved. That the Committee on County Courts, Coun- 
 ty Organization, and County Taxation, inquire whether 
 any, and if any, what provisions should be inserted in the 
 Constitution, in reference to corporation courts, corpora- 
 tion organization and police of towns and cities, with 
 or without a corporation court. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. TRIGG. As I have been mentioned in connection 
 with the amendments offered this morning, by the gen- 
 tleman from Rockbridge, (Mr. Letcher,) in which I am 
 free to say, I fully concur, in order to avoid the conclu- 
 sion that those amendments embrace all my objections 
 to the report of the Committee on the Executive Depart- 
 ment, I think it proper to state, that there are other 
 provisions in that report in which I do not concur, and 
 to which I propose, at the proper time, to offer amend- 
 ments. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I do not know that any disposition 
 has been made of the report of the Committee on the 
 Executive Department. Is it the understanding that it 
 is referred to the Committee of the Whole under the 
 rules ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The report has been laid on the 
 table and ordered to be printed. For the purpose of re- 
 ferring it to the Committee of the Whole, a special or- 
 der of the Convention to that effect will be necessary. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I believe that one of the resolutions 
 under which these committees were appointed, provided 
 that all reports made by them, should be referred to the 
 committee of the whole, without debate. Am I right ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. None of the rules which have 
 been adopted, provide for a committee of the whole, 
 unless it be the rule which declares that Jefferson's man- 
 ual shall be the rules of order except where it is other- 
 wise provided. 1 am not prepared to say whether the 
 resolutions of the committee of thirteen contain the pro- 
 vision to which the gentleman refers, or not. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I do not believe there is any rule on 
 the subject, among the permanent rules of the Conven- 
 tion, or in the resolutions referred to by the gentleman 
 from Appoma tox, (Mr. Bocock.) The uniform practice 
 elsewhere is, to move to go into committee of the whole, 
 at any given time : or to move to refer the subject to the 
 committee of the whole. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The subject must first be taken 
 up and referred to the committee of the whole, and then 
 the Convention can resolve itself into committee for its 
 consideration, at any time it thinks proper. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I would ask the Secretary to read, for 
 the information of the Convention, the last resolution 
 
 reported by the committee of thirteen, and adopted by 
 the Convention, for the regulation of this matter. 
 
 The Secretary read the resolution as follows : 
 
 " 9. That the reports of the foregoing committees, 
 when made, shall be referred, without debate, to a com- 
 mittee of the whole Convention." 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I should suppose under that resolu- 
 tion, the report of the committee stands referred to a 
 committee of the whole, and that any motion for the pur- 
 pose is unnecessary. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The 9th resolution reported by 
 the committee of thirteen, provides that the reports of 
 the committees, of which the Committee on the Executive 
 Department is one, ■shall be referred, without debate, to 
 the committee of the whole Convention. By reference 
 to the journal, it will be found that, when that report 
 was made, it was, on motion, laid on the table ; and on 
 page 58, it is stated, 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Byrd, the Convention agreed to 
 consider together, the remaining eight resolutions con- 
 tained in the report of the committee of thirteen, and the 
 question being upon the adoption of the said resolutions, 
 it was determined in the affirmative." 
 
 The report of the Committee on the Executive De- 
 partment, has been laid on the table and ordered to be 
 printed, and I suppose it is necessary that an order 
 should be made referring it to the committee of the 
 whole — the journal ought to show that fact. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I desire to inquire of the gentleman 
 from Halifax, (Mr. Edmunds,) the chairman of the com- 
 mittee, whether it is his purpose to make the motion to go 
 into committee, or what are his views in reference to the 
 report, in order that the Convention may understand 
 whether it is soon to be taken up ? 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I had thought it would be but a decent 
 respect due to those members of the minority of the 
 committee who have signified their intention to bring in 
 amendments to the report, to give them time to bring 
 them in and let them be printed and be in the hands of 
 the Convention before the report was acted upon. Two of 
 those gentlemen have to-day signified the amendments 
 which they propose to offer, and I will assure my friend 
 that as soon as they are printed, if no other gentleman 
 shall make the motion, I shall move that the Convention 
 go into committee of the whole on the report. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. Verv well. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. "The Chair will state the construc- 
 tion which it has given to the rules on this subject, in 
 order that the journal may conform on its face to the 
 facts as they exist. It is not considered that under the 
 9th resolution which has been referred to, as reported and 
 adopted, the report of one of the standing committees is 
 referred to the committee of the whole as a matter of 
 course. Its effect is only to prevent debate on such a 
 motion of reference when made. In every legislative 
 body a document can be ordered and printed only when 
 it is in possession of the House, and not after it has been 
 referred to a committee ; and the report of the Commit- 
 tee on the Executive Depaitment therefore now occu- 
 pies a position to admit of a motion of reference under 
 the ninth resolution, either now or hereafter, as the gen- 
 tleman from Halifax (Mr. Edmunds) has indicated. When 
 a committee reports, and it is desirable to have the report 
 printed, it is necessary to have that order made and ex- 
 ecuted while the paper is in the possession of the Con- 
 vention, and before it is referred to any committee; 
 when that has been done, it is competent for any gen- 
 tleman, at any time, to move to refer the report to the 
 committee of "the whole, and that motion under the 9th 
 resolution, is not debateable. 
 
 PROPOSITION TO CHANGE THE HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I rise for the purpose of suggesting 
 whether we shall not gain time by changing the hour of 
 meeting until we shall have received reports from more 
 of the committees. It is apparent from what has just 
 passed, that there will be nothing for us to do unless it is 
 to receive resolutions for the next two days. If we 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 77 
 
 change the hour of meeting to 2 o'clock, this will give i 
 the committees full time for their labors, and thus, as it 
 Beems to me, we shall gain time on the whole. 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. We dine at 2 o'clock 
 Mr. JACOB. Gentlemen say they dine at 2 o'clock. 
 I am not acquainted with the various hours at which 
 the gentlemen dine, nor do I know what influence the j 
 time at which we meet will have upon that question, or 
 the time at which they dine will have upon the question 
 as to what hour we ought to meet. I have merely made ( 
 this suggestion with a view, if possible, of promoting 
 the business of the Convention, for it is a matter to which, 
 personally, I am perfectly indifferent. 
 
 A MEMBER. I would suggest that we meet at 10 
 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. What ! this Convention meet at 10 
 o'clock ? When will the committees meet ? 
 
 A MEMBER. After the adjournment. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. It is suggested that the committees can j 
 meet after our adjournment. Well, I have no objection \ 
 to meeting at 10 o'clock, and I will modify my motion 
 accordingly. My only desire is to economize the time of j 
 the Convention. 
 
 A MEMBER. Say half past 1 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I will accept that modification in pre- 
 ference to the other. I move then that when this Con- 
 vention adjourn, it be to meet to morrow and every day 
 thereafter at half past 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 The motion was rejected. 
 
 On motion of Mr. LETCHER, the Convention then 
 adjourned until to-morrow at 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 29. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early, of the Methodist church. 
 The journal of the preceding day was then read and 
 approved. 
 
 PERMISSION TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO MEET DURING 
 TEE SESSION. 
 
 Mr. MOXCURE. I am instructed by the Committee 
 on the Judiciary to ask permission for that committee 
 to sit during the sessions of the Convention. It is de- 
 sired by the committee to make a report to the Conven- 
 tion as soon as possible, and it is hoped that during this 
 or the early part of next week, that object may be at- 
 tained, if the committee have leave to sit during the 
 sessions of the Convention. Of course they will not sit 
 if anything requir s their attendance here. I move that 
 leave be granted that committee to sit during the ses- 
 sions of the Convention. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and leave granted accor- 
 dingly. 
 
 PAYMENT OF AN ACCOUNT. 
 
 Mr. M. GARXETT. The Committee on Accounts find 
 it necessary to provide for the adjustment of the claim 
 and amount which I hold in my hand, from Messrs. Point- 
 dexter & Kerr, for carpenter work and materials for 
 fitting up this hall. There are reasons why it should be 
 acted upon at once. I dislike to trouble this body by 
 stating them, but I can assure the Convention that there 
 are reasons why that should be settled without delay. 
 I offer the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention be di- 
 rected to certify for payment the account of Poiudexter 
 & Kerr, amounting to the sum of 8159.78, for carpenters' 
 work done and materials furnished by them in fitting up 
 the Lniversalist church, for the use of the Convention. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. There seems to be no business for the 
 action of the Convention, and unless some gentleman has 
 a proposition to offer, I move that the Convention ad- 
 journ. 
 
 Mr. M. G ARXETT. I hope the gentleman will with 
 draw that motion. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Certainlv sir. 
 
 Mr. M. GARXETT. I ask it merely for this reason : 
 I am, for one, very desirous to know when we are to go 
 to work. I see the chairman of the Committee on the 
 Executive Department in his place, and I would like to 
 know if there is any good reason why we may not take 
 up the report of that committee and begin to work. 
 Why, we meet here every morning and spend fifteen 
 minutes or half an hour, and I do not see why we cannot 
 spend two or three hours in the discussion which will 
 necessarily come up upon the action of that committee. 
 I would be very glad if he would move to take up that 
 report and let us go to work. Why not ? I see no rea- 
 son in the world. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The report is in possession of the 
 Convention. Any gentleman can move to refer it to a 
 committee of the whole Convention, whenever bethinks 
 proper. There is a rule, I believe, under which the re- 
 port is referred to the committee of the whole House, as 
 a matter of course; but if any member desires to take 
 it up now, he can make a motion to that effect. 
 
 Mr. M. GARXETT. Well, to test the sense of the 
 Convention, I move that we now take up the report of 
 the executive committee, for the purpose of referring it 
 to a committee of the whole. 
 
 The motion to take up the report was agreed to — a 
 count beiug had — ayes 59, noes 88. 
 
 Mr. M. GARXETT. I now move that the report be 
 referred to the committee of the whole. 
 
 The PRESIDEXT. For what time does the gentle- 
 man propose to make its consideration in committee of 
 the whole the order of the day ? 
 
 Mr. M. GARXETT. To-morrow. I move to refer 
 the report to the committee of the whole and to make it 
 the special order for to morrow. 
 
 Mr. WATTS, of Xorfolk. The report cannot be refer- 
 red to the committee of the whole and there be made a 
 special order. The Convention alone can make a special 
 order. Probably the better course for the gentleman to 
 have pursued, would have been to have given notice that 
 on to-morrow he would move to take up the report, and 
 then to have moved to make a special order. 
 
 The PRESIDEXT. The gentleman has a right now 
 to move to refer the report to a committee of the whole. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. If the motion to refer the report to a 
 committee of the whole prevails, I suppose the House 
 goes at once into committee of the whole upon it. 
 
 The PRESIDEXT. Xo sir — it requires a motion. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I was going to remark that amendments 
 were proposed yesterday by the minority of the commit- 
 tee, and another gentleman, also a member of the com- 
 mittee, proposed amendments; and these amendments 
 were laid upon the table in order to be printed. I ask 
 whether it is contemplated by the motion that action is 
 to take place immediately on the report or not ? 
 
 The PRESIDEXT. It cannot be done without an or- 
 der of the Convention. It requires a motion to go into 
 a committee of the whole. 
 
 Mr. WATTS. For the purpose of removing this dif- 
 ficulty, I again suggest that the gentleman from Essex 
 (Mr. M. Garxett) modify his motion, so as to allow the 
 report to lie on the table, and then give notice of his in- 
 tention to-morrow to move its reference to the commit- 
 tee of the whole. 
 
 The PRESIDEXT. The ninth resolution of the com- 
 mittee of thirteen is as follows : 
 
 " 9. That the reports of the foregoing committees, 
 when made, shall be referred, without debate, to a com- 
 mittee of the whole Convention." 
 
 The motion now is, to refer to the committee of the 
 whole, a report made bv one of these committees. 
 
 Mr WATTS, of Xorfolk. The Convention does not 
 immediately go into committee of the whole, as a mat- 
 ter of course ? 
 
 The PRESIDEXT. Xot without an order frcm the 
 Convention to that effect. In that respect our rules are 
 different from those of any other parliamentary body 
 with which I am acquainted. There is a standing rule 
 of the House of Delegates and of the House of Repre- 
 
78 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 sentatives, I think, that on a certain day the house go 
 into committee of ihe whole. But under our rules, a 
 motion to go into committee of the whole is necessary. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I understand that the gentleman mere- 
 ly proposes to refer the report to a committee of the 
 whole, and to-morrow, or any subsequent day, the Con- 
 vents >n can go into a committee of the whole on the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I would suggest to the gentleman 
 from Essex to wait until to morrow, and then make his 
 motion. If the propositions that were ordered to be 
 printed shall come in, then the whole subject can be re- 
 ferred to a committee of the whole. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The amendments that were laid 
 upon the table and ordered to be printed yesterday, 
 were amendments intended to be offered, and which can 
 be offered in committee of the whole. I did not consi- 
 der that they were ottered as amendments to the report 
 at that time, but that the purpose was merely to give 
 notice to the Convention that they would be proposed as 
 amendments at the proper time. The report was on the 
 table, and not before the Convention, and of course 
 amendments to it could not be offered. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. The object, I imagine — certainly my 
 object was — that the amendment winch I intended to 
 offer, and the amendment proposed to be offered by the 
 minority of the committee, should be printed and placed 
 in the hands of the members of the Convention, so that 
 they might be informed as to the effect of these amend- 
 ments if adopted. Now the whole object of printing 
 these amendments would be defeated if we take up the 
 report of the committee and act upon it, before the 
 amendments are placed in the hands of the members of 
 the Convention. I can see no advantage that can be 
 gained by submitting the motion to-day. It is not pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Essex, (Mr. M. Garnett) 
 himself, that we shall go into committee to-day. 
 
 The PRESIDENT, 'this is not a debateable question. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. Well then, I move that the Conven- 
 tion adjourn. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Before this motion is put, the 
 Chair begs leave to state that on the reception of this re- 
 port, it was laid on the table, and when therefore the 
 gentlemen from Rockbridge (Mr. Letcher) and from 
 Barbour (Mr. Carlile) introduced the amendments, they 
 did not apply to the report, and were received merely 
 as indications of the purpose of those gentlemen to of- 
 fer them at a proper time, and were ordered to be print- 
 ed for the information of the Convention. Those amend- 
 ments it will be perfectly competent for those gentle- 
 men to offer at any time when the report is under con- 
 sideration hereafter, but until then, the report being on 
 the table, they cannot be considered as pending amend- 
 ments. 
 
 The motion to adjourn was then agreed to — a count 
 being had — ayes 48, noes 46. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until 1 o'clock, 
 P. M., to-morrow. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 30, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 report of the committee on the executive department. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. When the Convention adjourned 
 yesterday, the unfinished business was the motion of the 
 gentleman from Essex, (Mr. M. Garnett.) to refer the re- 
 port of the Committee on the Executive Department to 
 the committee of the whole Convention ; and under a 
 rule of the Convention, that motion is not debateable. 
 The question will be on the motion to refer to the com- 
 mittee of the whole. The Chair will take occasion to state, 
 as it is the first occasion that has occurred under the rules 
 that have been adopted, that, according to its interpreta- 
 tion of those rules, the 9th rule reported by the commit- 
 
 tee of thirteen, does not have the effect necessarily , to refer 
 the reports of the standing committees to the committee 
 of the whole. It will be found at page 36. The rule is, 
 that the reports from the foregoing committees, (of 
 which the Executive Committee is one,) shall be refer- 
 red, without debate, to a committee of the whole Con- 
 vention." If the words "without debate," had not been 
 introduced, the Chair would have regarded it as a stand- 
 ing, permanent order of reference to the committee of 
 the whole, of each report as it came from the commit- 
 tee ; but these terms being employed, to give effect to 
 them, the conclusion necessarily arises, that when a re- 
 port is made by one of the committees, the Convention 
 may either re-commit it to the committee that brought 
 it in, or lay it on the table, or otherwise dispose of it, at 
 its pleasure, and that a motion to commit, which motion 
 is not debateable, becomes necessary. When referred to 
 the committee of the whole Convention, it is necessary 
 that there shall be a motion that the Convention re- 
 solve itself into a committee of the whole, before it can 
 become the subject of debate. And when the Convention 
 shall determine on a motion to resolve itself into a com- 
 mittee of the whole Convention, it is necessary that a 
 motion be made in committee of the whole, to take up 
 any particular subject. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT, I understand that if the Conven- 
 tion shall agree to refer this report, then another mo- 
 tion will be necessary to enable the Convention to go 
 into committee of the whole, for the purpose of taking 
 up and considering it. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Convention will not go into 
 committee of the whole, without a motion and decision 
 by a majority vote, to do so. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion to refer 
 the report of the Executive Committee, to the commit- 
 tee of the whole and decided in the affirmative. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. At the instance of gentlemen 
 around me, I follow up the motion which has just been 
 adopted, and move that we now go into committee of 
 the whole, for the purpose of taking up this report. We 
 are here, and there is nothing in the world before us, 
 unless it be that report, which we have now got in a sit- 
 uation to take up. I can see no reason in the world, why 
 we should assemble herefrom day to day, without attempt- 
 ing at least, to do something. There are certainly two or 
 three hours a day that we might devote to the conside- 
 ration of something ; and as we have the report of the 
 Executive Committee before us, I see no reason why we 
 may not take some steps in coming to a conclusion in re- 
 gard to it. I trust, therefore, it will be the pleasure of 
 the Convention to resolve itself into a committee of the 
 whole, and take up that report. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I happened to be behind the gentleman 
 from Essex, (Mr. Garnett,) but I did not request him to 
 make that motion for me. Before I vote with the gen- 
 tleman, I must, inquire whether there is a prospect, in 
 any reasonable time, of reports from some other commit- 
 tees. If it is not out of order to do so, I -most respect- 
 fully inquire of the chairman of the Committee on the 
 Basis of Representation, when it is expected that we 
 may see that long-looked for report \ 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I desire to say, that whilst the 
 gentleman from Accomac sits by my side, there are other 
 gentlemen who sit just behind me. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. WISE. I would inquire of any of the members of 
 the Committee on the Basis cf Representation, if the 
 chairman is not present, when we may expect a report ? 
 
 Mr. MILLER. I would suggest that, as the Judicia- 
 ry Committee, a large and highly respectable committee, 
 is, by leave of this Convention, in session, the members 
 of which no doubt would desire to participate in all the 
 deliberations of this body, whether it wouid be proper to 
 act upon any subject in their absence ? 
 
 Mr. STROTHER. In my opinion, a wise economy of 
 time and labor would induce the Convention to post- 
 pone the consideration of these reports until a larger 
 number, if not all of them, are before the body. The 
 gentleman from Essex (Mr. M. Garnett) suggests that 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 79 
 
 there are two or thrqe hours of labor lost a day by not 
 acting on his motion. That time can be saved to tbe 
 Convention, and Certainly can be most efficiently occu- 
 pied by permitting the committees of which this body 
 is composed, to continue their sessions during the period 
 which would otherwise, under his motion, be taken up 
 m the consideration or discussion of one proposition. 
 My own opinion is, that the better course for the Con- 
 vention to pursue is, not to have a daily session, but to 
 act upon the precedent heretofore established by this 
 body, of adjourning over to some future day, so that the 
 committees can have the whole time to devote to the 
 consideration of propositions before them. Undoubted- 
 ly it is better for the facilitation of business, that the 
 members of die various committees should not have 
 their consideration of propositions before them disturb- 
 ed, by the necessity of going, almost simultaneously, 
 into the consideration of the reports of other commit- 
 tees, which are under discussion here. I will submit, if the 
 Convention do not agree to the motion of the gentleman 
 from Essex, (Mr. M. Garnett,) the proposition suggested 
 by me, that the Convention so act as to allow the com- 
 mittees all the time for the conclusion of their business. 
 A gentleman near me remarked, that one very important 
 committee has obtained leave of this body to sit during 
 its session, and 1 understand further, that the commit- 
 tees generally are hastening rapidly to the conclusion of 
 their labors, and that it is probable not many days will 
 pass before a portion, if not all of the committees, will be 
 at the end of their labors. Certainly time wdl be saved 
 by allowing the committees time to consider and prepare 
 their repons. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. In order to stop this matter, if there 
 is nothing more before the Convention, I move that we 
 now adjourn. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I ask for the ayes and noes on that 
 motion, and hope that the call will be seconded, so that 
 the people may see who it is that desires these frequent 
 adjournments. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The chairman of the Committee on the 
 Basis of Representation is here now, and I ask the gen- 
 tleman to withdraw his motion. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I withdraw the motion if there is 
 any thing else to be done by the Convention. My object 
 was. to get rid of going into committee of the whole, and 
 I have no desire to adjourn, if there is any thing else 
 for the consideration oi the Convention. I think we shall 
 make no progress by going into committee of the whole 
 this morning. I will withdraw the motion to adjourn. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. If there is any thing more im- 
 portant to be done, I will withdraw my motion to go into 
 committee of the whole, but I was under the impression 
 that there was not, when i made it, and I am under the 
 same impression still. 1 am opposed to our adjourning 
 here, when we ought to be at w T ork. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I understand that an inquiry has been 
 submitted, as to the time when the Committee on the 
 Basis of Representation will be ready to report? In re- 
 sponse to that inquiry, I would state to the Convention, 
 that he sub-committees, appointed to work out the de- 
 tails, have nearly completed their labors ; and we have 
 strong hopes that the committee w r ill be able to report 
 to the Convention on Saturday, or at the furthest, on 
 Monday. I think, however, with the present informa- 
 tion that I have, that w r e shall probably be able to sub- 
 mit the report on Saturday. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. As these inquiries are made, and as 
 all feel some solicitude about these reports, I would in- 
 quire of the chairman of the Legislative Committee, 
 wdien that committee will be able to make a report ? 
 Many important subjects have been referred to them, and 
 so far, there has been no response to any of them. If the 
 chairman of that committee is present, i trust he will 
 favor the Convention with some explanation as to when 
 it is probable we can hear from them ? 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I am sorry to have to announce to the 
 Convention, that I am utterly unable to venture even a 
 conjecture as to the time when the Legislative Commit- 
 
 tee will be ab e to make a report. It has been stated by 
 the gentleman from Appomattox, (Mr. Bocock,) that a 
 very large share of the business of the Convention has 
 been referred to that committee, and it is within the 
 knowledge of the members of the body, that among the 
 subjects thus referred for the consideration and exami- 
 nation of the committee, are many most important ones. 
 I presume that the time of making the report will be 
 determined, in a great degree, by the rules of proceed- 
 ing which the committee may prescribe to itself. If the 
 committee shall determine to report to the Convention 
 on the organization of the Legislative Department of 
 Government, as soon as it shall have concluded its 
 labors upon that subject, it is probable that it will 
 be prepared to make such a report, at any time 
 when it shall be the pleasure of the Convention to di- 
 rect. If, however, it shail be the pleasure of the com- 
 mittee to adopt, as a rule of proceeding, the disposition 
 of the various, multifarious and heterogeneous proposi- 
 tions which have been submitted to this Convention and 
 referred to that committee, the whole to be embodied in 
 one report, the day when that report shall be made, may 
 be indefinitely postponed. In my opinion, there is no- 
 thing to prevent a report from that committee at any 
 moment, but unfortunately, the opinion of the chairman 
 is not the opinion of the committee, and for aught that I 
 know, the report may be deferred for a fortnight, and 
 perhaps will be. From any reasonable calcmation that 
 l have been able to make, I think it probab.e that at 
 least two weeks will transpire before the Legislative 
 Committee will unite in making any report to this Con- 
 vention, unless, indeed, the Convention should instruct 
 them to make a report upon the subjects which it has al- 
 ready disposed of. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. As it seems fashionable to call on 
 the chaiimen jf committees to make confessions to the 
 Convention, I should like to know from the chairman of 
 the Commit' ee on the Right of Suffrage, when he ex- 
 pects that his committee will be ready to report ? Upon 
 ihe subject which is referred to its consideration rests, I 
 believe, the whole fabric of the government, and I should 
 like to hear from that committee. If it is not amiss, I 
 would like to have the chairman of the Commku.e on 
 the Bill of Rights, give us his experience. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I can only say, in answer to the gentle- 
 man, that the committee have been laboriously engaged 
 every day during the week, with the excep'ion ot one. 
 They have the general rights of the rest of mankind ful- 
 ly under consideration, and will soon be prepared to re- 
 port. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON. It gives me pleasure to be able to 
 inform the Convention, that the Committee on Suffrage 
 put a period to a discussion which has been somewhat 
 protracted, at 1 o'clock this day, and that to-morrow 
 morning, at half past 9 o'clock, they wiil be prepared 
 to vote upon the questions before them. [Laughter.] I 
 think I can say, therefore, that in the course of two or 
 three days that committee will be prepared to sub- 
 mit a report to the Convention. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. Understanding that there is some 
 question of a business character to come before the Con- 
 vention, I wiil withdraw my motion to go into commit- 
 tee of the whole. 
 
 Mr. STROTHER The motion made by the gentle- 
 man from Essex (Mr. M. Garnett) being withdrawn by 
 him, I move that when the Convention adjourn to-day, 
 it adjourn to meet on Monday next. 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. Sav Saturday. 
 
 Mr. STROTHER. I will move Monday, and gentle- 
 men who desire Saturday, can move to amend the mo- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I wish to make an inquiry before this 
 motion is submitted to the Convention. Is it competent 
 for the gentleman from Essex now to withdraw his mo- 
 tion to go into committee of the whole, without the con- 
 sent of the Convention? 
 
 , Mr. M. GARNETT. If there is any difficulty about it, 
 
80 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 I will insist on my motion. My mind inclines that way, 
 and I only offered to withdraw it for the accommoda- 
 tion of gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. There is a question cf difficulty with 
 me in relation to this matter as it now stands before the 
 Convention, and that is, whether we are not already 
 resolved into a committee of the whole The question 
 which I desire to submit to the Chair is this : By the reso- 
 lution creating these committees, this Convention has 
 already declared that their reports shall be referred to 
 the committee of the whole. I admit that the time 
 when the Convention will go into committee of the 
 whole must be determined by a vote upon a motion to 
 that effect, but the question of reference, if I understand 
 the resolution to which I have referred, has already 
 been decided by the Convention, in adopting that resolu- 
 tion. It is a well known parliamentary rule, and one of 
 the written rules of this body, that what the Conven- 
 tion has determined upon, remains as the judgment of 
 the Convention, unless such determination shall be su- 
 perceded by the after action of the body ; and there- 
 fore it seems to me then, that the Convention, having in 
 the beginning, adopted a fixed rule that when reports 
 from these committees were made they should be refer- 
 red to the committee of the whole, that the report of 
 the Executive Committee is now referred to the com- 
 mittee of the whole, under that rule. In order to get at 
 its consideration there, the only remaining thing is for 
 any member to move that the Convention now go into 
 committee of the whole, and the Convention can t-' en 
 determine for itself, whether it will or will not go into 
 committee of the whole at this time. I have looked at 
 the entry made on the journal, of the motion made a few 
 moments ago, and it is, that the report of the Executive 
 Committee was referred to the committee of the whole. 
 Now, I take it, that the question of reference has already 
 been disposed of, under the resolution to which I refer- 
 red, and the substance of that statement on the journal, 
 as it seems to me, is, that the Convention resolved itself 
 into committee of the whole at once. If this is not so, 
 then the journal will show on its face, that the Conven- 
 tion, after once deciding, by the adoption of the resolu- 
 tion, that all these reports should be referred to the com- 
 mittee of the whole, has again gravely proceeded to de- 
 cide the same question in the same way, with the pre- 
 vious order remaining unaltered and in full force. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair has before announced 
 that its interpretation of the effect of the 9th resolu- 
 tion referred to, was different from what would have 
 been the case if it had not been worded as it is. The 
 9th resolution reads : 
 
 " 9. That the reports of the foregoing committees, 
 when made, shall be referred, without debate, to a com- 
 mittee of the whole Convention.'' 
 
 Now if this resolution be intended to do more than 
 to prescribe that before the Convention shall act finally 
 upon a report it shall pass through a committee of the 
 whole, it would be a general order for its commitment 
 to a committee of the whole as a matter of course, at 
 once, when the report was made. But the interpreta- 
 tion the Chair has given to the rule from the use in it 
 of the words " without debate" is that when the report 
 is made, it is in the power of the Convention to dispose 
 of it otherwise than by sending it at once to the com- 
 mittee of the whole. For example, when the Executive 
 committee made its report its chairman announced that 
 a minority of its members did not concur in the senti- 
 ments expressed in the report, and therefore moved to 
 lay it on the table. If this 9th resolution was intended 
 to operate rigidly as a general rule regulating the busi- 
 ness of the Convention, then that motion would not 
 have been in order, because by the operation of such a 
 rule, the report upon its reception would have been re- 
 ferred to the committee of the whole forthwith. The 
 interpretation given by the Chair to the resolution and 
 upon which it acted, was that it contemplated a dis- 
 tinct motion to refer, and that motion was not to be 
 
 a debateable one. When therefore a committee shall 
 make a report it is competent to move to lay it on the 
 table, to re-commit it to the committee that brought it 
 in, or to refer it to the committee of the whole, but it 
 does not go there without a motion, and that motion is 
 to be voted on without debate. This is an interpreta- 
 tion of the rule which gives the Convention the control 
 )f the subject. It might happen as it did in this case, 
 that it would be desirable not at once to refer a report 
 to the committee of the whole, or it might happen that 
 it would be desirable to send it back to the committee 
 with instructions, or at their own request — and commit- 
 tees have the right to re-consider votes which they have 
 taken — and the construction of the resolution by the 
 Chair is the only one which would admit of this being 
 done. This construction is that the Convention may 
 dispose of a report as they please, except to adopt it or 
 reject it without its first being referred to a committee 
 of the whole, and to refer it there, a specific motion is 
 first necessary. The Convention has now decided that 
 ■diis report shall be referred to the committee of the 
 whole under the motion made by the gentleman from 
 Essex, (Mr. M. Gaunett,) and it is still for the Conven- 
 tion to determine at what time they will go into com- 
 mittee of the whole. The Chair has considered this sub- 
 ject very carefully — and perhaps has assigned the rea- 
 sons for its decision rather too much in detail — and its 
 opinion is, that to give effect to the resolution, this inter- 
 pretation is necessary. The effect is to give the Conven- 
 tion a more effectual control over its own business, and 
 therefore when a report is referred to the committee of 
 the whole, it stands exactly in the same position it would 
 if the resolution referred to had not been adopted. It is 
 business before the committee of the whole, and it is for 
 the Convention in committee to determine when it shall be 
 taken up. There would be no meaning to be attached to 
 the words "without debate," if the construction of the 
 resolution should be that when a report is made it shall 
 be referred to the committee of the -whole at once. No 
 motion would be necessary and therefore there would 
 be nothing to debate. The construction of the rule 
 therefore as given by the Chair, to repeat it, is that when 
 a report is received from a committee, the Convention 
 cannot adopt or reject it until it shall have passed through 
 the ordeal of a committee of the whole, and that a mo- 
 tion to refer it to that committee is necessary, because 
 the resolution does not operate to carry it there without 
 a special order of the Convention, and that order is to 
 be made without debate. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I do not think I was exactly com- 
 prehended by the Chair. Now I think the Chair is right 
 in deciding that the Convention must determine as to 
 the time when a report shall be considered in the com- 
 mittee of the whole, but the question as here taken 
 was whether it shall be referred to the committee of the 
 whole at all. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. No sir, the question taken was, 
 shall it be referred now or not ? It must be referred 
 some time or other, but it does not follow that it must 
 be referred immediately, as a matter of course. If a 
 construction was given to the resolution, which would 
 make it a general order for the reference of all reports 
 at once to the committee of the whole, then of course this 
 one would go there without a motion, but for the reasons 
 before stated, the Chair has not given it that construction. 
 There are several motions which in its opinion may be 
 made and acted upon by the Convention when the report 
 is made and while it is still in possession cf the Conven- 
 tion. If a literal construction is given to this resolution 
 the effect is that when a report is made to the Conven- 
 tion by one of its standing committees, that report eo 
 htstanti, by virtue of a general standing order, passes to 
 the committee of the whole, but such is not the construc- 
 tion which the Chair has given it. A motion is necessa- 
 ry to refer the report and when adopted it stands on 
 *;*scisely the same footing as any other matter referred 
 ,o the committee of the whole ; and which the Conven- 
 tion may there consider when it pleases. This report 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 81 
 
 the Convention has just ordered to be referred to a com- 
 mittee of the whole, aud therefore a motion to go into 
 committee of the whole is necessary. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I was induced to call the attention 
 of the Chair to this matter from having seen the entry 
 on the journal. It appears from that entry that a mo- 
 tion was made to refer this report to a committee of the 
 whole. That I imagine is wholly unnecessary, because 
 oy the very terms of the resolution creating the com- 
 mittee, the Convention in adopting it has decided to re- 
 fer these reports to the committee of the whole when 
 they are received, and the only remaining thing is for the 
 Convention to say when it would go into committee of 
 the whole. However, I desire not to throw any diffi- 
 culty in the way of the Convention or of the Chair, and 
 I have merely made this inquiry to ascertain how the 
 matter stands. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I attended as well as I could to the ex- 
 planation given by the Chair of the resolution adopted 
 by the Convention, and I desire to say that I concur en- 
 tirely with that exposition. I have no doubt that the 
 Chair has given a correct interpretation to the resolu- 
 tion, and there can be no question of the fact that it re- 
 quires a motion to resolve the Convention into commit- 
 tee of the whole under any circumstances. Tnere is no- 
 thing existing in parliamentary law to resolve the Con- 
 vention into committee of the whole except the adoption 
 of a motion to that effect. My object in rising now is to 
 inquire whether a motion is now pending before the Con 
 vention to resolve itself into committee of the whole. 
 If there be, 1 should des:re the question to be taken on 
 it ; if there be not, I desire to submit such a motion now. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair understood the gentle- 
 man from Essex (Mr. M. Garnett) to have intimated a 
 disposition to withdraw his motion to that effect, but 
 finding it objected to, he has again insisted upon it. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. If there be such a motion now pending. 
 I hope it will be the pleasure of the Convention at once 
 to resolve itself into committee of the whole. If there 
 be no such motion pending, I will submit one. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. There is such a motion pending 
 now. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. It appears to me eminently proper that 
 the Convention should resolve itself into committee of 
 f he whole, rather than continue from day to day to ex- 
 hibit to our constituency the spectacle that we have ex- 
 hibited for several days past. Why should we not go 
 into committee of the whole ? "We have a report from 
 one of the committees upon an important branch of the 
 government, the Executive department, and that report 
 is susceptible of being considered in committee of the 
 whole without having any necessary connection with any 
 other department of the Government. We have then 
 business before us on which we can act, and on which it 
 is eminently proper that we should act, because time 
 enough has passed without action on the part of the Con- 
 vention. I hope therefore it will be the pleasure of the 
 Convention to resolve itself into committee of the whole, 
 and take up for consideration the report of the commit- 
 tee on the Executive department. I heartily wish that 
 reports from other committees could be received and con- 
 sidered by this committee of the whole, and I should be 
 willing if it were possible, to have a peremptory manda 
 mus served on each of the committees requiring them 
 to make their reports, that the Convention should make 
 such an order. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. Before I vote on this question I 
 should like to know from my very worthy friend from 
 Mecklenburg (Mr. Goode) what effect it would have on 
 the report from his committee, if the Convention should 
 go into committee of the whole and sit from day to day 
 in the discussion of the report of the committee on the 
 Executive department ? What effect does he think it 
 would have ? [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I did not understand my worthy friend 
 from Botetourt, and I should be happy to have him re- 
 peat his interrogatory. 
 
 Mr, ANDERSON. I regret that my worthy friend 
 6 
 
 did not hear me. I understand that he is anxious that 
 the Convention should go at once into committee of the 
 whole on the report of the committee on the Executive 
 department, and before voting on that question, I should 
 like to know from him, what effect the adoption of such 
 a course will have upon the action of his committee ? I 
 desire to know, if we continue in session from day to day 
 here in the discussion of that report, whether we may 
 expect a report from his committee at all, during the ses- 
 sion of the Convention ? [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. GOODE. Really, I have not the sagacity to per- 
 ceive that the fact of the Convention's resolving itself 
 into committee of the whole would exert any particu- 
 lar influence over the deliberations of the committee of 
 which I have the honor to be chairman. I presume that 
 when the Convention has resolved itself into committee 
 of the whole and has the report of the committee on the 
 Executive Department under consideration, it will be 
 able to act on each and every paragraph of it seriatim, 
 and I know of no necessary connection between the re- 
 port of that committee and any thing which is depend- 
 ing before the committee on the Legislative department. 
 It may ba, however, that some gentlemen have the sagac- 
 ity to perceive a connection which does not present itself 
 to my mind. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. The gentleman, I think, did not 
 see the force of my interrogatory. [Laugh' er.] I sup- 
 pose that if we go into committee of the whole, the 
 members of the legislative committee would wish to par- 
 ticipate in our deliberations, aud I desire to know what 
 effect that might have upon the deliberations of the com- 
 mittee on the subjects which have been referred to them ; 
 whether if their attention was withdrawn from those sub- 
 jects to the executive department, it might not result in 
 a still further delay in their reporting. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I understand, then, that the object of 
 my friend is to delay the action of the Convention until 
 every committee has reported, lest, peradventure, their 
 minds should become so filled with and disturbed by the 
 consideration of some other subject as to interfere with 
 or prevent their discharging the duties which have been 
 referred to them. There is then this difference between 
 the gentleman from Botetourt and myself: I am anxious 
 to take up the business of the Convention and go for- 
 ward with it now, and act on such subjects as are pre- 
 pared for our consideration, while I think it is the object 
 of the gentleman from Botetourt, if I am authorized to 
 arrive at any conclusion from what has passed, to pre- 
 vent any action of the Convention until all the commit- 
 tees shall have reported, for fear the members of them 
 may have their minds disturbed and diverted from the 
 consideration of the grave subjects which to them have 
 been referred. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I must be allowed to say that I 
 think my friend from Mecklenburg still misunderstands 
 me,^[laughter,] and the conclusion to which his mind has 
 been brought is certain evidence of the fact. I am a 
 member of the Executivecommittee, which reported last 
 Saturday and is the only committee which has reported, 
 and the gentleman informs us that he doubts whether 
 the committee of which he is chairman will be ready to 
 report this session. Now I should like to know which 
 gentleman has evinced, by his acts, the strongest desire 
 to progress with our business here — the humble member 
 of a committee which reported a week ago, or the chair- 
 man of a committee who doubts whether he will be able 
 to make a report during the session ? [Laughter.] My 
 object was to give that committee full time to make 
 their report, for I believe that we cannot dispose of the 
 important business for which the Convention was con- 
 vened, until we have a report from the Legislative com- 
 mittee, and are able to act upon that very important 
 branch of the government, the legislative department. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. GOODE. Allow me to inquire of the gentleman 
 from Botetourt, if he expects to advance the business of 
 the Convention by withholding the action of this body 
 
82 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 entirely, until the report of a committee shall be received, 
 which, according to his own declaration, is never to re- 
 port at all ? 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. That is your declaration. [Laugh- 
 ter.] 
 
 Mr. GOODE. No sir ; you have assumed as the basis 
 of your argument that one committee is likely never to 
 report, and, by way of enabling the committee of the 
 whole to advance with its business, desire that its action 
 shall be deferred until a report is received which is never 
 to be forthcoming ! [Laughter.] In respect to another 
 question, I am sorry to inform the gentleman that if 
 there be no report from the Legislative Committee at 
 this moment, it is not because the chairman of the com- 
 mittee is not in a state of readiness to make a report at 
 any time at which the Convention may desire. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Order ! 
 Mr. GOODE. In what am I out of order, sir 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. The question of order I raise is this : 
 It is not in order for the chairman of a committee to 
 make remarks in respect to the proceedings of that com- 
 mittee, and the conclusion to which the gentleman was 
 coming indicated that he was rpeaking in regard to the 
 circumstances connected with the preparation of a re- 
 port in his committee. It is a question of order well 
 sustained that neither the chairman nor any member of 
 a committee have a right to cast reflections on any mem- 
 ber of such committee in any way for his action there. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair has not so understood 
 the gentleman from Mecklenburg. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. 
 Sheffey,) I think has causelessly interfered on the pre- 
 sent occasion, and his statement of the point of order it ap- 
 pears to me has not been very perspicuous, for really I 
 am not conscious of having passed any censure upon any 
 single member of this body or of any of its committees. 
 I have said that if the Legislative committee was not 
 prepared to report, it is not because its chairman was 
 not ready. Does that imply a censure upon the mem- 
 bers of that committee ? I should be sorry if it did, and 
 I presume the members of that committee would be 
 equally sorry that such a state of facts would justify a 
 censure upon them. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I am very sorry that the gentleman from 
 Augusta interposed between these two other gentle- 
 men, the one on the right hand and the other on the left. 
 There is a serious misunderstanding between them, 
 [laughter] which I had hoped might be reconciled. The 
 point of order, it seems, has settled it. [Laughter.] I 
 will assure the chairman of the Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department, that whenever he will call upon me, 
 as a member of this Convention, to make his committee 
 doits duty, and to issue that writ of mandamus, that I 
 will issue it instauter, as far as my vote will aid in giv- 
 ing any such summary process to compel a report of the 
 committee. I made the inquiry which I did of the com- 
 mittee on the basis of representation, because I can very 
 well believe that the public mind is casting serious re- 
 flections upon this Convention for the reason of its de- 
 lay. And it is time that the community was informed, 
 in justice to ourselves, that this Contention has not been 
 idle. We have been at work, and I hope the commit- 
 tees are the proper places where the work of the Con- 
 vention is to be digested, and well digested, before it is 
 brought before this body. It is unfortunate that in the 
 organization of our committees the numbers have been 
 in every case too large, and that the members of the Con- 
 vention have forgotten, or seem to have forgotten, that 
 they would have any opportunity after reports of the 
 committees came before this body, to offer their individ- 
 ual amendments, to be considered here, and as well to 
 be considered and first proposed here, as any where else. 
 We have perhaps done injustice to ourselves by crowd- 
 ing the committees with too many propositions, and 
 then perhaps the committees have taken up all these 
 propositions too much seriatim, if I may so say. Now, 
 it is never required of any of the committees of any le 
 gislative body with which I have been acquainted, that 
 
 every proposition should be taken up one by one, and 
 each one be considered before the committee can make 
 its report. Yet that seems to be the understanding of 
 many of the committees of this body. I, for one, regret 
 it, and if the suggestion is worth anything to my friend, 
 the chairman of the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment as one having some control over the proceed- 
 ings of that committee, in aid of his desire to expedi- 
 diate its des23atch of business, I would suggest that they 
 should take up a proposition of their own. and that 
 members offer the propositions of any body else referred 
 to the committee, or their own propositions by way of 
 amendment. As far as I am informed as to the proceed- 
 ings of the committees of this house, and if the descrip- 
 tion which I have had of some of them be true, it will 
 be along time before we can say Italia ! Italia!" God 
 knows when we will see land ! Were I dictator of the 
 proceedings of this body — could I have had the organi 
 zation of its business — I would have commanded the 
 committees to take time to test their works, and to have 
 it thrice tested. But it is not so important what shall 
 be the definite proposition of any of our committees, not 
 at all so important, for let them digest with ever so 
 much deliberation, or take ever so much time — let them 
 perfect their work so that they may suppose it cannot 
 be amended— I defy any committee to bring a proposition 
 before this body that perhaps will not be turned wrong 
 side out and perfectly changed before the Convention is 
 is done with it. Why then the necessity for all this de- 
 lay, to be expended in taking so much pains to perfect 
 the work of the committees. I am not willing, in reply 
 to the suggestion of my friend from Mecklenburg, (Mr. 
 Goode,) to proceed now with this report — this isolated 
 report — of the Committee on the Executive Depart- 
 ment, for the reasons that were urged for our adjourn- 
 ment 'in November last. I might accept now the report 
 of the Executive Committee, and yet my own view of 
 that report might be much changed and modified by the 
 very report that the gentleman himself may bring in 
 from the Legislative Committee. It will depend upon 
 how you organize the legislative department how I 
 would vote to organize the executive department. It is 
 necessary that we should have a general view of the con- 
 stitutional system which, we propose to submit to the 
 people ; and it is not to be concealed, I suppose, that 
 every body on all sides is waiting for the great commit- 
 tee of this body — the Commiitee on the Basis of Repre- 
 sentation. In justice to that committee, I presume they 
 have been delayed for want of the papers relating to 
 the census, and in waiting for their correction. That 
 committee has also^hadto perform the ministerial or 
 clerical duty of calculation, and that limited its time ; 
 and I make these remarks in justice to the committee, 
 injustice to myself, and in vindication of this body be- 
 fore my constituents at home, who are with uplifted 
 countenances staring at us, and asking why we are not 
 doing something to gratify the curiosity, if nothing more, 
 of the public. And I say this especially to guard the 
 friends of reform, of real reform, radical reform, — con- 
 servative reform, if you please to call it — from a reproach 
 that may be brought upon this body, to bring it by de- 
 sign into odium and contempt. I, for one, feel that I am 
 capable of discharging my duty here, and I am deter- 
 mined to discharge it with proper self-respect and dig- 
 nity, and make my work the test of my reputation. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. As a member of the committee on 
 the legislative department I feel it incumbent upon me 
 to offer a very few remarks to the Convention, suggest- 
 ed by the remarks of the gentleman from Accomac, who 
 has just taken his seat. If there has been a working 
 committee belonging to this body, the committee upon 
 the legislative department has been that committee, 
 for, from the time it commenced its sessions, a day or 
 two after the re-assembling of the Convention, it has 
 omitted no day since. It has met and transacted busi- 
 ness generally three hours in a day, sometimes longer, 
 rarely less. The course indicated by the gentleman from 
 Accomac, is the proper course for the committee to pur- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 83 
 
 sue, and for every committee of the body to pursue. It 
 commends itself entirely to my approbation, and it has 
 commended itself to a respectable portion of our com- 
 mittee, but not to the majority. More than a week ago — 
 The PRESIDENT. It is not in order to refer to what 
 has occurred in committee. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON". I was only going to remark that the 
 committee — that is, a portion of the committee-, — were 
 ready to report more than a week ago. [Laughter.] 
 Gentlemen have referred here to their committees, and 
 to the state of the business in those committees and the 
 progress that has been made by them, and have been al- 
 lowed to proceed. Now I do not well understand what 
 those measures are to which the gentleman from Acco- 
 mac refers, to be adopted by the body of the Conven- 
 tion, to compel the finishing up of business by the com- 
 mittees. This writ of mandamus, as emanating from 
 this body, I confess is wholly inexplicable to me — whol- 
 ly so — but, for myself, if any means can be adopted by 
 this body to compel a speedier discharge of their duti 
 
 and an earlier report, not only from this committee to 
 which I belong, but from every other committee, I shall 
 heartily agree to it, and tender my most sincere thanks to 
 any gentleman who may put the measure in operation. I 
 rose mainly to refer to the difficulty between the gentle- 
 man from Mecklenburg (Mr. Goode) and the gentleman 
 from Botetourt (Mr. Anderson). There seems to have 
 been a difficulty between them — a misunderstanding 
 which ought not to have existed if they had understood 
 each other. [Great Laughter.] I beg leave, on this 
 occasion, to interpret between them. I think the object 
 of the gentleman from Botetourt, and the point of' his 
 inquiry was, if we refuse now to go into committee of 
 the whole and adjourn until Monday, whether the op- 
 portunity which such an adjournment would give the 
 committee to hold longer sessions, would not enable 
 them to make an earlier report ; and not as the gentle- 
 man from Mecklenburg seemed to understand him, that 
 the deliberations and discussions here, and the informa- 
 tion or light that would emanate from this discussion, 
 would have an influence upon the conclusions to which 
 that committee would come upon the various subjects 
 submitted to them. Now, I think the gentleman from 
 Mecklenburg did not understand the gentleman from 
 Botetourt as I understood him, and hence this serious 
 difficulty between them. [Laughter.] My own opinion 
 is, that if we refuse to go into committee of the whole, 
 and adjourn till Monday, that the legislative committee 
 can report fully on that day. I suppose it will not be 
 out of order to say that there are but three subjects re- 
 maining which, when disposed of, will remove all objec- 
 tions to making a report. And these three subjects are 
 limitations upon the legislative power, in regard to which 
 I do not think there can be any serious difficulty. In 
 respect to one of them, at least I know of none, and I 
 have exchanged opinions with almost every member of 
 the committee. In regard to another, I apprehend the 
 committee, or a large majority of its members, have 
 made up their opinions. And, in regard to a single one 
 —-the only one that can occupy much of the time of the 
 committee — there cannot be much delay, so soon as a 
 member of the committee now absent from the city re- 
 turns, which we may expect every day. If he does not 
 come, the probability is that the committee will proceed 
 to dispose of the subject without waiting for him. These 
 three subjects may, I am sure, if the committee should 
 be allowed to meet and sit longer for the remainder of 
 this week, be fully disposed of ; and a full report be 
 made by Monday in regard to every thing that I, as a 
 member of the committee — I can only speak for myself 
 — consider of any great moment. It is true, we have 
 fifty or sixty subjects of inquiry referred to us, relating 
 to other matters, about which I do not think the Con- 
 vention will feel much interest, and in regard to which 
 there is very little necessity to make any report. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. There seems to be an extraordinary 
 solicitude on the part of some gentlemen to receive re- 
 ports from the committees, and a very earnest anxiety 
 
 on the part of some other gentlemen that the people 
 should not labor under the apprehension that we have 
 been doing nothing. Now, with a view to gratify both 
 these gentlemen, and at the same time to relieve the 
 committee over which Ihave the honor to preside from any 
 imputation of idleness, and for the purpose also of afford- 
 ing opportunity to my immediate constituents to know 
 that I have not been an idle member of this Convention, 
 I propose to submit a report. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is not in order at this time. 
 Mr. BOTTS. What is the question ? 
 The PRESIDENT. It is on the motion to go into 
 committee of the whole. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I hope I shall be excused for not having 
 borne in mind the question before the Convention, for I 
 certainly never should have guessed it from the current 
 of the debate. [Laughter.] By way of information to 
 the Convention, I will read the report which I proposed 
 to submit. 
 
 On the 14th day of January, on motion of the gentle- 
 man from King William, (Mr. Douglas,) it was 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Bill of Rights, 
 be instructed to enquire and report if any, and what pro- 
 visions are necessary to be inserted in the new Constitu- 
 tion concerning the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Indians, 
 or any other remnants of the old tributary Indians, who 
 may be still remaining in the Commonwealth. 
 
 I desire to state, by way of information, that the com- 
 mittee have had that subject under their most anxious 
 consideration, and have instructed me to report to the 
 Convention and request that they be discharged from 
 the further consideration of the subject. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. We have returned, I trust, after these 
 explanations and the reconciliation which has been ef- 
 fected by the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton,) 
 between my friends from Mecklenburg and Botetourt, 
 to the consideration of the question before the Conven- 
 tion, viz ; Shall we now go into Committee of the whole 
 and take up and consider the report on the Legislative 
 department. Now I think it must be obvious to the 
 Convention that there is an objection entertained by some 
 of the members — and not a few of the members — of this 
 body, to proceeding to do at once, that which would 
 seem — my friend from Accomac will pardon me for say- 
 ing — our manifest duty ; that is, to go into committee 
 of the whole and consider the business now before the 
 Convention. What the ground of that objection is, I 
 think I can understand and I will state it. They do not 
 desire to consider the report of the Executive Committee 
 until they have considered the report which is to come — 
 and I trust it soon will come — from the committee on the 
 Basis. I believe that to be the secret of the objection of 
 most gentlemen to considering this report now. No gen- 
 tleman on the floor, it is true, has stated that objection, 
 vet I am not mistaken, I apprehend, in my conception of 
 it, and if I am, I shall be happy to be corrected by any 
 gentleman who may choose to do so. I am not one of 
 those who differ so widely from these gentlemen in this 
 respect, though I shall most certainly vote to go into 
 committee of the whole. While then I do not differ so 
 widely from those gentlemen who think the report of 
 the Basis Committee, if it is to come at all — and I have 
 a right as a member of that committee to believe it will 
 shortly come — should first be acted upon before any 
 other matter is finally decided ; yet I think we can profita- 
 bly employ our time meanwhile in the consideration of the 
 report now before us. But I wish to ask the gentleman 
 from Accomac (Mr. Wise) if I understood him correctly 
 as saying that gentlemen attach too much importance to 
 the reports which are to come from committees, and that 
 n@ report will come from any committee scarcely which 
 will not be turned wrong side out by tins Convention, or 
 at least is not as likely to be altered, as agreed to in the 
 form in which it came from the committee. Did I un- 
 derstand the gentleman from Accomac correctly ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman has, I believe, understood 
 me correctly ; but I will make myself clearly understood. 
 I meant to say that I do not believe it possible for any 
 
84 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 committee to make a report in which this hody will be 
 found entirely to concur ; and I will go further and say 
 that they cannot make a report which this body will not 
 materially change. The main object of a report from a 
 committee is merely to get the question before the Con- 
 vention — the committee being the mere organ of the 
 Convention in bringing the question before it. It is not 
 so important how the report shall be made as that it shall 
 be made. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. The gentleman has said that I did not 
 misunderstand him, and I think he has by his explana- 
 tion shown the fact conclusively. He does not regard 
 the form of a report as a matter of very great conse- 
 quence, and yet I was surprised to hear the gentleman in 
 the further course of his remarks, take the position, if I 
 understood him correctly, that he was unwilling to con- 
 sider — not in Convention — but in committee of the whole, 
 whose decisions all know are not binding on the Conven- 
 tion — not even consider the report of the Executive 
 committee, and not even to hear the views of gentlemen 
 given on that report, until all the reports of other com- 
 mittees should come in, lest peradventure there should 
 be something in these reports not in accordance with the 
 opinions of the committee on the Executive. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I uttered no such sentiment to the extent 
 which the gentleman has carried it. I said I was not 
 willing myself, to come to a decision upon the organiza- 
 tion of the Executive department of the government 
 until I had a view of what was to be the entire organiza- 
 tion of the form of government. I wish to see the fit- 
 ness of all its parts before I decide. I am very willing 
 if gentlemen desire to debate tins report, to listen to 
 them, and at last perhaps those with whom I concur in 
 the debase I shall be compelled to differ from in the final 
 vote, by some modi flea; ion which has been iuserted in the 
 report of th legislative coaimittec*. Does not the gen- 
 tleman see then, that a gentleman may concur in some 
 regulation of the Executive power to-day from which 
 by the ieport of the legislative committee he may be 
 compelled to dissent from to-morrow. Then cui bono — for 
 what end — -hall we now commence a debate, from the 
 Dositions assumed in which we may be driven the very 
 next < ay ? 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I will give my assent to the proposi- 
 tion of the gentleman as he now explaius it, viz: that 
 he is unwilling to decide upon the report of the com- 
 mittee on the Executive, until he has heard the reports 
 from the other committees, and if this was a proposition 
 to vote to-day in Convention upon that report, then 1 
 should think his rem irks ware pertinent, proper and 
 sound, and I should go with him against such a motion. 
 But I do not understand how it is that because a member 
 is unwilling to vote to-dav upon the Executive article, 
 that therefore — being anxious too to appear before the 
 country as doing something, and that the reporter em- 
 ployed at £250 a week and the newspapers to whom we 
 are to pay a premium of I know not how much, should 
 be doing something — he should be unwilling to begin 
 to-day — Thursday — to debate in committee of the whole 
 the report of the committee on the Executive,, when he 
 has been advised too that the other committees, the Ba- 
 sis committee included, will certainly report next week 
 at furthest ! I understand I say, the gentleman to object 
 to beginning to-day the discussion in committee of the 
 whole of the report of the Executive committee, be- 
 cause he is not willing that we should decide upon that 
 report until we shall see all of the reports from other 
 committees. Now I tell that gentleman that to begin a 
 discussion in committee of the whole and to decide upon 
 the questions which are to be decided in the Conven- 
 tion, are I fear, two very different propositions in point 
 of time at least. I fear there will be a very long space 
 of time between the commencement/ of a discussion on 
 a department of the government in committee of the 
 whole and the decision of such a question in Convention. 
 There cannot I think at all events be much risk, that if 
 we go into committee of the whole on this report on 
 Thursday, we shall decide upon it in Convention before ! 
 
 Monday. Now I think we ought at once to go into 
 committee of the whole, for many reasons. Gentlemen 
 have speeches to make — yes sir, — in order that they 
 may go out to the public in the newspapers to whom 
 we have agreed to pay a premium for sending them 
 out. They have them to make on this as well as on all 
 the other departments of government, and I for one 
 am for beginning to hear them. "VVe have got to hear 
 them and let us therefore begin to do so at once. If 
 we do not begin to hear, I fear it will be a long time 
 before we get through with hearing. It is not necessary 
 when we go into committee of the Avhole on this report 
 that we shall go through with it finally before we take 
 up any other subject. I ask my friend from Augusta, 
 (Mr. Sheffey,) who is au fait in questions of order, if 
 this is not so. [Laughter.] I think we are not bound 
 if we take up a report to act upon it finally, before we 
 act upon any thing else. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY (in his seat.) No sir. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I am not mistaken in that. The gen- 
 tleman from Augusta, I am happy to say, bears me out 
 in the position that we are not bound to go through with 
 a report when we begin with it. [Laughter.] Well, 
 we may begin to-day with this report and Ave have time 
 now to hear two or three speeches upon it, and they will 
 not be lost, because there is the reporter who will be en- 
 gaged in taking them down, and the publisher who will 
 put them in newspaper form and afterwards in pamphlet 
 form. They will not be lost ; they will have been made 
 and so much time will have been saved. [Laughter.] 
 They may not all be as amusing as the discussion which 
 we have heard to-day, but they will at least serve the 
 purpose which the gentleman from Accomac has in view, 
 of informing the people that we are actually making some 
 progress with the business, for the transaction of which 
 this body has been convened. I desire to vote on the 
 Basis question first and before all others, and when that 
 report shall come in, I will go with gentlemen who may 
 desire 1o lay atide this report of the Execmive commit- 
 tee and take up that. This is my opinion of the course 
 of proceeding which we should pursue— .hat we should 
 proceed at once to consider the report of the Executive 
 committee in committee of the whole, to be laid aside 
 if necessary, when other and more important subjects 
 shall come up. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. I rise for the purpose of making 
 an inquiry : Is not this discu.-^sion under the ninth rule, 
 wholly out of order? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. No sir ; the ninth rule refers to 
 the question of reference- That question has been de- 
 cided. The question now is, whether the Convention 
 will go into committee of the whole. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS. Then I am to understand that a 
 motion to go into committee of the whole is debateable ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I have a resolution to offer, which 
 I shall be glad to have acted upon before this motion to 
 go into committee of the whole shall be decided; and if 
 it be not agreeable to the gentleman from Essex (Mr. M. 
 Oarnett) to withdraw it for a moment, until I can offer 
 the resolution — as I should be glad if he would do,—- then 
 I would move to lay the motion on the table, if it be in 
 order. The resolution is one that I do not suppose will 
 give rise to any discussion ; and I desire to have it acted 
 upon now, especially if the House shall adjourn for one 
 or two days, or more. The resolution relates to impor- 
 tant information which we have before the House, but 
 not now in the form which I think it is desirable it should 
 ba furnished to the Convention. I will read the resolu- 
 tion by way of argument : 
 
 Resolved, That the auditor of public accounts be re- 
 quested to prepare for the use of the Convention a ta- 
 ble of taxation similar to that prepared by him and fur- 
 nished to the Convention on Saturday last, except as to 
 the taxation on lots and lands embraced therein, in lieu 
 of which he shall substitute the taxes on lots and lands 
 that would be payable at the present rate of taxation 
 under the assessment of 1850. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 85 
 
 The object of this resolution, as gentlemen will at 
 once perceive, is this : The present table, which has been 
 furnished to us, on this subject, embraces the taxation 
 upon lands and lots as they were assessed before the 
 year 1850 ; and the aggregate of taxes in this state- 
 ment, is composed of the taxes on lots and lands of that 
 description. There has been another table furnished un- 
 der another resolution, showing the amount payable in 
 the shape of taxes on lots and lands under the assessment 
 of 1850 ; and in order to ascertain the amount of taxes un- 
 der the assessment of 1850. it is necessary for each gen- 
 tleman to make a calculation, by comparing these two 
 documents together. It is very desirable I think, that 
 that table should be put in a form in which the compar- 
 ison is made by the proper officer by which gentlemen 
 would be able to seethe amount of taxes on every spe- 
 cies of property at a glance. My object is, merely to 
 offer that resolution, if I can be allowed to do so ; and I 
 would suggest that it is very desirab'e that it should pass, 
 an i the table be furnished before Monday, if it can be 
 done. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I would with pleasure withdraw 
 my niotioa, but I offered to do so once an i it was ob- 
 jected to. The gentleman will have no difficulty in of- 
 fering his resolution, even if we go into committee of 
 the whole, after the committee shall ri.-e, before the Con 
 vencion adjourns. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman propose to 
 lay on th table the resolution to go into committee o: f 
 the whole ? 
 
 Mr STANARD. I do not know whether it would b< 
 in order to move to lay it on the table far the present, bu: 
 lam confident if we go into committee of the whole at 
 half past two, we shall have no opportunity to dispose 
 of anv ihing else to-day, and I am anxious to have this 
 matter at once disposed of. While I am up I may be 
 allowed to make one remark with respect to the com- 
 mittee on the Basis of Representation, which has been 
 referred to by more than one gentleman in the course of 
 the discussion which has just taken place. It is due to 
 the members of that committee to state the fact to the 
 Convention and to the country, that that committee is 
 not merely charged with the duty of deciding upon the 
 principle of representation, but with the further duty of 
 carrying out the principle in the practical details in the 
 shape of an apportionment. In order to discharge these 
 duties, it is absolutely necessary that this committee 
 shall be furnished with the census and taxation tables. 
 That census and these tables of taxes were never fur- 
 nished till last Saturday, and to my certain knowledge 
 the sub-committee to which I belong, and I have no 
 doubt the other sub-committees, have been diligently at 
 work day and night since that time, in attending to the 
 discharge of the duties imposed upon them. The infor- 
 mation was at last furnished in such a form that we 
 were obliged, for our own convenience, to make the very 
 statement which we desired to be furnished with by the 
 officer under this resolution, for the benefit of the Con- 
 vention generally. I will submit the motion to lay the 
 proposition to go into committee of the whole on the 
 table, for I think if we go into committee of the whole 
 at half past two we can certainly do nothing afterwards. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion to lay on 
 the table the motion to go into committee of the whole, 
 and it was agreed to. 
 
 TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT. 
 
 Mr. STROTHER. I now renew the motion that I be- 
 fore offered, that when this Convention adjourn to-day, 
 it adjourn to meet on Monday next. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I think we have had adjournments 
 enough — too much for the public good — and I desire at 
 least to show that I am opposed to these frequent ad- 
 journments, and I therefore ask that the yeas and nays 
 may be ordered. 
 
 The yeas and nays were called, and the motion being 
 taken, there were yeas 51, nays 69, as follows; 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, M. Bird, Bland, 
 
 Blue, Burges, Camden, Caperton, Carlile, Carter of Rus- 
 -el. Carter of Loudon, Chambers, Chapman, Chilton, 
 Cocke, Conway, Cook, Faulkner, Fisher, Floyd, Fulker- 
 sou. Fultz, Gaily. Garland, Ho^e, Janney, Johnson, Kill- 
 gore, Martin of Marshall, Miller, Murphy, Neeson, Pen- 
 dleton, Seymour, Sheffey, Sloan, Smith of Kanawha, 
 Smith of King and Queen, Smith of Jackson, Smith of 
 Greenbrier, Snodgrass, Southall, Stephenson, Stewart 
 of Morgan, S'rother. Tate, VanWink'e, White, Whittle, 
 Williams of Fairfax, Williams of Shenandoah.— 51. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Mason, (President ) Arthur, Banks, 
 Beale, Bocock, Botts. Barbour, Bowles, Braxton, Byrd of 
 Frederick, Chambliss, Cox Davis, Douglas, Edmunds, Ed- 
 wards, Finney, Flood. Fuqua, M. R. H. Garnett, M. Gar- 
 nett, Goode. Hall, Hill Hopkins, Hunter Jones, K< ni e 
 Knote, Leake Lionberger, Lucas, Lynch McCamant, 
 McCandlish, McCcmas, Martin of Henry, Meredith, Mon- 
 cure. Moore. Morris Newman, i rice, Ridley, Rives, 
 Saunders, Scoggin, Scott of Caroline. Scott of Richmond 
 city, Shell. Smith oi N< rfoik county, Snowden, Stanard, 
 Straughan, Stuart of Pa rick. Summers, Taylor, Tred- 
 way, Trigg. Tunis TumbulL Wallace, Watts" of Norfolk 
 county, Watts of Roanoke, Willey, Wingfield, Wise, 
 Worsham, Wysor 69. 
 
 So the motion to adjourn was deci led in the negative. 
 
 RE- ARRANGEMENT OF THE CENSUS AND TAXATION' RETURNS. 
 
 Mr. STAN A RD I now offer the following r •solution : 
 Resolved, That the auditor of public accounts be re 
 quested to prepare for the use of the Conventioo a table 
 •;f taxation similar to that prepared by him and furnished 
 to the Convention on Saturday i< ; st. except, as to the tax- 
 ation < n lots and lands embraced therein, in lieu of 
 which he shall substitute the taxes on lots and lands 
 that would hi payable at the present rate of taxati'>n 
 under the assessment of 1850. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. It strikes mo. so far as I understand the 
 terms and object of the resolution, that it calls for pre- 
 cisely the same information embraced in the resolution 
 which I offered on Saturday and which was adopted. I 
 would ask the Secretary to read the resolution adopted 
 on Saturday. 
 
 The Secretary read the resolution referred to, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Resolved, That the First Auditor be, and he is hereby 
 requested, to furnish for the use of the Convention a ta- 
 ble, showing in separate columns the free wdiite, free co- 
 lored and slave population of each of the counties, cities 
 and towns in the four great districts of the State, in the 
 years 1830, 1840, and 1850, and the amount and per 
 centage of increase, or decrease in each, between those 
 periods respectively: and also showing the aggregate 
 amount of taxes payable in each county in the year 1840, 
 and what would have been payable in the year 1850, at 
 the same rate of taxation, taxing land according to the 
 value ascertained by the recent assessment, together with 
 the amount and per centage of increase or decrease in 
 the taxes, so ascertained, at the two periods aforesaid. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I do not understand that resolutioa 
 to call for precisely the information which I desire, at 
 least not in the form I desire to have it. The docu- 
 ment which was furnished us by the auditor on Saturday 
 last, relating to taxes, embraces the taxes upon all the 
 various objects of taxation in the State ; among them the 
 lands and lot tax as it stood prior to the assessment of 
 1850, and that table is now in the hands of gentlemen, 
 and it is calculated to mislead them, and as I have rea- 
 son to know from what has occurred, have actually misled 
 some gentlemen who have been making an examination 
 of it. The table called for by the gentleman from Frede- 
 rick, may embrace this information, but in connection with 
 other subjects and not in so convenient a form as I think it 
 will be furnished to the Convention by the adoption of the 
 resolution I offer. Another advantage of adopting this 
 resolution is, that by a very slight change in the calcu- 
 lation, the auditor can in a day or two, furnish thi?most 
 important and necessary information, and furni-h it in 
 the form most desirable, whereas, if we have to wait un- 
 
86 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 til the resolution can be responded to in the form in 
 which it has been moved by the gentleman from Fred- 
 erick, it must necessarily require a calculation of the 
 ratio of increase in a mixture of population and taxes to- 
 gether, and I suppose that some time would probably 
 elapse before we can get the table. I do not think, even 
 if the information be substantially called for, by the re- 
 solution just read, of which I am not entirely satisfied, 
 that it will be , furnished in so convenient a form as is 
 suggested by the resolution I offered, and certainiy 
 not so promptly. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I rise to say that we have already 
 ordered the document to be made out in conformity 
 with the suggestion of the resolution of the gentleman 
 from Frederick, (Mr. Byrd,) and it is to be printed. 
 Members will recollect that the document on taxation 
 which was furnished on Saturday, is a very expensive 
 document, and the only alternation proposed by the 
 gentleman from Richmond, is in respect to one column, 
 that is to say, in relation to the tax on lots and lands. 
 He wishes to substitute for the old rates the rates as 
 they would be under the present assessment of lands and 
 iots. Well now, there quisition for that identical infor- 
 mation is embraced in the resolution of the gentleman 
 from Frederick, (Mr. Byrd,) and if we pass both resolu- 
 tions, we must print these very expensive documents and 
 then have the information in no more convenient form 
 than that in which the resolution of the gentleman from 
 Frederick will present it. I do not think my friend 
 from the city of Richmond (Mr. Stanard) ought to 
 press for so small an amount of information, and which 
 can be obtained too from the document calledfor by the 
 gentleman from Frederick, so expensive a result of the 
 re-publication of that very large document. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. It is proper to say that when I of- 
 fered the resolution I was not aware that any resolution 
 of that character had been offered by the gentleman from 
 Frederick. I had found the necessity for this informa- 
 tion in the course of my examination of this subject as 
 a member of the Basis committee. I have certainly no 
 desire to subject the Commonwealth to any unnecessary 
 expense, as I think my votes will show, from the com- 
 mencement. If the information can be furnished in the 
 other form, I have no disposition to press my resolution, 
 and I will therefore move to lay it on the table, until, 
 by an examination of the resolution of the gentleman 
 from Frederick, I can be satisfied whether the informa- 
 tion is identically or substantially the same as that 
 called for by my own. I was not aware, at the time that 
 I offered my resolution, that any other whatever on the 
 subject had been passed by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. I rise to say to the gentleman from Rich- 
 mond (Mr. Stanard) that my purpose was not to oppose 
 the adoption of his resolution, but merely to call his at- 
 tention to a fact, which I thought would satisfy him that 
 its adoption would not be necessary. 
 
 The resolution of Mr. Stanard was then laid on the 
 table. 
 
 On motion of Mr. McCANDLISH, the Convention ad- 
 journed until 1 o'clock, P. M., to-morrow. 
 
 FRIDAY, January, 1351. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early, of the Methodist church. 
 The journal of the preceding day was then read and 
 approved. 
 
 RE-ARRANGEMENT OF THE CENSUS AND TAXATION RETURNS. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I ask that the resolution laid on 
 the table by me yesterday, be taken up. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was 
 read as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the auditor of the public accounts be 
 requested to prepare for the use of the Convention a ta- 
 ble of taxation similar to that prepared by him and fur- 
 nish?d to the Convention on Saturday last, except as to 
 the taxation on lots and lands embraced therein, in lieu 
 of which he shall substitute the taxes on lots and lands 
 
 that would be payable at the present rates of taxation 
 •under the assessment of 1850. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. Since the Convention adjourned 
 yesterday, I have had an opportunity of examining the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Frederick, which it 
 was supposed called for this information ; and the result 
 of that examination satifies me that it does not do so. 
 The resolution of the gentleman from Frederick calls for 
 an amount of the taxes aggregated together, while the 
 object of the resolution which I offered was to furnish 
 the Convention with a table in which, in addition to the 
 other subjects of taxation contained in the table already 
 furnished us, should be embraced the tax that will be 
 paid on lots and lands in 1850, instead of the tax under 
 the assessment prior to 1850, which is embraced in the 
 table already furnished. It has been suggested that the 
 adoption of this resolution will involve the necessity of 
 printing anolher large table ; and as I have no desire to 
 have anything printed which I do not consider absolute- 
 ly necessary for the use of the Convention, I have modi- 
 fied my resolution so as to provide that the Auditor 
 shall furnish a table containing merely a recapitulation 
 of the subject, similar to that which he has furnished 
 in another document. It can be similar to the other, 
 with the exception that instead of the taxation on lots 
 and lands embraced in that recapitulation, which is the 
 tax under the old assessment, it shall embrace the tax 
 under the assessment of 1850. I have modified the re- 
 solution in that particular, and if it is passed, all that 
 it will be necessary for the Auditor to do to comply with 
 it, will be to furnish a table of the description I have 
 referred to, merely making the alterations which I have 
 suggested. This can be done I suppose by to-morrow, 
 and no delay or expense be attendant upon it. The re- 
 solution as I have modified it, will read as follows : — 
 
 Resolved, That the auditor of public accounts be re- 
 quested to prepare for the use of the Convention, a ta- 
 ble containing a recapitulation of the subjects and rates 
 of taxation, similar to that furnished to the Convention 
 on Saturday last, except only as to the taxes on lots 
 and lands embraced therein, in lieu of which he shall 
 substitute the taxes on lots and lands that would be 
 payable at the present rate of taxation under the assess- 
 ment of 1850. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The modification proposed by 
 the gentleman will be received as his resolution if it is 
 not objected to. 
 
 There being no objection, the question was taken on 
 the resolution as modified and it was adopted. 
 
 AMENDMENT TO REPORT ON EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. Will it not be in order to offer 
 an amendment to the report of the Executive Committee. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It will not be in order to do so 
 now, the report having been referred to the committee 
 of the whole. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON I must ask then, that it may be 
 read for the information of the Convention, as an amend- 
 ment which I propose to offer when it shall be in order.. 
 
 The Secretary then read the amendment, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Strike out the following, being the whole of the 2d 
 article of the report : — 
 
 Article 2 — Lietitenant Governor. 
 
 1. A Lieutenant Governor shall be chosen at every 
 election for a Governor, in the same manner, continue in 
 office for the same time, and possess the same qualifica- 
 tions. 
 
 2. In case of the impeachment of the Governor, his re- 
 moval from office, death, refusal, or inability to qualify, 
 designation, or absence from the State, the powers and 
 ruties of the office shall devolve upon the Lieutenant 
 Governor, and the Legislature may by law provide for 
 the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability of 
 both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, declaring 
 what officer shall then act as Governor ; and such officer 
 shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or 
 a Governor shall be elected. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 3. The Lieutenant Governor, or other officer discharg- 
 ing the duties of Q-overnor, shall, during his administra- 
 tion, receive the same compensation to which the Govern- 
 or would have been entitled, had he continued in office. 
 
 4. The Lieutenant Governor shall, by virtue of his 
 office, be President of the Senate, but shall only have a 
 casting vote therein ; whenever he shall administer the 
 Government or shall be unable to attend as the Presi- 
 dent of the Senate, the Senators shall elect one of their 
 own members as President of the Senate for the time 
 being. 
 
 5. While he acts as President of the Senate, the 
 Lieutenant Governor shall receive for his services the 
 compensation allowed to the Speaker of the House of 
 Delegates. 
 
 And insert the following in lieu thereof: — 
 
 1. in case of the impeachment of the Governor, his re- 
 moval from office, death, refusal, or inability to qualify, 
 or resignation, the powers and duties of the office shall 
 devolve upon the Speaker of the Senate ; and the Le 
 gisiature may by law provide for the case of removal, 
 death, resignation, or inability of both the Governor and 
 Speaker of the Senate, declaring what officer shall then 
 act as Governor ; and such officer shall act accordingly, 
 until the disability be removed, or a Governor shall be 
 elected. 
 
 2. The Speaker of the Senate or other officer discharg- 
 ing the duties of Governor, shall, during his administra- 
 tion, receive the same compensation to which the Gov- 
 ernor would have been entitled, had he gone into and 
 conlinued in office. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. If there are no more resolutions 
 to be offered and no further remarks to be made, I will 
 move to take up the motion which I made and which 
 was laid on the table yesterday, that the Convention re- 
 solve itself into committee of the whole with a view to 
 the consideration of the report of the committee on the 
 Executive Department. 
 
 Th3 PRESIDENT. The gentleman had better sub- 
 mit a motion to go into committee at cnce — that will 
 attain his object precisely as well. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. Very well sir, I will make that 
 motion. 
 
 The question was then put on the motion to go into 
 committee of whole, and the Convention had divided— 
 the ayes having risen — 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. Is it too late to call for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Yes sir— the Convention has di- 
 vided. 
 
 The result of the count was announced to the Conven- 
 tion, ayes 58, noes 44, — so the motion to go into com- 
 mittee of the whole was agreed to. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The Convention then resolved itself [into Committee 
 of the Whole, Mr. WATTS, of Norfolk county, in the 
 chair, upon the report of the Committee on the Execu- 
 tive Department of the Government. 
 
 The CHAIR. The ordinary course is for a report to 
 be taken up section by section, though any member can, 
 if the Convention shall desire that course to be pursued, 
 present an amendment independent of that course. 
 
 The 1st section of the report was then read as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 Article 1 — Governor. 
 
 1. The chief executive power of this Commonwealth 
 shall be vested in a Governor. He shall hold his office 
 for the term of four years, to commence on the day 
 of _ next preceding his election, and he shall be in- 
 eligible to that office after his second term shall have ex- 
 pire 1, and to any other office during his term of service. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Are we to understand that passing 
 by a section without a vote implies the tacit consent of 
 the Convention to the section ? 
 
 The CHAIR. Only tacitly sir — it can be amended 
 hereaftei- if the Convention shall think proper. 
 
 There being no amendment offered to the 1st section 
 the second section was read as follows : — 
 
 2. The Governor shall be chosen by the electors of the 
 members of the General Assembly, at the times and places 
 when they respectively vote for members thereof. The 
 returns of every election shall be sealed and transmitted 
 by the proper returning officer to the Secretary of State, 
 who shall deliver them to the Speaker of the House of 
 Delegates, on the first day of the session of the General 
 Assembly, then next to be holden. The Speaker of the 
 House of Delegates shall open and publish the within 
 one week thereafter, in the presence of a majority of the 
 Senate and House of Delegates. The person having the 
 highest number of votes shall be Governor : but if two 
 or more shall be equal and highest in votes, one of them 
 shall be chosen Governor by joint vote of both Houses of 
 the General Assembly. Contested elections shall be de- 
 cided by both Houses of the Legisleture in such manner 
 as may be prescribed by law. 
 
 The following sections of the report were then read 
 without any amendments being proposed. 
 
 3. No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor 
 unless he shall have attained the age of thirty' years, shall 
 be a native citizen of the United States, and shall have 
 been a citizen of Virginia for five years next preceding 
 his election. 
 
 4. The Governor shall reside at the seat of government, 
 and shall receive for his services the sum of five thou- 
 sand dollars for each year of his term, and shall not re- 
 ceive within that period any other emolument from this 
 or any other State or government. 
 
 5. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully exe- 
 cuted ; shall, from time to time, communicate to the Le- 
 gislature the condition of the Commonwealth, and recom- 
 mend to their consideration such measures as he may 
 deem expedient ; he shall be commander-in-chief of the 
 land and naval forces of the State ; shall convene the 
 Legislature on application of a majority of the members 
 of both houses of the General Assembly, or when, in 
 his opinion, the interests of the Commonwealth shall re- 
 quire it. He shall have power to embody the militia, 
 when, in his opinion, the public safety shall require it ; 
 to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regu- 
 lations as may be prescribed by law ; to grant reprieves 
 and pardons, or commute the punishment, except when 
 the prosecution shall have been carried on by the House 
 of Delegates, or the law shall otherwise particularly di- 
 rect ; to conduct, either in person or in such other man- 
 ner as shall be prescribed by law, all intercourse with 
 other and foreign States ; and, during the recess of the 
 Legislature, to fill, pro tempore, all vacancies in those of- 
 fices for which the Constitution and laws make no pro- 
 vision : Provided, That his appointments to such vacan- 
 cies shall be by commission to expire at the end of thir- 
 ty days after the commencement of the session of the 
 Legislature next preceding the date of such commission. 
 
 6. Commissions and grants shall run in the name of 
 the CommonAvealth of Virginia, and bear teste by the 
 Governor, with the seal of the Commonwealth annexed. 
 
 THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. 
 
 Article 2 — Lieutenant Governor. 
 
 1. A Lieutenant Governor shall be chosen at every 
 election for Governor, in the same manner, continue in 
 office for the same time, and possess the same qualifica- 
 tions. 
 
 2. In case of the impeachment of the Governor, his 
 removal from office, death, refusal, or inability to qualify, 
 resignation, or absence from the State, the powers and 
 duties of the office shall devolve upon the Lieutenant 
 Governor, and the Legislature may by law, provide for 
 the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability of 
 both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, declaring 
 what officer shall then act as Governor ; and such officer 
 shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or 
 a Governor shall be elected. 
 
 3. The Lieutenant Governor, or other officer discharg- 
 ing the duties of Governor, shall during his administra 
 
88 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 tion, receive the same compensation to which the Govern- 
 or would have been entitled, had he continued in office. 
 
 4. The Lieutenant Governor, shall, by virtue of his 
 office, be President of the Senate, but shall only have a 
 casting vote therein ; whenever he shall administer the 
 Government or shall be unable to attend as the Presi- 
 dent of the Senate, the Senators shall elect one of their 
 own members as President of the Senate for the time 
 being. 
 
 5. While he acts as President of the Senate, the 
 Lieutenant Governor shall receive for his services the 
 compensation alloAved to the Speaker of the House of 
 Delegates. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. I now move to strike out the 
 whole of the 2d article, and to insert in lieu thereof the 
 following : — 
 
 1. In case of the impeachment of the Governor, his re- 
 moval from office, death, refusal, or inability to qualify, 
 or resignation, the powers and duties of the office shall 
 devolve upon the Speaker of the Senate, and the Legis- 
 lature may by law provide for the case of removal, 
 death, resignation, or inability of both the Governor and 
 Speaker of the Senate, declaring what officer shall then 
 act as Governor ; and such officer shall act accordingly, 
 until the disability be removed or a Governor shall be 
 elected. 
 
 2. The Speaker of the Senate, or other officer discharg- 
 ing the duties of Governor, shall, during his administra- 
 tion, receive the same compensation to which the Gov- 
 ernor would have been entitled, had he gone into and 
 continued in office. 
 
 The CHAIR. Does the Chair understand the mem- 
 ber as moving to strike out the whole of the 2d article. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. Yes sir, everything relating to 
 the Lieutenant Governor. Before the question is taken 
 on the substitute, I desire to make a very few remarks 
 in explanation of my object in offering it. I cannot for 
 the life of me see what necessity we have for a Lieuten- 
 ant Governor. As has been said before and on the pre- 
 sent occasion, he is much like the fifth wheel of a wagon, 
 and as I think, much more useless. When we look 
 around for the duties which are to be devolved on this 
 officer, we find that it is not an impossibility that he 
 will have duties to perform, but there is a strong im- 
 probability. He can only act as Lieutenant Governor 
 when the Governor dies, refuses to qualify, resigns, or 
 according to the report, is absent from the State. Now 
 all of these probabilities are remote ones, except that 
 the Governor may absent himself from the State. Well, 
 if I thought our Governor would absent himself from 
 the State, I think I would go for providing in the Con- 
 stitution a fugitive Governor law, and bring him back, 
 instead of providing an officer to act in his place. I see 
 no reason why the Governor should absent himself from 
 the State, and leave his duties to be performed by oth- 
 ers. As to the probability of a Governor's dying, I think 
 we may safely say, that like our judges, he never dies. 
 So far as my information goes, we have not lost but one 
 Governor in Virginia, during a period of seventy years ; 
 and thus, according to the report of this committee, we 
 are to keep an officer under pay for seventy years, waiting 
 until another officer shall die, to take his place. I am 
 opposed to it, and think it a most useless expenditure. 
 I think that the Speaker of the Senate can be called 
 on to perform the duties of Governor when that officer 
 shall be absent, without subjecting the State to the ad- 
 ditional expense of the pay of a Lieutenant Governor. 
 Let the duties devolve, when necessary, on the Speaker 
 of the Senate. This is the provision in several of the 
 States of this Union, and we hear no complaint from 
 them ; and I know that we shall save a vast expense by it. 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would suggest to the gen- 
 tleman, that the better motion for him to have submit- 
 ted, would have been to strike out the first section, as it 
 applies to the appointment of a Lieutenant Governor; 
 and then he might have followed it up with the amend- 
 ments he has proposed. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. I will take any course that will 
 
 reach the object I have in view, and therefore will mod" 
 ify my motion as the Chair has suggested. I move then 
 to strike out the first section of the 2d article as report- 
 ed by the committee. 
 
 The motion to strike out was rejected — a count being 
 had — ayes 26, noes 74. 
 
 ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR TO RE-ELECTION. 
 
 Mr. TRED WA Y. I suppose it will be proper to com- 
 mence with the 1st section for amendment ? 
 
 The CHAIR. It is proper to commence with the 
 1st section, though a member may move to amend any sec- 
 tion which he may think proper. 
 
 Mr. TRED WAY. The other day some amendments 
 were offered by the gentleman from Rockbridge (Mr. 
 Letcher) with the declaration on his part that he in- 
 tended to move them at the proper time, which affect 
 the first section of this report. I believe the gentleman 
 is unwell and is not in the Convention tb-day, and I should 
 be unwilling to proceed without giving him an opportu- 
 nity to propose his amendments and to advocate them 
 before the. Convention. There is one amendment, how- 
 ever, which I desire to propose to the first section. I 
 wish to change its wording so that the Governor shall 
 be ineligible to the office after his first term has expired, 
 and I move therefore to strike out the word second" 
 after the words " shall be ineligible to that office after 
 his," so that the section will then read : 
 
 Sec 1. The chief executive power of this Commonwealth 
 shall be vested in a Governor. He shall hold his office 
 
 during the term of four years, to commence on the 
 
 day of next succeeding his election, and he shall 
 
 be ineligible to that office after his first term of service 
 shall have expired, and to any other office during his 
 term of service. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I will support the proposition of the 
 gentleman from Pittsylvania (Mr. Tredway) if he will 
 confine the restriction to the next succeeding term. I 
 am not willing to make the Governor ineligible forever 
 afterwards, but I am willing to say he shall be ineligible 
 for the next succeeding term. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. 1 will accept that amendment. 
 Mr. WISE. By that amendment we shall leave the 
 question, I believe, precisely as it now stands. 
 Mr. BOCOCK. No sir. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. To amend the section as recom- 
 mended by the gentleman from Appomattox, would be 
 to render the Governor ineligible for election after 
 his term had expired for the term next succeeding 
 that term, but he might be elected again at any time 
 thereafter. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. The effect of the amendment sug- 
 gested by the gentleman from Appomattox, will be to 
 continue the provisions of the present Constitution, as I 
 understand it. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I propose by way of amendment — 
 The CHAIR. There is a question now pending and 
 the gentleman will not be in order to offer another 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. The effect of the section as it stands 
 is to allow the Governor to be elected for two terms 
 successively, and then to be ineligible. My desire is to 
 allow him to be elected for one term, and then to be in- 
 eligible for at least one term, but not to be ineligible 
 afterwards. I propose to strike out the words "and he 
 shall be ineligible to that office after his second term 
 shall have expired" and to insert in lieu thereof the 
 words " and shall not be eligible for a second term." 
 
 Mr. TREAD WAY. I accept of that amendment in 
 lieu of the one I have offered, and which I now with- 
 draw. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I should be very glad if the gentlemen 
 who offer these propositions, either as coming from the 
 committee or as indhidual propositions, would enlighten 
 my mind for one, so far as to give me a reason why this 
 restriction should be placed on the powers of the peo- 
 ple at all. We have come here, as I understand, for the 
 purpose of enlarging the power of the people, and yet 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 89 
 
 the very first proposition made here is, that the hands 
 of the people shall be tied and they be prevented from 
 doing that which they may choose to do. I have never 
 been one of the advocates for what has been generally 
 styled the "one term principle" either in regard to 
 our federal or state officials. I have always regarded 
 it as a c ! ap trap, that was very well calculated to serve 
 the purposes of aspiring politicians, who might desire 
 to divide the time between themselves, where there 
 were a number of aspirants for the Presidency for exam- 
 ple, each one anxious to serve for some short time and 
 each one willing to limit himself to a single term, in order 
 that all might be accommo lated. But at the same time 
 I have regarded it as an infringement and encroachment 
 on popular rights The example was set by the Father 
 of his Country, and the framers of the federal consti- 
 tution did not deem it necessary in the earlier days of 
 the government, to prescribe this limitation to the power 
 of the people in the election of their President. The 
 first President of the United States wisely set the exam- 
 ple of voluntarily retiring at the expiration of his sec- 
 ond term — an example which I trust will be followed 
 by all who may succeed him. But wherefore is it, if you 
 have a President or a Governor who is decidedly prefer- 
 able to the people to all other men in the Union or m 
 the State, that you prop >se to tie the hands of the peo- 
 ple, to limit their rights and to trammel them in their 
 own selection, and force upon them the necessity of turn- 
 ing out a wise, judicious and acceptable officer, for the 
 purpose of scrambling in the dark for one who may be 
 infinitely objectionable? I have come here for one, with 
 the purpose of enlarging the power of the people. 1 
 desire to take, so far as practicable, all power out of the 
 hands of the few and confer it upon the many ; or in 
 other words, I am for taking power out of the hands of 
 the politicians and putting it in the hands of the people. 
 This proposition as it comes from the committee, and 
 from the gentlemen who have offered their amendments, 
 seems to me to be the work of the politicians and not 
 the work of the people. It is to accomplish the ends of 
 politicians — I do not mean to ascribe any improper mo- 
 tives to these gentlemen — I speak of the effect and ope- 
 ration of the amendment. It is to wo.k to the advantage 
 of the politicians and of those who desire to fill these 
 offices. But I ask that gentlemen will give me some 
 reasons when they ask me to give my vote either for 
 the report of the committee or for the proposition in the 
 amendment, why, if we give the power of electing 
 the "Governor to the people, we should at the same mo- 
 ment take that power from the people after having ex- 
 ercised it once and once only. For my own part, I would 
 prefer, to strike out all that part of it from the fir^t sec- 
 tion so that the sentence should read, 
 
 — " He shall hold his office during the term of four 
 years, to commence on the day of next suc- 
 ceeding his election, and he shall be ineligible to any 
 other office during his term of service." 
 
 I had not the remotest idea, when I came to the hall 
 this morning, of taking any part in the discussion of 
 this question. I was willing to submit the proposi- 
 tion as it came from the committee to the Convention, 
 and I had not entertained the slightest idea of touching 
 any part of it until I found a disposition to trammel 
 still further the rights of the people, and confine their 
 choice to a single term. I have now only to ask for 
 some reasons, and to ascertain the motive, for the propo- 
 sition of these amendments. If gentlemen will convince 
 me that they are right, I will vote for them, otherwise if 
 nobody else does not, I shall propose at the proper time 
 an amendment carrying out my views. Is an amendment 
 to the amendment in order now ? 
 
 Mr. WATTS. It is in order, but the gentleman can 
 attain his object by moving to strike out the words he 
 has indicated. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I will move then to amend the amend- 
 ment so as to strike out from the section, the words " to 
 that office after his second term shall have expired, 
 and" 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I understand there is a motion to 
 strike out part of what is proposed to be stricken out by 
 the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) and to insert in 
 lieu thereof, the words suggested by the gentleman from 
 Appomattox, (Mr. Bocock,) and I imagine that it is pro- 
 per that the question should be put first on that amend- 
 ment before the question on a motion to strike out a 
 larger portion, comprehending what is suggested to be 
 stricken out by the gentleman from Appomattox, be taken. 
 I suppose the motion of the gentleman from Henrico is 
 receivable, but that the question must first be taken on 
 the motion suggested by the gentleman from Appomat- 
 tox, and submitted by the gentleman from Pittsylvania, 
 (Mr. Theadway.) 
 
 The CHAIR. No, sir; the motion of the gentleman 
 from Henrico is an amendment to an amendment. The 
 one proposition is to strike out a certain portion of the 
 section, and the other is to amend that amendment so 
 that it shall operate to strike out a larger portion. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I have desired to address the Chair 
 for the purpose of moving to strike out the word " four" 
 in the 1st section of the first article. I think that the 
 term for which the Governor should be elected, should be 
 first agreed upon by the Convention. 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair will state that there is now 
 an amendment proposed to the amendment, and that is 
 as far as we can go in the way of amendment. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. My vote on the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Treadway,) will depend 
 on the period for which the Governor is to be elected. 
 Is it in order now to move to strike out the word 
 " four. " 
 
 The CHAIR. Not until this question is disposed of. 
 
 Mr. 1 RED WAY. The form of the amendment which 
 I will adopt at the suggestion of the gentleman from Ap- 
 pomattox, (Mr. Bocock,) is as follows : Strike out the 
 words " he shall be ineligible to that office, after his se- 
 cond term shall have expired, and to any other office du- 
 ring his term of service, " and insert in lieu thereof, the 
 words following : " He shall not be eligible for the term 
 next succeeding that for which he was elected, nor to any 
 other office during his term of service. " 
 
 I beg leave to say in reply to the gentleman from 
 Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) that when I submitted this amend- 
 ment, I had no idea that I was proposing to infringe upon 
 any of the rights of the people. I certainly had no motive 
 to infringe upon or to curtail those rights. My amend- 
 ment admits distinctly the right of the people to elect 
 their Governor, and that I understand, was the great prin- 
 ciple of reform, for which the people of Virginia contend- 
 ed in the last canvass. I do not believe that when such 
 a change is made in our Constitution, the Governor, after 
 his first term — if, indeed, any officer who is to be elected 
 by the popular vote — should be eligible to a second term. 
 I think there are manifest reasons and strong considera- 
 tions of policy which require that a provision should be 
 put in the Constitution, by which he shall not be eligible 
 after his first term. And what are they? The fact 
 in reference to the President of the United States, who 
 may be re-elected a second time, whose re-election is not 
 restricted by the Constitution, and the fact that in pur 
 suance of the example set by the father of his country, 
 alluded to by the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) he 
 may be a candidate and elected to a second term, has been 
 a fruitful theme of complaint against, and often excited sus- 
 picion and distrust of, the incumbent — the man who held 
 the office of Chief Executive of the Federal Government. 
 The cry throughout the land has been that the Executive 
 officer who was re-eligible, who might be a candidate for 
 a second term of the office which he then held, was pros- 
 tituting the power of his office for the purpose of pro- 
 curing his re-election. I need only to mention the amount 
 of excitement that has been produced in the country by 
 that one fact. I submit to the gentleman from Henrico and 
 to this committee, whether if the Governor, the chief exec- 
 utive officer of the State, having the power and the patron- 
 age which he must have to some extent, will not 
 be liable to the same distrust and suspicion, whether 
 
90 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 he will not be assailed if he should be a candidate 
 or look to a re-election ; and -whether the same com- 
 plaints will not arise throughout Virginia in regard to 
 his action while in office, which we hear throughout the 
 Union in regard to the action of the President of the Unit- 
 ed States ? I think there can be no detriment to the public 
 good by thus restricting one out of many of those of the 
 people of Virginia, who will be qualified to serve as Go- 
 vernor. It would be a very small, an incalculably small 
 restriction. — if the gentleman will have it so — upon the 
 rights of the people ; so small that it appears to me that 
 it cannot compare with the weighty considerations which 
 require that the Governor should not be eligible. I wish 
 to strip the Executive even of a suspicion of coming down 
 and mingling in the arena of politics. I wish to have no 
 Governor of Virginia, of whom it can be said that he 
 is prostituting the Executive patronage and power that 
 he may be re-nominated either by his party or by the 
 people, or that he may, by that prostitution, obtain a 
 re-election to the office he then holds. I prefer rather to 
 remove from him all pretext under which he could do 
 that thing if he were disposed to do it, and to take from 
 him all suspicion of being induced to act from considera- 
 tions of that sort. This would, in my opinion, render the 
 office of Governor more elevated, more respectable, more 
 desirable to hold, and would be taking from it much that 
 would impair its dignity, usefulness and respectability in 
 the opinion of the people of the State and of the Union. 
 That is the reason why I wish to see no man re-elected to 
 the office of Governor when his term shall have expired. 
 We have enlarged his term of service from three to four 
 years, if the amendment proposed in its present form 
 shall be adopted by the Convention. "We increase the 
 length of his term, and we give to the people the power 
 of selecting him by their votes, the great object aimed at 
 by those who advocated Constitutional reform throughout 
 Virginia during the past year. 
 
 I think, for the considerations which I have mention- 
 ed, it would be better that this restriction should be 
 made. It would render the incumbent of the office of 
 Governor much more comfortable, his position less 
 liable to be assailed, either with or without justifiable 
 cause, and more useful and more dignified, to say that he 
 shall not be re-elected. I cannot imagine how the mak 
 ing of one of the citizens of Virginia not eligible to the 
 office of Governor, can possibly, under any circumstances 
 which we may look to in the future, affect the public 
 weal. That is the reason why I have moved the amend- 
 ment. How it can affect any political purpose, I am 
 wholly unable to perceive. It may prevent the incum- 
 bent from engaging in political schemes for his own ag 
 grandizement, but I do not see how it can operate to af- 
 fect the rights, political or any otherwise, of any human 
 being. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to say to the gentleman that I 
 did not charge that any political purpose was designed 
 by the amendment. What I meant to say was, that its 
 effect would operate for the benefit of politicians. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I wish to see whether I understand the 
 amendment. The effect of the first amendment propos- 
 ed, is to allow the Governor to be eligible for one term, 
 and to be ineligible for and during the same term there- 
 after ; in other words, that for four years after the expi- 
 ration of his term of four years, he shall be ineligible for 
 four years. As it is in the report of the committee, he is 
 eligible forever. This proposition makes him ineligible 
 for one term, and then eligible for and during the same 
 term thereafter, and alternately, I suppose, ad infinitum, 
 or as long as life lasts. The gentleman from Henrico, 
 (Mr. Botts,) proposes to amend that amendment, by, in 
 effect, leaving him re-eligible forever. I am very glad 
 that the gentleman from Hemdco has made this point, 
 and that this ball has been taken at the first hop. And 
 in the brief views which the gentleman from Henrico has 
 presented to the committee, I fully, heartily and experi- 
 mentally concur. My own experience teaches me that this 
 doctrine of ineligibility of Executive office or any office 
 of the people, is a privation of popular rights, — directly 
 
 so. What is the policy of every individual ? How does 
 every prudent man act in relation to the same matter ? 
 If you employ a physician, or lawyer, or overseer, or ser- 
 vant — I care not what agent you employ — and have tried 
 him, have found him faithful, capable and competent, and 
 in allrespects trustworthy, do you not continue him in em- 
 ployment ? Is not that the universal course of all men ? 
 Is it not the part of every prudent man, when he has tried 
 even a servant, to continue him in service ? And to say 
 that a public servant well tried, shall not be tried again 
 if he has been once tried by the people, is it not an inva- 
 sion of the popular right of election ? Undoubtedly it 
 circumscribes the right in the one case, and in the other 
 proscribes it for all time, and these are all competing 
 propositions. This principle of ineligibility, too, undoubt- 
 edly proscribes the faithful and tried officer of the go- 
 vernment. Now, what is the reason offered by the gen- 
 tleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Tredway,) for 
 this one term principle ? It is that the office may be 
 prostituted for re-election. And what is the answer ? 
 Grant even that the reason exists, what worse evils may 
 not follow on the other hand, if this one term principle, 
 whether as applied to the Executive of the Federal or of 
 the State Government, if this principle shall prevail ? 
 Why, you make the officer wholly irresponsible. Elect 
 your President for one term, and let that be the estab- 
 lished doctrine of the country. He has reached the highest 
 honor he can reach in this country. — his day has passed, 
 and the time of life has come when he cannot look beyond 
 it either in the course of time, or of ambition ; yet if he 
 cannot electioneer for himself with the hope of obtain- 
 ing office for himself, he can for another, and he can for 
 his party. And, if he be possessed with the demon of 
 party, what may he not do when he can stand in the 
 pride of his independence of the people and say, you 
 have fixed it that I cannot last but for one term, and 
 now I will do my worst ? And can he not do it ? Es- 
 pecially if you adopt the proposition of the committee 
 who have reported that he shall be ineligible forever, 
 you make him wholly irresponsible. But is it a fact that 
 the succeeding terms do corrupt an Executive ?" I can 
 say from a pretty long experience at Washington, that 
 that fact never did exist, but that, on the contrary, eli- 
 gibility to a succeeding term added greatly to the puri- 
 ty of the executive administration. There never was, in 
 my time, a reason to say that because a man was eligi- 
 ble to office afterwards, that, for that reason, he prosti- 
 tuted the executive office. The gentleman from Henri- 
 co knows, and I know very well — though perhaps it is 
 not worth while to tell here — where the one term prin- 
 ciple came from. I could tell, if I would. It never 
 came from the complaints of the people ; never, but it 
 did come from that very source to which the gentleman 
 from Henrico has referred, the eagerness of politicians of 
 both parties, at all events to have half a loaf, rather 
 than none, ot the slice of office, — to have one term at 
 least. It is a principle which provides for the aspirants. 
 Your politicians started the cry, and they never started 
 it pro bono publico, that you may rely upon. No, the 
 people were to be deprived of the privilege, the pre- 
 eminent prerogative that should be reserved by the so- 
 vereign, the power to retain in their service the best 
 men, best tried, best known, those once tried and ap- 
 proved. The principle was started to deprive the sove- 
 reign of this power, in order that politicians and politi- 
 cal aspirants might have the benefit of the one term 
 principle. I scout the idea, and I say with the gentle- 
 man from Henrico, that one of the most blessed, one of 
 the most benificent examples, that almost all-wise man, 
 Washington, set to his country, was that the Chief Exec- 
 utive should place himself in a responsible position, and 
 that he should submit and subject himself to the test of 
 approval. If you allow an Executive officer to be re-elect- 
 ed, vou at once put him on his good behavior, instead of 
 making him a corrupt officer to prostitute the public 
 place. Mark the history of the Federal Administration, 
 I have often done it, and you will find very few offences 
 committed in the first term of the President They have 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 91 
 
 been mostly committed, almost all of any serious import, 
 in the second term. Is it not so ? And will gentlemen 
 tell me that it is no invasion of the power of the 
 people, of the right of the people, and that it is no cir- 
 cumscription of their rights, no restriction of their pre- 
 rogative, to say, that after having elected a George Wash- 
 ington, that they should not indulge their preference in 
 re-electing him. Had the people of the United St ates 
 been told that they should not re-elect Andrew Jackson 
 during the time of the bank war in this country, there 
 would have been almost open rebellion. And what may 
 not happen in this State ? What might not in these evil 
 times come upon the State of Virginia ? You have an 
 election coming on next spring, or next spring twelve 
 months, when perhaps you may have need of the very 
 best military commander in the whole State, at the head 
 of your militiaf; when perhaps this blessed old Common- 
 wealth might be in the very crisis of being torn asunder by 
 the demon of the South contending with the demon of the 
 North — with perhaps one portion of the people inarching 
 southward and another northward, or perhaps turning 
 their arms upon each other — brother contending with 
 brother and father with son in the strife of civil war — 
 when you will need a father of the State whose parental 
 voice alone could be heard, and whose commanding 
 power could alone be felt to wield the militia power of 
 the State. You might have such a man in such a crisis, 
 who would have to retire under this doctrine of ineligi- 
 bility, at the very moment when there was no other hand 
 to save the people from the fate of desolation. But for 
 the benefit of politicians, for the benefit of aspirants, in 
 order that Mr. A might have his share as well as Mr. B. 
 of the patronage of the people, and when the people did 
 not want to patronize him, the father of the State, it 
 might be, must retire ; the public good must be impaired 
 and the public safety itself must be sacrificed, in order 
 that the politicians may be subserved. I will not vote 
 for this doctrine of ineligibility, either for a long term or 
 a short term, either for the Judiciary or the Executive. 
 There is but one office in the State in regard to whom 
 I will recognise that principle of ineligibility, even as it 
 h proposed, and there I believe the good of the people 
 perhaps require that it shall be recognised — I mean the 
 office of Sheriff. That office is a peculiar one, and it 
 may do a little good there, but I know of no other office 
 in the State to which I would apply it. Like the gen- 
 tleman from Henrico I did not expect this discussion to 
 come up to-day, but from the time I entered this Con- 
 vention I was prepared with the best of reasons in the 
 world, from observation and experience in public life, 
 and as an advocate for the power of the people, to repel 
 this doctrine of ineligibility. You may depend, disguise 
 it as you may — I certainly do not impugn the motive 
 of any gentlemen here, for they are as pure in their mo- 
 tives no doubt, as I am in mine, and we are aiming at 
 the same end I hope, the good of the people, the good 
 of the whole — that the principle they advocate will 
 subserve the few at the expanse of the many, and the 
 few from whom the many ought to be guarded — the 
 party politician few against the power, the conservative 
 power of the sovereign people. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The power of the people is a phrase 
 that always meets with a responsive echo in the breast 
 of every man, but there must be some limitation to it. 
 Will you say that the Governor shall not be a minor ? 
 Will you say that he shall be thirty-five years of age ? If 
 you do — if you say that there shail be any restrictionat 
 all, over the will of the people, then the argument of the 
 gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) is met. What shali 
 be his age ? Shall it twenty-five or thirty ? Many of our 
 ablest commanders have been under thirty, and it might 
 be, that public safety required that a young and able com- 
 mander, who upon the battle field has shown his ability 
 to command the armies of the State, should be called to 
 the office, yet would gentlemen say that he should be 
 called at any age ? It might be, that our Governor was 
 the man above all others, suited to fill a judicial station, 
 and yet another clause of this same section declares that 
 
 he shail not be elected to any other station during his 
 term of office ; and the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. 
 Botts,) I understand to approve of that proposition. 
 Now, wherefore restrict the power of the people ? 
 Wherefore say that the Governor shall be elected to no 
 other office during his continuance in the gubernatorial 
 chair, except it be that you are afraid that he will 
 abuse the office, to serve his own personal purposes in 
 carrying out an aspiring ambition ? But again, this of- 
 ficer is to be elected by the people, and do we expect 
 him to stump it through the whole State ? Is he, while 
 acting as Governor, to go from court-house to court- 
 house, declaring before the people, that he has adminis- 
 tered his office in a manner which ought to be approved ? 
 If he is not to do this, who is to meet his competitor ? 
 — for I take it for granted, that when a Governor is to be 
 elected by the people, that the candidate will go through 
 the State and make himself known to that people ? 
 Whether it is to be expected or not, so far as I know it is 
 the usage, and thus we shall have the spectacle present- 
 ed, of the Governor of Virginia travelling from court- 
 house to court-house, neglecting his official duties, and 
 canvassing for his election before the people ! If he 
 shall not do this, how shall he act ? Shall he remain in 
 dignified retirement at the seat of government, harassed, 
 it may be, by his opponent, and charges made against 
 him, from court-house to court-house, in a hot election- 
 eering campaign by his opponent, and he not there to 
 meet him ? It seems to me, there must necessarily be 
 involved in his absence, a discussion of the measures of 
 his administration, and when he cannot have a fair trial 
 before the people. A man should be confronted with 
 his accuser, but there he cannot be. His public acts 
 will be under discussion by his competitor, and he can- 
 not be confronted with him, unless indeed, he shall de- 
 cide to leave his station in this city, to go there and 
 meet that accuser. Shall he, by his silence, seem to be 
 guilty, or shall he enter the political papers, and there 
 contest the merits of his administration ? How else 
 shall he go before the people, for he must stand as one 
 accused, and he must be condemned unheard, or he must 
 go and electioneer before the people ? But gentlemen 
 contend that this is a clause by which politicians are to 
 be favored. Why, it is a clause, if I understand the 
 gentleman from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Tredwat,) which is 
 now embraced in the present constitution. The pre- 
 sent constitution declares that the Governor may be 
 elected for one term, shall not be elected for a second, 
 may be elected for a third, and cannot be for a fourth. 
 I think the men who were in the Convention of 1829-'30, 
 placed this prohibition on the Executive power, and were 
 they providing merely for the benefit of politicians ? 
 Wherefore did they provide it as they have ? Because 
 the same difficulties did not occur then in the election of 
 a Governor which might when he was carried before the 
 people. He was here in the presence of the Legislature, 
 who could inquire into his conduct and approve or con- 
 demn all of his official acts here, and an official record was 
 kept of all his proceedings in the council, which might be 
 laid before the Legislature when required. Not so when 
 his election is carried before the people. He must remain 
 here and be condemned unheard, or he must enter the 
 political arena, either in the political papers or on the 
 hustings, for his administration must and certainly will 
 be attacked in every hot political campaign. I do not 
 think it can be charged against the gentlemen from Pitt- 
 sylvania, therefore, on moving this proprosition, that even 
 the effect of it can be to provide for politicians. When 
 we entrust power, and when that power carries with it 
 patronage, we must throw guards and limitations around 
 the abuse of that patronage and power ; and ho w can we 
 more effectually provide those guards than by saying 
 that when the officer has discharged his duties for one 
 term, then for the next succeeding term, the people will 
 choose another who, face and face, has met his opponents ? 
 Then the retiring officer, in the interval of two or four 
 years, can go before them and fairly discuss the merits of 
 liis administration, and the next succeeding term the 
 
92 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 people may take him again if they choose. It seems 
 to me that the best possible safeguard you can throw 
 around the Executive, is to say that he shall not be se- 
 lected for the second term next succeeding his first. Then 
 if again selected as a candidate, and arraigned before the 
 people, he can be there to confront his accuser, and face 
 to face answer all charges against him. The first section in 
 the report of the Executive committee provides that the 
 Governor may be elected for two successive terms, but that 
 thereafter he shall be ineligible. I do not feel myself call- 
 ed upon to support that secnon, because I do not approve 
 of i , but I do approve of an intermediate term coming in 
 before he shall be eligible to the office again. These are 
 the few remarks which I have deemed it proper to offer. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I would like to make an explanation. 
 The gentleman does not do my arg ment justice. I did 
 not assert as a reason against ineligibility of itself, that 
 it is a principle which attacks the power of the peo- 
 ple. I was only replying' to the remark of the gentle- 
 man from Pittsylvania, that this principle did not attack 
 the power of the people. And I defy the gentleman 
 from Halifax to meet the assertion that it does attack 
 the power of the people, it is no reply to tell me that 
 the principle of non-age likewise attacks the power of 
 the people. It is no reply to say that we will require 
 the qualification of sanity, and that it will exclude the 
 people from electing a lunatic. No, the question in de- 
 bate is this, that where a man is a citizen, where he is 
 sane, where he is at an age which you may prescribe, and 
 where he has every qualification that the people them- 
 selves determine to be essential to a candidate, is the 
 fact that he has been trusted and tried and been found 
 faithful, a reason that he should be rejected? That is 
 the question which the gentleman from Henrico asks, 
 and which the gentleman from Halifax has failed as es- 
 sentially to answer as did the gentleman from Pittsyl- 
 vania. JSFow, what is the main reason which the gentle- 
 man from Halifax proposes ? Why, that if we allow a 
 candidate, who has been once elected, to be elected again, 
 he will not have a chance to electioneer. Aye, forsooth! 
 Now whom does that concern, the sovereign people or 
 the candidate ? If he has not a fair chance to election- 
 eer, why he will calculate, I presume, like a wise poli- 
 tician, whether his opponent is likely to beat him or not, 
 if he is obliged to remain at the capitol while his com- 
 petitor is electioneering. Let us suppose that we had a 
 man so popular, so able in the discharge of his duty, so 
 far above the necessity of electioneering, that he could 
 in dignity and quietness remain in his gubernatorial seat, 
 at ease, without regard to the efforts of his opposing 
 candidate, and could beat him all hollow; and I could 
 imagine such a case — a man thus pre-eminently popu- 
 lar, a man thus deserving to be re-elected, — the doctrine 
 is he shall not be re-elected, because he will not have a 
 chance to electioneer 1 That will not do. That reason 
 did not meet my argument at all. The fact is, that to say 
 that such a man shall not be re-eligible, is to attack the 
 power of the people unnecessarily and without a reason — 
 that is the argument. To say that the people shall not 
 elect a lunatic, where there is a reason for the restric- 
 tion, does not reach the question. It does not seem to 
 me to meet the issue to say, that because a man in of- 
 fice cannot conveniently electioneer, that therefore he 
 shall not be a candidate. Will they not electioneer 
 at first — in the first instance, before they are installed ? 
 Officers shall not electioneer ! Now I will take another 
 ball at the hop. I do not think electioneering is so very 
 corrupting to public candidates as some gentlemen seem 
 to imagine. I think that, when properly conducted, it 
 is one of the most beneficial things for the candidate 
 and for the people too. To be brought face to face be- 
 fore the people — to be brought into the presence of the 
 majesty of the people — often strips off all robes of of- 
 fice, and takes down many an aristocratic plume. It 
 makes high officers know that they are but the servants 
 of the people ; and not only that, if he is the right man, 
 fit to be elected, conscious not only of his own strength 
 but inspired by the truth and the power of intellect, it will 
 
 do his constituents good to hear him. Let him, if he 
 chooses, leave the chair of State, and come down from 
 the dais of the capitol, and mingle even with the crowd ; 
 and let him be dusty with the dust, or the powder of 
 the arena, the popular arena. If he be a low, base, 
 grovelling politician, if he is a man who relies upon 
 whiskey and humbug^ery to re-elect him, I rely upon 
 the people to observe his points. If he be the man fit 
 to be re elected, it will be good for him, and good for 
 the people, that he shall for a while, leave the executive 
 chair, and-- electioneer — if you please. Now, I have no 
 fears upon that subject — none at all. A little agitation, 
 a little electioneering, in the right way, is like a little 
 electricity in the atmosphere — it is very apt to purify 
 instead of corrupting the public men. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I think I understand the gentle- 
 man from Accomac to maintain that the Governor ought 
 to descend from his chair and electioneer. Do I under- 
 stand the gentleman correctly ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. I said that he may, at will forme, doit, 
 I leave him to judge whether he will or ought to do it — 
 and that the fact that he may be called vpo i to do it, 
 whether he chooses to do it or not, will I e no reason 
 with me why I will not allow him to do it, ( r why I will 
 not make him eligible. It is no manner of objection to 
 me. And do not we all do it? Thank God, that I can 
 proudly say here, that whenever I have wanted public 
 office, without fear, without hypocrisy, I have gone be- 
 fore my people, and asked them for that office. Six 
 times in succession have they favored me with a seat in 
 he House of Representutives. I have electioneered, and 
 I have never yet fornd it necessary to use the first dram 
 with the people — never. 
 
 The CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Halifax yield 
 the floor? 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. Certainly, I yield the floor for an 
 explanntion. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I beg pardon, I merely meant to m ike 
 myself perfectly understood, that I have no antipathy 
 to electioneering. Let the people regulate that among 
 themselves and with their candidates. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. We are providing for an adminis- 
 tration of the executive department of the government. 
 The officer is to be a Governor of the Commonwealth, 
 and we expect him to discharge those duties — it may be 
 for a term of two years or of four years. We provide 
 in one section that he shall reside at the seat of govern- 
 ment. This State is a large state — there are largely over 
 one hundred counties — if the Governor's conduct is to 
 be investigated, how and when is it to be investigated ? 
 At the polls ? Certainly it can be investigated in no 
 other way than before the people. And before the peo- 
 ple he must be arraigned, and arraigned too, pending the 
 administration of his office. I ask, will either the Gov- 
 ernor or the people have a fair chance while he is yet in 
 office administering" its duties? If he replies at all, it 
 mpst be in some distant corner of the country. If he 
 goes from the executive chair to meet his opponent on 
 the hustings, he must meet him in the far west and in 
 the north-west, in the south-east and in the south-west, 
 in every corner of the State. How long is this election- 
 eering to last ? Is it to be for a whole year ? For if he 
 is fairly to meet his competitor in every county in the 
 State, and fairly canvass the opinions of his competitor 
 and defend the'acts of his own administration, it must 
 consume I say, some months at least. Now we are pro- 
 viding for the administration of the functions of the exec- 
 utive, and can these functions be discharged while the ex- 
 ecutive is absent from the seat of government, election- 
 eering among the people ? If he electioneers, he must be 
 absent. How can he meet his opponent ? How can he 
 confront him? How can he hear the charges made 
 against his administration ? He may be charged with cor- 
 ruption, with fraud, or with bribery. He should be 
 there to confront his accuser before the people, that they 
 may judge and vote understandingly. If his measures 
 are condemned, he ought to be there to reply ; and if he is 
 at the head of the StateGovernment, he cannot be there in 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 93 
 
 is there to reply, the executive functions of the govern- 
 ment must suffer in his absence. If you elect the Gov- 
 ernor for two years, one entire year, if he canvasses the 
 entire State, he must be occupied in that canvass. If 
 you elect for four years, why the best part of his time 
 must be occu pied in that way. I do not think, when I re- 
 quire that the people shall have a fair chance to act under- 
 standing^ in the selection of their executive officers, that 
 lam acting merely for the benefit of politicians or unneces- 
 sarily infringing upon popular rights. When charges are 
 made against him, and the executive officer is not there to 
 answer them — it is to ex parte testimony. And ex parte tes- 
 timony is always doing injnstice,both to the accused, in this 
 instance, and to the people, and neither can have justice. 
 The people cannot judge justly, unless he is there to reply 
 to the charges against him. And if he is there to reply and 
 to show himself to be such an Executive officer as we want 
 at the head of the state government, he cannot be here in 
 the discharge of those duties, for he cannot be at both pla- 
 ces at once. Now, we must either throw these restrictions 
 around the executive, and to some extent, trammel the un- 
 limited rights of the people, as we do in respect to age, or 
 the public servi ce will suffer. This is a proper restraint to 
 throw around the unlimited exercise of popular pow- 
 er. The people wish the Governor to have a fair hear- 
 ing. If his administration is attacked, they want him 
 there to reply. They cannot have him there unless they 
 have an intervening term. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I simply wish to remark that the argu- 
 ment of the gentleman is still whether the governor 
 ought to be a candidate or not, and not whether he shall 
 be eligible or no . The gentleman, instead of addressing 
 himself to public reasons, addresses himself to private 
 reasons. Instead of addressing himself to the reasons 
 of public g >od, he addresses himself to the motives 
 which might govern a particular person in office, as to 
 the question whether he will be a candidate or not. Now, 
 if the State be so large, the larger the sphere, the more 
 reasons for his not going forth to reply to electioneerers. 
 Neither he nor his opponent would be expected to can 
 vass the whole State. But suppose his opponent does 
 canvass the whole State and the Governor sits in his chair : 
 I have had some little experience in electioneering eam- 
 paigas, and when any candidate attacks his competitor in 
 his absence, when the people know that the candidate at 
 tacked cannot be at the hustings, and that his opponent 
 has the advantage of running by himself, in every single 
 instance that I have ever seen, the cause of the absent 
 candidate has the advantage, almost uuiversally so. 
 There is a sense of justice that governs the crowd, and 
 they will say Lo themselves, this man who is arraigning 
 his competi or is very b>ld in the absence of his oppo- 
 nent. Any man then, of sagacity, already in office, will 
 sec that he has an advantage in bei ig compelled to stay 
 at home anl attend to his executive duties. But I have 
 an>t'ier answer to the gentleman, and it is, that the po 
 litical caavass for the office of Governor in this State, 
 large as it is, will hardly ever depend upon the Individ 
 ual exertions of the candidates themselves. You will 
 have an organization of parties. They wiil have to do 
 as the gentlemau from Richmond and myself in the 1 
 Presidential campaign of 1847 were compelled to do — i 
 instead of electioneering for themselves, they will have 
 friends to electioneer for them, and I will insure if you i 
 have a democrat and a whig candidate, that you will 
 have your every sixty miles square man, your every < 
 county man, ready to meet an opponent. And the Lord < 
 help some of the candidates when they come into con- l 
 tact with some of these little county court lawyers. ! 
 You start your candidate on going the rounds of the i 
 State, and he must be a very big man who sets himself < 
 up to take the place of Governor. Every thing is ex- i 
 pected from him by the crowd but nothing from little < 
 Jack — somebody — no matter who — who happens to rise 1 
 to oppose him, and little Jack whips the candidate in I 
 their estimation. And he will do it a great deal better 
 than the Governor incumbent would do it for himself, t 
 I know something of the arts of electioneerers and the i 
 
 gentleman does also. This is all fal-lal — I say it with 
 due respect to the gentleman from Halifax — this idea 
 i that you must make a man ineligible because he will not 
 have a fair chance to electioneer for himself. That rea- 
 ! son, I repeat, will not do. 
 
 Mr. TRIGG. I may, perhaps, be peculiarly situated 
 in regard to this particular question. It happens to be 
 , my particular good fortune to concur with both — 
 the gentleman from Halifax and the gentleman from 
 i Accomac. [Laughter.] That being my position, it 
 i will appear very evident to this committee, that this 
 proposition, as it now stands, from the report of the Ex- 
 ; ecutive Committee or either of the amendments which 
 , have been proposed by other gentlemen to the section 
 of that report, cannot meet my views. I rise for the 
 purpose of asking whether it would now be in order to 
 move to strike out the whole of that section. 
 The CHAIR. It would not be in order. 
 Mr. TRIGG. When this question before the commit- 
 mittee shall be disposed of, and the question shall be de- 
 cided, will it then be in order ? 
 
 The CHAIR. It will then be in order. 
 Mr. TRIGG. Before the question is put, I will read 
 my proposition, in order to show the committee that I 
 am right in stating my agreement with both the gentle- 
 man from Halifax and the gentleman from Accomac. It 
 is the proposition that was submitted the other day by 
 the gentleman from Rockbridge, (Mr. Letcher,) and is 
 as follows : 
 
 Strike out the first section of the first article of the 
 report of the Executive Committee, as follows : 
 
 " 1. The chief executive power of this Commonwealth 
 shall be vested in a Governor. He shall hold his office 
 
 for the term of four years, to commence on the day 
 
 of next preceding his election, and he shall be in- 
 eligible to that office after his second term shall have ex- 
 pired, and to any other office during his term of service." 
 And insert the following in lieu thereof, viz : 
 Sec. 1st. The chief executive power of this Common- 
 wealth shall be vested in a Governor, to be elected by 
 the qualified voters. He shall hold his office for two 
 years, to commence on the day of next suc- 
 ceeding his election. He shall be re-eligible for a second 
 term, and ineligible to any other office during his term 
 of service. 
 
 If the office of Governor is to be for a term beyond two 
 years, — if it is to run to the length of tour years, as is 
 submitted by the gentleman from Halifax, then I would 
 go for making him ineligible for a second term. If, how- 
 ever, the office is not to be held for such a length of term 
 of service as four v ears, and the term shall be of short 
 duration, then I would go for making the office eligible 
 for a second term. I am therefore with the gentleman 
 from Halifax in his principle of ineligibility after the sec- 
 ond term; and on the other hand I am Avith the gentle- 
 man from Accomac, in his principle of re-eligibility after 
 the first term. This proposition will be subaiittted 
 either by the; gentleman from Rockbridge or myself at 
 the proper time. 
 
 The CHAIR. There are two propositions before the 
 Committee. The first is from the gentleman from Pitt- 
 sylvania, (Mr. Tredway,) as follows : — strike out the 
 words " and he shall be ineligible to that office, after his 
 second term shall have transpired," and insert in lieu 
 thereof, the words " and he shall not be eligible to that 
 office for the term next succeeding that for which he was 
 elected." The other is the proposition of the gentleman 
 from Henrico. He proposes to strike out the words "to 
 that office after his second term shall have expired, and," 
 and to insert nothing. As these are propositions of 
 comparison, and as the friends of the measure have the 
 right to perfect it before a final motion to strike out, the 
 question must first be taken on the amendment submitted 
 by the gentleman from Pittsylvania. If that fails, then 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Henrico comes up. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I rise for the purpose of submitting the 
 motion that the committee now rise and report progress, 
 and ask leave to sit again. I am myself not in a situa* 
 
94 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 tion to give ray vote upon the pending question. The 
 debate has come on, I confess, unexpectedly to me, and 
 I hope the committee will agree to rise and report pro- 
 gress. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee rose, 
 reported progress, and had leave to sit again. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Norfolk county. I move that when 
 the Convention adjourn, it adjourn to meet to-morrow 
 morning at 12 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I move that the Convention do now 
 adjourn. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Yf hat was the motion of the gen- 
 tleman from Norfolk ? 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I made my motion expressly to 
 override that gentleman's. 
 
 The motion to adjourn was agreed to, and the Conven- 
 tion adjourned until to-morrow at 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 SATURDAY, February 1, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 ALLOWANCE OF AN ACCOUNT. 
 
 Mr. BRAXTON offered the following resolution, and 
 it was adopted. 
 
 Resolved, That Alfred T. Thornton be allowed $2 per 
 day for attending to this Convention, and the building in 
 which it holds its session. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 On motion of Mr. STRAUGHAN, the Convention re- 
 sumed the consideration in committee of the whole, 
 (Mr: WATTS of Norfolk in the chair,) of the report of 
 the Committee on the Executive Department. 
 
 RE-ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The CHAIR. When the committee rose yesterday 
 there were two propositions before it ; one offered by 
 Mr. Tredway, who moved to strike out the words 
 " and he shall be ineligible to that office after his second 
 term shall have expired, and to any other office during 
 his term of service," from the first section of the first 
 article, and to insert in lieu thereof the words. " and he 
 shall not be eligible to that office during the term next 
 succeeding, nor to any other office during his term of 
 service." The second proposition was by the gentleman 
 from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) who moved to strike out in the 
 same section the words, " to that office after his second 
 term shall have expired," so that the sentence would 
 read : " he shall hold his office during the term of four 
 years, to commence on the day of next suc- 
 ceeding his election, and he shall be ineligible to any 
 other office during his term of service." These are the 
 propositions before the committee. The question will 
 be first on the proposition submitted by the gentleman 
 from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Trebway.) 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It was on my motion that the commit- 
 tee rose on yesterday, and as by parliamentary usage I 
 am entitled to the privilege, I will address some obser- 
 vations to the Chair. I do not rise for the purpose 
 of making what is properly called a speech ; but simply 
 for the purpose of throwing out some suggestions to the 
 members of this body in regard to the propositions 
 which now occupy their attention. I confess that when 
 the report of the Executive Committee was promul- 
 gated, and I had an opportunity in common with others 
 to see the result of their labors, I was much disappointed. 
 I might say and with perfect sincerity, I was much 
 pained, to find that they had in fact recommended the 
 election of the Chief Magistrate of this Commonwealth 
 for a period of eight years — an election originally for four 
 years, with a re-eligibility for a second term. If I was 
 pained and surprised at the result of the deliberations of 
 the committee, imagine how much more I was pained 
 and astonished when I found that ray honorable col- 
 league who sits before me, (Mr. Botts,) was in favor not 
 only of the election of this great officer, who is to be 
 
 commander-in-chief of all the military force of the State 
 for this long period of eight years, but desirous that he 
 might be rendered eligible to this high office even dur- 
 ing a long life. That there should in his opinion be no 
 limitation whatever, none, to the eligibility of a solitary 
 individual to the office of the Chief Magistrate of Vir- 
 ginia ! And the opinion of my honorable colleague was 
 endorsed by the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Wise.) 
 That gentleman took the position that the man who is 
 to be the commander-in-chief of the navy and of the 
 army of the State, who shall have the power to pro- 
 rogue the Legislature, and to convene it, — in whom is to 
 be contained, in a word, the entire executive power and 
 patronage of the State, — that this individual, who will 
 be possessed with the entire executive power of the 
 State, and the military power of the State to boot, shall 
 be eligible to this office for life. I have had an acquaint- 
 ance with the people of Virginia in the various sections 
 of it for no very short time, and I can say with entire 
 sincerity, that I never have met with the first individual 
 who did not belong to the school of the black cockade 
 federalist, who desired that the office of the Presi- 
 dent of the United States should be continued in the 
 same individual during the life of that individual j and 
 so also have I never met the first individual in Virginia 
 who desired that the Chief Magistrate of Virginia should 
 be elected for a period like this, or that he should be el- 
 igible for a period like this. Now, I take it for granted 
 that eligibility for a second term is tantamount to an 
 election for the second term, unless the incumbent in 
 office has been guilty of some flagrant misdeed. I take 
 it for granted if the Governor of Virginia is eligible for 
 a second term, that unless some charges of the most se- 
 rious character are made and proved upon that man, 
 that he will be selected by the people. Yes, I go fur- 
 ther and express it as my humble opinion, that even 
 with these charges against him, considering the vautage 
 ground which that officer will occupy, the patronage 
 which he will wield in his position, will give him a most 
 decided advantage over his competitors ; unless indeed 
 he shall either be most unfortunate, or shall have per- 
 petrated some act against the public interest of an out- 
 rageous character. This officer is to be continued in 
 office for a period of eight years. Is this reform I Is this 
 republican reform ? Is this the reform that the people 
 of Virginia expect at the hands of this Convention? I 
 have never known any gentleman upon the hustings to 
 declare that it was his intention to advocate an election 
 of the Governor for a period like this. When our fore- 
 fathers of '76 formed a constitution, they provided that 
 the chief Executive officer should be elected annually — 
 it is true by the Legislature — but elected annually. And 
 after he had been elected for three successive terms of a 
 year each, he was then by that constitution, (the work 
 of such men as Henry, and Mason, and Jefferson,) declared 
 to be ineligible to that office for a like period of three 
 years. So in regard to the Convention of '29 and '30, 
 the distinguished men who formed the constitution of 
 that period, provided, it is true, that the Governor should 
 be elected for three years, and not annually, but they 
 took care to provide also that after having served those 
 three years, he should, in like manner be ineligible for a 
 period of three years. Was it ever known by any gen- 
 tleman here or elsewhere, that it wak a cause of com- 
 plaint, in regard to the authors of this constitution, tha,t 
 an individual was rendered ineligible [to the office after 
 having served in it ! Was it ever complained by any 
 man in Virginia that the constitution is objectionable 
 upon this score ? No, I venture the assertion that the 
 complaint was never made ; at least if it "Was, it never 
 reached my ears. An argument was ' adduced by the 
 gentleman from Accomac yesterday), that the time 
 might come when it would be of necessity proper to 
 continue the same man in office ; that iche circumstances 
 of the State might require as a matterf of necessity that 
 the people should continue the man who occupies the 
 the Gubernatorial chair for the purpose of com- 
 manding the army if need be, for the protection^ of the 
 State. Did it not strike the Convention that this is the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 95 
 
 plea ever resorted to by tyrants. Necessity is the ty- 
 rant's plea. It was necessity that caused Julius Caesar 
 to pass the Rubicon. It was necessity that compelled 
 Napoleon to the performance of many of his ambitious 
 schemes. He was the subject of fate. Necessity re- 
 quired that he should perform this act and the other for 
 his own ambition and aggrandizement. I cannot be- 
 lieve the time will ever arrive in Virginia, when there 
 will be but one man in the good old Commonwealth ca- 
 pable of acting as Chief Magistrate, and if need be, of 
 commanding our armies. I believe, on the contrary, that 
 the occasion will ever produce the means and the man 
 necessary for the preservation of the rights of the peo- 
 ple. I cannot then accord with the argument of neces- 
 sity. I cannot agree with the gentleman from Accomac, 
 that this Constitution should leave the door open to the 
 perpetual election of the same individual, because for- 
 sooth, there may be no other man than he who occupies 
 the chair of State for the time-being, capable of guiding 
 the counsels of the State. Why, I ask, should we de- 
 part from a rule which has worked well ? Why should 
 we depart from this rule prescribed by our ancestors 
 of 1776, and prescribed by our cotemporaries of 1829, 
 '30 in regard to this principle of ineligibility after a 
 length of time in service ? Why should we introduce 
 upon the present occasion, this new principle ? Is it to 
 give to a particular portion of this good old Common- 
 wealth perpetual control of the other portion of it ? I 
 listened yesterday for some reason that could operate on 
 my mind why this essential change should be made, but 
 I heard none. I have not had an opportunity to exam- 
 ine into the various constitutions of the other States of 
 this Union, for the purpose of ascertaining whether this 
 principle has been engrafted into those constitutions. But 
 I have a recollection of some few of them, and I am very 
 elear that this principle of perpetual eligibility is en- 
 grafted in none of them. I believe if it be engrafted on 
 this Constitution which we propose to make, and which I 
 trust we shall make, that it will be entirely new. Will 
 a constitution that authorizes the chief Executive Mag- 
 istrate to be elected for life be a republican constitution? 
 Is it a republican principle that the Executive Govern- 
 ment shall be vested in the Chief Executive officer for 
 life ? I repeat, is it a republican principle ? It certainly 
 was not so considered in 1776. It certainly was not 
 considered a republican principle by such men as Mason, 
 Grayson and Henry and those sages who prepared the 
 venerable instrument which has been so much praised, 
 and with justice. It is an instrument which has been 
 regarded by many as forming the wisest set of rules 
 ever prescribed for the government and the regulation 
 of any people. This compliment bestowed upon the 
 Constitution of 1776 did not eminate from ordinary 
 men. The opinions of the excellence of that constitu- 
 tion were expressed by such men as Marshall, Randolph 
 and Leigh, and a host of others of equal or approximating 
 celebrity and estimation in this country. But I am in 
 favor of the principle of re-eligibility. Iam in favor of 
 submitting the public servant to the people, who have 
 conferred the office upon him. I am in favor of his be- 
 ing required, or of his having the privilege, of passing in 
 review before those whose appointment he has exercised, 
 because I am satisfied that this will be an incentive to a 
 proper discharge of his duties. I am satisfied that the 
 man who is elected Chief Magistrate for two years, and 
 who knows that he may be re-elected for two years 
 more, will be induced, excited and stimulated to exert 
 himself in office that he may deserve the approbation 
 and approval of his constituents. If, however, you ex- 
 tend this principle to an unreasonable extent, if vou 
 render the individual thus re-eligible for life, you intro- 
 duce a counter principle ; a principle utterly at war with 
 the one of rotation in office, and subversive of other 
 principles dear to liberty, and which never will be sur- 
 rendered in my humble judgment, by the people of Vir- 
 ginia. The gentleman who addressed you on yesterday 
 said that this principle of the one term was the work of 
 small politicians. Yes, and that at Washington the at- 
 
 tempt to limit the Presidency to a single term was the 
 machinations of small politicians. Who those small pol- 
 iticians were or are, I am at a loss to conjecture, unless 
 they were such men as Clay and Cass, and Polk, and some 
 others who have reached the Presidency. I fancy these 
 gentlemen— small politicians if they be— are in favor of 
 the one term principle ; and I believe that the great 
 mass of the people, who are also small politicians— for 
 there are hardly any of us who are not politicians of some 
 calibre or other, [laughter,] require this rotation in office. 
 They believe in the principle of rotation. 
 
 But it was said by one or both .of the distinguished 
 gentlemen who addressed you, that Washington himself 
 had given his sanction to the principle of re-eligibility. 
 It is true that Washington gave his sanction to the prin- 
 ciple of re-eligibility. That great and good man, it is 
 true, served a second term, and he retired with every 
 honor which it was possible that a human being could 
 receive at the hands of other human beings. But sup- 
 pose that this great and good man, instead of setting the 
 great and good example that he did set in retiring from 
 the office of President after the second term had expired, 
 had held on to the office, and continued in it to the day 
 of his death, think you that other politicians would not 
 have followed in his footsteps ? Think you that his suc- 
 cessors would not have endeavored to follow in his co- 
 lossal strides ? My life upon it, that even the small poli- 
 ticians alluded to by my honorable colleague (Mr. Botts) 
 and the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) would 
 have attempted to have continued themselves in the 
 office of President for life. That very clause which ren- 
 ders the President eligible for life, constitutes, as far as 
 my information goes, one of the strongest objections to 
 the Federal Constitution. It may be said of it— it was 
 said of it— that the wise men who formed this Constitu- 
 tion established the principle of eligibility for life ; but let 
 gentlemen cast back their recollections to the' period 
 when the Constitution was formed and the circumstan- 
 ces under which it was formed. Let them cast back their 
 minds to the proposition made in the Convention of 
 1787. If I do not mistake the history of that period, 
 there was a party in these United States at that time' 
 not only disposed that the President of the United States 
 should be eligible to office for life, but that he should be 
 elected outright for life. That party was the party of 
 Hamilton. There were others, it is true, who were dis- 
 posed that the President of the United States should be 
 elected for a very short period, and, if my information is 
 not at fault, there were some who proposed even that he 
 should be elected for a single year. The constitution of 
 these ^ United States then was like every other constitu- 
 tion in this respect, a matter of compromise. It was 
 a compromise between the extremes of the two parties, 
 and the principle of re-eligibility was adopted. It was 
 said, however, that this re-eligibility was intended only 
 for the first President of the United States— how that 
 may be I am not prepared to answer. If it was so in- 
 tended, that great and good man gave to those who in- 
 tended that he should occupy the chair of state for life, 
 that wise rebuke which he was so competent to give. 
 But perhaps an argument may be used that the Govern- 
 or, after he is elected for a term or two, will retire. The 
 Governor of Virginia, with a salary of five to seven 
 thousand dollars, with all the delightful patronage which 
 will attach to that office, after having served in it for a 
 term or two, will, like Washington, retire, and let others 
 succeed him! Let us test this by a little experience. 
 How many gentlemen who are elected for a term of two 
 years to Congress, retire ? How many gentlemen who 
 are elected to the Senate of the State for four years, re- 
 tire? Why just so many, I think, as are compelled' by 
 the votes of their constituents, and no more. [Laughter.] 
 And so, in my humble judgment, it will be in regard to 
 the gubernatorial office. The Governor, if he is a man of 
 address, ability and liberality, will be in for life; unless 
 the proposition of your committee is amended, he will be 
 in for eight years certainly, a period twice as long as I 
 am prepared to say any man should occupy the office of 
 
96 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 chief magistrate of the State. I would consent to vote 
 for a term of two years, and render him eligible for two 
 years more ; and perhaps I might, as a matter of compro- 
 mise, extend his eligibility to a third term, which would 
 give him a period of six years, but beyond that period I 
 cannot, I will not go. If I am forced to vote between 
 these competing propositions, 1 shall be compelled to 
 vote for that which confines the election to a single term 
 of four years. I shall be under the necessity of voting 
 against the proposition of the committee, but I shall vote 
 against the proposition of my honorable colleague (Mr. 
 Botts) with even more pleasure than I shall against that 
 of the committee. The proposition of the committee, in 
 my humble judgment, is bad enough, but when we ex- 
 tend that proposition to an election for life, I think it 
 will be found unendurable. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. (In his seat.) There is no such proposi 
 tion pending. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman says there is no such 
 proposition as would extend au election to the life of the 
 incumbent. I certainly did not understand that there 
 was any restriction in the proposed amendment, but 
 that the incumbent of the executive office might under it. 
 be elected over and over again as long as the people 
 thought proper to elect him. I have found it necessary 
 — I have thought it due to myself to say this much. I 
 have been very little prepared for the discussion, and 
 there are many other tilings that might be said. I shall 
 be compelled to vote against the proposition to amend 
 the report of the committee by the proposition of my col- 
 league, and I shall vote for the proposition which will 
 confine the election of the chief magistrate to a period of 
 four years only. And I hope and trust it will be the 
 pleasure of the Convention, that it will be its wisdom, to 
 confine the term of the chief executive officer to a short 
 period. I hope and I trust that the reflections of this 
 committee will satisfy them that it is necessary to an 
 swer the public expectation, that they shall remember 
 that this Convention was convened with a view to pro- 
 pose reforms that should render the Constitution more 
 republican and more congenial to the wishes of the peo- 
 ple. And I repeat again, there is no man who has ever 
 expressed, either in print or in any address, coming with- 
 in my cognizance, a desire to seethe chief executive offi- 
 cer elected for a period equal even to eight years, not to 
 say twelve or sixteen years, or for life. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. The question propounded to the Con- 
 vention by the report of the Executive committee, if I 
 understand it correctly, is the propriety of electing your 
 Governor for four years and then of rendering him ineli- 
 gible for a like term of four years. I believe that there is 
 wisdom in having a provision in your Constitution impo- 
 sing this restriction upon the privileges of those who 
 might be successful candidates for the gubernatorial of- 
 fice. Gentlemen have argued the question upon the sup- 
 position that to put a restriction of this kind in your 
 Constitution is to limit the rights of the people, but I 
 believe it to be only a restraint upon the privileges of 
 those who may be your Governors. It is no restraint 
 upon the rightful power of the people, and cannot and 
 will not result in any detriment to the public service. 
 From other modes of thinking, brought about by the ar- 
 bitrary character of other governments and the limited 
 rights of the people under those governments, whenever 
 the proposition is propounded of putting restraints upon 
 the rights and the powers of the people, the relative 
 proposition is at once suggested that the object is to in- 
 vest the government with a power which is taken from 
 the people. That is not the object of the proposition 
 now before the Convention. No one advocates the di- 
 vesting of the people of any lawful authority and the in- 
 vesture of it in the government. On the contrarv, it is 
 a restraint which the people through their representa- 
 tives are voluntarily determining, if adopted, to put on 
 their own action ; for the interest of all is that the rights 
 of the minority shall never be injured by the capricious 
 exercise of authority on the part of the majority. Is 
 there anything in this like a violation of popular rights ? 
 
 Are we disregarding the fundamental principles of liber- 
 ty and republicanism when we voluntarily choose to re- 
 strain our own powers, and when experience has demon- 
 strated that no evil can result from that voluntary re- 
 straint ? What is the objection to a proposition making 
 your governor ineligible ? It must be because you there- 
 by put an improper restriction upon the privileges of 
 this member of the community, or you sacrifice the pub- 
 lic interest by doing it, or you put an unnecessary re- 
 straint upon the wishes and the pleasure of the majority. 
 Either one of these causes or reasons must be in favor of 
 the opposition to this restraint, or some of them, or all 
 of them. Wow, I take it for granted that we are not 
 here for the purpose of legislating for individual advan- 
 tage. We all admit that this Convention has been 
 called to extend the rights and powers of the people. 
 And how is this to be done ? Not by removing any 
 wholesome restraint which has heretofore been imposed 
 upon the exercise of power, but to take from the hands of 
 their agents powers which they have heretofore exercis- 
 ed, and return it to the hands of the people. I am in 
 favor of the election of the chief magistrate by the peo- 
 ple. The election has been heretofore made by the le- 
 gislature, and the reform I understand the people to de- 
 sire, so far as I have any knowledge of the wishes of the 
 people on that point, is to take this power from the hands 
 of their agents, and place it in their own hands. To do 
 this, is it necessary to go a step further and throw off all 
 the wholesome restraints which heretofore have been 
 imposed upon the power of the majority by the consti- 
 tution under which we have lived, and say that there 
 shall be no restraint whatever upon the power and wish- 
 es of the people ? Land-marks have heretofore existed, 
 by which we liave been guided in exercising this power, 
 or by which our agents have been guided and no evil has 
 resulted. Shall we strike down and obliterate those 
 land-marks and say that the people shall be under no re- 
 straint whatever, and may exercise the power even capri- 
 ciously if they choose, without any wholesome restraint 
 which may be imposed for the purpose of protecting the 
 minority '? No gentleman, I suppose, desires that there 
 shall be removed any restraint which has heretofore ex- 
 ercised a wholesome influence in protecting the rights of 
 the minority. If then no one will say that it is ri^ht 
 and proper for the benefit of the people that this restric 
 tion be removed, that there should be none such in jour 
 Constitution, I humbly conceive that no one will object 
 to a resolution of this sort, in order that individuals may 
 reap the benefit of its omission. No one has asserted 
 any such argument as that in favor of this principle of 
 re-eligibility to any indefinite length of time. 
 
 Well then, is it necessary for the public good that 
 your chief magistrate should be re-elected as long as the 
 people choose ? If there were even benefits resulting 
 from the power of re-electing him as often and so long 
 as a majority of the people might desire, and there were 
 counterbalancing evils resulting from it, it would still be 
 the duty of the Convention to restrict their power. The 
 gentleman from Accomac, in illustrating his position, 
 made a reference to the ordinary occupations and em- 
 ployments of life, which it did seem to me was entirely 
 inapplicable as an illustration of the question now be- 
 fore this committee. The gentleman told us that if he 
 had a man in his employment, who had faithfully 
 exercised the powers with which he had been en- 
 trusted for the promotion of his employer's benefit, 
 that the fact that he had faithfully discharged his du- 
 ties for a length of time, would constitute no good rea- 
 son for displacing him and employing some one else. 
 Certainly not ; but is that a parrallel case with the one 
 now before us ? There a single individual had the con- 
 trol of the person in his employment, and he had the 
 power of making him carry out his wishes, and of see- 
 ing that he attended to the protection of his interests. 
 But here it is not so. Suppose this agent had beeniu the 
 employment of three persons, for the purpose of attend- 
 ing to a business in which all were interested, but in 
 which the interests of each of the seperate parties were 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 97 
 
 conflicting ; if a majority of these persons thus associa- 
 ted together in business had the unlimited control of 
 keeping this agent in their employ, and their interests 
 were different and conflicting, and there was a means 
 by which the interests of the two could be attended to, 
 to the detriment of the interests of the third, would there 
 not be some propriety in having a provision in the arti- 
 cle of agreement bv which this agent should not be 
 employed for any length of time by the majority of the 
 concern ? That is the case here. The people of Virginia 
 form a sovereign State, but that sovereignty is made 
 up of many parts, of diversified interests and feelings, 
 and of conflicting interests and feelings, and if this agent 
 has a temptation to be corrupt in his employment, by 
 attending to the interests of the majority at the expense 
 of the minority, will not, I ask, that temptation be strong 
 enough, according to the history of human governments 
 heretofore, to induce him to violate the rights of that 
 minority, to attend more exclusively to the interests of 
 the majority, and to shape his conduct so as to retain 
 the support of that majority ? The essence of govern- 
 ment is power, and power must be lodged in the hands 
 of men, who are ever frail, and power, consequently, in 
 their hands is always liable to abuse. It is true that 
 we are not here exposed to the same dangers to which 
 the people are in less free and republican forms of gov- 
 ernment. In a monarchy, the interests of the whole may 
 be subverted at the will and caprice of a single man, and 
 in aristocracies, the rights of the many are subservient 
 to the wishes of the few. How is it in republican gov- 
 ernments ? Why the rights of a minority may be sub- 
 verted to the will of the majority. We are all exposed 
 to that danger. The evil is not entirely removed, be- 
 cause we have adopted a free and republican govern- 
 ment. There is still power lodged somewhere, which, 
 if not properly restrained, may result in injury and in 
 detriment to the rights of the minority, and I say it is 
 wise and proper in framing your organic law, that you 
 should have a reference to this fact. We may trust that 
 none of these conflicts of feelings and interests which 
 may place temptation in the way of the man who is 
 your chief magistrate, may occur, but no man can tell 
 when they will come. We have certainly a diversity of 
 feeling, and of interest too, among us, and the only ques- 
 tion is, whether we will not place voluntarily on ourselves 
 the restraint which may prevent any evils from growing 
 out of this office. 
 
 This is not a new principle. It is one which has always 
 existed in the Constitution of Virginia — the first written 
 constitution of any American State — a constitution made 
 by wise""and patriotic men, and from the first day of its 
 existence to the latest there has been no evil resulting 
 from it. I do not believe that the people of Virginia 
 have ever suffered because their Governors were not re- 
 eligible. Gentlemen say that it is necessary that our 
 Governor should be re-eligible in order to incite him to 
 the faithful discharge of his duties while in office. Has 
 that been necessary according to the history of the gu- 
 bernatorial office in Virginia % Has it not heretofore been 
 a stepping stone to some higher office ? And now that 
 the election is to be made by the people, will not aspi- 
 ring, ambitious men most gladly seek it, with a view 
 that they may become popular among the people, in or- 
 der to obtain a higher office ? The incentive has hereto- 
 fore existed to induce yeur governors faithfully to per- 
 form their duties, so far as virtuous and proper incen- 
 tives should exist for that purpose. That may not be 
 exactly the case in regard to the Constitution of the 
 United States. In the opinion of our countrymen general- 
 ly, there is ao higher honor to be sought for than the 
 Presidency. A man who has obtained that high post 
 cannot look any higher for a round to climb up on the 
 ladder of ambition. But I do not believe that any man 
 who is elected even to that high office, needs the incen- 
 tive of the prospect of re-election, to induce him to dis- 
 charge faithfully his duties. I have that faith and con- 
 fidence in the virtue and intelligence of the people, and 
 in their powers of judgment and discrimination, to W- 
 7 
 
 lieve that they never will place in office a man who 
 could only be iuduced to the faithful performance of his 
 duty, by holding out to him the reward of a re-election. 
 Whenever you get a man in office who can only be in- 
 duced to the faithful discharge of his duty, by holding 
 up to him that glittering prize, he will be found to be 
 one who will sacrifice the rights of those over whom he 
 has control, to serve his purpose. If there is not virtue 
 enough in him to induce the faithful discharge of his du- 
 ty without the hope of a re-election, I humbly conceive 
 that there is very little confidence to be placed in his 
 action, by holding up any prize of that kind for the pur- 
 pose. Suppose — and in legislating in the formation of 
 the organic law of our State, it is our duty to look to 
 all probable contingencies — the time should arise when 
 there was a conflict of section with section in the State 
 — if your governor was to be re-elected, would there 
 not be a temptation thrown in his way to take sides in 
 that conflict ? Suppose any action of your governor 
 was in violation of the fundamental principles of truth 
 and justice, and of the rights of any portion of your State, 
 and he was called on for a re-election. Suppose this er- 
 ror of his, this violation of his trust, was of such an im- 
 portance as to make it proper that there should be a 
 rightful decision of the people of his action, what would 
 be the proper way to get an impartial decision of the 
 matter ? Would it be for the governor to seek a re- 
 election, to enter into the political arena and to enlist 
 his personal friends and those who were benefitted by 
 his misconduct, in his behalf, in order to secure are-elec- 
 tion, and thereby the sanction of his error by the popu- 
 lar judgment and feeling ? It does seem to me, that 
 when these conflicts are to come about, and when it is 
 requisite for the proper working of our republican gov- 
 ernment that all these questions should be justly deci- 
 ded, that there should not be any personal appeal made 
 to the people in this way, by those who have committed 
 these misdemeanors, if we want to have a proper judg- 
 ment upon them. I believe that some of the worst er- 
 rors which have found countenance and support among 
 the republics of this country, have originated in the ef- 
 forts to defend the character and to maintain the policy 
 of those who have called upon us for a re-election. In 
 the administration of your federal government, no chief 
 executive who is put in power by a large party, and 
 who applies to that party for a re-election after having 
 committed what is thought by the other party and what 
 the unbiased judgment of the country will pronounce to 
 be abuses of office, will fail to enlist the feelings of his 
 party in the support of those abuses, in order to justify 
 before the people, that call for a re-election. All power 
 here is vested in the hands of the people, and it is the 
 doctrine of all of us, that the only way to secure the 
 permanency of our institutions, and to give stability to 
 our form of government, is to preserve pure the virtue 
 of the people. Corrupt it, and your government and ev- 
 ery thing connected with it, becomes insupportable. And 
 the only way to preserve it pure and incorrupt, is never 
 to allow any man who is identified with a great and 
 popular party, to come before the people for]a re-election, 
 who will have to have his conduct vindicated by them 
 in order to excuse a re-election. The feelings of his 
 party become enlisted in his behalf and they necessarily, 
 in order to vindicate his conduct, by degrees become en- 
 listed in support of even his errors, and so far from ben- 
 efit, evil, and nothing but evil, can result from it. 
 
 This principle for which we are contending, is no new 
 one. Under the old constitution the Governor was elect- 
 ed annually, could serve three years, and then was ineli- 
 gible for three years after. Under the present constitu- 
 tion he serves for three years, and then is ineligible after 
 that time. We propose but to keep up this principle. 
 There have been no complaints against it, and no pul blic 
 inconvenience resulting from it, and why depart from a 
 principle engrafted on our fundamental law by wise and 
 patriotic men, when there is not a solitary complaint 
 against it ? We are told by gentlemen that they are in 
 favor of the most unlimited exercise of the popular voice. 
 
98 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Well, we are not for taking away from the people any 
 power at all — we are not for restricting them in the ex- 
 ercise of power further than to say that here is a public 
 officer who has been once elected and whose re-election 
 may produce evil, when no good can possibly result from 
 it — and we voluntarily determine that we will not exer- 
 cise the power of placing that individual in office who 
 may, from his station, use the powers with which he is 
 invested, to the injury of some for the benefit of others. 
 Are we at all depriving the people of their rights ? — are 
 we at all infringing upon any great principle of public 
 liberty ? Is it necessary, in order that all the great rights 
 of freedom shall be secured, that the people should have 
 the unlimited right of electing any man to office whom 
 they please ? We have imposed other restraints and no 
 one has objected to them. This restraint is a wholesome 
 one, has heretofore existed, and without complaint from 
 the people, and why should we now strike it out ? I had 
 supposed that the progress which had been made in re- 
 publican government, and in the development of the 
 rights of man, had resulted in establishing the fact that, 
 the power of the government ought to be so exercised 
 as to protect the rights of all. I do not understand that 
 the advancement which we have been making in free in- 
 stitutions and in democracy, requires that we should 
 give the majority unlimited power. The more restraints 
 that you throw around power, the better it is for the 
 rights"of all. The more you put it beyond the power of 
 the government to oppress any man, the greater advances 
 have you made in liberty, and civilization ; and it does 
 seem to me that we are taking a backward step when we 
 say that a majority shall not be limited or controlled at 
 all in the exercise of power, but may govern as will or 
 caprice may dictate. It is the part of a wise man to 
 throw restraints upon himself. He is liable to act under 
 excitement and from sudden impulses — and for his own 
 protection, for his own liberty, and for his own welfare, 
 he imposes restraints upon himself to prevent such sud- 
 den action under sudden excitements. And such re- 
 straints are equally proper, wise, and salutary, when 
 voluntarily imposed upon the people by themselves. 
 They are liable to act under sudden excitement, to be 
 influenced by passion, and by sectional jealousy, and 
 from which conflicts may spring up, no body can tell 
 when, and it is only a proper restraint for them to say, 
 we will not exercise a power which may result in injury 
 to some portion of the community, and which is not ne- 
 cessary for the benefit and protection of the people. I 
 believe that no good can result from this inovation — it 
 is not required by the demands of the people, nor by 
 public necessity ; and I will not consent to the making 
 of an innovation merely because we love novelty and 
 are unwilling to be taught by the experience and wisdom 
 of the past. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. The question before the Conven- 
 tion is one that involves a very important principle. 
 As I understand it, at this time there are three distinct 
 propositions before the Convention — one proposition is to 
 make the Governor, the chief executive officer of the 
 State, elective for four years and re- eligible for a second 
 term, and ineligible thereafter. That is the report of 
 the executive committee. Another proposes to make 
 him ineligible for a second term, and re-eligible 
 thereafter. And a third proposes to do away with 
 all restrictions, and make him eligible for life, if it shall 
 be the pleasure of the people to re-elect him so long. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. The gentleman mi stakes the proposition ; 
 and a very material mistake. 
 
 The CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Richmond 
 give way ? 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. Certainly sir,— I have no desire 
 to misrepresent the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to put the gentleman right as 
 to the actual proposition before the Convention. No 
 proposition has been submitted to this Convention to 
 make any man eligible for life. It is, to make him re- 
 eligible just so long as he suits the people better than 
 any body else. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. Precisely sir. I do not know that 
 I have misstated the proposition. I desired to say that 
 the proposition made him re eligible for life,, if the people 
 choose to elect him. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. No sir — re eligible for two or four years. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. Well, re-eligible for terms of four 
 years, for life, if the peojne choose to make him so — 
 that is the proposition. I would, if it were in or- 
 der, submit another proposition, for no one of those 
 now before the committee entirely expresses my ideas 
 upon this subject. I would make this officer wholly in- 
 eliible after the expiration of one term. I do not know 
 what the origin of the one term principle is, but we 
 were informed yesterday, by my friend and colleague 
 from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) and by the gentleman from 
 Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) that the principle had its origin 
 with the politicians of the country. That may be so, 
 but whatever its paternity, I believe it is a principle 
 which has met with entire favor with the great body of 
 the people ; and I am led to this belief from the fact 
 that it is a principle which has been adopted on more oc- 
 casions than one, by both the great political parties of 
 the country. And it is not to be supposed that those 
 sagacious gentlemen called politicians, would be willing 
 to go before the people of the country with a principle 
 inscribed upon their banners which they believed to be 
 unpopular. I have never heard any public dissent to 
 the principle, and I give to it my most hearty approba- 
 tion. I would see it engrafted upon the Constitution, 
 for I believe it not only finds favor with the people, but 
 that it can be vindicated upon principle. But from the 
 indications shown by the Convention yesterday, I do not 
 think it necessary to offer that proposition. The indica- 
 tions seemed unfavorable to the adoption of any such 
 principle, and in this condition, I shall endeavor to sup- 
 port the one that comes nearest to it ; and I shall there- 
 fore support the proposition of the gentleman from Ap- 
 pomattox, (Mr. Bocock,) as accepted by the gentleman 
 from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Tredway, ) which is, to make 
 the Governor ineligible for the second term — the next 
 succeeding term. I believe it will accomplish very nearly 
 the same end. If we can once get him out, we can keep 
 him out. 
 
 I said that this principle, I thought, could be defended 
 upon sound argument, and the reasons which have led 
 me to advocate it, are simply these : In the first place, 
 I believe it will secure to the people of this country a 
 pure administration of the executive office. J believe 
 that you will, by making this officer ineligible for 
 a second term, withdraw from him all motive to exercise 
 the functions of his office for corrupt and intriguing pur- 
 poses. There is a tendency in this country, and particu- 
 larly in the history of this State, for the last four or five 
 years, possibly ten, to accumulate the appointing power, 
 particularly in the executive department — to put pat- 
 ronage there. Well, now, it must strike the mind of 
 every gentleman, that if you put patronage into his 
 hands and hold out to him the inducements of a re-elec- 
 tion, that you present to him the strongest possible mo- 
 tives to abuse that patronage. Do you believe that these 
 appointments will be made with any view to the public 
 interest ? Do you not believe that patronage will be 
 bestowed from selfish motives and that self, not patriot- 
 ism, will be the controlling principle of the executive 
 officer, and that he will bestow that patronage with a 
 view to insure his nomination for a second term, and se- 
 cure his election upon that nomination \ Gentlemen who, 
 doubt that fact are blind to the instructive teachings of 
 history, and the practice of our government. It may 
 be said that there is very small patronage in this govern- 
 ment. There is some and it is accumulating. But it is 
 not merely in the bestowment of patronage, that this 
 officer may abuse his trust to electioneer for a second 
 term. There are the duties of that office, and they may 
 be performed in a manner and with a view to attain the 
 same end — his own selfish purposes. An executive act 
 may be done, an executive duty may be performed, — not 
 with a view to advance equally the interests of this 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 99 
 
 great Commonwealth — but with, a view to secure the 
 influence of some influential politician in the country, to 
 please and gratify some particular section of this State, 
 and to enlist the influence of that individual or that quarter 
 of the State, in the service of the executive officer in his 
 canvass for re-election. And I would put a check upon 
 him, not merely in the distribution of his patronage, but 
 in the mode or manner in which his duties themselves 
 .are to be performed. But it is not only that you will 
 secure, by making him ineligible, a purer administration 
 of the executive duties, but you will do what is still 
 more important, you will make the officer independent. 
 How, I understand it to be a principle essential to the 
 preservation of republican liberty, that you >hould keep 
 separate the three great departments of government — 
 the legislative, executive and judicial — and it will be 
 equally conceded as a principle, that you must not only 
 keep them separate, but in order to preserve that sepa- 
 ration, you must make them independent. If you per- 
 mit the functions of the executive and legislative power 
 to be under the control of any one body, whether that 
 body be composed of many, a few, or one, or whether it 
 be hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, if these func- 
 tions come under the control of the same body, you are 
 living under a tyranny, and the most despoticai tyranny. 
 That is conceded by all statesmen to be sound republi- 
 can doctrine. If that be so then, do you not perceive 
 that by making this officer re-eligible, you may put in 
 jeopardy the independence of the executive department ? 
 This officer is ported here at the seat of government ; 
 the legislative branch of the government assembles here 
 likewise ; a re-nomination preceding a re-election is to 
 be made ; and how do you suppose that nomination will 
 be made ? It will either be made by a legislative caucus, 
 or it will be made by what is termed a convention of the 
 people, in which, from the very necessity of the thing, a 
 large portion of the members of the legislature will par- 
 ticipate, from the fact that they represent constituencies 
 very remote from the seat of government. j^Tow, the 
 nomination is the great thing ; and it is to be made — 
 gentlemen cannot close their eyes to this fact — it is to be 
 controlled to a great extent, by the members of this co- 
 ordinate department of the government. Do you not per- 
 ceive that you will make this officer liable to yield the 
 independence of his department, to be more pliant to- 
 wards the legislature i Do you think that when that 
 department is making encroachments on his rights and 
 his duties, and thus mingling together these co-ordi- 
 nate departments of the government, that he will be as 
 ready to sound the alarm of danger, when that nomina- 
 tion which is to secure his election is pending before 
 them ? Is it not human nature that he will be more 
 pliant and yielding to that department ? I would make 
 him ineligible, and infuse into him a little more of that 
 sterner stuff which is necessary to resist legislative en- 
 croachments. "We know that this legislative department 
 of the government possesses great power. Its powers 
 are almost indefinite, and incapable of being defined. 
 "We know that the tendency of that department is to en- 
 croach upon the others. "We know that the members of 
 that department represent the people. They feel strong 
 from that fact, and they possess from their talent and 
 influence, great means of influencing public sentiment. 
 And it is for that reason, because I know there is a ten- 
 dency in that department to encroach upon the executive, 
 that I would make that officer as independent as possible, 
 that he may resist that encroachment. But if you make 
 him re-eligible, do you not make it his interest to yield 
 to encroachment, and do you not destroy one of the 
 most effectual checks ever placed around power ; and 
 that is, to make the interest of the officer unite with the 
 duties of the office. By the principle of re-eligibility 
 you not only surrender that check, but you make it the 
 interest of the officer to surrender his duty, and not per- 
 form it. I would avoid that state of things. I would 
 make this officer as independent as possible ; aud I would 
 not make it his interest to yield any of the prerogatives 
 and rights of his department. There is another reason ; 
 
 j I would have the executive officer, in conformity with 
 a well settled principle of republican government, at a 
 I stated period to return to the great mass of the people 
 j whence he was taken, that he might there share and par- 
 ticipate in the effect of the measures of his administra- 
 tion; that he might feel that his interests, like the in- 
 terests of the people, were involved in the pure, inde- 
 | pendent and proper administration of the executive 
 i office. This has been held to be one of the strongest 
 j checks that you can place upon any officer. Let him go 
 j back to the people, not for. a re-election, but to reside 
 i among them, to share and participate in the effect of his ad- 
 I ministration ; to re-learn a knowledge of their necessities 
 and to recover that sympathy with their feeling, which 
 power and exalted station, — and "the pride and pomp and 
 j circumstance " cf official dignity, are ever calculated to 
 } obliterate from the minds of our rulers. I would bring him 
 j back there for that purpose, and the most effectual means 
 I of seeming that end is to make him ineligible for a second 
 j term. lS"ot only this, but why should you place it in the 
 ' power of any one, because he happens to get into 
 this place, to take a chance of holding it for life, at suc- 
 cessive intervals of four years ? Why do that ? Do 
 you not give him a great advantage over any other com- 
 petitor for the same office ? Do you not clothe him with 
 power and patronage and with all the advantages which 
 station ever confers ? I would make this office open 
 alike to all and let all have an equal and fair chance at 
 every election, of securing its honors. You would 
 arcuse a proper and commendable spirit of emulation 
 throughout the country". You would not have that dearth 
 of qualification which was referred to yesterday by gen- 
 tlemen, where you would have but one man in che State 
 properly qualified to discharge those duties. If you 
 make this officer ineligible at the expiration of each 
 term, do you not invite others to qualify themselves by 
 a proper course and system of study, to prepare them- 
 selves to discharge the high executive duties of the 
 State ? "Why unquestionably you do. You hold out to 
 them the inducement to pursue a course of patriotism 
 and of propriety ; that course which makes " ambition 
 virtue." It is the fair and legitimate consequence of this 
 rotation in office. But if you make him re-eligible, 
 you do not allow the competitor for this office, in- 
 duced to it by an honorable and patriotic ambition, 
 to enter the lists upon fair and equal terms. I would 
 have that done by rendering him ineligible. "We 
 are told that if we make this officer ineligible, that 
 whilst you may possibly make him a little more indepen- 
 dent, you will at the same time make him careless in the 
 manner in which he will perform his duties, because you 
 remove from him the hope of a reward which a re-elec- 
 tion would hold out. There is nothing in that argument 
 when it is closely considered. Those who have looked 
 into the discussions upon the adoption of the Federal 
 constitution will recollect that it was the great argument 
 used there in favor of re-eligibility ; but does that argu- 
 ment apply here \ "Why, as my friend from Goochland 
 (Mr. Leake) just now remarked, the chief officer of the 
 j United States is the highest known to the people of this 
 country, and if you withdraw the hope of re-election, 
 there is no reward that the people can confer upon him. 
 I Is that the case here ? Does the argument apply here ? 
 Is the state of facts here the same now as they were in 
 I the Union when that constitution was adopted? There 
 are other offices in this State, both state and federal, 
 which the people can bestow, of equal dignity with the 
 executive ; and if he performs the duties of his office 
 faithfully, if he shows ability and displays administra- 
 tive talent and capacity, is it not the very strongest re- 
 commendation he could have to an election for some 
 other office \ And thus, so far from taking away any 
 j hope of reward, as gentlemen argue who say that making 
 | him ineligible will do, you hold out the strongest induce 
 I ment to him so to administer the office as to acquire a 
 j reputation for fitness and capacity that 'will secure him 
 some other post, if not more elevated, at least as much 
 I so. There is nothing in this argument of withholding 
 
100 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the hope of reward when closely examined, that is enti- 
 tled to one moment's consideration. But we were told 
 further yesterday that the State would lose the great 
 benefit to be derived from his experience. That doctrine 
 of experience is the strong argument that is ever pressed 
 in favor of hereditary governments, monarchical or aris- 
 tocratic. It is the great argument, and one of the great 
 advantages which the advocates of that form of govern- 
 ment say it possesses over a republican government. 
 And one of the defects of a republican government, if it 
 has any defects, is the inexperience of its officers. It is 
 an inherent defect. It springs directly, and is insepara- 
 ble from the great principle of rotation in office, which 
 is the distinguishing feature of free government. When- 
 ever you surrender that principle of rotation, you sur- 
 render republican government ; and the question, the 
 only question, which this argument of experience pre- 
 sents, is simply whether it is hot better to take an in- 
 experienced officer with the advantages of checks and 
 restraints upon the abuses of power, than to take an 
 experienced one with all the disadvantages that cor- 
 ruption and intrigue and an improper abuse of that 
 power may bring upon the people. That is the 
 simple inquiry, and the lovers of republican govern- 
 ment have adopted that form of government notwith- 
 standing the defects resulting from inexperience. Now 
 I hope I shall not be misunderstood as attributing any 
 thing like monarchical or aristocratic sentiments to any 
 gentlemen on this floor. I do not believe that any here 
 entertain such sentiments, and I do not mean so to rep- 
 resent them. I merely mean to say that the question 
 which the argument of experience presents is, whether 
 it is not better to have a little less experience with more 
 checks than more experience with greater liability to 
 abuse of power ? It is for the Convention to decide. 
 
 The argument most relied on yesterday was, that this 
 is a check or rather a restriction upon the rights of the 
 people. Now I submit that is not the question. Why, 
 as my friend from Halifax (Mr. Edmunds) very properly 
 said, is not the Constitution itself, every article of that 
 Constitution, and every clause of every article, a restric- 
 tion upon the rights of the people ? — a wholesome and 
 necessary restriction, which they voluntarily impose 
 for the purpose of securing other and greater benefits ? 
 Why, gentlemen who present that argument themselves, 
 go for some restrictions, for some qualifications, and every 
 qualification and every restriction which the Constitution 
 imposes, is a limitation upon popular rights and popular 
 sovereignty. And the simple difference between the gen- 
 tlemen who use that argument and ourselves is, that they 
 think it is right to impose restrictions in some instances — 
 we in others. Therefore, it is merely a question of ex- 
 pediency and not of principle. They are the advocates 
 of certain qualifications, which are restrictions, and there- 
 fore it is merely a question how far, to what extent, you 
 will impose these restrictions. But I deny that it is a ques- 
 tion of restriction upon the rights of the people. That is 
 not the question which this principle of in-eligibility pre- 
 
 should be ineligible after having served one term, or at 
 least that one term should intervene before he comes 
 before the people for a re-election. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Mr. Chairman— 
 _ Mr. CLAIBORNE. I ask the gentleman from Hen- 
 rico if he will give way for a motion that the committee 
 rise. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. With pleasure, if it is desired by the 
 Convention, I do not, however, wish the motion to be 
 made on my account. 
 
 _ Mr. CLAIBORNE. I move that the committee now 
 rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose, reported progress, and Lad leave to sit again. 
 
 On motion of Mr. DENEALE the Convention then 
 adjourned until Monday at 1 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 sents. 
 
 power ; that is the question which it presents. Now I main- 
 tain that it is better to put that restriction upon the abuse 
 of power, than to surrender the restriction, and let the 
 people judge whether an officer should be re-eligible, at 
 intervals of four years— for life. I understand it to be 
 a sound principle of free government that you should 
 invest your rulers with as little power as possible, and 
 that you should throw around that little all the checks, 
 and all the restrictions which are compatible with the 
 due efficiency of the office itself. Then why should we 
 surrender any check — any restriction upon a department 
 that may be abused ? We are organizing a department, 
 the power of which may be used for corrupt and in- 
 triguing purposes. I submit that it is better to retain 
 the principle of ineligibility, and thus secure abetter ad- 
 ministration of office, and thus make the officer indepen- 
 dent, and at the same time more familiar with the rights 
 and interests of the people. I submit that sound policy 
 and true republican principles require that this offioer 
 
 MONDAY, February 3, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Howell. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 Mr. PENDLETON. 1 have received the proceeding s 
 of a public meeting held in the county of Giles on the 
 13th of the last month, touching a subject, which, in 
 the opinion of those comprising that meeting, is among 
 the most interesting and important that can occupy the 
 attention of the Convention. I have risen to present 
 them to the Convention and to ask that they be referred 
 to the Committee on the Basis of Representation, to 
 which properly they belong. It is well known that this 
 subject of representation more than all others, disturbed 
 the harmony and distracted the councils of the Conven- 
 tion of 1829; and without intending in the slightest de- 
 gree to reflect upon the members of that most distin- 
 guished body, I cannot forbear to remark that the arbi- 
 trary apportionment adopted by them has in my opinion 
 been destructive to a great extent, to the peace and 
 prosperity of the State. I would state that this meet- 
 ing to which I have referred was composed of gentlemeii 
 of the highest respectability, and however deeply they 
 feel the necessity of reform in the judicial and othej 
 departments of the government, they regard the subject 
 of representation as in point of magnitude far exceeding 
 all others, and upon its proper adjustment by this body 
 will depend their approval of all other questions. It ia 
 not and should not be disguised, that the west have ever 
 felt most seriously the wrongs inflicted upon them by 
 the arbitrary apportionment of 1829, by which at this 
 time, near 100,000 free citizens of the west are denied 
 representation in the councils of the State. I will not , 
 because it is not the proper occasion, enter into a discus- 
 sion of this subject, and I have barely referred to it 
 because it is directly connected with the proceedings of 
 this meeting. 
 
 The Secretary then read the paper as follows, 
 
 and 
 
 It is a question of restriction upon abuses of the j it was referred to the Committee on the Basis 
 
 At a meeting of the citizens of Giles county, on Mon- 
 day, January the 17th, (that being court day,) on mo- 
 tion, Gapt. William A. Howe was appointed Chair .na n 
 and David M. French Secretary. 
 
 The object of the meeting was explained in a very 
 happy and lucid manner by Mr. John J. Wade, and Ru- 
 fus A French of Giles, and John Echols, Esq., of Monroe, 
 On motion, a committee consisting of John J. Wade, 
 Rufus A. French, Manleous Chapman, Col. Richard Ea- 
 ton, and Samuel Bare were appointed to draft a pre- 
 amble and resolutions, and after retiring brought in the 
 following which were unanimously adopted : 
 
 Whereas, the citizens of the county of Giles, in con- 
 nexion with their brethren of Western Virginia, have 
 seen with deep mortification the stubborn stand which 
 has been taken by the representatives of the East, in 
 general Convention now assembled, against the right of 
 equal representation on the part of the West in the 
 councils of the State ; and whereas, they have also seefi 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 101 
 
 with pride and delight the noble position which the 
 delegation from the West have assumed in the main- 
 tenancy and defence of the rights of freemen ; therefore, 
 
 1. Resolved, That we heartily approve of the course 
 of the Representatives of the West in the Convention 
 now in session in the city of Richmond, upon the subject 
 of the Basis of Representation. 
 
 2. Resolved, That while we most sensibly feel the ne 
 cessity of many radical changes in the present Constitu 
 tion under which we live, we yet look upon the reform 
 in the Basis of Representation as paramount to all oth- 
 ers, and one upon which we as freemen are now called 
 upon to insist. 
 
 3. Resolved, That we pledge ourselves to resist to the 
 last the adoption hereafter of any Constitution which 
 shall recognise any other basis of representation than 
 that founded upon the free white population of the 
 State. 
 
 4. Resolved, That we respond most heartily to the 
 sentiments expressed by the citizens of Monroe, in their 
 meeting held in the town of Union. 
 
 5. Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting o« 
 published in the papers published in the town of Finca*- 
 tle, and that the papers throughout the western portion 
 of the State, and the city of Richmond, be requested to 
 copy the same. 
 
 6. Resolved, That the Secretary be requested to fur- 
 nish to each of the delegates in Convention a copy of the 
 foregoing resolutions. 
 
 On motion, the meeting adjourned. 
 
 Wm. H. Howe, Ch'n, 
 D. Mo French, Sec'y. • 
 
 THE COMMITTEE ON THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, &G. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. It will be remembered by the Con- 
 vention that a few days ago, an inquiry was submitted 
 as to the probable time at which the Committee on the 
 Basis would be able to make a report. In response to 
 that inquiry I stated that we entertained the hope of 
 being able to report on Saturday last, but that a report 
 might be expected on this day at farthest from that 
 committee. I felt authorized to make the statement 
 which I then did, from my own knowledge of the pro- 
 gress of business before that committee, and by com- 
 munication with the members of the committee. Being 
 disappointed however in our ability to make a report 
 to-day, it has been deemed proper that I should state 
 the cause of the delay. And inasmuch as there has 
 been much dissatisfaction at the slow progress of busi- 
 ness before this Convention, I may take this occasion to 
 say, that there has been no delay in the labors of the 
 committee, save such as has been unavoidable. It will 
 be remembered that when we adjourned in October last, 
 the expectation of all was, that when we re-assembled 
 on the 6th of January, complete returns of the census 
 taken under the act of Congress of the United States, 
 together with all the other information needed in this 
 work, would have been furnished to the Committee on 
 the Basis and Apportionment of Representation. S( 
 far from that expectation having been fulfilled, the re 
 turns of the Deputy Marshals .have come in very irregu 
 larly and slowly, and it is only within a short time 
 that full returns of the census have been received at the 
 Auditor's office, and it was not until last Saturday week 
 that the committee and the Convention were furnished 
 in printed form with the returns of the census of the 
 Commonwealth, At the same time we were furnished 
 with a statement showing the amount of taxes paid 
 by the several counties, cities and towns in the State. 
 Now it will occur to all that inasmuch as this com- 
 mittee has been directed by the resolution of the Con- 
 vention, not only to report a principle of representa- 
 tion, but also to make an apportionment of representa- 
 tion, that these tables, statements and information were 
 absolutely necessary to make any progress in the work 
 of the committee. Upon one basis of representation 
 the tables of the white population were absolutely ne- 
 cessary ; upon the other basis spoken of, both the tables 
 
 of population and taxation were absolutely necessa. v , 
 and no progress could be made on the work of appor- 
 tionment without the presence of both. I will state to 
 the Convention that the committee of twenty- four as soon 
 as it was furnished with the materials for making these 
 apportionments, appointed for the purpose of a sub-di- 
 vision of labor, and with a view to expedite the busi- 
 ness with which they were engaged, two smaller portions 
 of their body as sub-committees to work out the appor- 
 tionments on the different principles of representation 
 which were advocated in committee. These sub-corn 
 mittees had made progress in their work, and indeed 
 had gone so far as to justify me in making the statement 
 which I did to the Convention a few days ago, as to the 
 probable time at which a report might be expected. But 
 I must here state that in reference to taxation, the table 
 furnished by the auditor did not furnish the amount 
 of taxes, payable upon the recent assessments of the 
 lands of the Commonwealth. That was furnished in 
 another and a distinct report from the auditor's office, 
 and to enable the committee to ascertain the exact 
 amount of taxes paid in the several divisions, and 
 several counties of the Commonwealth, they had to 
 re-construct and form tables for themselves. Now it 
 will occur to all that this business of apportionment is 
 one not without its difficulties. You have to be pos- 
 sessed in the first place with accurate information upon 
 which to found the apportionment. In this case the la- 
 bors of the sub-committees had nearly been concluded, 
 and they were nearly ready to report to the general com- 
 mittee, when errors were debated in the tabular statements 
 on which they had acted, which required in justice to this 
 body and to the general committee itself that they 
 should obtain a correction and recapitulation of these 
 tables of population and of taxation. This has rendered 
 it necessary for them to go over the work again, and 
 this necessity has produced the delay winch has oc- 
 curred. Now it is due to the committee, and especially 
 due to the sub committees, each of them, to say that they 
 have labored as assiduously, as unremittingly and as 
 anxiously, to produce a report at an early period to the 
 Convention as any body of men ever have labored. 
 There has been no reluctance, no delay, no indifference. 
 We hope, however, to be able, and we feel it to be 
 our duty to present the results of the action of the com- 
 mittee in as correct a form as it is possible to attain. 
 For these reasons the committee has not been able to re- 
 port as was expected, and it has been deemed proper to 
 state them for the satisfaction of the Convention and injus- 
 tice to the committee. Without designating now any par- 
 ticular day, for it may so happen that disappointment 
 will again occur, I will only state that there is eveiy 
 reason to believe that the committee will be able to re- 
 port within a very few days, and to assure the Conven- 
 tion that they will make that report at the very first 
 moment that they are enabled to do so satisfactorily to 
 themselves. 
 
 CHANGE OF THE HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I move that when the Conven- 
 tion adjourn to-day, it adjourn to meet at the hour of 1 2 
 o'clock to-morrow and every succeeding day. 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS, from the Committee to whom was refer- 
 red the Bill of Rights, &c, presented the following re- 
 port : 
 
 The committee to whom was referred the Bill of 
 Rights, and such parts of the Constitution as are not re- 
 ferred to any other of the standing committees of the 
 Convention, have had the subjects to them referred un- 
 der their consideration, and have, in part performance of 
 the duties devolved on them, agreed to recommend to 
 the Convention the adoption of the following amend- 
 ments to the Bill of Rights : 
 
 1st. To strike out the first two lines and part of the 
 third, down to the word " first " inclusive of the fifth 
 article, and insert, 
 
102 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 2. " That the Legislative, Executive and Judicial pow- 
 ers of the State should be separate and distinct, and 
 that the members thereof," so as to make it read 
 
 3. That the Legislative, Executive and Judicial pow- 
 ers of the State should be separate and distinct, and that 
 the members thereof may be restrained from oppression 
 by feeling and participating in the burthens of the peo- 
 ple, they should at fixed periods," &c. 
 
 2d. Strike out the first part of the second line in the 
 6th article, down to the word " Assembly" inclusive, and 
 insert, 
 
 2. " That all elections," so as to make it read " That 
 all elections ought to be free." 
 
 With the indulgence of the Convention, I beg leave 
 very briefly to explain to the understanding of the Con- 
 vention, the amendments, together with the objects to 
 be accomplished. The fifth article of the Bill of Rights 
 draws a distinction between the legislative and executive 
 and the judiciary departments of the government. The 
 Committee on the Bill of Rights have indulged the hope 
 and expectation that the distinction drawn in regard to 
 these several departments would be swept away by the 
 action of the Convention and the three departments 
 placed on the same platform. The section proposed to 
 be amended reads as follows : 
 
 " 5. That the legislative and executive power of the 
 State should be separate and distinct from the judiciary, 
 and that the members of the two first may be restrain- 
 ed from oppression by feeling and participating in the 
 burthens of the people, they should at fixed periods be 
 reduced to a private station, return into that body from 
 which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be 
 supplied by frequent, certain and regular elections in 
 which all or any part of the former members may be 
 again eligible or ineligible as the laws shall direct." 
 
 The committee propose to strike out the words "that 
 the legislative and executive power of the State should 
 be separate and distinct from the judiciary, and that the 
 members of the first ;" and to insert in lieu thereof the 
 words following : — " That the legislative, executive and 
 judicial powers of the State be separate and distinct, 
 and that the. members thereof," &c. 
 
 It will then become only necessary, if the hope of the 
 Committee on the Bill of Rights should be gratified, that 
 this election should be made so as not to draw the dis- 
 tinction which now exists. 
 
 j| The committee also propose to amend the sixth article 
 which reads as follows : 
 
 " 6. That elections of members to serve as representa- 
 tives in the Assembly ought to be free," &c. 
 
 They merely propose to alter this sentenee of the ar- 
 ticle so that it shall read, " that all elections ought to be 
 free " — drawing no distinction between the election of 
 representatives in the General Assembly and any other 
 representatives. I move that the report be laid on the 
 table and ordered to be printed. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 TRIAL BY JURY. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I am further instructed by the commit- 
 tee to report to the Convention a recommendation that 
 the following provision be incorporated in the Constitu- 
 tion: 
 
 1. That in all prosecutions, and in all controversies 
 respecting property, and in all suits between man and 
 man, where the subject in controversy shall exceed the 
 sum of twenty dollars, the trial by jury of twelve men 
 shall be held sacred and inviolable. 
 
 I move that it be laid on the table and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 mechanics' lien on property. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. There were two other subjects referred 
 to the committee — one a petition from Hancock county, 
 praying that a constitutional provision be adopted se- 
 curing a mechanics' lien on property. The committee 
 are under the impression that the subject is one more 
 
 properly belonging to the Legislature than to the Con- 
 vention, and they ask to be discharged from its further 
 consideration. 
 
 THE MATTAPONI AND PAMUNKEY INDIANS. 
 
 The committee also ask to be discharged from the 
 further consideration of the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Bill of Rights 
 be instructed to inquire and report if any, and what pro- 
 visions are necessary to be inserted in the new Consti- 
 tution concerning the Pamunkey andMattaponi Indians, 
 or any other remnants of the old tributary Indians, who 
 may be still remaining in the commonwealth. 
 
 The request of the committee was agreed to and the 
 committee were accordingly discharged from the further 
 consideration of these subjects. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. If there be no other business before the 
 Convention, I move that the Convention resolve itself 
 into committee of the whole on the report of the execu- 
 tive committee. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The Convention accordingly resumed the considera- 
 tion in committee of the whole, Mr. WATTS in the 
 Chair, of the report of the committee on the executive 
 department. 
 
 RE-ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the propositions pending to be 
 those offered by the gentleman from Pittsylvania, (Mr. 
 Tredway,) and the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) 
 on the subject of the re-eligibility of the Governor, as 
 read yesterday — the question occurring first on the first 
 mentioned proposition. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. When I took my seat in this Conven- 
 tion I took it with very strong impressions on my mind 
 as to the reforms that ought to be made in this constitu- 
 tion of Virginia, which we have been called together by 
 the people of Virginia for the purpose of amending and 
 improving. But so far as it was possible for me to do 
 so, I had resolved to come here with no fixed determina- 
 tion by which I was to be bound, in opposition to and 
 resistance of arguments that might be addressed to me 
 by gentlemen from various parts of the State. I came 
 with my mind open to conviction upon all questions. I 
 came with one determination, and that was, so far as lay 
 in my power, to be a warm and strong advocate of popu- 
 lar rights. I came for the purpose of imposing no re- 
 striction upon the popular power that did not seem to 
 me absolutely and indispensably necessary, or, in other 
 words, that public necessity or convenience did not re- 
 quire. I planted myself, as I plant myself now, upon 
 the broad foundation that this is a popular government, 
 and consequently, that all power emanates from the 
 people, and that there is no propriety in imposing a re- 
 striction upon that power that cannot be shown to be 
 necessary. I do not hold that it devolves upon me, or 
 those gentlemen concurring in opinion with me, to show 
 the absence of the necessity ; for if the power belongs 
 by right to the people, I maintain that you must show 
 that a necessity exists before you deprive them of that 
 power. And where there is a failure to show it, either 
 upon this or any other question that may be presented 
 for the consideration of the Convention, I shall be found 
 among those who will stand up fearlessly to resist it. 
 Accordingly when the first report presented from one 
 of the standing committees of this Convention, for the 
 consideration of the Convention, was taken up for de- 
 liberation, I felt it my duty at the outset to call upon 
 those gentlemen who had proposed to restrict the power 
 of the people, to assign to me some sufficient cause, why 
 I should be expected to vote with them ; with my mind 
 then open to conviction, but with the determination, if 
 they faded to give me satisfactory and sufficient reasons, 
 that I would resist it. Well, I asked for reasons, and 
 five gentlemen upon this floor have undertaken to assign 
 reasons why thi3 power should be restricted. It is my 
 disposition and it is my determination to treat every 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 103 
 
 gentleman, and every argument that is addressed to the 
 Convention by any gentleman upon this floor, with the 
 most profound respect. But I propose to examine into 
 the reasons that have been assigned, seriatim, and in the 
 order in which they were presented. 
 
 First came the gentleman from Pittsylvania, (Mr. 
 Tredway.) He was very brief and laconic in the reasons 
 that he assigned — such as they were, however, I will not 
 treat with indifference or disrespect. I shall notice them 
 as I go along. The first declaration made by that gen- 
 tleman was, that no person elected by the people ought 
 to be re-elected. Indeed sir ! Indeed ! Is it true, that 
 no person elected by the people ought to be re-elected ? 
 How long since has the gentleman made that discovery ? 
 * Has he himself, in the exercise of his prerogative as a 
 -citizen of the State of Virginia or of the United States, 
 never voted for the re-election of any man who had been 
 •elected by the people ? Does he mean to apply this 
 general and sweeping denunciation of the right of the 
 people to select their own representatives to members of 
 Congress, to members of the Legislature, to your audi- 
 tors and treasurers, if these elections should be submit- 
 ted to the people, and to your judges, too ? I presume 
 not ; and I presume the declaration was more broad and 
 sweeping than the gentleman himself designed it to be. 
 And I draw that inference from a remark which imme- 
 diately followed it, and that is. that the power of the 
 President would be prostituted for his own re-election ; 
 and I conjectured that the gentleman's mind was run- 
 ning upon federal politics and not upon the State Con- 
 stitution. Now what have we to do with the powers of 
 the President ? "We have not come here to make a Con- 
 stitution for the President of the United States, to en- 
 large or to limit or to restrict his powers ; and there lies 
 the source of the difficulty with all the gentlemen who 
 have addressed the Convention on this subject. They 
 do not discriminate between the power of the President 
 and the office of the Governor of the commonwealth of 
 Virginia. Who ever heard that there was danger in office 
 when the office was stripped of power ? It is the accu- 
 mulation of power in the hands of one man that becomes 
 dangerous when exercised for too long a period of time. 
 "Will you establish the principle in your government 
 that all those persons who may be called into the public 
 service by the popular voice, the moment they have 
 served their apprenticeship, and are just fit to become 
 journeymen — the moment they have acquired the quali- 
 fications that are necessary to enable them to discharge 
 their duties to the public wisely, discreetly, judiciously 
 and satisfactorily — shall be turned out of office to seek 
 some new employment. No gentleman in this Conven- 
 tion, I take it upon myself to say, is more opposed to 
 the accumulation of power in the hands of one man, and 
 no gentleman in this Convention is more opposed to the 
 exercise of those accumulated powers in the hands of 
 one man for a length of time, than I profess to be. And 
 I hope that in the course of my public service, I have 
 displayed that hostility and opposition to the exercise 
 of undue power. Do you propose to clothe your Gov- 
 ernor with the power with which the framers of the 
 ■Constitution, the republicans of ancient times — to whom 
 I shall presently refer for the benefit of my worthy 
 friend who sits before me, (Mr. Davis,) — conferred upon 
 him ? Do you propose to confer the same powers upon 
 the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, that 
 are already conferred by the constitution of the federal 
 government upon the President of the United States ? 
 If you do, then I will abandon, to some extent, the prop- 
 osition that I have submitted, and the grounds upon 
 which I have sustained it. Nor would I then impose the 
 restriction that is proposed either by the executive com- 
 mittee, or by the gentlemen who have supported that re- 
 port, in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
 Appomattox, (Mr. Bocock.) But*I would adopt some 
 limitation — and here I beg leave to draw a distinction 
 between wholesome and unnecessary restrictions. So 
 much for the argument of the gentleman from Pittsyl- 
 vania, (Mr. Teed way.) 
 
 Next in order came the gentleman from Halifax, (Mr. 
 Edmunds.) the chairman of the committee who submitted 
 this report He spoke of the restriction of age. Well, 
 now, I am not exactly prepared to say that I am for any 
 restriction as to age. I am inclined to flunk that no man 
 under the age prescribed by the committee is likely to be 
 selected by the people, unless he should be a remarka- 
 bly distinguished gentleman — one who has rendered im- 
 portant services to his country, one who has given evi- 
 dence of qualifications not to be found in any one of 
 more experienced age. But the gentleman says, that 
 even I am in favor of the prohibition of his being elected 
 to any other office during his term of service. I beg 
 leave to say, in connection with this remark, that my 
 attention had not been specially directed to the report 
 of the committee until at the very moment I submitted 
 that proposition ; and then it was induced by the prop- 
 osition of the gentleman from Appomattox. (Mr. Bocock,) 
 to impose a still further restriction than that which had 
 been imposed by the report of the committee itself. The 
 idea embodied in my proposition very naturally at once 
 suggested itself to my mind — entertaining the views 
 that I do upon this principle — that all power belongs 
 to the people, and is safer to be entrusted there than in 
 the hands of a few ; but if my attention had been more 
 particularly called to the subject, I am not sure but I 
 would have struck out that provision of the report of the 
 committee. I do not know precisely what is meant by 
 the terms employed by the committee, that he shall not 
 be eligible to any other office during his term of service. 
 I can hardly suppose that it wa3 contemplated by the 
 committee that any man who was elected Governor of 
 Virginia would undertake at the same time to fill the 
 office of Senator of the United States, or member of the 
 Legislature, or member of Congress. If they meant 
 simply to say that he shall not fill two offices at the same 
 time, and shall resign his gubernatorial chair before he 
 accepts of any other office, then I see very good reasons 
 why it should be adopted, or rather I see no reason why 
 it should not be adopted. But if they meant to say that 
 no man shall be eligible during the term for which he 
 has been elected, then I am utterly opposed to it. Do 
 you mean to say by that report, that, if you have a Gov- 
 ernor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, whose services 
 the people desire to transfer to the Presidency of the 
 United States — a man so superior in intellect- — a man 
 whose integrity is so fully established as to have com- 
 manded the confidence, not only of his own State, but of 
 the other States in this Union — if his services shall be 
 demanded elsewhere than in the gubernatorial chair of 
 Virginia — that they shall be restricted in their choice ? 
 Why, if you mean that, your provision is nugatory. You 
 have no power over the subject. You cannot deny to 
 him the right of resignation, and when he has resigned, 
 what power have you over his acceptance of any office 
 in the federal government ? You may control him in 
 respect to the State government, but you cannot control 
 him as to the federal government, because the federal 
 constitution prescribes the qualifications of its officers. 
 
 There was one part of the discussion that I must be 
 pardoned for expressing my deep and profound regret 
 at having heard. It was rather the conversation that 
 passed between the gentleman from Halifax and my 
 friend from Accomac, in regard to the mode of election- 
 eering for this office. And my friend from Accomac 
 seemed to think that electioneering was a very whole- 
 some practice. He had no doubt about it. I know very 
 little about it. [Laughter.] I have been a long time 
 trying to learn; but, when I have set out about it, as I 
 have done when circumstances required it, I endeavored 
 to play my part as well as I could ; but I am a very 
 incompetent hand at it. But I take occasion here to 
 say, that if I believed that, in the canvass for this office 
 of governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia— a State 
 embracing some sixty-four thousand square miles — is 
 to be travelled over by the candidates for this high, 
 and distinguished, and dignified office, -though stripped 
 of its power — if I believed that that was to be the prac- 
 
104 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 tice under the new constitution of the State, I am not 
 very sure that I would not say at once, let the election 
 remain where it is. But that does not prevent the of- 
 fice from being electioneered for, but not by the candi- 
 dates themselves. To call upon a governor of Virginia 
 to travel over a hundred and thirty odd counties, over 
 64,000 square miles, to make speeches in every county 
 to the multitude, in order to have his views understood. 
 Why, the next proposition that might be proposed, 
 would be to bring down the presidential candidates into 
 the political arena, and have them travel over the dif- 
 ferent States of the Union, and electioneer from Cali- 
 fornia to Maine, and from Maine to Florida ! Now, I 
 entertain no such opinions. I would not vote for the 
 man who would descend to it. Let it be electioneered 
 for as other high offices are electioneered for, by the 
 frieDds of the parties. Gentlemen need not be afraid 
 that the governor, and the course he shall adopt, will be 
 misunderstood; for, if he is worthy of them, he will 
 have friends to advocate and to explain that course of 
 conduct intelligibly and understandiugly to the people. 
 And in this way the office will be electioneered for, as 
 the office of President of the United States is election- 
 eered for. But the gentleman from Halifax says he is 
 in favor of permitting him to serve four years in the 
 gubernatorial chair, and then the next four years he 
 may spend in electioneering, in order to be re-instated 
 at the expiration of that four years. I should say the 
 governor of Virginia would be pretty constantly occu- 
 pied — very unprofitably employed — if you elect him 
 for four years, and then turn him out four years more, 
 that he may devote that time to electioneering in order 
 to get back again. 
 
 I differ with my friend from Accomac in another par- 
 ticular, and that is in regard to the appointment of 
 sheriff. If I understood him correctly, he expressed 
 the opinion that all the officers of government should 
 be re-elected with the exception of sheriffs, which was a 
 peculiar office. What peculiarity there is in this class 
 of officers to make them ineligible, I am unable to per- 
 ceive. If my friend from Accomac can give me any 
 good reasons why they should not be re-eligible, when 
 the question comes up, 1 shall be disposed to agree with 
 him ; but if he does not, he must pardon me for expres- 
 sing the opinion that, perhaps, there is no officer in this 
 Commonwealth who ought more emphatically to be 
 presented for a re-election than the sheriffs, because of 
 the peculiarity of the service which they will have to 
 perform. I would have re-eligibility for the purpose of 
 establishing responsibility to the people, and for the 
 purpose of holding every man up to his good behavior, 
 and for his hope of re-election, upon the fidelity and 
 ability with which he discharges the duties of that office. 
 It is official responsibility that I am seeking, in connex- 
 ion with the rights of the people. 
 
 Next in order comes my very highly esteemed friend 
 who sits before me, (Mr. Davis,) and I scarcely know 
 whether to congratulate my colleague or to sympathise 
 with him — whether to sympathise for the pain he en- 
 dured upon hearing this proposition submitted by one 
 of his colleagues, or to congratulate him on that infinite 
 gratification it will afford him to vote against the prop- 
 osition. [Laughter.] It is a fair offset — there is as 
 much pleasure as pain, and as much pain as pleasure. 
 And I hope my friend finds himself in no more uncom- 
 fortable position between the two than before I submitted 
 the proposition. [Laughter.] But he is excessively alarm- 
 ed at the enormous power that is proposed to be given to 
 the Governor of Virginia — the power with which the 
 Governor of Virginia is to be clothed — and in searching 
 in his own mind for this dangerous power that is to be 
 exercised, what is the result ? Why the military power, 
 the military power of the governor ? And do you pro- 
 pose, says my colleague, to invest the Governor with 
 the militrry power for life ? Why, of all the powers in 
 this government, if there is any that ought to be con- 
 ferred for life, it is that very military power. When 
 you appoint a Brigadier General or a Major General do 
 
 you limit him to two or three or four years with ineligi- 
 bility, er do you confer it for life ? Is my colleague pre- 
 pared to strike the epauletts from the hero of two 
 wars — the conqueror of Mexico — not only the first Gen- 
 eral in this age, but, in my opinion, the first, at least, 
 that has lived since the days of Napoleon Bonaparte ; 
 a man who, in a military capacity, has rendered more 
 distinguished services to his country than any other 
 since the days of Washington ? Is it dangerous to per- 
 mit him to continue for life in the occupation of his 
 high office of Major General of the army of the United 
 States, to which the gentleman in his mind compares 
 the military power of the Governor of Virginia ? What 
 military power has he ever exercised ? I know of none, 
 I never saw but two of them, as I recollect, on parade 
 in my life, and one was my friend Captain Tyler. 
 [Laughter.] Once on a fourth of July, when he was 
 Governor of Virginia, I recollect to have seen him re- 
 viewing the volunteers in the capitol square, and after- 
 wards participating with them in a sumptuous dinner. 
 The other was the venerable father of my almost vener- 
 able friend from Albemarle, (Mr. Randoph.) I well 
 recollect to have seen him on a similar occasion, on the 
 4th of July, reviewing the troops, and accompanying 
 them down to Norfolk to accept the hospitalities of the 
 volunteers of that city. This is about the extent of the 
 military power exercised by any Governor of Virginia. 
 I do not believe that Governor Barbour, during the 
 war, exercised any military power ; that he ever took 
 command of a regiment or any other body of soldiers. 
 But the Governor is declared by the constitution of Vir- 
 ginia to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of 
 the State of Virginia. Is not my friend very apprehen- 
 sive of this extraordinary executive power as comman- 
 der of the navy as well as the army of the State of Vir- 
 ginia ? [Laughter.] The military power is all that my 
 friend is afraid of, and he did not advert to one single 
 civil power, with which it is proposed to clothe him ; be- 
 cause, in truth, there was nothing to which he could refer 
 as at all dangerous to leave in the hands of any man elec- 
 ted every two or four years by the people. 
 
 The gentleman said he had never known any other 
 than a black cockade federalist to advocate this contin- 
 uance in power, or re-eligibilty to office. I do not 
 know whether my friend meant that as a fling at me or 
 not ; but let me take occasion to say to him, and to this 
 Convention, that of all the men he ever looked upon in 
 his life, I have the least regard for names, and especial- 
 ly for names given to parties. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will give way for an 
 explanation, — 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I did not mean any fling at my hono- 
 rable colleague. Far from it. I intend to fling nothing 
 at any gentleman in this Convention. I was endeavor- 
 ing to meet an argument drawn by my colleague, and 
 the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) in favor of 
 the principle of the continuance in office of Governor 
 for life, by the example of the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States. And I said in that connection and no other, 
 that I had never known, during. my acquaintance with 
 politics, not very short, any other than a black cockade 
 federalist, support or claim, for the President of the 
 United States, a continuance in office for life. That is 
 what I said, without intending any fling at any one. 
 By the black cockade, I meant simply an ultra federal- 
 ist of the Hamiltonian school. I wonder the percep- 
 tions, the keen perceptions, of my colleague, did not 
 draw the distinction. 
 Mr. BOTTS. Mr. Chairman- 
 Mr. WISE. Will the gentleman from Henrico, as I 
 have been alluded to in this gentleman's reply, allow 
 me to make an inquiry of his colleague, (Mr. Davis.) 
 If I understood the gentleman from Richmond, who is 
 now in his seat, when he made that remark, he applied 
 it not only to an office elective for life, but to an office 
 re-eligible during life. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 105 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Mr. Chairman, I must stop my col- 
 league, he is taking my speech out of my mouth. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. WISE. The question I was going to put to the 
 gentleman who represents the metropolitan district of the 
 State, (Mr. Davis,) was, if he had ever read the yeas and 
 nays in the Convention that adopted that very principle 
 in the Constitution — 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Still trespassing on my manor. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Will my colleague allow me to an- 
 swer? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Certainly, I will do anything out of 
 courtesy, but I am fearful that one reply will lead to 
 another, and thus I shall be cut out of my speech. 
 
 The CHAIR. Does the gentleman yield the floor ? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Do I understand my colleague that he 
 will yield the floor that I may answer the gentleman 
 from Accomac ? (Mr. Wise.) 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Not if the gentleman is going into a 
 regular speech. He will have an opportunity to answer 
 him at another time. His speaking now would produce 
 irregularity. I am always ready to give way to gentle- 
 men, but it is evident that this sort of bye-play between 
 gentlemen will cut off much that I propose to say. I 
 should not have taken it amiss if my friend had intend- 
 ed a fling at me, or to brand me as a black cockade fe- 
 deralist, because I know he would not have done it in a 
 spirit of unkindness, and I never take offence at anything 
 not intended in unkindness. This fling, I am sure, was 
 not at me nor at the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. 
 Wise,) but at the arguments introduced by both. Is 
 my colleague aware who these black cockade federalists 
 were that favored re-eligibility to office ? They were 
 the framers of the Constitution of 1789. Gen. Wash- 
 ington himself was one of those black cockade federal- 
 ists who sustained the right of the people to re-elect 
 just as long as they desired his services as the President 
 of the United States — an officer clothed, as it has turned 
 out since, with almost kingly powers. He was one, to 
 whom I certainly understood the gentleman to apply 
 the term, as by his example he countenanced the doc- 
 trine of re-eligibility, — and if he did not so apply it, his 
 argument is without meaning. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, (in his seat.) I referred to those who 
 advocated re-eligibility for life. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. No one ever proposed to re-elect for 
 life. That idea then had no bearing, no reference to the 
 question, because the proposition was simply to give to 
 the people the power of re-electing as long as they de- 
 sired, not for life, but for a term of years — which is not 
 yet fixed in your Constitution — whether it shall be two 
 or four years. James Madison was another of those 
 black cockade federalists who went for the same power 
 in the federal constitution. My colleague could not dis- 
 pense to me a higher distinction — one that would fill 
 every aspiration of my heart — than to place me, side by 
 side, with such black cockade federalists as George Wash- 
 ington, James Madison, and John Marshall. I will take 
 occasion here to say in regard to this black cockade fed- 
 eral party, what I believe every candid intelligent gen- 
 tleman is prepared to admit, that it was not only the 
 most intelligent but the most honest party that has ever 
 existed in this country. They committed errors — no 
 doubt they committed errors — errors that I have repro- 
 bated, and errors from which I should have dissented if 
 I had been in public life at that time, and entertaining 
 the views that I do now. But, I ask, which of the par- 
 ties that have ever been in power has not committed er- 
 rors ? And that party that has been longest in power, 
 perhaps would contrast unfavorably in regard to the 
 abuses of the power which they have exercised, with the 
 Federal party. They have all abused power, they have 
 all done wrong, and they all will do wrong. Perfection 
 does not belong to our nature ; and until you can find 
 not only one perfect man, but until you can find a per- 
 fect party of men, errors will be committed, no matter 
 what party is in power. 
 
 My colleague asked the question and I supposed the 
 
 question was intended for me : Did I ever know any 
 gentleman on the hustings to declare himself in favor 
 of the re-eligibility of the governor ? I will answer my 
 colleague, in all candor and sincerity, that I did not ; nor 
 do I mean to say that any candidate made any such de- 
 claration. I was not here, and I did not hear a single 
 discussion upon this subject. I did not regard myself as 
 a candidate for the Convention, for I was called upon to 
 know if I would be a candidate, and I expressly declined. 
 But when called upon to give my general views, I did 
 give them ; and I expressed a willingness to serve if it 
 was the will of the people to elect me. But I refused 
 to become a candidate, and therefore I did not hear any 
 gentleman proclaim upon the hustings an opinion in 
 favor of the re -eligibility of the governor — nor do I gup- 
 pose the question was discussed at all. Such views as I 
 did present were in the English language, in print, and 
 in terms so intelligible that I was not under the neces- 
 sity of printing them i» German. [Laughter.] I am 
 not mistaken in believing that the gentleman printed 
 his address in German, but I did not see it, and if I had, 
 I would not have understood it, for I do not read that 
 language. [Laughter.] But will my colleague permit 
 me to ask another question here ? Did he hear any gen- 
 tleman upon the hustings say he was afraid to trust the 
 people with the power of selection as well as of elec- 
 tion of public officers ? Did any gentleman take the 
 ground, either in English or German, that he was afraid 
 to trust the people ? 
 
 To give power to the people, I understood to be the 
 object of all those who ran upon what was termed the 
 radical ticket ; but that there must be a curtailment of 
 this power, that they only had the right of electing, and 
 not the right of selecting, I take it for granted that my 
 colleague did not hear any gentleman say. But auy 
 worthy friend inquires, why should we depart from the 
 precedent of the conservatives of the convention of 
 1829— from the precedent of 1776 and of 1829 ? Why 
 should we depart from the precedent established in 1776 
 and 1829 ? Why ! does the gentleman want to go back 
 to the constitution of 1776 ? or does he want to go back 
 to the constitution of 1829 ? Did the gentleman hear 
 any body on the hustings take the ground that we should 
 be guided by the precedent established in 1776 or 1829 ? 
 Why, what is the object of the assembling of this Con- 
 vention ? Is it not to reform — to change — to improve 
 upon the Constitution, and upon the principles laid down 
 in 1776 and 1829 ? Is the gentleman prepared to go back 
 to the principle laid down or the precedent established 
 in 1776, confuting the suffrages of this State to the free- 
 holders of the State ? Is he for the inequality of repre- 
 sentation that existed upon the principles established by 
 the precedent of 1776, in giving to the county of Loudoun 
 no more representation upon the legislative floor tha- 
 the county of Warwick ? That was one of the principles 
 established by the convention of 1776, and which I 
 thought the convention of 1829 was designed to im- 
 prove upon. And I thought this Convention was designed 
 to alter, modify, reform, change and improve upon the 
 convention of 1829. But it seems not. It seems now, 
 you would commit a monstrous heresy by departing from 
 the principles of '76. Suppose we confine ourselves to 
 the principles of 1776, in regard to this particular office ; 
 does the gentleman find either in that Constitution of 
 Virginia or in the Constitution of the United States, any 
 constitutional restriction upon the re-eligibility to office? 
 On the contrary, by the federal constitution, the Presi- 
 dent of the United States is liable to be re-elected just 
 so long as the people choose to re-elect him ; and in re- 
 gard to the office of governor of Virginia, by the consti- 
 tution of '76, he was re-eligible for three terms. Now, 
 let me beg this Convention, and my honorable friend par- 
 ticularly, to remember the difference between 1776 and 
 1851. What were the republicans of 1776 ? ]S"o gen- 
 tleman in this Convention entertains a higher degree of 
 respect and veneration for those venerable and sage men 
 than I do. But what were they but an off-shoot, as it 
 were, from the most aristocratic government that ever 
 
106 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 existed on the face of the earth ? They made great and 
 giant strides towards republican principles, but they fell 
 far short of the work, and they expected us who come 
 after them, to perfect that work. What were the powers 
 exercised by the old colonial governments under Great 
 Britain ? They were almost regal, and therefore they 
 felt the necessity at that time of imposing this limitation 
 of the election of Governors. And that too was a re- 
 striction upon the legislature that made the appoint- 
 ment, and not upon the people, to whom the election is 
 now to be transferred. Is the gentleman prepared to 
 stand up here in this Convention and advocate the pre- 
 cedent established by the convention of 1116, or of 1829, 
 either in regard to your county-court system — another 
 branch of the aristocracy — a self-constituted, self-crea- 
 ted and self-perpetuating body, without one particle of 
 responsibility to the people ? That was a remnant of 
 aristocracy. The magistracy of that day was Composed 
 of the aristocracy, who thought it unsafe to trust the 
 people with too much power. They could not be ex- 
 pected to go the full length, just emerging, as it were, 
 from a royal government of Great Britain, and laboring 
 to establish a new government of their own, based upon 
 general and fundamental republican principles. It was 
 not to be expected for one moment, that so suddenly 
 they were to carry out all the great reforms, that it might 
 reasonably be anticipated their successors would aid 
 them in carrying out. No, if my friend is right in sup- 
 posing that it was not considered republican in 1776 to 
 authorise the people, in the majesty of their power, to 
 make a selection of their own candidate, and continue 
 those men in office who had given the most unqualified 
 satisfaction; neither was it republican in '76 to extend 
 the right of suffrage to any other than a freeholder. Is 
 the gentleman prepared to bind himself down now in 
 this Convention to the precedents established at that 
 time ? I presume not— I am sure not. But I must say, 
 in all sincerity to my friend, if I am to interpret his fu- 
 ture action here by the course of remarks in which he 
 indulged on Saturday, I must be permitted, in all kind- 
 ness, to say, that he mistook the ticket upon which he 
 run, when he was a candidate for this Convention. [Laugh- 
 ter.] There was a conservative and a radical ticket, and 
 I think he mistook the ticket. He should have been upon 
 the conservative ticket if lie desired to go back to the 
 principles of 1776. [Laughter.] 
 
 But the gentleman remarked upon " the small politi- 
 cians requiring rotation in office," and ascribed that re- 
 mark to me. I did not say so. It was the gentleman 
 from Accomac who spoke of small politicians — the word 
 did not escape my mouth. What I said was this : I said 
 that I never had been an advocate for the one term 
 system, in regard to the Presidency of the United States, 
 because I believed it to be a clap-trap of politicians, 
 which was to affect the rights of the people — which was 
 a violation »f popular rights — and which was never in- 
 tended to be observed by any man or adopted if he could 
 get into office himself. The rotation in office that they 
 speak of. is rolling out of a small office into a big one, 
 and holding on to that as long as they can. I have not 
 designed to introduce political questions here — I mean 
 the present political questions of the day — but I believe 
 that all those gentlemen who have been elected to the 
 Presidency, professing, when they went in, a desire to 
 confine themselves to the one term principle, have ex- 
 erted themselves to the utmost extent of their power, 
 either to re-instate themselves or secure the success of 
 their partizan friends. And I believe if you make the 
 occupant of this office of Governor ineligible, that you 
 will not have the same integrity and fidelity to the pub- 
 lic interests in the discharge of the gubernatorial duties, 
 as if you held out to him the prospect of reward by his 
 re-election. That has been the result of my experience 
 on federal matters. 
 
 Next in order comes my friend from Goochland, (Mr. 
 Leake,) and I propose to give a brief examination of the 
 reasons he assigned why the people should be restricted 
 in the power of selecting their candidates. He com- 
 
 menced by asking what is the object of restricting eli- 
 gibility to office, but to protect minorities against the 
 capricious exercise of power, and he spoke of conflicting 
 interests in this matter. The gentleman does think then 
 that there is something like a capricious exercise of pow- 
 er on the part of the people ; or, in other words, that 
 the people are not capable of self-government. That is 
 the question to which he comes. You deprive the peo- 
 ple of the power of re-electing one to office who has 
 served them with honesty, fidelity, and the highest de- 
 gree of ability. And, as there are conflicting interests 
 in the State, the gentleman thinks it proper to restrict 
 the people in the selection of their candidates for fear 
 there will be a capricious exercise of power, and because 
 it is necessary to protect minorities ! Well, how does 
 he propose to protect minorities against this capricious 
 exercise of power ? This State is now, and has been for 
 many years past, and will be, perhaps, for all time to 
 come, divided into two great political parties ; and are 
 we to understand the gentleman that if one party suc- 
 ceeds at the first election, they should be turned out of 
 office, in order to give the minority a chance, and let 
 them elect the next time' — the majority one year, and 
 the minority the next year? Is that his idea? How 
 does he propose to protect minorities against the capri- 
 cious exercise of power? Why if the majority can ex- 
 ercise capriciously this power by the election of a man 
 who is already in office, cannot they as capriciously ex 
 ercise the power of electing another man, of the same 
 party, identified with him in every particular, and who 
 will pursue precisely the same course ? What is his 
 meaning ? What am I to understand from the gentleman 
 by protecting minorities against the capricious exercise 
 of power by the people ? The people do sometimes ex- 
 ercise power capriciously, and I am rather inclined to 
 think that I have been a victim of its capricious exer- 
 cise, myself. [Laughter.] But I have too much confi- 
 dence in the people not to believe that when they see 
 their error they will correct it. [Renewed laughter.] 
 Now my object and desire, as I said when I first openel 
 this discussion on Friday, is to take power out of the 
 hands of the politicians, who are the cause in ninety- 
 nine times out of a hundred of the capricious exercise 
 of power on the part of the people. I do not believe 
 the people will exercise power capriciously as the gen- 
 tleman says. It is only the instrumentality of politi- 
 cians, Who are not laboring for the public good, but for 
 their own advancement in public life, that ever induces 
 the people to exercise power capriciously. The gentle- 
 man asks, also, if there was ever any complaints heard 
 because the Governor of Virginia could not be re-elect- 
 ed ? Well, I will answer my friend by saying no; I 
 never heard any complaint that the Governor was not 
 re-elected, and why ? Because the people never had the 
 power of electing him in the first instance, for the legis- 
 lature of the State exercised that power for them. From 
 the formation of the State government they have never 
 been indulged in the exercise of the power of selecting 
 a man of their own choice. And it has sometimes hap- 
 pened from his election by a body removed from the 
 people, to some extent, that they have scarcely known 
 who your Governor was, and it not very unfrequently 
 happened, that when they did know who he was, they 
 had no particular desire to continue him there any longer.. 
 [Laughter.] Does it therefore follow that if the people 
 have the power of electing their own Governor, and 
 they have selected the man of their own choice, and not 
 the man who is the choice of the politicians, that they 
 may desire to retain him in office ? And if they do en- 
 tertain that desire, why, I ask, should they not be in- 
 dulged in it ? The gentleman further asks, suppose the 
 Governor has done a monstrous wrong, and it is necessa- 
 ry for the people to decide upon it, could it be done if 
 he were re-eligible ? I must confess my surprise at the 
 question put by the gentleman from Goochland. In the 
 name of Heaven, how else can you have this question 
 decided ? Suppose you make him ineligible, and he has 
 committed a monstrous wrong, upon which you wish the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ior 
 
 judgment of the popular voice, have you not said by 
 your constitutional provision that he shall not be pre- 
 sented to the people again, and that the people shall 
 have no opportunity of deciding upon his qualifications, 
 or upon the enormity of this great wrong ? Then how 
 are you to decide — how are you ever to meet the question 
 — how are you even to bring it up ? Are you to do it 
 while it has no possible bearing, when it has no affinity 
 with any other question that is to be presented to the 
 people for their consideration at any other election ? 
 Why, of all the modes on earth that could be adopted 
 of affording the people the best opportunity of deci- 
 ding on the conduct of the Governor, it is to permit him 
 to come before them again, and have their verdict pro- 
 nounced upon him. — If they approve, they will re-elect 
 him ; if they condemn, they will send him to the shades 
 of retirement. I know of no other way by which this 
 question can be settled than by the re- eligibility, and 
 that is the kind of re-eligibility I desire, to provide for 
 every public officer. This is pretty much, I believe, the 
 argument of the gentleman from Goochland. 
 
 After him comes another of my colleagues, (Mr. Mer- 
 edith,) and I must be permitted to express my regrets 
 that on this, the first question which has presented it- 
 self to our consideration here, the delegation from this 
 district should be divided. We cannot all be represent- 
 ing popular sentiment in this district. It may be that I 
 am not, but I am induced to think that I am. If I 
 thought I was not representing popular sentiment here, 
 that I was violating popular sentiment, I would retire 
 from this place. It may be that our constituents enter- 
 tain no great feeling on tins subject, either one way or 
 the other ; and that they may not have made up their 
 minds in regard to it, which I rather expect to be the 
 true state of things — still it is unfortunate that the dele- 
 gation should be so divided on this first initiative ques- 
 tion. I hope that it will not continue long. 
 
 The gentleman from the city of Richmond, a most 
 worthy and estimable gentleman, set out by stating his 
 hostility to the proposition of electing for life. Well, I 
 had no idea that the gentleman meant to misstate any 
 of the propositions before the Convention, but I could 
 not let such a proposition as that stated by him, go out 
 to the country without correction at the time. It might 
 have created a false impression not only in regard to 
 the effect of my motion, but of the position of all other 
 gentlemen who sustained it; and I took the occasion to 
 correct the gentleman in his statement, and to say that 
 no such proposition was submitted to the Convention as 
 to elect the governor for life. Yet, when the question 
 was precisely stated, I understood the gentleman to say 
 that he did not perceive the difference. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. I said that he might be elected 
 for life, at the will of the people, as fixed at frequent 
 periods. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Certainly, sir ; but in that consists the 
 difference. He is re-eligible as long as the people choose 
 to re-elect him ; but does that amount to an election for 
 life ? And is it true that the gentleman cannot per- 
 ceive the difference between the two propositions ? Sup- 
 pose I had submitted a proposition to this Convention to 
 amend this report by substituting for the words, "four 
 years," the words "for life ;" would it be identical with 
 the proposition which I did submit ? And yet the gen- 
 tleman cannot see the difference between an election for 
 life and a re-election for a term of years at the will of 
 the people ! — and he went on to argue the question as 
 if it was still a proposition of election for life. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. Will the gentleman allow me to 
 interrupt him. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. I said that the fact that this thing 
 might be done — that it might result in an election for 
 life, at intervals of four years — was a reason why I was 
 opposed to it. The gentleman does not deny that by 
 his proposition a Governor may be elected for successive 
 terms of four years, and continued in office by such an 
 
 election for life. I said that the fact that this might be 
 done was my objection to the proposition. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Well, then, the gentleman doubts their 
 power to make a judicious selection of candidates, but 
 admits that they will be very judicious in the exercise 
 of their power of electing a candidate ! The gentleman 
 says the one-term principle has been adopted by all 
 parties. Well, I have spent some little portion of my 
 life in public service, and I must confess my ignorance 
 of the fact. I have never known nor heard of any such 
 principle being adopted, either by the people, or by 
 parties. What party — what portion of the people — 
 and in what manner have parties or the people adopted 
 this one-term principle ? Whose name stands signed to 
 the bond, either among the people or among the politi- 
 cians? Who is responsible for it, and who is bound by 
 it ? I forget which of your presidents it was — I be- 
 lieve, however, it was Mr. Van Buren — who said, before 
 he was beaten in his attempt at re-election, that he had 
 been induced to favor the one-term principle, but he 
 found that nobody was bound by it, and that he did not 
 mean to be bound by it either. I may have confounded 
 Mr. Van Buren with Mr. Tyler ; I do not know which it 
 was, but no matter who. Be he who he may, there never 
 was a man in the Presidency who, in my opinion, did not 
 wish to return to it. 
 
 Mr. COX. There was one who did not. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Who did not? 
 
 Mr. COX. Mr. Polk. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Perhaps he did not. Perhaps the 
 grapes were sour — the office was not offered to him. 
 Yes, he went in on the one-term principle, and he would 
 have served on the two-term principle if his party had 
 offered him the nomination, I do not mean to go into 
 the discussion of that question, but it is no secret among 
 those who are conversant with the events of that day, 
 that he did desire it, and would have been glad to have 
 got it. I will not, I repeat, go into the discussion of 
 that question. I only mean to say that this principle 
 has not been adopted, to my knowledge, by any party 
 or portion of the people — that they are clap-trap words, 
 meaning nothing. Among the advantages of the ineli- 
 gibility principle, the gentleman says, is, that if you once 
 get the officer out, you can keep him out. That does 
 not follow, because, by the amendment of the gentleman 
 from Appomattox, (Mr. Bocock,) he may go out, and 
 yet not be kept out. But the question is, why desire to 
 put him out — why desire to keep him out, if he is a 
 faithful and good officer ? That question has not been 
 answered, and I am at a loss to perceive the advantage 
 that would result either from putting out a good officer, 
 or from keeping him out after you have put him out. 
 Do you believe, says the gentleman, that if he is re-eli- 
 gible, that his conduct will be governed by a proper re- 
 gard for the public interests ? I have already under- 
 taken to answer that view of the question, by stating 
 that, in my opinion, the only possible mode of holding 
 him to his good behavior, was by making him responsible 
 directly to the people for his re-election to office, and I 
 will not go back to argue that question over again. 
 
 The gentleman wants to know how the nomination is 
 to be made if you permit the Governor to be re-eligible, 
 and he seems to think it would be made by the politi- 
 cians. How will it be made other than by politicians if 
 you restrict him to one the term ? Will not the nomination 
 be made by politicians if you do, or do not, restrict him 
 to one term ? Why, if there is any way on earth that 
 can be devised, by which the nomination can be taken 
 from the power of* politicians, it will be by affording the 
 people an opportunity of nominating for themselves a 
 tried man. A system has prevailed in some of the 
 northern States, especially in the State of New York, for 
 very many years past, by common understanding and 
 acquiescence, not by constitutional regulation, that no 
 man has a right to fill a term of office, or be elected 
 more than once. Will that example set us by New York 
 commend itself to our favor ? What is it we hear daily, 
 when we speak on political subjects, of the corruption 
 
108 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 of New York politicians? Why, one of the conse- 
 quences resulting — for it is not confined to State, but 
 includes Federal officers, if members of Congress can be 
 considered such — is that it is an exceedingly rare thing 
 that any member of Congress is returned twice from that 
 State. The object of this is to give an opportunity to 
 all aspirants to get there. Well, I think it will be ad- 
 mitted that you would never have a Congress, if this 
 system generally prevailed, remarkable for its sagacity ; 
 and especially for its legislative experience, if no man 
 was permitted to remain in office more than two years. 
 But another evil which results from it is, that every as- 
 pirant is electioneering throughout the State from the 
 time of the election. From the time a man gets into 
 office, every aspirant in the district, if it is a district 
 election, every aspirant in the county, if it is a county 
 election, and every aspirant in the State, if it is a State 
 election, is working and manceuvring the wires of the 
 magician — the political wires — in order to secure their 
 own nomination for the next term. Is this a desirable 
 thing for us ? So it will be here. Let it be known that 
 your Governor, whose election is to take place by the 
 people, can only remain in office for one term, and every 
 aspirant for the office in the State will be working the 
 political wires in order to secure the nomination for the 
 next term. It will be here as elsewhere, nothing but a 
 scramble for office all the time. 
 
 But the gentleman would strengthen the arm of the 
 Executive, in order that he might resist legislative en- 
 croachments. The legislative department of the gov- 
 ernment is that from which he apprehends the most 
 danger ! It is the most encroaching of all the powers 
 in the government, and he will strengthen the arm of 
 the Executive to resist the Legislature 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. I hope the gentleman will allow 
 me to explain, for I have no desire of replying to him 
 and degenerate this discussion into one merely between 
 him and myself. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Certainly ; I have no intention of mak- 
 ing it such a discussion, and I am now answering all 
 who have spoken on that side. 
 
 _ Mr. MEREDITH. I certainly used no such expres- 
 sion as strengthening the arm of the executive, and ad- 
 vanced no such argument. I said I would take away 
 from him any inducement to yield to the legislature, 
 and that if he was made re-eligible he might be induced 
 to court the legislature in order to get the support of 
 the members of that body in aiding his- nomination and 
 election — that they might be induced in their respective 
 counties to assist him in that way, I said, also, that I 
 would make him wholly independent, and thus take 
 away, by making him ineligible, any inducements to 
 yield to that department. I did not say, however, that 
 I would strengthen the exscutive arm to resist the leg- 
 islature. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I am very happy to have the explana- 
 tion of my colleague, yet still I think I cannot be mis- 
 taken, for I took down his words at the time ; and I 
 find in my notes that he regarded the legislative de- 
 partment to be the most liable to encroach on the de- 
 partment of the executive, and that he would strengthen 
 the power of the Governor in order to resist those en- 
 croachments. 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. I said the legislative department 
 was the most liable to encroach upon him, and for that 
 reason I would take away all inducements for him to 
 yield to that department. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Well then does the gentleman contem- 
 plate the establishment of his veto power ? 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. What then is the Governor to do if he 
 is not to yield to the legislative power of the country ? 
 The legislature are the representatives of the people, 
 acting directly for them, and is it wrong for the Gov- 
 ernor to yield to the power of the people. What is it?— 
 in what does this embarrassment consist ? What does 
 the gentleman mean by not having the governor yield 
 to the will of the people, as expressed through the leg- 
 
 islative department ? I inferred from the remarks, 
 which I am happy to find I misunderstood the gentleman 
 to make, that he was in favor of extending to the Governor 
 the veto power ; and not in the modified form either in 
 which my friend from Accomac presented it, and to which 
 I am opposed, although it strips the power of many of 
 its obnoxious features. I do not think it is a matter of 
 any very great importance whether you give the Gov- 
 ernor the power to send his reasons to the legislature — = 
 that is to say, that it will be productive of any great 
 mischief — why a bill should not become a law ; because 
 I am willing to take those reasons from any private cit- 
 izens. The proposition is to allow the Governor to 
 assign the reasons why he will not sign a law, so as to 
 induce the legislature to re-consider their judgment, to 
 review their own decisions, or to change their views 
 upon the subject, and, if possible, to undo what they 
 have done. I think there can be no great harm result- 
 ing from the power in the modified form in which it is 
 thus proposed, it still being in the power of a majority 
 of the legislature to enact the same law, yet I am op- 
 posed to it. I want to strip this officer of all power 
 that is not necessary to be conferred upon him, and I 
 look upon this principle of ineligibility as stripping the 
 people and not the Governor of power. And here let 
 me remark, on the subject of these restrictions, that I 
 recognise the distinction between necessary and unne- 
 cessary restrictions. I am for imposing all wholesome 
 and necessary restrictions, but I am wholly opposed to 
 imposing any unnecessary and unwholesome restrictions, 
 These I take to be true democratic principles, and it 
 only serves to confirm, in my mind, the truth of what 
 I have long since said, that there was more real, genuine, 
 pure democracy in me than in ninety -nine hundreths of 
 the democratic party. [Laughter.] This is the true 
 principle of democracy — the power of the people to 
 govern, not the modern spurious democracy of the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 It was said, during the canvass for seats in this Con- 
 vention, that politics should not enter into the consider- 
 ation of questions here. I differed with those gentle- 
 men who took this position. I say here is the place 
 where politics should enter into consideration. Not the 
 politics of the day, which divide political parties, for I 
 maintain there is nothing democratic or anti-democratic, 
 in a mere question of policy. There is nothing demo- 
 cratic or anti-democratic in a question of a tariff or free 
 trade, in a question of currency, or in any of those ques- 
 tions which have divided parties, nor in the subject of 
 internal improvements and. a distribution of the public 
 lands — upon which last subject I am happy to find that 
 ti e Democratic party, if it is a principle of democracy, 
 are becoming Whigs, and yielding the question. But 
 here is the place to decide political questions — that is, 
 to decide upon what basis government shall be formed — 
 whether upon the power of the many or the power of 
 the few — whether upon the power of the people or the 
 power of the politicians ; in other words, whether it 
 shall be a democratic or an aristocratic government. I 
 go for a democratic government, and not for an aristo- 
 cratic government. I am for lopping off every remnant 
 of aristocracy which can be found in our Constitution, 
 whether it was organized in 1*776 or 1829. There are 
 no such parties in this Convention, however ; we know 
 nothing here of Whigs and Democrats; but there were 
 two other parties known at the time of the election, 
 and they were called conservatives and radicals. Well, 
 gentlemen may put their different interpretations on 
 these two tickets, but if it be radicalism to maintain 
 that we should change, reform and improve upon the 
 republican principles of "76 and '29, then I claim to be 
 the most radical among the radicals. There is little in 
 the old Constitution which commends itself to my favor. 
 The men who made that constitution were wise andgreat 
 and good men, and their work suited the days of 17*76, 
 but it does not suit the days of 1851. Why, we must 
 be a most degenerate race of people, if, in 75 years, we 
 have learned nothing by our experience. We have had 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 109 
 
 the benefit of all that was taught us by those sagacious 
 men of 1*776, and we have lived under the practical opera- 
 tion of the constitution of 1829, and is it possible that we 
 can make no improvement upon it ? Gentlemen are in 
 the habit of quoting the opinions of great and distin- 
 guished men, whose names, on certain subjects, have a 
 deserved influence in the community ; but I will not do 
 what I might, appeal to Mr. Jefferson on this subject. I 
 will not do it, because if I differed from him, his opinion 
 would have no weight with me. I look at the present 
 day, and at the present people, and those who are to 
 come after us, and then judge what is required. And I 
 say that the government which suited the people of 177 6, 
 would be a very unsuitable one for the people of 1851 ; 
 as I think, in all probability, the government we may 
 establish for the people of 1851, will be an equally un- 
 suitable one for the people of 1880 or 1900. The true 
 question here, as I conceive, is, are the people to be 
 trusted in the exercise of their own legitimate rights ? 
 I am for trusting them, and I hope that this Convention 
 will be in favor of trusting them with the right of selec- 
 tion, as well as with the right of election. 
 
 I believe I have answered the arguments of gentlemen; 
 I do not know how successfully, but I hope quite success- 
 fully. I have endeavored to answer all the reasons that 
 have been assigned by the five gentlemen who have occu- 
 pied the floor on this subject, why this power should be 
 taken from the people. My own judgment may be a very 
 biased one on the subject, but in my opinion there is no- 
 thing in them. Other gentlemen may be disposed to 
 present other and still more forcible reasons ; if they do, 
 and if they shall convince my understanding that it is 
 right; if they shall succeed in removing impressions already 
 made upon my mind. I have no such self-sufficiency or 
 self-pride as will prevent me from making the acknowl- 
 edgment on this floor, in the face of the Convention and 
 the country, and I shall vote with them. But if other 
 gentlemen present other arguments which have no more 
 force in them, and make no more impression on my mind 
 than those which have already been presented, it may be, 
 that on some future occasion, I shall claim the indulgence 
 of the Convention in order to endeavor to remove their 
 objections, and still to stand up for the rights of the 
 people. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. 1 should not ask the Convention to in- 
 dulge me for a short time, had not the gentleman from 
 Henrico, (Mr. Botts.) in the notice which he has thought 
 proper to take of the remarks submitted by me the other 
 day to the Convention, attributed to me a sentiment 
 which I did not utter, and which I think is not fairly de- 
 ducible from anything I said. The whole error which 
 has been committed by the gentleman, in the argument 
 which he has presented to the Convention, rests on 
 the fact, that he has so presented that argument as to 
 represent those who are opposed to him on this occasion, 
 as taking power from the people, and lodging it some- 
 where else. We have no object of that kind, and whilst 
 the gentleman has presented his argument in such a way 
 as to lead to that inference, the reverse is the fact. There 
 is no such disposition on the part of any gentleman who 
 has advocated this restriction on the privileges of who- 
 soever shall be selected as your Governor, for it is in fact 
 merely a restriction upon the privileges of your Gover- 
 nor, and not a restriction upon the rights of the people. 
 There has been no manifestation of a disposition on the 
 part of any to take away this power from the hands of 
 the people and lodge it anywhere else. There is no 
 disposition to increase the authority and power of those 
 who are entrusted with the people's rights and with 
 their power, as their representatives. If we were in the 
 attitude of taking away from them power which we 
 wish to lodge somewhere else, then there might be 
 something in the hue and cry raised by the gentleman 
 that we are opposed to the exercise of power on the 
 part of the people, and in favor of lodging it in the hands 
 of their representatives and their agents. 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. Will the gentleman give way for 
 a motion to rise, and report progress ? 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. There seems to be a disposition not to 
 continue the discussion at this time, and I will give way 
 for such a motion. 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. I move, then, that the committee 
 rise, and report progress. 
 
 The CHAIR. It is not necessary that a motion 
 should be made to report progress. I have had a con- 
 versation with the President on the subject, and he 
 | thinks that all matters referred to the committee are 
 i referred as a matter ot course, to be taken up as the 
 | committee may desire, and that, therefore, a motion to 
 rise is quite sufficient. 
 
 The committee then rose and reported to the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 at 12 o'clock, M. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 4, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr„ Howell. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 REPORT FROM COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE, <fcC, 
 
 Mr. JOHKSOK The committee to whom was refer- 
 red so much of the present constitution as relates to the 
 right of suffrage and the qualifications of members to b6 
 elected to the General Assembly, have had the subject 
 under consideration, and beg leave to report. 
 
 The Secretary then read the report, as follows : 
 The committee appointed " to take into consideration so much of 
 the present Constitution as relates to the right of suffrage, and the 
 qualification of persons to be elected to the General Assembly, 
 and report such alterations and amendments thereto, as they 
 may deem necessary and proper," respectfully report the fol- 
 
 Article. — Qualifications of Electors. 
 
 Sec. 1. Every white male citizen of this Commonwealth, being 
 also a citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years 
 and upwards, who shall have been a resident of ths State two yea's, 
 and of the county, city or town, in which he claims his vote, twelve 
 months next preceding an election, shall be entitled to vote for all 
 officeis that may be elective by the people : Provided, that no per- 
 son in the military, naval, or marine service of the United S ates, 
 shall be considered a resident of this State, by being stationed in 
 any garrison, barrack, or military or naval place or station, within 
 this State; and no pauper, idiot, or insane person, or person con- 
 victed of an infamous offence ; or who shall be convicted of bribery 
 in elections, or of voting more than once in the same election, shall 
 enjoy the right of an elector ; nor any naturalized citizen, until he 
 shall have taken an oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth ; Pro- 
 vided also, That no person shall be permitted to vote in any town 
 or city, the population of which exceeds (by the next preceding 
 census) thousand inhabitants, unless he shall vote in the ward 
 in which he resides. And it shall be the duty of the Legislature, 
 at the first session after the adoption of this Constitution, to pro- 
 vide that every such town or city shall be laid off into wards, and 
 a separate ov ward election held in each. 
 
 Sec 2. No elector shall be compelled to perform military duty 
 on the days of election, except in time of war, or public danger ; 
 nor to attend anv court as suitor, juror or witness; nor to work 
 upon the public or county roads ; nor be subjt-ct to arrest under 
 any civil process, in going to, remaining at, or returning from, the 
 place of election. 
 
 Sec. 3. In all elections in this Commonwealth to any office or 
 place of trust, power, or profit, the votes shall be given openly, or 
 viva voce, and not by ballot. 
 
 Article — Qualifications of Senators and Delegates. 
 
 Sec. 1. Any person maybe elected a Senator, who e hall have 
 attained to the age of twenty -five years, and shall be actually a res- 
 ident within the district, qualified to vote for members of the Gen* 
 eral Assembly, according to this Constitution. And any person 
 maybe elected a member of the House of Delegates, who shall 
 have attained the age of twenty five years, and shall be actually a 
 resident within the county, city, town, or election district, qualified 
 to vote for members of the General Assembly, according to this 
 Constitution; Provided, That all persons holding lucrative offices, 
 and mintsters of the gospel, and priests of every denomination, shall 
 be incapable of being elected members of either house of the Geo- 
 
110 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 cr.il Assembly. And the removal ol any person elected to either 
 branch of (he General Assembly, from the county, city, town, or 
 election dis rict. in which he resided a', ihc time of his election, 
 shall be deemed a vacation of the office. And provided moreover. 
 Th.u no Senator or Delegate shall, during the time lor whi' h he 
 was elected, be eligible to any office, or place of ti nst or profit, the 
 appointment of, or election to which, is vested m the Executive or 
 the General Assembly. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I would move that the paper be refer- 
 red to the committee of the whole. I understand from 
 high authority, that this is the proper course for it to 
 
 take. v i • i- 
 
 Mr. TRIGG. I am not particularly versed in parlia- 
 mentary usage, nnd do not know what is the proper refer- 
 ence My desire is to have the proposition printed. 
 
 The PRESIDENT s ggested that the proper course 
 would be to have the report ordered to be printed and 
 laid on the table, where it would be at the disposition 
 of the mover. 
 
 Mr. TRIGG assented to that course. 
 , And the report was laid on the table, and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 The proposition was read by the Secretary, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Article.— Qualifications of Representatives. 
 Every white male citizen of the Commonwealth,'!" the asrc of 
 twenty-one years or upwards, who shall have resided in this State 
 one year next preceding an e'ection, and the last six monilis within 
 the county, city or town, in which he offers to vote, shail be enti- 
 tled to vote for members of the General Assembly., and all other 
 civil officers in the county, city or town in which he resides : Pro 
 vided. nevertheless. That the risKtoi suffrage sh til not be exercised 
 by my person of unsound mind, or who shall be a pauper, non-com- 
 missioned offi-er, soldier, seaman, or marire, in the service of the 
 Unite 1 States, or by any person convicted of an infamous offence ; 
 nor shall any person vote except whore he resides, n>r more than 
 once in the same election 
 
 2 In all elections in this Commonwealth, to anyofficeor plac-of 
 trust, honor, or profit, the votes shall be given openly, ox viva voce, 
 and not by ballot 
 
 3 No elector shall be compelled to perforin mili'ary duty on the 
 day of election, except in time of war, or public danger; nor to at- 
 tend any court as suitor or witness; nor be subject to arrest under 
 any civil process in coming to, remaining at, or going from the place 
 of elecion. 
 
 Article. — Qualifications of Representatives. 
 Any person ma> he elected a Sma'or, who is a citizen of ihe 
 Unifpd Siates, of the age ol tvver.ty-fi ve years, and shall be actually 
 a resident within the district, qualified to vote for members of the 
 General Assembly according to this Constitu i^n. And any person 
 may be elected a member of the J'ouse of Delegates, who shall 
 have attained die age of twenty-five years, and shall be actually a 
 resident of the county, chy, town, or election district, qualified to 
 vote for members ol the General Assembly, according to this Con- 
 stitution : Provided, That all persons holding any office under the 
 United States, or lucrative offices under the government of thi* 
 State, and ministers of the gospel and priests of every denomina- 
 tion, shall be incapable of being elected members of eithe 1- house 
 of Assembly; and the removal of anypeison elected to either 
 branch of the General Assembly from the county, city, town, or 
 election district in which heiended at thetime ofhiselect'on, shall 
 be deemed a vacation of the office: Provided moreover, That no 
 Sena or or Representative shall, during the time for which he was 
 elected, be eligible to any office or place of trust, the app ointment 
 of which is vested in the Executive or General Assembly: Provided 
 also, That no person shall be capable of being elected to either 
 hiiuse who shall hereafter fight a <kiel, or send or accept a challenge 
 tofiihta duel, the probible issue of which maybe the death of 
 the challenger or the chal eng d ; or who shall be a second to either 
 party, or shall in any manner aid orassist in such duel, or shall be 
 knowingly the bearer of such challenge or acceptance : but no per- 
 son bhall be so disqualified by reasen of his having heretofore fought 
 a du'd, or sent or accepted such challenge, or been second in such 
 duel, or bearer of such challenge or acceptance. 
 
 The proposition was laid on the table, and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 EXPENSES OF FITTING UP THE CHURCH. 
 
 Mi\ M. G ARNETT. The Committee on Accounts have 
 
 had a number of accounts referred to them, in regard 
 to which I am instructed to report. I would say that 
 these accounts embrace all, I believe, that relate to the 
 expenses incurred in fitting up this house for the use of 
 the Convention, save the account of the upholdsterer, 
 which has not yet been received. I take pleasure in 
 saying to the Convention that the whole expense in- 
 curred in fitting up the building will not exceed $500 
 at furthest. 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary, as 
 follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention cer- 
 tify tor payment the following accounts for work done 
 and for furniture and other articles furnished in fitting 
 up the Universalist church for the use of the Conven- 
 tion, viz : 
 
 Charles D. Yale, for large size hot air furnace, $180 00 
 Christian & Lathrop, for carpeting, (fee, - - 137 79 
 A. H. Thornton, for coal, (fee, - - - 49 84 
 Habbleston & Brother, for chairs and tables, - 44 00 
 Wm. Booth, for chair for president, table, (fee, 47 00 
 J. F. & L. S. Barnes, for iron railing, - - 10 00 
 Wm. Scott, for painting, (fee, - 5 00 
 
 $471 67 
 
 The accounts were ordered to be certified to the Au- 
 ditor for payment. 
 
 BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. 
 
 Mr. TRIGG. Some days ago when the gentleman from 
 Rockbridge (Mr. Letcher) presented to the Convention 
 certain amendments which he proposed to make to the 
 report of the Committee on the Executive Department, I* 
 then stated to the Convention that there were other pro- 
 visions in that report, not embraced by these amend- 
 ments, to which, at some future day, I should myself offer 
 amendments. One of those provisions to which I have 
 given some little attention, is that providing for the or- 
 ganization of a Board of Public Works. I do not concur 
 fully with the committee in the proposition whhh they 
 have submitted to the Convention, whilst in the general 
 purpose which the committee had in view in making that 
 recommendation, I fully concur. I have an amendment 
 which I propose to offer as a substitute for the provisions 
 reported by the committee, and I hope I may be per- 
 mitted to make a remark or two previous to offering it. 
 
 This subject of internal improvement is one of great and 
 growing importance to the State, and in my judgment it 
 deserves and requires the fostering care of the Common- 
 wealth. Old Virginia, after having slept for perhaps fifty 
 years upon the subject of internal improvements, is at 
 last begi ningto wake up. She has at last commenced 
 the work of devoting her energies to the subject of internal 
 improvements. But whilst she slept, other and adjacent 
 States have been alive to their own interests. Thej have 
 been pushing their works into the very borders of the old 
 Commonwealth, and indeed, to some extent, have been 
 sapping the very sources of her prosperity. The works 
 of internal improvement now existing and in progress of 1 
 construction, have been attended by a large expenditure 
 of money by the Commomvealth, and they, together with 
 those perhaps of equal importance which are already 
 projecting, seem to me to require, or rather to demand, 
 that this Convention shall constitute some department in 
 the government which shall take this peculiar interest 
 under its care or guardianship. These improvements I 
 conceive to be the very elements of the prosperity of 
 the State, and if they are so, I can see no objection to 
 and indeed I can see great reason for the Convention 
 constituting a department which shall take the wdiole 
 subject under its peculiar care. I know from expres- 
 sions which have fallen from members of this Conven- 
 tion, that there is an indisposition on the part of many 
 of them to run into anything like detail in matters 
 which are to be embraced in the constitution we are 
 about to form. I, too, am with them, and would hope 
 that matters of detail may be avoided as far as practi- 
 cable, but I would not admit that consideration so far to 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Ill 
 
 influence my judgment as that I should pretermit an 
 especial provision for any peculiar interest which I 
 think should be properly and especially guarded by the 
 Convention. It may then be an objection of the plan 
 which I propose to offer for a Board of Public Works, 
 that it is too long and that it runs too much into detail, 
 but I commend it to the Convention, not only with my 
 own approbation, humble as I am, but I will add in or- 
 der that they may take it fully and fairly and calmly 
 into their consideration, that it has been submitted to 
 gentlemen of the very first intelligence in the Com- 
 monwealth, most of whom have had experience and de- 
 voted much time to the subject of the public works, 
 and it has in every instance received their decided ap- 
 probation. I therefore hope that the members of the 
 Convention, when this report shall come to be exam- 
 ined by them, will give it that consideration which to 
 my mind the subject itself deserves. I will send to the 
 Secretary the plan which I propose to substitute for 
 that of the committee, and ask that it may be read for 
 the information of the Convention, and laid on the table 
 and printed. 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary, as fol- 
 lows; 
 
 Strike out article 4th, and insert the following: 
 The Legislature, at its first session after the adoption 
 of this Constitution, shall organize a Board of Public 
 Works, to be composed of five members, to be appoint- 
 ed as follows, that is to say : The State shall be divi- 
 ded into four districts, as nearly equal as may be, having 
 reference to the number of electors qualified to vote for 
 members of the General Assembly ; each district shall 
 elect one member of the Board, and one member shall be 
 elected by the qualified voters in the State at large. 
 Two of the members elected by districts shall hold their 
 offices for two years, and two for four years. The mem- 
 ber chosen by the whole State shall hold his office for 
 four years, and shall be the President of the Board. The 
 district members at the first meeting of the Board after 
 their election shall determine by lot which of them shall 
 hold their offices for two years and which for four years ; 
 and there shall be elected bienniali y thereafter two of 
 said district members who shall hold their offices for 
 four years. In case a vacancy shall occur by death, re- 
 signation or otherwise, the same may be filled by the re- 
 maining members of the Board until a general election, 
 next thereafter, when anew election shall be held in that 
 district in which the vacancy occurred, or by the State 
 at large, as the case may be. 
 
 The Board of Public Works shall meet annually at the 
 
 seat of government on the day of , and may 
 
 be convened by the president, whenever, in his opinion, 
 the public interest shall require it ; and during the time 
 they are in session shall receive for their services the 
 compensation allowed to members of the General As- 
 sembly. 
 
 The said Board shall have and exercise a general su- 
 pervision over all works of public improvement belong- 
 ing to the State, and over the State's interest in all 
 other such works as the State is or may become interest- 
 ed as a stockholder, and shall appoint all such directors, 
 engineers and other officers connected therewith, as are 
 or may be required by law, or which may be necessary 
 for the proper discharge of the duties of said Board; but 
 the Board itself, or a committee thereof, shall in all ca- 
 ses represent the stock of the State in the annual or oth- 
 er meetings of the stockholders. They shall report to 
 the General Assembly within days from the com- 
 mencement of each session thereof, fully and generally, 
 
 by an appropriation of money is directed to be made to 
 any work of internal improvement, or whereby any char- 
 ter is granted for the incorporation of any internal im- 
 provement company, in which the State is to become a 
 subscriber for any part of the stock thereof, shall be 
 passed by the Legislature, until the same shall have 
 been referred to the Board of Public Works for their 
 consideration, and a report made thereon to that House 
 in which such bill or resolution may have originated. 
 If, upon full consideration, the said Board shall be of 
 opinion that such appropriation ought to be made or 
 charter granted, and shall so report to the Legislature, 
 and a majority of the members present in each House 
 shall concur with the said Board, the same shall become 
 a law ; but if, upon such reference, the Board of Public 
 Works shall report adversely to the proposed bill or 
 resolution, then the same shall not become a law, unless 
 two-thirds of the members present in each House shall 
 concur in passing the same. And in either case, the 
 Board shall set forth fully in their report the reasons 
 which govern their decision. 
 
 Mr. BLL T E. I hold in my hand a paper which I pro- 
 pose to substitute for the report of the committee, when 
 it shall come up for consideration. I ask that it be 
 read, laid on the table and printed. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The Convention, then, on motion of Mr. MARTIN, 
 resumed the consideration, in committee of the whole, 
 Mr. Watts of Norfolk in the chair, of the report of the 
 committee on the Executive Department. 
 
 RE-ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the first 
 section of the first article of the report and the amend- 
 ments pending thereto. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. Having, on a former occasion, in a 
 very humble way, participated in the discussion of the 
 question now before the committee, I am sorry that 
 circumstances render it proper, in my judgment, that I 
 should again trespass upon its attention. I favored the 
 call of this Convention because I was in favor of taking 
 power out of the hands of the agents of the people, and 
 vesting it, by constitutional guaranties, in the hands of 
 the people themselves. And I do not mean, by any vote 
 which I may be called upon to give in this Convention, to 
 sanction any measure by which power may be strength- 
 ened in the hands of the agents of the people, at the 
 expense of popular rights. Whenever a proposition is 
 presented which, in my judgment, will have a tendency 
 to give to the agents elected by the people the power 
 of using the privileges with which they are clothed for 
 their own benefit, regardless of the great rights of those 
 to whom they are responsible, I shall claim the privilege, 
 no matter who may set himself up as the true exponent of 
 democratic principles, to decide for myself whether suah a 
 claim is entitled to my respect, my sanction, and my vote. 
 All power, as exercised by the agents of the people, is, in 
 its tendency, at least, an infringement upon the rights 
 of some portion of the people. When the benefit of a 
 majority of the people requires that this power should 
 be exercised by their agents under their control, I shall 
 go for that exercise. But, its exercise upon any other occa- 
 sion, will be, in my judgment, more productive of evil than 
 of good. I humbly conceive that it i3 no encroachment 
 upon the proper rights of the majority of the people, to re- 
 strict the exercise of that power ; because, in a democratic 
 government, power ought to be exercised for the benefit 
 of the whole, and any other principle would lead to 
 the establishment of an arbitrary government, which 
 
 on the condition of the public works of the State, and ^ indeed, be protective to the interests of the ma 
 bring to their notice such plans of improvement, gene- jority, but would make the minority serfs and slaves, 
 ral or special, as to them may seem best calculated to What' is the proposition now before us ? I am in favor 
 promote the interests of the Commonwealth; and shall 0 f the election of the Governor by the people ; and I 
 perform all the duties now required of the existing f or hi s election by the people, no matter what 
 
 Board of Public Works, or such as may be prescribed by may \> e the term of his office, no matter what may be 
 
 the principle which may be engrafted upon the Consti 
 No bill or resolution of the General Assembl v. where- 'tution, in reference to re-eligibility. I arn unlike th§ 
 
 law 
 
112 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 gentleman from Henrico, who sets himself up as a pat- 
 tern democrat, of modern invention. I do not mean to 
 vote against this great right, which the people ought to 
 exercise. The distinguished gentleman from Accomac 
 promulgated the doctrine, in which I fully concur, that 
 there ought to be no officer among us, who should feel 
 himself so elevated above the people, so dignified, as 
 not to come down into the dust of political strife, to mix 
 among the people. I heartily subscribe to that doctrine. 
 But the gentleman from the county of Henrico told you 
 that he was sorry to see that doctrine introduced, and 
 that, rather than "see that dignified and honorable officer 
 leave the gubernatorial chair, and enter into the dusty 
 conflict — why he did not know but he would absolutely 
 vote to elect him by the legislature ! That shows his 
 attachment to democratic principles, and to the rights 
 of the people. [Laughter.] This Governor of yours, so 
 ctignfied and elevated above the people — aye, it would 
 not do for him to descend and mix among the people in 
 electioneering ! That shows you, gentlemen, what are 
 the principles of popular rights, for which the gentleman 
 from Henricois contending ! He wishes a dignified and 
 elevated officer above the people ; and he is for placing 
 him in a situation, by your Constitution, where he may 
 exercise his power still more to elevate himself above 
 the people. And he must have friends and agents too, 
 to electioneer for him. He must not come in contact 
 with them, least he will get dusty by rubbing against 
 the hard-fisted democracy of the country. [Laughter.] 
 Now, fellow-citizens, I am in favor of your Governor 
 coming down from any elevated position which he may 
 occupy. I am for his mixing in the arena of political 
 strife. I would have him to know something of the feel- 
 ings and sentiments of the people, to understand their 
 feelings, to be their representative in the Executive 
 branch of the government, and to reflect their will, so 
 far as he can, with a proper regard to the constitution. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I have no disposition to interrupt the gen- 
 tleman, in his harangue to his " fellow-citizens," [Laugh- 
 ter,] but will he allow me to inquire of him whether he 
 is in favor of the election of Judges by the people? 
 and if he is, if he expects the Judge that is to be elect- 
 ed by the people, to descend into the dust of the politi- 
 cal arena and electioneer for the office? 
 
 Mr. WISE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. The gentleman from Accomac has an- 
 swered the question. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I did not ask the question of the gen- 
 tleman from Accomac. I desire an answer from the 
 gentleman himself. 
 
 Mi*. LEAKE. When questions of this kind come up be- 
 tween the gentleman from Accomac and the gentleman 
 from Henrico, having more confidence in the democracy of 
 the gentleman from Accomac, I shall be very apt to follow 
 his example in preference to that of the gentleman from 
 Henrico. [Laughter.] I will say, however, that, what- 
 ever may be the principle upon "which the Judges are 
 to act, if they shall be elected by the people, there are 
 stronger reasons why the Governor of the people should 
 not feel himself entirely above the people, or consider 
 himself as occupying a position in which he cannot feel 
 it his duty to mix among them. There is a dif- 
 ference between the condition of a man who is a candi- 
 date to fill the office of Governor and the man who is a 
 candidate to fill an office connected with your Judiciary ; 
 because it is the duty of the judicial officer to decide 
 upon abstract rights between parties, and it is not his duty 
 to reflect the public feeling and public wishes. It is 
 his duty to execute the law. It is not his duty to find 
 out the sense of the people of the State or district, be- 
 fore deciding any legal question which may come before 
 him for his decision. But it is the duty of the Governor 
 to reflect the wishes and feelings of the people who 
 elected him. The cases are not parallel. But I am 
 willing to say that any man who is to be elected by the 
 people ought to go and mix among the people. 
 
 I am for engrafting upon your Constitution a principle 
 which has been sanctioned by the people ef Virginia ; 
 
 and which is at this time sanctioned by a majority of the 
 people of these United States. I am for engrafting 
 upon your Constitution a principle which has been 
 sanctioned by the conduct of your Washington. What 
 is the purpose that is advocated by gentlemen on the 
 other side ? It is this, that your Governor, your chief 
 executive officer, should be elected continually, term 
 after term, during his whole life. There is the differ- 
 ence between us. I am in favor of your Governor going 
 out of office for a term, at least, before he is re-eligible. 
 The gentleman is in favor of that principle by which 
 he may be elected, term after term, during his whole 
 life ; and he called upon us the other day for 
 some proof that the people were in favor of this 
 principle for which we were contending. He undertook 
 to tell us that it had its origin among the politicians of 
 the State — that it was not a principle which was sanc- 
 tioned by the great majority of the people — that it was 
 an infringement upon their rights — and that it was in 
 violation of fundamental principles. For my life I 
 could not find the evidence of the gentleman's declara- 
 tion. On the contrary, the history of our federal gov- 
 ernment and of our State government, in connection 
 with this question, shows that the American people 
 have consecrated the principle that after your chief ex- 
 ecutive has been in office for a time, he should retire, 
 and not again occupy that position. Am I proclaiming 
 a principle that is adverse to the wishes and feelings of 
 the people ? I understand that we are here in Conven- 
 tion representing the people, for the purpose of impro- 
 ving their fundamental law ; and it is to be taken for 
 granted that every man is giving expression to the 
 wishes and feelings and views of the constituents he 
 represents, so far as he knows them. I ask you if there 
 is any evidence that this principle which has been sanc- 
 tioned by your State Government, which has been 
 sanctioned by the vote of the people, and against 
 which no complaint has been ever raised, is now adverse 
 to their feelings, their sentiments, and their wishes upon 
 this subject? What are the provisions of your State 
 constitutions in reference to this re-eligibility ? Every 
 solitary one of the slaveholding States, with the excep- 
 tion of Georgia, has this principle engrafted upon its 
 constitution. There are now, including California, thir- 
 ty-one States in this Union. Nineteen of these States 
 sanction this principle for which we are contending. 
 Nearly two-thirds of them sanction it — and among them 
 every solitary State south of Mason and Dixon's line, ex- 
 cepting only Georgia. I do not know what the provis- 
 ion is in the constitution of California, but leaving her 
 out, there are nineteen constitutions which contain the 
 provision that your chief executive shall go out of office 
 after he has served a term of years. And where is the 
 opposite principle adopted? It is in your northern 
 States. It is in those States which have been in a great 
 measure settled by foreign emigration. Owing to the 
 peculiar institutions of the south, most of the foreign 
 emigration has settled in the non-slaveholding States. 
 And these settlers coming over from the despotical gov- 
 ernments of Europe, and knowing but little of demo- 
 cratic principles, becoming sudden converts to democracy 
 — like my friend from the county of Henrico, — have at- 
 tempted to engraft and have engrafted, a principle upon 
 their constitutions, allowing their Governor to be re- 
 elected. It is a principle which none of the southern 
 States, with the exception of Georgia — following the 
 example set them by those who had framed our institu- 
 tions in the beginning — have incorporated in their insti- 
 tutions. In the southern States, made up of a people 
 who have grown up with your institutions, and have 
 been deeply imbued with the spirit of our republican 
 freedom, with all their devotion to those principles, 
 the people are unwilling to give rein to any wild, un- 
 governable spirit, by which the majority are to control 
 without any limits or any checks whatsoever ; and the 
 consequence is, that now, so far from the principle for 
 which we are contending being a new principle, origi- 
 nating among politicians, it is one which has been 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 113 
 
 consecrated by the patriots of this and the great major- 
 ity of the States. And the opposition, I think, to this 
 principle, may b-3 traced to politicians, the consecration 
 of it certainly cannot be. The gentleman must pardon 
 me, if when I look at the facts, if when I look at the 
 southern States, and find that all of them with the ex- 
 ception of one, have retained the provision in their con- 
 stitutions, and when too I look at the character of ihese 
 States and the complexion of their population, and then 
 look at the character of tho>e States which have aJopt- 
 ed opposite principles — when I remember that fa- 
 naticism rages amnng this population, that you there 
 have every species of fanaticism, which urges their popu- 
 lation on to aggression upon the rights of other po tions 
 of the country — the gentleman from Henrico, I say. 
 must par Ion me if I prefer to follow the example set us 
 by the patriots of Virginia, and the great majority of the 
 southern States, in preference to following him, and 
 those northern States, in the attempt to establish a spe- 
 cies of democracy which has never been recognized by 
 the fathers of the church, 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico told us that the federal 
 constitution contained no prohibition against the re-eii- 
 gibility of your chief executive. It is true ; and Wash- 
 ington voted for that constitution, and assisted in its 
 formation. But what did Washington do ? Alter an 
 election for two terms, he became satisfied that the in- 
 terest and welfare of his country required that no man 
 should serve longer than two terms, and that he should 
 retire. Notwithstanding, there was no prohibition, his 
 conduct demonstrated the fact that he was satisfied that 
 the welfare and interests of the public demanded that no 
 executive officer should be elected after two terms. And 
 remember that the matter in discussion now is as to any 
 prohibition of re-eligibility, at all , for any length of time ; 
 and that the proposition is to allow your Governor to be 
 re-elected term after term, as long as he lives. I say 
 that the example of Washington is directly in opposition 
 to the arguments of the gentleman. And has not that 
 example been sanctioned and consecrated by all our best 
 and wisest statesmen ? Who would dare to be a candidate 
 for the chief executive office of the United States for a 
 third term ? The people at once would regard it as an 
 attempt to break down principles which have been held 
 sacred and absolutely necessary for their welfare. Be- 
 sides, we have had but one Washington, and it is not 
 likely that we shall ever have another. And the people, 
 notwithstanding their admiration and devotion to him, 
 so far believed the principle upon which he acted was a 
 wise, proper, and right one, ~as to sanction his course, 
 and not to call him again into public service. Although 
 he was regarded by them as the father of his country, 
 and better entitled to their support and admiration than 
 any other man in it — yet, satisfied that the principle upon 
 which he was acting was a wise and patriotic one, they 
 sanctioned it. And wh it has been the conduct of your 
 State governments since? It has been to make a con- 
 stitutional provision of that very principle upon which 
 Washington acted. The very men from Virginia who 
 participated in the formation and adoption of the fed- 
 eral constitution, sanctioned by their adoption of it in 
 our State constitution, this principle of ineligibility. 
 It has been consecrated and sanctioned by our wisest 
 aud best men, and yet the gentleman from Henrico 
 imagines that nobody is in favor of it except the poli- 
 ticians ! 
 
 But what is the argument, and the only argument in- 
 troduced by the gentleman from Heurico, to sustain the 
 position which he assumes on this question? Why he 
 told us that it was not right and proper that the hands 
 of the majority should be tied to prevent the minority 
 from doing what they please. Is that so ? The hands 
 of the people ought not to be tied, because they ought 
 to be allowed to do as they please! Is that the true 
 principle of republicanism"? Search the history of re- 
 publicanism from its origin down to the present time, 
 and if all its principles have not been in direct conflict 
 with such a doctrine as that, then I must subscribe to 
 
 the idea that the gentleman from Henrico has within 
 his mortal frame ninety-nine times more democracy 
 than all > f the democracy put together. Is it a fact 
 that there ought to be no restraint upon the majority of 
 the people to prevent them from doing injustice to the 
 minority ? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I hope the gentleman will pardon me. 
 I am sure the gentleman does not mean to misrepresent 
 my position. I said, and in order that it may be under- 
 stood more clearly. I will, with his permission, re-state 
 the proposition. The platform on which I planted my- 
 self was, that this was a popular government — that all 
 power belonged to the people, except that which they 
 chose to divest themselves of, and transfer to their 
 agents — and that, unless some good reason be shown 
 why they should be stripped of a particular power, that 
 it was safer to be retained in the hands of the people, 
 than in the hands of their agents; and that, in the origi- 
 nal formation of our government, it was an unsolved 
 problem whether man was capable of self-government 
 or not ; and, therefore, many of the powers they may 
 rightfully exercise, w 7 ere transferred to their agents. 
 But that is now a solved problem. Now we have the 
 experience of seventy-five years to prove that fact, and 
 we ought not to strip them of any power unless there 
 is some absolute necessity for it. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. The gentleman has got off the question 
 as he has in the whole of his argument, whenever he 
 has attempted to enforce his position. It was necessary 
 for him to force into his argument a question which 
 does not belong to it, or else abandon his ground. The 
 argument is not about the propriety of taking power 
 out of the hands of the people, and transferring it to 
 their agents. That is not the question. It is whether 
 there shall be any limitation upon the exercise of 
 power at all. The question is not whether it should be 
 in the hands of the people or their agents. I am in fa- 
 vor of taking all power, so far as the election and con- 
 trol of the agents of the people is concerned, and vest- 
 ing it permanently in the people. The gentleman begs 
 the question then when he tells this committee that the 
 question is as to taking power from the people, and 
 placing it in the hands of their agents. There is no dif- 
 ference between us in that respect, except that the gen- 
 tleman said, if the Governor was to electioneer, he 
 would then be for stripping the people of this power 
 which they should have, whether he electioneer or not. 
 The gentleman said in a speech, the report of which I 
 hold in my hand : 
 
 " W e have come here, as I understand, for the purpose 
 "of enlarging the power of the people ; and yet the very 
 " first proposition made here is, that the hands of the peo- 
 ' pie shall be so tied, and they be prevented from doing 
 " that which they may choose to do." 
 
 That is the sentiment which I ascribed to him. He was 
 opposed to the people's hands being tied, and desired that 
 they should be left to do what they chose to do. I say 
 there is no democracy in a sentiment of that sort. It is 
 going for arbitrary government. Such a principle is di- 
 rectly at variance with all just notions of our govern- 
 ment. The great object of a Constitution is to prevent 
 the majority of the people from doing what they please, 
 when it may be adverse to the interests of another por- 
 tion of the people. Why are you to have constitutional 
 restrictions and guaranties at all? It is that the people 
 may not do that which is unjust and improper. It is 
 that all our feelings which may become excited — our 
 feelings and* interests which may be biased — shall be 
 controlled by great fundamental principles, so that the 
 rights of all may be secured; and that, while the major- 
 ity shall exercise all proper and legitimate power, yet 
 that there shall exist some control over their power to 
 prevent an improper exercise of it. Ask the people of 
 this State if they desire to have unlimited power in 
 their hands, what will be their reply ? Why, that they 
 desire to have under their control all of the power wdiich 
 is necessary for the proper management of the govern- 
 
114 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ment by their agents. They desire to have under their 
 entire control all of the power which is necessary for 
 the management of the public agents. They desire that 
 these agents should be directly responsible to them, and 
 at all times under their control, and that they should be 
 placed in power by their votes. They desire no unlimi- 
 ted power over the rights of others, and they are wil- 
 ling that there shall be a limitation in the Constitution 
 by which the minority may feel that they are protected 
 and secured from outrage. Why, if you act upon the 
 principle of the gentleman from Henrico, in the forma- 
 tion of this whole Constitution, from the chief executive 
 down to the lowest office, you would have in a short 
 time a perfect display of the principles of French de- 
 mocracy. You certainly would have none of that de- 
 mocracy which has been sanctioned by the blood of our 
 revolutionary fathers. I venture to predict that if the 
 question was propounded to the people of these United 
 States, whether there ought or ought not to be any limi- 
 tation upon power, the universal response of the demo- 
 cratic republican people would be, that there ought to 
 be limitations upon it. And the only other response 
 which it seems to me could be made would be that which 
 would come from a class of politicians who exist at the 
 North, who think that they ought to have the entire con- 
 trol over the rights of others. There is a class of poli- 
 ticians North of Mason & Dixon's line who have been 
 acting upon the principle that there ought to be no con- 
 trol upon the wishes and whims of the majority ; and, in 
 consequence of this very principle, assaults have been 
 made upon the rights of the South, from time to time. 
 Do you not think there ought to be some limitation upon 
 the power of the majority ? Suppose there had been no 
 constitutional provision in your federal constitution to 
 prevent these Northern aggressions, where would have 
 been the rights of the South at this moment ? Suppose 
 there had been no check upon the pleasure of the ma- 
 jority, I ask you, what would Southern rights have 
 been at this moment ? The only thing that has saved 
 us, has been these constitutional guaranties. Men have 
 been brought back to their reason, and these constitu- 
 tional guaranties have risen as bulwarks to protect 
 the interests of the minority. And a republican people, 
 so far from being anxious to have unlimited control 
 over the rights of the minority, would desire that minor- 
 ity to feel safe and secure under the belief that their 
 own rights will be protected by constitutional guaranties. 
 
 But the gentleman says, I said the people were ca- 
 pricious ; and immediately he turned around and admit- 
 ted the fact that they were. [Laughter.] And he said 
 that the substance of my argument was, that the peo- 
 ple were not capable of self government. The gentle- 
 man is much more nearly allied to the school of politi- 
 cians who promulgate such doctrines as that than I am. 
 Whenever the gentleman finds me advocating the views 
 of the old time federalists, who were denounced by his 
 colleague as black cockade federalists, then he will have 
 some reason to suspect that I am more in favor of the 
 principle which denies to the people the right of 
 self-government. I believe that the people ought to 
 exercise unlimited control in the appointment of all 
 their officers, executive, legislative and judicial. I be- 
 lieve that no more power ought to be vested in the gov- 
 ernment than is absolutely necessary for carrying into 
 execution the legislative, executive, and judicial func- 
 tions. I am opposed to a strong government, because 
 such a government is directly in conflict with the 
 rights of the people. Can the gentleman from Henrico 
 say the same ? His devotion to federal principles is too 
 well known for him now to set himself up as a pattern 
 of modern democracy. I believe that power can be ex- 
 ercised better by the people than it can be by their 
 agents. I am utterly opposed to any of the departments 
 of the government exercising any more power than is 
 not absolutely necessary for the welfare of the people. 
 I would strip them of all power, and leave the pen- 
 pie free and independent, to act as they will, provided 
 their action does not interfere with the rights of the mi- 
 
 nority. That I understand to be the doctrines of de- 
 mocracy. I am not in favor of any splendid scheme of 
 government by which the people are to be coerced to do 
 anything which gentlemen may suppose to be for their 
 interest. When you find me advocating any scheme by 
 which the people will be made to invest their capital in 
 a particular way in order to promote and patronize a 
 particular interest, then you may doubt my belief in the 
 capability of the people for self-government. Gentlemen 
 who think it necessary that a government should have 
 a high tariff in order to coerce the people into particular 
 pursuits, as if they were not capable of taking care of 
 their interests themselves, are little prepared to give us 
 lectures on democracy, no matter how full they may 
 feel to be of it. 
 
 The CHAIR. It is to be hoped that there will be as 
 little allusion as possible to federal politics, otherwise 
 we shall be likely to have a long discussion on the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I will not do it, I should not have 
 done so at all, had not the gentleman from Henrico* 
 thought proper to resort to such remarks as he has in 
 this connexion, and I designed to say nothing more than 
 was barely necessary to reply to what he said. I only 
 desired to show that I never had been the advocate of a 
 strong government, and that I never was the advocate of 
 any principle by which the people were to be coerced 
 to do that which they themselves do not seek to do ; and 
 if they do not understand their own business sufficiently 
 to appreciate their own interests, I am not for compel- 
 ling them, by legislative coercion, to take care of those 
 interests. I go for leaving the people to do as they 
 please, provided they do not intefere with the rights 
 of others. Does the gentleman mean to say that the 
 people at times do not act capriciously ? Does he mean 
 to say that there may not at times exist a disposition 
 on the part of the majority of the people to interfere 
 with the rights of others ? There has been a great strug- 
 gle between the North and the South, and why was this 
 struggle ? Was there nothing in it ? The gentleman 
 seemed to think that I was slandering the people when 
 I said that they might act from prejudice and from ex- 
 citement, and I would ask him if the majority do not 
 act in this way sometimes ? What has been the result 
 of the contest out of which we have just come, and to 
 which I have before referred ? Why the people of the 
 South have been indulging in hallelujahs — not because 
 they achieved any great victory in that contest — but 
 because they came out second best ! There was a vio- 
 lent and a mighty effort made by a majority of the peo- 
 ple, through their representatives in Congress, to in- 
 fringe upon the rights of the South. With these facts 
 before me, I should not be candid, I should not pay that 
 regard to the facts, which it is necessary every man 
 should regard, who means to vote properly upon such 
 a question as this, if I did not govern my conduct ac- 
 cordingly. But because the people may act from ex- 
 citement and from prejudice, that does not require 
 me to doubt their capacity for self government ; on 
 the contrary, I say unless they had that power, things 
 would be a great deal worse. I say it is better that 
 all power should be lodged with the people than with 
 their agents, and that if we have the proper constitu- 
 tional guaranties, they will, as they have done hereto- 
 fore, remain as barriers to prevent evil and mischief. 
 But if you strike out this constitutional prohibition, then 
 there is no means by which the minority may be pro- 
 tected. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico stated that the powers 
 of the Executive would be so few and so limited, that 
 it would not be necessary that there should be any 
 provision incorporated in the Constitution for the pur- 
 pose of preventing his re-eligibility — that no evil can 
 grow out of his re-eligibility, his powers were to be so 
 small — and that as he was not to be entrusted with the 
 exercise of much executive power, that therefore it was 
 not important that he should be excluded from a re- 
 election. Now, no one can tell what, in the course of 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM 
 
 time, may be the power vested in your governor. Al- 
 though he has not very great power, he still has some 
 power, which he may exercise for the benefit of one 
 portion of the people, regardless of the rights of oth- 
 ers. The principles which govern his re-election are 
 different from those which apply to the case of mem- 
 bers of the Legislature. Your chief Executive is one 
 man, your executive power is all to be concentrated in 
 one man ; but in the case of your legislature, the power 
 is divided, the responsibility is divided, and there does 
 not exist the same necessity for those checks upon 
 the members of that department of the government 
 that should exist in the case of your chief executive. 
 But, says the gentleman, all power is in the people, and 
 there should be no infringement on popular rights. The 
 members of your General Assembly are the representa- 
 tives of the people, it is to be supposed that they know 
 what are the wishes and desires of the people. They re- 
 present the whole people, and according to the theory 
 of the gentleman, the decision of the majority of tiiis 
 legislature ought to be taken as the will and wish of 
 the people and there ought to be no check upon it. 
 Why and for what purpose, if the gentleman's doctrine 
 be true, was your Senate established ? Was it not to 
 be a check upon the wishes of a majority of the people ? 
 I have always understood that to be the object of a 
 Senate. Elected for longer periods, not so directly re- 
 sponsible to the people as the other branch of the General 
 Assembly are, the Senate was constituted for the purpose 
 of operating as a check upon the sudden excitement of 
 the people. Well, no evil has resulted from this, and the 
 people have never complained that there is a power 
 in the legislative department by which they are thus 
 checked and trammeled. They know that it is for their 
 good, that in the end it is the advancement of the in- 
 terests of all, and that so far from evil resulting from it, 
 it i* for the security of the rights of every portion of 
 the people. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico advanced one argument 
 which seemed to me to be fatal to the cause which he 
 espoused on this occasion. It was stated by the gentle- 
 from the city of Richmond, (Mr. Meredith,) that if the 
 governor was to be re-eligible, being at the seat of 
 government where the legislature assembled, the legis- 
 lature might attempt to control him and that he might 
 become their creature in order to secure his re-election. 
 What was the reply of the gentleman from Henrico? 
 Why, that he ought to be influenced by the people's 
 representatives ! The gentleman stated that the Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia ought to listen to the wishes, and to be 
 under the influence, if I understood him, of the Legis- 
 lature. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS, (in his seat.) He should submit to the 
 will of the people. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. The gentleman says that the Governor 
 should submit to the will of the people. What did his 
 argument mean, if it meant anything — and the gentle- 
 man is not apt to make speeches that mean nothing ? 
 His argument was, that the Governor might become the 
 creature of the Legislature, and the gentleman in his 
 reply says he ought to submit to the will of the people. 
 What is his meaning? Is it not that he ought to sub- 
 mit to that will as thus expressed? If that is not his 
 meaning, why make the reply at all ? He is to be the 
 representative of the people in the Executive Depart- 
 ment of the government, elected by them, and respon- 
 sible to them. The gentleman says that he ought to 
 submit to the will of the people, and according to his 
 argument, if there is any meaning to be attached to it, 
 it means that he should listen to the Legislature, and 
 become its creature. I had thought we desired to take 
 the election out of the hands of the Legislature, and to 
 place the candidate in a position beyond their control ; 
 but the gentleman's great attachment to the rights of 
 the people seems only to go so far as a re-election is 
 concerned. And really then after his all-great display 
 in &vox of popular rights, the only thing -which I can 
 
 CONVENTION. 115 
 
 discover that entitles him to be called the defender of 
 the people's privileges, is that of advocating that the 
 Governor should be re-elected during his whole life ! 
 
 It does seem to me that his argument is of itself a 
 most conclusive reason against the re-eligibility of the 
 Governor. If there is a probability of his intriguing 
 with the Legislature for the purpose of securing his 
 own ends and promoting his own designs, and by thus 
 becoming a creature of the Legislature, ensuring his 
 own advancement, then I say the Governor ought not to 
 be re-elected. Checks and restrictions are absolutely 
 necessary to be placed upon his rights and privileges 
 for the security and advancement of the rights of the 
 great body of the people. But, says the gentleman, it 
 is the politicians who make the people do wrong. 
 That certainly is very complimentary to the people. 
 Now, as the place where all the politicians of the State 
 assemble is in the immediate neighborhood of my friend 
 from Henrico, I admit his superior knowledge of their 
 practices. But will not your Governor himself be a 
 politician ? I admit that politicians are apt to do 
 wrong themselves, for their own interest, and if they 
 are very popular among the people, they may for a time 
 influence them in a wrong cause. But I have faith in 
 the intelligence and virtue of the people, and believe 
 that they will finally control the politicians and make 
 them submit to what is right. The most conclusive ar- 
 gument that the gentleman advanced in favor of the 
 propriety of his side of the question was, that he had 
 more democracy in his frame than ninety-nine hun- 
 dredths of those who styled themselves democrats. 
 That seemed to me the most conclusive argument 
 w.hich the gentleman from Henrico advanced during the 
 whole of his speech yesterday, in favor of the continued 
 re-eligibility of the Governor to office. Upon that 
 point we are disposed to dispute with him. I recollect 
 that the gentleman sometime ago was very severe upon 
 his party friends because they so far abandoned the po- 
 sition which they had formerly occupied, as to call 
 themselves no party men. I suppose he means to be 
 ahead of them this time, by taking the name of demo- 
 crat, and thus be prepared for any contingency. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS, (in his seat.) Was not my doctrine dem- 
 ocratic ? 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. Not at all. Your democracy was the 
 old federal democracy. I have never uttered, I have 
 never entertained, the sentiment that the people are not 
 capable of self-government. I believe they are. I be- 
 lieve that power can better be exercised by them than 
 it can by any other form of government that may be 
 devised. I am utterly opposed to the concentration of 
 power in the hands of the government. I am utterly op- 
 posed to the insertion of any provision in your Consti- 
 tution by which the power and privileges of the agents 
 of the government are to be increased. I am for whole- 
 some restraints and checks upon the rights of the major- 
 ity. Would the gentleman strike out from the Federal 
 Constitution that provision made for the benefit of the 
 minority as well as the majority, which says " that a 
 republican form of government shall be guaranteed to 
 every state in the Union?" According to the gentle- 
 man's doctrine, the majority of the people of the state 
 ought to be left to do as they please. And what is this 
 provision in your Federal Constitution which says that 
 a republican form of government shall be guarantied to 
 each state ? Why it must be a monstrous outrage upon 
 the rights of the majority. I wonder the gentleman 
 does not get up a crusade, so great is his admiration, so 
 great is his zeal for the rights of the majority, with a view- 
 to have that provision stricken out of the Federal Consti- 
 tution. 1 believe that the people are capable of self-gov- 
 ernment, and at the same time I believe that men are frail 
 and liable to be led away by their passions and prejudices. 
 He is the true friend of the people who does not flatter 
 them, who points out the frailties to which they are 
 liable, and makes the necessary provision in order to avoid 
 their evil consequences. There is a class of politicians 
 at the north who are for throwing away all re- 
 
116 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 6traints, for breaking down all constitutional checks, 
 and for having the majority governed by no lim- j 
 itations upon their power by the restraints of Con- 
 gress. They are for nothing but the "higher law" 
 and none of them respect that. It will always be found 
 that these parties have no respect for any law at all. 
 They are for giving entire control to their passions, feel- 
 ings and prejudices. They pretend to be in favor of 
 liberty ; bu! their doctrine carried out, next comes an- 
 archy, and finally licentiousness. The only way to se- 
 cure our rights is to preserve every check we can upon 
 the evil passions of human nature. The only way to 
 elevate man is to teach him his frailty and his defects. 
 Tell him he is perfect and not liable to fall into temp- 
 tation, and you at once let loose the reins of govern- 
 ment, are thrown from the back of power, and nothing 
 but evil can possibly result. But teach the people that 
 they are frail and liable to commit errors, that it is 
 proper and right that they should respect the rights of 
 others, and check their passions, their feelings, their 
 predjudices, their actions, and their caprices if you 
 choose, and the people, if they listen to your teachings, 
 will ever be prepared to respect the rights of others, 
 and preserve their own independence and freedom. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. The amendment now before the com- 
 mittee, is one which I indicated some days since my pur- 
 pose to offer as an amendment to the report of the commit- 
 tee on the Executive Department of theGovernment,when 
 that report should be under consideration. Being ab- 
 sent, however, when it was taken up, I return my thanks 
 to the gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) for having 
 proposed it, as well as my thanks for the able argument 
 which he addressed to us in favor of the proposition. It 
 is not my purpose to detain the committee long in giving 
 the reasons that not only induced me to indicate a purpose 
 of offering this amendment, but also induced me to sustain 
 it by my vote in committee, and in Convention. Before I 
 do so, however, I trust that the members of this com- 
 mittee will pardon me for expressing the hope that they 
 will not follow to any very considerable extent, the ex- 
 ample set them by the gentleman who has just taken his 
 seat ; but will refrain in future discussions from any allu- 
 sion to the Northern and Southern controversy, as 
 it is familiarly termed. I trust that that subject, which 
 it is to be hoped has been settled forever, and in the 
 settlement of which the gentleman from Goochland 
 (Mr. Leake) also, I doubt not, acquiesces, will be per- 
 mitted to rest, at least so far as gentlemen this side of 
 Mason and Dixon's line are concerned. I trust it will 
 not be brought into our discussions here. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. Will the gentleman allow me to ex- 
 plain ? I did not refer to it for the purpose of inviting 
 that discussion here, but to show the fact that there was 
 a disposition among a majority sometimes to override 
 and forget the rights of the minority. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. Well, I do not know that the pro- 
 osition, which the gentleman urges as a correct one, 
 as been enforced upon the minds of the committee to 
 any greater degree by his allusion to that subject, than 
 if he had left the allusion alone. So much for that. 
 
 I design but very briefly, to notice some of the re- 
 marks made by the gentleman from Goochland. He says 
 he has never uttered the sentiment, that he did not be- 
 lieve the people were incapable of self-government. I 
 believe every word the gentleman has said. He would 
 not utter the sentiment, but what I would rather see, what 
 the people would rather see, and what would be a bet- 
 ter test of his democracy, would be for him to act by his 
 votes in carrying out the contrary sentiment which he says 
 he has ever uttered. If he has never given utterance 
 to that sentiment, I fear by the position he has assumed 
 in this house, he shows that if he does not utter the 
 want of confidence in the people to govern themselves, 
 he still entertains opinions which are directly contrary 
 to the sentiment which he does utter. I do not believe, 
 as a practical question, that so far as the election and 
 re-election of gentlemen who shall fill this distinguished 
 office is concerned, it makes much difference whether the 
 
 amendment proposed by the gentleman from Henrico, 
 (Mr. Botts,) or the one proposed by the gentleman from 
 Pittsylvania, (Mr. Tredway : ) should be engrafted into 
 our Constitution. I believe that so far as practical re- 
 sults are to be attained, by the adoption of either of the 
 propositions, that it will matter very little ; but I look 
 upon it not only as involving a question of principle, 
 but as being the predecessor of principles that are 
 to be hereafter determined by this Convention. 
 The settlement of this proposition, in all probabili- 
 ty, will determine the settlement of other propositions 
 in which the interests of the people are more di- 
 rectly involved, than in the question whether a gentle- 
 man once elected Governor shall be re-elected if the 
 people desire to re-elect him. I maintain that gentle- 
 men have not drawn a distinction between the qualifica- 
 tions that a wise people shall require of any one who 
 shall fill the office of Governor — the limitations that are 
 to be imposed upon that department of the Government — 
 and the amendment which the gentleman from Gooch- 
 land advocates. It is said by the gentlemen who advo- 
 cate his side of the question, that you require the Gov- 
 ernor shall be of a certain age, that it is required by the 
 report of this committee that he shall be a citizen of 
 the United States, and a citizen of Virginia at least five 
 years previous to his election. These are deemed by 
 that committee as wise and wholesome qualifications to 
 be possessed by the individual before he can fill that 
 office and discharge its duties. These I repeat are quali- 
 fications which in the opinion of the committee who 
 made this report, a wise people ought to require in a 
 candidate who proposes to fill an important position in 
 the State. The amendment proposed by the gentleman 
 from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Tredway,) and favored by the 
 gentleman from Goochland, (Mr. Leake,) is not a quali- 
 fication which is thought necessary to be possessed by a 
 Governor, as essential to enable him to discharge his du- 
 ties, but is a restriction upon the right of the people to 
 select as their agent, one who is admitted to be of ma- 
 ture age and whose qualifications to discharge the duties 
 of the office, have been endorsed by an election to the 
 very position which he again aspires to fill. A qualifi- 
 cation operates alike upon every citizen of the State. 
 The restriction advocated by the gentleman from Gooch- 
 land excludes a class of meritorious citizens from being 
 called into the service of the State and placed in a posi- 
 tion which experience has doubly qualified them to fill. 
 I ask gentlemen if they do not see the distinction ; the 
 one is a qualification, the other is a limitation 
 and restriction upon the rights of the people. It is 
 this distinction I desire gentlemen to draw. It is 
 not a qualification at all — it is not a restriction, as gen- 
 tlemen suppose, upon the office of Governor, but a re- 
 striction upon the rights of the people in whom the 
 gentleman has so much confidence, which he desires to' 
 impose by the amendment he advocates. And he 
 invokes the great name of Washington, the father of 
 his country, and cites us the example which he set by 
 retiring from an office that he had filled for two presi- 
 dential terms. Let me commend that example to the 
 gentleman from Goochland, (Mr. Leake.) That great 
 man, when he was making a constitution for the gov- 
 ernment of the country and for the people, did not 
 vote for any such provision as the gentleman from 
 Goochland here desires to vote for. He was for leav- 
 ing with the people the right to determine for them- 
 selves whether they would re-elect any gentleman to 
 the office of president, either for one or two terms, or 
 for life, as the gentleman from Goochland choses to 
 term it. I commend that example to him in his votes 
 here, in organizing a form of government for that people 
 which he professes to love so dearly, and who, as a 
 democrat, I take it for granted, he thinks he does love. 
 But, while I entertain great respect for the gentleman. 
 I have no very high respect for his democracy. I am 
 fast coming to the opinion that this eastern democracy 
 is a very different thing from that which is entertained 
 in my section of the State. It is a democracy which 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 117 
 
 gives utterance to sentiments in favor of the capacity 
 of the people to govern themselves, but takes very 
 good care to restrict the exercise of all the powers that 
 belong to freemen. I commend, therefore, the example 
 set by the father of his country to be acted upon, and 
 followed by the gentleman from Goochland, if he has 
 that respect for that example which he would induce 
 us to believe, in the argument submitted to us this 
 morning. Let the gentleman, when the election for 
 Governor is to come before the people — if one who has 
 filled that office is a candidate for re-election — let 
 him come before the people and urge his reasons why 
 he shall not be re-elected, and let the people have the 
 privilege he claims for himself, of determining whether 
 they will re-eleet him or not. But the democracy of 
 the gentleman from Goochland leads him to think that the 
 people ought to exercise all che powers, which in his 
 opinion, he is willing that they should exercise, and none 
 other. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I did not say so. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. No, I know the gentleman did not 
 say so, but that is the effect of the proposition which 
 the gentleman advocates. I trust to find him voting 
 with us before this question is decided. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. No, your democracy is too much of 
 northern origin. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. The gentleman says my democracy 
 19 of northern origin. He knows much more about the 
 Northern States than I do, I have no doubt ; for he has 
 been in them much more than I have. I am a Virginian 
 by birth, and I claim to be a Southern man. I do not 
 think that in this discussion there is any necessity of re- 
 ferring to Northern States or to Northern sentiments. 
 There are many things which we might copy that have 
 been engrafted by the Northern people in their organic 
 laws, and I recommend them to the very careful consid- 
 eration of the gentleman from Goochland. And if Vir- 
 ginia should copy a little more from that which has im- 
 proved that section of country, she might be more pros- 
 perous than she is to day. Now the difference between 
 the gentleman from Goochland and myself is this: while 
 I would not re-elect a Governor for life, and in the ex- 
 ercise of my rights as a freeman at the polls, I might 
 not be disposed to elect any man for more than one 
 term, yet I am willing the people of the State should 
 have the same liberty that I claim for myself, and I 
 would permit them to determine for themselves wheth- 
 er one elected by them should be retained in office in 
 preference to those who might be his competitors. I 
 am for following the example cited by the gentleman 
 from Goochland. I commend it again to him, and hope 
 he will walk in the path of that precedent which has 
 been set him, and if he should be elected Governor, 
 that instead of running a third race, like Washington, 
 that he will retire. 
 
 Now, what is the business of this Convention ? It is 
 to organize a government, and in organizing a repiesen- 
 tative government, certain restrictions and limitations 
 are necessary to be placed upon the powers of differ- 
 ent departments of the government to secure the peo- 
 ple from any infraction of their rights. These restric- 
 tions are required to be imposed for the protection of 
 the people against an abuse of power by their agents. 
 They demand that limitations shall be placed upon 
 their agents ; and whenever the gentleman can satisfy 
 me that the amendment which he supports is a limita- 
 tion upon any one of the departments ef the govern- 
 ment — upon the manner in which the representatives 
 of the people in this department of the government 
 shall exercise their functions and discharge their du- 
 ties — then he will show some plausible argument in 
 favor of his position. But until he can convince me 
 that such is the fact, I am bound to believe that he is 
 opposed to the privileges of the people themselves, the 
 right of the people to select who shall fill the chief offi- 
 ces in the State, who shall preside over them, and who 
 shall be commander of the army and of the navy. Now 
 we can very well see that there might be the very best i 
 
 of reasons, even a necessity for the re-election of Gover- 
 nor, and that great detriment might result to the public 
 weal, to put in one inexperienced in that office, and that 
 much of the gentleman's argument offered against the 
 propriety or impropriety of his election would not be 
 considered by the people themselves when they come 
 to fill the office. 
 
 The provision in the present Constitution is a limita- 
 tion imposed upon one department of the government, 
 whose creature the Governor is. The Governor of Vir- 
 ginia has never been selected by the people. Hereto- 
 fore he has been elected by the legislative department 
 of the government ; and the people in view of this fact, 
 not exercising that power themselves, have imposed 
 this limitation upon the power of that department of 
 the government, and have said heretofore that he should 
 not be re-elected until after one gubernatorial term. But 
 now the question is presented to us in a very different 
 aspect. It is a question of permitting the people them- 
 selves to elect — not permit either, that is not the proper 
 word to be used in this Convention, for I maintain that 
 the people have all power — that all power is vested in 
 and derivable from them. Then it is not a question of 
 permitting the people, but on the contrary, a question of 
 taking away from the people a power which naturally 
 belongs to them — a power which I maintain should be ex- 
 ercised by them. The proposition advocated by the gen- 
 tleman from Goochland abridges that power by taking 
 away from the people the right of selecting one whom 
 they have heretofore passed upon, who has acquired ex- 
 perience in the discharge of his duties, and who may be 
 better qualified to discharge those duties than any other 
 man in the Commonwealth. I have always thought that 
 this one term principle was a principle gotten up by cer- 
 tain aspirants for the Presidency who had lived to a very 
 good old age, and who felfc that if eight years were al- 
 lowed to any one of them to fill that distinguished office, 
 they might possibly drop into their graves before an op- 
 portunity could be afforded to all of them of arriving at 
 that point of distinction. The people never advocated 
 that doctrine. It has never been incorporated into the 
 principles of any party in tins country ; it has merely 
 been resorted to in the Presidential canvass for the pur- 
 pose of allaying the fears and obtaining the support of 
 those gentlemen who desired to fill that office. Now I 
 put it to the gentleman from Goochland if it would not 
 be better for him, if he believes the people to be capable 
 of self government, if he desires that they shall exercise 
 those rights which belong to them, to let the people de- 
 termine for themselves whether they shall re-elect a man 
 to the office of Governor, than for him to say they shall 
 not have the right and the privilege of doing so. I ask 
 him now whether it would not be more consistent 
 with his democratic professions, and more consistent 
 with the whole theory of a republican form of govern- 
 ment to allow the people, who he admits are capable of 
 governing themselves, the right to determine this ques- 
 tion for themselves, and to pass upon the propriety or 
 impropriety of re-electing any man to the office of Gover- 
 nor ? What is the argument offered against re-election ? 
 Pardon me for saying so, but I have not heard a single 
 argument used against the policy of adopting the amend- 
 ment, offered by the gentleman from Henrico, and not an 
 argument in favor of the restrictions sought to be im- 
 posed by the amendment of the gentleman from Pitt- 
 sylvania (Mr. Tredway) to the report of the Executive 
 Committee. The only argument that I can possiblv con- 
 ceive that can be urged in favor of such a proposition is, 
 that there are a great number of my democratic friends, in 
 all human probability, who would like to fill that office, 
 and who the people might continue to overlook, but 
 whom they might be forced to take in the event of a con- 
 stitutional limitation preventing them from electing the 
 man they may prefer. That is the only argument, in my 
 humble opinion, to be used in favor of the proposition. 
 
 What is the advantage of adopting the amendment 
 of the gentleman from Henrico ? To whom is the Gov- 
 i ernor responsible for the manner in which he shall dis- 
 
118 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 charge the duties of his office, if you do not permit him 
 to be re-elected? How are the people to pass upon the 
 manner in which he has discharged his duties, if ha is 
 to be speedily removed from that office, and has no in- 
 centive to action, and knows that by your organic law 
 he never can be voted for again, or in any reasonable 
 time, and that judgement upon his conduct and the man- 
 ner in which he shall have discharged his duties, can 
 never be pronounced by the people. All the responsi- 
 bility, which he would otherwise owe to the people, 
 when he comes to canvass for a re-election, is complete- 
 ly removed ; and the object which the gentleman from 
 Goochland seems to have in view, that of securing the 
 responsibility of the agents of the people, is wholly de- 
 stroyed by the amendment which he advocates. 1 do 
 not profess to be a politician ; the gentleman from Gooch- 
 land, I have no doubt is, because he has given us his 
 experience upon this subject. He tells us that the pol- 
 iticians do wrong, and that they make the people do 
 wrong. I have more confidence in the people, than to 
 assume any such position in this committee or elsewhere. 
 Politicians may do wrong, and in my humble opinion, 
 this amendment which the gentleman advocates is one 
 by which the politicians will be benefitted at the 
 expense of the people. Politicians I say again, may 
 do wrong, but I have confidence in the people of this 
 State, and of every other State in this glorious confed- 
 eracy. I believe that they are capable of governing 
 themselves, that they will do it properly, if the politi- 
 cians will only permit them. But it is said that the 
 Governor will be the creature of the Legislature. The 
 gentleman from Goochland says that that argument has 
 never been answered. It can be answered in a very 
 few words, and by as humble individual as myself. The 
 Governor is now the creature of the Legislature, be- 
 cause the legislature is the creator, and he is indebted 
 to them for the position which he holds in the State, but 
 once let him be indebted to the people for his re-elec- 
 tion as it is proposed he shall be, and as the gentleman 
 from Goochland himself proposes to do, then he be- 
 comes the creature of the people, created by and re- 
 sponsible to the people, and to no particular depart- 
 ment of the Government. To the people he will look 
 for the approval or disproval of his conduct. But the 
 gentleman from Goochland says that the people at times 
 act improperly. Well, who is the judge of the proprie- 
 ty or impropriety of the conduct of the people ? It may 
 be that the people, at times, in the judgment of the 
 gentleman from Goochland, act improperly, but it might 
 be that the people themselves differ with the gentleman 
 as to whether a certain act of theirs was proper or im- 
 proper ; and I would greatly prefer to leave the determi- 
 nation to the people of this State, than to the gentleman 
 from Goochland, or to those who advocate his side of the 
 question in this committee. I do think that it is assum- 
 ming a great deal to ourselves, for one hundred and 
 thirty- five gentlemen to say that eight hundred thous- 
 and people, or one hundred thousand voters are 
 not capable of determining upon the propriety or 
 impropriety of re-electing their Governor ; that it is 
 absolutely essential to the public weal that we should 
 provide against the re-election of a Governor in the Con- 
 stitution. If it be improper to exercise the power which 
 will be in the people, if the amendment of the gentle- 
 man from Henrico be adopted, do gentlemen believe the 
 people will exercise it ? Have they not confidence 
 enough in the people to permit this naked power to re- 
 side with them and to be exercised or not by them as 
 they may determine for themselves ? Would it not be 
 more respectful to the people, and would we not be car- 
 rying out our professions of belief in their capacity for 
 self-government better by rejecting this restriction upon 
 their rights and wait until a Governor shall present him- 
 self for re-election, and then if gentlemen see danger in 
 his re-election let them address their arguments to the 
 people, and if they shall think with them they will cer- 
 tainly reject him? If there be that danger which gen- 
 tlemen seem to see in this power — if the people are un- 
 
 accustomed in Virginia to the exercise of power — if the 
 democracy of this noble old State which has been called 
 the "Flag Ship" of the Union, are not capable of deter- 
 mining for themselves whether a gentleman who has 
 once filled the office of governor shall be re-elected or 
 not, I hardly conceive that the gentleman from Gooch- 
 land is capable of judging for them. And I think it im- 
 plies no want of repsect for him to express that opinion. 
 You who deny to the people this right of determining 
 for themselves whether a faithful public officer shall be 
 re-elected or not, and who believe that the people would 
 so exercise it, as to be injurious to the State and public 
 weal, are those who set themselves up as judges upon the 
 capacity of the people for self-government. Such is the 
 only legitimate inference that can be drawn from such 
 a limitation as is sought to be imposed. It is no limita- 
 tion whatever upon the executive office, its powers or 
 its duties, but a limitation upon the power of the people 
 to select aud nominate from the class frem which a re- 
 election is to be made. 
 
 It is not a question whether he who has been elected 
 Governor is to be elected for life or not ; because I un- 
 derstand the longest term which lias been proposed by 
 any one is four years. The question then is only wheth- 
 er the people shall have the right of determining for 
 themselves and passing upon the conduct of him who 
 has discharged the duties of this important office, or 
 whether they shall be restrained from exercising that 
 power, and the right be denied to them by the organic law. 
 That is the simple question before this committee, and 
 I beg gentlemen not to be committed here by arguments 
 such as have been used upon this principle in reference 
 to this question. A more important question involving 
 the same principle will shortly come from a very impor- 
 tant committee of the Convention, and this body will 
 have to act upon it. There are members of this body, it 
 is known, who come here as radicals, professing, like the 
 gentleman from Goochland, all confidence in the capaci- 
 ty of the people for self-government, but who believe 
 that any man who might happen to be elected a nisi 
 prius judge, ought not to come before the people for re- 
 election. I am for the re-eligibility of all officers, and 
 for allowing the people to select, for every office it is 
 necessary for them to fill, the very best material the 
 State ha3 in it. That is the doctrine I advocate. That 
 is my democracy, and I trust such will yet be the de- 
 mocracy of my friend from Goochland. If the judge of 
 my circuit who has discharged his duties for seven or 
 ten years, is more capable of discharging those duties 
 and rendering good service to the people over whom he 
 presides, than any other gentleman in the district, I de- 
 sire that the people of that district may have the power 
 of retaining him in his station as judge over them. I 
 also desire the people to have the power in this instance, 
 of retaining in office their governor, if they please, no 
 matter whether the necessities of the State, or his supe- 
 rior qualifications shall seem to require it or not. I de- 
 sire that they shall have the naked power of retaining 
 him in that position, and that is the only question before 
 us. It is not whether A. or B. shall or shall not be re- 
 elected. It is only whether the people shall have the 
 naked power of re-electing him if they choose ; and that 
 naked power is sought to be denied the people of this 
 democratic state, by democratic gentlemen, who pro- 
 fess to believe that all power is in the people, and that 
 the people should not be deprived of any power which 
 is not necessary for the public good. But when allusion 
 was made to the mixing in the political strife, and en- 
 gaging in the active canvass for office, the gentleman from 
 Goochland, in response to the question of the gentleman 
 from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) whether he would apply the 
 same principle to the judges, says that is a different thing. 
 The Judges he says are to execute the law. Now what 
 are the duties of the Governor ? Why the very report 
 under consideration says that the duty of the Governor 
 is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. That is 
 the most important part of the Governor's duty. And 
 it is just as important, if any importance is to be at- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 119 
 
 tached to it at all, that the Judges should mix iu the 
 canvass for their office, as that the G-overnor should. 
 But whether the Governor shall electioneer or not, or 
 whether the Judges shall electioneer or not, is a ques- 
 tion wholly outside of the consideration of the subject 
 now before the committee. We show by our acts in 
 giving to the people the right of selecting a Governor 
 and of exercising a power that has heretofore been 
 denied to them in the selection of their agents, that we 
 have confidence in the capacity of the people for self- 
 government ; and it is for the people to determine for 
 themselves whether their candidate shall electioneer or 
 not. And it is a question to which I am wholly indiffer- 
 ent — I care not whether they do or do not electioneer. 
 I have too much confidence in the people, at least in my 
 portion of the State, to believe that any electioneering 
 for these offices is going to make the people do wrong. 
 Whenever I shall be brought to the conclusion that such 
 is the effect, then I shall doubt their capacity for self- 
 government, reject all the democracy I have heretofore 
 professed, and come alongside of my friend from Gooch- 
 land in the position he has assumed. 
 
 Fow, I again desire, in conclusion, to commend to the 
 gentleman from Goochland, and to those who think with 
 him, the example to which he has referred. I beg all — 
 both the gentleman and those who think with him — to 
 transfer this argument upon the re-eligibility of the Gov- 
 ernor from this Convention to the hustings, whenever one 
 shall come before the people for re-election. There is the 
 proper place for it. It is to the sound judgment 
 of the voters of the State to whom this argument 
 should be addressed, when the occasion shall arise 
 that makes it necessary for them to vote for or against 
 an individual who has once been elevated by their 
 sum-ages to the gubernatorial chair. That is the 
 principle upon which you must proceed. You can 
 only advocate this proposition, — you can only ad- 
 vocate this restriction of the right of the people to 
 select their own Governor — by assuming, that if they 
 have that right, they will exercise it improperly. I do 
 not attribute to the gentlemen the argument that this 
 power, if left with the people, will be abused, because 
 though they may entertain it, they are not likely to 
 make such an argument. But the necessary inference to 
 be drawn from the effect of this proposition is, that the 
 people should not have the naked right to determine for 
 themselves as to the policy of re-electing any im- 
 portant officer. And again I desire to call the attention 
 of the committee to what I conceived to be a misappre- 
 hension on the part of gentlemen who say that this 
 question of re-eligibility is a question of qualifi- 
 cation. It is no such thing. Any man, I care not wheth- 
 er he be idiot or sane, or talented and able, is liable 
 to the ban if you impose this restriction upon the pow- 
 er of the people. The requisition of qualification — a 
 different question — is that which all wise and prudent 
 people desire and require in those who are to fill im- 
 portant offices in the State. For prudential and wise 
 considerations they require that the officer upon whom 
 they impose a trust shall be of a certain age, shall have 
 attained the age of twenty-five, thirty, or forty; and this 
 qualification is required at the hands of those who propose 
 to discharge the duties, because they are more likely to 
 possess at that age the necessary experience and capaci- 
 ty. That he shall be a native born citizen of the United 
 States is another question of qualification. But the 
 question whether he shall be eligible, or re-eligible, is 
 not a question of qualification, but is merely the ques- 
 tion of depriving the people of that power which natu- 
 rally belongs to them, the right of saying whether the 
 public servants have properly discharged the duties 
 which have been assigned to them. 
 
 It was not my purpose to detain this committee as long 
 as I have. Indeed, the field had been so well reaped that 
 there was nothing left for me to say. The argument of 
 those, who with the gentleman from Goochland, are oppos- 
 ed to re-eligibility,was successfully answered, in my hum- 
 ble opinion, by the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts.) 
 
 I will conclude by saying, that it is a question not so 
 much of qualification as of restriction upon the power 
 of the people ; that this naked power should not be de- 
 nied to the people, particularly by those who profess 
 to believe in their capacity for self-government ; that all 
 the responsibility of the officer is wholly destroyed if 
 you refuse the people the right to pass upon the 
 manner in which he discharged his duties, by de- 
 ciding upon his election or rejection ; and that such 
 limitations are not properly imposed in republican gov- 
 ernments, but are the works of those who deny to the 
 people those rights which properly belong to them, and 
 and who have no confidence in the capacity of the peo- 
 ple to govern themselves. 
 
 Mr. RIVES. The very first debate, the very first ques- 
 tion of real importance that has been introduced in the 
 Convention, has led to the protracted and exciting dis- 
 cussion which the last few days has exhibited before 
 you. I rise simply with a view of calling the attention 
 of the committee to what I consider the prominent one 
 at issue here. Before doing so I cannot help adverting 
 to the singular position in which this discussion has 
 thrown the gentlemen who have participated in it. Gen- 
 tlemen who have heretofore operated and co-operated 
 together with a cordiality which would do credit to any 
 family in Virginia — even of politicians — are now direct- 
 ly the opposite of each other, while those who have been 
 as wide asunder as the poles are found in close union. 
 For instance, we have just seen the gentleman from Bar- 
 bour (Mr. Carlile) denounee the gentleman from Gooch- 
 land, (Mr. Leake,) his brother democrat, and excommu- 
 nicate him from the old school of democracy, while he 
 himself, in the same breath, throws himself into the em- 
 braces of my worthy and distinguished friend from Hen- 
 rico, (Mr. Botts,) who himself claims to be the greatest 
 democrat of them all. R-eaHy, there must be something 
 "rotten in Denmark," or among the politicians. [Laugh- 
 ter.] I have not risen to dip into the muddy pool of 
 party politics, or to attempt to decide who are real dem- 
 ocrats and who are not. No, that is not my business. 
 We have come here as I hope and trust, to deliberate 
 upon an instrument, a work put into our hands by those 
 who in point of wisdom and patriotism and far reaching 
 ability were far above, I fear, those who occupy seats 
 in this hall. We have come here to review a work, which 
 however imperfect it may be, has passed through the 
 hands and been the subject oi the action of men whose 
 names will live long after ours have been forgotten. 
 Our poor names will be recorded not upon stone, but up- 
 on that which will cause them to be soon washed away 
 in memory's brief progress, while theirs will live bright — 
 yes, bright as a green spot in a mountain desert. [Laugh- 
 ter.] And in the prosecution of this labor upon which 
 we have entered, we should decide with caution and 
 with deliberation upon what shall be considered defects 
 in that instrument, ere we proceed to correct them. 
 
 The question now pending is, whether the people shall 
 have the powe" to elect their chief magistrate or not. 
 A proposition has been made by the gentleman from 
 Pittsylvania, as amended by the gentleman from Appo- 
 mattox, that the executive officer shall not be re-eligible 
 for the term next succeeding that for which he was elect- 
 ed, and a proposition has also been submitted by the 
 gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) to strike out all 
 restraints on the ineligibility of the Governor. Upon these 
 questions this debate has arisen. There seems to be no dif- 
 ference of opinion as to the propriety of the chief magis- 
 trate being elected by the people — none at all. All 
 agree as to by whom the power shall be exercised, and 
 the disagreement is merely as to whether the power 
 shall be wholly unlimited or partially restricted. The 
 error which it seems to me gentlemen commit, is in ar- 
 guing the question as if it were a proposition to encroach 
 upon the rights of the people. In that light, however, 
 I do not regard it. What were the questions which, 
 were discussed in the canvass for members to this Con- 
 vention ? In this connection 1 beg leave to remark to 
 my friend from Henrico, who yesterday proposed the 
 
i20 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 inquiry, whether there was any man in the Convention 
 who dared to say that it was not the province of the 
 people to select as well as to elect their can ii dates and 
 whether there was any man who denied that right to 
 the people. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I did not say that no gentleman dared 
 to do whatever he thought proper to do. I only put 
 the question to my colleague, who was asking the ques- 
 tion of me if I had heard certain things on the hustings 
 — whether he heard any gentleman "take the opposite 
 ground. That was all. I do not know what were the 
 positions of gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. RIVES. Very well. I understood the gentle- 
 man to lay down the doctrine that the people had a 
 right to select as well as to elect, and in that connection 
 he asked whether any gentleman had denied these two 
 propositions before the people. Well, I was happy to 
 hear him call attention to that point, because I can 
 meet him with an express declaration on the subject. 
 The gentleman has thrown me back upon the address 
 which I published to my constituents before I came be- 
 fore them for an election. In that address I used these 
 very words : — "that it was the duty of the people to 
 select as well as to elect such men as they thought 
 proper." Weil, in determining the question that the 
 people have a right to elect, we determine the whole 
 question. That was the question presented to the peo- 
 ple during the canvass, and if there was any question 
 decided in that canvass, it was that the power of elect- 
 ing their chief magistrate should be taken from their 
 agents, the Legislative department of the government, 
 and restored to the people. The question was fully 
 and fairly presented throughout the State, and so far 
 as I have heard any expression of opinion, it was that 
 the legislature, the popular agents, should not longer be 
 entrusted with this power. It is not necessary for me 
 to say why they should not longer exercise that power, 
 The history of the State for the last eight or ten 
 years is such as to make any man blush at the course 
 of the Legislature on this subject, and at once decide 
 that they ought not to be entrusted with the election 
 of any officer of this government. Yes, the people have 
 said that their agents should no longer exercise that 
 power, and the causes which have induced them to say 
 so are such as would condemn any legislature and stamp 
 them with disgrace, and cause any people who had the 
 least respect for their own rights, to take the powe v 
 from the hands of such agents. What have they done ? 
 They have made a miserable party political question of 
 the election of a judge, and when they have finish- 
 ed that, have entered upon a splendid log-rolling scheme, 
 whose only result was an effort to revive the down- 
 trodden fortunes of the Marshall Theatre. [Laughter.] 
 
 It is from such agents that the people have desired to 
 take the power, and having decided that the people them- 
 selves shall exercise it ; the question now comes up how 
 and in what manner shall they exercise it. 
 
 Now the gentleman from Barbour Mr. Carlile) 
 seems to think that no reason has yet been given why 
 this limitation or restriction that is proposed should 
 be imposed upon the rights of the people. He cannot 
 he says see any reason, propriety or policy in it. Let 
 us examine that question. He is bound to admit that 
 the page of history headed and started by a George 
 Washington shows that this restriction of an election to 
 two terms has been sanctioned by the father of his coun- 
 try. Not only that, but the principle of a restriction of ser 
 vice has been sanctioned in Virginia from the formation of 
 her Constitution of 1776 down to the present day. There 
 is therefore an unbroken, uninterrupted expresssion of 
 opinion in its favor, so far as acquiescence in its practice 
 can give that expression. The people have thus decided 
 that in their opinion, after a service of two or three terms 
 the agent whom they have entrusted with power should 
 no longer be brought into the political arena to be jos- 
 tled in the crowd and covered with its dust. That I say 
 has been the practice, and I ask any man here in this 
 Convention how he has been brought to the conclusion ' 
 
 that it is necessary and proper to change this practice? 
 How has he obtained that knowledge of the desires of 
 the people in reference to this matter, that will enable 
 or justify him in marching up to this question? Arc 
 you not to look back upon the experience of the past, 
 and if you find anything in the machinery or working 
 of the government that has stood the test of time and 
 has been concurred in by an unbroken acquiescence, are 
 you not to preserve it? Will you not profit by the 
 experience of the past and the example set you by a 
 Washington and the other great and good and pure men 
 of his day — ah ! as pure and honest and good as ever yet 
 lived upon this earth ? Gentlemen have argued this ques- 
 tion here, as a political one, and I will ask the gentleman 
 from Barbour, (Mr. Carlile,) if his democracy teaches him 
 to throw off the long tried practice of the past and to aban- 
 don customs which stand thus time-honored ? Ah, no, 
 there is not a member in this Convention, I hope and 
 trust, who would do it, for I believe every one of them 
 has the good and welfare of the old Commonwealth at 
 heart. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. Does the gentleman wish me to an- 
 swei his question now ? 
 
 Mr. RIVES. No sir, no — you can do it after I have 
 finished my speech. [Laughter.] I wish to remind 
 gentlemen of another fact. All the speeches of the 
 members of this Convention will be of very little 
 avail when they get home. And I call upon the members 
 of the Convention now to recollect one thing — and my 
 friend from Henrico, if he has done nothing else to con- 
 tribute to the welfare and glory of Virginia, is enti- 
 tled to the credit of suggesting to me an idea that came 
 across my mind when his remark was made, which I be- 
 lieve now to be the most wholesome one that could be 
 adopted by this body — he called to my recollection the 
 address which I had written. [Laughter.] And I say to 
 every member, let every one of you take your way bill 
 in your hands— take your return ticket in your hands — 
 and be certain that when any question comes up here, 
 that you do not go contrary to w T hat you told your con- 
 stituency you would do. Beware of this and see that 
 your return ticket is not cut too much at the stopping 
 places along the line. [Laughter.] Think of this, and 
 when the gentleman talks about answers, let him remem- 
 ber the answers he has to make to those to whom he is 
 accountable. For myself, I look with a fear upon the re- 
 sponsibility that weighs upon me, that always causes me 
 to shudder to think I shall have to go home to a con- 
 stituency who have confided to my rude, uncouth, and I 
 may say, radical hands, the alteration — the attempt at 
 alteration of an instrument upon which I know two ma- 
 ny will lay rash hands. But I have a way bill and 
 a ticket, and yo-a all have it, in my written address to my 
 constituents. Let your actions square with that, and 
 when you go home, so far from receiving the censure of 
 an honest constituency, if you have carried out what you 
 told them you would, however much they may differ 
 from you, they will not condemn you. For my part I in- 
 tend to return to those who sent me here with my ac- 
 count written on the back of my address. [Laughter.] 
 And it will not hurt you to refer to your addrest-es — it 
 will keep you posted up. Ah, I know what eloquence 
 can do. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of any man 
 and on the side of any cause. It runs a man mad and 
 worse than mad. Aye, it will lead him, I had almost 
 said, worse than a woman. [Laughter.] The eloquence of 
 man will lead even the wisest and coolest of men almost 
 anywhere. And what will become of the inexperienced 
 and the uninstructed when they hear the eloquent voice 
 of the gentleman from Accomac — the stubborn and dash- 
 ing appeals of the gentleman from Henrico — the splendid 
 oratory of the venerable gentleman from Loudoun — and 
 the fervent appeals and dashing eloquence of the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha? Where, I ask, will the inexpe- 
 rienced and the young men take shelter except upon the 
 platform laid down when they were elected by their con- 
 stituents ? [Laughter.] That'is my purpose at all events. 
 Travel the road which they expected you to travel ac- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 121 
 
 cording to the way bill which they furnished you, and you 
 wid be safe before an honest constituency. 1 am happ) 
 that the gentleman from Henrico has be en the means ot 
 calling attention to this fact. The West and the East 
 differ on an important question. I say then, let Western 
 gentlemen stand firm and united in their views, and let 
 Eastern gentlemen stand as equally firm and united on 
 the grouud they occupy, and however they may differ 
 when they go home, they can say it is a drawn battle, 
 and any man can easily go his five on the little red, no 
 matter on which side. [Great laughter.] That is all that 
 can be said. 
 
 Gentlemen say that they can see no propriety in the 
 proposed restriction. Let me refer to what 1 consider 
 very good reasons for it. Gentlemen say that they fa 
 vor the election of judges by the people, and as long as 
 the people think proper to elect them, whether for two, 
 three, or six terms without restriction ; and they say ii 
 you prevent that, it is an encroachment upon popular 
 rights, but they admit in the same breath that there must 
 be some regulations in regard to age and other questions 
 inserted in the Constitution. Yet they tell us if we do the 
 same thing in regard to the eligibility of the Governor, 
 why it is au encroachment upon popular rights ! Now the 
 proposition to continue the same individual in office foi 
 life, or to make him re- eligible without restriction what- 
 ever, is one which the people have not considered or de- 
 cided They have not said to us whether it is their 
 pleasure that this shall be so or not. My friends from 
 Henrico and Accomac will thus see that we do not differ 
 about all power being vested in the people — we differ 
 merely as to what has been the expression of sentiment 
 on the part of the people. 
 
 But what has been the course of experience in regard 
 to this question. I ask my friends from Henrico and Ac- 
 comac to review their political lives. I ask them if the 
 politicians of the country are not, through the tricks 
 and schemes and wire-workings to which they have and 
 are resorting, in the promotion of their own selfish pur 
 poses, the curse of the age ? Tell me ye who are bet- 
 ter experienced than myself in the ways of the politi- 
 cian, if this is not so ? And I ask you also if they do 
 not rely most for success and profit upon their ability 
 to induce the people to a capricious exercise of their 
 power. They are ever to be found at the foot of power in 
 office, and to the successful candidates they cling like long 
 lean, hungry dogs. [Laughter.] What is the custom of 
 our countr y in all elections of public officers by the people? 
 Is it not well understood that the moment the candi- 
 date is started for the race, be it for Governor or any 
 other office, his political friends and those who entered 
 him, rally at once around him. Why he got his about 
 him at once a set of trainers who are for their skill and 
 tact worthy of Johnson's best trainers in Virginia's best 
 days. Well, here is a Governor who is eligible to a re- 
 . election, and what is the course of the politicians ? 
 Why they get him ready for a nomination and for a Con- 
 vention ; he goes in there, and will any man at all ac 
 quainted with the practice of politicians, say that the 
 cards were not stocked before he entered upon the 
 game ? [Laughter.] No sir, it is a politician's Conven- 
 
 tion and the arrangements have been made and the bar 
 gain concluded out of doors. This is the nomination 
 made. Such is the mode I say in which a Governor 
 will be nominated in Virginia. And I ask those gentle- 
 men here who are more experienced than I, if they ever 
 knew a politician to drop from a friend so long as he 
 was in power ? Mark you, the Governor has been nomi- 
 nated and put in office by his political friends, and will 
 they not stand around him to guard his interests, when 
 he is seeking a re-election ? And when the nomination 
 for the next term is to take place, will they not band 
 together, like cohorts if you please, to rally and rush to 
 the charge and spread at a single dash any opposition 
 which may be made to their favorite? What else can 
 we hope for. I ask the question again whether any of 
 you have ever known a politician to drop off from a 
 friend while he was in power ? Well, suppose you have 
 
 a Governor in power — he was put there by his political 
 friends, and when he has served out his four years and 
 seeks a re-election, will any body quit him. No, and if a 
 case can be shown where politicians have quit their friends 
 when in power, I ask that it may be pointed out to me. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Will the gentleman let me name an in- 
 stance. 
 
 Mr. RIVES. Certainly sir. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. As he calls for an instance of the kind, 
 there is one which just occurs to my mind. It is in re- 
 lation to the Governor of Massachusetts, who, at the re- 
 cent election there, after having been re-elected for 
 some eight or nine times, with all the power he had 
 accumulated in that time, was not able to resist the 
 combined power of the democracy and the free-soil 
 party. 
 
 Mr. RIVES. I thank my friend very kindly for his 
 allusion to the democracy, and I will give him an allu- 
 sion in return. I have heard of one or two men myself, 
 who did drop a man whom they had aided in placing 
 in power. I suppose it is not improper, of course, to refer 
 to the fact that 1 think I once heard of a man who quit 
 John Tyler while he was President of the United States. 
 [Laughter.] When he came into that office and refused 
 to carry out what my friend considered to be the true 
 principles on which to adminir.ter the government, what 
 happened? Although my friend had supported the log- 
 cabin-and--hard~cider-no-declaration--for-the-public-eye 
 candidates, still he himself, with his characteristic bold- 
 ness and manliness had fought with the principles for 
 which he contended, inscribed on his banner. He de- 
 spised all concealment, and when he found that John 
 Tyler was not inclined to favor those principles, friend 
 to him though he had been, with that bold and dashing 
 front of his which always marks him, he at once de- 
 nounced and abandoned the man he had aided in putting 
 in power. What was the spertacle then presented? 
 My friend from Accomac (Mr. Wise) clung to him, and 
 there they were dashing across the course, while my 
 friend from Henrico stood by — 
 
 "Come one, come all, this rock shall fly, 
 From its firm base as soon as I." 
 Let others gaze and reason why 
 Though running alone I'll head him or die. 
 
 What was the result of all this ? There stood one 
 who had battled in the cause of this President, and who, 
 although he had battled under the standard of all opin- 
 ions concealed from the public eye, had denounced the 
 principle as wrong, and stood and boldly proclaimed his 
 own principles. And when the time came when he ex- 
 pected those principles to be carried out by the Vice 
 President, and he was disappointed in that, why he 
 rejected him at once, as he ought to have done, entertain- 
 ing the views which he did. But what was his fate ? — what 
 was his fate, what was his fate, 1 say ? [Laught er.] The 
 people of the congressional district which the gentleman 
 has represented, had always concurred in opinion with 
 him in the principles which he laid down, but when he 
 came before them for a re-election, he failed. Who was it 
 that beat him ? Why the po iticians. Freed from their 
 opposing influence, with his opinions spread out before 
 them with his usual manliness and boldness, he never 
 could be beaten before the people of any whig congres- 
 sional district in Virginia. Therefore, so far as the 
 gentleman's own experience is concerned, I think he 
 will confess that the political leeches who hang to 
 those in power, struck him down on that occasion. 
 Suppose he had been freed from these political leeches, 
 these political suckers, and had been free to spread 
 
 himself before the people, the bold and unflinching ad- 
 vocate of the principles which he espouses, think you 
 that he would have been beaten? What does he lack 
 to place himself properly before the people ? Had he 
 not the nerve to meet any man on any question, and 
 the talent to make known clearly his views ? What, 
 then, did he want to secure success ? It was the sup- 
 port of the politicians — and it was their influence and 
 
122 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 machinations which struck him down. I beg pardon of 
 the gentleman for having alluded thus personally to 
 him, but his reference to the Massachusetts coalition, 
 which I am as ready to denounce as he is, was such an in- 
 stance of the power of politicians, that I could not for- 
 bear to carry the thing further and make the moral on 
 him. 
 
 My friend from Accomac, I suppose, will consider 
 himself slighted unless I refer to him, and the part he 
 took on that occasion. What was the course he took, 
 and who was it that sought to sacrifice the member 
 from Accomac, Henry A. Wise, whose name stands 
 like a flag — 
 
 The CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded that it is 
 not in order to refer personally to a member. 
 
 Mr. RIVES. I am aware that it is not in order to 
 allude to a gentleman by name, as a member of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. You were speaking of him as a member 
 of Congress, and not as a member of the Convention ? 
 
 Mr. RIVES. Yes, sir. [Great laughter.] I was 
 seeking for information, and I was but putting the 
 question to gentlemen of experience whether they had 
 met with, or known of an instance in the history of the 
 government where the politicians had dropped their 
 friends while they were in power. And the gentleman 
 from Henrico, by interrupting me, suggested to me one 
 of the most striking instances of the power of the poli- 
 ticians, and their ability to thwart the will of the peo- 
 ple, as exemplified in his own history and experience, 
 and I was but going on to refer to the case of the gen- 
 tleman from Accomac as affording another instance of 
 the same kind. At that awful period, when that change 
 took place — whether for weal or woe, it is not for me 
 to say, because I happen to occupy the position of hav- 
 ing been myself an advocate and a supporter of Mr. 
 Tyler, and a Tyler man — when, with the nerve that 
 God has given him, to meet any and every emergency, 
 he came out and avowed himself an advocate of the 
 administration of John Tyler, what was his fate? 
 When that man, with the noble and generous feeling 
 which belongs, and peculiarly so to the true Virginian, 
 thought proper to nominate him to the office of minis- 
 ter to France, Avhat was the course of the politicians ? 
 Ah ! they struck him down as they did my friend from 
 Henrico ! But when ho appealed to his own district, 
 and came home to that district, 1400 against him, then 
 he could shake off the politicians. He could say to 
 them, I stand before the unbought freemen of Acco- 
 mac and of Northampton, and I defy you and your 
 machinations. He did defy them, and I ask you if that 
 was not a glorious and a triumphant result of an ap- 
 peal to the popular expression ? The politicians could 
 not touch lira when he had a fair field before the peo- 
 ple, and the decision of the people in that instance, 
 in my opinion, placed a stigma on those politicians 
 which will last longer than my life, at least. These are 
 matters which had not crossed my mind, and which 
 would not have been alluded to by me, had not the 
 suggestion of the gentleman from Henrico re-called to 
 mind all the history of the exceptions to the rule that 
 gentlemen will follow their friends so long as they are 
 in power. And suppose in the instance to which I 
 have last referred, these politicians had had it in their 
 power to have come down to old Accomac, and follow- 
 ed my friend there. I know that he would have done 
 every thing in his power to have sustained himself be- 
 fore an honest people — I know that his sword would 
 have jumped from its scabbard, and that every lick 
 would have been a blazing stream of glory, and have 
 brought to the ground all who dared to stand in his 
 front — yet still he would have found it no easy affair to 
 have overcome his adversaries. 
 
 I have been a sort of democrat myself. I did not in 
 tend to speak of these things — but I know this, that 
 whether he be democrat or whig, no man need set himself 
 up in this State, or in the United States now, as being a 
 leader of the democratic party or of the whig party, un- 
 
 less he can tell the run of things, and is possessed of the 
 influence through friends, by which men of either of the 
 great parties, are induced to follow. What is the conse- 
 quence ? Have not these nominations heretofore been 
 the work of politicians, and will they not continue to be 
 if you elect the Governor by the people ? I ask gentle- 
 men if this is not so, and if it will not be so, and certainly so, 
 if the Governor is to be re-eligible to be a candidate again ? 
 But gentlemen say that instead of the Governor taking the 
 stump himself, instead of his going over the one hundred 
 and thirty-five counties of Virginia, he will be defended by 
 friends who will put down his assailants. And they say 
 further, that even if charges were made against him be- 
 fore the people, it would be improper for him to go be- 
 fore them himself and meet them. Do I understand from 
 that, that we are to have organized party clubs in every 
 county whose business it is to be to meet all charges made 
 against A or B who may be Governor. Are we also to 
 have a great executive corresponding committee at 
 Richmond like we have at Washington ? And are we to 
 have the country flooded over with tract no. 1 — tract 
 no. 2 — tract no. 3 — and tract no. 4 — and similar docu- 
 ments? Answer the question — what do you mean? 
 [Laughter.] I know that such an organization of parties 
 prior to the election of a Governor exists in other States, 
 as well as in the Federal Government prior to the elec- 
 tion of a President ; and I ask the gentleman from Hen- 
 rico if he expects there is to exist in Virginia such bands 
 of organized defenders of the party, and of the man who 
 happens to be in power when he comes forward for a 
 re-election? I hope not; but such will inevitably be the 
 result if he is made re-eligible. And I cordially agree 
 with those who say that this restriction, so far from be- 
 ing an encroachment on the people's rights, will be but 
 a restriction on the power of politicians. I think it will 
 prevent this organization of a grand central committee, 
 and of the host of county committees, and sub-com- 
 mittees, and even what the gentleman from Accomac re- 
 ferred to, the danger of the Governor being brought in 
 contact with one of those little county-court lawyers. I 
 do not know how it is in regard to those county-court 
 lawyers whom the gentleman says the people will re- 
 gard as having beat the candidate, but I have never 
 heard they were very popular with the people, certainly 
 not in the county in which I live. 1 say then let the 
 Executive be denied this power of serving a second 
 term, for no man can deny that if the contrary princi- 
 ple is carried out, the practice to which I have referred 
 will actually follow. He will be electioneering in office, 
 and you will have all this army of politicians in the way 
 of corresponding committees enlisted in his behalf, and 
 perhaps an empire club, a bully club, and the "killers" 
 of Philadelphia. Do not then permit him to be re-eli- 
 gible. No body can contend that it is an infringement 
 upon the rights of the people. We all assert in the 
 most unqualified terms that the people themselves shall 
 elect their Governor, and under the experience of the 
 age, and the practice which presents itself every day, 
 to which I have referred, is it not right and proper that 
 this restriction should be inserted in the organic law — if 
 for nothing else — to guard against the pernicious influ- 
 ences and practices that are growing up among us ? It 
 was this practice of politicians that bi ought about the 
 call for this Convention, for the people would never 
 have complained of the exercise of power conferred on 
 their agents, if they had performed their duties and ful- 
 filled the trust imposed in them in a manner satisfactory 
 to them. No, it was because their agents abused the 
 power confided to them. They have conducted them- 
 selves in such a way, with their log-rolling systems, and 
 their elections to office, as would have broken down any 
 man or set of men, however eminent er distinguished 
 for talent and ability. 
 
 I do not believe this question of ineligibility to be 
 quite as novel a one as some gentlemen would seem to 
 think. Let me call your attention to the fifth article of 
 the Bill of Rights, and what does it say upon this very 
 question of ineligibility. I will read it : 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 "That the legislative and executive powers of the 
 State should be seperate and distinct from the judiciary ; 
 and that the members of the two first may be restrained 
 from oppression, by feeling and participating in the .bur- 
 thens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be 
 reduced to a private station, return to that body_ from 
 which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be 
 supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in 
 which all, or any part of the former members, to be 
 again eligible, or ineligible as the laws shall direct.'* 
 
 "As the laws shall direct." Here, in 1776, the decla- 
 ration was made that all the ag< nts of the people wheth- 
 er in the executive, legislative, or judicial department 
 of the government should come before the people for 
 frqeuent election, and the incumbents were "to be eli- 
 gible or re-eligible as the laws shall direct," Did not 
 the framers of that constitution recognize the idea of 
 ineligibility after a term of se-vice? Did they not 
 indeed foreclose the question as to whether they intend- 
 ed there should be a re-eligibility to office by requiring 
 it to be regulated by law ? I think it cannot be doubted. 
 And what" is the question here? It is this : We are 
 about to institute the organic law of the State, and shall 
 we in this particular adhere to the precedent establish- 
 ed by our forefathers of 1776, and particularly when 
 not a complaint or an objection has been raised against 
 it? That is the question, the only question here, and I 
 cannot see why gentlemen should hesitate as to the 
 course to adopt. 
 
 The question has also been raised here, whether it is 
 proper for the Governor to electioneer or canvass 
 before the people ? It is unnecessary for me to meet 
 such a question. I have but to allude to what is the 
 practice, not only in this State, but in other States, to 
 show that so far from a man being dishonored by coming 
 down face to face to the people and discussing 
 questions before them, it is his duty to do so. Dishon- 
 or a Governor to mix with and come down among the peo- 
 ple ! Did it dishonor the talented and distinguished 
 Jones of Tennessee, who has been as a cloud by day and 
 a pillar of fire by night to his party in that State, be- 
 cause he took the stump in the advocacy of his princi- 
 ples ? Did it dishonor the lamented Polk, and should 
 he be read out the pale of democracy, as the gentleman 
 from Barbour, with his new-fangled western democracy, 
 proposes to read out of the democratic party all who 
 think with the gentleman from Goochland on the sub- 
 ject of this restriction. How was it with your Brown 
 of Tennessee, and your Crittenden of Kentucky, were 
 they dishonored by descending to the stump ? Go to 
 the old North State, and I ask you if Gaston and More- 
 head, and others of that stamp, were dishonored by a 
 resort to such a practice? No, these men had an hon- 
 est conviction that the course they were pursuing, and 
 the cause they were advocating, was for the benefit of 
 the people, and they had the nerve, fearless of conse- 
 quences, to come before their constituents and render an 
 account of their stewardship. 
 
 I have been brought into this debate without any ex- 
 pectation on my part of participating in it. I believe 
 that this question has not been presented in the shape 
 in which it should have been. I believe there is no dif- 
 fer epce of opinion among us, as to the rights of the peo- 
 ple ; and that this proposition is intended not to deprive 
 them of any rights, but for their protection in the exer- 
 cise of their rights. And the insertion of such a provis- 
 ion in the Constitution will, it seems to me, most certainly 
 have that effect. I have, in conclusion, to say only this, 
 that however desultory may have been my remarks, they 
 have been made with this single view, and nothing else, 
 and that is, not to encroach on popular rights in the 
 slightest degree, but to secure such safeguards in the ex- 
 ercise of that power as the people themselves have and 
 will sanction. I wish to guard against any system by 
 which the system of electioneering which exists at the 
 present day as adopted in some quarters of the 
 Union, will b" introduced into this State. The 
 same question will be presented when the proposi- 
 
 tion for the election of judges shall come up, and at 
 that time, if necessary, i shall be prepared to argue the 
 question, and to show that he who represents a political 
 party as the Executive of the State, stands in a differ- 
 ent position before the people from he who, seated on 
 the bench of a court, is to dispense justice without fear 
 or favor, to ail m<-n of all parties. The character of a 
 man in such a position would be degraded beyond ex- 
 pression if he dared to prostitute his position and soil 
 the snowy ermine for the miserable purpose of self pro- 
 motion. 
 
 Having made these remarks, I must, in conclusion, 
 again hope that gentlemen will not argue this question 
 as one proposing to encroach on the rights of the peo- 
 ple. If I believed it was a restriction on their rights I 
 would not for one moment sustain it. And let gentle- 
 men convince me that it is, and I will go with them. 
 
 On motion of Mi*. TURNBULL the commmittee 
 then rose, 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 at 12, M. 
 
 WEDNESDA Y, February 5, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Manly, of the Baptist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 I 
 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. BLUE, resumed 
 the consideration, in committee of the whole, Mr. Watts 
 of Norfolk in the Chair, of the report of the committee 
 on the executive department. 
 
 RE-ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question before the committee 
 to be the report of the executive committee with the 
 pending amendments: 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. It was my misfortune to vote 
 with the minority of the Executive committee, who 
 brought in the report, now under consideration. I de- 
 sire, in a very brief manner, not with the formality of 
 a regular speech, in political parlance, to "define my 
 position." I am opposed to the amendment of the gen- 
 tleman from Henrico county, makiDg the Governor re- 
 eligible. I was elected to this Convention as a ' re- 
 former," or rather as a " radical " as it is termed. I 
 stated, in the speeches which 1 made during the canvass, 
 that I had many objections to our present Constitution, 
 one of the strongest of which was, that too much 
 power was transferred to the hands of the agents of the 
 people, and too little left in the hands of the people 
 themselves. I believe fully and entirely in the capacity of 
 the people for self-government. I de&ire to place all 
 power in the hands of the people, with wholesome and 
 necessary restrictions and 1 mitations. In a represents 
 tive government like ours, 1 think the people should elect 
 all the officers of the government, which they can do 
 with convenience and utility, and leave as little as may 
 be to their agents. I am in favor of taking the power 
 from office-holders, and transferring it to the people. 
 And that I think can be better done, so far as the Gov- 
 ernor is concerned, by making him ineligible, than by 
 making him re-eligible. It seems to me there is no other 
 way by which the power can be taken from the office- 
 holders and given to the people so well as by making 
 the Governor ineligible. Let us look at it ; for I think 
 it can be done in this mode. I am desirous, with the 
 gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) to take the 
 power from politicians, and give it to the people. 
 But I differ with him very materially as to how that 
 rhing can best be done ; as to how that cherished plan of 
 ours can be carried into practical operation. Now, my 
 friend from Henrico thinks that the power can be best 
 taken from the hands of politicians and transferred 
 to the hands of the people by making this officer, the 
 Governor, re-eligible. In my opinion it can be better 
 
124 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 done by making him ineligible. Let us see for a mo- 
 ment how each of these plans will work. Let us carry 
 them into practical operation. The people are the 
 source from which all power emanates. All admit that 
 all power is vested in and derived from the people. 
 Well, now the people elect an individual to the guber- 
 natorial chair, they transfer from themselves certain of 
 their powers, which would be necessary to carry out the 
 ends for which the office was created Now if they 
 transfer that power from their hands to the officer for that 
 purpose, — let us suppose they have elected a Governor ; 
 let us suppose he shall be ineligible according to my 
 plan — and let us see how it will operate. The Govern- 
 or's term of service is about to expire, or shall have ex- 
 pired. What is the consequence under my plan ? He 
 retires with dignity from the office, and returns to the 
 people the office, with all its powers, which they had con- 
 ferred upon him ; and he resolves himself again into the 
 body of the people from whence he had come. And by 
 that principle only the power would be taken from the 
 hands of the office-holder aud politician, and given back 
 to the pe pie. But let us carry out the plan proposed 
 by the gentleman from Henrico; and let us suppose the 
 people have elected this Governor for a term of years, 
 and that he is re-eligible. Let us suppose his term of 
 service to have expired. What then \ He is eligible to 
 the same office, and unwilling to give up the powers 
 which have been conferred upon him, and desires, like 
 all politicians of the present day, to hold on to the office to 
 which he is re-eligible. He enters the political arena, a 
 great struggle ensues, and this office-holder uses the 
 very power and patronage which the people have given 
 him, as a great lever to thwart the views and desires of 
 the people, and to promote his own ends, and thus the 
 office-holder is elected; and thus the power is trans- 
 ferred from the hands of the people to the office-holder. 
 
 Now, in this debate the other day, the distinguished 
 gentleman from Henrico, and the very distinguished gen- 
 tleman from Accomac seemed to me to vie with each 
 other as to who should go furthest in declarations of 
 love for the dear people ; as to who should be the tallest 
 and ablest defender of the cherished rights of the dear 
 people. [Laughter.] I love the dear people some, too. 
 I, like the gentleman from Accomac, have electioneered 
 among the people ; and whenever I have done so, like 
 him I have felt that I had become a wiser, a better man. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I rise to ask the gentleman if he means 
 to say that the gentleman from Accomac ever whined on 
 this floor or elsewhere, and acted the demagogue for 
 the dear people ? 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. No sir, I did not mean that. 
 Mr. WISE. Well, what did the gentleman mean? 
 Is he aware of the Shaksperian origin of the expression 
 " dear people ?" 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. I did not mean it in that sense. 
 I did not mean to insinuate that the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac did anything improper, on this floor or in any 
 other place. In using the expression " dear people," I 
 did not mean anything disrespectful, I am sure. I was 
 sayiug that I, like the gentleman from Accomac, have 
 electioneered among the people, and that whenever I 
 have done so, I have felt that I have become a wiser 
 and better man. But I am candid in saying that 
 until this distinguished gentleman announced the 
 fact the other day, I did not know that, in advocating 
 the ineligibility of the Governor, when I had endeavored 
 to throw proper safeguards around the executive chair, 
 to prevent the abuse of patronage — I never dreamed, 
 until the distinguished gentleman announced the fact — 
 that, when I advocated the ineligibility of the Governor, 
 I was for encroaching upon the rights of the people. 
 If I had thought so, I never should have pursued the 
 course which I did, in the canvass for a seat on this 
 floor. _ In all the addresses that I made to the people of 
 my district, at their county court houses, at their mus- 
 ters, and at their barbecues, I told them that I was in 
 favor of the election of the Governor by the people for 
 a term of four years, and that he should be ineligible 
 
 after that time. I never came across the first man, 
 however exalted his intellect, or however humble his 
 capacity, who thought that this doctrine was an en- 
 croachment upon popular rights. On the contrary, 
 in my humble opinion, this doctrine of ineligibility, 
 so far from being viewed as an encroachment upon pop- 
 ular rights, the rights of the great body of the people, 
 was viewed as an encroachment upon the rights of the 
 office-holder and politician ; and that is exactly the 
 position in which I want to place him. When a gentle- 
 man has put on the gubernatorial robes ; when he has 
 enjoyed the honors and received the emoluments of the 
 office for four years, I think he should retire; and when 
 the people come forward to make their selection they 
 have the entire body of the people to choose from, ex- 
 cept the one who has just retired fiom the office. He 
 alone is disfranchised, and not one of the rights of the 
 people is encroached upon. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico alluded the other day, in 
 the remarks which he made, to the fact that no argu- 
 ments had been offered to show that the Governor ought 
 not to be re eligible, and asked for reasons why he 
 should not be. A great many good and sufficient rea- 
 sons have already been offered by the gentlemen who 
 have preceded me in this debate; and i shall not jade 
 this committee by repeating them. I desire to see 
 such a change as will put it out of the power of 
 the Governor to use his official patronage, whatever 
 it be, whether great or small, improperly, for the 
 purpose of a re-election. I do not say that every Go- 
 vernor of Virginia, if re-eligible, would use his official 
 patronage improperly ; but I mean to prevent him, if ke 
 would. I am desirous of taking from him all tempta- 
 tion to use his office improperly. And I not only desire 
 to prevent the Governor from using his official patron- 
 age improperly, but I desire to shield him from the im- 
 proper imputations which may be cast upon him by his 
 opponents in the canvass for re-election, that he had used 
 the office improperly, that he had abused the power 
 which had been conferred upon him. I desire that the 
 Governor of Virginia should not have this imputation 
 cast upon him. It would detract from the dignity 
 of his office. I wish the Governor of Virginia to be 
 like Caesar's wife, not only chaste but unsuspected. 
 
 The gentleman from the county of Henrico, the other 
 day, alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the 
 United States contained no prohibition against the re- 
 election of the President of the United States, and to 
 the example which had been set by the father of his 
 country, in retiring from office at the end of the second 
 term. The gentleman also alluded to the fact that his, 
 illustrious successors had followed in his footsteps. 
 This is true, and the example set by that wisest and best 
 of men has been follewed by the patriots of the revolu- 
 tion and all who came after them, and indeed has had 
 all the force and effect of a constitutional provision to 
 prevent the election of a President for a third term. 
 But suppose that some individual other than the immor- 
 tal Washington had been the first President of these 
 United States ; and let us infer that that individual had 
 been one of those distinguished gentlemen of the revo- 
 lution, who believed that the President of the United 
 States ought to be elected for life ; and let us suppose 
 also, that he had not been formed of the priceless mate- 
 rials of which the father of his country was made ; and 
 finally, let us suppose that there had been at that day 
 the same over- weaning desire for office as at the present, 
 what, I ask, would have been the situation of our coun- 
 try, there being no constitutional prohibition ? Why, 
 you would have seen a struggle in the government that 
 would have shaken the infant republic from its centre to 
 its circumference. The gentleman from Accomac says, 
 take away this principle of the re-eligibility of the Gov- 
 ernor and you at once destroy all his responsibility; and 
 that idea was also introduced by the gentleman from 
 Henrico, who stated that the only way to put the Gov- 
 ernor upon his good behavior, was to bring him again 
 before the people. Well, can it be that we have so de 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 125 
 
 generated, — can it be that, in this renowned old Com- 
 monwealth, — trip mother of states and statesmen, that 
 the only inducement to the faithful discharge of office, 
 and alfthe responsibilities of office, depend upon the 
 fact of his coming before the people for re-election ? I 
 had supposed, that in a representative republican gov- 
 ernment like ours — in a government which is controlled 
 by intelligent and virtuous freemen, — that patriotism, 
 love of country, the good opinion of our fellow-men, and 
 of our own conscience, were the inducements to the 
 faithful discharge of the duties of office, and not in the 
 consideration of a re-election. The gentleman from 
 Accomac stated that, in his experience, all or nearly all 
 the bad measures of the Presidents of the United States 
 had been recommended in their second term. I have but 
 little political experience ; but my memory tells me dif- 
 ferently. According to my recollection, at least two 
 Presidents of these United States did in their first terms, 
 when looking forward to a re-election, as is proved by the 
 fact that they were candidates for re-election, — recom- 
 mend measures so very obnoxious to the people that 
 they were discarded from service and not permitted to 
 hold the office a second term. I allude to the elder and 
 younger Adams. There are some individuals who seem 
 to think that the time may come in Virginia, when no 
 person can be found who can discharge the duties of 
 Governor so well as the then incumbent. Gentlemen 
 need give themselves no fear upon this subject. The 
 time will never come in Virginia when one can be found 
 among her distinguished patriots, who will not only bs 
 willing but competent to enter the gubernatorial chair, 
 and discharge its duties. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico stated that he had never 
 known a President who entered in upon the one term 
 principle, who was not desirous of remaining in upon 
 the two term principle; and that Mr. Polk, who had 
 gone in upon the one term principle, was desirous of 
 obtaining a nomination from his party that he might 
 hold the second term. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I beg the gentleman's pardon. The 
 gentleman from Chesterfield is accountable for the intro 
 Suction of Mr. Polk's name. I had asked the question 
 who of the Presidents of the United States that went in 
 on the one term principle, had declined to serve on the 
 two term principle, when that gentleman answered me 
 by saying that Mr. Polk was one — to which opinion I 
 dissented, but expressly forbore from entering into any 
 argument on the subject. 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. I recollect the statement was made 
 as the gentleman states it. But he went on to say the 
 facts showed that after he came into tho Presidency he 
 used all his efforts to obtain a nomination from his party 
 for the second term. Did he not say that ? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. No sir. I said he would have been 
 happy to receive the nomination, and that no doubt had 
 it been tendered to him, he would have accepted it at 
 any time. 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. Even with that explanation, it 
 seems to me that gentleman has done great injustice 
 to Mr. Polk. When that gentleman received and ac- 
 cepted the nomination for the Presidency from his 
 party, he expressly declared that he would not be a 
 candidate for re-election. I have yet to learn of one 
 single act of his administration that will go to prove 
 that he sought to obtain a nomination for the second 
 term. I have always looked upon his administration 
 as one of the purest administrations ; and I have at- 
 tributed it mainly to the fact that he was not desirous 
 of a re-election, and that he had recommended meas- 
 ures for the benefit of the people, and not for the pur- 
 pose of obtaining a re-election. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico, in his reply to his col- 
 league, the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Meridith,) 
 who last addressed the committee, asked, with a good 
 deal of triumph, why should not the executive be de- 
 pendent upon the legislative department ? That is to 
 say that he, the executive, ought to be dependent on the 
 legislative department, because the numbers of the le- 
 
 gislature are the immediate representatives of the peo- 
 ple, and indirectly the people themselves ! Now, I was 
 very much surprised at that remark of the gentleman, 
 particularly euming as it did upon the heels of his mem- 
 orable declaration that he had more democracy in his 
 system than nitaety nine-hundredths of the democratic 
 party. I had always believed that the democratic par- 
 ty desired that the executive and legislative departments 
 of the government should be seperate and independent 
 of each other. I had supposed that they were desirous 
 that the governor should be elected by the people, the 
 same identical people who elected the members of the 
 legislature. They both then would be immediately 
 elected by the same individuals, responsible to the 
 same individuals, and being co-ordinate branches of the 
 government, should be seperate and independent of each 
 other. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I do not wish to have my arguments 
 misrepresented, and I am very well satisfied that it is 
 not the object of the gentleman to misrepresent me, but 
 I think he misunderstands my position. I had under- 
 stood the gentleman from the city of Richmond, (Mr. 
 Meredith,) to whom he refers, in the course of his re- 
 marks, as having taken the position that the legislative 
 department of the government was the one most likely 
 to make encroachments upon the other departments ; 
 and that for his own part he was anxious to strengthen 
 the arm of the executive, in order to resist legisla- 
 tive encroachment. It was to that branch of the gen- 
 tleman's argument that I was about to reply, when I 
 was relieved from the necessity by the disavowal of the 
 gentleman of the ground which I supposed he had assum- 
 ed. I remained still of the opinion that he had taken 
 that position, but I was happily relieved of the necessi- 
 ty of replying to it, and still more happy to relieve him 
 of the situation in which I thought his arguments had 
 placed him ; and, I therefore abandoned the reply I was 
 about to make to that argument. The governor of Vir- 
 ginia gentlemen will continually confound with 
 the President of the United States — the one clothed with 
 all power and the other stripped of all power. I went 
 on then to say, in reference to this Governor of Virginia, 
 that so far from strengthening his arm to resist legisla- 
 tive will, that it was his duty to submit to the legisla- 
 tive will, that he was clothed by the people with no veto 
 power, and that the legislative power might be regard- 
 ed as the true exponent of the popular will; and that 
 therefore the governor ought to submit to the legislative 
 will. I stand by that position, and let gentlemen make 
 the most of it. 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. I am happy that the gentleman 
 has made the explanation ; for really, with the construc- 
 tion I had put upon his remarks, I had supposed that in 
 'he heat of argument, the other day, he had forgotten a 
 good deal of his democracy. I leave that branch of the 
 subject ; and I am sorry that the gentleman did not wait 
 a few moments, until I had finished, and then he could 
 have gone on with a regular speech if he had chosen to 
 do so. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I had no wish to do so. 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. The gentleman from Henrico sta- 
 ted the other day, that he was as utterly opposed as any 
 other man in this Convention to any man's holding pow- 
 er for long periods of time. Well, after that declaration 
 of the gentleman, I have been a little surprised that he 
 was unwilling to adopt the principle which I maintain. 
 If he will make the Governor ineligible, so far as that 
 office is concerned, it will be impossible for the power 
 to remain long in the hands of one individual ; but carry 
 out his principle of re-eligibility without limitation, and 
 I ask you if power is not likely to remain a long time in 
 the hands of the Governor? And I think the allusion 
 which was made by the gentleman from Henrico the 
 other day, with regard to the Governor of Massachu- 
 setts, instead of going to prove his position, on the con- 
 trary, goes indirectly to prove the position that 1 main- 
 tain ; and that was this : The gentleman stated that Go- 
 vernor Briggs had held the office for nine consecutive 
 
126 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 terms. Well, it is, according to my recollection, this 
 Governor, who held his office for nine consecutive 
 terms, that it had been attempted to torn him out, 
 by both the whigs and democrats of Massachusetts ; 
 but he had entwined his arms so strongly around the 
 gubernatorial chair, that they could not be severed, 
 except by those unholy coalitions to which the gentle- 
 man alludes. 
 
 I am sorry that the gentleman from Accoraac has 
 misunderstood the remarks that I intended to make 
 with regard to his love for the dear people. 1 assure 
 that gentleman I never fo>- one moment was desirous of 
 casting any imputation upon him, nor upon any other 
 gentleman in this house. I do nothing indirectly. And 
 if I had been disposed to cast any reflection upon any 
 member of this Convention, I would have done it direct- 
 ly. I stated that the distinguished gentlei. an from the 
 county of Henrico, and the very distinguished gentleman 
 from Accomac, had vied with each other in love for the 
 dear people. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman whined when he said it. 
 
 Mr. TURNBULL. The gentleman says I whined. 
 Well, now, if I did, it was my manner, with no intention 
 of any disrespect to that gentleman. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I have no doubt the gentleman meant no 
 disrespect to me, yet when he indulged in language 
 which I did not use, which language conveys a meaning 
 which my own language did not convey, I could not pre- 
 sume anything else than that the gentleman meant to 
 give the meaning of his interpretation, and not the 
 meaning of my language. It was a matter of interpe- 
 tration, that i was addressing popular feeling, popular 
 passiou, by saying that I had used language that appeal- 
 ed to the d-e-a-r people. The gentleman will recollect 
 the classical source whence that " dear people " comes. 
 It implies, I believe, a very strong Shakspearian sense. 
 The sense is the exact extreme, the opposite extreme of 
 the Carolainus who "hates the stinking breath of the 
 crowd, " the demagogue, who addresses himself to the 
 passions and prejudices of the crow d. Now, the people 
 are dear to me, because I can proudly say, I have most 
 undeservedly been dear, thrice dear, as I feel it, to the 
 people. An incident was alluded to by a gentleman yes- 
 terday, (Mr. Rives,) which should be to every man an 
 attestation to the world, that if I am a man, the people 
 should be dear, thrice dear to me. As was said by that 
 gentleman yesterday, when I was once black-balled and 
 ostracised, not for any demerit of my own, as I am proud 
 to say was said in debate, and not gained in debate, in 
 the high place of the Senate of the United States, but 
 for what was supposed to be the demerits of others. I 
 did go down from the capitol at Washington, and appeal 
 to a district which had not only fourteen hundred, as was 
 said yesterday, but sixteen hundred odd majority en- 
 rolled in the register of party against me; and notwith- 
 standing that, I was sustained, and triumphantly sus- 
 tained, in the face of the press, and in the face of the 
 power of party. Should I not love this people ? I do ; 
 and I shall love them, and ever manifest that love, in 
 the most tender and truthful mode in which my affect- 
 tions for the people can be evidenced to them ; and this 
 by telling them the truth, as an honest man, for their 
 own good. And one of the truths that I shall urge upon 
 them, above all others, and as long as I live is. to grant 
 to no public functionary any more power than is abso- 
 lutely necessary for the exercise of their sovereignty. 
 That is my love for the people. And permit me to say. 
 in reply to the remark made by the gentleman from Rich- 
 mond city (Mr. Botts) the other day, when lie regretted 
 that I had advocated and invoked the spirit of election- 
 erring, that I have not one solitary word to retract upon 
 that subject — not a word. What did I say? That an 
 electioneering campaign, which involved the discussion 
 of great political truths, which displayed in the presence 
 of the majesty of the people, the personal merits or de- 
 merits of the candidates for popular favor, and which 
 brought the people face to face, eye to eye with those 
 who courted their sweet voices, wab Ixaieficiai both to 
 
 the candidate and the people. I said too, that it was 
 the duty of patriots, the duty of decent men, the 
 duty of those who do truthfully and sincerely love 
 the people, to meet the demagogue on the stump, 
 an-^ elbow him off the stump; decency to meet black- 
 gu rdism, truth to meet error, and cool reason to 
 me t the passions of the clay ; and that I did contemn 
 tho aristocracy which is too proud to do the patriot's 
 i ltv in that service. And if you can certify to me that 
 re eligibility will bring a good man, a proved and tried 
 man ften before the people to meet the demagogue, to 
 purify the understanding of the heart, and the under- 
 stauuing cf the head of the people, you recommend the 
 principle which I have advocated more strongly on that 
 ground than any other. 
 
 I did not intend to have said one wora more upon this 
 subject, but the gentleman who sits immediately befere 
 me (Mr. Meredith) made a well-balanced, a well-digest- 
 ed, an ingenious, and an effective speech against the prin- 
 ciple of re-eligibility, and as I do not think his argument 
 has been answered, I beg leave but to add a word. The 
 end of the gentleman and my end are the same, purity 
 in the office. Now, I deny that ineligibility secures pu- 
 rity in the office. "Why, "says the gentleman," the 
 officer can prostitute the office for himself if allowed to 
 be re-elected." May he not prostitute the office for party, 
 if he be not re-elected or allowed to be re-elected ? Is 
 not the passion for party stronger than the preference 
 for office ? Yes, above all other passions that blind man- 
 kind. I have known it to over-ride the strongest pas- 
 sions in our nature — even the passion of avarice. The 
 gentleman, when told that, by allowing the governor to 
 be re-elected, you put him upon his good behavior, and 
 thereby force him to demand a re election, says you 
 have other offices than that of governor, which will re- 
 ward a man for doing his duty in his place That rea- 
 son, instead of being one which answers the argument, is 
 one which fortifies the argument. These other places 
 to which the gentleman alluded to, may be made so ma- 
 ny bribes to influence a bad man — and it is to a bad in- 
 cumbent only, to whom the reasons either way can ap- 
 ply — for if you have a good administration, it matters 
 not whether you adopt one principle or the other : it is 
 only to guard against a bad man, to prevent the prosti- 
 tution of the office, that the gentleman's argument ap- 
 plies. Now, I will give him an illustration — it is this : 
 Heretofore, this office of governor has been the stepping- 
 stone to the Senate of the United States. You have had 
 the governor appointed by the Legislature ; and it 
 is the pet of the Legislature who receives the ap- 
 pointment of governor ; and it is he who is supposed 
 most likely to be elected by them to that high place of 
 honor and trust, the Senate of the United States. One 
 object of the people, in having the governor elected by 
 the people, is to destroy that power of the Legislature, 
 and to knock away that stepping stone from aspiring po- 
 liticians. Now suppose that either party of thisf-tate 
 elect a governor for one term, to be ineligible. You have 
 an office of governor perfectly irresponsible, not held, 
 and who cannot be held responsible by the fear or favor 
 of a re-election. But, the gentleman says you could have 
 another office t<< tender him. A bad and corrupt party 
 — and you will find that the aggregate of party will do 
 what individuals would not do — might require the in- 
 cumbent of the office of governor to do what he would 
 never dare submit to the popular will and judgment. 
 He will say, I cannot be elected ; I am not allowed by 
 the Convention to come again before the people : and 
 they will say to him, if you will but do this thing — how- 
 ever bad, however prostituting, and however corrupt it 
 be — if you will but do this thing, you shall be rewarded 
 with the great office which we hold in our hands — with 
 a place ii. the Senate of the United States. Does not 
 the gentleman see that his own argument cuts its own 
 throat ? Does not the gentleman see that the fact that 
 there are other offices which he may receive, takes the 
 governor himself from before the eyes of the people; 
 I takes him from the opportunity of the people to pass 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 judgment of approval or disapproval on his course, 
 makes him irresponsible and perpetuates his irresponsi- 
 bility, and above all, provides for him the reward of 
 prostitution ? That seems to me to answer the gentle- 
 man. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I have a few remarks to address to this 
 committee, and more especially to my honorable col- 
 league from the county of Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) in an- 
 swer to the various interrogatories which that honorable 
 gentleman was pleased to put to me a few days ago, and 
 to which, until now, I have had no opportunity to re- 
 spond. When I had the honor of addressing this com- 
 mittee a few days since, I confess that I labored under 
 what seems to be an egregious mistake. I had suppos- 
 ed that the proposition which you hold in your hand, 
 and which proposes, in my humble judgment, to confer 
 upon a single individual the great powers of governor 
 of this great commonwealth for life, emanated from the 
 eminent brain of my distinguished colleague from the 
 county of Henrico, (Mr. Botts.) By the development, 
 however, which has since taken place, I find that my 
 very distinguished colleague is not the real father of the 
 bantling, but that he is only the god-father to it, and that 
 its paternity belongs to the gentleman from Barbour, 
 (Mr. Carlile.) It is not as I supposed, of eastern ori- 
 gin, but claims its paternity, I believe, in the extreme 
 north-west of the State. Had I known on that occasion, 
 as I know now, the true origin of this proposition, I 
 should not have felt altogether the pain which I express- 
 ed on that occasion. I did say I felt pain. The gentle- 
 man supposes that I was compensated for the pain by 
 the pleasure which it would give me to vote against his 
 proposition. How long has that gentleman known — how 
 long has he been apprised of the fact — that it gave me 
 pleasure to vote against his proposition? I expressed 
 no such sentiment as that it would give me pleasure in 
 voting against his proposition. I expressed no sentiment 
 of pleasure, because I felt none in regard to either of 
 the three propositions before us — neither of them meets 
 my approbation. The gentleman assumed that I felt 
 pleasure, for the purpose of eking out a witticism, as he 
 supposes, at my expense. 
 
 " Wit shoots in vain its momentary fires, 
 The meteor bursts and in a flash expires " 
 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 The gentleman, in the most emphatic manner, ex- 
 presses his regret that there should be a disagreement 
 of opinion between himself and his colleagues upon this 
 momentous question, and fears that if they begin to 
 disagree now they will not be likely to agree upon the 
 other great questions upon which it will be the duty of 
 this Convention to give their best reflections. Ts that 
 to be charged to any one of the delegation ? Ts the gen- 
 tleman dissatisfied with his colleagues because they have 
 not concurred in the votes and propositions which he 
 submits? We remember, when we sat elsewhere, a 
 proposition if not submitted by my colleague was cer- 
 tainly supported by him, that the mode of taking the 
 votes of members of this Convention should be changed, 
 and whereas he voted the second or third in the delega- 
 tion, that as hi? name began with B he would the leader 
 be. [Laughter.] If that gentleman expects any man in 
 the delegation to follow in his footsteps, he must be of 
 a more tame and sequacious nature than the humble in- 
 dividual who now addresses you. [Laughter.] Yes sir, 
 the sequence, the gentleman will perhaps understand 
 that term better. 
 
 I expressed pain in regard to the proposition which 
 the honorable gentleman had submitted ; and what right 
 had that gentleman to question my sincerity? I did 
 feel pain, and I still feel pain, that that proposition is 
 pending before the committee. I feel pain, and I still 
 feel alarm, although I confess that I am somewhat re- 
 lieved from it, since I find that this ball was not origi- 
 nally tossed up in the east, but that it comes from the 
 hand of one of our western brethren, (Mr. Carlile.) I 
 had supposed that the gentleman, whoever he was, that 
 threw it, was somewhat acquainted with that noble sport 
 
 at which in my youth I have so often disported myself, 
 which was then called fives. [Laughter.] Yes, fives, in 
 which a skilful player is engaged with some half dozen 
 unskilful ones, and would hit the bail so as to bring in 
 concussion the heads of those who should get it. [Laugh- 
 ter.] My honorable colleague has become so corpulent, 
 that I rather fear he will not hold out in this race. I 
 rather fear that there are other men, who will prove 
 themselves more fleet, and to have more bottom than 
 he. That gentleman's taste and his idea of propriety 
 in discussing a grave, a momentous subject, did not strike 
 me as worthy of admiration. He dealt with his subject 
 as though he was in the African church, instead of the 
 Universalist church, where the Convention meets ; as 
 though he was addressing the people upon the hustings, 
 his principal object being to ridicule same competitor. 
 As far as that gentleman's abilities are concerned, I 
 never supposed they lay exactly in that line. I knew 
 him to be very eminent ; but I had supposed his emi- 
 nence consisted in prophecy. [Laughter.] I should 
 have supposed the gentleman would have gravely got 
 up here and prophesied something — not like Daniel of 
 old, which should be decided a thousand years after- 
 wards, but that wmich would prove untrue in a very few 
 days. [Laughter.] I repeat that if my honorable col- 
 league is distinguished for one thing more than another, 
 it is for this spirit of prophecy. Now I do not profess 
 to be a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but if I did 
 prophesy, I would take care not always to be in the 
 wrong. 
 
 Among the various interrogatories which my distin- 
 guished colleague put to me, one was, I recollect, did I 
 hear, during the canvass, any man object to the re-eligi- 
 bility of the Governor for life ? And this question the 
 gentleman repeated in the most emphatic manner. Well, 
 if I had had an opportunity, I could have answered him 
 instantly, and without hesitation, no. I heard no man, 
 during the canvass, object to the re-eligibility of the 
 Governor for life. And I heard no man object to the 
 people's electing a king, if they thought proper. These 
 were subjects, so far as my knowledge extends, that did 
 not enter even into the conception of any candidate en- 
 gaged in the discussions of the great questions submit- 
 ted to the people, from one end of the district to the 
 other. 
 
 And in this connection the gentleman took the liber- 
 ty — and in regard to that subject there is more than 
 meets the eye or ear — the gentleman took occasion to 
 say, that the humble member who now addresses you, 
 mistook the ticket upon which he ran ; that he should 
 have been upon the conservative, and not on the radi- 
 cal ticket. And in this connection, also, the gentleman 
 introduces my address in Dutch. [Laughter.] Yes, 
 my address in Dutch ; and introduced it, I presume, to 
 prove to this honorable body that I had been smuggled 
 into the position I occupy through the Dutch vote, 
 which had been so peculiarly heretofore attached to him. 
 [Laughter.] Does that gentleman, or did he mean to 
 insinuate, that I came here professing one set of opin- 
 ions, and am now here acting upon another? If the 
 gentleman means any such thing, I say to him, that as 
 far as parliamentary language and propriety authorizes 
 me, I denounce that insinuation. I denounce it to its 
 fullest extent. I have deceived no one. 
 
 The CHAIR,. The Chair does not understand that 
 there was any insinuation of the kind meant. If there 
 had been, of course it would have been out of order, 
 and the gentleman would have been called to order. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman said that I mistook the 
 ticket upon which I ran ; that I should have been upon 
 the conservative ticket, and not upon the radical ticket. 
 The gentleman, I presume, arrived at that conclusion, 
 from the fact that I opposed a proposition which I then 
 called his, but which I now find belongs more properly 
 to the gentleman from Barbour, (Mr. Carlile.) He is 
 convinced that I am no reformer ; that I should have 
 been placed on the conservative ticket ; because, for- 
 sooth, I did not advocate a proposition that may evi- 
 dently secure to a single individual the important office 
 
128 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 of Governor of Virginia for life. The gentleman also 
 informs this committee that he did not enter into the 
 canvass ; that he was not present. It is perfectly true 
 that he did not electioneer ; it is perfectly true that he 
 did not enter into the canvass, and did not electioneer, 
 but he published an address, and I put myself to the 
 trouble this morning of ascertaining what he said in that 
 address. I wished to know what he said in it in rela- 
 tion to the executive department of the government. I 
 wished to see if that gentleman could bring that address 
 here, as my friend on my right (Mr. Rives) did his on 
 yesterday, and show for what he went when his address 
 was before the people, if he himself was not. And 1 
 find, after having examined it, that this subject of the 
 election of the Governor is not adverted to at all in his 
 address, and that he comes here untrammeled — utterly 
 untrammeled. And the gentleman declares that in his 
 opinion no man should come to this Convention with any 
 set of opinions avowed. And he declares, moreover, 
 that in his opinion no man should be a candidate for the 
 office, and that although he was very willing to receive 
 the office, yet he must not be regarded as a candidate 
 for it. In other words, the gentleman seemed to put 
 himself upon his dignity, and in this respect he very 
 much resembled his quandam friend, Captain Tyler — 
 who also published an address in response to invitations 
 to be a candidate for office. And here, according to 
 my conception, is a very striking likeness between the 
 two. Each of the gentlemen left his address behind ; 
 one went to Saratoga, I believe, and the other was at 
 Washington. Neither committed himself. Suppose the 
 idea of my honorable friend — for so I have been in the 
 habit of calling him, though perhaps I have committed 
 an impropriety in calling him so now, seeing that I have 
 dared to oppose his proposition — had been carried out, 
 and that each member of this Convention came here in 
 the same untrammeled situation which this gentleman 
 represents himself to be in, what would be the condi- 
 tion, I ask, of the people of Virginia? Would they not 
 have selected gentlemen in the dark? Would they not 
 have been calling upon individuals to make a Constitu- 
 tion for them, without knowing what it was that those 
 gentlemen would propose. Unquestionably this would 
 be the case. 
 
 There were some other questions the gentleman pro- 
 pounded to me, which escape my recollection at present. 
 Among other things, however, the gentleman asked me 
 if I would go for the Constitution of 1776 and of 1830, 
 in regard to the freehold suffrage, and in regard to the 
 representation of the counties ? Would I go for the 
 freehold suffrage ? asked the gentleman. No, I will not 
 go for the freehold suffrage. I will not vote to form a 
 Constitution that shall place this government in the hands 
 of freeholders alone. But I take occasion to say that, 
 in my humble judgment, there is no class of voters in 
 this community equal to the class of freeholders. And 
 I take occasion also to say that the freeholders of Vir- 
 ginia constitute the bone and sinew of the country. 
 They constitute that class of men who are really con- 
 servatives, and from whom no danger is ever to be ap- 
 prehended. But there are other classes in this commu- 
 nity to whom I would do justice, and to whom I believe 
 the right of suffrage ought to be extended, and to whom 
 I am willing, with my honorable colleague, to make 
 the extension. 
 
 There was one thing which struck me with very great 
 surprise, and that was, that my honorable colleague 
 should have supposed that when 1 spoke of black cock- 
 ade federalists, I was making a fling at him. It struck 
 me, I say, with very great surprise that the gentleman 
 should have supposed that when I spoke of that obnox- 
 ious party that I intended a fling at him. I certainly in- 
 tended no fling at him ; and I certainly did not expect 
 that the gentleman would have bestowed an encomium, 
 as I understood him to do, upon this black cockade par- 
 ty. I certainly did not expect the egregious error which 
 he committed in charging upon Washington, Marshal), 
 and Madison as having belonged to that obnoxious party. 
 I shall be led to believe that the gentleman is as unin- 
 
 formed in regard to the lines which separated the an- 
 cient parties of this country, as he professed some time 
 since to be in regard to Mason and Dixon 's line. Wash- 
 ington a black cockade federalist! John Marshall a 
 black cockade federalist! and more surprising than all, 
 Mr. Madison a black cockade federalist ! And this said 
 by an honorable gentleman who has had so much politi- 
 cal experience ! Does not that gentleman know full 
 well that before the Constitution of the United States 
 was formed in 1787, that pending this great measure, 
 parties were divided under the appellation of federalist 
 and anti-federalist? Is he not aware that after the 
 adoption of this Constitution, the anti-federal party had 
 nothing upon which to act ; that there was no subject of 
 contest between those two parties? 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would remind the gentle- 
 man that the debate is taking entirely too wide a range. 
 The discussion should be confined to the subject under 
 consideration, and to the amendments which are pend- 
 ing. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I have to say in answer to the Chair, 
 that I am endeavoring to meet an argument in favor of 
 this proposition drawn, or attempted to be drawn, by 
 my honorable colleague, by asserting the fact that these 
 great men belonged to a particular party. I was upon 
 that subject — 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair understood the gentleman 
 from Henrico (Mr. Botts) as merely making a passing 
 allusion, and not as entering into any argument upon the 
 subject to prove it. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I take occasion then to say that the gen- 
 tleman, in his passing allusion, does exceeding injustice 
 to these great men. [Laughter.] I take occasion to say 
 to this passing allusion of the gentleman, that Mr. Madi- 
 son, although he co-operated with those who framed 
 the Constitution of the United States, never was before, 
 I presume, denominated a black cockade federalist. 
 The term black cockade federalist grew out of that 
 bloodless war which existed between this country and 
 France, in which no enemy could be found; a war in which 
 not one drop of blood was spilled ; a war in which we 
 had " no fighting men abroad, no weeping maids at 
 home ; " [laughter,] a war such as I humbly pray God 
 all wars may ever be ; a war in which no harm was 
 done a war distinguished by no blood and carnage. 
 
 But much I think "has been said upon this occasion 
 which should not have been said. Much, I think, has 
 been said upon this subject, by myself as well as others, 
 which should not have been said. [Laughter.] We 
 have departed from the true question before the com- 
 mittee. I do not take upon myself the entire blame, 
 but I am ever willing to bear my share of the responsi- 
 bility, let it be what.it may. Much, I say, in my hum- 
 ble judgment, has been said upon this occasion, which 
 would have been better suited to holiday occasions. 
 We have left the momentous question occupying the 
 considerations of this grave body to indulge in witticisms 
 and in endeavors to ridicule, a valuable weapon on some 
 occasions, it is true, but usually resorted to in bad causes. 
 The man who cannot reason in regard to any question, 
 or who disdains to do so, and seizes upon ridicule in lieu 
 of reason, must have a consciousness that he is engaged 
 in a cause which cannot be sustained by reason. For 
 I take it for granted that any gentleman, in a delibera- 
 tive body like this, would prefer to sustain his position 
 by strong, hard sense , rather than by an endeavor at wit- 
 ticisms and sarcasms, to defeat his opponents. Whether 
 my honorable colleague has set this unenviable exam- 
 ple, I will leave others to determine. 
 
 The question, the true question before us, is, shall 
 the executive office of this great Commonwealth, accor- 
 ding to the proposition of my colleague be retained du- 
 ring the life of the incumbent, if that incumbent can so 
 manage as to secure his re-election, from term to term, 
 of four years. Is that a proposition calculated to ad- 
 vance the prosperity and to secure the happiness and 
 safety of the people? Is it, in other words, a republi- 
 can proposition? Is it a proposition to which, if sub- 
 mitted to the people themselves, they would be likely to 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 129 
 
 accede? I undertake, for once, to trespass upon the 
 prerogatives of the gentleman, and to prophecy that the 
 people, if this proposition had been submitted to them, 
 would have rejected it. I, for one, believe that deserv- 
 edly popular as is my distinguished colleague, if he had 
 presented himself to the voters of this district and pro- 
 claimed the proposition which he makes here, that hej 
 would not at this time have had the honor of a seat in 
 this body. It is my deliberate opinion, had that gen- 
 tleman been in his district and discussed this subject 
 before the people, and let the people of this district 
 know that he was willing to extend the office of Go- 
 vernor for life, the gentleman, instead of being third 
 upon the list of candidates returned, to use a sporting 
 phrase, would have been "no where." [Laughter.] 
 I appeal to members of this body from the eastern side 
 of the mountains, at least, whether any proposition like 
 this was ever discussed before their people ? I appeal 
 to the entire delegation whether this proposition was 
 ever submitted to their people ? If then this extraordi- 
 nary innovation upon the ancient rights of the people 
 was never discussed before them, if the people in no 
 form whatever gave their approbation to such a propo- 
 sition, I ask why press it? The gentleman said the 
 other day that the framers of the Constitution of '76 
 had set the example of repeated terms. Yes, the gen- 
 tleman said most emphatically that they had set the ex- 
 ample of repeated terms ; that they had declared in their 
 Constitution that the Governor should be eligible for 
 three terms, but the gentleman did not say how long 
 these terms were. In that Constitution, which was the 
 work of such men as Jefferson and Mason and Grayson, 
 they showed a jealousy of executive misrule and they 
 required the chief executive officer should be elected 
 annually for three terms, and then to be ineligible for 
 four years afterwards, thus carrying out the principle of 
 rotation in office and a reduction of the great public 
 functionaries to a private station — two principles, which 
 in my humble judgment, are dearer to the people of this 
 ancient Commonwealth, than any other which can be 
 submitted to this Convention. Rotation in office and 
 a reduction of public functionaries to private sta- 
 tion, I repeat, are th^ dearest rights ever contended 
 for by the people of the good old Commonwealth of Vir- 
 ginia. Shall we depart from them? Shall we, for the 
 purpose of imitating the Constitution of the United 
 States, depart from these wholesome and conservative 
 principles of liberty? There is a pernicious itch for 
 imitation at the present time ; there is an imitation in 
 the pending amendment of the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States which, to me, is alarming. The President of 
 the United States is elected for four years, and he is 
 re-eligible for life. The Governor of Virginia, accord- 
 ing to my colleague's proposition, shall be elected for 
 four years, and shall be re-eligible for life. There is a 
 similarity which I dislike. Is it intended, is it contem- 
 plated by this Convention, to render the Governor of 
 Virginia, in events which may, God knows how soon 
 happen, the ally of the President of the United States, 
 and allow them to continue him in office as long as is 
 necessary to effect their purpose ? I fear the consequen- 
 ces of the extension of this re-eligibility ; I fear an in- 
 terference from other states ; I fear even an interference 
 from foreign states ; and I believe, if the proposition is 
 once ratified by the people of Virginia, the first individ- 
 ual who is elected to that office, will be every inch a 
 king ! Yes, T fear a more important potentate than 
 many of the kings and princes of Europe, at the present 
 day. Poland formerly elected a king, and he was, as it 
 is proposed the Governor of Virginia shall be, re-eligi- 
 ble, and the people might turn him out. But did the 
 great powers of Europe, in the neighborhood of that 
 elective monarchy, ever permit him to be turned out? 
 Never. And when they found that these elections were 
 troublesome to be regulated, they graciously partitioned 
 Poland among themselves. 
 
 But I object to the period of four years as the duration 
 of the term of office. I object to it as anti-republican ; 
 I object to it as not corresponding, according to my view, 
 with the sentiments of the people, and of my immediate 
 
 constituents particularly ; I believe that the people re- 
 quire that all their public officers shall be elected for 
 short periods ; that they shall have an opportunity of 
 coming at the delinquent at short periods. I have never 
 yet heard any man declare that the Governor of Virgi- 
 nia v/as elected for too short a period. Under the old 
 freehold government, when the Executive officer was 
 elected annually, was there any complaint that the Go- 
 vernor was not elected for life ? Did the honorable gen- 
 tleman, when he represented the county of Henrico in 
 the State Legislature, ever hear any of his constituents 
 complain that the Governor of the Commonwealth was 
 not elected for life ? Did the gentleman, at that time, 
 ever hear any of his constituents complain that the 
 Governor was not elected for four or for eight years ? I 
 had some little experience with the people about that 
 period, and like that gentleman, Ihadsome experience 
 in the legislature. For a period of years I represented 
 there a large and highly intelligent county in the imme- 
 diate neighborhood of this city, and I can say as a wit- 
 ness upon the stand, that I never heard a solitary indi- 
 vidual object to the mode in which the Governor was 
 elected, except that he was not elected by the people. 
 I never heard an individual, whether Federalist or Re- 
 publican, object to the length of time as being too 
 short. No, never. The only objection which I ever 
 heard upon the subject, was, that there was a connection 
 between the legislative and the executive department, 
 which was in violation of the spirit of the Bill of 
 Rights ; and that, as the bill of rights declared that 
 these two departments of the Government should be 
 separate, distinct, and independent of each other, the 
 executive branch, by being elected by the legislature, 
 was made to some extent, dependent upon the other 
 branch. That constituted the objection, and not that 
 the Governor should cease to be eligible when he should 
 return to the body of the people ; not that the Gover- 
 nor should be placed in station and there remain as 
 long as by intrigue, or force, or other means, he might 
 continue himself in the office. No — no such com- 
 plaints were ever made in the great county to which I 
 allude, a county which had the honor to give the first 
 impulse to the ball of the revolution. I have expressed 
 my fears and alarms at this proposition, and have not 
 gentlemen a right to be afraid of propositions of this 
 sort ? I have my fears on various grounds. I fear that 
 this proposition, should it succeed, will render the 
 work of this Convention perfectly nugatory and in vain. 
 I fear the eminent ability of gentlemen whom I see en- 
 listed in this crusade, as I regard it, against the dear- 
 est rights of the people. I have a right to express my 
 fears — I really entertain them — and yet I cannot charge 
 myself with any greater degree of pusilanimity, than 
 is usually attachable to the character of men. I think 
 it better to be afraid cf danger while far off, than to 
 shrink from it when that danger shall be upon you. I 
 would guard the rights of the people. 
 
 Gentlemen, with a degree of ingenuity extraordina- 
 ry indeed, have endeavored to prove to this Conven- 
 tion, that they are advancing the rights of the people 
 by enabling them to continue men in power during life. 
 The thing is impossible. Advance republican princi- 
 ples by rendering the chief Executive officer eligible 
 for life ? The man must be bold and confident in his 
 own abilities to the extreme, who can advocate such a 
 proposition in a body so intelligent as this. Advance 
 republican principles by rendering an individual eligi- 
 ble to the first office in the gift of the State ; where he 
 will be tempted to continue in office by every means in 
 his power? Where is the man who would not prefer to 
 be Governor of Virginia for four years, with a chance 
 amounting to almost the certainty of being re-elected 
 for four more, with a salary of five thousand dollars — 
 as the report proposes to give, thus securing to him the 
 pretty little sum of forty thousand dollars — I ask where 
 is the man who would not prefer this office even to that 
 of the President of the United States itself, for a sin- 
 gle term? And when you add to it the prospect of be- 
 ing continued for life ; aye, and transmitted to heirs, I 
 apprehend, if this proposition should be engrafted in 
 
130 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the Constitution, that we shall have a contest for this, 
 office such as never was known in any state for the gu- 
 bernatorial chair before. Pass this proposition and 
 you will find every means, internal and external, fair 
 and foul, resorted to, to secure the election of the in- 
 cumbent. Gentlemen will recollect somewhat of the 
 history of the ancient Republics. Was it the custom 
 of the ancient Republics to elect their great officers 
 for a great length of time? The Consuls of Rome were 
 elected but for two years, and the Dictator himself on- 
 ly for six months ; here, however, we propose to elect 
 our chief magistrate for four years — most probably for 
 eight ; for unless, as was remarked the other day, the 
 incumbent has committed some flagitious wrong, he 
 will be continued in office for eight years : and the road 
 being still open to him, will he not attempt a re-election 
 for eight years more ? I ask gentlemen to ponder and 
 reason in their own minds ; and to answer the inquiry, 
 whether an individual having this great office under his 
 control for eight vears, will not endeavor to continue 
 himself in place ? The argument I think, will be : we 
 have been invited to it by the reform Convention that 
 formed this Constitution— that Convention found the 
 short term, and the principle of returning to the masses 
 of the people, in order to bring down the high functiona- 
 ries to learn how it is to get a living by the sweat of 
 their brow, and that they might be taught by actual ex- 
 perience, the condition of the people, by mingling and 
 becoming one of them — and it abandoned those prin- 
 ciples. I cannot, I will not depart from these ancient 
 principles. I may be dubbed conservative. Let me 
 be so. I may even take upon myself the appellation of 
 federalist. I will take upon myself any appellation 
 that the gentleman thinks proper to bestow upon me, 
 rather than yield the rights of the people whom I have 
 the honor, in part, to represent. My honorable col- 
 league the other day, in regard to the promotion of the 
 Governor, or rather in regard to this eligibility of the 
 Governor to other offices, said, if I do not greatly mis- 
 take, that it was not in the power of this Convention 
 to prevent the Governor from being elected to the Sen- 
 ate of the United States, and other federal offices. If 
 I am in error, I hope the gentleman will correct me. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. That is what I said. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman says that is what he 
 said — that it is not in the power of this Convention to 
 inhibit the governor from receiving any high office at the 
 hands of the federal government, and, I presume, at the 
 hands of any foreign government. It is not, says my 
 Colleague, in the power of this Convention to inhibit the 
 governor from being elected to the Senate of the United 
 States. Why, is it not in the power of the people to pre- 
 vent their governor, or any other citizen, from being elect 
 ed to that office ? I perceive no reason why this Con- 
 vention may not say to the Legislature that it shall not 
 elect to the Senate of the United States any man who is 
 in office, from a constable to the chief magistrate of the 
 State. I ask wi ether this Convention has not the pow- 
 er to impose such a restriction upon a co-ordinate branch 
 of the government ? No power of restriction upon this 
 great officer ? Accordiug to the advocates of this extra- 
 ordinary proposition, he is to serve for life, if he can so 
 manage as to secure his election for so long a period ; 
 and in the mean time, he is not to be inhibited from other 
 or better offices. Yes, sir, elected for life, with the privi- 
 lege, according to my colleague, during life, of being elect- 
 ed to the high office of Senator. I do not concur with 
 my colleague in this respect- I greatly prefer the pro- 
 position of the committee, the original proposition. But 
 the argument of the gentleman was, that his proposition 
 advances the privileges of the people. The argument — 
 the legitimate argument — is, whether it advances the 
 rights of the people, or whether it endangers the rights 
 of the people. That, I submit, to be the true question 
 under consideration. 
 
 The gentleman said, that we should not restrict the 
 privilege of the people in electing this officer, time and 
 again, as long as he shall live. 
 
 The gentleman also said something about the election 
 
 of the distinguished General Scott. I will draw an il- 
 lustration of my humble views in regard to that distin- 
 guished man. I ask of my colleague, whether, under his 
 idea of extending the rights of the people, he would have 
 them exercise the privilege of electing the distinguished 
 gentleman alluded to by him, to the office of Chief Ma- 
 gistrate ? Nay, I go further. Will the proposition al- 
 low the people the privilege of electing the illustrious 
 sage of Ashland, to be the governor of his native State ? 
 Are they not restricting and confining an election to 
 the citizens of their own State ? And is not that a re- 
 striction upon the powers of the people ? Is not that a 
 restriction, a much greater deprivation than a restric- 
 tion which shall confine an election for a limited period, 
 and bring the incumbent back to the masses of the peo- 
 ple? In the nature of things it becomes the duty of 
 this body, not only to restrict the departments of the 
 government, but to restrict the people themselves. For 
 this Convention is the representation, the impersona- 
 tion of the people. We stand here, representing the 
 people in their sovereign capacity ; and what we do, they 
 do. The acts of this body are the acts of the people. 
 The people certainly have aright to restrict themselves, 
 even if we view the proposition in that light. 
 
 If we are to have a proposition such as this — if we 
 are to have a Constitution like this, let us go the entire 
 figure. Let the Constitution be opened to the entire 
 world, and allow any man to be elected whom the peo- 
 ple of Virginia may think proper to elect. If there is 
 to be no restriction in regard to the governor, let it be 
 said that any man may be elected. Open the door to old 
 Kentucky; open the door to my old friend Winfield 
 Scott ; open the door if you will, to Kossuth ; open the 
 door even to Lord Brougham ; and, perhaps some gen- 
 tleman might like to open it to a member of the royal 
 family, for I believe that this proposition, in the end, 
 will lead to royalty or a king. [Laughter.] 
 
 What I have said, I am perfectly aware has been very 
 imperfectly delivered. My health, my personal condi- 
 tion, and even my mental condition, is not favorable to 
 an address of this kind. I never rise to address this 
 body without a very sensible embarrassment. It has 
 continued with me during the entire time I have address- 
 ed this committee, The gentleman over the way, while 
 he made me the object of his particular notice, a few 
 days since, took occasion to say that it was done with 
 all imaginable kindness. What I have said was in a 
 similar spirit — in all imaginable kindness. But I will 
 take occasion, in conclusion, to say, that I regard it 
 excessively dangerous for any gentleman, however pop- 
 ular he may be, to conceive the idea that his popular- 
 ity will stand everything. I will take occasion to say 
 that "whom the Lord means to destroy, he first runs 
 mad. " 
 
 A MEMBER. That is not the quotation. [Laughter.] 
 Mr. DAVIS. I will further say that I have, ever 
 since I have turned thirty, considered doubt as the bea- 
 con of the wise. I have ever considered that the opin- 
 ions of the man who doubted whether he was right, and 
 who would reflect and ponder in his mind whether he 
 was right or wrong, was more apt to be right than he, 
 who, seizing upon the first "hop" of an idea, is ever af- 
 terwards looking for arguments, specious or otherwise, 
 to sustain him in error. 
 
 We are engaged in a work which ought to excite our 
 affections and our very best judgments for the people. 
 The gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) has spoken 
 in regard to the people in terms of eloquence which few 
 here will rival. And will not that gentleman perceive, 
 with his ample knowledge of history, that the people 
 often require to be protected from ambitious knaves ? 
 And are we not, one and all, apprised of the fact that hu- 
 man nature is the same in all countries, and at all times ? 
 Are we not apprised of the fact, that no people ever lost 
 their liberties by the strong arm of power alone ; but 
 that they have' bowed their willing necks to the yoke, 
 misled and misguided by their great favorites ? Was it 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 131 
 
 not so in ancient times ? Has it not been so in more re- Mr. BOTTS. And he says, if I expect any followers 
 cent times? Has it not been so every where? God here, I must find some one more segacious than he. 
 
 I did not say that. 
 It was something in that way. 
 That was not the word. It was se- 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. 
 Mr. BOTTS. 
 A MEMBER. 
 
 quacious. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. It seems that I did not apprehend the 
 gentleman, and I will pass on. [Laughter.] But what 
 the gentleman did say, (that I regretted to hear,) was, 
 that he supposed my remarks were intended to ridicule 
 him. Why, I take' occasion, with infinite satisfaction, 
 to say to the gentleman, that nothing is further from 
 my disposition, or from my tastes than ridiculing any 
 caan. I did feel that the gentleman's remarks were al- 
 together out of place, and unkind in their tone and tem- 
 per, and that one hearing his speech, or reading it in 
 the public prints, unconnected with the proposition I 
 submitted, that they would very naturally believe I had 
 had submitted, a most outrageous and monstrous propo- 
 sition to the Convention ; and one that was calculated 
 to strip the people of all their powers, and of all their 
 liberties. That was the feeling in which I answered 
 the gentleman 's remarks. If I did it in a way to expose 
 the fallacy of his arguments, it was with any other than 
 a disposition to ridicule him. If there was a laugh at 
 the expense of the gentleman, it was no fault of mine. 
 I certainly did not desire to create a laugh. But the 
 gentleman asked me, or rather suggested the possibility 
 that, in making a reference to the printing of his ad- 
 finite pleasure that it would give him to vote against j dress in the German language, that I might have in- 
 the proposition of his colleague. And in using these tended to insinuate that he had smuggled himself into 
 terms, I would remark, it was not by way of witti- this Convention. I imagine that no other gentleman 
 -cism, either. I simply referred to the gentleman's who was presentput that construction upon my remarks, 
 language, and said I did not know whether to congrat- I do not think he thought himself, at the moment, I 
 
 •to congratulate him iwas doing it,becai 
 
 savs us from its being so here. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I have very little to say in reply to the 
 gentleman who has just taken his seat, yet I feel the 
 necessity of throwing myself, for moment, upon the 
 indulgence of the committee. I very much regret that 
 this discussion has taken the turn it has ; and while I 
 have nothing to regret of what the gentleman has said, 
 I have a great deal'to regret of the manner and of the 
 spirit in which he has said it. And I have still more to 
 regret, if I have been unintentionally the cause of giv- 
 ing any good grounds of offence to that gentleman. It 
 will be recollected, that when the gentleman speaks of 
 " taking the ball at the first hop, " that my worthy col- 
 league took my proposition — as I still say it is, for it 
 stands as my proposition before the committee, and I 
 stand responsible before the Convention for it — that he 
 took my proposition at the first hop. And although 
 the gentleman did not denounce me in terms, yet he 
 certainly did denounce that proposition in terms which, 
 in my opinion, were very exceptionable, If I had chosen 
 to take exceptions to them — especially coming from 
 what I will not forget — a gentleman who has been for a 
 long time, not only my personal, but my warmest polit- 
 ical friend. He certainly made the declaration that it 
 did give him infinite pain to hear such a proposition as 
 that submitted by his colleague, presented for the con- 
 sideration of this Convention ; and he spoke of the in 
 
 ulate or to sympathize with him — to 
 
 lecause another of my colleagues, who sat 
 
 upon the pleasure afforded him in voting against my J immediately behind me, and who had done precisely 
 
 proposition, or to sympathize with him for the pain the 
 proposition itself occasioned. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I appeal to the Convention that I used 
 no such language. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I appeal to the reporter, whenever he 
 shall publish this debate. 
 
 The CHAIR. When a gentleman is occupying the 
 floor, these conversations are very improper. 
 _ Mr. BOTTS. In regard to the origin of the propo- 
 sition, I certainly attach no sort of importance to it. I 
 am willing to transfer all the credit and honor belong- 
 ing to it to the gentleman from the western part of the 
 State, who, it seems, had submitted a proposition of a 
 similar character, but of which I profess to have been 
 entirely ignorant at the time. I knew not of it. although 
 I had the paper in my pocket ; but I had not withdrawn 
 it therefrom from the moment when the document was 
 first handed round to the members. Thus, not having 
 taken it up for examination, and not expecting that the 
 question would come up at the moment it did, I sub- 
 mitted the proposition, without any knowledge of the 
 fact that a similar one had been before offered. I speak 
 of it as my proposition, because I stand responsible for 
 it before the Convention and the people. And yet I 
 am not disposed to claim its paternity. The gentleman, 
 then, does me injustice also in supposing that, in voting 
 for a proposition not made by me, but by the gentleman 
 from Wheeling — 
 
 A MEMBER. From Barbour, you mean. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. No, sir, the gentleman from Wheel- 
 ing, (Mr. Jacob,) said that the list of members should 
 be called in alphabetical order, for the purpose of de- 
 stroying the sectional aspect given to every question 
 which came before the Convention, that because my 
 name began with the letter B, I was desirous the lead- 
 er to be. I think that was the gentleman's rhyme. I 
 aspire to no such office. I would be glad if my friend 
 would place himself under somebody who would lead 
 him to more democratic views than ke has expressed 
 
 the same thing, did not suppose I intended to say he had 
 smuggled himself into the Convention. When I made 
 the remark, the gentleman turned to his colleage and 
 said, " take notice of that : " to which I replied, " I am 
 not talking to Mr. Scott. He gave me no provocation. 
 I am talking to you. " Nov/, the gentleman says, that 
 all he said to me was in the spirit of kindness, and that 
 it was in the same spirit in which I addressed my re- 
 marks to him. This may be true ; but I think it must 
 be apparent to the Convention that he was much more 
 unhappy in his mode of expression. 
 Mr. DAVIS. I said " the same kind of kindness. " 
 Mr. BOTTS. What I did say was said in the spirit 
 of all kindness. But the gentleman professes great sur- 
 prize at my ignorance of the early history of parties, and 
 supposes that I had denounced Washington, Madison and 
 Marshall, as black cockade federalists. Now, could 
 any man have listened to the remarks of the gentleman 
 this morning, who had not heard what preceded them, 
 without coming to the conclusion that I had had the ef- 
 frontery and the impudence to stand up here in the face 
 of this Convention, and denounce the father of his coun- 
 try and those illustrious men associated with him, as 
 black cockade federalists. Why, a moment after the 
 gentleman accused me of having denounced these illus- 
 trious men as black cockade federalists, he expresses 
 his surprise, and I do not know but he expressed his pain 
 again, that he felt at the encomiums I bestowed on those 
 very men. But who was it that used the term black 
 cockade federalist, and what was the connection in which 
 the gentleman used it, and to which I responded? His 
 language was, that he had never known any other than 
 a black cockade federalist to advocate this principle of 
 re-eligibility to office. 
 Mr. DAVIS. For life. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. No one has ever proposed it for life. 
 That was the connection, I repeat, in which I responded 
 to the remarks of the gentleman. I asked the gentle- 
 man if he knew who these black cockade federalists 
 
 here ; but as I know him to be a very unruly horse, and j were, that adopted the Constitution of the United States, 
 
 traces, I beg leave not and that did recognize the principle of 
 
 one who is apt to kick out of the 
 to take charge of him in my team. 
 Mr. DAVIS. No danger of that 
 
 recognize tne principle of re-eligibility to 
 office? And I said they were General Washington, 
 James Madison and John Marshall, with a host of other 
 
132 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 illustrious men. And I went on then to pass an enco- 
 mium, a just and deserved encomium, that I will repeat 
 here and elsewhere, at any time and in any place, re- 
 gardless of consequences. I do not make speeches to 
 buncombe, but if 1 did make speeches to buncumbe, it 
 might be an object to leave that portion of my remarks 
 out, because I know that it is not very agreeable to bun- 
 cumbe ears to hear it. You might as well, in these days, 
 call a man a mad-dog as a federalist. I said, in the en- 
 comium that I passed on that party, that it had commit- 
 ted errors — doubtless it had committed errors, and great 
 errors ; and I said that the errors of that party would con- 
 trast favorably with the errors committed by other parties 
 that had been in power since. The gentleman seemed to 
 think strange of my ignorance of the early history of par- 
 ties, in associating Mr. Madison with these federalists. 
 Does the gentleman not know that Mr. Madison was class- 
 ed with the federal party in the early period of his life — 
 as a friend to the adoption of the federal constitution, 
 which was the original question which divided parties — 
 and that he was always held to be a federalist until a 
 much more advanced period of his life ? But not in 
 that connection did I refer to him. It was in connec- 
 tion with his association as one of the framers of the 
 Constitution of the United States, that I referred to 
 him, in connection with Washington and the men whom 
 he was denouncing as black cockade federalists. The 
 denunciation came from his lips, and the defence from 
 mine. 
 
 With a pertinacity that is surprising — with an object 
 which I shall not attempt to explain — but, I say, with a 
 pertinacity that is surprising, the gentleman has argued, 
 in the course of his remarks to-day, as well as on a for- 
 mer occasion, this question, as if it were a proposition 
 for an election for life, and he does not hesitate to em- 
 ploy these identical words — that it is a proposition for a 
 life election, which he apprehends will soon run into 
 royalty. Well, I have endeavored heretofore to set him 
 right, but without avail. I did not attempt to-day, (know- 
 ing his extreme bashfulness, diffidence and modesty, and 
 the embarrassment under which he labored, to) arrest 
 him in the progress of his remarks, and set him right on 
 a proposition again, which he ought so well to have 
 known and understood by this time. The only way 
 in which I can account for his pertinacity, is upon 
 the principle which once governed the eccentric 
 Mr. Pope, more familiarly known as " Billy Pope, " as 
 illustrated, in an anecdote which I have heard told of 
 him : He was once defending a criminal, and was com- 
 menting largely on testimony he had heard elsewhere, 
 but which was not presented before the jury; he was in- 
 terrupted by the court, and told that no such evidence had 
 been heard by the court andhe must desist. "Certainly," 
 said Mr. Pope ; "I was wrong." But he again went on as 
 before ; he was again arrested, and again he went on, 
 when the court reprimanded him. In a very short time, 
 however, he found himself remarking on the same testi- 
 mony, and he was again and again arrested, and told by 
 the court that he would not be allowed to refer to it. 
 " Well," said Mr. Pope, " may itplease the court, it is in 
 my speech, and I must speak it, and the jury can discard it 
 from their minds when they retire; for if I leave offhere, I 
 shant know where else to begin. " [Laughter.] I suppose 
 it was in the gentleman's speech, and he was bound to 
 speak it, but I do hope that the jury will discard it from 
 their minds when they go out to deliberate and bring in 
 a verdict on the question. So far from going for a life 
 provision, I go for the term of two instead of four years; 
 and in this, I hope the gentleman will go with me. 
 There is another proposition upon which I wish the gen- 
 tleman would go with me, that is in curtailing executive 
 power. I wish to cut down and make short terms of all 
 the public offices. I want short terms and strict account- 
 ability for your judges as well as executive officer. 1 
 desire to hold the governor down to the shortest possible 
 time that can be conveniently adopted, because I think 
 two years is long enough to be troubled with a bad go- 
 vernor, and quite often enough to re-elect a good one. 
 And I make the same remarkin regard to the judges and 
 every other description of public officers. 
 
 The gentleman expresses great alarm at the disposi- 
 tion manifested in this Convention to imitate the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. Why, I cannot understand 
 the argument of the gentleman. He is alarmed at the 
 disposition manifested on the part of the members of this 
 body to imitate the Constitution of the United States ; 
 or, in other words, to follow a precedent made by our 
 forefathers ! And yet at the same moment, and in the 
 same breath, he rebukes me for not following those same 
 old precedents ! And the gentleman is still more sur- 
 prised at the opinions I expressed, that it was not com- 
 petent for this Convention to impose any qualification or 
 restriction upon the election of any citizen of Virginia 
 to a federal office. Why, the gentleman has read the 
 Constitution of the United States to very little purpose, 
 if he has not ascertained that the qualifications of feder- 
 al officers are fixed by the Constitution of the United 
 States ; and that if it be the pleasure of the Legislature, 
 in despite of this proposed constitutional restriction, to 
 elect the governor a senator, that his right to hold that 
 office is to be tested there,, and there alone, and tested 
 by qualifications prescribed by the Constitution of the 
 United States. I take broader grounds than I did be- 
 fore. In my remarks then, I spoke merely of the Presi- 
 dential office — the Secretary of War, the Tresuary, or 
 any other cabinet officer — foreign ministers, &c. ; ail of 
 whose qualifications were fixed by the Constitution of the 
 United States, not by the Constitution or laws of Vir- 
 ginia. 
 
 Well, the gentleman desires to know whether I wish 
 to have General Scott or the sage of Ashland elected 
 governor of Virginia? Why, yes, if they shall come 
 among us, and reside in the State, and it shall be the 
 pleasure of the good people of the Commonwealth to 
 elect either of these distinguished gentlemen to the gub- 
 ernatorial chair, I should be the last man in the world 
 to complain. I wish we could get as good men as either 
 of them. But I very much fear it will be a long time 
 before we have any such men in the gubernatorial chair. 
 He certainly did not mean to ask the question of me, 
 whether I would consent to fix no qualification whatever., 
 of citizenship upon the Governor of Virginia? That 
 would be running to a latitude or excess that I do not 
 suppose the gentleman ever intended. 
 
 The last remark of the gentleman was, that, " whom 
 the Gods would destroy they first make mad. " Well ? 
 I consider that remark as so much more appropriate to 
 my friend than it is to myself, that I leave it where it 
 started — I leave it with my colleague, where madness 
 has been manifest, while my temper has ben unruffled. 
 
 I will conclude my remarks in the manner in which I 
 commenced them. I must take occasion to repeat, that 
 I deeply regret that this debate has taken the turn in has. 
 It was no part of my purpose or disposition to give it a 
 personal turn. I meant nothing of the kind. I am very un- 
 willing to treat in a personal way, the remarks the gentle- 
 man lias presented to the Convention this morning. 
 They seem to have been delivered under a certain de- 
 gree of soreness, occasioned, I have no doubt, much 
 more by what has transpired beyond the walls of this 
 room, than from anything which has passed here. And 
 if I knew how to salve over the gentleman's wounds, I 
 would do it with infinite satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not feel wounded at all, sir. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. No bones broken ? Well, then, neither 
 of us are bruised, and neither of us have our bones bro- 
 ken, and as the gentleman has taken two slaps at me, 
 and I only one him, and as he has at least that much the 
 advantage, I hope he will cry " quits " on this occason, 
 and that we shall meet hereafter as we have met before 
 this discussion. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I am very glad that the gentlemen 
 have had an opportunity of replying to each other, and 
 the whole thing reminds me of a circumstance which oc- 
 curs to my mind, and which I take the opportunity of 
 telling this Convention, as a prelude to the motion which 
 I desire to make. There was in my county, some years 
 ago, an old couple who frequently quarreled ; and a lit- 
 tle servant in the house observed that the old man al- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 133 
 
 ways said when he quarreled with his wife, " my dear 
 you do not understand me;" and he grew up under the 
 idea that these words always caused a difficulty between 
 man and wife. One day a real quarrel between a man 
 and his wife occurred in the neighborhood, which the 
 -servant witnessed, and he came back and reported the 
 occurrence. On being asked what caused it, his reply 
 was, " I reckon they didn't understand it. " I imagine 
 there is some misapprehension between gentlemen that 
 has produced this controversy, if there is any controver- 
 sy between them. 
 
 The time for the rising of the committee is near at 
 hand, and I desire to say something on the subject now 
 pending before the Convention. It is utterly impossible 
 for me to go through with what I have to say before the 
 hour of adjournment, and I therefore move that the com- 
 mittee rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee rose. 
 And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till 
 to-morrow at 12 o'clock, M. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 6th, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Manley, of the Baptist 
 Church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF THE REGISTER OF DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. McCAMANT. By the sixth resolution of the 
 series, adopted by this Convention on the 20th of Janu- 
 ary last, there was authorized to be published 600 co- 
 pies of the Register of the Debates and Proceedings of 
 this Convention, each member and officer to receive one 
 copy, and the residue were to be deposited in the office 
 of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, to be disposed 
 of as the General Assembly might direct. In the reso- 
 lution adopted on that occasion, there was no provision 
 made for furnishing the governor and executive council 
 each with copies of those debates. I consider it as an 
 omission, to supply which, I offer the following resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 Resolved, That one copy of the Register of Debates 
 and Proceedings of this Convention, be delivered as 
 published to the Governor of the Commonwealth, and 
 also a copy to the Executive Council. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman propose to 
 increase the number ordered to be published? 
 
 Mr. McCAMANT. No sir ; I desire them to be de- 
 ducted from those which are to be deposited in the office 
 of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the 
 gentleman, that he add at the end of his resolution, the 
 words " to be deducted from the residue, after furnish- 
 ing the members and officers of the Convention. " Oth- 
 erwise the resolution might be construed as ordering an 
 additional number. 
 
 Mr. McCAMANT. I will accept of that amend- 
 ment. 
 
 The resolution was then read by the Secretary as 
 amended, and adopted as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That one copy of the Register of Debates and 
 Proceedings of the Convention be delivered as published 
 to the Governor of this Commonwealth, and also a copy 
 to the Executive Council, to be deducted from the resi- 
 due, after furnishing the officers and members of this 
 Convention. 
 
 RESTRICTION OF DEBATE. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. I wish to live to see this Con- 
 vention form a Constitution for the State, but if the lat- 
 itude and range is given to the debate on every ques- 
 tion that is to come before the Committee of the Whole, 
 that has been given to this one, I am fearful that even 
 the prophet referred to by the gentleman from Richmond 
 (Mr. Davis) the other day, will not be able to foretell 
 how many of us shall live to see the day when our la- 
 bors here shall be completed. For the purpose of giv- 
 ing some system and rule to the debate on every ques- 
 
 tion which may come up in Committee of the Whole, I 
 offer the following resolution, which I ask may be read 
 with the rule to which it refers : 
 
 _ Resolved, That the fifth rule of the Rules and Regula- 
 tions of the Convention be adopted to govern the Commit- 
 tee of the whole. 
 
 The rule is as follows : 
 
 " 5th. No member shall speak more than twice to the 
 same question without leave, nor more than once un- 
 til every other member intending to speak shall have 
 spoken. " 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolution — a 
 count being had — and there were ayes 36, noes 17 — not 
 a quorum voting. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It seems to the Chair that there 
 is a quorum present. The Sergeant-at-Arms will in- 
 vite members of the Convention, present, to take their 
 seats. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I think if every member was to 
 vote, there would be found to be a quorum present. 1 
 move to lay ihe resolution on the table. 
 
 The question was taken on this motion — a count be- 
 ing had — and there were ayes 31, noes 32 — no quorum 
 voting. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. The question then recurs, I sup- 
 pose, on the adoption of the resolution. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. No sir ; there can be no ques- 
 tion taken on it until a quorum shall be present. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The object of going into committee of 
 the whole — 
 
 The PRESIDENT. This is not a debatable motion, 
 being to lay on the table. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. Can a motion be made when a quo- 
 rum is not present? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir ; most unquestionably. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. Very well, sir ; 1 am satisfied. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I suggest that the roll be 
 called. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. Let us have the yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I would remark that there can be but 
 barely a quorum, if there is indeed a quorum, at all pre- 
 sent ; and whilst I am inclined to vote for the proposition , 
 I think it but fair to permit those gentlemen, who are 
 now absent, to participate in the determination of the 
 Convention in regard to it. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. Under this view, I am willing 
 that the resolution shall lie on the table for the present. 
 
 By general consent the resolution was then laid on the 
 table. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT; 
 
 The Convention then, in committee of the whole, 
 (Mr. Watts, of Norfolk, in the Chair,) resumed the con- 
 sideration of the report of the Committee on the Execu- 
 tive Department. 
 
 re-eligibility of the governor. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the 1st sec- 
 tion of the 1st article of the report of the committee on 
 the executive department, with the pending amend- 
 ments thereto. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I shall not follow the example of 
 gentlemen who have preceded me on this occasion, of 
 entering into a personal explanation, or delivering to 
 this Convention a political disquisition upon the subject 
 of federal party politics ; for whilst I have been as much 
 entertained by these gentlemen as any other member of 
 this Convention, I do not think that such a course of ar- 
 gument is calculated to prepare the minds of the members 
 of this Convention for that cool, calm and deliberate con- 
 sideration of questions submitted to us for our decis- 
 ion, which is necessary ; nor do I think it well calculated to 
 aid gentlemen calmly and impartially to reach the con- 
 clusions at which we are to arrive. I feel on this occa- 
 sion, a full sense of the weight of responsibility which 
 rests upon me as a member of this Convention. We 
 have come together, chosen by the people of Virginia, 
 without regard to party distinctions, to form a govern- 
 ment for the people of Virginia, now living, and for 
 those who are to come after us, to j the latest posterity. 
 
134 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 And when I think of the importance and of the solemni- 
 ty of the duties devolved upon us* I confess I feel in my 
 own mind a far greater sense of humility, than of pride 
 and of display. I shall therefore, steering clear of all 
 extraneous considerations, as far as I can, come to the 
 consideration of this subject, in what I deem to be a 
 proper and liberal spirit. 
 
 Whatever we do now, we must presume is to last 
 throughout all time; it will not do to undertake to frame 
 a government merely for the present day. While I shall 
 not deny to those who are to come after us, the same 
 power to remodel, reform or abolish their government, 
 that we posses ; still, in doing this work, we should sup- 
 pose at least, that we are doing it to last for all time to 
 come; and we should not allow our minds to be misled 
 upon a question so grave and* important as this. I be- 
 lieve in all the republics which have gone before us, that 
 had their public functionaries continued honest, patriotic 
 and faithful, properly discharging their duties and keep- 
 ing their governments in a proper course of progress ac- 
 coi cling to first principles, there would not have 
 been found that spirit of corruption, anarchy and 
 degradation, which was seen afterwards to be moving even 
 among the masses themselves. The beginning of cor- 
 ruptions in all countries, is in the public functionaries, 
 and not in the people. They commence with the gov- 
 ernment, and work out their effects among the people, 
 until the whole mass becomes corrupt, and then the 
 government falls, and the people sink into anarchy and 
 confusion. Now, if we fail to adopt a principle in any one 
 of the propositions submitted to the consideration of 
 this Convention, to arrest consequences like these, or if 
 we incautiously put into the frame-work of our govern- 
 ment any principle calculated to produce these conse- 
 quences, then, when the virtuous days of this republic 
 shall have departed, and when we find anarchy and con- 
 fusion stalking abroad over the land, it will be too late 
 either to go back to correct principles, or to go forward 
 to reach tit em as a remedy for those evils. The marine*, 
 fatigued with the monotony of a residence on land — his ter- 
 ra firma — leaps into his vessel with a light heart, with a 
 cheerful spirit , and with a proud anticipation of the pleas- 
 ures and profit of his voyage; but when the tempest howls 
 around him, when the waves of old ocean break upon 
 his vessel and she is about to sink, and the last hope of 
 rescue depart from his own breast, then it is he will ex- 
 claim with Shakspeare, "Now would I give a thousand 
 furlongs of sea for an acre of barren ground; long heath, 
 brown furze, or anything ; the wills above be done ; but 
 I would fain die a dry death." But it is too late. So, 
 when corruption and degradation prevail among the 
 people, by the operation of your government or by the 
 principles incorporated into that government ; if when 
 that day shall come — winch God in his mercy forbid 
 shall ever approach this beloved land of ours — then 
 when some Marius or Cataline rises up to give force or 
 efficacy to this evil spirit, if there exist among them one 
 patriot, one Cato of the day, he may well exclaim, let 
 me die the death of a freeman, rather than submit to 
 a death like this. I call upon gentlemen, in view of the 
 momentous consequences that may result from our 
 work, in view of the high responsibility which we 
 owe to the constituent body, to ponder well over the 
 work we are about to make ; and I caution gentlemen in 
 this, the very first proposition submitted to the consid- 
 eration of this reform Convention, not to make a false step. 
 I warn them not to disregard principle ; and there is 
 every reason in this day of intelligence and freedom, 
 why we should adhere rigidly to sound principle, with- 
 out stopping too timidly to calculate the consequences 
 which will result from their incorporations into our fun- 
 damental law. But in the course of the remarks which 
 I propose to submit, I will reach this question in its 
 more appropriate place ; and I will proceed now directly 
 to the questions submitted to this committee, endeavor- 
 ing, if I can, to bring back its consideration to the single 
 question before us. 
 
 If 1 understand it, the committee on the executive 
 department have reported a plan by which the Governor 
 of Virginia is to be elected for four years, and aiter the 
 expiration of the next four years, shall be forever there- 
 after ineligible to the office of governor. To this pro- 
 position of the committee, the gentleman from Pittsyl- 
 vania (Mr. Tredway) submits a competing proposition, 
 and that is, that in lieu of the plan proposed by the com- 
 mittee, the governor shall be elected for four years, and 
 at the end of his term, shall be ineligible for the next 
 succeeding term of four years. The gentleman from 
 Henrico (Mr. Botts) offers as substitute for the proposi- 
 tion of the gentleman from Pittsylvania, simply that 
 you shall put in your constitution the provision that 
 your governor shall be elected for four years, subject to 
 re-election at the will of the people. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. That is not the proposition I made. 
 I said nothing about four years ; and I prefer two, as 
 the duration of the governor's term of office. My pro- 
 position is merely to strike out all that relates to ineli- 
 gibility. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I know that that is the individual 
 opinion of the gentleman, but viewing the proposition 
 as it now stands before the committee, I presented it in 
 its proper attitude. One is offered as an amendment to 
 the other, and there is no proposition pending before 
 the committee now, that the officer shall hold for two 
 years instead of four. Now, if it were not for the man- 
 ner in which this question has been treated — with en- 
 tire fairness, as I admit, on the part of those to whose 
 views I am opposed — if it were not for the course of re- 
 mark pursued by gentlemen, this question would pre- 
 sent much less terror to the minds of gentlemen, and 
 excite much less alarm in the country than it is calcu- 
 lated to do. The worthy g. ntleman from Richmond (Mr. 
 Meredith) three or four days ago, in a most able _and 
 dignified speech, delivered on that occasion, certainly 
 mistook the proposition before the House, it being one of 
 re-eligibility for four years at the will of the people, and 
 not of the election of governor for life. I know he did 
 not design to make an impression, either in the Conven- 
 tion or in the country, that this was a proposition to 
 elect the governor directly for life, but such is the dec- 
 laration gone forth to the country, to a people jealous of 
 everything that even squints at monarchy. My friend 
 from Goochland, (Mr. Leake,) in the same spirit, design- 
 ing to present the question with equal fairness, I admit, 
 indulged in similar remarks, calculated to produce tho 
 same effect. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I had no such intention. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I am only speaking of the effect aris- 
 ing from the manner in which the question was argued 
 here, without for one moment suspecting or meaning to 
 insinuate that any gentleman designed to produce such 
 an impression. Then, besides this, on yesterday the 
 worthy gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Davis) added a 
 much darker coloring to this picture. I understood him 
 to say that the practical operation of this system 
 would be to make the governor " every inch a king !" 
 When these remarks go forth to the country, I shall 
 be not" at all surprised if the timid and cautious of the 
 land should feel that we are treading on sacred ground, 
 and that we are indeed attempting to do something in 
 this reform Convention tending to carry us back to the 
 monarchy from which, I trust, we are forever relieved. 
 Let us meet this question in the form in which it is pre- 
 sented to us — let us meet it as a question of popular 
 power. What is it? By the very theury and princ'ples 
 of our government, all power belongs to, and resides 
 with the people, and can only be derived from the peo- 
 ple. We, as their representatives, are called here to 
 consider elementary principles of government — to re- 
 construct the government which has existed, upon such 
 principles as may conduce to the welfare and interests 
 of society. We, who are called to do this work, find all 
 power now existing in the people of the commonwealth, 
 for in that view we are obliged to consider it, so far as 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 135 
 
 our action here is concerned. We look at the old frame 
 work of the government, for it is true that the old con- 
 stitution is still in existence, but we were called together 
 here to amend that constitution. In making a new gov 
 eminent for the people of Virginia, we, therefore, so far 
 as we are concerned, must regard at this moment ail 
 the political power of the country as resting and abiding 
 with the people now resolved into their original elements 
 and engaged in framing a government for themselves 
 and posterity. If, then, the power to select a governor 
 be an unlimited power, and without constitutional re- 
 striction, it rests and abides with the people of the State, 
 until, by that restriction, the people have been deprived 
 of it. Will the gentlemen, then, regard this as no re- 
 striction on popular rights — as no limitation of the pow- 
 ers of the people 2 How can they reach such a conclu- 
 sion as that ? Without your limitation, the people would 
 have the broad limits of the commonwealth from which 
 to make their selection of chief magistrate. There will 
 be no other disability than that which arises from non- 
 age, imbecility, lunacy, alienage, or some such limita- 
 tion as that, found in all constitutions of government. 
 My principle is, to limit the rights of selection in the 
 people just as little as possible — to give the people 
 power to select their agents from wh iever quarter of 
 the commonwealth they will, and utterly without any 
 restraint as to the person, other than those I alluded to. 
 This is my principle, and it is the principle of popular 
 rights. How do gentlemen stand on the other side ? 
 They assume to say that the people shall not do this 
 thing, and that their rights of selection and election 
 shall be limited. Pray tell me what is the reason for 
 this ? Are gentlemen sure that the people are capable 
 of self-government ? Do they believe that the people 
 will exercise this power wisely and discreetly, if it is 
 given to them ? If they do, why put a restriction upon 
 it ? In the very nature of the proposition, therefore, 
 the objection to giving the peopel this right of re-elect- 
 ing their public functionary and chief magistrate to of- 
 fice, is a limitation upon their will and power. And 
 why is it sought to be put in the constitution, if it is not 
 founded on the idea incautiously insinuated by gentle- 
 men, that the people will abuse that power ; because, if 
 they are to exercise it wisely and discreetly — if that be 
 the operation of the system, then every election of the 
 governor made by the people, whether that election be 
 immediate or a re-election, will be wisely and discreetly 
 made. There can be no limitation or restriction desired 
 by those who believe in the capacity of the people for 
 self-government, and that they will wisely and discreet- 
 ly exercise their powei s in the selection of a public func- 
 tionary. I confess I am one who entertain that opinion, 
 and before I proceed further I beg simply to read some 
 three or four words from Mr. Jefferson, taking parts of 
 his letter to Mr. Kercheval, in 1816, as constituting the 
 platform upon which I stand in this Convention on this 
 subject. Mr. Jefferson says : "lam not among those 
 who fear the people." So say I. Again Mr. Jefferson 
 says. "Only lay down true principles and adhere to 
 them inflexibly/' Now what is my platform ? These 
 two or three lines from the writings of that immortal 
 patriot constitute the very platform on which I stand 
 here. I fear not the people. I have no apprehension 
 that they will abuse their powers. I believe them to be 
 entirely capable of exercising it according to their own 
 sovereign will and pleasure, and in the best way to pro- 
 mote their interests. I believe that the right principle 
 in this matter is not to restrict the people in the exercise 
 of their choice. The principle is right that the people 
 should elect their public functionary, and that without 
 any limitation as to the person, o*\ier than those to which 
 I have referred. That is a correct principle, and if gen- 
 tlemen will admit it to be a correct principle, then, like 
 Mr. Jefferson, I say, lay that principle in your constitu- 
 tion and adhere to it inflexibly. For one, I am deter 
 mined to do so. 
 
 It seems' to me that this question of the re-eligibility 
 
 of a chief magistrate of the Commonwealth of Virginia 
 is one which in itself, without the idea of experience, 
 addresses itself as a single proposition now for the 
 first time presented to our consideration with far great- 
 er force in favor of re-eligibility than against it. Now 
 in the first place, I lay down the proposition, that if the 
 Governor is to be elected for four years and no longer 
 — and I beg leave in this view to say to my friend from 
 Pittsylvania that I see scarcely a shade of difference 
 in the practical operation of the thing, and I am sure 
 there never will be a difference between the exclusion 
 for all time to come of the right of the people to elect 
 a Governor after his term has expired, and its exclu- 
 sion for the next succeeding term of four years — and 
 entertaining that opinion, I shall view the proposition 
 as amounting to the same thing — now, I say, if you are 
 to limit the service of the chief magistrate to four 
 years, and say that at the end of that four years he 
 shall, whether he exhibit merit or demerit, inevitably 
 go out of office, you deprive him of the inducement 
 which would otherwise operate on him to perform his 
 duty well and faithfully. If he is to be confined to 
 four years, it is an impossibility for him to conceive any 
 great system of measures and carry them out for the 
 public good. He will have no ambition to undertake 
 a work when, by the time it is prepared, he will be de- 
 prived of all participation in the administration of the 
 government ; and he will simply go along, taking care 
 to do no harm, but very careless about doing any posi- 
 tive good. This is to be the effect w T hen you confine 
 the office to four years. But if you allow him to be re- 
 elected beyond that time, do you not present strong 
 considerations weighing on his mind, ably, cautiously 
 and faithfully to perform his duty ? You put him di- 
 rectly under two of the most powerful influences which 
 can operate on human nature to do right. What are 
 they? The hope of reward, on the one hand, and the 
 fear of punishment on the other. All experience will 
 show, and every practical man will admit, that when- 
 ever you can put on a public functionary these two 
 powerful inducements, operating on different principles 
 of the human mind, you secure the very best conceiva- 
 ble discharge of duties. You open to him the hope of 
 reward, to operate on his mind to induce him to con- 
 ceive measures for the public good and fearlessly to 
 carry them out, because he may be again elected and 
 may receive a reward for his fidelity. With these pow- 
 erful considerations operating to induce him to dis- 
 charge his duties faithfully, you present also the terrors 
 of punishment to him ; ^nd say what you will, public 
 indignation, in this and in a! 1 countries, is the most pow- 
 erful engine that can operate on the human mind. It 
 is worse than banishment or imprisonment for life — 
 worse than any other conceivable punishment. I say, 
 then, by allowing the go\2rnor to be ic-eligible, you 
 impose these wholesome restraints upon him ; you sive 
 to him the hope of reward, if he faithfully performs all 
 his duties, and the fear of punishment for au evil or an 
 improper discharge of them. Well, it is not inconceiv- 
 able, when you look at all the frailties and imperfec- 
 ions of man, and when you find that even the talented 
 and learned men of the world are subject to the same 
 frailties and imperfections, that the freemen of Vir- 
 ginia may at some future time elect a man for Gov- 
 ernor who will be of a very avaricious turn of mind. 
 Avarice is one of the most powerful passions which 
 can operate on the human mind, and often amounts to 
 a monomania. You select a man and put him in the 
 gubernatorial office with a strong feeling of this nature 
 preying on his mind He will, by his election, have the 
 certainty of getting twenty thousand dollars, and that 
 he will get without any sort of necessity for industry 
 and energy in the faithful performance of his duty, be- 
 cause he is entitled to it, let him perform his duty as 
 he may. May he not prostitute his office in different 
 ways, by which to gratify this lust of his, this passion 
 of avarice ? I am supposing a case where this very 
 feeling of avarice, after he had gone into the guberna- 
 torial chair, operated on his mind to bring about a 
 
136 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 change in his conduct. I am not supposing the case of 
 a man who is corrupt and dishonest, however avaricious 
 he might be at the moment of his election. The change is 
 brought about and he is rendered dishonest by the in- 
 fluence of the very proposition in the Constitution 
 which gentlemen are seeking to engraft — the certainty, 
 the inevitable certainty, of going out of office at the end 
 of four years, without any hope or possibility of ob- 
 taining it again, let his measures and his conduct be 
 what they may. A change thus brought on a man of 
 this description, may he not prostitute bis office for his 
 own personal aggrandizement, in various ways ? He 
 has the patronage of the government in his bauds. He 
 has various offices to dispense, and there are salaries 
 and emoluments attached to them. May he not bring 
 corrupt men about him under a bargain, by which these 
 emoluments are to be divided between him and them, 
 and thus may he not actually throw into the hands of 
 an avaricious and corrupt set of men the whole power 
 a*d administration of the government ? This is a result 
 which might ensue from the four years' limitation, but 
 when you offer to the man the hope of reward, in the 
 continuance of the emoluments and honors of office, you 
 remove all the temptations to mal-conduct and corrup- 
 tion in it, and secure a pure and faithful administra- 
 tion of the gubernatorial office. Limit the office to four 
 years, or say that he shall not be re-eligible after that 
 time, and what then is to be resorted to ? A miserable 
 scrambling at the end of every four years for office, and 
 a totally new set of the public functionaries, from the 
 very highest to the lowest. Your governor is elected 
 for four years. He will displace every man that he 
 finds in office, appointed under the preceding adminis- 
 tration. He will want his own agents to administer 
 power for him, and they will be taken from among his per- 
 sonal favorites. Not only will you get up this miserable 
 scrambling for office, at the end of every four years, but the 
 whole administrative po'icy of the government will be 
 changed. Your public functionaries are all to go out 
 of office and new ones put in, and thus there will be a 
 perpetual struggle, so far as the office of governor is 
 concerned, between the ins and the outs. This inconve- 
 nience and evil has presented itself under the operation 
 of the federal government, and is one which all men re- 
 gret and deplore ; and what we see there, we shall ex- 
 perience here. Besides, it produces and will bring about a 
 want of stability in the administration of the govern- 
 ment. We know very well that to put your govern- 
 ment upon the right track and enable it to suggest wise, 
 cautious and beneficial measures for the people, cannot 
 well be done in four years. Oftimes a measure, which 
 in itself appears right and proper, meets with strenuous 
 opposition when it is introduced ; and it must be consid- 
 ered and re-considered, until the "public mind is able to 
 act upon it, and form a judgment in its favor. A most 
 important measure of the governor may not be put in 
 operation until the third year of his administration, and 
 then there is entirely too short a time to furnish the 
 practical working-out of this measure before he is eject- 
 ed from office, by this constitutional ban, under which 
 it is proposed to place him. It requires often, years to 
 consummate wise and proper measures for the interests 
 of the country. It cannot be done in four years. If a 
 governor who has thus shown capacity in the first term 
 of his administration to conceive proper measures for 
 the benefit of the country, is subject to re-election, and 
 again re-elected, he will be able to carry out and perfect 
 his own schemes for the public benefit. Otherwise, 
 without a re-election, you produce a total want of sta- 
 bility in the administrative policy of the country. 
 I Again, an individual is elected governor who has no 
 experience in the duties of the office. You take a man 
 from any quarter of the commonwealth of Virginia. 
 He has probably distinguished himself in the legislative 
 halls of the State, or he may have been in Congress — 
 but he has never held the executive office, however, 
 and you throw him into that office, in every way inex- 
 perienced, and it must take some time before he can 
 
 prepare his own mind for the proper consideration of 
 measures intended for the public good. Just as he be- 
 comes sufficiently experienced, — just as he has acquired 
 sufficient information, and just as he has become quali- 
 fied to be most useful as a chief magistrate — at that 
 moment this constitutional ban operates upon him, and 
 then, although the people might desire, with a unani- 
 mous voice, to re-elect him to the office, they are to be 
 deprived of that privilege. Thus, you deprive the peo- 
 ple of the opportunity of re-electing a man of experi- 
 ence and capacity. Tell me, in what attitude do you 
 place us before the country ? Why you say the people 
 may elect an inexperienced man for four years, but 
 that they shall not elect an experienced man for the 
 next four years. Do you not perceive at once that this 
 is ah invasion of the rights of the people calculated to 
 deprive them of the opportunity to elect the most effi- 
 cient man that can be had to fill the gubernatorial office ? 
 
 Again — if you confine the office to four years, you 
 make the elective body careless as to the qualifications 
 and merits of the man who is to be their Governor. I 
 call your attention to every day's experience in this 
 matter. I call your attention to the election of dele- 
 gates to the legislature. How often do you hear it said 
 among the people, " I differ with this man ; I do not 
 agree with his political principles ; he is a good fellow ? 
 however, and we will let him go to the legislature for 
 one year. " Hundreds and thousands of votes, from 
 personal considerations of this character, utterly with- 
 out regard to the qualifications of the man, will be 
 brought to bear in the election for Governor. Men 
 who differ from him, who repudiate his principles, who 
 have little respect for his qualifications, will say, " he 
 is a very good fellow, he will not ruin the country in 
 four years, and we'll let him be elected " — and thus 
 you make the people themselves careless as to the elec- 
 tion of the candidate, and careless of the qualifications 
 which he possesses. This is to be another evil result- 
 ing from the limitation on the term of the gubernato- 
 rial service. 
 
 But an ambitious man, may he not be elected Gover- 
 nor of the commonwealth of Virginia? Ambitious men 
 exist in Virginia as well as in all other countries ; and 
 suppose it should be the case that at some future day a 
 very ambitious man — some Aaron Burr, if you please — 
 should be elevated to the office of Governor of Virginia. 
 He is an ambitious man, fond of power, and he is doom- 
 ed by inevitable necessity to go out of office at the end 
 cf four years. May not this passion, this overweening 
 and overwhelming spirit of ambition, suggest to his mind 
 the propriety at once, by actual usurpation or even rev- 
 olution, of getting rid of this constitutional restriction,, 
 and putting himself at the head of the government as a 
 monarch, if you choose, for life? I do not pretend to 
 say that such a thing will ever occur — God forbid that 
 it ever should — but in laying the foundation of a gov- 
 ernment, we should guard against all the chances of oc- 
 currences of this sort. When you limit the term to 
 four years, you set the spirit of ambition to work, and 
 he might undertake by revolution even, to perpetuate 
 his power, inasmuch as the people would have no right 
 to re-elect him. Remove this limitation, and throw 
 aside this ban of the constitution, and such a man, with 
 this spirit of ambition, would know that the true road 
 to promotion would be by a proper and faithful perfor- 
 mance of his duty. I have another objection to this 
 principle, and while upon this branch of the subject, I 
 may possibly run ahead of the action of the Conven- 
 tion ; yet knowing, as well as I do, the sentiments and 
 feelings of the people in relation to this matter, I may 
 assume it as determined, this principle of ineligibility 
 shall not be applied to any officer elected by the people, 
 except the Governor. I am aware that there are advo- 
 cates in this Convention for the principle of the ineli- 
 gibility of the judges, but I believe that if any one 
 thing was decided by the people clearly and unequivo- 
 cally, it is that the principle of re-eligibility to the of- 
 fice of judge shall be incorporated in the constitution 
 which we are mending. It is one which I advocate in 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 137 
 
 relation to all public offices — and more strongly in rela- 
 tion to judges than any other. If that be the sentiment 
 of the members of the Convention, as I am much in- 
 clined to believe it is, then what is the consequence of 
 applying this limitation on the rights of the people to 
 elect their Governor ? It is to make an odious discrim- 
 ination in the office of Governor, which you do not ap- 
 ply to any other public office, provided by the constitu- 
 tion, which we are to make. We send forth to the peo- 
 ple of Virginia a constitution for their ratification and 
 adoption, and what do they see in it? They see in re- 
 lation to the other public functionaries in the country, 
 from the highest to the lowest, that their rights to re- 
 election are unlimited and unrestricted ; and they will be 
 very likely to a?k, why is this odious restriction made in 
 relation to the highest public functionary, and all others 
 left free from its application ? It is an odious discrim- 
 ination against the office of Governor which ought not 
 to exist. I wish to see uniformity in this constitution. 
 If it is a principle which applies to one, it is applicable 
 to all, and more especially to the chief magistrate of 
 the commonwealth. 
 
 If you confine this office to four years, you lessen its 
 | importance and its dignity. Now, I confess, I am for 
 making this office of Governor an important and highly 
 honorable one. The executive committee have already 
 reported, and I believe the Convention will be disposed 
 to agree, that his salary shall be increased to $5,0CO ; 
 and thus you add importance to the office by the emolu- 
 ments attached to it. I desire it to be a highly honora- 
 ble station, such an office as will be contended for by 
 the best talent and the highest experience of the land. 
 I desire to make it an office that will call any man from 
 his private occupation, that will be able to bring out the 
 talent of the country, even from the federal government. 
 I desire to place the men of the highest talent, of 
 the best capacity, of the most enlightened patri- 
 otism, in the highest office of the Commonwealth. 
 You lessen its importance when you limit the term to 
 four years. But when you prohibit a re-election by the 
 people, you detract much more from its importance than 
 when you limit the term to four years. 
 
 Again, and the last of the positions which I shall as- 
 k sume upon the proposition now submitted, so far as I 
 t may consider it upon my own view, I ask you if there 
 is not another danger to be apprehended from this limi- 
 tation of the Governor's office to four years ? He is to 
 go out — or he may, under the constitutional provision, 
 be obliged to go out— at the end of four years. Do you 
 not put a very powerful temptation upon him to provide 
 for a successor to fill his place? Do you not, in this 
 way, throw a temptation upon him so to exercise his 
 power and patronage as to secure his own personal fa- 
 vorites to succeed him in office ? A double considera- 
 tion will operate on his mind to do this thing. First, his 
 personal considerations secured for the carrying out a 
 set of measures which he is unable to complete, he will 
 not be desirous that these measures shall go into un- 
 friendly hands, for their consummation, and he will 
 seek to get some other individual, who agrees with him 
 in opinion, and the exercise of all his power and patro- 
 nage will be regulated with a view to secure such a suc- 
 cessor ; and so far as that is done, it will operate against 
 an impartial and unbiassed judgment of the people. 
 
 These are my own views in relation to the reasons 
 why the office of Governor should not be confined to 
 four years. I think that they are entitled to some con- 
 sideration at the hands of the Convention. They are 
 at least satisfactory to my own judgment, and upon them 
 1 shall act. 
 
 But we are told— and that argument always applies 
 to every case of amendment, or if you choose to call it 
 so, of innovation— that to do this thing will be against 
 the wisdom of our forefathers— and that the men of 
 the days of the revolution were against this prin- 
 ciple of unlimited re eligibility. Now, I have read 
 to very little purpose if there is any tiling in 
 the history of the State that can lead to that con- 
 clusion. 1 admit that in the old constitution of Vir- 
 
 ginia, the governor might be elected for three terms 
 aud must then go out of office; and I suppose gentle- 
 men will rely on that for a precedent and regard it as 
 the judgment of the fathvrs of the republic sanctioning 
 this principle in the old Constitution ; and that, there- 
 fore, it being the judgment and opinion of our ancestors, 
 we should not now seek to undo their determination. 
 I will offset that precedent by another, and I call your 
 attention to the Federal Constitution. In the Federal 
 Constitution there is no limit upon the rights of the 
 people to re-elect the President of the United States, as 
 often as they please. Now, our forefathers made that 
 Constitution — and I beg to assure the gentleman from 
 Goochland, (Mr. Leake,) thac there is much more in 
 that precedent than in the one to which he r f.-rs — that 
 of the provision in the old Constitution of Virginia. 
 The old constitution was not formed by delegates elect- 
 ed by the people, and selected for the purpose of ma- 
 king a constitution. It was made by an ordinary Le- 
 gislature, a house of Burgesses, as it was called. It 
 never was submitted to the people for ratification and 
 adoption, and in truth, was regarded as a mere act of 
 Assembly, and by lapse of time and acquiescence of 
 the people, became to be considered as a constitution or 
 form of government. So the people of Virginia did not, 
 in that case, adjudge the principle. An ordinary legis- 
 tive body did adjudge it — by what majority I have been 
 unable to ascertain. But in relation to the Federal Con- 
 stitution, where this provision does not exist, the fact is 
 very different. Here were delegates from all the States 
 in the Union, assembled there for the purpose of ma- 
 king a Federal Constitution. That Convention was com- 
 posed of the best and wisest men in the land, with a man 
 at its head, and presiding over its deliberations, who was 
 "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his 
 countrymen." Here they determined that this restriction 
 upon the rights of the people, should not be incorpo- 
 rated in the Federal Constitution. Here you have the 
 judgment of that great Convention, the greatest, wisest, 
 and best assembly of patriots ever convened in this land, 
 sanctioning this principle for which I am contending. In 
 the next place, the constitution was referred to the peo- 
 ple of the different States for ratification or rejection. 
 Delegates were again elected by the people here in the 
 State of Virginia, in every county in the commonwealth, 
 and these delegates, amounting to about one hundred 
 and seventy -five in number, composed of the ablest and 
 wisest men in the State, assembled here in Richmond, 
 on the second of June, 1788. Here the Constitution, in 
 all its parts, was gone over in review, and undes dis- 
 cussion before that Convention. And will my friend 
 allow me to remind him that even Patrick Henry, with 
 his mighty powers of oratory, with his indomitable 
 energy, and with every disposition to seek out any flaw 
 that lay even under the surface of the Constitution, 
 even he, so far as I am able, from the hasty perusal of the 
 debates since this discussion commenced, never opened 
 his lips against that provision, nor did a single man in 
 the Convention of 1788 warn his fellows against it, with 
 the single exception of George Mason, and he did not 
 put a very great stress upon it. He only feared that 
 in its practical operation, it would result in an elective 
 monarchy for life. Now, give to George Mason all the 
 influence that any gentleman would ask for him, as 
 a wise snd a good man, and a great man, and what, 
 after all, does the prophecy of George Mason amount 
 to ? It is truly and absolutely falsified by experience 
 itself, for so far from an elective monarchy for life, 
 under the operation of the Federal Government, I be- 
 lieve that in the last sixty-one years we have had about 
 twelve Presidents, no one continuing in office longer 
 than eight years, and many of them but for one term. 
 Then I am sure that this authority of George Mason 
 will not stand in the way. Will my friend allow me to 
 call his attention to the opinions of some other gentle- 
 men in that Convention, which I am sure will claim his 
 attention and respect. I v ill read a very short sen- 
 tence from the speech of George Nicholas in that Conven- 
 
138 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 tion, not delivered upon tins very question, but upon are seeking to put in this constitution. Here is 
 the election of members of Congress, upon a proposition the judgment of the American people in their adoption 
 to limit their term to t^o years. In his speech on that and ratification of that constitution, sanctioning the 
 oceasi »a. he gives very clearly his views of the practi- principle for which we are now contending. Here is 
 cal operation of it. "A short continuance in office, and the opinion of George Nicholas, of Edmund Randolph, 
 a return of the officer to the mass of the people, there and of James Monroe — not one of them ever had a black 
 to depend solely on their former good conduct for their cockade on his hat — the very best of republicans, and 
 re-election, is of the highest security to public lib- the most honorable of men. Here is their authority re- 
 
 lib 
 
 erty." Hear Mr. George Nicholas, that the right of re- 
 eligibility was of the highest security to public liberty. 
 I did make another extract from his speech, but as I do 
 not desire to consume the time of the Convention in 
 reading too much, I will ] 'ass on for the opinions of other 
 gentlemen in that Convention. Now, I will give to the 
 gentleman the opinion of Edmund Randolph, one of the 
 first Governors of Virginia, and one of the ablest and 
 best, in all probability, we ever had. He says, in reply 
 to this argument of George Mason : 
 
 " I will acknowledge that at one stage of this business, 
 I had embraced the idea of the honorable gentleman, 
 that the re-eligibility of the President was improper. 
 But I will acknowledge that on a further considera- 
 tion of the subject, and attention to the lights which 
 were thrown upon it by others, I altered my opinion of 
 the limitation of his eligibility. When we consider the 
 advantages arising to us from it, we cannot object to it. 
 That which has produced my opinion against the limita- 
 tion of his eligibility is this — that it renders him more 
 independent in his place, and more solicitous of pro- 
 moting the interests of his constituents; for unless you 
 put it in his power to be re-elected, instead of being 
 attentive to then* interests, he will lean to the augmen- 
 tation of his private emoluments. This subject will 
 admit of high coloring and plausible arguments ; but on 
 considering it attentively and coolly, I believe it will 
 be found less exceptionable than any other mode. The 
 mode of election here, excludes that faction which is pro- 
 ductive of those hostilities and confusion in Poland. It 
 renders it unnecessary and impossible for foreign force 
 or aid to interpose. The electors must be elected by 
 the people at large. To procure his re-election, Ins in- 
 fluence must be co-extensive with the continent. And 
 there can be no combination between the electors, as 
 they elect him on the same day in every State. When 
 this is the case, how can foreign influence or intrigues 
 enter ? There is no reason to conclude, from the expe- 
 rience of these States, that he will be continually re- 
 elected. There have been several instances where 
 officers have been displaced where they were re-eligible. 
 This has been the case with the Executive of Massachu- 
 setts, and I believe of New Hampshire. It happens 
 from the mutation of sentiments, though the officers be 
 .good." 
 
 Now there is much in this extract which I have read 
 in reply to George Mason, because the greatest objection 
 urged by him against the re- eligibility of the President 
 was that it would induce foreign nations — the nations of 
 Europe, to interpose and control the government of the 
 American people in the election of their President. 
 And he cited as an instance the case of Poland, where, 
 by the interposition of Russia and Prussia the people of 
 Poland were unable to dispossess their king. Now I will 
 read a few short extracts from Mr. James Monroe, one 
 of Virginia's favorite sons. What did he say on the 
 subject? "The President ought to act under the strong- 
 est impulse of rewards and punishments, which are the 
 strongest incentives to human actions. There are two 
 ways of securing this office. He ought to depend upon 
 the people of America for his appointment and contin- 
 uance in office. He ought, also, to be responsible in an 
 equal degree to all the States, and be tried by dispas- 
 sionate judges, his responsibility to be direct and im- 
 mediate." Now, here is the opinion of an assembly of 
 the whole continent, when they met in Philadelphia, for 
 the purpose of forming a federal constitution. Here 
 is their judgment upon this subject, manifested by 
 the incorporation of the very provision which we 
 
 cognizing the principle for which we are contending in 
 going against this restriction of the popular right of re- 
 electing their governor. Next, in order of time, I call . 
 the attention of the committee to the seventy-second 
 number of the Federalist, a book of acknowledged au- 
 thority in the exposition of the Federal constitution. 
 The writer says : "There are few men who would not 
 feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty, when 
 they were conscious that the advantage of the station 
 with which it was connected must be relinquished at a 
 determinate period than when they were permitted to 
 entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continu- 
 ance of them. This position will not be disputed so 
 long as it is admitted that the desire of reward is one 
 of the strongest incentives to human conduct ; or that 
 the best security for the fidelity of mankind is to make 
 interest coincide with duty. Even the love of fame, 
 the ruling passion of the noblest minds which would 
 prompt a man to plan and undertake extensive and ar- 
 duous enterprizes for the public benefit, requiring con- 
 siderable time to mature and perfect them, if he 
 could flatter himself with the prospect of being allowed 
 to finish what he had begun, would, on the contrary, de- 
 ter him from the undertaking when he foresaw that he 
 must quit the scene before he could accomplish the 
 work, and must commit that, together with his own rep- 
 utation, to hands unequal or unfriendly to the task." 
 I mii,ht read the whole number, for it is emphatically 
 " multum inparvo ; " and while upon general principles 
 of government, I never concurred with the writer, (Mr. 
 Hamilton.) yet upon this subject his reasons are so 
 strong and convincing that to avoid tediousness in the 
 reading of extracts I have assumed some of his posi 
 tions, and adopted some of his ideas in the course of my 
 imperfect remarks, already submitted to the com- 
 mittee. I trust, so far, then as the precedents of the 
 past are concerned, they will not stand in the way. 
 But, if they did, I beg to call the attention of the gen- 
 tleman who took the view that the acts of our ancestors 
 are sacred and that their work should never be undone, 
 to what, perhaps, the most enlightened man who ever 
 lived in this country, a man of world wide fame, said 
 on this subject. Listen to him. " Some men look at 
 constitutions with a sanctimous reverence, and deem 
 them like the ark of the covenant too sacred to touch. 
 They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wis 
 dom more than human, and supposed what they did to 
 be beyond amendment. I knew that age well. I be- 
 longed to it, and labored with it. It deserves well of 
 its country. It was very like the present, but without 
 the experience of the present. And forty years expe- 
 rience in government is worth a century of abtract 
 reason. And this they would say themselves were they 
 to rise from the dead ." This is the opinion of a man 
 who certainly ought to be entitled to a proper conside- 
 ration at the hands of this Convention. I mean Mr. 
 Jefferson. 
 
 But the gentleman finds this same proposition in the 
 existing constitution of Virginia taken from the old 
 constitution, and that adds one consideration -why it 
 should not be amended. I have looked over the debates 
 of 1829 and 1830 ; and while I see nothing directly said 
 in the debates of that Convention upon this subject of 
 the re-eligibility of the Governor, yet there was a pro- 
 position pending before that body, which in terms freed 
 the election of Governor from this restriction, and I 
 leave to call the attention of the Convention to it on 
 page 474 of the " Debates and Proceedings" of that Con- 
 vention. 
 
 " The House resolved itself into Committee of the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 139 
 
 Whole, Mr. P.P. Barbour, in the chair; the question 
 being on the amendment of Mr. Doddridge to the first 
 resolution of the Executive Committee. 
 
 '■ The resolution reads as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the chief executive office of this 
 commonwealth ought to be vested in a governor. 
 
 -'Mr. Doddridge's amendment is in these words: _ 
 
 " To be elected once in every three years, at the time 
 of the general annual elections, by the persons qualified 
 to vote For the most numerous branch of the general 
 Assembly." 
 
 On page 484 it will be found stated that Mr. Stanard 
 moved to strike out that part which says he shall be 
 •elected by the people, and the motion was rejected, ayes 
 43, noes 43. Mr. Monroe and Mr. Marshall voti g aye, 
 and Mr. Madison no. On Mr. Doddridge's amendment, 
 as will be seen by a reference to page 485, the vote was 
 ayes 46, noes 46. Mr. Madison voting aye, and Mr. 
 Marshal and Mr. Monroe, no. The casting-vote of the 
 chairman decided the question in the negative. Thus 
 the convention of 1829 was actually equally divided 
 upon a proposition which contained no restriction 
 whatever upon the re-eligibility of the governor. It is 
 needless to refer to the further proceedings that took 
 place, because the main question involved, as I admit, 
 was the election of the governor by the people or by 
 legislature. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. That was the only proposition. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Ho sir; the gentleman could not 
 •have heard the proposition of Mr. Doddridge read, which 
 T said was the one upon which the convention was 
 equally divided, and which contained no restriction 
 whatever upon the eligibility of the governor. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. The question was on striking out. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I know it was, and it was also on 
 inserting a proposition which contained no restriction 
 on the right of re-eligibility. And while no member of 
 the convention made a speech on the subject on the prin- 
 ciple of eligibility or re-eligibility, yet a provision was 
 actually pending on that occasion which contained the 
 principle we now advocate. 
 
 Mr. RIVES. I ask the gentleman to state, if he has 
 the debates of the convention of 1829 by him, whether 
 upon the question whether the governor should be elect- 
 ed by the legislature or by the people, the proposition 
 was not carried by a vote of fifty to forty-six, every mem- 
 ber voting. And I ask the gentleman, also, if he does 
 not find that the question was yielded by western mem- 
 bers with the express understanding that if the legis- 
 lat ire should be authoriz ed to elect the governor for three 
 years, instead of -annually as before, that they would not 
 hold on to the ground that he should be elected by the 
 people, but would agree that he should be elected by 
 the legislature. That is the history of that question, 
 and of that vote. A3 for the question of ineligibility, 
 it had no connection with the one at issue. I have 
 studied the history of those times, and I know these to 
 be the facts. 
 
 I have not these debates by me, but these facts will 
 be found by a reference to the journal, on pages 709, 
 and 822 of that publication. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I have not the debates and proceed- 
 ings of the Convention of '29 here with me; it is a 
 large book, and I preferred to bring down the written ex- 
 tracts from it to which I have referred. It is at my 
 room, however, for any gentleman to examine who may 
 thiwk proper. 'Now, I do not mean by my allusion to 
 the Convention of '29, to say that the question of the re- 
 eligibility of the Governor was ever directly up for 
 consideration, or was ever adopted by that Convention. 
 I expressly said that that was not the case, in my open- 
 ing remarks. I went further, and said that no speech 
 was delivered upon that subject at all, and then I re- 
 ferred to the extracts from the proceedings of the Con 
 vention of 1829, mainly for the purpose of showing 
 that in the proposition of Mr. Doddridge, there was no 
 limitation upon the rights of the people to re-elect their 
 Governor. But I admit that the main question which 
 
 the Convention was called to consider in relation to that 
 proposition, was the election of the Governor by the 
 people, and that all the arguments and all the speeches 
 on that subject referred alone to it. 
 
 I fear that I have wearied the attention of the Con- 
 vention. I have endeavored to run along as rapidly as 
 I well could. I have much that I might still say, but 
 no doubt other gentlemen, who come after me, will occu- 
 py the time much more effectually than I can. All I 
 desired to do, occupying the position I do in this Con- 
 vention, was to present my views, in order that my own 
 positions and the considerations which went in my own 
 mind to strengthen that position, might be known, for I 
 am rather inclined to apprehend, that I shall be in a very 
 lean minority in this region of country, from what I hear. 
 I am compelled to differ from gentlemen with whom I 
 have been proud to act, and whose opinions I have been 
 always willing to adopt, when they addressed my judg- 
 ement and reached my reason, but upon this subject as 
 upon all others, while I desire to get all the information 
 I can, while I am ready to consider and reflect upon the 
 opinions and reasons of others, the judgment which has 
 been implanted in my own mind, is, at last, when it is 
 duly, candidly, and fully made up, the only rule upon 
 which I can act. Now, I admit that in the various dis- 
 cussions that took place on this subject before the peo- 
 ple, I do not believe the question of the re-eligibility 
 of the Governor was discussed anywhere. Gentlemen 
 engaged in the canvass in my district, were limited to 
 thirty minutes in the discussion, and we could not tell 
 all we would do within that time, and were obliged to 
 lay down general principles, and tell cur constituents 
 that having understood what these general principles 
 were, they must judge how we could carry them out in 
 detail. But about the question of having the election 
 of all public officers put into the hands of the people, 
 there was but one voice among them, and nothing was 
 said that would except the Goverm r from the operation 
 of that principle. I thank the members of the commit- 
 tee for the attention wiiich they have paid me. I shall 
 not again trespass upon their time and patience. I am 
 sorry that my own situation has made it necessary that 
 I should do so now. 
 
 Mr. CHILTOX. The debate in which we are en- 
 gaged, running through some four or five days, has had a 
 range, and extent, and a variety which I am sure was 
 but little anticipated by any member of this convention, 
 when it commenced. The subject, when first presented, 
 seemed to be one of no considerable importance, and 
 one in regard to which it was immaterial how the Con- 
 vention might dispose of it. In conversation with the 
 mover of the precise proposition now under considera- 
 tion, of the convention before any discussion upon it had 
 taken place, or at most very little, I expressed the in- 
 clination of my mind to vote for it ; but the discussion 
 and the consideration which it has induced me to give 
 the subject, have brought my mind to a very different 
 conclusion, not only in regard to the course which I 
 shall pursue, the vote I shall give, but as to the intrinsic 
 importance of the subject itself. Its importance may 
 possibly be, in my estimation, mainly attributed to the 
 fact that from the announcement made by two distin- 
 guished gentlemen — the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. 
 Botts,) the mover, and the gentleman from Accomac, 
 (Mr. Wise,) who stands by his side and sustains it— is 
 the breaking of ground upon a system that is to pervade 
 the whole fabric of government which this Convention 
 is now convened here to frame and establish — a system 
 that I am here especially to war upon. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) stated that 
 there were two classes of members upon this floor — rad- 
 icals and conservatives. I claim to be one of the latter 
 class — a conservative in the fullest extent of that term, 
 the precise import of which, I may possibly, at least I 
 hope to do so in the further progress of the remarks that 
 I shall now make, give some understanding of, to this 
 Convention. The difference between these two descrip- 
 tion of members, as I learned before I came here, and as 
 has been made most manifest to me since I heard the dis- 
 
140 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 \ 
 
 cussions that have taken place, seems to me to be 
 this : One class think there is nothing good in the exist- 
 ing form of government of this State ; that those who 
 have gone before us knew litttle or nothing of the sci- 
 ence of government ; that they were wise, patriotic and 
 distinguished men ; that they did some good things, but 
 also a great many bad ones ; that their work has been 
 tested, tried, condemned, and stands now rejected by the 
 great body of that portion of the people of this State, 
 who wield the political power of the State. That, I un- 
 derstand, to be the position taken by those gentlemen 
 who occupy the radical platform in this Convention. 
 The conservative portion, at least, if I understand what 
 conservatism is — I speak more especially of my own 
 conservatism — it is that there is much that is good 
 in the existing form of government, that we have pros- 
 pered under it, that we have enjoyed all the bless- 
 ings of civil liberty in the best form, and that whilst 
 there are some defects that I think ought to be corrected, 
 they are but few, and that every change that is propo- 
 sed here — speaking for myself — I shall approach with 
 caution and taking it 'prima facia, unless some defect in it 
 is made manifest to myself in my own experience to be 
 right, and waiting until conclusive reasons why it should 
 be discarded or why it should be altered, are shown. This 
 position of mine I understand to be totally different from 
 the position taken by the distinguished gentleman from 
 Henrico. That gentleman, if I recollect aright, said very 
 early in this discussion, that in the legal phrase, the onus 
 probandi rested upon the shoulders of those who propos- 
 ed any thing here ; that before we had a right to advo- 
 cate the retention of this feature of the old constitution 
 to call upon the Convention to sustain it, we must show 
 its advantages. There was another position, to which I 
 shall have to advert more at large in the progress of the 
 remarks I shall make. It was this : that the great funda- 
 mental principle of the government was the will of the 
 majority ; that the end of government was to give effi- 
 cacy to that will, and that all restraints upon it were 
 improper, unless shown and proved conclusively to be 
 absol utely necessary to avoid some great evil or some 
 improper end. 
 
 Now, the position I assume is, that as this principle 
 which is found in the existing Constitution of the State, 
 has been tried and tested for seventy odd years, and 
 that under its operation, no man can lay his hand upon 
 the evil that has resulted; that those gentlemen who 
 propose the change, shall come forward here and point 
 out the great public good that is to be accomplished, 
 before they have a right to demand our votes. That is 
 my position in regard to this matter, and it is my posi- 
 tion in regard to most of the changes upon which this 
 Convention will be called to determine. 
 
 I said I was one of those who thought that those who 
 had gone before us knew about as much of government 
 as we do. I believe, as confidently as I know I stand 
 here, that the great fundamental principles of free gov- 
 ernment were understood two centuries ago nearly as 
 well as they are now, and I am not sure but they were 
 a little better, according to what I learn is now the un- 
 derstanding of the principles of free government. I 
 think Locke and Milton and Hampden understood the 
 great principle of free government just as well as we 
 do, and they understood it thoroughly. And what was 
 that principle? Why, if I understand it, it was this, 
 and nothing more: " That all political power emanates 
 from and resides in the people, and does not belong 
 to kings or to self-constituted bodies — that all power 
 comes from and is bestowed by the consent of the 
 people ; that it is not transmitted by inheritance, and 
 forms no property in men or any set of men, but resides 
 with the people, and is dealt out by them according to 
 their understanding of their best interests, and upon 
 those limitations which they conceive the best calcula- 
 ted to subserve their own interests." That is the great 
 fundamental principle of free government. That the 
 fundamental principle of free government is, that a ma- 
 jority shall rule; and that all limitations upon the will 
 of the majority, the uncontrolled will of the majority, 
 
 are limitations upon free government, I utterly deny; that 
 doctrine is one of recent origin, and has grown out of 
 the progressive spirit of the age, which has not only 
 set at naught these original and fundamental principles 
 of government, but seeks a new and different applica- 
 tion of new and different principles. 
 
 A great deal has been said in this debate about de- 
 mocracy — democracy. The gentleman from Henrico 
 has spoken of his democracy, and every gentleman, al- 
 most, who has addressed the committee upon this sub- 
 ject, has dwelt somewhat at length upon the subject of 
 democracy. Do we intend here, and is it the expecta- 
 tion of any member of this committee, that we are to 
 establish a democratic government — a pure democracy? 
 When your democracy comes out, it will be found tem- 
 pered with monarchy and aristocracy, with the features 
 of monarchical and aristocratical governments; for I 
 affirm that a representative republican government has 
 existed nowhere, andean exist nowhere, in a pure demo- 
 cratic form. France attests the truth of my position. 
 Why, does not every gentleman within the sound of 
 my voice, know, that immediately after the separation 
 of these States — the colonies — from the mother coun- 
 try, when in every constitution that was formed, the 
 model of the British constitution was observed, the 
 celebrated Targot wrote to Dr. Priestly, attacking 
 our forms of government, and maintaining that it was 
 not democratic, that it was anti-democratic, and insisted 
 that in adopting the British model of government, we 
 had departed from the true principles of democracy. 
 And did that not draw from John Adams (old John 
 Adams) that famous defence of the American constitu- 
 tions, of which, I suppose, there is no gentleman w th- 
 in the sound of my voice, a member of this Convention, 
 who has not read, and of which, whatever may be said 
 of it, or however portions and lines of it may be torn 
 from the context, as they have been, and used in 
 party contests, I affirm, upon a careful reading and stu- 
 dy of it, that no book is to be found in the English lan- 
 guage which more fully develops the true principles of 
 republican representative government. There are er- 
 rors in it, I do not pretend to doubt. Perfection was 
 not to be attained, and could not be, because the work 
 of man. But he shows to my satisfaction, and, I think, 
 to the satisfaction of every man who will carefully stu- 
 dy it, that these restraints, balances, and checks that 
 are found in this mingled form of government — mon- 
 archical, aristocratical, and democratical — are essential- 
 ly necessary to the protection of rational civil liberty. 
 There is not a gen'.leman within the sound of my voice, 
 who can be brought to go for a genuine democratic gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Do I understand the gentleman to avow 
 a declaration here in this body, the proposition that in 
 order to secure liberty, we must have an infusion of 
 aristocratic and monarchical principles? Is that the 
 proposition ? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I mean that very proposition. Noth- 
 ing more nor less. And lam somewhat surprised that 
 the question has been put by the gentleman. What is 
 monachy ? What is aristocracy ? and what is democra- 
 cy ? I did not expect to be drawn into a discussion of 
 these forms of government ; but if I understand what is 
 a monarchical principle, it is when the executive power 
 of the State is committed to the hands of one man, I 
 care not under what limitations he is placed, or _ how 
 few the duties he is to perform, it is monarchical in its 
 principle. / 
 Mr. WISE. No sir. / 
 Mr. CHILTON. The gentleman says no. Of course 
 there is a difference of opinion between him and my- 
 self. I certainly have entertained that opinion, and 
 have been so taught, and I have read — and I think the 
 gentleman has read— the debates in the convention that 
 framed the constitution of the United States. I appeal 
 to the debates of the convention that adopted the feder- 
 al constitution, to the debates of the convention of 1829, 
 and of every other convention that has ever convened 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Ut 
 
 within the limits of the United States to establish fun- 
 damental forms of government for a State, if the very 
 position that I take here has not been universally con- 
 ceded. It is not monarchy in the British sense ; it is 
 not monarchy in the Turkish sense — Great Britain be- 
 ing- a limited monarchy, and Turkey an absolute mon- 
 archy or despotism. Our President of the United States 
 is as essentially a monarch as any that reigms upon the 
 face of the habitable globe, in regard to ail the matters 
 the constitution of the United States has committed to 
 be executed by him. The senate of the United States 
 is essentially an aristocracy in principle, and avowed so 
 to be in the discussions of the convention that adopted 
 the constitution. It is not the aristocracy of Venice or 
 the aristocracy of many of the European States, but 
 the aristocratic principle infused into it is one of the 
 elements of checks and balances upon power necessary 
 to protect the great interests of the people. I have 
 learned in vain, I have been taug-ht and I have read in 
 vain, if these are not the elements that make up every 
 form of government, from the government of the Uni- 
 ted States down to that of the newest State, the very 
 last that has come into this Union and framed a consti- 
 tution for herself. 
 
 I have been led off by this incidental discussion, in a 
 manner that I do not know when I shall get up, if at all, 
 to the main question on which I propose to speak. 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would state that the re- 
 marks are rather irrelevant to the question. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. CHTLTON. I was very well aware of it, and it 
 is not generally my habit to depart from the question. 
 Having premised this much, I come to consider the ob- 
 jections against, or rather the reasons, for the retention 
 of this feature of ineligibility m the Constitution which 
 we are now considering. The gentleman from Gooch- 
 land, (Mr. Leake',) took the position well, I thought, 
 and sustained it ably, that the great end of free repre- 
 sentative republican government, the main one, was, 
 protection to the rights of the minority, butl understood 
 that proposition to be scouted by the gentleman from 
 Henrico as a monstrous heresy. Well, probably my 
 friend who sits near me, (Mr. Wise,) agrees with him, 
 and scouts it as a heresy. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Scouts what? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. That the main end of a Constitution 
 with limitation of power, is to protect the minority, and 
 not to give efficacy to the will of the majority. That is 
 the great end. The majority can always protect itself, 
 the minority cannot. But when we establish a Consti- 
 tution and put limitations in it upon the power of the 
 majority, restraining it within a particular sphere of ac- 
 tion, beyond which they cannot go, we have accom- 
 plished this object, and put them within an enclosure in 
 which, no matter what they do, they cannot do mis- 
 chief. They cannot oppress, they cannot trample upon 
 the rights of the minority. Why limit the majority? 
 Now I agree, that in a pure democratic form of govern- 
 ment, that the position taken by the gentleman on the other 
 side is perfectly sound, perfectly proper and right. His- 
 tory gives us some examples of the workings of a demo- 
 cratic governmenc. Greece had it at one time. Where 
 all questions of public and private right were submitted 
 to the crowd, and where those who wanted to gain the 
 favor of the crowd came before them, clothed in sack- 
 cloth, and uttering cries of lamentation and mourning, 
 and excied them. It is unnecessary for me to refer this 
 committee to the results of that form of government. I 
 believe the universal concurrence of civilized man at the 
 present day, who has any information upon the subject is, 
 that it was the very worst form of government that ever 
 did exist, and that there has been no despotism, however 
 bloody — the despotism of Nero and Caligula, or any other 
 monster of whom history furnishes an example — but was 
 more tolerable than that government of the pure democra- 
 cy. There, numbers always prevailed, and the majority 
 carried out their will uncontrolled. Taking warning from 
 this example and the information of history, those who 
 came to form our government avoided it. There are ad- 
 vantages and disadvantages in every form of govern- 
 
 ment—some advantages in the democratic form, and 
 some in the aristocratic wisdom, and some in the monar- 
 chical strength and power. They combined them all — 
 mixed them up happily — restrained each within its 
 proper and useful sphere — they curbed the evil propen- 
 sities of all with the wisdom and power of all, and they 
 thus establish -d that form of government — the govern- 
 ment of the United States, which, with some few objec- 
 tions to it, is tne most stupendous fabric of governmental 
 wisdom this world has ever seen. It is best in its effects 
 — best in its influences — promoting the end of govern- 
 ment better and more effectually than any other of 
 which we have any information. Now I said that these 
 limitations were upon the unrestrained power of the 
 majority ; and if any gentleman who has not read tne 
 debates of the Convention that framed the Federal Con- 
 stitution will take them up and look into them, he will 
 find that Madison and every other delegate from Virgi- 
 nia, Franklin* also, and all that illustrious band of patriots 
 and sages contemplated— if they contemplated any prin- 
 ciple with peculiar horror — this unlicensed democratic 
 principle as the one against which, above all others, they 
 felt it their duty to provide the greatest safe-guards. 
 And operated upon by this strong aversion, they went 
 a little too far, in my judgment, and gave too much 
 power to the executive head; and a portion of that pow- 
 er is found in this very right of re-eligibility, which gen- 
 tlemen "here, on the other side, so much commend. I 
 think that if they had had the lights and the experience 
 wldch we have had, they would have restricted it, they 
 would not have made him re-eligible. I cannot say, how- 
 ever, that any particular evil has resulted from it, be- 
 cause whether by the Avisdom of tne man who first held 
 it, or of him who succeeded him, or to Mr. Jefferson — 
 for I think some attribute to him the establishment of 
 the two-term principle — it matters not who established 
 it — the people have sustained the man who did estab- 
 lish it, and it has become an interpretation of the con- 
 stitution that no man shall be re-eligible after two terms. 
 It is just as effectual, so far as the practice is concerned, 
 as if it was made a part of the Constitution itself. I 
 say, then, that this spirit which I understand to be in- 
 voked, and which I understand the gentlemen on the 
 other side desire to establish and carry out — this spirit 
 of democracy — this principle of majority rule, is the 
 one against which all who have gone before us have sed- 
 ulously guarded. It is a principle destructive of the 
 rights of the minority, which rights can only find 
 protection in the limitations upon these elements 
 of government, these three fundamental elements of gov- 
 ernment that will undoubtedly, because I see it already 
 declared, make up the form of government which this 
 Convention shall adopt. If I understand any thing about 
 democratic principles under the working of our system, 
 it has been a jealousy of executive power. The old fed- 
 eralists, Hamilton, Adams, and all those men — what dis- 
 tinguished them ? Support of executive power, an en- 
 largement of executive power, claiming undue power 
 for the executive department of the government. The 
 democracy, the democratic principle warred upon it as 
 a monarchical feature, as a feature necessary, but yet 
 to be distrusted or doubted, guarded and looked to with 
 jealousy. Is not that the principle that has introduced it 
 into our Constitution— jealousy of executive and monar- 
 chical power, of the power that wields the sword, of the 
 power that lays its hand upon the citizen ? We have 
 been asked, why is no limitation proposed upon the le- 
 gislative and representative power, the members of Con- 
 gress and of the State legislature ? I respectfully ask, if 
 there is not a very material difference between the powers 
 and functions of the two offices, the executive and the 
 legislative offices ? The executive is controlled by one 
 will, one mind ; the legislative officer acts for himself it 
 is true, but he can do nothing of himself, he must get the 
 concurrence of a majority of the body with whom he 
 acts, which is generally a numerous one ; and therefore 
 it seems to me to be a good reason why this limitation 
 should not be imposed upon him. It may be that gen- 
 tlemen who take other side are perfectly correct, that 
 
142 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 in regard to this particular office of governor deprived, 
 as the gentleman from Henrico says, of all power 
 —for he said that gentlemen did not make a distinction 
 between the office and the power of the office , and very 
 properly too — it may be that it will result in no practi- 
 cal mischief ; but whether it will or not, I cannot tell, 
 and there is no man here that can tell. But this much 
 we do know, that under the opposite principle, tested 
 for seventy odd years, no mischief has been done, and 
 upon the principle that I announced when I commenced, 
 when a system, established by men of experience, wis- 
 dom and purity, has worked well through a long succes- 
 sion of years and no practical mischief, no inconvenience 
 has resulted from it, I am not disposed to change it. 1 
 will not change it for any theoretically democratic prin- 
 ciple or any other. I will not change it because it may 
 be said to violate great fundamental principles ; and per- 
 mit me to say here, that the fundamental principles of 
 government are very few, if any. The one 1 have stated, 
 I consider the only one, aud that is, that power resides 
 with the people, emanates from them, returns to them, 
 and can be and should be embodied only by their will, 
 whether it be in the form of a constitution, or in any 
 other form in which it may be exercised. I think that 
 government itself is an expedient and that the ques- 
 tion, and the sole question is, how shall it be modeled, 
 in what form, with what limitations and under what re- 
 strictions shall it be modeled so as best to accomplish 
 its great end— protection to the lives, liberty and pro- 
 perty of all those who are subject to it? These expedi- 
 ents must be tested by experience. We must look to 
 men of wisdom, to men of purity, and to men who have 
 no interests averse or opposite to the interests of the 
 great body of the community, to ascertain in what form 
 this thing should be accomplished. 
 
 I have been somewhat surprised that the gentleman 
 from whom emanates this proposition, has not moved an 
 amendment to the scheme of an executive, reported by 
 the committee on that subject, in another particular. If 
 I have read that report aright, a plurality of voters may 
 elect a governor, and it may be, that through a long 
 succession of years, the governor may fill the executive 
 chair, elected by a meagre minority, a small minority of 
 the voters of the State. Now, in this essential thing, 
 what becomes of this sacred majority principle? What 
 becomes of it ? I do not propose myself to move any 
 amendment, for I am satisfied with it as it is, but sup- 
 pose it were otherwise — suppose that a majority were 
 actually to be required? Why, a majority might keep a 
 man, offensive and objectionable to a large minority in 
 the State, in office for years. And is that no objection 
 to it ? Whereas, if you make the governor ineligible and 
 let him go out of office and give place to some other man 
 who may be before us, and what was a minority so far 
 as he was concerned, may become a part of the majori- 
 ty in regard to somebody else; and thus at some time or 
 other no citizen of the State can say that he has seen no 
 incumbent in the office who was not a man of his own 
 choice; and apart from all principle, is this no object 
 that ought to be accomplished ? Is it no privilege to 
 every citizen of this State to have the right and the op- 
 portunity, at some time or other, to say a man fills the 
 executive chair who is the man of my choice, and whom 
 I aided to put there ? I care not whether there is any 
 practical benefit or advantage to result or not, it is an 
 object desirable to be accomplished, and I will vote for 
 no principle and no provision to be inserted in that con- 
 stitution which might, in practice, produce the opposite 
 state of things, which would deny this privilege, this 
 matter of feeling, to any citizen of this Commonwealth 
 entitled to vote. But. under the constitution as it stands, 
 the minority of one term may be the majority of anoth- 
 er; and thus he who is put in contrary to my wishes, 
 may be succeeded by a man whom I choose to select; 
 and thus, an opportunity afforded to every man in the 
 State, at some time or other, to have his choice. I have 
 been taught always as one of the fundamental, practical 
 principles of democracy, that long possession of power 
 corrupts, I care not whence it comes, whether it be the 
 
 gift of the people, or whether it be permanent — that the 
 possession of power is corrupting in its nature, tendency 
 and effects upon the possessor of it. And it is not so 
 much the bsiief that the people would exercise their pow- 
 er, would discharge the duty incumbent upon them in re- 
 gard to this matter, unwisely and impartially, that I ob- 
 ject to it, but that the man who long retains power, let 
 him be ever so pure, will become corrupted, will be- 
 come abusive in his practice of the power that he has — 
 and more so of the executive power than any other de- 
 scription of power. 
 
 A great deal has been said in this debate to which, of 
 course, I shall not reply. There have been some painful 
 and some amusing scenes. They have passed by, and I 
 hope that nothing has occurred here that has marred 
 friendship or affected any relation. I feel, although I 
 have given utterance to nothing that has provoked or is 
 calculated to provoke any personal altercation, whether 
 it be in the way of argument or otherwise, between my- 
 self and any gentlemen here, that I have pursued rather a 
 desultory and discursive train of argument; and shall 
 endeavor to come as speedily as possible to a close. 
 There has been a word used in this debate that has had 
 the most extraordinary repetition of any word I think 
 I ever heard introduced iu any debate, and that was the 
 word "the people, " " the people, " "the people.''' Gen- 
 tlemen have spoken here, and have argued this proposi- 
 tion before this Convention, as if there was a distinct and 
 separate class called the people, and we, the members of 
 this Convention, were altogether seperate and distinct 
 from them. I have heard in the progress of the debates 
 of this Convention a great deal said about classes, and 
 sometimes we have heard about poor men and rich men,-, 
 and an idea has not been un frequently advanced or indi- 
 cated that the poor men were the people and that the 
 rich men were not the people and their natural allies. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Who has taken that position ? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I do not charge this remark upon 
 any gentleman. I hope that gentlemen will not interro- 
 gate me unless it is absolutely necessary, because it in- 
 terrupts the train of my argument. 
 
 The CHAIR. It is not in order to interrupt gentle- 
 men, when they have the floor, unless they consent to it. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I will now say, once for all, that 
 now, and at all times when I shall oceupy this floor here- 
 after, I shall not, intentionally, violate the rules of the 
 body, or say anything offensive to any gentlemau ; and 
 if, in the freedom of debate, I should indulge in free lan- 
 guage, gentlemen must apply it to arguments and po- 
 sitions, and not to persons. And another thing I would 
 respectfully request, so far as I am concerned, that if,, 
 in the progress of my argument it occurs to a gentleman 
 that there is an answer to the argument being made, 
 that I shall not be interrupted fey an argumentative in^ 
 terrogatory. 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would state for the infor- 
 mation of the committee, that one gentleman should not 
 interrupt another who has the floor. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I say this in no unkind spirit — none 
 in the world. This is a course that I have always ob- 
 served myself, and I think it would be much better if it 
 was observed generally. But I have heard this cry 
 of "the people," " the people," before and since I came 
 here. I claim to be one of the people myself, and I 
 doubt not that every man in this Convention c insiders 
 himself one of them. I have no interest adverse to the 
 interest of my fellow men, in any particular, that lam 
 aware of — none earthly. And in consulting my oAvn 
 interest, and my own good in establishing a form of 
 government that would be best form 0 , I would estab- 
 lish that which would best protect the interests of all, 
 not only in my own district, but those in every portion 
 of the State. I will state another thing, that the peo- 
 ple who sent me here, iu regard to the details of this 
 or any other portion of the constitution, do not ex- 
 pect or desire me to consult them. They sent me here,, 
 because they believed I understood these matters better 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 143 
 
 than tbey could possibly do. Upon the principle in- 
 volved they concur with me, for I fully made known 
 my sentiments dur'Dg the canvass. I am a believer, 
 as Veil as other gentlemen, in the capacity of man for 
 self-government. I am a believer, but I believe it is a 
 capacity to judge of the results of government, rather 
 than its machinery, or its particular operations. ■ • hey 
 must, of necessity", trust these things to the judgment 
 of others, and they do not trust them. I have never 
 yet seen a man who would go before the people, and 
 frankly tell them that they did not know everything 
 and were not competent to decide everything, with 
 whom they did not agree ; they are honest, the great 
 mass of the people, and will acknowledge that they do 
 not know everything. Now, while I say, that I am a 
 firm believer in the capacity of man for self-government. 
 I confess that with this faith, if faith it can be called— 
 or rather I -hould say hope, and not faith — there is 
 not unmingled an apprehension for the future. The 
 problem of man's capacity for self-government is not, 
 in my judgment, fully solved. It is only in the process 
 of solution. It is only in the process of solution, indeed, 
 in this State, in this country. And if there is one thing 
 that makes me look to the "future with apprehension, it 
 is this wild spirit of radicalism that seems to be spread- 
 ing over this land. It is this disposition to believe that 
 those who have gone before us knew nothing ; that their 
 lessons, their words, their teachings, and their instruc- 
 tions, do not suit us ; because we are in a different age, 
 that we are under new principles, and in a state of prb- 
 i ress. The great distinguishing characteristic of the 
 age is speed — speed in everything. The lightning's 
 wing can hardly keep pace with the desires of men at 
 the present day of progress. This may do well in the 
 mechanical world, but it will not do in the moral and 
 political world. These men who have gone before us — 
 I shall, I hope, be pardoned in saying — I think were 
 our superiors in wisdom. The only particular in which 
 we claim to be equal to them is, I think, in experience. 
 But they had had some experience too, in my judgment: 
 they had had a fiery experience ; they had gone through 
 a fiery ordeal ; and they had lived in times more pro- 
 pitious for calm and wise and deliberate judgment upon 
 this subject. It has been said here that we live under 
 the influence of party — the demon of party. For as the 
 gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) said most im- 
 pressively the other day, there is a demon of the north, 
 and a demon of the south — there is a demon of party 
 that is poisoning the very fountains from whence come 
 the streams of governments. We are not insensible to 
 it. We may abhor it. and may determine not to be 
 bound by it, but it will come insensibly over us and 
 influence us in our action here on this floor, in this Con- 
 tion. convened t o f rm a fundamental government for this 
 State, which for years to come is to spread its influ- 
 ence alike over men of every party — men entrusted with 
 political power and not entrusted with it, over every age, 
 sex and condition. We have heard gentlemen contend- 
 ing who was the best democrat, and who was not. In 
 the sense in which I have adverted to it, it may well be 
 contended who is the best democrat and who is not, but 
 in the party sense, I confess that I was not a little sur- 
 prised to witness the contest, and hear the discussions 
 about who was the best democrat, and who was not the 
 best democrat. These men, I said, who have gone be- 
 fore us, lived and acted before this demon of party had 
 its birth. What do we see now? Mobs, mobs, where 
 men of character and standing and property perpetrate 
 the foulest deeds. We see Fanny Wrights, Abby Fol- 
 soms and vote-yourselves-a-farm men. We see an insa- 
 tiable thirst for office ; we see men of v/hom in times 
 gone by we would not have dreamed, leaving those pure 
 pursuits of agriculture, those noble, purifying pursuits 
 that make a man a man, and that made our forefathers — 
 we see them giving up all these things, and seeking a 
 livelihood at the public crib ; we see parties controiing 
 elections ; we see — I do not mean to apply these remarks 
 to any gentleman in this body — we see demagogues all 
 over the land, and we see them preaching up, and in- 
 
 sisting upon the incorruptibility and the perfectibility of 
 the public will in all things. I ask if this is a time to 
 cut our old vessel of State loose from those moorings 
 where she has stood for seventy-odd years, and which 
 have enabled her to brave the battle and the breeze ; and 
 which has carried us (whatever may be said of the dif- 
 ferent sections of the State) safely on, and brings, year 
 after year, the incontrovertabie proof that she is pro- 
 gressing onward to a State of actual prosperity, which 
 has not been found any where else. Gentlemen may 
 tell me what they please about those free states, of their 
 radical progress, their extraordinary progress, their great 
 prosperity and all that, but I would not to-morrow ex- 
 change Virginia for all of them. I would take her as 
 she is — take her with her constitution ; with her laws, 
 her judiciary, and all that belongs to her, and I would 
 go into a comparison with any other State in this Union, 
 for everything that makes the character of man noble, 
 and makes his condition desirable. In my judgment, 
 I no greater evil can befall this state — none — than the 
 prevalence of these radical doctrines which have been 
 preached upon this floor. It may be otherwise. It may 
 be that I look with too much apprehension to the fu- 
 ture. I trust that I may not be a prophet. I do not 
 desire to be one, nor shall I undertake to prophecy. I 
 hope that in looking to the future, with the apprehen- 
 sion that I am looking to it, that I may be wholly mis- 
 taken ; but in my judgment no worse evil can befall any 
 people than that those barrisrs and ramparts which 
 are erected about private rights — the rights of property, 
 life and liberty — are broken down, and the subjects, 
 the great ends and objects of government are put into 
 the hands of an uncontrolled and licensed majority. 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would state that that is de- 
 parting from the question. 
 
 Mr. CHILTOX. I am aware of it, and am endeav- 
 oring to get back to it. I am nearly through, however. 
 The gentlemen from the west have beheld these devel- 
 opments here on the part of able eastern gentlemen, 
 with great pleasure. They see, and very properly, that 
 with the principle the gentleman from Henrico "stands 
 upon, he must go with them. It makes no difference 
 with me where the proposition originates— whether it 
 be in the east or west — I shall, I hope, consider it fairly 
 and candidly, and decide it upon its merits. But let me 
 make an appeal to those western gentlemen : many of 
 them, I believe — some of them I know — do think with 
 me upon this great question of conservatism. Let them 
 reflect that if, by these means, the results of which I look 
 to as so disastrous, though many look to them otherwise, 
 to obtain their most de-iredends, whether the fruit so 
 much sought for, when gathered, may not turn to ashes 
 in their grasp ; whether they may not be like Macbeth , 
 forced to exclaim : "We but taught bloody instructions, 
 which, being taught, returned to plague the inventor." 
 I present this subject to their consideration. Let 
 them look to it, and see that this question of the 
 basis — 
 
 The CHAIR. That question is not now under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Mr. CHILTOX. I am not going to discuss it, but I 
 think I have a right to introduce it as an illustration. I 
 humblv submit that the Chair is reining me up a little 
 tighter than he has any other gentleman who has spoken ; 
 probably because I have made myself more obnoxious. 
 
 I was going to say that there are objects that may be 
 accomplished by this constitution, much more to be 
 shunned and avoided, in my estimation, than the trans- 
 fer of power, upon the principle of the white basis, to 
 the western men — much more ; and that object will be 
 accomplished, in my judgment, if there be imposed up- 
 on this constitution , which we are now framing, the 
 principles indicated by the two gentlemen — the one 
 from Henrico and the other from Accomac. I may 
 stand solitary and alone in this opinion, but "solitary 
 and alone I shall set this ball in motion.'' As a further 
 illustration, I think the west, if they gain this so much 
 desired end, at the expense of a constitution framed up- 
 
144 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 on the principle indicated, they will have gaiued noth- 
 ing, or worse than nothing. 
 
 1 know that I have been very irregular, very desulto- 
 ry. It is not my habit to speak from notes — in fact I 
 cannot speak from them. Possibly 1 have not pursued 
 a very connected course of discussion. The subject is 
 one which is very large, one surely not exhausted, and 
 indeed one hardly opened in the feeble effort 1 ha\ enow 
 made. There were these considerations that pressed 
 upon my mind and I felt that it was my duty to meet 
 the positions taken by the gentleman from Henrico, the 
 gentieman from Accomac and other gentlemen who have 
 spoken upon that side of the question, — and whether I 
 thought it a matter of importance or not, to meet them 
 at the threshold and express my opposition to them with 
 some of the reasons which governed that opposition, 1 
 have done so very imperfectly. I thank the Convention 
 most earnestly for the attention which they have given 
 me, and if I do not say, like the gentleman who pre- 
 ceded me, that I will not trouble their attention again, 
 I will do it as seldom as it is possible fur me to contain 
 myself 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I do not rise to trespass upon the time 
 of the committee, but merely to correct my friend from 
 Powhatan (Mr. Hopkins) in the statement he made in 
 reference to the action of the last Convention on this 
 subject The executive committee of that Convention 
 made a report in which nothing was said about the in- 
 eligibility of the Governor. As soon as that report was 
 submitted, Mr. Giles, being the chairman of the com- 
 mittee making it, a substitute was offered by the distin- 
 guished gentleman from the Valley, (Mr. Powell,) and 
 another was offered by a distinguished gentleman from 
 the western portion of the State, both recognizing the 
 principle of ineligibility after the Governor had served 
 a term or more. Both of these gentlemen, champions 
 of the extension of the rights of the people, belonging to 
 the western part of the State, proposed substitutes to 
 the proposition of the executive committee, which impos- 
 ed no restraint upon the election of the Governor. It 
 is true Mr. Doddridge proposed an amendment in which 
 nothing was said about the ineligibility, but it was to a 
 clause of that report of the committee, which merely 
 said that the chief executive should be elected by the 
 Legislature. Mr. Doddridge presented the competing 
 proposition that the Governor should be elected by the 
 people. And that was the only question that was up. 
 Afterwards Mr. Doddridge offered this proposition : 
 
 " That the Governor be elected by the persons quali- 
 fied to vote for members of the House of Delegates, at 
 the several times and places appointed to hold elections 
 for members of the General Assembly. The Governor 
 shall hold his office for years, and after the expira- 
 tion of his time, shall be ineligible for years." 
 
 Now, so far from Doddridge's proposition having 
 been voted down, the proposition which he originally 
 submitted, and carrying along with it the principle of 
 re-eligibility, the reverse was the fact. The only com- 
 peting propositions before the Convention were, whether 
 the election should be by the legislature, or by the peo- 
 ple, and the gentleman from Powhatan seeks to make 
 an impression that he afterwards offered the proposition 
 which he did, because he was constrained to do it by 
 the action of the Convention at a former time, when 
 there was not anything in the action of the Convention 
 at that time which could be considered at all at variance 
 with that restriction. My object was not to trespass 
 upon the time, of the committee, for I feel that I have 
 already trespassed upon it too often. But I hope the 
 committee will pardon me for correcting here another 
 error of the gentleman from Powhatan. That gentle- 
 man read from the writings of Mr. Jefferson, to prove 
 that Mr. Jefferson was opposed to this principle of in- 
 eligibility. Now, Mr. Jefferson prepared a plan of a 
 constitution in the summer of 1783, which is directly 
 at variance with that statement. I will read as evi- 
 dence, the following extract from Mr. Jefferson's Works : 
 
 "In the summer of the year 1783, it was expected 
 that the assembly of Virginia would call a convention 
 for the establishment of a constitution. The following 
 draft of a fundamental constitution for the Common- 
 wealth of Virginia was then prepared, with a design of 
 being proposed in such convention had it taken place : 
 
 4 4 4 The executive powers shall be exercised by a gov- 
 ernor, who shall be chosen by joint ballot of both houses 
 of assembly, and when chosen, shall remain in office 
 five years, and be ineligible a second time.' " 
 
 My only object was to correct the statement of the 
 gentleman from Powhatan, made under the impression 
 that he had a correct view of the matter. I think that 
 a reference to the opinions of this distinguished man 
 will show that I am not mistaken in the views I take. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. Mr. Chairman 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Will the gentleman allow me the 
 floor for a moment for an explanation ? 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. If it is a short one. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. It is a short one. I only desire 
 to call the attention of the committee to the fact, 
 that the amendment referred to, offered by Mr. Dod- 
 dridge, was offered after the one which I read to the 
 Convention. His first proposition was to amend in this 
 way : 
 
 44 To be elected once in every three years, at the time 
 of the general annual elections, by the persons qualified 
 to vote for the most numerous branch of the general 
 assembly." 
 
 That is the proposition upon which there was an equal 
 vote. Afterwards he offered the proposition to which 
 the gentleman has referred. And while I am up, as the 
 gentleman referred to Mr. Jefferson's authority, I beg 
 leave to give some authority from the same source. 
 The draft of the constitution he (Mr. Leake) referred to, 
 was one prepared by Mr. Jefferson at an e . rly period. 
 Here we will see what Mi- Jefferson said of that draft in 
 1816: 
 
 " At the birth of our Republic, I committed that opin- 
 ion to the world in the draft of a constitute n annexed 
 to the " Notes on Virginia, " in which a provision was in- 
 serted for a representation permanently equal. The in- 
 fancy of the subject at that moment, and our inexperi- 
 ence at self-government, caused gross departures in that 
 draft from genuine republican canons." — A frank and 
 manly admission that he was in error. — " In truth, " said 
 he, 4 ' the basis of monarchy had so much filled up the 
 space of political contemplation that we imagined ev- 
 ery thing republican that was not monarchical." 
 
 So that we see here, Mr. Jefferson in his maturer 
 years, in 1816, admitting that there were gross depar- 
 tures from the true republican canons in the draft of the 
 Constitution to which my friend from Goochland refers. 
 That is all I desire to say. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. I do not desiie to detain the com- 
 mittee long, if I address it ou the subject before them, 
 and in making the motion which I submit now, I do not 
 wish to be understood that I wish on to-morrow to de- 
 tain them with any elaborate or lengthened argument on 
 the subject. But there are considerations to present, 
 and which I have not time to present now, which indu- 
 ces me to submit, at this time, a motion that the com- 
 mittee now rise. * 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 REPORT OX THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, &C. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The committee appointed to take 
 into consideration the subject of a proper basis of repre 
 sentation, and to make a proper apportionment of re- 
 presentation, have had the subject referred to them un- 
 der consideration, and have instructed me to make a re- 
 port thereon, which report I am now ready to make, or 
 at any time at which it shall be the pleasure of the Con- 
 vention to receive it. 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. Let us have it now. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 145 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. I move that the reading of the re- 
 port be dispeused with, and that it be laid on the table 
 an 1 printed. 
 
 MANY MEMBERS. Oh no, let us hear it read. 
 
 The report was then read — Mr. Letcher's motion 
 being withdrawn — by the Secretary, as follows: 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OX THE BASIS OF REPRESEN- 
 TATION". 
 
 The Committee appointed to consider and report a 
 proper Basis of Representation in the two Houses of 
 the General Assembly, and to make a proper appor- 
 tionment of representation among the people of the 
 commonwealth, &c, have, according to order, had mi- 
 ller consideration in part the matters to them referred, 
 and respectfully submit the following report thereupon: 
 
 Upon the question of the basis of representation, the 
 Committee has found itself equally divided in opinion, 
 twelve of its members agreeing and adhering to one 
 principle of representation, and the other twelve mem- 
 bers agreeing and adherring to another and different prin- 
 ciple. Each moiety of the committee has prepared an 
 apportionment and distribution of senators and delegates 
 upon the principle of representation proposed by them 
 respectively. 
 
 The Convention having, by the resolution creating the 
 committee, directed it " to make a proper apportionment 
 of representation among the people of the Common- 
 wealth," we have considered ourselves as necessarily 
 authorized to fix the numbers, of which the two branches 
 of the General Assembly shall consist, inasmuch as no 
 apportionment could be made or proposed, without first 
 ascertaining the whole number of representatives to be 
 apportioned. 
 
 There is a general concurrence of opinion in the com- 
 mittee, that it will be found necessary to enlarge the pre- 
 sent number of senators and delegates, but there is a dif- 
 ference of opinion as to the extent of the increase which 
 should be made. One moiety of the committee propose 
 that the house of delegates shall consis't of one hundred 
 and fifty members, and that the senate shall consist ol 
 fifty-one members, — the other moiety of the committee 
 
 Kropose that the house of delegates shall consist of one 
 undred and fifty-six members, and that the senate shall 
 consist of thirty-six members, the latter being an in- 
 crease of the senate in the precise ratio of the increase 
 proposed for the house. 
 
 In this state of divided opinion, the committee, by a 
 unanimous vote, has determined to report both these 
 plaus of representation and apportionment to the Con- 
 vention, and to ask that they be received as competing 
 propositions, to be disposed of in such manner as to the 
 wisdom of the Convention may seem best. 
 
 They are accordingly herewith presented, the one be- 
 ing marked A, for the purpose of designation, and the 
 other being marked B. 
 
 (A.) 
 
 Sec. 1. The Legislature shall be formed of two dis- 
 tinct branches, which together, shall be a complete le- 
 gislature and shall be called the General Assembly of 
 Virginia. 
 
 2. One of these shall be called the House of Delegates, 
 and shall consist of one hundred and fifty members, to 
 be chosen biennially for and by the several counties, 
 cities and towns of the commonwealth, whereof the 
 counties of Charles City, New Kent and James City 
 shall together elect one delegate ; the counties of 
 Elizabeth City, Warwick, and York and the city of 
 Williamsburg shall together elect one delegate ; the 
 counties of Lancaster and Northumberland shall to- 
 gether elect one delegate ; the counties of Richmond 
 and Westmoreland shall together elect one delegate ; 
 the counties of Matthews and Middlesex shall togeth- 
 er elect one delegate ; the counties of Prince George 
 and Surry shall together elect one delegate ; the coun- 
 ties of Southampton and Greensville shall together 
 elect two delegates ; the counties of Orange and 
 Greene shall together elect two delegates ; the coun- 
 ties of Alexandria, Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, 
 Brunswick, Buckingham, Campbell, Caroline, Char- 
 10 
 
 lotte, Cuipeper, Cumberland, Dimviddie, Essex, Fair- 
 fax, Fluvanna, Goochland, Gloucester, Hanover, Hen- 
 rico, Henry, Isle of Wight, King George, King and Queen, 
 King "William, Lunenburg, Louisa, Madison. Nansemond, 
 Nelson, Northampton, Nottoway, Patrick, Powhatan, 
 Prince Edward, Princess Ann, Prince William, Rappa- 
 hannock, Spottsylvania, Stafford, Sussex, and the town 
 of Lynchburg shall each elect one delegate : the coun- 
 ties ©f Accomack, Albemarle, Bedford, Chesterfield, 
 Fauquier, Franklin, Halifax, Mecklenburg, Pittsylva- 
 nia. Norfolk, and the cities of Norfolk and Petersburg 
 shall each elect two delegates ; the county of Loudoun 
 shall elect three delegates, and Richmond city shall 
 elect four delegates' : the counties of Morgan and 
 Hampshire shall together elect two delegates ; the 
 counties of Bath and Alleghany shall together elect one 
 delegate ; the counties of Highland and Pendleton shall 
 together elect one delegate : the counties of Clarke, 
 Hardy, Page, Ptoanoke and Warren shall each elect one 
 delegatj : the counties of Berkeley, Frederick, Bote- 
 tourt, Jefferson, Rockbridge and Shenandoah shall each 
 elect two delegates ; the counties of Rockingham «and 
 Augusta shall each elect three delegates : the counties 
 of Grayson and Carroll shall together elect one dele- 
 gate ; the counties of Giles and Mercer shall together 
 elect one delegate : the counties of Logan, Boone, Wy- 
 oming and Raleigh shall together elect one delegate ; 
 the counties of Cabell and Wayne shall together elect 
 one delegate ; the counties of Fayette and Nicholas 
 shall together elect one delegate : the counties of Brax- 
 ton and Gilmer shall together elect one delegate ; the 
 counties of Wirt and Ritchie shall together elect one 
 delegate ; the counties of Randolph and Pocahontas 
 shall together elect one delegate ; the counties of Tyler 
 and Wetzel shall together elect one delegate ; the coun- 
 ties of Kanawha and Putnam shall together elect two 
 delegates ; the counties of Doddridge and Harrison 
 shall together elect two delegates ; the counties of Bar- 
 bour, Brooke, Floyd, Greenbrier, Hancock, Jackson, 
 Lee, Lewis, Marion, Marshall, Mason, Monroe, Mont- 
 gomery, Preston, Pulaski, Russell, S my the, Scott, Taze- 
 well, Taylor, Wood and Wythe shall each elect one dele- 
 gate, and the counties of Washington, Monongalia and 
 Ohio shall each elect two delegates. 
 
 3. The other house of the general assembly shall be 
 called tne Senate and shall consist of fifty-one members, 
 for the election ©f whom the counties, cities, and towns 
 shall be divided into fifty-one districts, as hereinafter 
 provided : Each county of the respective districts at 
 the time of its first election of its delegate or delegates , 
 under this constitution, shall vote for one senator, and 
 the sheriffs of the county, city, or town, within five 
 days at furthest after the last county, city or town elec- 
 tion in the district, shall meet at some convenient place, 
 and from the polls so taken in their respective counties, 
 cities or towns, return as a senator th? person who shall 
 have the greatest number of votes in the whole district. 
 To keep up the senate by rotation, the districts shall be 
 divided into two classes as nearly equal as may be and 
 numbered by lot. At the end of two years after the 
 first general election, the members elected by the first 
 division shall be displaced and the vacancies thereby 
 occasioned, supplied from such class or division by a 
 new election in the manner aforesaid. This rotation 
 shall be applied to each division according to its num- 
 ber, and continued in due order biennially. And for 
 the election of senators, the counties of Accomack, 
 Northampton, Elizabeth City, Warwick and York shall 
 form one district ; the counties of Matthews, Glouces- 
 ter, Middlesex, Lancaster and Northumberland shall 
 form another district ; the counties of Richmond, West- 
 moreland, King George and Stafford shall form anoth- 
 er district ; Richmond city shall form another district; 
 the counties of Henrico, James City and Charles City 
 shall form another district ; the counties of New Kent, 
 King William, King and Queen and Essex shall form an- 
 other district; the counties of Caroline and Spottsylvania 
 shall form another district ; the counties of Hanovtr, 
 Goochland and Fluvanna shall form another district ; 
 the counties of Louisa, Orange and Green© shall foim 
 
146 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVEiYliorv. 
 
 another district ; the county of Albemarle shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Madison, Cuipeper and 
 Rappahannock shall form another district ; the coun- 
 ties of Fauquier and Prince William shall form another 
 district ; the counties of Fairfax and Alexandria shall 
 form another district ; the county of Loudoun shall form 
 another district ; the county of Princess Ann and the 
 city of Norfolk shall form another district ; the coun- 
 ties of Norfolk and Nansemond shall form another dis- 
 trict ; the counties ef Isle of Wight, Southampton and 
 Sussex shall form another district ; the counties of Sur- 
 ry and Prince George and the city of Petersburg shall 
 form another district ; the counties of Dinwiddie, 
 Brunswick and Greensville shall form another district ; 
 the counties of Chesterfield, Powhatan and Amelia shall 
 form another district ; the counties of Nottoway. Prince 
 Edward and Lunenburg shall form another' district ; 
 the counties of Mecklenburg and Charlotte shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Campbell and Appo- 
 mattox and the town of Lynchburg shall form another 
 district ; the counties of Buckingham, Cumberland and 
 Nelson shall form another district ; the county of Hali- 
 fax shall form another district ; the county of Pittsyl- 
 vania shall form another district ; the counties of Pat- 
 rick, Henry and Franklin shall form another district ; 
 the counties of Bedford and Amherst shall form anoth- 
 er district; the counties of Roanoke, Botetourt and 
 Alleghany shall form another district ; the counties of 
 Rockbridge, Bath, Highland and Pendleton shall form 
 another district ; the county of Augusta shall form an- 
 other district ; the county of Rockingham shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Page and Shenandoah 
 shall form another district ; the counties of Warren 
 and Frederick shall form another district ; the counties 
 of Clarke and Jefferson shall form another district ; 
 the counties of Berkeley and Morgan shall form another 
 district ; the counties of Hampshire and Hardy shall 
 form another district ; the counties of Lee, Scott and 
 Russell shall form another district ; the counties of 
 Washington and Smythe shall form another district ; 
 the counties of Wythe, Pulaski and Tazewell shall 
 form another district ; the counties of Montgomery, 
 Floyd, Carroll and Grayson shall form another district : 
 the counties of Giles, Mercer and Monroe shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Logan, Boone, Wyo- 
 ming, Raleigh, Cabell, Wayne and Fayette shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Kanawha, Putnam 
 and Mason shall form another district ; the counties of 
 Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pocahontas and Braxton shall 
 form another district ; the counties of Jackson, Wood, 
 Wirt, Gilmer and Ritchie shall form another district ; 
 the counties of Hancock, Brooke and Ohio shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Marshall, Tyler and 
 Wetzel shall form another district ; the counties of 
 Doddridge, Harrison and Lewis shall form another dis- 
 trict ; the counties of Marion, Monongalia and Taylor 
 shall form another district, and the counties of Pres- 
 ton. Randolph and Barbour shall form another dis- 
 trict. 
 
 4. The General Assembly after the year 1862, and at 
 intervals thereafter of not less than ten years, shall re- 
 apportion the representation of the counties, cities and 
 towns of this commonwealth, in both legislative bodies, 
 according to the number of white inhabitants- contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes raised by the legislature, 
 paid in each, deducting therefrom all taxes paid on li- 
 censes and law process. In making such re-apportion- 
 ment, there shall be allowed one delegate for every sev- 
 enty fifth part of the said inhabitants, and one delegate 
 for every seventy fifth part of the said taxes, and the 
 senators shall be distributed in like manner. 
 
 5. In every re-apportionment of representation in 
 the general assembly under this amended constitution, 
 the amount of taxes shall be estimated from the aver- 
 age of the ten preceding years. 
 
 6. The whole number of members to which the State 
 may at any time be entitled in the House of Representa- 
 tives of the United States, shall be apportioned as near- 
 ly as may be amongst the several cities, counties and 
 
 towns, according to their respective numbers, which 
 shall be determined by adding to the whole number of 
 free persons, excluding those bound to service for a term 
 of years, and including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of 
 all other persons. 
 
 (B.) 
 
 Sec. 1. The legislature thai! be formed of two distinct 
 branches, which together, shall be a complete legislature, 
 and shall be called the General Assembly of Virginia. 
 
 2. One of/these shall be called the House of Delegates, 
 and shall consist of one hundred and fifty-six members, 
 to be chosen biennially by the qualified voters of the 
 several counties and cities of the commonwealth; and 
 the other of these shall be called the Senate, and shall 
 consist of thirty-six members, to be chosen in like man- 
 ner, and to continue in office for four years. 
 
 3. The qualification necessary to confer the right of 
 suffrage shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth, 
 so that in all elections of senators and delegates, the 
 same qualification shall confer the same right of suf- 
 frage ; and the suffrage of one qualified voter shall avail 
 as much as that of another qualified voter, whatever may 
 be the difference in value of the property owned by 
 them respectively. 
 
 4. As individual suffrage should be equal without re- 
 spect to the difference of individual wealth, so an equal 
 number of qualified voters shall be entitled to equal 
 representation, without regard to their aggregate 
 wealth. 
 
 5. Representation shall be equal and uniform in 
 this commonwealth, and shall always be regulated 
 and ascertained by the number of qualified voters 
 therein. 
 
 6. In the year 1855, and in every tenth year there- 
 after, an enumeration of all the qualified voters within 
 the commonwealth shall be made ; at the several ses- 
 sions of the general assembly which shall be held next 
 after the making of such enumerations, the number of 
 senators and delegates shall be apportioned among the 
 several districts, counties and cities, as near as may be, 
 according to the number of qualified voters in each ; 
 and until such first enumeration and apportionment shall 
 be made, the number of delegates shall be apportioned 
 and distributed as follows, to wit : the city of Richmond 
 and the county of Henrico shall together elect four 
 delegates ; the counties of Loudoun, Augusta, Rocking- 
 ham and Ohio, shall each elect three delegates ; the 
 counties of Accomack, Norfolk, Campbell, Halifax, Pitt- 
 sylvania, Bedford, Franklin. Albemarle, Fauquier, Berke- 
 ley, Jefferson, Frederick, Hampshire, Shenandoah, Rock- 
 bridge, Pre-ton, Monongalia, Marshall, Harrison, Marion, 
 Russel, Washington and Kanawha shall each elect two 
 delegates ; the counties of Botetourt and Alleghany 
 shall together elect two delegates ; the counties of 
 Greenbrier and Pocahontas shall together elect two 
 delegates ; the counties of Monroe and Mercer shall 
 together elect two delegates ; the counties of Wood 
 and Wirt shall together elect two delegates ; the coun- 
 ties of Gilmer and Lewis shall together elect two dele- 
 gates ; and the counties of Wythe and Pulaski shall to- 
 gether elect two delegates ; the counties of Northamp- 
 ton, Princess Anne, Nansemond, Isle of Wight, South- 
 ampton, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Chesterfield, Mecklen- 
 burg, Lunenburg, Prince Edward, Appomattox, Char- 
 lotte. Buckingham, Patrick, Henry, Hanover, Louisa, 
 Goochland, Fluvanna, Nelson, Amherst, Madison, 
 Culpeper, Rappahannock, Spottsylvania, Caroline, 
 Gloucester, Matthews, Prince William, Alexandria, 
 Fairfax, Morgan, Clarke, Warren, Page, Hardy, Pen- 
 dleton, Roanoke, Hancock, Brooke, Wetzel, Tyler, 
 Taylor, Barbour, Braxton, Nicholas, Randolph, Jack- 
 son, Mason, Putnam, Cabell, Wayne, Giles, Montgom- 
 ery, Floyd, Carroll, Grayson, Tazewell and Smythe, 
 and the cities of Norfolk and Petersburg, shall each 
 elect one delegate ; the counties of Greenesville and Sus- 
 sex shall together elect one delegate ; the counties of 
 Prince George and Surry shall together elect one dele- 
 gate ; the counties of Amelia and Nottoway shall togeth- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 147 
 
 er elect one delegate ; the counties of Cumberland and ; 
 Powhatan shall together elect one delegate ; the counties 
 of Warwick, Elizabeth City and York shall together elect 
 one delegate ; the counties of Charles City, New Kent, 
 James City and the city of Williamsburg shall together 
 elect one delegate ; the counties of Orange and Greene 
 shall together elect one delegate ; the counties of King 
 William and King and Queen shall together elect one 
 delegate : the counties of Essex and Middlesex shall 
 together elect one delegate ; the counties of Lancaster 
 and Northumberland shall together elect one delegate : 
 the counties of Richmond and Westmoreland shall to- 
 gether elect one delegate ; the counties of King George 
 •and Stafford shall together elect one delegate.: the coun- 
 ties of Highland and Bath shall together elect one dele- 
 gate ; the counties of Doddridge and Ritchie shall to- 
 gether elect one delegate ; the counties of Logan and 
 Boone shall together elect one delegate ; the counties 
 of Fayette, Wyoming and Raleigh shall together elect 
 one delegate ; and the counties of Scott and Lee 
 shall each elect one delegate, and shall together elect one 
 delegate. 
 
 7 For the election of senators, the several counties 
 and' cities shall be divided into thirty-six districts, com- 
 posed of contiguous territory and as compact in form as 
 may be. Each county and city of the respective dis- 
 tricts at the time of its first election of its delegate or 
 delegates under this constitution shall vote for one 
 senator, and the sheriffs or other officers holding the 
 election for each county and city within five days at 
 furthest after the last county or city election in the 
 district, shall meet at some convenient place, and from 
 the polls so taken in their respective counties or cities, 
 return as a senator for the person who shall have the 
 greatest number of votes in the whole district. Imme- 
 diately after the senators shall be assembled, in conse- 
 quence of such election, they shall be divided by lot 
 into two classes. The seats of the senators of the first 
 class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second 
 year, and of the second class at the expiration of the 
 fourth year after such first election, and this rotation 
 shall be" continued biennially, so that one-half may be 
 chosen every second year. 
 
 And until the first enumeration and apportionment 
 herein before provided shall have been made, the coun- 
 ties of Ohio, Brooke, and Hancock shall form one dis- 
 trict; the counties of Monongalia and Preston shall 
 form another district; the counties of Tyler, Wetzel, 
 Marshall, and Doddridge shall form another district; the 
 counties of Harrison, Taylor, and Marion shall form 
 another district; the counties of Randolph, Barbour, 
 Lewis, and Braxton shall form another district ; the 
 counties of Wood, Wirt, Ritchie, Jackson, and Gilmer 
 shall form another district ; the counties of Kanawha, 
 Putnam and Mason shall form another district; the 
 counties of Monroe, Greenbrier, Nicholas and Pocahontas 
 shall form another district ; the counties of Cabell, 
 Wayne, Logan, Boone, Fayette, Raleigh and Wyoming 
 shall form another district ; the counties of Floyd, 
 Pulaski, Montgomery, Giles and Mercer shall form an- 
 other district ; the counties of Wythe, Carroll and Taze- 
 well shall form another district ; the counties of Wash- 
 ington, Smythe and Grayson shall form another district; 
 the counties of Lee, Scoit and Russell shall form another 
 district; the counties of Botetourt, Roanoke and Rock- 
 bridge shall form another district ; the counties of Au- 
 gusta, Alleghany and Bath shall form another district; 
 the counties of Rockingham, Pendleton and Highland 
 shall form another district ; the counties of Shenandoah, 
 Hardy and Page shall form another district ; the coun- 
 ties of Frederick, Hampshire and Warren shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Berkeley, Jefferson, 
 Clarke and Morgan shall form another district ; the 
 counties of Loudoun, Fairfax and Alexandria shall form 
 another district ; the counties of Fauquier, Rappahan- 
 nock and Prince William shall form another district ; the 
 counties of Culpeper, Spottsylvania, Madison, Greene 
 and Orange shall form another district ; the counties of 
 
 Albemarle, Nelson and Amherst shall form another dis- 
 trict ; the counties of Hanover, Goochland, Louisa, Flu- 
 vanna and King William shall form another district; the 
 city of Richmond and the county of Henrico shall form 
 another district ; the counties of New Kent, Charles 
 City, York, Elizabeth City, vTarwick, Northampton, 
 Accomack, James City, and the city of Williamsburg 
 shall form another district ; the counties of Stafford, 
 King George, Yfestmoreland, Richmond, Northumber- 
 land and Lancaster shall form another district; the 
 counties of Caroline, Essex, King and Queen, Middlesex, 
 Gloucester and Matthews shall form another district; 
 the counties of- Norfolk, Princess Anne, and the city of 
 Norfolk shall form another district ; the counties of South- 
 ampton, Sussex, Prince George, Surry, Isle of Wight and 
 Nansemond shall form another district; the counties of 
 Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Mecklenburg and 
 Greenesviile shall form another district ; the counties of 
 Powhatan, Amelia, Ch ^erneld, Dinwiddie and the city, 
 of Petersburg shall form another district ; the counties 
 Buckingham, Appomattox, Cumberland, Prince Edward 
 and Charlotte shall form another district ; the counties 
 of Bedford and Campbell shall form another district; 
 the counties of Pittsylvania and Halifax shall form an- 
 other district ; the counties of Franklin, Henry and 
 Patrick shall form another district ; and each of said 
 districts shall be entitled to elect one senator. 
 
 8. When a new county shall hereafter be created, it 
 shall be the duty of the General Assembly to make pro- 
 vision, by law, for securing to the people of such new 
 county an adequate representation, which provision 
 shall continue until the next regular decimal re-appor- 
 tionment ; but this section shall not authorize an in- 
 crease of senators or delegates beyond the numbers 
 hereinbefore prescribed. 
 
 AN APPORTIONMENT FOR A SENATE OF FIFTY-TWO MEMBERS, 
 TO ACCOMPANY B. 
 
 Accomack, Northampton, York, James City, Wil- 
 liamsburg and Charles City one district ; Elizabeth City, 
 Warwick, Norfolk city and Princess Anne another dis- 
 trict ; Norfolk county and Nansemond another district ; 
 Isle of Wight, Southampton, Sussex, Surry and Greenes- 
 viile another district ; Prince George, Petersburg and 
 Chesterfield another district ; Mecklenburg, Bruns- 
 wick and Lunenburg another district ; Dinwiddie, Not- 
 toway, Amelia, Powhatan and Prince Edward another 
 district ; Cumberland, Buckingham, Appomattox and 
 Fluvanna another district ; Franklin and Henry an- 
 other district ; Pittsylvania another district ; Halifax 
 and Charlotte another district ; Bedford another dis- 
 trict ; Campbell and Amherst another district ; Albe- 
 marle and Nelson another district ; Richmond city an- 
 other district ; New Kent, Henrico and Hanover an- 
 other district ; Goochland, Louisa and Spottsylvania 
 another district ; Orange, Greene, Madison and Cul- 
 peper another district ; Rappahannock and Fauquier 
 another district ; Loudoun another district ; Alexan- 
 dria, Fairfax and Prince William another district ; 
 Stafford, King George and Caroline another district ; 
 Essex, Westmoreland, Richmond, Northumberland and 
 Lancaster, another district ; Matthews, Middlesex, 
 Gloucester, King and Queen and King William anoth- 
 er district ; Botetourt and Roanoke another district ; 
 Alleghany, Bath and Rockbridge another district ; Au- 
 gusta another district ; Rockingham another district ; 
 Highland, Pendleton and Hardy another district ; 
 Shenandoah and Page another district ; Frederick, 
 Clarke and Warren another district ; Hampshire and 
 Morgan another district ; Jefferson and Berkeley an- 
 other district ; Ohio another district ; Brooke, Han- 
 cock and Marshall another district ; Monongalia and 
 Wetzel another district ; Marion and Tyler another 
 district ; Preston and Taylor another district ; Harri- 
 son and Barbour another district ; Lewis, Randolph 
 and Braxton another district ; Doddridge, Ritchie, 
 Wood and Gilmer another district ; Mason, Jackson 
 and Wirt another district ; Kanawha and Putnam an- 
 other district ; Greenbrier, Nicholas and Pocahontas 
 
148 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 another district : Cabell, Wayne* Logan, Boone and 
 Wyoming another district ; Monroe, Mercer, Raleigh 
 and Fayette another district ; Montgomery, Pulaski and 
 Giles another district ; Patrick, Floyd and Carroll an- 
 ether district ; Grayson and W^the another district; 
 Smythe and Washington another district ; Tazewell and 
 R.ussell another district ; and Scott and Lee another 
 district. 
 
 The report was laid on the table, and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 PRINTING OF THE REPORT OF THE BASIS COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN. I move that five hundred extra copies 
 of the report and accompanying documents just present- 
 ed by the Committee ou the Basis, be printed for the use 
 of the Convention. 
 
 The motion was agreed to — a count being had — ayes 
 48, nays 32. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow, 
 at 12, M. 
 
 FRfDA Y. February 7, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Empie of the Episcopal church. 
 The, journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 CORRECTION OF THE CENSUS RETURNS. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I desire to bring to the notice of 
 the Convention an error which I have discovered in the 
 tabular statement, showing the population of each 
 county in the commonwealth, in regard to my own 
 county. It is an error which I have discovered since 
 the report of the Committee on the Basis and Appor- 
 tionment, and I desire simply to correct it, in order 
 that the true statement may appear in the proceed- 
 ings of this body. I find that the tabular statement re- 
 ferred to, reports the county of Spottsylvania, inclu- 
 ding the town of Fredericksburg, as containing 5,237 
 whites. The true statement, as proved by an examina- 
 tion of the census returns, and which I have obtained 
 from the auditor, and certified to by him, is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Free white. 
 
 F. col'd. 
 
 Slaves. 
 
 Total. 
 
 County, 4,315 
 
 251 
 
 6,308 
 
 10,853 
 
 Fredericksburg, 2,581 
 
 306 
 
 1,176 
 
 4,062 
 
 6,896 
 
 557 
 
 7,484 
 
 14,915 
 
 This statement shows the number of free white in- 
 habitants to be 6,896, making a difference of 1,659 in 
 favor of the county, as compared with the statement in 
 the tabular statement. 1 call this matter to the notice 
 of the Convention, not only because I desire to correct 
 a statement which is to go forth to the people at large, 
 but because I think it important that other members of 
 this Convention should verify, by examination, the cen- 
 sus returns. I understand fr.un the auditor that the 
 correction will appear in the statement called for by 
 the resolution of the gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. 
 Byrd,) which will be furnished in a day or two. 
 
 REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. I am instructed by the 
 Committee on Education and Public Instruction, to 
 make a report, which I ask may be read, laid on the 
 table, and printed. 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 The committee on education and public instruction 
 make the following report: 
 
 1. The Legislature shall provide by law for popular 
 instruction. 
 
 2. The Legislature shall cause each county, city and 
 town, to be laid off into districts of convenient size, and 
 shall by law enable the heads of families and tax-payers 
 within such districts to elect to have common and pri- 
 mary free schools ; shall provide for the election of 
 commissioners for the same ; and shall enable said dis- 
 tricts to lay and collect taxes, under proper limitations, 
 in such mode as they for themselves may adopt, for the 
 support of such schools. 
 
 3. The loans to the University, to Emory and Henry 
 College, to Richmond Medical College, and to other 
 colleges and schools in the State, shall be cancelled, 
 and the same shall be donated to said University, col- 
 leges and schools. 
 
 4. The literary fund of the State shall be increased, 
 from time to time, by law ; shall, for the future, be 
 safely invested in the bonds of this State ; and the rev- 
 enue arising therefrom- shall in no wise be diverted 
 from the purposes of education, but s-hall be appropri- 
 ated to that object in such manner as the legislature 
 may direct. 
 
 5. All lands and other property which have been, or 
 may hereafter be, given, granted, or bequeathed to the 
 State, to coui'ties, cities, towns, colleges, academies, 
 schools, school districts, individuals, or communities, 
 for the purposes of education or the promotion of the 
 arts and sciences, and the proceeds thereof, shall be 
 consecrated, held, invested, and applied lor such ob- 
 jects, and in accordance with such gifts, grants, or be- 
 quests, and for no other purpose. 
 
 The report was then laid on the table and ordered to' 
 be printed. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I desire simply to say, in sub- 
 mitting the substitute which I now do for the report 
 just handed in by the chairman of the Committee on 
 Education, that the committee were very far from 
 being unanimous in the adaption of that report. I diff er 
 from it myself, almost entirely ; and I beg leave to sub- 
 mit the following proposition, and ask that it may be 
 read, laid on the table, and printed ; and to give notice 
 that I will, at a proper time, offer it as a substitute for 
 the report on education. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Is it a minority report, or your 
 own proposition ? 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. It is my own. It is simply a 
 proposition which I wish to substitute for the report of 
 the committee. 
 
 The proposition was then read by the Secretary, as 
 follows: 
 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 1. The fund now called and known as the literary 
 fund, (except such part thereof as may have been loaned 
 to the University, and other colleges of the State, which 
 said loans shall be released and donated to the Univer- 
 sity and other colleges respectively,) shall be hence- 
 forth called and known as the " common and free school 
 fund," which may be increased, from time to time, by 
 taxation or otherwise. The legislature shall provide 
 by law for the safe investment of the principal, and the 
 payment of the interest thereon, and for a fair, just, 
 and equitable distribution of such interest (or other 
 revenue arising from said fund) among the several 
 counties, cities, towns, and school districts, to be ap- 
 plied and appropriated in aid of common and free 
 schools, but for no other purpose whatever ; and if not 
 called for by such county, city, town, or school district 
 within two years, for that purpose, the proportion of 
 such county, city, town, or school district shall be re- 
 invested for the benefit of said fund. 
 
 2. The legislature shall cause the several cities, 
 counties, and towns to be laid off in districts of conve- 
 nient size, and shall enable the tax-payers and heads of 
 families within such districts to elect to have either 
 common or free schools therein, and to elect commis- 
 sioners for the same, and to lay and collect taxes with- 
 in such district, under proper limitation of law, in such 
 mode as they themselves may adopt, for the purpose of 
 raising any additional sum necessary for the support of 
 such common or free school, after first applying for 
 that purpose the proportion of the aforesaid common 
 and free school fund to which such school district may 
 be entitled. 
 
 3. All the funds which shall hereafter accrue to the 
 State from escheats, forfeitures, or fines, (except militia 
 fines,) or from the estate of a decedent of which there 
 is no other distributee j, or from any other property as. 
 derelict and having no other owner, together with any 
 sum which may be added thereto by taxation or other- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 149 
 
 wise, shall be held inviolate for the promotion of learn- 
 ing. The principal shall be safely invested, and all 
 revenue arising therefrom shall be by the legislature 
 (under such provisions as it may require and provide) 
 applied and appropriated in aid and support of the Uni- 
 versity, and such colleges, academies, common and 
 free schools as now are, or may hereafter be, estab- 
 lished : Provided, That in no case shall the aforesaid 
 fund, hereby called the common and free school fund, 
 be diverted from, or applied to, any purpose other than 
 in aid and support of the aforesaid common or free 
 schools. 
 
 The report was then laid on the table and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. Having been absent for the last ten 
 days, I have had no means of knowing what report the 
 Committee on Education might make to the Conven- 
 tion. I take this occasion merely to say, that I en- 
 tirely disapprove of all the substantial features em- 
 braced not only in the report, but in the substitute of 
 the gentleman from Essex. 1 shall, at the proper time, 
 offer such amendments as in my opinion ought to be 
 adopted on the subject. 
 
 REPORT FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. The committee appointed to take 
 into consideration so much of the present constitution 
 as relates to the Supreme Court ot Appeals, and the 
 Superior Court , and the mode of appointment and tenure 
 of tlie office of the officers and the judges of said courts, 
 other than sheriffs, have had the subject under conside- 
 ration, and have directed me to make a report. Before 
 the report is read, I beg leave to make a remark in ex- 
 planation. The committee on the Judiciary did not 
 consider that they were appointed for the mere purpost- 
 of reporting a judiciary system to this Convention in 
 order that such a system might be acted upon de novo 
 in this body. They were deeply impressed with the im- 
 portance and the difficulty of the subject, and they were 
 resolved to devote all their best efforts in order that 
 they might digest and report to the Convention the best 
 judiciary system in their power. They have performed 
 that office. They have devored a month of pretty close 
 labor to the discharge of this duty, and the paper which 
 I have just submitted is the result of their labors. The 
 committee were unanimous in one thing, and that is. 
 that the end and object of the judiciary system, is the 
 steady, certain, and pure administration of justice. They 
 were unanimous in another thing, that the judges in- 
 vested with the judiciary power, should be, so far as 
 possible, men of the greatest wisdom, learning and judi- 
 cial qualifications, and integrity in the land ; that, while 
 in office, while in the discharge of th ir duties, they 
 should be independent ; that their minds should, a*> 
 much as possible, be undisturbed by undue influences; 
 that they should bring to the decision of the importaut 
 subjects which come before them, a mind as pure as pos- 
 sible, unbiased, and impartial ; that they should not be 
 led into temptation, but as much as possible be guarded 
 againsr it ; and that they should be duly responsible for 
 their fidelity in the execution of their duties. The com- 
 mittee were unanimous in another thing, that the mode 
 of electing the judges, and the tenure of office was best 
 which was best calculated to attain these great ends, of 
 exalting such men to the judicial stations, and of secu 
 ring such a pure and unadulterated administration of 
 justice. Thus unanimous, the committee set about the 
 discharge of their important duties. But in the selec- 
 tion of the means for attaining these great ends, 1 
 regret to say, that though thus unanimous as to the 
 ends, and though thus unanimous as to the character oi 
 the machinery by which those ends were to be reached 
 they were not so fortunate in the selection of the meam 
 for attaining those ends. It soon appeared that there was- 
 a great diversity of views on some important points 
 connected with our duty. Some five or six — 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair feels bound to state to 
 the gentleman that any statements of the proceedings 
 
 in the committee are not in order. These explanations 
 have been permitted, where it is necessary for the pur- 
 pose of information in guiding the proceedings of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. I did not wish to be out of order, 
 but I thought it due to the committee to state to the 
 Convention how far they were unanimous, in the report 
 which you hold in your hand, in order that the report 
 may be received -by the Convention with just so much 
 weight as it is entitled to. I wish merely to state to 
 the Convention, that with this unanimity of feeling as 
 to the ends in view, when we came to make our report, 
 there was a diversity of views in the committee ; that 
 these different views were, by their different advocates, 
 presented and urged and considered by the committee ; 
 and that after the most patient and laborious conside- 
 ration of them, the committee finally settled down upon 
 the report which you hold in your hand — that is, a ma- 
 jority of the committee. And while the report is not 
 precisely as any member of the committee would have 
 had it ; while it is perhaps not such a report as would, at 
 the commencement of our labors, have been taken as a 
 whole, yet at the end of their labors, it was a report 
 which a majority of the committee agreed to adopt as 
 a whole, and which they consider as the very best sys- 
 tem on which they could agree. They have recom- 
 mended it to this body ; and while I agree with the 
 committee in general, perhaps not one of us will say 
 that it is precisely, in all respects, such as we would 
 have had it to be. While we know it is not free from 
 objections ; while we know and desire that it should be 
 amended so far as it requires amendment, yet we verily 
 believe that it will effect this great object which we all 
 have in view, and secure to the State an enlightened and 
 independent judiciary, and a good and safe judiciary 
 system. I have no further comments to make, except to 
 say, that the committee, not having been unauimous in 
 favor of the report, I understand that some of our mem- 
 bers will present minority reports, embodying their pe- 
 culiar views on the subject. . 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 1 he committee " appointed to take into consideration 
 so much of the present con>titution as relates to the 
 Supreme Court of Appeals and the Superior Courts — 
 the mode of appointment and tenure of office of the 
 judges and officers of said courts, (except sheriffs,) and 
 of the Attorney General," have, according to order, had 
 under consideration the subjects referred to them, and 
 make the following report thereon : 
 
 the judicial department. 
 
 1. There shall be a Supreme Court of Appeals, Dis- 
 trict Courts, and Circuit Courts. The jurisdiction of 
 these tribunals, and of the judges thereof, shall be regu- 
 lated by law, except so far as the same is prescribed in 
 this constitution. 
 
 judicial divisions. 
 
 2. The State shall ba divided into five sections, each 
 section into two districts, and each district into two 
 circuits ; which sections, districts and circuits shall be 
 bsuuded by county or corporation lines. 
 
 3. The Legislature may at the end of years after 
 
 the adoption of this constitution, and of every term of 
 
 years thereafter, re-arrange or re-organize the said 
 
 sections, districts and circuits, and place any number of 
 circuits in a district, and districts in a section: Provided, 
 that the number of sections shall not be increased or 
 diminished; that there shall not be less than two dis- 
 tricts and four circuits in a section ; and that each cir- 
 cuit shall be altogether in one district, and each district 
 in one section. But when anew county is formed of 
 parts of counties composing different circuits, it may be 
 added to either of such circuit*, and shall thenceforth, 
 form a part of the district and section to which sucb, 
 circuit belongs. 
 
150 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 COUET OF APPEALS. 
 
 4. For each of the said sections, a judge shall be elect- 
 ed by the joint vote of both houses of the General As- 
 sembly. He shall, during his continuance in office, re- 
 side in the section for which he is elected. The Supreme 
 Court of Appeals shall consist of the five judges so 
 elected, a majority of whom may hold a court. 
 
 5. The Supreme Court of Appeals shall have appel- 
 late jurisdiction only. It shall not have jurisdiction in 
 civil causes where the matter in controversy is of no 
 greater value or amount than five hundred dollars, ex- 
 clusive of costs ; except in a controversy concerning the 
 probate* of a will, the appointment or qualification of a 
 personal representative, guardian, or committee, or con- 
 cerning a mill, road, way or ferry, or the right of a cor- 
 poration or a county to levy tolls or taxes ; and except 
 in cases of habeas corpus or mandamus, and cases involv- 
 ing freedom, or the constitutionality of a law. 
 
 6. No person shall be eligible to the office of Judge 
 of the Supreme Court of Appeals who is not at the 
 time of the election at least thirty-five years of age, and 
 a resident of the section for which the election is made : 
 Nor shall any person be eligible to such office during 
 the term for which he may have been elected Governor 
 or a member of the general assembly. 
 
 7. The Judges of the Supreme Court of Appeals shall 
 hold their offices for the term of fifteen years from the 
 date of their commissions, and until their successors 
 shall be duly qualified ; or until removed in the manner 
 prescribed by this constitution : Provided, that no Judge 
 of the said Court shall remain in office after he shall 
 have attained the age of seventy years. 
 
 CIRCUIT COURTS. 
 
 8. For each of the said circuits, a judge shall be elect- 
 ed by the persons therein qualified to vote for members 
 of the General Assembly. He shall, at the time of his 
 election, be at least thirty years of age ; and shall, du- 
 ring his continuance in office, reside in the circuit of 
 which he is Judge. 
 
 9. No election of a circuit Judge shall be held within 
 thirty days of the time of holding any general election in 
 the circuit, or any part of it, of electors of President and 
 Vice President of the United States, Governor, mem- 
 bers of Congress or of the General Assembly, or any 
 other officer. 
 
 10. The Judges of the circuit courts shall hold their 
 offices for the term of ten years from the date of their 
 commissions, and until their successors shall be duly 
 qualified; or until removed in the manner prescribed 
 by this constitution. ~Ro judge of a circuit court shall 
 be re-eligible to the same office until his immediate 
 successor shall have ceased to hold the office. 
 
 11. A circuit court shall be held by the judge of each 
 circuit at least twice a year in each county, and eor- 
 
 E oration of such circuit wherein a circuit court is now 
 eld, or may hereafter, by law. be directed to be held. 
 A judge of one circuit may hold a court in another, 
 whether in or out of his district, when required or au- 
 thorized by law to do so ; and the Judges in the same 
 district may be required by law to hold the courts of 
 their respective circuits alternately. 
 
 DISTRICT COURTS. 
 
 12. A district court shall be held at least once in 
 every year, in each of the said districts, by the Judges 
 of the circuits composing the district, and the Judge 
 of the Supreme Court of Appeals who may reside in the 
 section of which said district forms apart; any two of 
 whom may hold a court. But instead of the Judge of 
 the Supreme Court of Appeals residing in such section, 
 a Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeals residing in an 
 adioining section may sit in the said district court when- 
 ever required or authorized by law to do so ; and the 
 circuit judges of one district, or either of them, may be 
 authorized or required by law to sit in the district court 
 of another district, in the same section, or to alternate 
 
 with the circuit Judges of that district, or either of 
 them, in holding such district court. 
 
 13. The district courts shall have no original jurisdic- 
 tion, except in cases of habeas corpus and mandamus, 
 and in such chancery cases as may be removed to them 
 from a circuit court by consent of parties. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 14. The said Judge shall be commissioned by the 
 Governor, and shall receive fixed and adequate salaries, 
 which shall not be diminished during their continuance 
 in office. The annual salary of a Judge of the Court of 
 Appeals shall not be less than three thousand dollars ; 
 and of a Judge of a circuit court not less than two thou- 
 sand dollars ; besides a reasonable allowance to each 
 for necessary travel. 
 
 15. The said Judges, while in office, shall holdno other 
 office, appointment or public trust, and the acceptance 
 of such, by either of them, shall vacate his judicial office. 
 And no judge while in olfice, or within one year alter 
 he shall, have ceased to hold the same, shall be elected 
 to any political office under the constitution and laws 
 of this State. 
 
 18. Judges may be removed from office by a concur- 
 rent vote of a majority of the whole number of each of 
 the houses of the General Assembly ; but the cause or 
 causes of removal shall be entered on the journal of 
 each house, and the Judge, against whom the legislature 
 may be about to proceed, shall have notice thereof, 
 accompanied by a copy of the causes alledged for his 
 removal, at least twenty days before either house of 
 the General Assembly shall act thereupon. 
 
 17. The present Judges of the Supreme Court of 
 Appeals and of the circuit courts, and their successors 
 who may be appointed under the existing constitution, 
 shall remain in office until six months after the ter- 
 mination of the first legislature elected under this con- 
 stitution, and no longer. 
 
 18. A special and temporary Court of Appeals, to 
 
 consist of three judges, may, if necessary, be consti- 
 tuted by law out of Judges of the Supreme Court of 
 Appeals and circuit courts, or any of them, to try 
 the cases, or any of them, which may remain on the 
 docket on the present Ceurt of Appeals, when the 
 Judges thereof shall cease to hold their offices as herein 
 before provided ; or to try any case which may be 
 on the docket of the Court of Appeals hereby con- 
 stituted, which a majority of the Judges thereof may, 
 from interest, relationship, or having been counsel in 
 the case, be unable to try. 
 
 19. When a judgment or decree is reversed by an 
 appellate court, the reasons for such reversal shall be 
 stated by the court, in a written opinion, to be filed 
 and preserved with the record in the case. 
 
 20. All the officers of the Supreme Court of Appeals 
 and of the district courts, except sheriffs, shall be ap- 
 pointed by the said courts respectively, or by the Judges 
 thereof, in vacation. The duties and compensation of 
 said officers, their tenure of office, and the mode of re- 
 moving them from office, shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 21. The clerks and attorneys for the commonwealth 
 of the circuit courts, shall be elected by the qualified 
 voters of the counties or corporations for which said 
 courts are held respectively ; and shall hold their offices 
 for the term of seven years from the date of their elec- 
 tion, and until their successors shall be duly qualified. 
 Their duties and compensation, and the mode of remov- 
 ing them from office, shall be prescribed bylaw. 
 
 22. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of 
 Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeals, or of Judge, 
 clerk or attorney of the commonwealth of a circuit court, 
 his successor shall be elected for the full term pre- 
 scribed by this article. 
 
 23. The legislature shall prescribe the mode of con- 
 ducting and making the returns of elections, and of de- 
 termining contested elections of Judges and other offi- 
 cers under this article of the constitution. 
 
 24. The attorney general shall be appointed by joint 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 151 
 
 vote of the two houses of the General Assembly, and vided in this constitution, and shall receive for his ser- 
 comuiissioned by the Governor ; shall hold his office for vises such compensation as may be provided bylaw, 
 the term of four years, but be removable at the pleasure | v\ hich shall not be increased or diminished during his 
 of the General Assembly ; and shall perform such duties j continuance in ofiice. 
 
 and receive such compensation as may be prescribed ! 9. The judge of the court of appeals shall hold office 
 by law. 'for eight years, and of the circuit court for six years 
 
 25. Writs shall run in the name of the commonwealth 
 
 of Virginia, and bear teste by the clerks of the several 
 courts. Indictments shall conclude against the peace 
 and dignity of the commonwealth. 
 
 The report wa9 then laid on the table and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. I am very sorry that the committee 
 could not agree in their report. And although it may 
 be unimportant, yet I feel that it is proper that I should 
 say that, as one of the humble members of that commit- 
 tee, I cannot and do not concur in the report they have 
 just submitted. I believe that report to be based on 
 principles fundamentally erroneous. I cannot but re- 
 gard it as violative of those great principles upon which 
 rest our institutions. I couid not, therefore, sanction 
 such a report which seemed to me to be in violation of 
 these principles. I also differ very much from the ma- 
 jority of the committee in regard to the details of that 
 report, and I will simply suggest, at this time, those 
 reasons based on the principles of the report, and its 
 details, as those that induce me to hazard my own hum- 
 ble opinion before this Convention in the form of a 
 separate plan. I will send it to you, and, at a proper 
 time, move it as a substitute for the report of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 At the present time I will merely ask that it may 
 be read, laid on the table and printed. 
 
 The proposition was then read by the Secretary as 
 follows: 
 
 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 
 
 All the judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be 
 vested in the courts established or authorized by this 
 article. 
 
 1. There shall be a court of appeals, to be composed 
 of five judges, a majority of whom shall constitute a 
 quorum. The senior of said judges shall preside in 
 court. No judgment or decree shall be reversed by the 
 court of appeals without the votes of a majority of all 
 the judges concurring therein. 
 
 2. The State shall be divided into five judicial dis- 
 tricts, and each district into three circuits, which 
 said districts and circuits shall be bounded by county 
 lines. 
 
 3. For each of the said districts one judge of the 
 ■court of appeals shall be elected by the qualified elec- 
 tors therein, who shall, during his continuance in office, 
 reside in the district for which he was elected. 
 
 4. The court of appeals shall have appellate juris- 
 diction in all civil causes, where the matter in contro- 
 versy is of the value of two hundred dollars and upwards, 
 or where the title or possession of real estate is in 
 question, and likewise in all criminal causes. 
 
 6. The sessions of the court of appeals shall be held 
 at such places, within each of the said districts, as may 
 be provided by law. 
 
 6. For each of the said circuits herein provided for, 
 a judge of the circuit court shall be elected by the 
 qualified electors therein, who shall, during his contin- 
 uance in office, reside in the circuit for which he was 
 elected. 
 
 7. There shall be a circuit court held by the judge 
 of each circuit at least twice a year in each county and 
 corporation of such circuit in which a circuit court 
 is now held, or may hereafter by law be directed to be 
 held. And the judges in the same district may be re- 
 quired by law to hold the courts of their respective 
 circuits alternately. The jurisdiction of said courts 
 shall be fixed by law. 
 
 8. The attorney general shall be elected by the qual- 
 ified electors in the State at large. He shall hold office 
 for six years, unless sooner removed in the manner pro- 
 
 unless sooner removed in the manner provided in this 
 constitution. They shall, during their continuance in 
 office, hold no other office, appointment, or public trust, 
 under the State or general government, or any foreign 
 State or government whatever; and the acceptance 
 thereof by either of them shall vacate his judicial office. 
 And they shall, during their continuance in office, re- 
 ceive adequate compensation, to be fixed by law, which 
 shali not be increased or diminished during their contin- 
 uance in office. 
 
 10. The clerk, messenger, and tipstaff for the court 
 of appeals shall be appointed by said court. The du- 
 ties and compensation of said officers, and also their 
 tenure of office, shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 11. A clerk and Commonwealth's attorney for the cir- 
 cuit court shall be elected by the qualified electors in 
 the counties and corporations respectively in which a 
 circuit court is now held, or may hereafter be directed 
 by law to be held. They shall hold their respective 
 offices for six years, unless sooner removed. The 
 duties and compensation of said officers, and also the 
 mode of their removal from office, shall be prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 12. A judge of the court of appeals, or of the circuit 
 court, or of the attorney general, may be removed from 
 office by a concurrent vote of the two houses of the 
 general assembly; but two-thirds of the members of 
 each house must concur in such vote, and the cause or 
 causes of such removal shall be entered on the journal 
 of each house ; and the judge or attorney general, 
 against whom the legislature may be about to proceed, 
 shall have notice thereof, accompanied by a copy of 
 the causes alleged for his removal, at least twenty days 
 before either house of the general assembly shall act 
 thereon; when he shall be heard in person or by coun- 
 sel, and shall be allowed every reasonable facility, by 
 process and otherwise, to enable him to make his de- 
 fence. 
 
 13. A special and temporary court of appeals, to con- 
 sist of five judges, may, if necessary, be constituted 
 by law, out of judges of the court of appeals and cir- 
 cuit courts, or either of them, to try the causes, or any 
 of them, which may remain on the docket of the pre- 
 sent court of appeals, when the judges thereof shall 
 cease to hold their offices, or try any cause or causes 
 which may be on the docket of the court of appeals 
 hereby constituted, which the judges thereof, or a ma- 
 jority of them may, from interest, relationship, or hav- 
 ing been counsel in the cause, be unable to try. 
 
 14. The present judges of the court of appeals and 
 of the circuit courts, and their successors, who may be 
 appointed under the existing constitution, shall remain 
 in office until the judges under this constitution provi- 
 ded for, shall be elected and commissioned, but no 
 longer. 
 
 15. The judges of the court of appeals and of the 
 circuit courts, and the attorney general, shall be com- 
 missioned by the governor. 
 
 16. The general assembly shall, at their first session 
 after the adoption of this constitution, arrange the seve- 
 ral districts and circuits provided for in this article, and 
 also designate the time for the election of the various 
 officers herein provided for, and also the mode of con- 
 ducting and deciding the same. 
 
 17. In case the office of any judge of the court of 
 appeals, or circuit court, or of the attorney general, 
 shall become vacant before the expiration of the regu- 
 lar term for which he was elected, the vacancy may be 
 filled by appointment by the governor until the next 
 general election, when it shall be filled by election for 
 the residue of the unexpired term. 
 
 18 The general assembly, at their first session after 
 every census, may re-arrange the judicial districts and 
 
152 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 circuits of the State, and may then, if necessary, in- 
 crease the number of circuits and of the judges there- 
 of ; provided, however, such increase shall, at no one 
 time, exceed one in each district. 
 
 19. Writs shall run in the name of the Common- 
 wealth of Virginia, and bear teste by the clerks of 
 the several courts respectively. Indictments shall 
 conclude against the peace and dignity of the Com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 The proposition was then laid on the table, and or- 
 dered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. BOWDEN. As one of the minority referred to 
 by the chairman of the judiciary committee, I beg 
 leave to present my own views iu the form of a substi- 
 tute. At the proper time I will offer it to the Conven- 
 tion in lieu of the plan proposed by the committee. At 
 present I will merely ask that it be read, laid on the 
 table, and printed. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I see no necessity for reading these 
 substitutes, and I move to dispense with their further 
 reading. 
 
 Mr. BOWDEN. I withdraw so much of the motion 
 as relates to the reading:, and simply move that it be 
 laid on the table and printed. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 The proposition is as follows : 
 
 THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Sec. 1. There shall be a Supreme Court, District 
 Courts, and Circuit Courts. The jurisdiction of these 
 tribunals, and of the judges thereof, shall be regulated 
 by law, except so far as the same is prescribed in this 
 constitution. 
 
 JUDICIAL DIVISIONS. 
 
 2. The State shall be divided into five sections, each 
 section into two districts, and each district into two 
 circuits: which sections, districts, and circuits shall be 
 bounded by county or corporation lines. 
 
 3. The legislature may , at the end of years after 
 
 the adoption of this constitution, and of every term of 
 
 years thereafter, re-arrange or re-organize the said 
 
 sections, district and circuits, and place any number of 
 circuits in a district, and of districts in a section ; Pro- 
 vided, That the number of sections shall not be increased 
 or diminished ; that there shall not be less than two 
 districts and four circuits in a section ; and that each 
 circuit shall be altogether in one district, and each dis- 
 trict in one section. But when a new county is formed 
 of parts of counties composing different circuits, it may 
 be added to either of such circuits, and shall thence- 
 forth form a part of the district and section to which 
 such circuit belongs. 
 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 
 4. For each of said sections a Judge shall be elected 
 by the joint vote of both houses of the general assembly. 
 He shall, during his continuance in office, reside in the 
 section for which he shall have been elected. The Su- 
 preme Court shall consist of five Judges so elected, a 
 majority of whom may hold a court. 
 
 5. The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdic- 
 tion only. It shall not have jurisdiction in civil causes 
 where the matter in controversy, exclusive of costs, is 
 of no greater value or amount than $1,000 ; except that 
 the legislature may extend its jurisdiction so as to em- 
 brace generally controversies concerning the probate of 
 wills, the appointment or qualification of personal rep- 
 resentatives, guardians or committees, or concerning 
 mills, roads, ways, or ferries, or the right of a corpora- 
 tion or county to levy tolls or taxes ; and except in cases 
 .of habeas corpus or mandamus, and cases involving free- 
 dom, or the constitutionality of a law. 
 
 •6. No person shall be eligible to the office of judge 
 .of the Supreme Court or of a circuit court, who shall 
 not be, at the time of his election, at least twenty-one 
 years of age ; and, if elected as a judge of the Supreme j 
 Court, he shall be, at the time of his election, a resident 
 of the section for which the election shall be made. 
 
 7. The judges of the Supreme Court shall hold their 
 jPfSces for the term of ten years from the date of their 
 
 commissions, and until their successors shall be duly 
 qualified, or until removed in the manner prescribed by 
 this constitution. 
 
 CIRCUIT COURTS. 
 
 8. For each of said circuits a judge shall be elected 
 by the persons therein qualified to vote for members of 
 the general assembly. He shall, during his continuance 
 in office, reside in the circuit of which he shall be judge. 
 
 9. The judges of the circuit courts shall hold their 
 offices for the term of seven years from the date of their 
 commissions, and until their successors shall be quali- 
 fied, or until removed in the manner prescribed in this 
 constitution. 
 
 10. A circuit court shall be held at least twice a year 
 in each county and corporation of such circuit wherein 
 a circuit court is now held, or may hereafter by law be 
 directed to be held. A judge of one circuit may hold a 
 court in another, whether in or out of his district,, when 
 required or authorized by law to do so ; and the judges 
 in the same district may be required by law to hold the 
 courts of their respective circuits alternately. 
 
 DISTRICT COURTS. 
 
 11. A district court shall be held at least once m 
 every year, in each of the said districts, by the judges 
 of the circuits comprising the district, and the judge of 
 the Supreme Court who may reside in the section, of 
 which said district forms a part ; any two of whom may 
 hold a court. But instead of the judge of the Supreme 
 Court residing in such section, a judge of the Supreme 
 Court residing in an adjoining section may sit in the 
 said district court whenever required or authorized by 
 law to do so ; and the circuit judges of one district, or 
 either of them, maybe authorized or required by law to 
 sit in the district court of another district in the same 
 section, or to alternate with the circuit judges of that 
 district, or either of them, in holding such district 
 court. 
 
 12. The district courts shall have no original juris- 
 diction, except in cases of habeas corpus and mandamus, 
 and in such chancery causes as may be removed to them 
 from the circuit courts by consent of parties ; and ex- 
 cept in the decision of such points of law, as by consent 
 of parties, may be adjourned to them from the circuit 
 courts. 
 
 13. The judges shall receive fixed and adequate sala- 
 ries, which shall not be diminished during their contin- 
 uance in office. While in office, they shall hold no oth- 
 er office, appointment, or public trust, and the acccept- 
 ance of such by either of them shall vacate his judicial 
 office. 
 
 14. The present judges of the supreme court, and of 
 the circuit courts, and their successors who may be 
 appointed under the existing constitution, shall remain 
 in office six months after the termination of the 
 first legislature elected under this constitution, and no 
 longer. 
 
 15. A special and temporary court of appeals, to con- 
 sist of five judges, may, when necessary, be constituted, 
 by law, to try such causes on the docket of the present 
 court of appeals, or of the supreme court hereby consti- 
 tuted, as a majority of the judges thereof may, from in- 
 terest, relationship, or having been counsel in the case, 
 be unable to try. 
 
 16. The clerks and attorneys for the commonwealth 
 in the circuit courts shall be elected by the qualified 
 voters of the counties or corporations for which said 
 courts shall be held respectively ; and shall hold their 
 offices for the term of four years, and until their suc- 
 cessors shall be duly qualified. 
 
 17. Their duties and compensation, and the mode of 
 removing them from office, shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 18. The legislature shall prescribe the mode of con- 
 ducting and making due returns of elections, and the 
 mode of determining contested elections of judges and 
 other officers under this article of the constitution. 
 
 19. The attorney general shall be elected by the qual- 
 ified wtera of the State ; shall hold his. office for tha 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 153 
 
 term of four years, removable by the vote of two-thirds 
 of each branch of the general assembly. He shall per- 
 form such duties and receive such compensation as may 
 be prescribed by law. 
 
 Mr CHAMBLISS. I am a member of the Judiciary 
 Committee, and regret exceedingly that it is my misfor- 
 tune to differ with the majority of so enlightened a body. 
 I differ with them in two or three extremely important 
 particulars. Differing from tVem as I do, I feel bound, 
 injustice to myself, not to permit a day to puss that any 
 human being should suppose, however little important 
 may be my opinions, that I concur with that report. I do 
 not 'design that what I shall presently present shall be 
 read at present, but that it shall be printed. I prefer to 
 state at this time one or two of the most important par- 
 ticulars in which I differ with a majority of the commit- 
 tee. The most important is, an indomitable aversion to 
 the election of any judge by the General Assembly of 
 Virginia. Another important particular in which I dif- 
 fer, is the tenure of office, and the opposition to the re- 
 eligibility of judicial offices. Another and extremely 
 important matter in which I differ from the committee 
 is, that they have multiplied intermediate courts of ap- 
 peals, to a number for which you cannot command the 
 best talents of the State. I concur with the chairman 
 •of the committee in the views which he expressed as to 
 the great ends and designs which not only the Judicial 
 Committee, but the Convention, must have in view in 
 the organization of the judiciary. If there is one 
 department of the government more important than 
 another, it is the judiciary. It is mare imp >rtant 
 than all the rest combined, for it stands alone as the 
 great shield and bulwark behind which the humblest 
 citizen can come for protection. I feel much more in- 
 terest in a proper organization of this department of 
 •the government, than I do in all other departments of 
 -government combined It may result from the fact, that 
 ■my connection in life has always been with the judicia- 
 ry, but it is the department which throws its broad aegis 
 over the humblest citizen of the land and protects his 
 rights against violation. I have embodied my views, 
 and I have in many of the detai s of the plan which he 
 proposed to submit, followed precisely the plan of the 
 committee. But I prefer that these important particu- 
 lars in which I differ from the committee, shall go along 
 with that plan, and be printed altogether, so that the 
 plan I proposed may be seen all at once, and not dis- 
 jointedly, in the form of a particular amendment. There- 
 fore, I move that the plan I now propose be laid rn the 
 table, and printed along with the report of the Judiciary 
 Committee. I do not think there is any necessity for its 
 being read. The proposition is as follows : 
 
 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 
 
 L The judicial power of this commonwealth shall be 
 vested in the supreme court, district courts, circuit 
 courts, and county courts, and in justices of the peace. 
 The jurisdiction of these tribunals, and the judges there- 
 of, shall be regulated by law, except so far as the same 
 is prescribed in this constitution. The legislature may 
 also vest such jurisdiction, as shall be deemed necessary, 
 in corporation coui ts, and in the magistrates who may 
 belong to the corporate body. 
 
 JUDICIAL DIVISIONS. 
 
 2. The State shall be divided into five sections, and 
 each section into four circuits ; which sections and cir- 
 cuits shall be bounded by county or corporation lines. 
 
 3. Ti.e legislature may, at the end of eight \ ears after 
 the adoption of this Constitution, and of every eigh 
 years thereafter, re-arrange the said sections and cir- 
 cuits; provided that the number of sections shall not 
 be increased or diminished, that there sh:dl not be less 
 than four circuits in a. section. 
 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 
 4. For each of the said sections, a judge shall be 
 «lected by the persons therein qualified to vote for mem- 
 bers of the general assembly. Ee shall, during his eon- 
 
 [tinuance in office, reside in the section f<r which he is 
 elected. The supreme court shall consist of the fi« e 
 judges so elected, a majority of whom may hold a court. 
 
 5. The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdic- 
 tion only. It shall not have jurisdiction in civil causes 
 when the matter in controversy is of less value than 
 one thousand dollars, except in controversies concern- 
 ing wills, mills, roads, fences, and the like — cases of 
 habeas corpus and mandamus, and cases involving free- 
 dom, or the constitutionality of a law. It shall possess 
 the sole power of granting writs of error in criminal 
 cases. 
 
 6. No person shall be eligible to the office of judge of 
 the supreme court, who is not, at the time of the election, 
 at least thirty years of age, and a resident of the section 
 for which the election is made ; nor shall any person be 
 eligible to such office during the term for which he may 
 have been elected governor or a member of the general 
 assembly. 
 
 7. The judges of the supreme court shall hold their 
 offices for the term of ten years from the date of their 
 commissions, or until removed in the manner prescribed 
 in this Constitution. 
 
 CIRCUIT COURTS. 
 
 8. For each of the said circuits, ajudge shall be elect- 
 ed by the qualified voters therein. He shall, at the 
 time of his election, be at least twenty-five years of age ; 
 shall hold his office for the term of eight years from the 
 date of his commission, unless sooner removed in the 
 manner prescribed in this Constitution; and shall, du- 
 ring his continuance in office, reside in the circuit of 
 which he is judge. 
 
 9. A circuit court shall be held by the judge of each 
 circuit at least twice a year in each county and corpo- 
 ration of such circuit wherein a circuit court is now 
 held, or may hereafter, by law, be directed to be held. 
 A judge of one circuit may hold a court in another 
 within the same section, when required or authorized by 
 law to do so. 
 
 DISTRICT COURTS. 
 
 10. A district court shall be held at least once in ev- 
 ery year in each of the said sections, by the judges of 
 the circuits comprised in the section, and the judge of 
 the supreme court who may reside in the section— any 
 three of whom may hold a court ; but, instead of the 
 judge of the supreme court residing in such section, a 
 judge of the supreme court in an adjoining section, may- 
 sit in the said district court whenever required or au- 
 thorized by law to do so. 
 
 11. The district courts shall have no original jurisdic- 
 tion, except hi cases of habeas corpus and mandamus, 
 and in such chancery cases as may be removed to them 
 from the circuit courts by consent of parties. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 12. No election of ajudge shall be held within thirty- 
 days of the time of holding any general election in the 
 section or circuit, or any part of either, of electors of 
 President and Vice President of the United States, Go- 
 vernor, members of Congress, or of the General Assem- 
 bly, or any other officer. 
 
 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
 13. The said judges shall be commissioned by the Go- 
 vernor, and shall receive fixed and adequate salaries, 
 which shall not be diminished during their continuance 
 in office. The annual salary of a judge of the supreme 
 court shall not be less than three thousand five hundred 
 dollars ; and of a judge of a circuit court not less than 
 two thousand dollars ; besides a reasonable allowance 
 fo each for necessary travel. 
 
 14. The said judges, while in office, shall hold no other 
 office, appointment or public trust, and the acceptance 
 of such, by either of them, shall vacate his judicial office. 
 And no judge, while in office, or within one year after 
 he shall have ceased to hoid the same, shall be elected 
 to any political office under the constitution and law* 
 of this State. 
 
154 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 15. Judges may be removed from office by a concur- 
 rent vote of a majority of the whole number of each 
 of the houses of the General Assembly ; but the cause 
 or causes of removal shall be entered on the journal of 
 each house, and the judge against whom the Legislature 
 may be about to proceed, shall have notice thereof, ac- 
 companied by a copy of the causes alledged for his re- 
 moval, at least twenty days before either house of the 
 General Assembly shall act thereupon. 
 
 16. The present judges of the supreme court of ap- 
 peals and of the circuit courts, and their successors, who 
 may be appointed under the existing Constitution, shall 
 remain in office until six months after the termination of 
 the first Legislature elected under this Constitution, and 
 no longer. 
 
 17. A special and temporary court of appeals, to con- 
 sist of five judges, may, if necessary, be constituted by 
 law out of judges of the supreme court and circuit 
 courts, or any of them, to try the cases, or any of them, 
 which may rema'n on the docket of the present court 
 of appeals, when the judges thereof shall cease to hold 
 their offices as herein before provided ; or to try any 
 case which may be on the docket of the supreme court 
 hereby constituted, which a majority of the judges there- 
 of may, from interest, relationship, or having been coun- 
 sel in the case, be unable to try. 
 
 18. When a judgment or decree is reversed by an ap- 
 pellate court, the reasons for such reversal shall be sta- 
 ted by the court, in a written opinion, to be filed and 
 preserved with the record in the case. 
 
 19. All the officers of the supreme court and of the 
 district courts, except sheriffs, shall be appointed by the 
 said courts respectively, or by the judges thereof in va- 
 cation. The duties and compensation of said officers, 
 their tenure of office, and the mode of removing them 
 from office, shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 20. The clerks and attorneys for the Commonwealth 
 of the circuit courts, shall be elected by the qualified 
 voters of the counties or corporations for which said 
 courts are held respectively ; and shall hold their offices 
 for the term of eight years from the date of their elec- 
 tion, and until their successors shall be duly qualified. 
 Their duties and compensation, and the mode of remo- 
 ving them from office, shall be prescribed by law. 
 
 21. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of 
 judge of the supreme court, or of judge, clerk or attor- 
 ney for the commonwealth of a circuit court, his succes- 
 sor shall be elected for the full term prescribed by this 
 article. 
 
 22. The Legislature shall prescribe the mode of con- 
 ducting and making due returns of elections, and of de- 
 termining contested elections of judges and other offi- 
 cers under this article of the Constitution. 
 
 23. The attorney general shall be appointed by joint 
 vote of the two houses of the General Assembly, and 
 commissioned by the Governor; and shall hold his 
 office for the term of four years, but be removable at 
 the pleasure of the General Assembly ; and shall per- 
 form such duties and receive such compensation as may 
 be prescribed by law. 
 
 24. Writs shall run in the name of the Commonwealth 
 of Virginia, and bear teste by the clerks of the several 
 courts. Indictments shall conclude against the peace 
 and dignity of the Commonwealth. 
 
 The proposition was then laid on the table and order- 
 ed to be printed. 
 
 RESTRICTION OF DEBATE. 
 
 ' Mr. FULKERSON. I desire that the resolution which 
 I offered yesterday, be now taken up from the table, and 
 as I desire the country to know who is responsible for 
 all unnecessary delay, I call for the yeas and nays upon 
 that question. 
 
 The resolution was read by the Secretary as follows : 
 
 . Resolved, That the 5th rule of the rules and regula- 
 tions of the Convention be adopted to govern the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole. 
 The rule is as follows : 
 
 " 5th. No member shall speak: more than twice to the 
 
 same question, without leave, nor more than once, until 
 every other member intending to speak, shall have 
 spoken." 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I appeal to the gentleman to dis- 
 pense with his call for the yeas and nays on this mere 
 question of taking up the resolution. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I am utterly opposed to any of these 
 rules. Are they proposed now for action % 
 
 The PRES 1DENT. The question is on taking up the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Scott, and on that ques- 
 tion he has demanded the veas and navs. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. At the suggestion of several 
 members around me, I agree to withdraw the ca?I for 
 the yeas and nays. 
 
 The motion to take up the resolution was then agreed 
 
 to. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. I ask for the yeas and nays on 
 the adoption of the resolution. 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 Mr. WISE. I would like the question taken seperate- 
 ly on the two rules. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. There is only one rule referred to 
 in the resolution. 
 
 Mr. WISE. There are two clauses then, sir, and that 
 is the, same. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The proposition is not divisible, 
 and the gentleman from Accomac can attain his end by 
 moving to confine the application of the resolution to 
 either one or the other of the two clauses of the rule. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I move to amend, then, by striking out 
 the first clause, or rather to adopt that part of the rule 
 which compels a gentleman who has once addressed the 
 committee, to defer speaking again, until other gentle- 
 ! men who have not spoken, shall have had an opportu- 
 nity to do so. I would not compel members to obtain 
 the consent of this body to speak, except under such 
 circumstances. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Accomac 
 proposes to amend the resolution of the gentleman from 
 Scott, so that it shall read — 
 
 Resolved? That so much of the 5th rule of the rules 
 and regulations of this Convention, as prescribes that 
 no member shall speak more than once on the same 
 question, until every other member intending to speak, 
 shall have spoken, be adoDted, to govern the Committee 
 of the Whole. 
 
 The amendment was agreed to, a count being had — 
 Ayes 45, Noes 44. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The question will be on the adop- 
 tion of the resolution as amended. On this question the 
 yeas and nays have been ordered. 
 
 The question being taken, there were yeas 82, nays 
 25, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. J. Y. Mason, (Pres't,) Arthur, Banks, 
 Barbour, Beale, Bird of Shenandoah, Bland, Blue, Bo- 
 cock, Botts, Bowles, Caperton, Carlile, Carter of Lou- 
 doun, Chambers, Chambliss, Chapman, Chilton, Cocke, 
 Conway, Cox, Davis, Douglas, Edwards, Faulkner, 
 Flood, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz, Fuqua, Garland, M. R. 
 H. Garnett, M. Garnett, Goode, Hall, Hoge, Hill Hop- 
 kins, Hunter, Janney, Jones, Kenney, Kilgore, Leake, 
 Ligon, Lionberger, Lynch, McCamant, McCandlish, 
 McComas, Martin of Henry, Moncure, Moore, Morris, 
 Nees©n, Pendleton, Price, Saunders, Scoggin, Scott of 
 Caroline, Seymour, Shell, Sheffey, Smith of Norfolk 
 county, Smith of King and Queen, Smith of Green- 
 brier, Southall, Stewart of Morgan, Straughan, Stuart 
 of Patrick, Summers, Taylor, Trigg, Turhbull, Wal- 
 lace, Watts of Norfolk county, Watts of Roanoke, White, 
 Whittle, Williams of Shenondoah, Wise and Wysor — S2. 
 
 Nats — Messrs. Armstrong, Bowden, Braxton, Brown, 
 Surges', Claiborne, Edmunds, Gaily, Jacob, Letcher, 
 Lucas, Martin of Marshall, Meredith, Miller, Newman, 
 Purkins, Rives, Scott of Richmond city, Sloan, Stephen- 
 son, Tredway, Tunis,- Will ey, Williams of Fairfax, and 
 Wingfield — 25. 
 
 So the resolution as amended was adopted. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 155 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 On motion of Mr. STEWART, of Morgan, the Con- 
 
 vention resumed the consideration in Committee of the 
 Whole, (Mr. Watts, of Norfolk county, iu the Chair,) 
 of the report of the Committee on the Executive De- 
 partment of the Government, 
 
 R.E -ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The CHAIR, stated the question to be on the first sec- 
 tion of the first article of that report, and the amend- 
 ments pending thereto. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. I have had some doubt whether, 
 under the rule as adopted by the Convention to-day, it 
 is proper for me now to claim the floor, having already 
 addressed the committee once upon this question. 
 
 The CHAIR. The rule does not apply to the case of 
 the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. I did not think it did. However, 
 I preferred to obtain the opinion of the Chair and of the 
 committee in relation to it. I had no intention to speak 
 again on this subject, although I now feel it incumbent 
 on me to say something. And I must say that, during 
 the progress of this debate, I have almost regretted 
 that I occupied the position of being the author of the 
 proposition which has produced so much discussion. 
 While I do not regard it as a question of so much mo- 
 ment as to occupy eight or ten days of the time of this 
 Convention ; nor as equal to other questions, which will 
 have to be discussed and decided by this body ; I not- 
 withstanding regard it as a proposition of some import- 
 ance. I do believe that to incorporate into the Consti- 
 tution, which we are called upon to reform, the amend- 
 ment or proposition suggested in the amendment I sub- 
 mitted, would be to make, f®r the people of Virginia, a 
 better Constitution, in that respect, than if a different 
 feature was there incorporated. I have, too, some de- 
 sire that it should be known that after the very pro- 
 tracted discussion which has been had upon the propo- 
 sition, of which I am the author, I have not been in- 
 duced, by the arguments which I have heard, to aban- 
 don that proposition. I have not been made — although 
 distinguished gentlemen have argued in favor of the 
 propositions adverse to mine — to falter in my convic- 
 tions of the propriety of the amendment which I have 
 moved, and which is before the Convention. 1 -little 
 expected, when I moved that proposition, that we were 
 to have a discussion upon the various questions which 
 have been brought to the notice of the committee. I 
 did not expect that democracy or aristocracy, or mon- 
 archy would have been discussed in this committee. I 
 did not expect that I should have been called on, in the 
 progress of this discussion, to vindicate my democracy ; 
 nor shall I undertake to do it. But I shall, upon this 
 occasion, because I believe there are a few conclusive 
 reasons why that amendment should be adopted, add 
 something in addition to what I have said before. 
 While I must return my thanks to the gentleman from 
 Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton,) who addressed us yesterday 
 in so able and interesting a manner, for the ability 
 which he brought to bear on this question — for the 
 weight of character which he has brought with him in 
 favor of the proposition that I have submitted, I must 
 notwithstanding, ask the Convention not to regard this 
 amendment as one which should be characterized as a 
 conservative proposition, as opposed to the popular idea 
 of radicalism. I occupy the position of a radical ; and 
 have been elected by those who sent me here as a radi- 
 cal ; I came here to carry out the prominent measures 
 that are advocated by those who are called radical, and 
 intend to advocate the great and important changes that 
 are to give the people power in the government. Oc- 
 cupying that position, I did not intend, for one, to be 
 drawn into the discussion of either the radicalism or 
 the conservatism of the proposition, or of those who 
 advocated it. But I will here remark to my friend from 
 Fauquier, that while I agree in much that he has said, 
 and while the speculative views he advanced coincide 
 generally with the theories of government, as laid down 
 in the books, yet I must dissent from him when he ap- 
 
 plies these theories to the form of government under 
 which we live, and to their incorporation in the Con- 
 stitution which we may make. I do not consider my- 
 self as enrolled under the banner of conservatism. I 
 am a radical ; but while I have ever felt admonished 
 that there were dangers even in radicalism, while I 
 have desired to see the fundamental changes, which I 
 believe have been indicated by the popular voice ; and 
 while I have not been considered as a conservative, yet 
 I have always thought, and still feel, that to have along 
 with me in company one who is a conservative, will be 
 no detriment to me ; for while I go for-radical changes, 
 I am impressed by all my observation, and by all the 
 lessons taught me by history, that there is danger, great 
 danger, in rash and reckless innovation. I am, there- 
 fore, willing to hear the admonitions of a conservative. 
 I am willing to heed his suggestions. I am willing that 
 he should go with me, that I may profit by the associa- 
 tion. 
 
 All I mean to say is, that the amendment which I have 
 offered is radical, and not inconsistent with those 
 changes which are incumbent oh me as a radical to 
 make. I do not think there are many arguments that 
 can be urged either pro or con upon the proposition, 
 and I did not expect, when I introduced it in this com- 
 mittee, that it would be the subject of so much discus- 
 sion. I am sure, with the view wilich I take of it, I 
 cannot inflict a long speech on the committee, without 
 wandering very far from the real subject under consid- 
 eration. To meet the position w r hich is taken by this 
 amendment, there have been various arguments used, 
 which are entitled to very great respect, and to which 
 I should be walling to give a respectful consideration, 
 were it proper, under the circumstances, that I should 
 occupy so long the time of this body. Most of these 
 arguments have been met by the gentlemen who are as- 
 sociated with me in the support of the proposition con- 
 tained in my amendment, and that renders it unneces- 
 sary that I should allude to all ; I will only advert to 
 one or two of them. The gentleman from Powhatan, 
 (Mr. Hopkins,) who addressed us at length yesterday, 
 on the subject, and who, in a very able argument against 
 the proposition, commenced by the declaration that the 
 proposition to make the Governor eligible longer than 
 one term, or re-eligible as long as the people might 
 choose to make him so, had been met by those who op- 
 posed it, by throwing odium upon it, and by stigma- 
 tizing it as a proposition to elect, for life. I am very 
 sure, from the attentive consideration I have given to 
 this discussion, that no gentleman intended so to char- 
 acterize it ; and if terms were used which imported 
 any such imputation on the proposition: they were used 
 unintentionally, and were designed only to convey the 
 idea that the Governor was to be re-elected at stated 
 periods, so long as the people might think proper. 
 While there has been no attempt, I think certainly no 
 intention, on the part of any gentleman who advocates 
 the proposition I maintain, to throw any such dead 
 weight on the adverse proposition, I feel I have a right 
 to complain that nearly all the gentlemen have thrown 
 upon the proposition which I maintain a weight as dead 
 as that which they think has been attempted to be 
 thrown on theirs. When the proposition was first sug- 
 gested, and when I had not expected to make a single 
 remark in advocacy of it, and when I supposed that all 
 the debate that would arise would be merely a short 
 conversational explanation with regard to it, the very 
 first gentleman who opposed it characterized it as an 
 assault upon the rights of the people. All the gentle- 
 men who have followed him, on that side, have charac- 
 terized it as being a restriction on popular rights. And 
 I know of no character that could be given to a propo- 
 sition which, at this day, would be more likely to oper- 
 ate as a cead weight, than that. 
 
 I wish to inquire, is this a restriction on popular 
 rights — or rather, is it such a restriction on them as 
 ought not to be put in the Constitution? Before I in- 
 
 quire to what an extent it is a restriction, 1 beg leave 
 to say, that when I came here to co-operate with oth= 
 
156 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ers in forming a Constitution, I never dreamed of ma- 
 king a Constitution that would not be a restriction, in 
 some respects, on the power of the people. I should 
 feel that J came here for no purpose, and that it was 
 wholly unnecessary for the people of Virginia to send 
 delegates here to make a Constitution, in which the 
 powers of the people were not to be restricted. This 
 is the first purpose of Government. We put restrictions 
 on the majority who operate through the legislature in 
 making laws. Every Constitu ion will have some re- 
 strictions of that sort. Therefore I do not fear the as- 
 saults which have been made on this proposition, even 
 if it were a restriction on popular rights, because I feel 
 sure that the people of Virginia will assent to the pro 
 priety of the proposition. They, as a wise people, a 
 people who have sent us here t.6 enter into asocial com- 
 pact — consented that in that compact restrictions should 
 be put upon their power — or rather on the powers of 
 the majority of the people. 1 need not say why this is 
 so. I will go further. I will say, I believe this ought 
 to be done, upon the avowed ground that I am not 
 among those who believe the p eople cannot err. 1 have 
 as much confidence in them as most men. I believe 
 they will always act from proper motives; but we know, 
 from past experience, that the people have erred. And 
 I believe, judging from the past, that they will err in 
 future, unless the; e at e restrictions upon them. N ay, 
 I believe that they err sometimes under the impulse ol 
 the moment, or under a delusion, which may exist 
 through ftlse impressions ; and they will err, all the re- 
 strictions which you can throw around them by consti- 
 tutional provisions, notwithstanding. Then, if this pro- 
 position is a restriction, I maintain that it is no more 
 objectionable than many which we are obliged to im- 
 pose on the exercise of any right in the government, 
 be it popular or otherwise- 
 
 But to what extent is this a restriction? Gentlemen 
 say you restrict popular rights, because you do not pro- 
 vide that the Governor, who has served for one term of 
 four years — for that is the time proposed in the report, 
 and there is no amendment before the committee to 
 change it— shall not be re-elected at the end of four 
 years, thereby taking that one individual from the num- 
 ber of those who will be eligible — of whom there, will 
 be a multitude in the State of Virginia. Do this and 
 it is said that you thereby restrict popular rights. What 
 is the extent of that restriction? I have not made any 
 calculation of the number of persons in Virginia who 
 would be eligible, looking to age or to their being na- 
 tives and residents of the State, to which restrictions I 
 have heard no objection — under the Constitution, if 
 adopted, as we propose. I suppose, however, f.'iat I 
 shall not be in error, if I say that there are a hundred 
 thousand in the State who would be eligible. I believe 
 if I should take the number at a hundred thousand I 
 should err very far against myself — well, now, there is 
 a restriction upon popular rights complained of, which 
 goes only tG this extent, that it restricts the people in 
 the exercise of their right of selecting a candidate for 
 the office of Governor, by removing from the range of 
 their selection one man out of a hundred thousand ! 
 Now, is that a restriction? Is that a restriction of 
 which anv man in the State would complain, so far as 
 his individual right is concerned ? I am sure, it is not 
 less reasonable than a restriction which says he shall 
 be a native of your State, or thirty or forty years of 
 age, before he shall be eligible. I ask if we are in this 
 proposition urging a restriction which goes beyond 
 those to which gentlemen who are so much enamored 
 of popular rights are willing to agree? It seems to me 
 most certainly not. And gentlemen, when they argue 
 against a restriction, in this respect, argue against the 
 very object and purpose of forming a government. I 
 was a little surprised yesterday at a remark which fell 
 from the gentleman from Powhatan, when he dec'ared 
 that this was a question of popular rights, and asked if 
 we did not object to the re eligibility of the officer be- 
 cause the people might abuse their power, if they 
 were not prohibited. Why, as I have said before, lam 
 
 not unwilling to say that I believe the people will err. 
 They will not abuse the power designedly, because 
 they have no motive to do so. But I would restrict it 
 because there is some reason to suppose the people 
 might be led into error by the intervention of those men 
 who the gentleman said in his speech Avere more liable 
 to be corrupt — the office-holders. That is the princi- 
 pal reason why I am willing, if this be a restriction 
 on popular rights, to put it upon them. Then, I here 
 take the position, and will repeat the argument made 
 by the gentleman from Halifax, some days ago, that if 
 this be a restriction, the restriction as to age, the re- 
 striction as to residence, and all other restrictions, 
 many of which are to be found in our Constitution, 
 ought, in consistency, on the part of the gentlemen, to 
 be stricken from your Constitution. 
 
 But is it really a restriction upon popular rights? The 
 great and leading question which the people of Virginia, 
 as I understand, from the expression of opinion in my 
 own quarter of the State, and from the expression of 
 opinion in all parts of the otate, from the addresses of 
 gentlemen who were candidates, was, that the people, 
 in order to secure their rights, desired the right of elect- 
 ing their governor, their judges, and other officers. 
 These were the great demands of the people. And in 
 sustaining them on this floor, any man, I had supposed, 
 would be considered radical enough for any part of the 
 State of Virginia. I maintain their rights in these par- 
 ticulars. I am for that change in the constitution 
 which will secure them. And it seems to me tho.t, while 
 we advance thus far, while we secure to the people 
 these rights, we should be anxious to do that which I 
 have been (a ight by all history and by ali experience 
 in our own governments, federal and State, was wise 
 and prudent — impose restrictions upon those who have 
 the power — upon those who, in the language of the gen- 
 tleman from Powhatan, are more apt to be corrupt and 
 to abuse their power. I am for imposing upon them re- 
 strictions, and not for putting them on the people. And 
 the purpose of my amendment, however it may appear, 
 is not to limit popular rights, but the power of the office- 
 holder. If it operates in the slightest degree to restrict 
 the rights of the people, it operates, in my opinion, a 
 hundred fold in restricting the power, and ability to 
 abuse the power, on the part of office-holders. I think 
 that any man who will look at the lessons which have 
 been taught us on this subject, must view it as an object 
 of primary importance, and admit that a great deal will 
 be accomplished in owe government, if you, can save the 
 people from the imposition, the mischief, which will 
 follow to them from the abuse of power by those who 
 have the power. 
 
 The other day I introduced, merely by way of 
 allusion, and not that I considered the Executive of 
 the United States — the office of President of the United 
 States — had any relation to that of Governor of Vir- 
 ginia, or was like it — not that I believed in all re- 
 spects the same arguments which would apply to th3 
 one would apply to the other — but simply to illustrate 
 the danger, or at least the inconveniences, which have 
 resulted to the people of the United States from an 
 abuse of executive power, or, if you choose, from a 
 suspicion that the executive power has been abused. 
 And I think the exercise of the patronage merely pre- 
 sents an analogous case, in this respect, because, while 
 the President of the United States is infinitely ahead 
 of the fovernor in the extent of power and patron- 
 age which he possesses, yet the governor of Virginia, 
 under any system which you may adopt, so long as he is 
 your executive officer, so long as he will have the power 
 to execute your laws, mu?t have considerable power. 
 And reduce it as much as you can, consistently with the 
 public interests, you must, notwithstanding, put into his 
 hands a great deal of power. I shall not stop to enume- 
 rate all the descriptions of power, or to point out their 
 extent, for it is sufficient to say he is to execute the 
 law, and a refusal to execute the law might involve us 
 in the most serious consequences. If it be an important 
 office, as we must admit it to be, though not so import- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 157 
 
 ant as th-i President <>f the United States, it is an office! say to those who are to fill your pub ic offices that we 
 which may be abased, and I maintain it to be wise on have very litt e confidence in vou. that we will reward 
 our pari, that we take from that officer, who must have you if you do well, and punish you if you do not do 
 power to some extent, at least the motive to abuse that; well. Moreover, if that is to be thedocrriiie — and it will 
 I reason on this subject, supp sing the manj be regarded in that light, whether gentlemen avow it 
 
 . „1 ~ Pli „ C „»>^», mill ko lilra ntknn m&n • • .1 .. . 
 
 elected to the office of governor will be like other men, 
 will be liable to the frailties to which all men are lia- 
 ble, and believing that there is nothing which operates 
 
 or not — in my view, the very fact that you make a man 
 re-eligible, and that it will be considered, if you fail to 
 re-elect him, that he is punished and disgraced, will op- 
 
 mire powerfully upon men to keep them right, or to erate verv t0 res triet in its effects, the exercise of 
 
 make them err, than to put before them a motive which 
 
 will lead them to do one or the other. I therefore wish! individual who is to be selectee 
 to pat your executive in a condition in which he shall 
 have no motive to err, no inducement to prostitute his 
 
 offi 
 
 the public judgment in looking to qualifications in the 
 
 You have a man a 
 candidate who has been Governor for four years. He 
 mav, iu the discharge of his duties, be free from auv cor- 
 
 Ise for the purpose of being re-elected, and thereby I ru p C i on> an i vet in some great emergmcv have failed 
 instated m the office which he has once hidd, and,|„ T ; rh ;„,{„ mi „ t onr i nomo f^-i™ „„j * dis- 
 
 rei 
 
 folding, may have fallen in Jove with, 
 in this country, the love of 
 
 sources of evil^that it is a source of corruption, and 
 that it produces, in all our elections, more excitement 
 than almost any one thing. The intrigues and scram- 
 bles, arising no doubt from the great mania which 
 exists to procure oifice, is a most prolific source of 
 evil. Then 1 wish the executive to be placed in a posi-, 
 
 " es operating upon him | ™ il Pi;«nounc_e th^judg.nenr. upon him that he is guil 
 
 , ' with judgment and uerv| t • execute the laws and to < 
 We know that ch gume hi h exeC , uire tm , t . m may have d 
 office is one of the great! this ° aaJ yet b | a mor a aad ex c e llent man in his mo- 
 lives and purposes. "What then will take place? You 
 will fin I that the sympa hy of the public will operate 
 in his favor ; that from the mere fact that lie is re-eli- 
 gibie. the people will say, we must re-elect him though 
 lie is incompetent, for if we fail or refuse to do it, we 
 
 tion where he would not have oi >n 
 
 to electioneer for a second term. Now here is my pro 
 p )sition : 1 wish to p it the officer who has power — who 
 may abase that po ver in mi i.y ways, who may abuse 
 it in the appointment of directors of banks, if we are to 
 let him have it, as under the present constitution, and 
 
 _ ty, and that will disgrace him and his posterity. The 
 effect of this would be to restrict the people in" the ex- 
 ercise of a proper discrimination in the selection of 
 Governor ; and in my view, that is one reason why we 
 should sav, bv constitutional limitation, that he shall 
 
 in many other appointments, and who may abuse it in llot he c re-ehgihie— that the people may be free tose.ect 
 executing the laws— in a position in which he will not| °& of tbe ***** mas * °} tne citize is— with the excep- 
 have a motive like this to prostitute and abuse the pow-i tloQ of one^-their candidate, uninfluenced by sympathy 
 ers of his oifi ^e. I ask if any man can say, where a man | or h 'f the consideration that they are condemning or re- 
 is thus elected and thus situated, without a motive to do| probating him who has oceuped the office, 
 wronz:, without a strong motive t) do wrong, as we know J 0 nlv notice one other matter which has been 
 
 has always operated, judging from past facts, if he is not 
 more likely to do right than when we put him in a situ- 
 ation in which he will be controlled by causes which 
 may lead him to do wrong, and which may operate upon, 
 him as a pjwer to induce him to err. Geuciemen talk 
 of rewards artel punishments, and say that the Governor 
 ought to be te-eligib'e, because by his re election you re- 
 ward an hones!: public officer, who has proved faithful 
 to his trust. Now it does seem to me that that sort of 
 reward is not the proper one to put before a pubuc offi 
 
 much discussed in this body. Gent emen have reded 
 very much upou the weight of authority here. In 
 looking at the course pursue I and the opinions of the 
 fathers of the government — whose course as well as 
 whose reasons in favor of any particular measure, can- 
 n >t but be entitled to great respect and deference, and 
 to whom I fe d it my duty to look when i have to act 
 upon any sub'ect having reference to that on which they 
 acted — gentlemen have said that the weight of authori- 
 ty was against the iue.igibiiitv of the executive offi- 
 
 up- 
 
 gOV- 
 
 cer; looking to the character and respectability of j C er, or rather in favor of his re-eligibility. While I 
 th »se who are to be taken from the great body of the Illu6t sav that we cm not, in my opinion, go back to the 
 penpU to be iuveste I with the power and diguity of UonventYm wh ch formed the Yjonstitu ion of the Uni- 
 the chief executive office of your Stare. Is it true that) ted States, an 1 in which the re-e'dgibiiitv of the Presi- 
 you cannot rely upon the Govern >r of Virginia, unless j j e nt of the United States was discussed" and voted 
 you offer to reward him if he is faithful, or punish him ODj to nn [ aB exict pir allel bv which we mav b. 5 
 if he is unfaithful to his trust 1 VVdl those geutlemen | er ned iu a restriction to be imposed upon vour Govern- 
 wh) clam >r so loudly for popular rights, aud popular OFj I believe that if vou will look at the authorities, 
 rights unrestricted, say that is the stan lard by which v0ll w m nne i that their weight goes stronglv in favor of 
 you are to select those who are to rill your office of Go- making him ineligible. In the ConventionVhich formed 
 vernar ? I have too high an opinion of the character of j tne f e .J e ral Constitution. 1 will undertake to say, that 
 the great mass and body of those from whom we are toj Virginia, in that Convention, was in favor of the" Presi- 
 select our Governors, to say that motives such as these I J e nt's being ineligible. I know that the first proposi- 
 are to operate on the man to make him true to the great I tion which was presented to that Convention through 
 
 interests of the Commonwealth. I go for making a! 
 Constitution based on the supposition, at least, that wej 
 have, among the citizens of the State, men — the excep- ' 
 tions may be ra'-e — who may be operated upon by differ 
 
 Governor Randolph, as coming from the delegation from 
 Virginia, contained the provision that the President 
 should not be re-eligible after his first term. There 
 was afterwards another proposition in the course of the 
 
 ent motives. And if we get such a man, who is to be J e bate upon the subject, in which the \ irginia delega 
 
 selected by the people, as enlightened as they are, b\ 
 the people of whom some gentlemen are willing to sav 
 
 tion were divided. Mr. Blair and Mr. Mason voted for 
 proposition that he should not be re-eligible, and Ge- 
 
 they cannot err— when we get a man thus elected in !ner al Washington and Mr. Madison voted that he should 
 
 office, he will have to influence him his oath of office 
 and hat spirit of patriotism which the people will dis 
 cern iu any man, before they give him their sud'rages 
 And he will have the good of the Commonwealth at heart 
 wall feel that he himself is a part of this greit Common 
 
 be re-eligible. Gov. Randolph was absent, but had avowed 
 himself for ineligibility. But if gent lemen will loo'- at the 
 arguments of Mr. Madison, if they will look into the de- 
 bates- upon that subject, they will see that Mr Madison 
 was influenced in his vote bv the fact that in the reso- 
 
 wealth, and that his administration is identified with itsj lution was incorporated the proposition, that he be 
 glory These are considerations which will always operate; elected bv the national legislature. His argument upon 
 upon any man who is worthy to be selected to be the! the proposition is directed against the provision in the 
 Governor of Virginia I therefore think that gentlemen article which ma le the President ineligible, bv the 
 err when they get up and muke a proclamation that they) aat ional legislature, and I think that the fact' that 
 are for forming a Constitution for Virginia which will) ne wa3 to be chosen by the legislature, was the- 
 
158 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 main objection to the proposition when he voted against 
 it. And if you will look through the debates, you 
 will hud in the discussion upon that subject, the great 
 question, there, was, whether the President should be 
 elected by the people or by electors selected by the peo- 
 ple, or whether he should be elected, as was the first 
 proposition, by the national legislature. There is no 
 weight of authority on the subject to be found against 
 the ineligibility of the President of the United States, 
 even if the office was like the office of the Governor of 
 Virginia in the respect which I maintain it is not. 
 
 Gentlemen have appealed to their authorities, 
 and among others they have referred to Mr. Jefferson. 
 Now, Mr. Jefferson's opinions upon the subject about 
 that period — at least in 1783 — cet'tamly were, that the 
 office of Governor of Virginia ought not to be re-eligible, 
 as expressed in a draft of the constitution which he 
 prepared to submit to the people when they met in 
 convention. In that draft of a constitution which was| 
 drawn by himself, he expressly makes the provision that 
 the Governor of Virginia should not be re-eligible, al- 
 though he might have entertained, and for very good 
 reasons, perhaps, in regard to the President of the 
 United States, a very different opinion. I might, if I 
 thought proper, here give reasons why the President of 
 the United States ought to be re-eligible, which would 
 not apply to the Governor of Virginia. I think there j 
 are manifest and strong reasons ; but I do not intend 
 to urge that question, or to say whether lie ought 
 or ought not to be. I am arguing the question now,] 
 whether the Governor of Viiginia ought or ought not 
 to be re-eligible after his first term. 
 
 "We come down to the convention of 1829, which 
 formed the constitution under which we now live, and 
 in which several of the most distinguished statesmen, 
 not only of Virginia, but of the nation, participated, j 
 And if gentlemen mean to decide that question by 
 weight of authority, I think they will see from a refer-! 
 ence which I shall make, that the weight of authority 
 is in favor of the proposition which I now advocate. 
 The report which cam« from the executive committee j 
 in that convention contained a provision that the Gov-j 
 ernor should be elected by the legislature. Mr. Dodd- 
 ridge offered an amendment to thai, proposition which | 
 was to make him elected by the people and not by the j 
 Legislature. After that, Mr. Fitzhugh offered another' 
 proposition which embraces somewhat the proposition 
 now before the committee. He moved the following 
 amendment : 
 
 "That the executive office of this Commonwealth 
 ought to be vested in a Governor, to be elected by the 
 General Assembly for three years and to be ineligible 
 for three years thereafter." 
 
 Here was a proposition to have the Governor elected 
 by the legislature, and to be ineligible three years after 
 the first term of service. Upon that proposition Mr. Mar- 
 shall and Mr. Monroe voted in the affirmative, and Mr. 
 Madison in the negative. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Monroe 
 were for making him ineligible even by the Legislature. 
 Mr. Madison voted against it no doubt, as I shall show 
 afterwards by another vote of the convention, for the 
 reasons which he advanced, and which operated upon 
 him in the federal constitution — that is, because the 
 resolution contained a proposition not only that the Gov- 
 ernor should be ineligible, but that he should be elected 
 by the Legislature ; a provision to which Mr. Madison 
 seems to have been opposed in the formation of the federal 
 constitution. After that, another vote was taken on 
 another proposition submitted by Mr. Doddridge, who 
 moved farther to amend the report of the executive* 
 committee, as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Governor shall be elected by the 
 persons qualified to vote for the members of the House 
 of Delegated at the several times and places appointed 
 for holding elections of the General Assembly. The 
 
 Governor shall hold his office for the term of years 
 
 and after the expiration of his term, be ineligible for 
 veara." 
 
 Ail that is recorded upon that proposition is that Mr . 
 Madison voted, aye ! I beg the committee to remember 
 if any here are to be governed by authority on this sub' 
 ject, or influenced by the course taken by Mr. -Madison, 
 that whatsoever he might have done in the federal con- 
 vention, when called upon to vote on a proposition 
 which contained not only the feature of ineligibility, but 
 also the feature that the Governor should be elected by 
 the people, the proposition that is contained in this 
 amendment I have offered and which gentlemen have 
 characterized and denounced as warring upon popular 
 rights, Mr. Madison, according to this record, voted in 
 favor of that provision. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Monroe 
 voted for it, when the Governor was to be elected by the 
 Legislature. Mr. Madison voted for it when the other 
 feature was embraced, which seemed to have been a 
 favorite one with him, in direct violation, as those gen- 
 tlemen would say, of popular rights. Upon the score of 
 authority, I think I may conclusively claim that the 
 weight of argument is in favor of there-eligibility of the 
 Governor. 
 
 I may go further. I have taken occasion to look a 
 little into the book of all the various constitutions now 
 in existence of all the States in this Union, and I find 
 from a review of them, that only eleven— embracing 
 some of the newer States of the northwest, and only 
 one southern State — have adopted the provision such 
 as is contained in the amendment of the gentleman from 
 Henrico, (Mr. Botts.) In seven of these States, Louisi- 
 ana, Illinois, Missouri, Florida, Delaware, Kentucky, 
 and Arkansas, the term is four years, which is the term 
 proposed in the report of our Executive Committee, 
 and the incumbent is ineligible thereafter for four years, 
 which would make just the proposition I have embraced 
 in my amendment. This is true of six of these States. 
 In Arkansas he is elected for four years — may hold his 
 office for eight years out of twelve — that is, may be 
 elected for two terms, and then is ineligible for four 
 years. In Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia, his 
 term is three years, and ineligible for three years 
 thereafter. In Indiana ana Pennsylvania his term is 
 three years and he may hold his office six years out 
 of nine. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I will inquire of the gentleman 
 whether the Maryland constitution was not amended 
 in 1837. and the ineligibility clause stricken out ? I 
 think, by reference to the Book of Constitutions, you will 
 find that to be the fact. 
 
 Mr. T RED WAY. I will say that my impression i\ 
 that such is not the case. But in regard to the state- 
 ment I am making, I do not see that there are any er- 
 rors in it. If there are, I do not know of it, and I de- 
 signed it to be correct. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. The gentleman will allow me to 
 make one further inquiry. Does the gentleman recol- 
 lect what the provision on this subject is, in the new, 
 constitutions lately adopted in Louisiana and California? 
 Neither of these are in the Book of Constitutions to 
 which he refers, nor is the new Constitution of Ken- 
 tucky. I shall be much obliged to the gentleman — if 
 it is in his power to do so — to give us information on 
 this subject. I will say to him, that I understand from 
 a gent leman who knows the fact in relation to the Mary- 
 land constitution, that it has been altered — that the 
 election there is regulated by districts, and that there is 
 no restriction of ineligibility. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. I am unable to answer the gen- 
 tleman. In response to his inquiry, I will say that this 
 statement is one which I have taken from the last edi- 
 tion of the constitutions of those States to which I 
 have had access. I understand, in relation to the con- 
 stitution of Kentucky, from a gentleman who is no 
 doubt correctly inf >rmed upon the subjest, that there 
 is the same provision there that I have submitted here. 
 In regard to the California constitution I am not in- 
 formed. I have only taken those of the constitutions 
 that I could find in the book containing the constitu- 
 tions of the States, published in 1850 — the latest edi- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 J 59 
 
 tion, I believe, published before the convening of this 
 body — and with a view, no doubt, to furnish this body 
 with facts to aid them in their investigations. I was 
 going to say, that in Pennsylvania and Indiaua, the term 
 of service was three years, eligible six years out of 
 nine, and ineligible after the two terms. In Mississippi 
 the term is two years ; and the governor can hold his 
 office far four years out of six. In Alabama, Texas, 
 North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee a 
 term of two years, and eligible for six years. There is 
 the same provision in the Ohio constitution. There are 
 eleven States : Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Maine, Mass- 
 achusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, 
 Connecticut, JST c w York, and Georgia, embracing only 
 one southern State, in which the office of governor is re- 
 eligible after his first term, or re-eligible without 
 any restriction. I think, therefore, that looking 
 at the various constitutions of the States, we may 
 claim that the weight of authority derivable from 
 their example, as well as from the opinions and acts of 
 the distinguished men who had the principal agency in 
 the formation of the Federal Constitution, as well as of 
 the constitution of Virginia, is with us. 
 
 I shall not dwell long upon this question. I have got 
 through with about all I had to say to the committee 
 on this subject, and I have really taken much more time 
 than I supposed I would when I began. I must here, 
 in conclusion, say that when we are thus standing by 
 the opinions and the acts of distinguished men who 
 have been referred to in this debate, and fey the consti- 
 tutions adopted by the various States in this Union, 
 where popular rights are as much regarded, doubtless, 
 asjn any constitution on earth, gentlemen ought to 
 cease arguing against this amendment, as warring on 
 popular rights, and that we who advocate this propo- 
 sition ought to be permitted to occupy the position of 
 being as strong advocates of popuLar rights as those 
 gentlemen Who are opposing it. I think that, looking at 
 the reasons which should operate on us in deciding this 
 question, that they are of a character which should in- 
 duce us to make the governor of Virginia re-eligible for 
 one term only, and that he shall be at least out of office 
 for a term of four years before he can come again before 
 the people, rather than that he should be permitted to 
 "come before them again with all his power, and patron- 
 age, and influence ; or if he is one who has acted im- 
 properly, to excite the sympathies of the people and 
 secure his re election. It is wiser to- make a constitu- 
 tion in which you put in that condition, than to 
 have one which will allow the office to be re-eligible, 
 either during his whole life, at stated periods, or to 
 come before the people at any time immediately after 
 his term shall have expired. But i repeat, I have de- 
 tained the committee too long, longer than I intended 
 to when Hook the floor this morning. I regret that I 
 have contributed to protract this debate. I feel that 
 I cannot complain of it in others because I have been 
 guilty of it myself. I might not, perhaps, have found 
 it necessary to have taken the floor if I had not been in 
 a position in the front rank, in offering the amendment 
 to the report of the Executive Committee. 
 
 Mr. TPJGG-. I regret that I find myself, under a 
 sort of necessity, compelled to mingle thus early in the 
 discussions of this body. I regret it for more reasons 
 than one. 1 regret it for at least two reasons. I am 
 here in the discharge of the first high political duty 
 which it has ever been my fortune to have conferred 
 upon me, and I come with the embarrassment which I 
 suppose gentlemen who are just entering upon such a 
 high and important trust, must feel. I know that I am 
 surrounded by gentlemen of intelligence, commanding 
 intellect, and the greatest experience in all parliament- 
 ary proceedings* and, therefore, I feel in my own per- 
 son a sort of rigidity, if I may so express myself, which 
 I suppose to be common to every man in a like position. 
 To express very fully the feeling which I have on this 
 subject, it may be illustrated in this way : The robe of 
 office to one just entering upon its duties, is like a, new 
 
 coat, it must be endured for a time before it becomes 
 easy to the wearer. Bnt I have a duty to perform, not 
 only to myself, but to my immediate constituents, and 
 to the people oi the Commonwealth at large. And no 
 matter how inexperienced I may be, no matter how 
 untaught in the details of parliamentary proceedings, 
 I have come here determined, in my own mind, to dis- 
 charge that duty according to the very best of my abil- 
 ity. But before I proceed to state the question now be- 
 fore the committee, and my position in relation to it, I 
 beg leave to say that when I come to that point, I shall 
 endeavor to confine myself to the main question, and 
 shall not, if I know myself, depart from it. But there 
 are some matters Avhich have been thrown in, in the 
 course of this debate, to which I beg leave, humble as 
 I am — inexperienced as I am — to call the attention of 
 this committee. 
 
 We have more than once heard allusions to parties 
 made upon this floor; that gentlemen occupying certain 
 positions in relation to the question we are now discus- 
 sing were either federal or democratic ; and they have 
 had it thrown in their teeth rather significantly that 
 they are conservatives or radicals, or black cockade 
 federalists, in their views. 
 
 Now, I feel proud to say that I can come up into this 
 hall, as a representative of my own district, feeling my- 
 self a representative of the people, untrammeled by 
 any party. I am glad that i can feel that on this sub- 
 ject I can throw off all party trammels, and do my ut- 
 most for the Commonwealth at large. The principles 
 we are now discussing are not purely democratic or 
 whig, or federal. They are the principles, in my opin- 
 ion, of a republican government, which we are about 
 to establish. And upon these principles I intend to 
 plant myself throughout the whole progress of this 
 Convention. Let the members of this Convention dis- 
 card all these party allusions. Let them feel that they 
 are the people's representatives, and not the tools of a, 
 party anywhere in the Common wealth. That is the 
 feeling with which I have come, and that is the position 
 which I mean to maintain and carry out as long as I sit 
 within these walls. When upon the hustings in my own 
 district, I there unfurled the banner of popular rights, a 
 banner not decorated with stars and stripes, because I was 
 not advocating a constellation of republics; but it was a 
 pure white banner, With the sole words " Republican 
 Liberty" written in letters of gold upon its silken 
 folds ; or, as suggested by the gentleman from Accomac 
 (Mr. Wise) old Virginia's motto, " Sic semper tyrannis" 
 I have brought that same plain banner with me, and I in- 
 tend to plant it within the very walls of this buiiding. I 
 intend to plant it here, and in its defence the broad and 
 glittering sword of justice, wielded by the right arm of 
 truth, shall be constantly seen gleaming in the sunbeams 
 of its glorious blessings. And I hope every gentleman 
 will come up in the same spirit. Never mind the terms 
 of reproach that may be cast upon you by gentlemen 
 who are advocating other principles ; let them call you 
 radicals or conservatives, or what they will, but be sure 
 that in your action here you conform to and carry out 
 those republican doctrines which the people themselves 
 expect at your hands. 
 
 And still diverging from the main question at issue, 
 I propose to inquire somewhat into the meaning of these 
 terms, conservatism and radicalism. As often as 1 have 
 heard the term conservative applied to gentlemen in this 
 Convention, I have never yet seen or heard a definition 
 of the term until I heard it given yesterday by a sensi- 
 ble, intelligent gentleman — one who, in debate, posses- 
 ses talent, and no doubt has much influence in the region 
 from which he comes. But he and I differ as wide as 
 the poles — as wide- as the two extremes from which 
 we come — he from the normeast, and I from the south- 
 west. Extremes, it is true, do sometimes meet, but I 
 fear that the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton,) 
 and the gentleman from Washington will never meet. 
 Conservatism! What is it, according to the definition 
 which we have from the gentleman from Fauquier ? His 
 definition of it is, that the constitution under which we 
 
160 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 now iiv^, an J the principles .vhich were advocated and 
 placed there by the sages of seventy-dx, and which have 
 been c mtinued in the present constitution, are good 
 enough. 
 
 Mr. WiSE. The gentleman makes a mistake as to 
 the definition of conservatism by the gentleman from 
 Fauquier. That gentleman's definition of conservatism — 
 a definition that has now become a fixed fact, for we 
 have yet to hear its disavowal from any conservative — 
 ii this: that pure democracy is to be scouted, and that 
 we are to form what he calls a constitutional republi- 
 canism. And his definition of constitutional republi- 
 canism is this : that it must have within itself an in- 
 fusion of monarchical and aristocratic principles in 
 order to check your pure democracy. That is the defi- 
 nition of conservatism, and the gentleman from Fau- 
 q tier saved me a great deal of trouble, because before 
 the adjournment 1 promised to find out what it was. 
 But he told the world, and relieved me from all 
 labor on the subject. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. The gentleman has understood me 
 precisely, and happily expressed it. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. WISE. 1 beg leave to say that whenever I am 
 asked for an honest politician, a man without fear — a 
 man who is no political hypocrite, I shall point to the 
 gentleman from Fauquier. Though I cannot say that 
 his principles are without reproach, yet, as long as I 
 live — and I shall always live to war against his princi- 
 ples — 1 will do honor to the man. There is scarce a 
 man in the land who, at this day, would have dared, even 
 entertaining the sentiment, who would have had the 
 moral courage to have avowed it. 
 
 Mr. TRIGG. If the gentleman from Accomac had 
 allowed me to proceed, I think he would have found in 
 the end that he and I did not differ materially as to the 
 meaning of the term conservatism, as rendered by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier. I was about to say, and shall 
 still say it, unless the gentleman from Fauquier disavows 
 it, that he did refer to the present constitution, and that 
 he did say he would stand by that constitution, with very 
 little alteration. Did I understand the gentleman 
 ari i;ht ? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. TiilGG. Well, I propose to examine into the 
 conservatism of the exiting constitution, and show to 
 what poi nt the gentle nan's conservatism is likely to bad 
 him. And what is the conservatism of the gentleman as 
 it is expo inded in the present constitution? Is it that 
 feature which withholds the power from the people to 
 elect their own officers ? Is it the conservative princi- 
 ple which denies to the people the election of their 
 agents, and withholds from them the direct control over 
 the government? If this is conservatism, i can tell 
 the gentleman he has it in the present constitution with 
 avengence. What officer within the circumference of 
 the Commonwealth is now the officer of the people? 
 Who, I ask you, have the sovereign people put into 
 office under this government? The legislators alone; 
 they have that power, and they have no voice in the 
 election of any other officer. Then it is conservatism 
 under the existing constitution, to withhold these privi- 
 leges from the people. And to what does your con- 
 servatism lead you? It carries you to this point, that 
 the more power, the more original power, that you 
 withhold from the people, in forming a government, the 
 purer your conservatism. If it is conservative only to 
 entrust the people with the little power they now pos- 
 sess, it would be more conservative to take it away al- 
 together. Is that not so ? Then to make conservatism 
 still stronger than it is under the present constitution, 
 let the gentleman withhold from the people the little 
 power they now have under it, and say that they shall 
 not elect a solitary officer within the whole Common- 
 wealth, not even a member of the legislature. Do that 
 and what kind of government have you ? An oligarchy — 
 a gcvernmer t in the hands of a 'few men; and an oligar- 
 chy, according to the reasoning, would be a little more 
 conservative than the conservatism under our present 
 constitution. 
 
 But carry the principle a little further. If it is 
 wrong to trust the great body of the people with the 
 powers of government, it is equally wrong to trust any 
 number, large or small, and it would be better to re^ 
 strict or to concentrate the powers of the government 
 into the hands of a single man. Thus the very same 
 mode of reasoning would drive the gentleman from the 
 republican form of government into an oligarchy, and 
 from an oligarchy he would be obliged to take shelter 
 under a monarchy or a despotism; because, to carry out 
 the reasoning, it would be better and more conservative 
 to concentrate the whole power in a single man, than 
 to dispense it among many, no matter how few or how 
 large the number. This, I say, is where the reasoning 
 which would sustain the conservatism of the present 
 constitution would carry the gentleman. Fully carried 
 out, its principles can end only in the establishment of 
 a despotism. That is my definition of the conserva- 
 tism of the present day, and that is the point to which 
 the conservatism of this day, in my opinion, will lead 
 gentlemen. 
 
 Weli, now, what is my radicalism, and the radical- 
 ism of the gentleman from Accomac? It is just this : 
 The people themselves are the sovereigns of the land; 
 the people themselves have the right to wield the sov^ 
 ereignty of the land, and it is upon the people that we 
 desire to confer all those rights which they are proper- 
 ly and duly entitled to exercise. And this is repub- 
 lican. 
 
 Now, let us reason a little from the present constitu- 
 tion down to the radicalism of the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac and myself. If the present constitution is con- 
 servative in withholding power from the people, and if 
 the concentration of the powers of government, so far 
 as may be, in the hands of the people is radicalism* 
 then every step you take towards radicalism, in depart- 
 ing from our present form of government, and in dis- 
 pensing this power and these privileges into the hands 
 of the people, you come nearer and nearer a republi- 
 can government. 
 
 Now, I hold it as a principle — the people holding the 
 government, and the people being the government in 
 fact — that the people have a right to exercise all the 
 powers which can be confided to them, with any sort 
 of reference to the public convenience. That is my 
 radicalism. 
 
 Now, what is conservatism? It is the preserving of 
 established forms. And what is radicalism ? It is to 
 reform and amend the government; not to pull down 
 and destroy the government under which we live, in 
 toto, but to reform it. The gentleman's conservatism 
 of withholding power from the people practically leads 
 him, by a like course of reasoning, to an oligarchy and a 
 monarchy, and my radicalism leads me from the point 
 where the powers of government are exercised, by one 
 man, to where these powers are wielded by the mass. 
 That is my radicalism, I say, and I am for reforming 
 the government in this particular. I am so radical that I 
 wish to blot out from Virginia polity the stain which 
 has been fixed upon it by the present constitution — I 
 hardly know how to characterize it — under which we 
 live, and by which the people are denied the powers 
 and privileges to which they are rightfully entitled. If 
 I were, myself, to give a name to the principles I hold, 
 as contra-distinguished from those advocated by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, I would merely say that he 
 was conservative, but that I was radically conserva- 
 tive. He may be conservative in preserving the pre- 
 sent system — in securing from the people their just 
 rights. I am radically conservative in dealing out to 
 tke people whatever they are justly entitled to. That 
 is the difference between us. 
 
 Perhaps this departure of mine from the main question 
 has been sufficiently long, and I will now c mie to the 
 question which the committee have in hand, and which 
 is now under discussion. I shall endeavor to show to 
 this committee, notwithstanding it may regard my posi- 
 tion as rather a curious one, that every gentleman who 
 has preceded me on this floor is radically wrong in the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 161 
 
 position which he has assumed. [Laughter.] Now, 
 what are the propositions we have submitted to us ? 
 First, we have the proposition of the Executive Com- 
 mittee, which is, that your governor shall be elected for 
 four years and be ineligible after his second term. 
 Then by that provision you may elect him for four years, 
 and for another term, and he shall be afterwards ineli- 
 gible. The proposition of the gentleman from Pittsyl- 
 vania, (Mr. Tredway,) is, that he shall be elected for a 
 term of four years, and that he shall not be again eligi- 
 ble till after the expiration of another term of four 
 years. The proposition of the gentleman from Henrico, 
 (Mr. Boris,) 1 understand to be, that he shall be elected 
 for a term of four years, and be re-eligible indefinitely. 
 These are the propositions before the committee, and 
 strange as it may seem, I am in favor of none of them. 
 I am against them all, and why ? I believe in my con- 
 science that in a republican government there are 
 certain principles by which we are to be guided and 
 directed. I believe that these principles are the very 
 foundation of our republic. I believe that they are 
 principles which should be looked to in every act in 
 the formation of a constitution or government for our 
 State. What are they? What are these republican 
 principles — those which were inscribed on that white 
 banner I spoke of, beneath whose folds I planted myself, 
 and by which I mean to be guided and directed through- 
 out the sessions of this body ? They are simply these : 
 The first and great principle of all is, the sovereignty 
 of the people. The second is, the responsibility of their 
 agents or officers. There is another not less important, 
 in my opinion, to be regarded in forming this constitu- 
 tion, and that is, rotation in office. Now, in forming 
 your constitution, in providing certain officers for your 
 government, and in prescribing the terms for which 
 these officers shall be elected, you should be guided by 
 these three great principles: the sovereignty of the 
 people — responsibility of the officer — and rotation in 
 office. Now, while we may have these three things, to 
 a certain extent, recognized in all the propositions sub- 
 mitted by the gentlemen — yet we have them not in the 
 pure form in which I desire them. And my great 
 objection to the various propositions which have been 
 submitted by gentlemen, has arisen from the fact, that 
 they give to us a term too long for the office of Gov- 
 ernor. Four years is the term which they prescribe. 1 
 say that four years is long enough for any man to hold 
 the office of Governor, and I desire, in order to carry 
 out these various principles, to divide the term of four 
 years, and then I secure all. I will have, by securing 
 the election of the governor for two years, to be re-eligible 
 for a second term, the sovereignty of the people asserted 
 on the one hand, and the responsibility of the officer on 
 the other ; and at the same time secure the other prin- 
 ciple of rotation in office, and that is what I wish. Gentle- 
 men may say those who advocate the proposition of the 
 gentleman from Henrico, that you have the rotation in 
 office if you make him re-eligible ever after. But I say, 
 that while you have the rotation in the election, you 
 have no security as to rotation in office. Now, I con- 
 sider the three great principles to which I have refer- 
 red as absolutely necessary to be established in this 
 •constitution. .1 desire them as constitutional provisions. 
 I desire them to be written on the parchment which we 
 shall send out from this body, and I wish the people to 
 be fully secured in these three great rights. But I 
 would not make this rotation in office occur at such long 
 intervals of time. Four years, as I said before, is enough 
 for any one man to hold the office of governor. I wish 
 this rotation in office, but I do not want a great wheel 
 constructed, which, in its revolutions, will take an age to 
 turn but once. I desire a rotation of smaller wheels, 
 which will turn rapidly, and often, so that this officer 
 may be brought down to his original starting point — 
 into the presence of the majesty of the people. That is 
 what I desire. Then I cannot, under the opinions which 
 I hold on this question, unless you cut down the length 
 of term of this office of governor — and tbia length of 
 
 term I consider just as important as anything else — sup- 
 port either of the pending propositions. I desire to pre 
 serve those great principles in the Bill of Rights, which 
 have been reported on by the committee on that subject, 
 and I wish to see them carried out in every act which 
 this Convention shall do. They are, first, that all power 
 inherent in the people. That is one. That the legis- 
 lative, judicial, and executive departments shall be kept 
 separate and distinct. That is two. The third is — and 
 it is embraced in the very same section of that instru- 
 ment — that, in order to prevent oppression by these dif- 
 ferent officers, they should, at stated periods, be re- 
 duced to a private station, that they should return into 
 the body from which they were originally taken, and 
 the vacancies should be supplied by frequent, certain 
 and regular elections. Yes, that is the word, by fre- 
 quent, certain and regular elections. That single section 
 in our Bill of Rights, as proposed to be amended by the 
 Committee upon the Bill of Rights, contains the whole 
 sum and substance of the principle upon which I shall 
 act, so long as I continue a member of this body. 
 
 It seems to me that gentlemen in arguing this ques- 
 tion need not have gone beyond the limits of this coun- 
 try, or indeed beyond the limits of their own Common- 
 wealth for illustration. They might have saved them- 
 selves the trouble of citing the federal constitution for 
 any thing to guide them in this matter, for we are making 
 a constitution for our own State, one by which the peo- 
 ple of Virginia are to be regulated, and to which their 
 conduct is to be squared. The manner of the election 
 of the President of the United States would not weigh a 
 feather in deciding the question we now have before us. 
 Have the people of the United States ever elected their 
 President in theory, no matter what they may do in 
 practice ? Have the people, I ask, under the federal 
 government, any right to vote for a President or Vice 
 President ? None under the heavens. All the right 
 they do have — all the rights they can claim, is that the 
 people of all the different States, shall vote for a certain 
 number of intelligent gentlemen, who are to meet at 
 some point within the State and select a President for 
 them. There is the whole power of the people. The 
 practice may be, that the people instruct those electors 
 at the polls, but in theory the constitution provides no- 
 thing of the kind. The men who formed that constitu- 
 tion, and our own original constitution, were all regu- 
 lated and guided by the very same principles of action. 
 They were not then— I say it with all deference — as 
 well skilled in the carrying out of republican principles 
 as the people of the present day. As Mr. Jefferson has 
 said, as was read by the gentleman from Powhatan, (Mr. 
 Hopkins,) yesterday : " The abuses of monarchy had so 
 filled all the spaces of political contemplation, that that 
 which was not monarchy, we supposed to be republi- 
 can. Monarchy was so mixed up with all the political 
 concerns of that day, that it was the uppermost theme 
 in the mind of every man, so that whatever was not 
 monarchy, the people from that fact alone, received in- 
 stantly as republicanism. I must say that they also re- 
 tained a slight tinge of this monarchy in the constitu- 
 tion which they gave us. They retained it also, those 
 who have gone before us, in the constitution of 1776, 
 and those who came after them, retained it in the con- 
 stitution of 1829, and it is to blot out this monarchical 
 tinge, as much as any other, that this Convention has been 
 convened by the people of Virginia. I was saying that 
 there was nothing to be argued from the question as to 
 what manner, and for what term, the President of the 
 United States, under the federal constitution, is elected. 
 Why, that constitution was founded on the assumption 
 that the people themselves were to have no voice in the 
 choice of the man, and that the people themselves would 
 only be called upon to select some intelligent men with- 
 in their own State, who would meet at a certain point, 
 and in the exercise of their own intelligence and expe- 
 rience, select the men whom they thought to be the best 
 to preside over the destines of the country. Then you 
 can draw nothing from that source of illustration, either 
 in favor of the argument, for ineligibility or re-eligibil- 
 
162 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ity to office. It is all mere nothing. It is a spider's 
 web which may be torn into pieces almost by the 
 weight of a featner. But, gentlemen may tell me that n 
 in advocating this proposition, I forget that this prin- c 
 ciple of independence, is one that should be looked to. h 
 I do not regard this matter of independence as a prin- \ 
 ciple which is incorporated into those elements which s 
 go to make up a republic. I regard it as a principle 
 which must be seated in the heart of every public 
 officer, and when the man is called to fill any high sta- s 
 tion, whether it be the gubernatorial office or any other ; 
 when he is called to discharge these high duties, he 
 must come with that principle engrafted upon his very 
 life ; he must come imbued with that principle of inde- i 
 pendence which results from the very integrity of the r 
 man. Why, what good is your independence going to i 
 do you if you have happened to put a man into the 1 
 office of Governor, who is disposed to do wrong, whether t 
 you elect him for two or four years? Suppose you r 
 put a bad man in office who is disposed to pervert the i 
 powers which the people have conferred upon him; 1 
 who is disposed to exercise them for his own profit and ] 
 his own seifish purposes ; will you do any good by i 
 throwing this wall of independence around him ? It is i 
 the inclination of the heart when he goes wrong, and \ 
 you cannot stop the current of evil when it once breaks 1 
 forth and determines to carry the points of selfish in- i 
 terest. It is not to be arrested by any wall like this ; 
 provision which you propose to check it, and even if it ( 
 were, why his four years are out, he has done all the j 
 wrong, and, in the name of heaven, what good will it i 
 do to the people, so far as repairing that wrong is con- j 
 cerned, to leave him out. It will do no good. I would 
 prefer that the people should have the fullest power to 
 pass on the acts of their public officers ; but then I de- , 
 sire that they should do it or have an opportunity of 
 doing it, at such time and within such periods as that 
 the office itself will not be bestowed too long on any 
 one man. And four years I consider too long, and, 
 therefore, I go for two. 
 
 The only purpose which I had in addressing the 
 committee to-day at all, was to explain the remark 
 which fell from me the other day, that I occupied a po- 
 sition rather peculiar in regard to the question before 
 the committee, and that was, that in fact I agree with 
 them in thiw matter. All I ask and desire is, to set my- 
 self right before the committee, and to show, that as the 
 question now stands with the term of four years engraft- 
 ed on each of these propositions, I could not vote for 
 them, and that I should vote against all, unless 
 this question of re-eligibility or ineligibility be post- 
 poned to a future time, and the term of office be first 
 fixed at a shorter period. With these remarks, it seems 
 to me that I have done all that my duty required me 
 to do on this occasion. I am extremely obliged to the 
 committee for the very respectful attention which 
 they have given me during the whole course of these 
 very crude remarks. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. If the Committee will indulge me in 
 the motion which I am about to subnait. I will on to- 
 morrow endeavor to define my position in reference to 
 the principles which I think are involved in this ques- 
 tion now under consideration. I merely desire an op- 
 portunity to morrow, to speak a very few moments in 
 reference to these principles. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. Will the gentleman withdraw his 
 motion for a moment? 
 
 Mr. HOGE. Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON". I rise to address myself for a mo- 
 ment, and only a moment or two, to the gentleman 
 from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) to express to him the deep 
 sense that I feel of the compliment he has bestowed 
 on me, and to request of him, as I have defined my po- 
 sition distinctly, and a3 he admits, that in regard to it 
 I have no concealment and that he understands the 
 whole of it; that as he has declared himself to be " an 
 infinite radical," he will for my information, to enable 
 me to meet his position, give me, not now — 
 
 Mr. WISE. Yes, now. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON Not now, I say, but at his conve- 
 nience, the length and breadth, and heighth, and depth 
 cf his position — not doubting in making this request, 
 his capacity to do it, and his inclination to furnish me 
 with the very fullest imformation in regard to the po- 
 sition he wishes to occupy on the subject. 
 Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman — 
 
 The CHAIR. It is not in order for the gentleman to 
 ?peak again without the leave of the Convention. 
 MANY MEMBERS. Leave, leave. 
 The CHAIR. The gentleman will proceed. 
 Mr. WISE. I do not see that there is any disorder 
 in my occupying the floor, with the leave of the gentle- 
 man who has the floor, and who does not wish to occupy 
 it this evening. My friend from Fauquier, who has 
 boldly, clearly and honestly defined his position, admits 
 that i fully and exactly represented his position, and de- 
 mands now to undei>tand mine; and he might have 
 waked me up at 6 o'clock in the morning, and before I 
 laved my eyes, heavy with the slumbers of the night, 
 I could have answered his question. I am ready now, 
 and in a moment, to answer it. I will repeat his de- 
 finition of a " conservative," in order to make my defini- 
 tion of an " infinite radical," clearly understood. Sir, 
 the English language is not strong enough — I do wish, 
 in every feeling and fibre of the man, physical, moral 
 and intellectual, that I could concentrate all the verjuice 
 of the language — for the definition that I am about to 
 give, and that I had something stronger than " infinite" 
 to oppose the definition of conservatism, which the 
 gentleman has given. 
 
 Mr. CHiLTON. Try Dutch. [Laughter.] 
 Mr. WISE. It is not copious enough. Greek is not 
 copious, is not sublime, is not spiritual enough, is not 
 ethereal enough, to define my radicalism in opposition 
 to his conservatism. No. His conservatism is, that 
 pure democracy is to be scouted. That we ought to 
 check it, and that it is our duty now in this constitution 
 which we are to form for the people, to infuse into it 
 the principles of monarchy and aristocracy, to check 
 pure democracy. Now coolly and deliberately, I will 
 give my definition and philological meaning of the 
 word " radical," and my understanding of it. as I wish 
 it to be understood in this Convention. It comes, I be- 
 lieve, from the word radix. It is a principle that means 
 to eradicate all monarchy and all aristocracy, not only 
 from this commonwealth, and this constitution, but if 
 it can, from the world. That is radicalism. Does 
 the gentleman understand me ? 
 Mr. CHILTON. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman spoke yesterday of the 
 ' spirit of radicalism, and said it desired to go with the 
 rapidity of electricity over the earth. Does the gentle- 
 ■ man know what was said to King John at the battle of 
 1 Runneymede ? Mark you, I am attacking principles. 
 ' Does he remember what has been consecrated by Brit- 
 ish poetry, when he was told, 
 1 " He is a traitor to his native land, 
 
 A traitor to mankind, who in a cause 
 » That down the course of time will fire the world, 
 Ridis not upon the lightning of the sky, 
 To save his country " 
 i And may God in his mercy save this State and this 
 country from every root, every tendril of a root of such 
 3 misnamed aristocracy, and misnamed monarchy as is now 
 called conservatism. Hereafter it shall be called by its 
 true name, monarchy and aristocracy. I come here to 
 - eradicate every part and parcel of it. I would hunt for it 
 l as I would for " terra ricca" — I would not leave a vestige 
 ■> of the plant in the land, before the operations of my hus- 
 1 bandry. Plowing in that ground I will set my coulter 
 _ deep—and I was told this morning that I set my coult- 
 t er very deep, and so help me God, I mean to go down 
 e below the sub-soil— and then I will use cultivator, har- 
 i row and rake ; and it shall not be only the labor of ma- 
 e chinery, but of man with pains taking, close inspecting 
 labor. So help me God in this patriotic duty, I will get 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 1C3 
 
 down on my knees to manipulate the work ! I deny 
 here, that there is a particle of aristocracy or monarchy 
 necussary tu the well-being or safety, either of perton 
 or property. I deny it. 1 vindicate American doctrines 
 — L vindicate American liberty. Here standing in the 
 capitoi of Virginia, in this assembly, representing the 
 sovereignty of the people of Virginia, in the name oi 
 my fore-fathers — in the name of my children — in the 
 n cine of my own rights — in the name of the dignity of 
 human nature and the authority of that reason and con- 
 science, which assimilated me to my Cod, I dtny that 
 doctrine aud here repel it. 1 thank the gentleman for 
 nerving my mind to this patieut labor. :Sir, you and i 
 are antipodes in our principles. Your doctrines have 
 b:eu for seventy odd years too much regarded — I must 
 spiak plainly — among our people, especially ea?t of the 
 mountains of Virginia. Thank God every evil cures it- 
 se f There was once a day wheu tire arhtucracy in the 
 State of Virginia wore white topped boots, and ruffs 
 and powdered hair. There was once a day when white 
 men could stand at the door, with hat under arm and 
 bow to th it aristocracy as it rolled by in Olympic cha- 
 riot, casting it- dust into the eyes of the people ; but 
 now, in poor old Virginia, to be talking about aristocra- 
 cy, when it is so pi, or, that none are s < poor as to do it 
 reverence ! [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr CHILTON. I do not mean to prolong this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The CHAIR. The gentleman cannot proceed without 
 leave of the Convention. 
 
 MAiN Y M EM BERS. Leave, leave. 
 
 Mr, CHILTON. I rise to ask the gentleman to give 
 me a definition. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I hope I did it. 
 
 Mr. CHiLTON. But he gave me rather a speech than 
 a definition — I think somewhat like Falslaff's b 11, " To 
 sack, £5 ; to bread, one penny." [Laughter.] The on- 
 ly deduiiiou that he has made, and which I take to be a 
 full definition of his proposition, is, that '"an infinite 
 radical ' means one who goes to eradicate every trace 
 of m aurcby an I aristocracy from the Constitution that 
 we are about t > form. 
 
 Mr. WISE. That is it. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON So I thought. I am glad to have a 
 definition of the gentleman's position, and thank him 
 for giving it to me. 
 
 Mr. HoG-E. 1 renew the motion that the Committee 
 ri.-e. 
 
 Th j motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 And vhen the Convention adjourned until to-morrow, 
 at 12 o'clock. 
 
 SATURDAY, February 8, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer .by the Rev. Mr. Manly, of the Baptist church. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 CHANGE OF THE HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. STRAUGHAN. I move that when the Conven- 
 tion adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock on 
 .Monday., and that that shall be the regular hour of meet- 
 ing until further ordered. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON COUNTY COURTS, &C. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. The Committee on Coun- 
 ty Courts, County Organizations and County Police, 
 have heretofore been directed by three resolutions of 
 the Convention to inquire : first, into the propriety of 
 providing in the Constitution for the re-construction of 
 the different counties of the State ; aud by another re- 
 solution to inquire into the propriety of providing in the 
 Constitution to have the registration of births, marria- 
 ges and deaths, kept in each county ; and by the third 
 resolution, directed to inquire into the expediency of 
 providing a restriction upon the county authorities and 
 overseers of the poor, in making extra compensation 
 
 for public services. They have had these subjects un- 
 der consideration, and have directed me to submit a re- 
 port in regard to them. 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 The Committee on County Courts, County Organiza- 
 tion and County Police, have, according to order, had 
 under consideration three resolutions of the Convention, 
 the one directing the committee to inquire into the 
 practicability of re-constructing the several counties of 
 the commonweaWi, so as to make them as nearly uni- 
 form in territorial extent as may be, having regard to 
 natural boundaries; another directing the committee to 
 inquire into the expediency of inserting a clause in the 
 constitution, requiring provisions to be made by law 
 for the registration of births, marriages and deaths in 
 the several counties, cities and towns within the Com- 
 monwealth ; and the third requiring the committee to 
 inquire into the propriety of impo ing a constitute al 
 restriction on the county courts, overseers of the poor, 
 and other county tribunals, in granting extra compen- 
 sation for public services, in certain cases, and have 
 adopted the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That it is inexpedient to make any provis- 
 ion in the Constitution on the subjects referred to in the 
 said resolution. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. I move to lay the report on the table, 
 and that it be printed. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I ask for a division of the qrestion. I 
 presume that nobody will object to laying the report on 
 the table. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. I withdraw the motion to print. 
 
 The report was then laid on the table. 
 
 restriction of debase. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. [ desire to effer the following 
 resolution, on the adoption of wh.ch 1 call for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 Resolved, That all debate on the amendment pending 
 in the Committee of the Whole to the fiist section of 
 the first article in the report of the Commit ee on the 
 Executive Department shall cease at 2 o'clock to-day. 
 
 Mr. MARTIN, of Henry. I move to lay the resolu- 
 tion on the table. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. On that question I ask for the 
 yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. c 
 
 The question was then taken, and th &e were yeas 63, 
 nays 23, as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. John Y. Mason, (President, ) Arm- 
 strong, Beaie, Bird of Shenandoah, Bland, Blue, Bo- 
 cock, Bolts, Bowden, Brown, Burges, Carter of Lou- 
 doun, Chambliss, Chapman, Chilton, Davis, Fisher, Ful- 
 kerson, Fultz, Fuqua, Gaily, Garland, M. Garnett, 
 Hall, Hoge, Jacob, Janney, Jones, Knote, Leake, Letch- 
 er, Lucas, McComas, Martin of Marshall, Martin of 
 Henry, Meredith, Miller, Morris, Neeson, Pendleton, 
 Petty, Price. Randolph, Ridley, Rives, Saunders, Scog- 
 gin, Scott of Caroline, Shell, Smith of Kanawha, Smith 
 of Jackson, Smith of Greenbrier, Stephenson, Stewart 
 of Morgan, Straughan, Summers, Trigg, Tunis, Turn- 
 bull, Watts of Norfolk county, Willey, Wise and Wy- 
 sor — 63. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Banks, Bowles, Chambers, Conway, 
 Douglass, Edmunds, Flood, Hunter, Kenuey, Kilgore, 
 Ligon, Lionberger, Lynch, Murphy, Newman, Scott of 
 Puchmond city, Snowden, Southa 1, Stuart of Patrick, 
 Taylor, Tredway, Wingfield, Woolfolk— 23. 
 
 So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 
 
 REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON COUNTY COURTS, &.C. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. I am directed by the 
 Commitlee on County Courts, Cou ty Organization and 
 County Police, t3 present a report >n reference to these 
 subjects. 
 
 The report w T as then read by the Secretary, as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 The Committee on County Courts, County Organiza- 
 
164 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 tion and County Police, report the following provisions 
 on these subjects, and recommend that they be incorpo- 
 rated in the Constitution. 
 
 Article I — County Court. 
 
 Sec. 1. There shall be in each county of this com- 
 monwealth a county court to consist of justices of 
 the peace. The jurisdiction of these courts shall ex- 
 tend to all causes and matters of controversy whether 
 in law or equity, where the demand or subject in contro- 
 versy, exclusive of interest, exceeds the sum of twenty 
 dollars, and appeals from judgments of the justices, and 
 also all such criminal jurisdiction as maybe bylaws now 
 in force, or hereafter to be enacted, devolved upon it, 
 except, however, the jurisdiction conferred upon the 
 board of police, by this constitution, and laws passed 
 in pursuance thereof. 
 
 2. The counties shall be divided into townships, as 
 nearly equal in territory and population as practicable, 
 — but no county shall contain less than four nor more 
 than fifteen townships — and there shall be elected in 
 each township, by the qualified voters thereof, for the 
 term of four years, two justices of the peace, resident 
 herein. 
 
 8. The justices so elected shall from their own num- 
 ber elect one of their body, who shall be the presiding 
 justice of the county court, and such presiding justice with 
 not less than two nor more than four associate justices, 
 and in the absence of the presiding justice not less than 
 three nor more than five associate justices shall consti- 
 tute a court — except in the appointment of county offi- 
 cers — and it shall be the duty of the legislature to pro- 
 vide by law for the classification of the associate justices 
 for the performance of their duty in court. 
 
 4. There shall be twelve terms of the county court 
 in each year, in only two of which shall appeals from 
 the judgments of justices and other civil controversies 
 be heard and determined. 
 
 5. The presiding justice and associate justices shall 
 receive a per diem compensation for their services 
 while sitting in court, and sitting as a board of police, 
 to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the county 
 treasury. 
 
 6. The justices shall hear and determine all matters 
 in civil controversy where the demand or subject in 
 controversy shall not exceed thirty dollars — and shall 
 exercise jurisdiction in all pleas of the commonwealth 
 which now are,-%r may be hereafter conferred by law. 
 Where the subject in controversy exceeds ten dollars, 
 appeals shall be allowed from the judgment of a justice 
 to the county court. 
 
 Article II- — Board of Police. 
 Sec. 1. The justices of the peace in any county, or a 
 majority of them, shall constitute a board of police for 
 such county which board shall set at least twice in 
 every year at the court house of the county — shall have 
 power and authority to assess the county levy, and 
 exercise such other police and municipal jurisdiction 
 as may be conferred upon it by law. The clerk of the 
 county shall be clerk of this board. 
 
 Article III. — County Officers. 
 
 Sec. 1. There shall be elected from time to time, for 
 each county by the qualified voters therein, a clerk of 
 the county court, a sheriff, an attorney for the common- 
 wealth, a surveyor and one or more commissioners of 
 the revenue, as may be determined by law, to continue 
 in office respectively as follows, to wit : The clerk for the 
 term of five years — the sheriff for the term of two years 
 — the attorney for the term of two years — the survey- 
 or for the term of two years, and the commissioner or 
 commissioners of the revenue, for the term of two 
 years. 
 
 2. There shall be elected from time to time by the 
 qualified voters therein, one constable for every two 
 townships — to continue in office for the term of two 
 years, — who may act in the whole county. 
 
 S. There shall be elected from time to time, by the 
 
 qualified voters therein, one overseer of the poor for 
 every township, to continue in office for the term of two 
 years. 
 
 4. Each of the officers mentioned in this article, shall 
 continue in office until a successor shall have been ap- 
 pointed and qualified- — shall reside during his term cf 
 office in the county, township or double townships re- 
 spectively for which he was elected, and shall be re eligi- 
 ble to office, except the sheriff, who may be elected 
 for a second term, but shall not again be eligible, until 
 the expiration of a full term after that, for which he 
 was last elected ; provided however, that appointments 
 to fill vacancies for an unexpired term, shall not come 
 under the operation of this restriction. 
 
 5. Surveyors of roads shall be appointed by the board 
 of police. Their term of service, duties, and compensa- 
 tion to be regulated by law. 
 
 6. Vacancies occurring in any of the foregoing offices, 
 except that of clerk, shall be filled by the temporary 
 appointment of the county courts, — all the justices being 
 summoned for that purpose and a majority being pres- 
 ent, — such appointment to continue until the next- 
 regular term of election. Vacancies in the office of 
 clerk of the county court shall be filled by an election 
 of the qualified voters, in such manner as may be pre- 
 scribed by law. 
 
 Article IV. — Corporation Court and Corporation Officers, 
 
 Sec. 1. The legislature may vest such jurisdiction 
 as shall be deemed necessary in corporation courts, 
 and in the magistrates who belong to the corporate 
 body. 
 
 2. Ail officers appertaining to the cities and other 
 municipal corporations, shall be elected by the quali- 
 fied voters or appointed by the constituted authorities 
 of such cities or corporations as may by law be pre- 
 scribed. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. The report that has been 
 presented is the report of the Committee on County 
 Courts, yet I think it due to state, is the report not 
 of all the committee, but of a large majority. It is 
 presented as a scheme, which after the fullest examina- 
 tion, they believe will prove best in its administration 
 and action for that branch of the Judiciary of State, 
 and the police affairs of the country. I have deemed it 
 proper to make the remark that it was not the work of 
 the whole committee, because I am aware that there 
 are gentlemen dissenting from that report, and who will 
 present their competing schemes. I presume that the 
 report will receive the same destination that has been 
 given to the others, and I move for the present that it 
 be laid on the table and printed. 
 
 The motion that the report lie on the table and be 
 printed was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. FULTZ. I was an humble member of the com- 
 mittee whose report has just been submitted, and it was 
 my misfortune not to concur with the committee in 
 several of the most important propositions contained in 
 the report. Indeed, the report was rather acquiesced 
 in, than approved of, by a majority of the committee. 
 There was, as might have been expected on a subject 
 of so much difficulty and importance, a great diversity 
 of opinion. I have been a close observer of the practi- 
 cal operations of the county courts for the last twenty- 
 years; and, when placed on the committee, called to my 
 aid all the lights I possessed, and after giving the sub- 
 ject my best reflection, and satisfying myself as to the 
 proper principles upon which the courts should be or- 
 ganized, I have drawn up a plan carrying out those 
 principles somewhat in detail. This plan I desire, and 
 considered it my duty to submit to the Convention for 
 their consideration, not with the vain hope that it will 
 be approved of by a majority of this body, but trusting 
 that it may direct the mind of some gentleman to the 
 proper provisions to be engrafted on this the most import- 
 ant branch of our judiciary. I submit the plan for the 
 consideration of the Convention. I will not ask (hut 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 165 
 
 it be now read, but that it be laid upon the table; and 
 -when the proper time arrives I will offer it as an amend- 
 ment to, or a substitute for, the report of the committee* 
 The proposition is as follows: 
 
 COUNTY COURTS AND COUNTY ORGANIZATION. 
 
 Sec. 1. A county court shall be established in every 
 county now formed, or which may hereafter be created 
 within this commonwealth, to consist of a chief justice 
 and two associate justices, any two of whom shall con- 
 stitute a court for the transaction of business. 
 
 2. The justices of the county court shall be elected 
 by the qualified electors in each county, for the term of 
 four years, and shall continue in office until their suc- 
 cessors be duly qualified, and shall receive such com- 
 pensation per diem, while engaged in holding courts, as 
 may be provided by law, to be paid out of the county 
 treasury. 
 
 3. The election of the justices of the county courts 
 shall take place at the same time fixed by this constitu- 
 tion for the election of judges of the court of appeals, 
 and of the circuit courts, and the mode and manner of 
 conducting the elections and making the returns there- 
 of, and of determining contested elections, shall be the 
 same herein prescribed in relation to the election of 
 judges. 
 
 4. The chief justice first elected shall hold his office 
 until the first day of January, 1855, and the associate 
 justices first elected shall hold their offices until the first 
 day of January, 1853. 
 
 5. No person shall be eligible as justice of the county 
 court unless he shall be 25 years of age, and a qualified 
 elector in, and a resident of, the county in which he 
 may be a candidate, at least four years next preceding 
 his election. 
 
 6. The justices of the county courts shall be commis- 
 sioned by the governor of the commonwealth, and after 
 taking the oaths of office, shall be vested with the same 
 rights and powers, and exercise the same jurisdiction 
 now belonging to the county courts, and shall hold their 
 offices at the same times and places; but their rights, 
 powers, and jurisdiction may be diminished or enlarged, 
 and the times and places of holding the courts changed 
 as the legislature may hereafter direct. 
 
 7. A clerk of the county court shall be elected in each 
 county, by the qualified electors, for the term of four 
 years. No person shall be eligible to the office of clerk 
 unless he be a qualified elector, and a resident of the 
 county five years preceding the election. 
 
 8. A commonwealth's attorney for the county court 
 shall be elected in each county, at the same time, in the 
 same manner, and for the same term as county clerk. 
 No person shall be eligible to the office of county at- 
 torney unless he be a qualified elector, and a resident 
 in the county, and a licensed practising attorney for two 
 years. 
 
 9. A sheriff shall be elected in each county, at the 
 same time, in the same manner as county attorneys are 
 elected, whose term of office shall be two years, and he 
 shall be re-eligible for a second term; but no sheriff 
 shall, after the expiration of the second term, be re- 
 eligible or act as a deputy for the next succeeding term. 
 No person shall be eligible to the office of sheriff, un- 
 less he be a qualified elector in the county, and 25 
 years of age. 
 
 10. A county surveyor, or coroner, and one commis- 
 sioner of the revenue, shall be elected in each county, 
 at the same time and in the same manner as sheriffs are 
 elected, whose term of office shall be four years. No 
 person shall be eligible to either of said offices who is 
 not a qualified elector in the county. 
 
 11. The county courts shall proceed, as soon as may 
 be, to divide their respective counties into districts of 
 convenient size, containing, as near as practicable, two 
 hundred qualified electors; but if any county shall not 
 contain two hundred qualified electors, it shall, not- 
 withstanding, constitute one district. 
 
 12. In lieu of the separate elections now authorized 
 by law, one separate election shall be established in 
 
 each district, to be held at such place as the county 
 court shall designate and appoint, at which all qualified 
 electors may cast their votes for all officers, federal, 
 State, or county, who, by law, are to be elected by the 
 people. 
 
 13. In each of said districts there shall be elected, at 
 the same time and in like manner with the other county 
 officers, two justices of the peace, an overseer of the 
 poor, and a school commissioner, for the term of four 
 years, and one constable, whose term of service shall 
 be two years. No person shall be eligible to either of 
 said offices who has not arrived at the age of 25 years, 
 and a qualified elector in the county. 
 
 14. The legislature may, from time to time, prescribe 
 the manner of conducting and making due returns of all 
 elections to fill county offices, and the mode of deter- 
 mining all contested elections arising thereupon; but un- 
 til otherwise provided by law, it shall be the duty of the 
 county courts to appoint fit and proper persons to super- 
 intend and conduct the elections of the county officers, 
 and make returns thereof to said court; and any contest- 
 ed election that may arise shall be decided by the county 
 courts. 
 
 15. The clerks, sheriffs, surveyors, coroners, and con- 
 stables so elected, before they shall enter upon the du- 
 ties of their respective offices, shall give such bond and 
 security as are now prescribed by law; and upon taking 
 the oath of office before the county courts, shall be fully 
 installed into office, with all the rights and powers, 
 duties and obligations, and entitled to all the compensa- 
 tion now conferred, or imposed by law on those officers. 
 
 16. The justices of the peace, upon taking the oaths 
 of office before the county courts, shall be vested with 
 all the powers, rights and jurisdiction now possessed, 
 enjoyed and exercised by the justices of the peace in 
 the county, and shall receive such compensation for 
 their^'services, per annum, as may be provided by law, 
 to be paid out of the county treasury. 
 
 17. The county attorneys, commissioners of revenue, 
 overseers of the poor, and school commissioners, upon 
 taking the oath of office before the county courts, shall 
 be clothed with the same right and privileges, duties 
 and responsibilities; and the two first entitled to the same 
 compensation as are now prescribed by law in relation 
 to said officers. 
 
 18. The said clerks, county attorneys, sheriffs, survey- 
 ors, coroners, justices of the peace, commissioners of 
 the revenue, overseers of the poor, school commissioners 
 and constables, shall hold their offices respectively, un- 
 til their successors be duly qualified ; and their rights 
 and duties, powers and jurisdiction may be enlarged or 
 restricted, defined or modified form time to time, as the 
 legislature may provide and direct. 
 
 19. The justices of the county courts, justices of the 
 peace, sheriffs, coroners and constables, shall be conser- 
 vators of the peace, with a jurisdiction co-extensive with 
 their respective counties. 
 
 20. The justices of the peace in each county, or as 
 many as shall attend, shall sit inxonjunction with the 
 justices of the county courts in the court of claims, and 
 assist in laying the county levy, and making appropria- 
 tions of the same. 
 
 21. When any of said county districts shall, by in- 
 crease of population, the formation of new counties, or 
 other causes, become unequal or inconvenient, it shall 
 be the duty of the county courts, until the legislature 
 vests the power elsewhere, to re-organize, and as near as 
 may, equalize said districts. 
 
 22. The said county officers shall vacate their offices 
 by removing from the county or district in which they 
 shall be appointed, or by accepting any other office, ap- 
 pointment or public trust, except the Justices of the 
 Peace ; and county attornies shall be eligible to either 
 house of the legislature. They shall be subject to in- 
 dictments or presentments for malfeasance or misfeas- 
 ance in office, or wilful neglect in the discharge of 
 their official duties, in such mode as may be prescribed 
 by law ; and upon conviction, their office shall become 
 vacant. 
 
166 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 23. Tlie count/ courts, until otherwise provided by 
 law, shall have power to remove fn»ni office, any of said 
 county officers, for glaring neglectof official duties, gross 
 ma I -practices, or imbecility of body or mini, accompa- 
 nied with a manifest want of capacity to discharge their 
 duties. The court fchall be judges of the fact as well 
 as the law ; b it no sentence of removal shall be pro- 
 nounced, unless two-thirds of the members shall concur 
 therein. 
 
 2 I. The clerks, sheriffs surveyors, eoronors xtvl con- 
 chies m ty b.' req iired by law to renew their security 
 from time to time, and in default oi giving such new se 
 curib', their office shall be deemed vacant, and no oneoi 
 sai 1 officers sh dl be re-eligible, or eligible to any other 
 office, who is in default for any monies collect d by vir- 
 tue of his office. 
 
 25. If a vacancy shall occur in the office of justice of 
 the county court, the Governor shall issue a writ of 
 election to fill such vac iney for the i efidue ( f the t< r a ; 
 an 1 if a vacancy occur in any of the other county offices 
 it shall be the duty of the county court, until the power 
 be vested elsewhere by the legislature, to order an elec- 
 tion to be held to supply said vacancy for the balance of 
 the term. 
 
 26'. When prosecutions shall be instituted agai: s', or 
 proceedings pending to remove, any of said county offi- 
 cers, they shall be suspended from the exercise of their 
 offices until they shall have been acquitted; and it shall 
 be the duty of the county court to appoint competent 
 persons to discharge the duties of said officers during 
 such suspension, and until an election can be held to fill 
 the vacancy, should the trial result in a conviction or 
 removal. 
 
 27. The legislature may provide for the election or 
 appointment of such other county officers, ministerial 
 or executive, as shall from time to time be necessary 
 and proper. 
 
 23. If a new county shall be formed, the present 
 countie:; shah not he deprived of any of their officers by 
 their places of resideuce being embraced in the new 
 county, except only that justices of the peace, overseers 
 of the poor, school co nmissioners, and constables, who 
 may reside within the limits of the new county, shall 
 continue to exercise the duties of their offices until the 
 new county is fully organized, and elections held to fiil 
 the offices in such manner as the legislature may pro- 
 vide and direct. 
 
 The proposition was then laid on the table and order- 
 ed to be printed. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. I desire to present, on the part of 
 the minority of the committee, a substitute, varying in 
 many essential particulars from the report of the com- 
 mittee. I merely ask that it be laid on the table and 
 printed as the report of the minority, which will be of- 
 fered as a substitute at a proper time, to the report oi 
 the committee. 
 
 The proposition is as follows : 
 
 Jtrticle I. — Cf Justices and other officers. 
 
 Sec. 1. The several counties of the State shall be di- 
 vided into townships as nearly equal in territory and 
 population as practicable, in each of which shall be 
 elected, by the qualified voters therein, two persons as 
 justices of the county, to continue in office for the term 
 of two years : Provided, hoicever^ that no county shall 
 contain less than four, nor more than fourteen town- 
 ships. Each justice shall have jurisdiction over the 
 whole county. They shall hear and determine all mat- 
 ters in assumpsit, debt, detinue, and trover, wherein the 
 demand or subject in controversy, exclusive of interest, 
 shall not exceed in value the sum of twenty dollars. 
 They shall exercise all such criminal jurisdiction, and 
 perform such other duties, as may from time to time be 
 devolved on them by law. 
 
 2. There shall be elected in each county, by the qual- 
 ified voters therein, a presiding justice of the county, to 
 continue in office for the term of five years. He shall 
 receive for his services an adequate salary, to be paid 
 either out of the county levy or other special fund, 
 
 other than the public treasurv, as may be provided by 
 law. 
 
 3. The justices shall receive adequat e compensation 
 for their services, to be provided for by law, otherwise 
 than by fees of office ; but neither their compensation, 
 nor that allowed to the presiding justice of the county, 
 shall be increased or diminished during the pericd fcr 
 which they were respectively elected. 
 
 4. There shall be elected, for each county by the 
 qua ifbd voters therein, a clerk of the county court, a 
 sheriff, an attorney for the Commonwealth, a county 
 surveyor, and or e or more commissioners of the revenue, 
 as may be determined by law. Each of saidoffhirs 
 shall continue in office respectively as follows, to wit : 
 The clerk for the term of rive years ; the sheriff for tlie 
 term of two years : the attorney for the term of two 
 years ; the surveyor for the term of two years; and the 
 commissioners for the term of two years. 
 
 5. Constr.bles shall be elected lor every two cc-termi- 
 nous townships, by the qualified voters thereof, to con- 
 tinue in office for the term of two years. The jurisdic- 
 tion of each shall extend over the whole county. 
 
 6. Overseers of the poor shall be elected, one for each 
 township, by the qualified voters therein, to continue in 
 office for the term of two years. 
 
 7. Surveyors of roads shall be appoirted by the board 
 of police. Their term of service, duties, and compen- 
 sation shall be regulated by law. 
 
 8. Each of the officers mentioned in this article, shall 
 continue in office umil a successor shall have been 
 qualified. Each shall reside during his ttrm of office in 
 the county, township, or double township respectively, 
 for which he was elected. They shall be re-eligible to 
 office, except the sheriff, who may be elected for two 
 successive terms, but he shall not be again eligible un- 
 til the expiration of a full term after lhat for which he 
 was last elected : Provided, however, that appointments 
 to fiil vacancies for an unexpired term in the office cf 
 •sheriff shall not come under the operation cf this re- 
 striction. 
 
 9. Vacancies occurring by death, resignation or oth- 
 erwise, in any of the offices mentioned in this article, 
 except those of presiding justice of the county, ard 
 clerk cf the county court, shall be supplied until the 
 next regular period of election, by appointment cf ihe 
 board of police, each of the justices having been sum- 
 moned for that purpose, and a majority of the v» hole 
 number being present and acting in the matter of such 
 appointment. Vacancies occurring in like manner, in 
 the offices of presiding justice, and clerk of the county 
 court, shall be supplied by special elections of the quali- 
 fied voters, in such manner as may he prescribed by law. 
 
 10. The voters referred to in this article, shall be 
 those qualified to vote for members of the legislature. 
 
 11. The offices of coroner, and escheatcr, in the sev- 
 eral counties, are hereby abolished ; and it shall be the 
 duty of the legislature to provide by Jaw for devolving 
 the duties now appertaining to said offices, upon such 
 other of the foregoing officers as may be deemed expe- 
 dient. 
 
 12. Ail officers appertaining to the cities and other 
 municipal corporafi a s of the State, and such county 
 officers as may hereafter be created by the legislature, 
 shall either be elected by the qualified voters or by the 
 constituted authorities thereof, as may be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 Article 2. — Of the County Court, Court of Probate, and 
 Board of Police. 
 Sec. 1. There shall be established in each county a 
 county court, to consist of the presiding justice of the 
 county, and not less than two, nor more than four of 
 the other justices, or in the absence of the presiding 
 justice, said court may be composed wholly of the eth- 
 er justices of the county: Provided, kowevn-, ih&t not 
 less than three nor more than five shall set at one lime; 
 and it shall be the duty of the legislature, to provide by 
 law for the classification of the justices, in such manner 
 as to equalize as near as may be their duties as mem- 
 bers of the court. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 167 
 
 2. The county courts shall have jurisdiction over all 
 causes at common law, wherein the demand or subject 
 in controversy, exclusive of interest, exceeds in value 
 the sum of twenty dollars, but which do not exceed the 
 sum of one hundred dollars ; and it shall be the duty of 
 the legislature to provide by law, for the trial of such 
 causes, in a summary and economical manner, without 
 pleadings. They shall have jurisdiction over all causes 
 in equity — appeals from judgments of justices, and over 
 such criminal matter as by law may be devolved on 
 them. 
 
 3. Two terms only of said court shall be held in each 
 year, for the trial of appeals, and civil causes in law or 
 equity; but special sessions thereof may be held, for 
 the hearing of criminal matters, and for other purposes 
 requiring summary proceedings as may be provided b) 
 law. 
 
 Court of Probate. 
 
 4. There shall be established in each county, a court, 
 to be known as the court of probate, which shall be 
 held at the court-house thereof, by the presiding justice 
 of the county, four times in each year. They shall have 
 jurisdiction over all matters appertaining to the probate, 
 wills, the appointment and duties of executors, admin- 
 istrators, guardians, and committees of insane persons 
 with such other jurisdiction of a like nature as may be 
 conferred on them by law. 
 
 5. It shall be the duty of the legislature to provide 
 by law for the holding of said courts, at any time in va- 
 cation, upon the due citation of the parties interested, 
 for the purpose of qualifying and appointing execu- 
 tors and administrators, and for such other purposes 
 requiring summary action as may be deemed expe- 
 dient. 
 
 Board of Police. 
 
 6. The whole number of justices in each county shall 
 constitute thereof a board of police. They shall be a 
 body corporate by the name of the Board of Police of 
 
 county, and as such may sue and be sued. 
 
 They shall have power and jurisdiction under regulations 
 to be prescribed by law over all applications and other 
 matters concerning cou rty roads, mills, ferries, and pub 
 lie landing, the granting of ordinary and other county 
 licences, and over all matters appertaining to the as- 
 sessment, collection, and disbursement of the county 
 levy, together with such other powers and jurisdic- 
 tion as may from time t i; time be conferred on them 
 by law. 
 
 7. At the first meeting, after any general election of 
 the justices of the county, they shall elect one of their 
 number as president of the board, Avho shall pre- 
 side over their deliberations. A majority of the whole 
 number shall constitute a quorum, and their sessions, 
 which shall not be less than six in each year, shall be 
 held in public, at the court-house of their respective 
 counties. 
 
 8. The clerk of the county court shall be ex officio 
 •clerk of the court of probate, and also of the board of 
 police. His official duties shall be regulated by law. 
 
 The proposition was laii on the table, and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. Unfortunately, I am one of the com- 
 mittee on county courts who could not concur with the 
 majority in their report. I regret to be under the ne- 
 cessity to state this fact, for 1 did since rely hope that 
 the committee would have been able to have made a 
 report in which we should all have concurred. But be- 
 lieving as I do, that the plan presented by the major- 
 ity of the committee contains many of the essential 
 objections to the existing county court system, I have 
 thought it my duty to present to the Convention a com- 
 peting plan, more especially since the constituency I 
 represent here demaud not merely a modification, or a 
 reform of the existing county court system, but a total 
 annihilation of it. I hold in my hand a plan prepared by 
 myself and another dissenting member of the commit- 
 tee, not in bis seat, the gentleman from Wood, (Mr. Van 
 
 Winkle,) principally prepared by him. I agree with 
 him in the general, and ask that it be laid on the table 
 and printed. 
 
 The proposition was read as follows : x 
 
 JUSTICES AND OTHER. COUNTY OFFICERS. 
 
 1. Every county shall be divided into not less than 
 four nor more than fifteen townships, as nearly equal as 
 practicable in territory and in the number of electors 
 qualified to vote for members of the general assembly 
 resident in each. 
 
 2. At such times as may be prescribed by law, the 
 qualified electors of every county shall, elect a sheriff, 
 a clerk of the county, an attorney for the Common- 
 wealth, a surveyor of the county, and one or more 
 commissioners of the revenue. And the qualified elect- 
 ors of every township shall elect two justices of the 
 Peace, an overseer of* the poor, and one surveyor of 
 roads for every precinct into which the township shall 
 be divided ; and for every two townships there shall be 
 elected by the qualified voters thereof, one constable. 
 All other county and township officers shall be elected 
 in like manner, or appointed by the board of police. 
 
 3. All county and township officers shall be qualified 
 electors there, fj and except the judge of the court of 
 probate shall be elected or appointed for terms of two 
 years, or the residue of an unexpired term — shall reside 
 during their continuance in office in the counties and 
 townships for which they were respectively elected — 
 shall serve until their successors are elected and quali- 
 fied, and shall be re-eligible ; but the same person shall 
 not serve as sheriff for more than two consecutive full 
 terms. 
 
 4. Vacancies in the offices of judge of the court of 
 probate, sheriff, clerk of the county, or justice of the 
 Peace shall be filled by special elections, and in all 
 other offices, by appointment of the board of police. 
 
 5. The jurisdiction of justices shall be co-extensive 
 with their counties, and shall embrace all actions of 
 assumpsit, debt, detinue and trover, where the sum of 
 money, exclusive of interest or value of the thing in 
 controversy, does not exceed fifty dollars, subject to 
 an appeal to the circuit court of the county where 
 the same exceeds ten dollars. The general assembly 
 shall prescribe the extent of their separate jurisdiction 
 as to breaches of the peace and criminal offences ; 
 aud may authorize two or more of them to hold spe- 
 cial courts for the examination or trial of persons 
 charged with crime, and for other purposes ; but no 
 justice shall be a member of any court having general 
 civil jurisdiction. 
 
 6. The jurisdiction of constables shall be co-extensive 
 with their counties. 
 
 7. The sheriff shall be the collector ant! treasurer of 
 the board of police. 
 
 8. The clerk of the county shall be clerk of the board 
 of police, of the court of probate, and of all special 
 courts held by justices in his county. He shall record 
 deeds, wills, and other writings, and perform such 
 other duties of a like nature as may be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 9. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall be pros- 
 ecutor of the pleas of all the courts held for his county, 
 and shall appear in all causes tried therein, in which the 
 Commonwealth may be a party; 
 
 10. All county and township officers shall receive for 
 their services an adequate compensation ; but in no case 
 shall a justice be compensated by fees for issuing pro- 
 cess or trying any civil or criminal case. When the com- 
 pensation is paid from the county treasury, the amount 
 shall be fixed by the board of police, within limits to be 
 ascertained by law. 
 
 11. The offices of coroner and escheater are abolished. 
 Every justice shall perform the duties of coroner with- 
 in his district as to persons coming to their deaths by 
 violence or casualty ; and the board of police shall 
 designate one or more constables to perform the other 
 duties of the office. The duties of escheator shall be 
 
168 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 performed by one or more of the county and township 
 officers named in this article, who shall be designated 
 by law. 
 
 Board of Police. 
 
 1. The former county courts are abolished. There 
 shall be established in each county, a court to be called 
 " the court of probate of the county of ." 
 
 2. A judge, who shall hold the said court, shall be 
 elected by the qualified electors of each county, at such 
 time as may be prescribed by law, for the term of four 
 years. He shall receive for his services an adequate com- 
 pensation, the minimum whereof shall be fixed by law, 
 which shall be paid out of the county treasury, and 
 shall be neither increased nor diminished during his 
 continuance in office. 
 
 8. The jurisdiction of the said court shall extend to 
 all matters relating to the probate of wills, the ap- 
 pointment and duties of executors, administrators, guar- 
 dians, curators, and committees of insane persons, the 
 partition of estates, and the assignment of dower : and 
 to such other matters of a like nature as may be pre- 
 scribed by law. 
 
 4. Six terms of the said court shall be held in every 
 year ; and it shall be always open for the appointment 
 and qualification of executors, administrators, and cura- 
 tors, upon citation of all persons interested, and for such 
 other purposes, and under such regulations, as may be 
 prescribed by law. 
 
 Court of Probate. 
 
 1. The justices of each county, whereof a majority 
 shall be a quorum, shall constitute a board, which shall, 
 under such general regulatious as may be prescribed 
 by law, have the administration of all the internal af- 
 fairs of the county not of a judicial character, including 
 the establishment and regulating of roads, public land- 
 ings, ferries and mills, (except in the issue and trial 
 of writs of ad quod damnum which shall issue from 
 the circuit courts,) the quantity of ordinary and other 
 licences, and the laying and disbursement of the county 
 levies. 
 
 2. The said board shall be a corporation by the name 
 
 of " the board of police of the county of ," by 
 
 which name they may sue and be sued. They shall 
 meet statedly, at least six times in every year, at the 
 court-house of their county, and may hold special and 
 adjourned meetings. At their first meeting after any 
 general election of justices, and whenever a vacancy 
 may occur, they shall elect one of their number pres- 
 ident of the board. They shall keep a journal of 
 their proceedings, and may pass by-laws and ordi- 
 nances not contrary to the constitution of the United 
 States or of this State, for the better administration of 
 the affairs of their county committed to their charge ; 
 and shall, in all cases, act as a legislative and not as a 
 judicial body. 
 
 3. The said board shall, from time to time, appoint 
 the places for holding elections in the several townships 
 of their county, and shall be the judges of the election, 
 qualification and return of their own members, and of all 
 county and town officers, including the judge of the 
 court of probate. 
 
 The proposition was laid on the table and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 PUBLIC MEETING IN TAYLOR COUNTY. 
 
 Mr. ARMSTRONG. I h-ve received the proceed- 
 ings of a public meeting held n the county of Taylor ; 
 it is said to be a very large d nd respectable meeting. 
 They have adopted a series of resolutions, in which 
 they lay down certain great principles. They first as- 
 sert the principle that all power is vested in the people, 
 and consequently derived from the people, and that any 
 other basis of representation than the white basis would 
 be anti-republican. They further state that a majority 
 of the people have a right to change and alter, and to 
 enforce that form of g overnment which is best calcu- 
 lated to secure to them and their posterity their equal 
 political rights. They have adopted several other res- 
 w.ti/*ra, one of which is instruction to myself, and to 
 
 the other gentleman from that district, in which they 
 require that we shall conform our action to the resolu- 
 tions, and that we shall exercise our best discretion to 
 give them a practical application. They further direct 
 that I shall present them to this Convention, which I now 
 do, and ask that they may be read. These resolu- 
 tions come with a good deal of propriety from the 
 people living in the county of Taylor, when we remem- 
 ber that the law by which this Convention is now as- 
 sembled was presented to the voters of that county, 
 every vote was against it. I send the proceedings of 
 this meeting to the Chair, and ask that the Secretary 
 will read them. 
 
 The paper was then read by the Secretary, as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 On Monday, the 27th day of January, 1851, a large 
 number of the citizens of Taylor county met at the 
 courthouse of said county; and by them Col. Cather 
 was called to the chair, and Adolphus Armstrong re- 
 quested to act as secretary. 
 
 The object of the meeting being explained, a com- 
 mittee was appointed to prepare and report resolutions 
 in accordance therewith. Whereupon, Leonidas S. 
 Johnson, Esq., of said committee, and on its behalf, 
 presented the following resolutions, which were, after 
 the meeting was addressed by said Johnson and John S. 
 Burdett, unanimously adopted: 
 
 1. Resolved, "That all power is vested in, and conse- 
 quently derived from, the people," and that the free 
 white population is the only true basis of a republican 
 government. 
 
 2. Resolved, That a majority of the free white people 
 of the State, and they alone, have the right to establish 
 and enforce such mode or form of government as tney 
 believe to be best calculated to secure to them and 
 their posterity their just and equal rights. 
 
 3. Resolved, That representation in the legislative de- 
 partment of government based on property, or taxation, 
 or on taxation and population combined, is such an in- 
 fraction of the principle of popular sovereignty, and 
 tends so directly to the subversion of political equality, 
 that it ought not to be tolerated by a free people. 
 
 4. Resolved, That the right of suffrage ought to be ex- 
 tended to every free white male citizen of the United 
 States, over the age of 21 years, who has also resided 
 in the county, city, or town of this commonwealth for 
 twelve months next preceding the election at which he 
 may offer to vote, not of an unsound mind, nor a pau- 
 per, nor commissioned officer, soldier, seaman, or ma- 
 rine in the service of the United States, or persons con- 
 victed of an infamous offence. 
 
 5. Resolved, That while we deny that property is an 
 element of the basis of representation, it ought to re- 
 ceive full and ample protection. 
 
 6. Resolved, That an ad valorem tax is the true prin- 
 ciple of taxation. 
 
 7. Resolved, That our delegation in the Convention to 
 amend the constitution of our State are hereby in- 
 structed to conform their action to the principles of the 
 foregoing resolutions: and that they use their discretion 
 as to the mode best calculated in their judgment to ob- 
 tain a practical application of said principles. 
 
 8. Resolved, That the foregoing resolutions be pub- 
 lished in the newspapers of this convention district, and 
 a copy be forwarded to E. J. Armstrong, Esq., one of 
 our delegates in the Convention, with the request that 
 he lay the same before the Convention. 
 
 On motion, the meeting adjourned. 
 
 Thos. Cather, Chairman. 
 A. Armstrong, Secretary. 
 
 Mr. ARMSTRONG. I should like to know whether 
 these proceedings will be entered upon the journal or 
 not, as I am entirely ignorant of the rule. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Not without an order of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would ask, then, that the 
 proceedings be laid on the table, understanding that 
 they will come up in the report of the proceedings of 
 the Convention, if laid on the table. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 169' 
 
 ^ The PRESIDENT. The notice of the fact that the 
 gentleman offered these proceedings will appear on the 
 journal, and the proceedings themselves will appear in 
 the report of the proceedings of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is all I want. 
 
 The paper was then laid on the table. 
 
 REPORT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The committee on the legislative de- 
 partment of the government, according to order, have 
 had under consideration numerous resolutions and vari- 
 ous clauses of the constitution to them referred, and 
 have adopted a report in relation to many of them, and 
 bave instructed me to hand that report into the Conven- 
 tion this day; which I am ready to do when it is the will 
 and pleasure of the Convention to receive it. I have 
 no objection to the reading of the report, nor have I any 
 wish on the subject at all, except to comply with the 
 will of the Convention; but it is about thirteen pages 
 long, and will occupy some time in reading, and I move 
 that it be printed, so that the members will have it to 
 peruse at their leisure. I shall close the single remark 
 I have to make, with a motion to lay the report on the 
 table, and that it be printed. 
 
 I have to remark that it is within the knowledge of 
 the Convention that a great variety of interesting sub- 
 jects were referred to the committee, such as were cal- 
 culated to excite diverse feelings on the part of the va- 
 rious members composing the body. They proceeded 
 harmoniously, and I hope efficiently, to discharge all 
 their laborious and difficult duties, and this report is the 
 result of their labors, so far as they have had these va- 
 rious subjects under consideration. But I wish to an- 
 nounce the fact, for the satisfaction of those who have 
 had resolutions referred, that the committee have still 
 various subjects before them undisposed of, and which 
 the committee propose to go on and consider as rapidly 
 as they can. I move that the report be laid on the table 
 and printed. 
 
 Mr. McCAMANT. I ask for the reading of the re- 
 port. 
 
 i Mr. WISE. Perhaps my friend did not hear what 
 was said by the chairman of the committee. The report 
 is thirteen pages long, and I presume it will be an un- 
 necessary waste of time to read it here. I would ask 
 him to withdraw his request for the reading of the re- 
 port, and that it may lie on the table and be printed. 
 We should all have plenty of time to digest it before it 
 comes up for action. 
 
 Mr. McCAMANT. At the request of the gent'eman 
 from Accomac I withdraw the motion, notwithstending 
 I believe I would as soon hear these reports read, as 
 long speeches on the subject of the re-eligibility of the 
 governor. 
 
 The report is as follows: 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DE- 
 PARTMENT. 
 
 r The Committee on the Legislative Department of the 
 government have, according to order, had under con- 
 sideration the several articles and clauses of the exist- 
 ing constitution to them referred, and have agreed upon 
 recommending the following provisions, viz: 
 
 Article 1. 
 
 The legislative, executive, and judiciary departments 
 shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise 
 the powers properly belonging to either of the others; 
 nor shall any person exercise the powers of more than 
 one of them at the same time, except that justices of the 
 peace shall be eligible to either house of assembly. 
 Article 2. 
 
 Sec 1. The legislature shall be formed of two dis- 
 tinct branches, which together shall be a complete legis- 
 lature, and shall be called the general assembly of 
 Virginia. 
 
 2. One of these shall be called the house of delegates, 
 and shall consist of members, to be chosen bi- 
 
 ennially, whose term of service shall be two years, to 
 
 commence on the day of the first election under this 
 constitution. 
 
 3. The other house of the general assembly shall be 
 
 called the senate, and shall consist of members, 
 
 whose term of service shall be four years, to commence 
 on the day of the first election under this constitution. 
 Immediately after they shall be assembled, in conse- 
 quence of the first election, they shall be divided as 
 equally as may be into two classes. The seats of the 
 senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expira- 
 tion of the second year, and of the second class at the 
 expiration of the fourth }?ar; so that one half may be 
 chosen every second year. 
 
 4. For the election of senate: *, the counties, cities, 
 and towns shall be divided into districts. 
 
 5. Any person may be elected a senator who shall 
 have attained to the age of thirty years, and shall be ac- 
 tually a resident within the district, and qualified to vote 
 for members of the general assembly according to this 
 constitution. And any person may be elected a mem- 
 ber of the house of delegates, who shall have attained 
 to the age of twenty-five years, and shall be actually a 
 resident within the county, city, town, or election dis- 
 trict, qualified to vote for members of the general 
 assembly according to this constitution: Provided, That 
 all persons holding lucrative offices, and ministers of 
 the gospel and priests of every denomination, shall be 
 incapable of being elected members of either house of 
 assembly. 
 
 6. The General Assembly shall meet once in every 
 two years, and not oftener, unless convened Dy the act- 
 ing Governor of the commonwealth on application, in 
 recess, of a majority of the members of each house of 
 assembly, or when, in his opinion, the interest of the- 
 common wealth may require it. Neither house, during* 
 the session of the legislature shall, without the consent 
 of the other, adjourn for mure than three days, nor to 
 any other place than that in which the two houses shall 
 be sitting. A majority of each house shall constitute a 
 quorum to do business, but a smaller number may ad- 
 journ from day to day, and shall be authorized to com- 
 pel the attendance of absent members in such manner 
 and under such penalties as each house may provide. 
 And each house shall choose its own speaker, appoint 
 its own officers, settle its own rules of proceeding, and 
 direct writs of election for supplying intermediate va- 
 cancies, but if vacancies shall occur, by death or resigna- 
 tion, during the recess of the general assembly, such 
 writs may be issued by the governor, under such regula- 
 tions as may be prescribed by law. Each house shall 
 judge of the" election, qualification and returns of its 
 members, may punish its members for disorderly be- 
 havior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a 
 member ; but not a second time for the same offence. 
 
 1. The members of the Assembly shall receive for 
 their services a compensation to be ascertained by law 
 and paid out of the public treasury ; but no law increas- 
 ing that compensation shall take effect until the end of 
 the term for which the members of the house of dele- 
 gates were elected. And no senator or delegate shall, 
 during the term for which he shall have been elected, be 
 appointed to any civil office of profit under the Com- 
 monwealth, which shall have been created, or the emol- 
 uments of which shall have been increased during such 
 term, except such offices as may be filled by elections 
 by the people. 
 
 8. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the 
 house of delegates ; but the senate may propose or con- 
 cur with the amendments, as on other bills. 
 
 9. Each house of the general assembly shall keep a 
 journal of its proceedings, which shall be published from 
 time to time. 
 
 10. The whole number of members to which the state 
 may at any time be entitled in the house of representa- 
 tives of the United States, shall be apportioneel as near- 
 ly as may be amongst the several counties, cities, and 
 towns of the state, according to their respective num- 
 bers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole 
 
170 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 number of free persons, including those bound to service 
 for a term of years and excluding- Indians not taxed, 
 three-niths of all other persons. And in the apportion- 
 ment, the state shall be divided into districts, corres- 
 ponding in number with the representatives to which it 
 may be entitled in the House of Representatives of the 
 Congress of the United States. 
 
 11. The districts to embrace respectively contiguous 
 counties cities and towns, to be compact and to include 
 as nearly as may be, an equal number of the population, 
 upon which is based representation in the house of rep- 
 resentatives of the United States. 
 
 12. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall 
 not in any case, be suspenled. The legislature shall not 
 pass any bill of attainder or any ezp'>st facto law; or 
 any law impairing the obligations of contracts, or any 
 law whereby private property shall be taken for public 
 uses, without |ust compensation ; or any law abridging 
 the freedom of speech or of the press. No man shall be 
 compelled to frequent or support any religious wor-h p, 
 place or ministry whatsoever ; nor shall any man be en- 
 force I, restrained, mole-ted or burthened in his body or 
 goods, or otherwise sinter on acount of his religious 
 opimcns or belief; but all men shall be free to profess, 
 ani by argument to maintain their opinionsin matters of 
 religion, aud the same shall in nowise affect, diminish or 
 enlarge their civil capacities. And the legislature shall 
 not prescribe any religious test whatever ; n >r confer 
 any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or de- 
 nomination ; nor pass any law requiring or authorizing 
 any religious society, or the people of any district with- 
 in this commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others 
 a tax for the erection or repair of any house of public 
 worship, or for the .-upport of any church or ministry; 
 bat it shall be full and free to every person to select his 
 religious instructor, an 1 to make for his support such 
 private contract as he shall please. 
 
 13. The general a->se nbly may by law confer on the 
 courts or other tribunals the power to grant divorces, 
 change the name> of persons and direct the sale of es- 
 tates belonging to inputs, or other persons under legal 
 disabilities But shall not by special legislation, grant 
 relief in such ca-e, nor in any other case over which the 
 laws may have conferred jurisdiction on the courts or 
 other trib mals. 
 
 U. No new county shall be formed with an area less 
 than 600 square miles. In the formation of new coun- 
 ties, no existing county shall be reduced below such area, 
 nor shall any existing county having a population less 
 than six thousand white inhabitants be deprived "of 
 mare than one-fifth of its population. 
 
 15. Every law shall embrace but one object, and that 
 shall be expressed in the title. 
 
 16. The legislature may provide by law that no per- 
 son shall be capable of holding or being elected to any 
 post of profit, trust or emolument, civil or military, le- 
 gislative, executive or judicial, under the government of 
 this commonwealth, who shall hereafter fight a duel, or 
 sen 1 or accept a challenge to fight a duel, the probable 
 issue of which may be the death of the challenger or 
 eh illenged, or who shall be a secon 1 to either party, or 
 shall iu any manner aid or assist in such duel, or shall 
 be knowingly the bsarer of such challenge or acceptance; 
 *but no person shall be so disqualified by reason of his 
 having heretofore fought such duel, or sent or accepted 
 such challenge, or been second in such duel or bearer of 
 such challenge or acceptance. 
 
 17. The governo--, the ju Iges, and all others offending 
 against the state, either by mal-administration, corrup- 
 tion, neglect of duty, or any other high crime or mis- 
 demeanor, shall be impeached by the House of Dele- 
 gates ; such impeachment to be prosecuted before the 
 Senate, which shall have the sole power to try all im- 
 peachments. When sitting for that purpose, the Sen- 
 ate shall be on oath or affirmation, and no person shall 
 be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of 
 the members present. Judgment in cases of impeach- 
 ment shall not extend further than to removal from 
 
 office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office 
 of honor, trust or profit under the commonwealth ; but 
 the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and 
 subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, 
 according to law. 
 
 18. In all elections in this Commonwealth to any 
 office or place of trust, honor or profit, the vote shall be 
 given openly or viva voce, and not by ballot. 
 
 Article 3 — Free Persons of Color. 
 
 Seu. 1. It shall not be competent to the general as- 
 sembly to pass any law by which permission to remain 
 within the limits of this commonwealth, whall be granted 
 to any slave hereafter to be emancipated — except only 
 that when such slave shall have been emancipated by 
 last will a^id testament, he or she may be permitted so to 
 remain, for such time aud such only as may be fixed by 
 law for winding up aud closing the administration of the 
 estate of the testator. 
 
 2. All laws now in force by which permission may 
 be obtained by any free negro or mulatto to remnin 
 within the limits of the commonwealth shall be void, 
 and no such law shall hereafter be passed except as 
 aforesaid. 
 
 3. The general assembly may pass such laws as they 
 may deem best for the removal of all free negroes and 
 mulattoes beyond the limits of this commonwealth for 
 a permanent residence, either with or without the con- 
 sent of said free negroes and mulattoes. 
 
 Article 4 — Taxation. 
 
 Sec. 1. Taxation shall be equal and un'form through- 
 out the State. All property shall be taxed in propor- 
 tion to its value ; to be ascertained by law. No one 
 species of property shall be taxed higher than another 
 species of property of equal value on which taxes shall 
 be levied, but any property may be exempted from tax- 
 ation by a majority of the whole number of members 
 elected to service in each house of assembly. 
 
 2. A capitation tax shall be levied equal to double the 
 tax levied on one hundred dollars worth of land. The 
 legislature shall have power to levy an income tax, and 
 a tax on salaries, but no tax shall be levied on incomes 
 derived from property < therwise taxed. 
 
 3. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in 
 consequence of appropriations made by law ; and a 
 regular statement of the receipts, disbursements, an- 
 propriations and loans shall be published annually. 
 
 4. '• A majority of the whole number of members 
 elected to serve in each house of assembly -hall be ne- 
 cessary to pass any law imposing taxes or providing 
 for raising money by taxes, loans, or otherwise appro- 
 priating public money.'' 
 
 5. "On the final passage of all money bills, the vote 
 shall be taken by ' ayes and noes' and be entered on the 
 journal." 
 
 6. There shall be set apart annually by the auditing 
 and disbursing officers of the treasury, from the reve- 
 nue accruing from taxation, and the fuud for internal 
 improvements, a sum equal to seven per cent, of the 
 State debt existing on the first day of January, 1852. 
 The fund thus set apart shall be called the 'sinking 
 fund," anl shall be set apart and applied by the officers 
 aforesaid to the payment of the State debt as it shall 
 become redeemable. For the purpose of setting apart, 
 making and superintending this investment, the said 
 officers shall constitute a board with all necessary pow- 
 er to carry into effect this article ; the organization of 
 which board may be prescribed by law. Whenever a 
 debt shall be contracted after the first day of January, 
 1852, the said officers shall, iu like manner, set apart 
 annually for twenty-four years from that time, which 
 sum shall be a part of the sinking fund, and shall be ap- 
 plied in the manner before directed. The revenue thus 
 appropriated to the sinking fund with its accruing in- 
 terest, simple and compouud, shall not be subject to 
 appropriation by the legislature, except in time of war, 
 insurrection or invasion. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 171 
 
 7. Fixe legislature shall not pledge the faith of the 
 State, or bia.l it ia a ay form for the debts or obligations 
 of an ,' company or .corporation whatever. 
 
 9. The legislature shall a it contract loans, or cause 
 to be issued certificate; of debt or bonds of the State, 
 irre ieemabie at, the pleasure of the State, for a period 
 gre iter than twenty tour years. 
 
 10. The debt of the State hereafter contracted shall 
 never exceed millions of dollars. 
 
 11. It shall be the duty of the general assembly to 
 provi le by law fur the registration of the qualLied vo- 
 ters of the commonwealth, i i such manner as to afford 
 an effectual check to the practice of fraud in the exer- 
 cise of the elective franchise. 
 
 The report was laid on the table and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. CARTER, of Loudoun. I have an amendment to 
 one of the prop >sitions of that report which I propose 
 to olTcfl" when it shall come up for the consideration of 
 the Convention. I ask tint it may be laid on the table 
 an I printed with the report. 
 
 The proposition is as follows : 
 
 '• The general Assembly shall have no power to au- 
 thorize a subscription on state account for any work of 
 internal improvement, u .lless satisfactory evi lence be 
 furuishe 1 the board of public works., or other authorized 
 agent of the St ite, shewing that at least three-fifths of 
 the capital stock of the co np my by which said improve- 
 ment is to be mi le, has been taken by solvent persons 
 fully able to pay the same." 
 
 The proposition was laid on the table and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The C invention, on motion of Mr. CONWAY, resumed 
 the consideration, in Committee of the Whole, (Mr. 
 Waits, of Norfolk county, ia the chair,) of the lvport 
 of the Co nmittee on the Executive Department of the 
 Governm ;nt. 
 
 The Old AIR stated the question to be on the first sec- 
 tion of the first article of the report, and the amen l- 
 me:it< p n ling upon it. 
 
 Mr. H3.tE. I beg the indulgence of the committee 
 for a very few moments, for an investigation of the prin- 
 ciples involved in the subject now under consideration 
 I shall coafi »e myself almost entirely to the principle 
 itself, fir, to my min 1, there is very iittle of practical 
 imp H'tauce in the matter. But I do think there is ;i 
 principle of deep and vital importance in the s ibject 
 ualer c >a si deration — a princi >le that lies at the founda- 
 tion of our institutions, and the decision of this ques- 
 ti »n must se tie die prin iiple by which, inaT probabidty, 
 we s ia 1 be gov ;rn • i in m st, if not all the subjects that 
 shall be presented for our deliberations while we remain 
 assembled here. I ca ne to this C >nven ion with a fixed 
 desire an I determination to ex^rt all my humb'e efforts 
 to the promotion of great principles, and in framing the 
 organic law of the State, so to construct it as to adapr 
 it, in its details, as nearly as possible to the gre;it end 
 an I object ha 1 in view by our fathers when they laid the 
 fuiln I itioas of our government. I shall not here stop 
 to inquire whether or not it is the design of this Conven 
 tion to conform to those great principles, nor shall I stop 
 to inq are what ; Ti the desires of iho people of this old 
 commonwealth in reference thereto. I take it for 
 granted that all will at once concede the fact that the 
 peop e of this commonwealth desire our constitution to 
 conform to the principles established bv our forefath- 
 ers — no, not established, but recognized and declared 
 by them; an 1 that is, "that all power is vested in, an i 
 consequently derive 1 from the people ; that magistrates 
 are their trustees and servants, aud at all times amena- 
 ble to them." Now, I understand the subject un lei* 
 const leration to involve the very principle declared in 
 the section of the Bill of Rights just quoted : for it is 
 simply this — shall we, in the formation of the organic 
 law of the State, adapt it to the principle therein recog 
 iiized, which declares that all rightful political power 
 
 belongs to the people. 1 do not, I cannot give my assent 
 to the pro,.;o?iaon so frequently laid down, so urgently 
 pressed ami so pertinaciously adhered to, during this 
 disc.stdou — long protracted as it has been — that the 
 people, when they cater the social compact, do, as of 
 right aud propriety, surrender parts, or the whole of their 
 natural sovereignty and inherent rights. That I under- 
 stand to be the principle involved in the question now 
 under consideration, is it competent? Is it within the 
 power of the people, consistently with the theory of a 
 p .pular government, to restrict themselves in the for- 
 mation of the organ. c law? It has been over and over 
 again asserted in this debate, that the ptople do restrict 
 inemselves, both in their soveieign and inherent rights, 
 by entering society, and that in doing so, they act in 
 perfect consistency with the tluory of our government 
 und with the great doctrine of popular supremacy in a 
 popular government. And it has been asserted by the 
 gentleman from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Tredway,) that the 
 object of a written coastitutioa is to restrict the people, 
 to that proposition 1 intend principally to address my- 
 seif ; for it is one to w hich I cannot give my assent. I 
 never can ackuow.eJge the proposition, that man, when 
 lie enters the social compact, surrenders all, or any part 
 of that inherent sovereignty which we are taught be- 
 longs to him. I assert the proposition — I may be pecu- 
 liar in it, but I must a-sert it — t oat n a i, by entering 
 the social compact, surrenders none — no not one parti- 
 cle— oi either Ins sovereignty or his natural rights. On 
 the coatrary, I think I shall show, that so far from a sur- 
 render or restriction of them, they are both strength- 
 ened and supported by that compact, What is the nat- 
 ural condition of man and what is un le-stood by his 
 sovereignty in that condition ? What do we mean when 
 we speak of a man in the natural state, before he enters 
 the political or social compact ? Surely we do not mean 
 that he has the power of right to do wrong. But, if I 
 understand it, his position is that of the soveieign and 
 subject combined i i the same person — sovereign in that 
 iie is the master of his own destiny on earth, and sub- 
 ject in that he is subject to the com.ro] of his own 
 will, and his own reason and conscience. That I under- 
 stand to be the condition of man in the natural state. 
 And the social compact is but a union of a multitude of 
 men thus circumstanced. How, then, con it be said man 
 surrenders his sovereignty by that union ? H« but unites 
 his own sovereignly with that of many others in the 
 compact, and the con equence is the union of a multi- 
 tude of sovereigns and subjects, each one as sovereign, 
 uniting with alt in determining — and each, as subject, 
 governed by the decisions of all. Again, I inquire', 
 what are the natural or inherent rights of man? If I 
 am correctly advised, they are the right of life, of ;ib- 
 r:rty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ad his other rights 
 are inferior and subservient to these. Then the question 
 very properly arises, does man, by entering the s< cial 
 compact, surrender all, or any part of the e his nat ural 
 rights ? Nay, can he sum nder them ? Can he surrender 
 the right of life ? If he does, he is guilty of suLdde, and 
 amenable to the divine law for its infringement. Can 
 he surrender the right of iibeity ? If he does, he ceases 
 to be a man — he becomes a mere automaton — not a fee- 
 man — not a man — but a mere machine, turned at the 
 will of him who works the machinery by wl.ieh he is 
 governed Can he surrender the pursuit of happi- 
 ness? I understand the great design of man's creation 
 was the pursuit of happiness, and if he surrenders his 
 right to that pursuit, he destroys the object of his own 
 creation, the design of his own existence, and renders 
 himself amenable to the divine law, by surrendering 
 that for which alone he was placed on earth to .-eel; — 
 eternal happiness. Now I ask gentlemen, is it consist- 
 ent with the nature of man to surrender these his natur- 
 al rights, acknowledged to be such. All the other rights 
 of men are merged in or subservient to the rights f have 
 mentioned. 
 
 Now, for a very few moments, I propose to investi- 
 gate the arguments urged by gentlemen upon this sub- 
 
172 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ject. My position is, that this proposition or argument, 
 that man surrenders his rights, is contrary, first to all 
 the authorities upon this subject. I will repeat it, that 
 I may not be misunderstood — this proposition of gentle- 
 men, that a man does surrender a portion of his natural 
 rights by entering the compact, in a popular government, 
 is contrary to all the received authorities upon the sub- 
 ject. Gentlemen have been exceedingly prolific in au- 
 thorities, and I wonder they have not brought the au- 
 thority of some of the writers on this subject to sustain 
 them in their position. What elementary writer has 
 been referred to — who has been quoted to sustain that 
 position ? I hazard the assertion, none can be procured. 
 If there can be, I never have seen it. I grant you that an 
 abundance of authority can be produced from those wri- 
 ters who have written in defence of monarchy, to sustain 
 them in one part of their position. Those writers all 
 unite in saying that man can surrender his sovereignty 
 and rights, and that he does surrender them often to one 
 man, and from this supposed surrender they derive the 
 right of monarchs to rule. Bnt we in this country, as I 
 had always been taught to believe, have ever maintained 
 that monarchs rule, not by the surrender of the rights to 
 him by the people, but by his own usurpations. Whilst 
 all those writers unite in assuming that man can and 
 does surrender the sovereign powers into the hands of 
 one man ; not one of them has ever asserted that, in a 
 popular government, man surrenders either his sover- 
 eignty or his natural rights by entering the social com- 
 pact. If they have so asserted, I have never seen it. 
 But this proposition is not only contrary to all the au- 
 thors and to nature, but it is contrary, in my humble 
 judgment, to reason. It is acknowledged on all hands, 
 that man in the natural state is sovereign, but they say 
 that that sovereignty is surrendered. The design of a 
 written constitution itself, says the gentleman from Pitt- 
 sylvania, is to restrict ihe people when they enter the 
 social compact. Wow, I have always understood, not 
 only from authority, but from my own humble reason- 
 ing on this subject, that man's sovereignty, so far from 
 being surrendered, by entering the social compact, was 
 secured to him by the terms of the compact itself, each 
 one pledging the defence of others. According to the 
 authority of Burlamaqui, the sovereignty of each is 
 merged in, or united with, that of the whole. The will, 
 the conscience, the judgment of all, becomes that of each, 
 all of which is set forth by the decision of the majority. 
 The will and conscience of the individual in the natural 
 state governs his action. He is the subject of that will. 
 The judgment, the weight ot considerations operating 
 upon the mind, predominating one way or the other, 
 control the actions of man. So arguing Burlamaqui 
 contends, and so I think, that, when they enter the 
 social compact, the sovereignty of each being united in 
 that of the whole, each one is thereby strengthened, 
 just as one chord is strengthened by its union with a mul- 
 titude — and then the will, judgment and conscience of 
 the majority, predominating one way or the other, de- 
 cides the question by which all are to be governed — the 
 opinions and considerations of the minority yielding to 
 the superior judgment of the majority, just as the pre- 
 dominance of the will or conscience with the individual 
 himself. Thus believing, I must insist, in the language of 
 our own bill of rights, that the natural rights of man 
 are li unalienable and indefeasible." 
 
 I have now said all I intended to say upon the abstract 
 priuciple involved in the question now under considera- 
 tion. I must, however, beg the indulgence of the com- 
 mittee for a short time to an application of this prin- 
 ciple to the subject of our deliberations. I shall be very 
 brief; for my greatest desire was to define my own po- 
 sition upon the theory of popular government — and that 
 opinion is, that all rightful political power belongs to 
 the people ; and further, that the opinion urged by gen- 
 tlemen on the other side of this question, is contrary to 
 all our received notions of popular rights — is at vari- 
 ance with the spirit of our government, and would 
 strike from under us the foundation upon which the 
 
 whole superstructure is raised; and if persevered in, 
 must sooner or later, tear down the pillars of the great 
 edifice itself. The position assumed by some gentlemen 
 here, I say, is a violation of the fundamental ground up- 
 on which ouf whole fabric rests. It is anti-democratic ; 
 it is monarchical. What is the reasoning by which all 
 the advocates of monarchy claim the right of the mon- 
 arch to rule ? Is it not upon this very reasoning that the 
 people surrender to him the right ? Is it not, according 
 to the reasoning of the same author I have before re- 
 ferred to (Burlamaqui) upon the very ground that ;dl 
 power is originally inherent in the people, and that it 
 is transferred by them to one man, whereby all sover- 
 eignty in the government or community is vested in 
 him ? I know of no writer on the subject who has ever 
 claimed the right of a monarch to rule, upon any other 
 ground than a surrender by the people, the same that 
 has been so urgently pressed here. And hence, I say, it 
 is not only anti-democratic, but monarchial. It is this 
 that has disrobed the people of other countries of their 
 rightful sovereignty. It is this that has reared the 
 proudest thrones that have ever stood upon earth, and 
 placed upon them the basest tyrants that ever wielded a 
 sceptre. And this same principle, carried to its legiti- 
 mate results here, will prostrate the liberties of our peo- 
 ple low beneath the haughty tread of the tyrant's heel. 
 I understand that the object of our assembling here was 
 not to plunge rashly into fields of untried experiment, 
 but to carry out, to build upon, and perfect that building, 
 the foundations of which were laid by our forefathers in 
 the days of darkness and blood — those days that tried 
 men's souls. They laid the foundations, and we are 
 called here to perfect, in detail, that which they began. 
 They never designed, in fixing the details of the consti- 
 tution they had framed, to adapt those details fully to 
 the principles they themselves had declared. And why ? 
 Because they were entering upon an untried experi- 
 ment ; they had the fate of all the ancient republics 
 staring them in the face ; they were just emerging from 
 a monarchy ; they were just forming a new government, 
 and all they did, and all they proposed to do, was to lay 
 the foundations, and leave to posterity, with the lights 
 of experience upon them, to perfect the building upon 
 the foundations they had laid. No one pretends, no one 
 ever did pretend, that the constitution of '76 was adapt- 
 ed, in all its details, to the principles declared by its 
 framers. While they declared that ail power was in the 
 people inherently — that magistrates were their trustees 
 and servants, and at all times amenable u> them — did 
 they adapt the details of their government to the prin- 
 ciples thus declared? Very far from it. They made the 
 governor himself elective by the legislature. Did they 
 not thereby make him irresponsible to the people, in 
 whom, as they had just declared, all power was vested 
 inherently ? I repeat then, that they never designed, at 
 that time, to adapt the details of the government to the 
 principles they had laid down; but they determined to 
 enter upon it, and then leave to the developments of 
 time and experience the demonstration of the truth of 
 the position they had assumed, that all power was in the 
 hands of the people, and would be rightfully exercised 
 by them. It has been argued and pressed by every gen- 
 tleman who has advocated the side of restriction in this 
 discussion, that they have the precedents of the fathers 
 for that which they now propose — the precedents of the 
 constitution of '76, and that of '29 and '30. Why, does it 
 not occur to every mind that by neither of these consti- 
 tutions are they sustained in a solitary step they pro- 
 pose to take. The precedents of the fathers of those 
 constitutions! What were those precedents? They 
 gave the election of the governor to the legislature, and 
 the restriction of ineligibility therefore was not applied 
 to the sovereigns of all power — the people — but that re- 
 striction was upon the legislature — their agents. No 
 man has contended here, and no man will contend, I 
 presume, that it is incompetent or improper to restrict 
 the agents of the people. That I understand to be the 
 design of all gentlemen ; that I take to be the object of 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ■all written constitutions ; the imposition of restrictions 
 upon the agents of the people, but not on the people 
 themselves. Our fathers, by the constitutions of '76 and 
 '29 and '30, laid this restriction of ineligibility, not upon 
 the people, but upon their agents — the legislature. And 
 here, permit me to say, that I am ready to go with gen- 
 tlemen for all proper restrictions that may be proposed, 
 when they propose the application of those restrictions 
 to the agents of the people. I am ready and willing to 
 ■restrict the legislative, the executive, and judicial branch- 
 es of the government — those who, as the agents of the 
 people, fill the various offices in those departments ; but 
 if you say restrict the people, in whom resides all sover- 
 eignty, I must reply, never ! never ! no, never ! I 
 understand directly the reverse of the proposition 
 that has been so much contended for here — that 
 the object of constitutions is to restrict the people. My 
 own opinion has always been that the object of a consti- 
 tution was to restrict the agents and representatives of 
 the people ; to lay down the rules and regulations by 
 which they are to be governed in their official acts; to 
 prescribe the orbit in which they are to move, and not 
 to restrict the people themselves. And then the laws 
 ■afterwards -enacted by their legislature, in pursuance of 
 that constitution, were for the government of every in- 
 dividual in that community. 
 
 I have already spoken longer than I proposed to my- 
 self, but I must beg the indulgence of the committee for 
 a few moments more. The argument urged on this sub- 
 ject as a practical question — not altogether practical — 
 but as a practical question connected with the principle, 
 is, that the objection to re-eligibility does not grow out 
 of a want of capacity in the people, but rests on the 
 man elected — that the officer himself is thereby cor- 
 rupted. They acknowledge the capacity of the people. 
 They at once concede that the wisdom, the virtue, the 
 intelligence, and the patriotism of the people, are ade- 
 quate to any political emergency that can possibly arise 
 in the government. They all concede this, but urge 
 that as a consequence of the election, the officer himself 
 is thereby corrupted, and should not, therefore, be eli- 
 gible to a re-election. Now, I humbly think that these 
 two propositions are the converse of each other, and that 
 each one destroys the other. Why ! the acknowledg- 
 ment of the capacity of man to elect, confesses, neces- 
 sarily, his capacity to judge of the manner in which the 
 duties of the office are to be performed, and afterwards 
 the details of the manner in which its functions have 
 been performed. The two are inseparable ; they go 
 hand in hand, and it is impossible to separate them. If 
 you acknowledge the capacity to elect, you must ac- 
 knowledge the capacity to judge of the duties of the 
 office. But gentlemen say the effect and consequence of 
 the election is the corruption of the officer himself. 
 Well, if you admit that, what does it prove ? If it proves 
 anything, does it not prove that all popular elections are 
 corrupting in their tendency ? The gentleman from 
 Pittsylvania (Mr. Tredway) shakes his head. But if a 
 man is a eorrect and upright man when he goes into 
 office, and becomes dishonest by having been elected, 
 does it not prove that the tendency of the election of 
 the agents has a corrupting influence ? Why, the idea 
 is, that the man is an honest man in the first instance, 
 but becomes dishonest by having passed in review by 
 the people, and been elevated to office and honor by 
 their voice. If this argument of gentlemen proves any- 
 thing, does it not prove that popular elections have a 
 corrupting influence ? I should be extremely happy if 
 gentlemen will show me, in the subsequent part of this 
 argument, that the proposition for which they contend, 
 does not prove all popular elections to be corrupt. I 
 should be glad to have it proved to my own mind. But 
 what else does it prove ? If this idea of gentlemen on 
 the other side is correct, it proves that the people are 
 competent to decide upon the qualifications of candi- 
 dates for any office or public trust — that they ar capa- 
 ble of determining, in the first instance, Avhether he is 
 honest or dishonest, capable or incapable, competent or 
 
 incompetent, to fill the office to which he aspire? — though 
 they are competent thus to decide upon his qualifica- 
 tions in the first instance, yet gentlemen would have us 
 believe they are not competent to re-pass upon him. But 
 gentlemen tell us the people act honestly and wisely in 
 the selection of their officers — that they appoint good 
 men to offices of honor and responsibility ; but the office 
 itself corrupts the holder of it; that his political integ- 
 rity is destroyed by the incumbency ; that he becomes 
 dishonest ; plays into the hands of demagogues ; in- 
 trigues with political partizans, and descends to many 
 other unworthy means of retaining his position. In 
 this manner, gentlemen argue, his re-election is secured. 
 Grant it, for the sake of argument, and what would this 
 proposition of our opponents prove? Why, that the 
 people are so corrupt that they yield to the unholy in- 
 fluences brought to bear in favor of the re-election; or 
 that they are so blii id as to be deceived by them. If 
 this proposition or this argument can be reconciled with 
 the great principles of democracy— with the great prin- 
 ciples of popular government, for I do not use the word 
 democracy in a partizan sense— if it can be made to 
 harmonize with the principles declared by our forefa- 
 thers in the bill of rights, then I confess that I have not 
 the capacity to see it. But the very intelligent and 
 talented gentleman from the c unty of Fauquier — I do 
 not see him in his seat — very boldly and unhesil atingly 
 declared that a pure representative democracy could 
 not exist. Yes, a pure representative democracy — the 
 gentleman first said a pure democracy, and afterwards 
 repeated a pure representative democracy. We have 
 no pure democracy in this country. We do not stand 
 in the condition in which they did in democratic Athens, 
 where the people assembled in mass, in the groves of 
 the Acadmey, to legislate in their primary capacity, or 
 to jgude of, and execute the laws by them enacted. The 
 representative feature is brought into our constitution, 
 and wherefore ? Does the representative element exist 
 in a popular government, as a necessary ingredient 
 thereof ? No, but representation in a popular govern- 
 ment is but a concession to necessity itself. Where is- 
 the authority for the creation of the representative fea- 
 ture in a popular government, upon any other ground' 
 than of making concessions to the necessity that exists- 
 here, and that did not exist in Athens ? And why does- 
 it exist here ? Because the extent of territory, the im- 
 perfection of our roads, and scattered condition of our 
 people, rendered it extremely inconvenient, if not im- 
 possible, for them to assemble in their primary capacity. 
 The representative feature is not based on the moral 
 incapacity of the citizens, but is a concession to the 
 physical causes that rendered it imposs ble for them to. 
 perform these functions themselves. Then, because of 
 that necessity, the representative feature is incorporated 
 into our constitution. But the principle of representa- 
 tion cannot be carried one inch beyond the bounds of 
 that necessity; for whenever the representative feature 
 steps beyond the bounds of necessity in a popular 
 government, the practice pro tanto departs from the 
 theory of the government, and to that extent infringes 
 the rights of the people. Here we find the authority 
 for electing a governor to execute the laws of the com- 
 monwealth : for if this physical necessity did not exist, 
 the people could doit themselves, without the agency of 
 a governor. And now let me ask if these causes did not 
 exist ? If the people were to execute the laws them- 
 selves, and not entrust that duty to their agents, would 
 or could you restrict them in the manner of its execu- 
 tion ? Would you or could you say that A or B should 
 participate in the matter, but C or D, their equals, should 
 not ? I think not. Then if you could not thus restrict 
 them, if you could not say who should or who; should not 
 participate ; neither can you say who shall or shall not 
 participate in the selection of the agents, in- so far as it& 
 application is to the citizen. Nor can you say that the 
 citizens having this right, have not an equal right to 
 the selection of whom they choose among themselves;, 
 without limitation and without restriction. 
 
174 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 I am aware that gentlemen may argue that I would 
 exten I this subject a little beyond what any others here 
 propose. And it is more than probable that some gen 
 tlem m may ft*k me if my theory would not extend the 
 selec ion of the governor to females and to minors. All 
 I have to say in reference to that matter is, that if you 
 make the ladies citizens of the Commonwealth, and con- 
 fer upon them th : right of suffVcige, I shall claim the 
 right to vote for one of them as governor. [Laughter, j 
 Bat they are not citizens bat inhabitants; and whilst all 
 •citizens are inhal itants, all inhabita its are not citizens . 
 fo no disfranchised individual is a citizen. A citizen is 
 -one possessing the right to exercise political power. Fe- 
 males and minors, therefore, are not citizens in the tech- 
 nical meaning of the word. And, by Divine institution, 
 females are made subject to their lords, and minors sub 
 ject to their parents. Wh ist I should claim the right to 
 vote thus as 1 have sai !, I think the laiies have sufficient 
 natural power with their eyes; and I should hesitate long 
 before 1 would be willing to a id political power thereto 
 My own humble opinion with reference to this matter i>, 
 that all the powers of government are in the hands of 
 the people or citizens, without restriction and without 
 ■surrender. 
 
 I be ^ pardon for having already detained the commit- 
 tee so 1 >ng, and I shall hurry along as rapidly as possi 
 ble. And in so doing 1 shall pass over many positions 1 
 had note 1, and to which i had intended to reply. 1 
 m i t beg leave to make one remark in reference to the 
 pos tion occupied by the very able gentleman from 
 Richmond (Mr. Merhdith) the other day. It was, that 
 if you make a Governor re-eligible, he would be court- 
 ing the Legislature, or be intriguing with politicians, and 
 would be asking a re-nomination to the office by his po- 
 litical party, and his consequent re-election. Well, 1 
 grant you that he may sometimes do so. And here I 
 will remark, that whilst I have the fullest confidence in 
 the people, I do not believe them infallible. " To err is 
 human." But I do believe that whenever the people 
 err, if I may be permitted to make a quotation from a 
 source that is rather sore to us Democrats, " the sober, 
 second thought always corrects them." But suppose 
 the proposition of the gentleman to be true, that, by in- 
 triguing with politicians, he will secure a re-nomination 
 and his consequent re-election, and what would it prove ? 
 Would it not prove that the people are so corrupt as not 
 to put their condemnation on such means, or so blind as 
 not to see them ? 
 
 I was sorry to hear my able and learned friend from 
 Fauquier take the position he did on the day before yes- 
 terday — that he desired democracy to be expunged from 
 o lr government, or, in other words, that he desired a 
 government combining with it both aristocracy and mon- 
 archy. The learned gentleman referred to the history 
 of the pa t — of the past so-called Republics of other 
 nations and other ages of the world; and does he not 
 find an example full of warning in those very Republics 
 of that which he now so much desire* ? The Republic 
 of Sparta, so called under the institutions of her great 
 law-giver, Lycurgus. had both monarchy and aristocracy; 
 and after a period of about one hundred and eighty years, 
 democracy was united therewith. The Ephoni was the 
 only democratic feature in the government; and they 
 were elected by the people. But let me tell the gentle- 
 man that the people in the election of the Ephorii were 
 restricted in their selectior to the nobility. And so it 
 was with the so-called Republic of Athens — the people 
 elected their Archons annually; yet they were restricted 
 in their selection to persons composing their aristocracy. 
 And so also in Rome, the Tribunes were elected by the 
 people, but, if I remember rightly, they were elected 
 from among the Patricians. All three of these Repub- 
 lics show us, by their warning example, the danger of 
 impo.-ing such restrictions upon the sovereigns of all 
 earthly power, in the selection of their Governors, or 
 other agents. It is dangerous, and the history of the an- 
 cient world proves it to be dangerous. There is purity 
 
 with the masses, there is patriotism, thei e is love of - oui;- 
 try there. But when you pass from the masses to politi- 
 cians, and to the aristocracy, 1 cannot say as much. Witu 
 the masses of the people there is patriotism. They hav • 
 nothing to govern or io guide them but the great princi- 
 ple of a love of country. Nothing but the pure and 
 holy principle of patriotism governs their actions — noth- 
 ing else glows in their bosoms. But it is not always so 
 with, the politicians and the aristocracy. They frequent- 
 ly have other and, to them, w tighter considerations gov- 
 erning and controlling them in iheir movements. Poli- 
 ticians look to themselves, and to the means of their 
 own promotion ; and the aristocracy are continually 
 graspsng for power, and impelled on by that love for the! 
 unholy power of wealth that proved the curse and tli^ 
 downfall of the Roman and other Republics of the old 
 world, and which will ere long, I fear, steal from the 
 people of this Commonwealth that which they cannot, 
 rightfully surrender, but which may be stolen from iheni 
 by littles, until it ends in the prostration of the rights 
 and liberties of the peopie. and the ultimate downfall 
 of our Republic. All history demonstrates that the 
 danger to a Republic is the stealing of power from the 
 masses and taking it into the hands of the aristocracy, 
 or the few. And above all tilings, as wise legislators a 
 behooves us to guard well she sovereign powers and sov- 
 ereign rights of the people. With them there is honesty 
 and patriotism; and as long as you keep the love ol 
 country, the feeling of patri ttsm, burning in their bos- 
 oms, the lamp of liberty will never be ext.ingui.-hed. 
 
 I beg pardon for having dela ned the Committee so 
 much longer than I designed. My sole desire was to 
 define my own position on principles, which principles 
 are to guide me in all my acts in thus C< nvention. I 
 .-hall vote against any and every restriction proposed to 
 oe laid on the people. I shall vote for any and ad proper 
 restrictions on the agents of the people. And allow me, 
 in conclusion, to say to the gentleman from Pittsylva- 
 nia, who has alluded to the fact that there are other re- 
 strictions in the report, that, at a proper time, there will 
 be other propositions of amendment. But " sufficient 
 unto the day." 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Caroline. I rise, not for the purpose- 
 of entering at large into the discussion of this discus- 
 sion, but simply to offer some reasons for a vote I shall 
 give. Much has been said which meets my approbation,, 
 and much has been said which meets my disapprobation. 
 I came here, with a mind open to conviction. In t lie 
 canvass in which I performed an humble part, although 
 I had formed opinions, and considered in my own 
 mind, governmental questions, that wi uld be brought 
 up here, yet upon every and ail occasions, I hesitated, 
 not to say to the people ihat if they elected me, they 
 would have to elect me upon trust. With a mind thus 
 free to conviction, I came here to listen to the vari- 
 ous arguments that should be adduced by the able 
 and distinguished gentlemen here, and with a de- 
 sire of gaining therefrom such light and information 
 as would conuuet my mind to a truthful conclusion. I 
 have been taught to look to the constitution of our 
 country, not with the feeling of aversion manifested 
 by some of the speakers upon this floor, but I had beeru 
 taught to reverence it ; and I am willing to preserve in it 
 all that is good, and eject from it all that is had. I would 
 regard it as I would a venerable father — I would, 
 reverence it for its virtues, but I would withdraw from 
 it, its infirmities. I would not lay the hand of Vandal- 
 ism upon it, because it is the creation of some of the 
 wisest minds and the best heads that this country has ever 
 seen. I would not raze this noble fabric from its foun- 
 dation, but I would repair it where necessary, and re- 
 form its imperfections. Looking to it, then, in this point of 
 view, I approach the subject under consideration, with a. 
 view of arriving at a conclusion to which the best judg- 
 ment of my mind can conduct me. Suppose, for a mo- 
 ment, we hoist all governmental restraints, and resolve 
 society into its original elements, and leave it unre- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 175 
 
 strained and unrestricted, what would be its inevitable 
 tendency ? The inevitable tendency would be to aii- 
 -archy and confusion. And if the theory of the argu- 
 ment adduced by my friend from Montgomery (Mr. 
 B.oge) should be carried out in application to the con- 
 stitution, its results would inevitably lead to that. There 
 might be some force in his argument, if we were to re 
 gard man as perfect, and exempt from those frailties 
 which necessarily connect themselves with human 
 nature. But looking to him as he is, it is necessa- 
 ry that some restraints should be imposed upon him, 
 for the purpose of checking the passions of the 
 human heart, and for the purpose of regulating and 
 controlling his otherwise uncontrollable actions. Why, 
 t.iis principle lays at the foundation cf all govern- 
 ment. Government is but a limitati n upon popu- 
 lar rights, and whether we look to republican or 
 monarchical governments, they exercise, and will exer- 
 cise upon the actions of all men, moral restraints. For 
 the purpose of preventing the existence of the prin- 
 ciple of anarchy, as existing among mankind in an un- 
 res trained ami uncontrollable state, government has 
 been established. And by government those restraints 
 necessary to the well-being of society are necessarily 
 imposed. I have not heard an argument adduced here 
 that did not ad. nit the fact, that all wholesome and 
 necessary restraints were proper in order to restrain 
 the action of men; and the only difference be- 
 tween the various speakers who have adiressed you 
 on the subject, is not that restraints are not necessary, 
 but how far these restraints should extend. The one party 
 contending that these restraints should be few, and the 
 other contends that they should extend so far as to re- 
 strain man in a State of society under which the citizen 
 iaay better enjoy his rights unimpaired. If the argu- 
 ment of my worthy friend be correct, no restraint 
 would be necessary. He says, if our fair friends, the 
 la lies, could be made citizens, if minors could be recog- 
 nized as citizens of the Commonwealth, that, in the ap- 
 plication of this principle, he would even advoca! e their 
 exercising all political power; and that was but the 
 legitimate deduction from his argument. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. I beg pardon for interrupting the gen- 
 tleman. My positiou was, that if the ladies were made 
 citizens, then i shouid claim the right to vote for one of 
 them for governor. But you would have to make them 
 ciiizeus first. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. Then, according to the view of the 
 gentleman, if his vote was to be restricted to the lady 
 citizens, then, perhaps, he would go to the fullest ex- 
 tent, and restrict the other part of society from voting 
 for governor. Bat this is apart from the question, i 
 know that the ladies are the depositories of ail the softer 
 and kinder virtues ; and that in their proper sphere, 
 they are very active in asserting their supremacy, so 
 far as the influence of those virtues exist. [Laughter.] 
 But that was the legitimate tendency of the gentle 
 man's argument, and finding it so, he sought to antici- 
 pate the argument on the other side by the qualification he 
 himself gave to the point. But this i< a diversion from 
 the true question at issue. What is proposed here? 
 One proposition is, that there shall be a limitation as to 
 the nativity of the governor. I presume that there is 
 not a member of this Convention who would not regard 
 it as a proper and reasonable limitation to the office of 
 governor. Your committee has reported it as a limita 
 tiou, and I have not yet heard the first objection made to 
 that limitation. Why is this? If the principle of the 
 gentleman from Montgomery be correct, why should 
 any qualification as to nativity be imposed on the gov- 
 ernor ? Why should he be required to be a native of 
 the State ? Why not take him either from the 
 north, the west, the south, or the east, etheir domestic 
 or foreign? It is because the fact of his nativity in- 
 spires him with a deep and abiding interest in the' wel- 
 fare of our community, and that is a wholesome re- 
 straint. 
 
 A MEMBER. That clause will not be adopted. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. Ii I understand the gentleman right, it 
 is said — and it is the first time I have heard an objection 
 to it —that the nativity clause will not be carried 
 here. Why should it not be? It is based upon the 
 principles of patriotism and love of country so forcibly 
 adverted to by my friend. He who is native born lias 
 an affection for the State, a pride of his nativity added 
 to an identity of feeling and interest and sympathy with 
 the citizens of the State. But this is not the only limi- 
 tation proposed in the report of the committee -another 
 is, a limitation as to age. Will the gentleman say that 
 this is no infringement upon popular rights? Will he 
 say that it is no curtailment of the rights of the people ? 
 I presume that he would not fill the gubernatorial chair 
 with a minor. But the result of his argument is T that 
 minors should be eligible to the offices of the Common- 
 wealth and to the high executive office of this Com- 
 monwealth, 
 
 Mr. HOGE. That was not my position. My position 
 was, that minors were inhabitants or subjects," and not 
 citizens. A citizen in the United States means one who 
 can exercise political power. As soon as a minor be- 
 comes a citizen, so that he cau exercise political power, 
 then I would give him the right of selection 4 and of 
 being selected. 
 
 Mr. SJOTT. I did not misunderstand the gentle 
 man, and my allusion was to the legitimate result of 
 his argument, 1 said that if it was carried out to its 
 lull extent, it would inevitably lead to the very results 
 to which I have referred. Bat then this a proper 'limi- 
 tation. It is a necessary and wholesome limitation ; 
 because at that age all the powers, the experience, and 
 the development of the mental power requisite to qual- 
 ify a man tor otfice are more lixely to be exhibited at 
 that period than at any other. It is necessary r there- 
 fore, that some restraint should be provided in order 
 that such officers as would administer the government 
 efficiently should be brought into power. I have not 
 yet heard that any gentleman has thought proper to 
 give the term of the Governor an unlimited continuance. 
 And yet, if the doctrine of the gentleman who address- 
 ed the Convention this morning be true, that all power- 
 res des in the people ; and that they cannot surrender" 
 it to any other depository of power, they might to-day 
 elect a Governor, next month turn him out of office, and. 
 elect another. The doctrine of the gentleman, I say, 
 inevitably leads to that result. The gentleman spoke- 
 of agencies and the transfer of power. That is enough. 
 What is an agent? He is an individual entrusted with 
 power, which is delegated to him to exercise under his 
 own control according to the charter or the grant by 
 which the power is conferred. An agent pre-supposes 
 some power who had delegated to him the power of 
 his agency. If the Governor is elected by the people 
 and clothed with executive authority and power, from 
 whom is that power derived ? Is it self-created, self- 
 assumed? or is it not a power delegated by the people 
 to him, and^o be exercised within certain metes and 
 bounds. The very term, I say," of agency pre-supposes 
 some power which is to be exercised by the agent- 
 While all admit that the people are the safest deposito- 
 ry of power, yet 1 contend the fact of their possessing 
 all power enables them to delegate a portion of it to 
 their agents, the incumbents in office. Why, if that doc- 
 trine is true — facit per ilium facit per se, and when the 
 people choose to consummate an act through their 
 agents they consummate that act by themselves. So that 
 the very use of the term agent alluded to by my friend 
 from Montgomery, (Mr. Hoge ) certainly pre supposes 
 the fact that whiie the people are the depositories of 
 all power, the very fact of their possessing all power 
 enables them to delegate a portion of that power to 
 whomever the necessity oi the case may require. 
 
 But it is proper that there should be a limitation of 
 the term for which the Governor shall hold his office. 
 I have heard various propositions offered here ; one is 
 that he shall hold his power for two years ; and the 
 other that he should hold it for four, and another that 
 
176 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 there should be an intermediate term and the right to 
 be elected for four years more after its expiration ; 
 and last of all the motion of the gentleman from Henri- 
 co, that he shall be forever re-eligible. And yet these 
 are all limitations and favored by the most radical gen- 
 tlemen in the Convention. Will it not be a limitation 
 to confine the term of service for two years ? Will not 
 this be, if the gentleman's argument is correct, a limita- 
 tion upon the rights of the people — the fixing the term 
 at any period. I go for a limitation of the rights of the 
 people, rather than any unlimited system which should 
 degenerate into the very worst of all governments — ■ 
 anarchy. 
 
 I shall support the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Pittsylvania, and for these reasons : You elect a Gov- 
 ernor for four years, and the people in the most enlarg- 
 ed sense are to become the electors of the Governor. 
 It has been denied in the argument to-day, that office 
 •or power had a corrupt influence, and yet the other 
 day the very worthy gentleman from Powhatan arrang- 
 ed the source of corruption into three classes. First, a 
 love of power, second, pride and ambition, and third, 
 a passion of avarice, I will let these 'two gentlemen — 
 the gentleman from Montgomery and the gentleman 
 from Powhatan — reconcile the difference between them. 
 That power will beget power is an axiom which all 
 governments have been created to restrain. It is an 
 admitted truth, and all governments have turned their 
 attention to the object of restraining power. If you 
 elect a man for four years and elect him afterwards fur 
 the same period, pride of office is likely to beset him, 
 and no sooner is a man clothed with the robes of office 
 than he feels, by the very elevation which enables him 
 to occupy that office, that he is to some extent raised 
 above his fellows, and that the mass of community have 
 yielded to some extent to his superiority. The effect of 
 the principle of ineligibility would be to check this 
 spirit, and to bring him down from his elevation, to 
 mix again with the people. Then if he had adminis- 
 tered the government satisfactorily to the people, he 
 would, after he had again mingled with them, and had 
 an opportunity to learn their interests and their wants, 
 be agai n elected, if the people thought proper to elect him, 
 as with one voice to the office which he had before occu- 
 pied. And then when he had served out eight out of 
 twelve years, Iwould bring him back again to the people, 
 and let him again become one of them. And this princi- 
 ple has been carried out in this State. But it is argued 
 and it was most ingeniously and plausibly argued, by 
 my friend from Powhatan the other day, that the ob- 
 jection, not to the re-election but to a limitation was 
 that corruption would steal itself into the executive 
 chair; and whilst it would not be exerted for the benefit 
 of the incumbent himself, it might be exerted to the most 
 , alarming extent for the benefit of politicians and other 
 designing men; and that while you render him ineligi- 
 ble, you give him the power of securing the election of 
 some other individual, and that in the end, it would 
 result in corrupt exercise of power. Well, that struck 
 me as a very singular argument. If this power of cor- 
 ruption exists, so that it can inure to the elevation of 
 political friends, I ask when you come to employ that 
 power in aid of the individual's own personal elevation, 
 how much more dangerous and destructive would it be 
 to popular rights ? And when you come to add to these 
 powerful motives the passion of avarice, which the gen- 
 tleman says is one of the strongest that governs man's 
 action ; when you come to add the influence of this 
 passion with corrupt motives, would it not result in 
 making the Governor more pliant and more facile, in 
 the exercise of corrupt power ? Unite then, these two 
 influences, the power of ambition and the love of office, 
 and put a corrupt man in the executive chair, and while 
 there is danger to be apprehended according to the 
 gentleman from Powhatan from the exercise of these 
 powers in bringing into office a political friend, how 
 much more dangerous the combination of all these in- 
 fluences, when they permit him to exert his power to 
 
 subserve his own selfish purposes If the argument is 
 good when applied to collaterals, how much more pow- 
 erful is it when applied to the persons themselves. For 
 these reasons, strong and pertinent, in my mind, I go for 
 the limitation of the election of the Governor; and so 
 far from infringing upon popular right, in the most en- 
 larged sense in which it can be considered, it is design- 
 ed to purify the officer. It is intended the better tc* 
 secure and protect these reserved rights, not delegated 
 to the agent, and in the hands of the people. The ten- 
 dency of re-eligibility, I will not say that it is the pur- 
 pose of those that advocate that side of the question, 
 is to perpetuate the existence of the incumbent in the- 
 same office, as long as he pleases. I do not say that 
 such will be the result, but that the tendency of it may- 
 be to perpetuate his re-election as long as he lives. 
 And may this not be the fact? If these controlling in- 
 fluences to which I have just now adverted shall be- 
 come necessary to be brought to bear at every election, 
 and continued to be exerc sed at every election, may 
 it not ke?p in power during his life time, a Governor 
 controlled by the principles of ambition and avarice,, 
 may he not if he can so manage as to secure the elec- 
 tion of friends, so manage as to secure his own re-elec- 
 tion, antl too, term after term as long as ha chooses to 
 occupy the chair of office. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS, Will the gentleman allow me to* 
 explain. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Caroline. Certainly,, sir*. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. My position I think is not clearly 
 understood by the gentleman. I supposed when I was> 
 speaking of the avarice and ambitions of the Governor,, 
 that the temptation to do wrong operated on him from/ 
 the certainty of his ejection from office. I will eite a 
 case. Martin Van Buren was at one time Pres ; dent 
 of the Unit ed States, and as long as he had a hope of 
 continuing in office was faithful to the constitution.. 
 But the very moment he was disappointed ia that hope, 
 he turned traitor to the constitution itself. That wilt 
 explain very fully the idea. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Caroline. I thank the gentleman for 
 his explanation, and also for Ms illustration. The ex- 
 planation then is, that the temptations secure the faith- 
 ful discharge of the duties of the ©fficer r while in his 
 office ; the illustration was, th«at Mr.. Van Buren r while 
 he was in office, under the expectation of retaining of- 
 fice, did faithfully and efficiently discharge all the du- 
 ties connected with the office, but the instant he found 
 that he was to go out of office, he was derelict of duty. 
 
 I should like to know how the gentleman arrived at the 
 fact that Mr. Van Buren became satisfied that his term 
 would be limited to four yeavs-. If I understand the 
 history of those times, he wa3 again a candidate and un- 
 der the very strongest expectation of being again re- 
 elected. Yet my worthy friend r notwithstanding all 
 this relaxation of duty on the part of Mr. Van Buren, 
 while President of the United States, I am sure, though 
 I do not know the fact, was found voting with me for 
 Mr. Van Buren the second time. And yet h® was under 
 the full consciousness that there had been such relaxa- 
 tion in the discharge of all the functions of this high 
 office, on his part, as to render it improper that he should " 
 be continued in office. Let me apply that illustration 
 here. Here is a Governor elected for two years , and h® 
 is elected by the people, the depository of all virtue and 
 knowledge and intelligence, and he comes into office, 
 and although he intends to be a candidate for re-election,, 
 yet he relaxes in his duty, and although this relaxation 
 is known, yet the effect is so very slight upon the public 
 mind, that even such intelligent gentlemen as my friend 
 from Powhatan, (Mr, Hopkins,) will overlook it or re- 
 gard it as a casus omisms, and still vote to re-elect thi s- 
 careless, indifferent Governor to the same position- 
 Apply this illustration to the people of Virginia. Why, 
 they are the depositories of all power and of all intelli- 
 gence, yet when an individual, who in office has been 
 relax and even corrupt in the discharge of his duties, 
 I comes before them for a re-election, they will be sogtner- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 177 
 
 ous and so magnanimous as to overlook his faults and to 
 re-elect him. That is the application of the gentle- 
 man's illustration. My friend was extremely magnani- 
 mous and generous when he overlooked these lapses in 
 the discharge of the functions of the government by 
 Mr. Van Buren and voted for him. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr, HOPKINS. I dislike to trouble my friend. I 
 will not do so again, but undoubtedly he misapplies my 
 illustration. My friend is right in saying that I went 
 along with him in the Baltimore convention for the re- 
 nomination of Mr. Van Buren, and so long as we held 
 out a prospect of re-election to Mr. Van Buren, I be- 
 lieve that he remained faithful and true to the consti- 
 tion ; but when he was disappointed, when he found 
 that he could not get the nomination, and lost all hope 
 of ever regaining the Presidency, then he joined the 
 free soilers and set the constitution at naught. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Caroline. I am sorry that this inci- 
 dental debate has occurred. I had only playfully allud- 
 ed to it, and did not regard it as a theme which would 
 require so much explanation from my friend. It is true 
 we were in the Baltimore convention together, and oc- 
 cupied the same position, and I do not know whether 
 his exertion to procure the nomination of Mr. Van Buren 
 was stronger than mine, or mine stronger than his, but 
 certain it is, that both of us worked very hard to ac- 
 complish that end. But I think it was said, in those 
 days at least, the opposite party always complained, and 
 inveighed against this caucus system, earnestly con- 
 tending that the nomination then made was most unfair- 
 ly made. And if that was the case, although Mr. Van 
 Buren did not receive the nomination, he might have 
 had a long lingering hope to aspire to the position again. 
 No more of that. 
 
 I was about remarking that if the principles which 
 govern human action, and which displayed themselves 
 in a most eminent degree in the conduct of my friend 
 from Powhatan, when he overlooked the frailties of Mr. 
 Van Buren, be here applied to the people, where they 
 exist in all their strength, vigor, and influence their 
 action, will they not when the incumbent in office pre- 
 sents himself for a re-election, shut their eyes to his 
 frailties, lapses, and derelictions from duty and place 
 him again in the executive office. It is said the re-eligi- 
 bility principle would operate as an inducement, from 
 the fact that if you elected him for one term and failed 
 to re-elect him the second term, and turned him out to 
 grass, it would tarnish the escutcheon of his fair fame — 
 to secure fidelity in his action. Is that the principle 
 which regulates the acts of this community? How of- 
 ten would a majority of the virtuous,constituency come 
 to the rescue of such a man, and from sympathy for him, 
 and lest such a stain should be fixed upon his character, 
 elevate him to the office again? Not because the people 
 are not capable of self government, not because they 
 are not capable of making a selection and election, but 
 because where all the finer feelings of the heart are 
 brought to bear in favor of the incumbent in office, they 
 will overlook these frailties which they would otherwise 
 more clearly scan. It is for this reason that the limi- 
 tation ought to be fixed, in order that the purity of the 
 • reserved rights of the people may be preserved, and the 
 encroachment of official power forever checked. This 
 office of Governor possesses patronage and power. You 
 may strip him of it, however much you may make him 
 a mere subordinate in the government, but when you 
 look at the operations of this government, the Legisla- 
 ture will add to that power until perhaps in the end it 
 will assume the character which it now assumes — an 
 office of too much power and too much patronage. And 
 if the evils to which I have referred are likely to exist 
 by an accumulation of power — and that will be the in- 
 evitable result of the operations of this government, 
 form it as you will ; if that be the case, I would guard 
 it now from improper exercise, and would guard it with 
 much more jealous care against this improper exercise 
 in the future. But in the very language of my friend 
 from Powhatan, while he would not adminis+er the pow- 
 er for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, in the 
 12 
 
 strong language of my friend from the county of Acco- 
 mac, (Mr. Wise,) he would administer it for the purpose 
 of elevating politicians, who like leeches, fasten upon 
 the body politic of power. If this be so, I would guard 
 still more carefully against the application of these in- 
 fluences to the incumbent in office. 
 
 These are the considerations which induced me to go 
 for this limitation, and against the re-eligibility of the 
 Governor, term after term, which may result in a life- 
 time election. I would have him elected for a term, and 
 to go back to the people, where he might learn virtue 
 and ascertain the necessities of the people, and then if 
 he had been a faithful officer, and should again come 
 before them for office, the spirit of magnanimity and 
 justice which ever characterizes the people, will at once 
 induce them to say to such an incumbent, well done 
 good and faithful servant. What I desire is, to protect 
 the people in the enjoyment of their rights, and in order 
 to do that, there must be some limitations of power. 
 Hoist all these governmental restraints, raise them from 
 the action of men and the inevitable result of it is that 
 you degenerate into a state of anarchy, the very worst 
 form of government ©f which the mind of man can con- 
 ceive. If men were angels and perfect in character, 
 then I would be willing, according to the argument of 
 my friend, to say, give them all power ; and I would 
 agree too in theory, that while they, the people, pos- 
 sessed all power, they should never delegate any por- 
 tion of it. But so long as we are to regard man as man, 
 the creature of passion, of avarice and ambition — so 
 long as you so regard him — it is necessary that such 
 checks should be placed on his action to prevent corrup- 
 tion, and prevent all that abuse of power by which mi- 
 norities may be oppressed. Why, have minorities no 
 rights, no powers? Are the majority of the people to 
 do as they will ? Are they to trample the rights of mi- 
 norities under foot? Will you not, by some such limi- 
 tation, secure the rights of the minority, and limit the 
 power which the strong hand ever has to oppress the 
 weak ? 
 
 Something was said in the debate looking to the ne- 
 cessity of an interregnum between the two terms, be- 
 cause it might be required of the Governor that he should 
 canvass the State. I cannot be influenced in my vote 
 by the law of any such necessity. If his administra- 
 tion be wise, be virtuous, be diligent and efficient, he 
 will find in every county and in every portion of the 
 State, like the fabled dragon's teeth, men rising up to 
 sustain the purity of his administration, and the fidelity 
 of his action. It is not necessary that he should can- 
 vass the -State ; his virtues will embalm him in the mem- 
 ory of all, and a grateful people will re-elect him, if 
 necessary. While I utter this sentiment, I am not one 
 of those who oppose, in the strong language of the gen- 
 tleman from Accomac, electioneering in the right way. 
 No ! That is the very means by which the candidate is 
 brought before the people, and brought to feel and know 
 his dependence upon the people; and I hold, that every 
 man who is a candidate for the public approbation and 
 support, ought to give to them a full and free and frank 
 expression of the principles by which he intends to be 
 guided in his public action. And I was very much grat- 
 ified to learn from my friend from Accomac, that in all 
 his canvasses in his district, contesting as was said a 
 majority of fourteen hundred, and as was explained by 
 himself, of sixteen hundred against him, that, election- 
 eering in the right way — appealing to the public mind 
 and appealing to the public heart, was the means of his 
 success, and this too without the help of a dram. That 
 was said for the honor of the people — they need per- 
 haps no such aid. They are competent enough, with or 
 without the dram. 
 
 For these reasons I sustain this limitation — which is 
 not to limit the rights of the people. And my democ- 
 racy, not the democracy of the patent order, has at all 
 times taught me this, that to secure a prudent exercise 
 of power, a proper system of Balances and checks is ab- 
 solutely necessary. It is the undue exercise of power 
 against which I desire to guard. No man has been more 
 
178 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 diligent to that end than my friend from Accomac. Not 
 only upon the hustings has he inveighed against the cor- 
 rupt exercise of power, but in a much more elevated 
 position he has opened his breast to the storm and re- 
 sisted it most gallantly. And it is for the express pur- 
 pose of preventing the undue exercise of power, clothed 
 in official robes, that I would limit the power of the 
 Governor by limiting his term of service, and thus bring 
 him back to the people whence he sprung ; and at the 
 same time by rendering him ineligible, guard him against 
 any tendency to corruption in office, to secure his own 
 aggrandizement. And in this way also I would shield 
 him even against an imputation of such an abuse of 
 power. 
 
 I have thus imperfectly exhibited to the Convention 
 my views and the reasons which will govern me in the 
 action I shall take. I desired that my opinions might 
 be known to my constituents and that they might know 
 the position I occupy on this question, that they might 
 approve or condemn it as to them seemed wise. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. I rise simply to explain, or to correct a 
 misapprehension of my friend from Caroline. He rep- 
 resented me as saying that the people in creating 
 agents, transmit their power with the agents. I thought 
 my position was directly the opposite of that position. 
 I attempted to sustain the position that representation 
 was a concession to the necessity, and when that agency 
 came in, the people had transmitted to their agents what 
 from necessity they could not themselves perform. That 
 is my position, and not that it was a transfer of the pow- 
 ers of the people. And to illustrate that position, if my 
 friend from Caroline was to constitute me his agent to 
 perform any duties, within a period of one, two, or five 
 years, he could restrict me in the performance of those 
 duties — I acting for him, it would be competent for him 
 to restrict me. But I ask my friend if it would be 
 competent for him to divest himself of the power of re- 
 taining me at the termination of that period ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Caroline. I am gratified with the ex- 
 planation and receive it with great kindness. I cer- 
 tainly did not intend to misrepresent the gentleman, 
 and am gratified with the reiteration of his position ; 
 but it seems that the gentleman has not exactly under- 
 stood my argument. I understood him to say that in 
 the nature of things, all power belonged to the people, 
 and that they could not divest themselves of that power. 
 That was the broad proposition which he laid down. 
 I said that this very argument introduced by the gentle- 
 man himself for the purpose of proving that proposition, 
 was suicidal to the theory which he advanced, and that 
 when he conceded that the people had the power of del- 
 egating power to an agent, he yielded the first proposi- 
 tion, because the first one was that they could not dele- 
 gate power. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I have no intention of protracting 
 this discussion ; I rise for the simple purpose of explain- 
 ing the vote which I feel constrained to give upon the 
 question before the committee. I feel called upon to do 
 so, because my convictions lead me to a conclusion, advo- 
 cated by gentlemen in whose general views of govern- 
 ment I have no sympathy whatever. I am willing to be 
 responsible for their conclusions, but not for their argu- 
 ments. If, then, I were to cast my vote for the amend- 
 ment proposed by the gentleman from Henerico, after 
 his speech in support of it, without explanation, my po- 
 sition would be wholly misunderstood. 
 
 I confess, when this question was first submitted to 
 our consideration I regarded it as one of very little im- 
 portance. In the aspect in which it is now presented, it 
 lias assumed an importance which in my judgment does 
 not intrinsically belong to it. A mere question of expe- 
 diency ; it has involved the discussion of great princi- 
 ples of government. I do not mean noio to be drawn 
 into any such discussion. I shall treat it as I consider it, , 
 a mere question of expediency, and according to this view 
 shall cast my vote. 
 
 The question then, as it presents itself to my mind, is 
 this : Is it wise and expedient to insert the limitation pro- 
 
 poseo _)•' J a executive committee in our constitution or 
 is it l.o. ; J j '»ink not. I think it unwise and inexpedient 
 to do so, anc. for the following reasons among others. 
 The end in view all admit to be integrity and diligence 
 in the officer. As to the means of accomplishing that 
 end we differ. Assume the governor to be a man of ex- 
 alted character, and elevated above all unworthy mo- 
 tives — such as I trust the people of Virginia will only 
 select — and if so, what more potent consideration can 
 you present to secure official propriety than the pros- 
 pect of again coming before his electors to have his con- 
 duct fully canvassed and receive the just rewards of 
 merit. I can conceive no higher motive to stimulate a 
 pure man than those which arise from the approbation 
 of hi3 constituency, except the self-sustaining support of 
 his own conscience. Such a prospect I wish to hold out 
 to such a man, to nerve him against all assaults and im- 
 putations which may be cast upon his official conduct. 
 Such a prospect, in my ©pinioa, is held out by re-eligi- 
 bility. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the people should happen un- 
 fortunately to select a man of a different stamp, one 
 amenable to unworthy considerations, I wish to impose 
 upon such a man the wholesome, and, in my judgment, 
 the most effectual restraint against the prostitution of 
 the powers of his office to improper purposes. Such a 
 restraint as the prospect of having his official conduct 
 exposed to the light of day — to the scrutiny of the pub- 
 lic — will make him secure, and such as can only be se- 
 cured by re-eligibility. 
 
 While, therefore, in my view re-eligibility will exert a 
 salutary influence upon both the man of elevated character 
 and the man of unworthy character, I think ineligibility 
 will operate deleteriously on either. 
 
 Both will be exposed to the same temptations, wheth- 
 er they are eligible to a second term or not. Party ap- 
 pliances will be brought to bear in any event. No mara 
 will be able to withdraw from them. I wish to strength- 
 en him to resist them. 
 
 I have thus explained my views, without pretending- 
 to debate the question. I think they are well illustra- 
 ted by the case referred to by the gentleman from Pow- 
 hatan, (Mr. Hopkins,) and so wholly misinterpreted as I 
 conceive by the gentleman from Caroline, (Mr. Scott.) 
 Let us examine that case. It is conceded by both gen- 
 tlemen that Mr. Van Buren was a very unworthy man., 
 It is equally admitted by both that during his first term 
 he faithfully discharged the duties of the office. Con- 
 ceding thus much, I ask what restrained him during his 
 occupancy of office from the prostitution of its patron- 
 age ? Let us examine that case. We find that even 
 here a bad man was restrained from the prostitution 
 of his office during his term, according to the view 
 of the gentleman from Powhatan, by the prospect of a 
 re-election to office, while, when that prospect was re- 
 moved, he appeared in his naked deformity. Here, 
 then, was this power of the people, this prospect of 
 coming before the people of this country, where his con- 
 duct should be carefully canvassed, controlling the offi- 
 cial conduct of an admitted bad man, and securing, in 
 the view of the gentleman from Powhatan, official pro- 
 priety and truth to the constitution. If, then, that re- 
 straint be worth anything, it is worth this, that we may 
 expect, if we should be so unfortunate as to elect a bad 
 man to the office of governor, the prospect of re-elec- 
 tion will secure to the people of this State official pro- 
 priety during his term of office. But what I rose prin- 
 cipally to say, was, that I could not concur in the views 
 taken by most of the advocates for re-eligibility. A 
 stranger, upon witnessing the debates in this hall, or 
 upon reading these debates, would really suppose that 
 a conspiracy was formed, by the delegates on this floor, 
 against the rights of the good people of this Common- 
 wealth, and that my friend from Accomac, (Mr. Wise.) 
 the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) and my friend 
 from the county of Montgomery. (Mr. Hoge,) were here, 
 for the purpose of defending these assailed rights 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 181 
 
 lift up their hands and cry out in holy horror against the 
 idea of the one man power, I think I stand within that 
 body now. If ever I saw gentlemen bent on stripping 
 office of all power and patronage, I think this Conven- 
 tion has already developed its determination to strip this 
 office of Governor of even the inconsiderable patronage 
 it has under the existing constitution, and to make your 
 chief magistrate a mere automaton. I understand tins 
 office has attached to it now but little importance, so far 
 as patronage and power are concerned, and the deter- 
 mination here seems to be to bring it down so low that 
 the governor is even to be denied the right of appointing 
 the agents and representatives of the commonwealth in 
 the banks of the State, a larger portion of which it owns 
 and is directly interested in. Then what is to be the 
 power and patronage of the governor ? He will conduct 
 the intercourse of Virginia with foreign States, or in 
 other words he will appoint commissioners in foreign 
 States to take acknowledgments of deeds. He will 
 have the appointment of agents to settle boundary ques- 
 tions between Virginia and other States, and no ques- 
 tion of this sort is likely ever to be raised hereafter. 
 He will appoint, perhaps, commissioners to visit the 
 University, and the Deaf and Dumb and Lunatic Asy- 
 lums, and the Virginia Military Institute, and, perhaps, 
 he may be allowed tb appoint the directors for the State 
 in the Penitentiary of the commonwealth, and he is to 
 be the commander-in-chief with the epaulet upon his 
 shoulder of the army of this State and of the navy of 
 Virginia. This is all his patronage and power that I 
 understand the Governor of Virginia is to possess when 
 this constitution we propose to make shall have been 
 adopted by the convention and ratified by the people. I 
 ask the committee if it is possible that that little patron- 
 age will enable him to control public sentiment, and by 
 corruption in office to secure his re-election over the 
 hundreds and thousands of his opponents ? I say thou- 
 sands because Virginia can boast more particularly of 
 her politicians than she can of any thing else. And 
 there will always be a host of politicians, able, talented 
 men who have rendered service in the ranks of the po- 
 litical parties to which they belong, seeking for and ex- 
 pecting that nomination at the hands of whig and demo- 
 cratic caucuses. 
 
 Then there is nothing, in my humble opinion, in this 
 argument sufficient to justify us in restricting the pow- 
 ers of the people and preventing them from selecting as 
 well as electing a governor. If this principle is to be 
 settled here that the governor of Virginia on account of 
 his impartiality in the administration of his executive 
 office, should be incompetent to a re-election, it must, 
 by a parity of reason, be carried out in the judiciary and 
 the other important offices of this country. 
 
 If you say that the people ought not to re-elect a man 
 to the office of Governor, clothed as he will be with lit- 
 tle or no authority, and at the same time that they may 
 re-elect your judges, who are the highest officers in the 
 commonwealth, in what an inconsistent attitude do you 
 place this convention before the people. Shall the peo- 
 ple be denied the privilege of re-electing the Governor 
 of the Commonwealth when the Legislature, by a report 
 of the committee on circuit courts and the judiciary, are 
 to elect for a term of fifteen years, and then to be re- 
 eligible, the judges of the court of appeals, the highest 
 power in the commonwealth — the men who are to pre- 
 side over the safety of your fortunes ? 1 think the peo- 
 ple will not, and that they ought not, to sustain such a 
 position if taken by this convention. I came here to go 
 first for the election of all the officers of this common- 
 wealth, that are peculiarly offices of the people, by the 
 people themselves, and consequently to go for their re- 
 eligibility to office upon the principle that when the 
 people get a good man in power it is for their interest to 
 keep him there — and they will do it. I do not know 
 that the Governor of Virginia will ever be elected for a 
 second term, but I do know if he is a man of capacity 
 and qualified to discharge the high office he is elected 
 to, and if his course and views meet with the approba- 
 tion of the people, which is an evidence that he is pecu- < 
 
 ! Jiarly fitted to fill the office and by his policy benefit the 
 ; old commonwealth, it is but right and proper that the 
 people should have the power to retain him in office in 
 preference to all others, if they choose to do so. I de- 
 sire a re-eligibility of the Governor, because I wish to 
 have his messages, his recommendations to the Legisla- 
 ture, and his views upon questions of international poli- 
 cy, discussed and canvassed before the people of this 
 commonwealth. It is a notorious fact that while the 
 people of Virginia are better posted up in federal poli- 
 tics than perhaps those of any other State in the Union, 
 the great body of them are exceedingly ignorant of the 
 true condition of their own State. What accounts for 
 your worn out and grown up plantations, and ruined man- 
 sions in the east ? What accounts for the stand-still posi- 
 tion of Virginia for the last thirty years, while other 
 States of this Union have been advancing to power and 
 influence in this government ? It is a fact that Virginia 
 has wasted her time over idle abstractions, and neglected 
 the development of her vast resources and the improve- 
 ment of the commonwealth. Let us bring home to the 
 people these questions of domestic policy. Let itbe no 
 longer the case in Virginia that a jack or a mule can be 
 elected to office if he is only a whig or a democrat in 
 any whig or democratic county, as the case maybe. Let 
 this man come down to the people, to the masses that 
 are directly interested in the prosperity of the State, 
 and I tell you the old State will bound forward in the 
 race of improvement and prosperity with a rapidity 
 which will equal, if it does not outstrip, the progress of 
 the more liberal, and I had almost said the more enlight- 
 ened, States of the west. I desire the Governor to come 
 down from his gubernatorial chair and mingle, as it is 
 sometimes said, with the mighty unwashed. I desire 
 to see him leave the society of the politicians and come 
 down and shake hands with the great masses of the peo- 
 ple. I desire to hear him from the stump of old Fi ank- 
 lin, preaching to my people a policy that is to wake Vir- 
 ginia from her Rip Van Winkle sleep. I have done, 
 young as I am, compared with the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac, perhaps as much electioneering as he has, 
 and I acknowledge that when argument and reasoning 
 have been exhausted, if it was necessary to secure the 
 success of the party to which I belonged, I have thrown 
 in a " we drop of spirit." I have seen no evil grow out 
 of electioneering. I believe that the system of elec- 
 tioneering adopted in Virginia has made politicians of 
 our people, and the best politicians on earth. I only 
 desire to change the struggle from whig and democrat, 
 from protective tariff and distribution, to questions in 
 which the interests of this old commonwealth will be in- 
 volved and promoted. I wish to interest and enlighten 
 the people on the subject of internal improvement, and 
 1 trust that, if we adopt in this convention a liberal con- 
 stitution, that long before your locks, sir, are whitened 
 by the frosts of age, I may come down upon the 
 wings of the steam-horse from my mountain country, 
 and shake hands with the people of the Queen City of the 
 South, and look out upon her beautiful harbor, whitened 
 with the canvass of a thousand merchantmen. God 
 grant that something may be done here. God grant 
 that the evil influences which have hung over the desti- 
 nies of the State may be removed, and that Virginia may 
 be what Nature and Nature's God intended her to be, 
 the keystone of the arch of this Union. But 1 am going 
 from the question. Yet, if I am following the prece- 
 dent, in the latitude given the debate here, I have, at 
 least, confined myself to home, and not travelled over 
 the world, and the " rest of mankind," to see what they 
 have done. I shall not be driven from my propriety, or 
 frightened from any position I may have been author- 
 ised to take in this Convention by my constituents, by 
 the cry of reckless innovation, or by any sneer that may 
 be made at the capacity of the people for self-govern- 
 ment. This cry of reckless innovation has been heard 
 whenever an effort is made to take from the hands 
 of aristocratic wealth its power, and distribute it among 
 the multitude. It will always be heard whenever an 
 effort is made to place the great body of the peo- 
 
182 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 pie upon a platform of equality with the better informed 
 of the country. There is nothing in this cry of reckless 
 innovation. The whole system of American govern- 
 ment is an innovation — a reckless innovation on the 
 usages of former times. I claim that no harm can grow 
 out of an innovation upon the principles of 1776, much 
 less of 1829 and 1830. What might have been a good 
 constitution in 1776 may fall short, very far short of the 
 demands of 1851. Your government itself was then an 
 untried experiment, and your fathers launched the barque 
 of their destiny upon the ocean of experiment. The 
 government they formed may have been as wise, as 
 good, as perfect as the genius of man could have formed, 
 under the circumstances, at that period; but that govern- 
 ment became distasteful to the people of Virginia as 
 early as 1829 and 1830, and a convention was called for 
 the purpose of remodeling it, and in that convention 
 were men of as gr^t wisdom as ever graced the ros- 
 trums in this country. But theirs was the expiring light 
 of genius. The sun was setting with most of the great 
 men of that convention, and he who will look at the four- 
 teenth section of the constitution, as reported by that 
 convention, and every other clause upon the right of 
 suffrage, cannot reproach me for saying that it was a 
 perfect failure, in every sense of the word. It was 
 adopted by the people because it went one step from 
 aristocracy to republicanism. But there has gone up 
 from the land, against that constitution, during the last 
 ten years, the most unceasing complaint, and a conven- 
 tion was demanded ; and when the bill calling this con- 
 vention was referred to them, the people adopted it by a 
 majority of thousands. For the purpose of reforming 
 that constitution we are assembled here at last — I say 
 sent here to give the people of Virginia, if it was in our 
 power, a constitution bearing on its face sweeping and 
 radical reforms. I do not know that it will be in my 
 power, or in the power of the radicals upon the floor of 
 this Convention, or of those who came here instructed 
 how to act on the questions which may arise here, to give 
 the people such a constitution, as, in my opinion, they de- 
 sire and demand. But I do know that, humble as I 
 am, I can do here as I promised to do before the people, 
 I can try to do it. 
 
 Mr. FUQUA. I had no temper to engage in this dis- 
 cussion, and I should have been content to have given 
 a silent vote, but for the allusion which my honorable 
 colleague (Mr. Hopkins) thought proper to make to the 
 delegation of which I am an humble member. When 
 this question was sprung upon us, I thought it was a 
 simple affair. I thought it was of but little consequence 
 how this body should determine the question. I did 
 not see how it was a matter of great consequence 
 whether we should elect a chief executive officer for two 
 terms of four years, and render him ineligible the bal- 
 ance of his life, or whether we should elect him for one 
 term of four years out of eight years, or whether we 
 should elect him for life, by terms. I could not see that 
 it was a matter of any consequence ; and if gentlemen 
 who started this discussion will pardon me, I think they 
 were raising a " tempest in a teapot." But grave ques- 
 tions have been brought into this discussion. And I 
 confess that the gentlemen who occupy the position as 
 friends of the proposition of the distinguished gentle- 
 man from Henrico, have got the "jockey word" upon 
 us. They have declared that our purpose is to trench 
 upon the rights of the people, and to impose limitations 
 upon the sovereign will. I had a choice, I admit, be- 
 tween these propositions, when the question first arose, 
 but it never occurred to me that while I was making 
 that choice, I was attacking the sovereignty of the peo- 
 ple. I thought that my aim — certainly it was my pur- 
 pose — was to limit the eligibility of the governor. I 
 thought the restriction was upon the office, and not upon 
 the people, and I think so still. It has been said in this 
 debate, and said truly, that all power resides with the 
 people ; but it is as arrant an abstraction, to my mind, 
 as can possibly be brought to bear upon any discussion. 
 Though contained in the bill of rights, though all bow 
 
 to it, it is an arrant abstraction, which cannot be reduced 
 to practice. It occurred to me that those very gentlemen 
 were thinking about majorities, when they thought and 
 spoke of the people. I said it was true as an abstraction, 
 and so it is. Where all have declared, and all obey, there 
 is no appeal from what the sovereign people will. You 
 must be content with it, because all have so declared. 
 I thought I saw that those gentlemen, who have so of- 
 ten repeated this abstract principle, were thinking of 
 majorities, and I have no question that every gentleman 
 on this floor will declare, both by his speeches and his 
 votes, hereafter, that this is an ' abstraction. Be that 
 as it may, it seems to me to be an abstraction. And 
 the reiteration of this principle, if it has done nothing 
 else, has produced a doubt in my mind whether it is not 
 better to have no bill of rights. 
 
 I said that I preferred one of the propositions before 
 this committee. I prefer to limit the eligibility of the 
 officer. I then am favorable to the proposition which 
 was submitted by the gentleman from Pittsylvania, to 
 limit the Governor to one term out of eight years. 
 That is the proposition, and I maintain that is not at- 
 tacking the rights of the people. When I am called 
 upon to abandon a principle — when I am called upon to 
 abandon the practice of my fathers, I must be excused 
 when I refuse, unless those who request me to abandon 
 those principles, or that practice, can show me that it is 
 necessary for our wea?l. Is it important to this old Com- 
 monwealth whether this " automaton," as my friend who 
 has just preceded me (Mr. Claiborne) has called him, is in- 
 eligible for a time and then re eligible again ? I say, is it a 
 matter of great consequence? What are his powers? 
 Why , he is, I am told, to appoint bank directors, to com- 
 mission judges and military officers, and magistrates, and 
 appoint visitors to the several public institutions of the 
 country ; and in time of war, to be commander-in-chief 
 of all our forces. I hope the latter power will never be 
 exercised. I hope there will never be any necessity for 
 it. I was struck with the view submitted by my col- 
 league, that, if you did not render him re-eligible, some 
 great scheme, some great system that he has supported 
 and desired to consummate, is to fall. Why, what is 
 this scheme ? I was trying to understand the ration- 
 ale of my friend's proposition, and it occurred to me 
 that his imagination was, in some degree, diseased by 
 the raw -head and bloody-bones, presented to it by 
 the distinguished gentleman from Accomac, through 
 his " southern demon." It might have occurred to my 
 colleague that when this southern demon should en- 
 ter this old Commonwealth, foreign treaties and al- 
 liances, or something of that kind, would be necessa- 
 ry for its preservation, which of course are first to be 
 put on foot and then consummated. I trust in Heaven 
 such an event may never happen. 
 
 But we are called upon to abandon the principles and 
 the usages of our forefathers — to abandon the princi- 
 ples upon which those questions have rested, because 
 of the opinions of some of the great men who have pre- 
 ceded this body. We have been pointed to the occasion 
 of the federal convention, and to the example of Gen. 
 Washington. If I have not misread, when the question 
 of the re-eligibility of the President of the United 
 States came before the national convention, the entire 
 delegation from Virginia went against the re-eligibility. 
 It is true, when the question came up thereafter, that 
 they went for striking out the proposition for the ineli- 
 gibility of the President, but what motive was it that 
 induced many in that convention to strike out this 
 clause of ineligibility ? I ask if it was not because it 
 would render the executive stronger ? Governeur Mor- 
 ris went for the re-eligibility upon the ground that it 
 would make him stronger than would ineligibility . It 
 was for that reason that he went for striking out of the 
 constitution the ineligibility of the President, after 
 seven years. W r ell, Mr. Jefferson has been quoted by 
 my colleague, and I must be pardoned for saying that, 
 if what Mr. Jefferson did is any evidence of what he 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 179 
 
 against this assault. I beg leave to say to these gentle- 
 men that I claim to be one of the people, identified 
 with them in interest, and I trust, in opinion, and I beg 
 leave to say also, that I regard the propo-ed limitation 
 as no assault upon the rights of the people at all. I 
 am in favor of all just limitations, and the question 
 which I propound to myself whenever one is proposed, 
 is, is it expedient or not ? It cannot be tortured into a 
 question of popular sovereignty. We are suggesting a 
 form of government for the approval of the people. We 
 have not the power to impose a limitation upon them. 
 And. it is for them to say whether it is expedient to 
 adopt this limitation upon their own powers. This is 
 the view which I take of it, and therefore I have no 
 sympathy with the views expressed by the gentlemen 
 of Henrico and Accomac. But while this is my opinion 
 of the general views of the advocates of the present re- 
 striction, I am nevertheless bound to act with them on 
 this occasion, because I cannot concur with my friends 
 in the propriety of this restriction. I have no confidence 
 in the infallibility of the people. None whatever. Yet 
 I do believe them entirely competent to elect, and re- 
 elect a Governor, unaffected by his official influence ; and 
 I believe, as I have said, the influence upon the incum- 
 bent will be wholesome. 
 
 My object is accomplished in thus defining my position. 
 I do not propose to meet the arguments which have been 
 submitted to the consideration of the committee. I felt 
 it to be due to myself to make this explanation, because 
 I stand alone in my delegation, and opposed to those 
 with whom I usually act, and for whose views I enter- 
 tain a profound respect. It is further proper, because 
 while this precise question was not discussed in my dis- 
 trict, there was a discussion upon the re-eligibility of 
 the circuit judges, and I placed my views distinctly be- 
 fore the people in favor of re-eligibility. It does occur 
 to me, that if re-eligibility be right in respect to the 
 circuit judges, it is a fortiori right as applied to the 
 Governor. The first is a judicial, and the last a politi- 
 cal offi.ce. I cannot involve myself in such an inconsis- 
 tency, much as I am willing to defer to the opinions of 
 my colleagues and of other friends. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. If I had any idea that a majori- 
 ty of the committee desired to vote upon this question 
 now, I would not make the motion that I now do ; but, 
 believing that a majority of the committee are not wil- 
 ling to vote upon the question at this time, I move that 
 the committee rise. 
 
 The committee accordingly rose, and, 
 
 On motion, the Convention adjourned until Monday 
 at 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 MONDAY, February 10, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Manly, of the Baptist church. 
 The journal of Saturday was read by the Secre- 
 tary. 
 
 proposition in relation to the legislative department. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I had the honor on Saturday last to 
 present a report to the Convention from the Committee 
 on the Legislative Department. On that occasion I had 
 the happiness to s:ate to the House that the delibera- 
 tions of the committee had been conducted with harmo- 
 ny and good feeling among its members. I have to re- 
 gret that their proceedings have not been marked with 
 unanimity. There were several very interesting sub- 
 jects referred to the committee, upon which there was 
 a diversity of sentiment, and among them, the great 
 subjects of taxation, and providing for the future ex- 
 tinguishment, or at least, diminution, of the public debt. 
 On these subjects, as might naturally be expected, there 
 was considerable difference of opinion, and it is my 
 misfortune to differ from the majority of the committee 
 with regard to that. I have felt it a duty which I owe 
 to my constituents and the citizens of the Common- 
 wealth, in relation to this subject, to throw my opinions 
 
 into the form of amendments which I intend to offer to 
 the report of the committee on the proper occasion. I 
 submit them now, and ask that they may be laid on the 
 table and printed for the use of the members of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 The proposition is as follows : 
 
 PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 At the end of the clause requiring a journal to be 
 kept, add' 
 
 " And one-tenth part of the members present, shall 
 have a right to require that the vote on any question be 
 taken by ayes and noes, and entered on the journal." 
 
 " Each House may punish by imprisonment any per- 
 son, not a member of either House, for disrespectful 
 and disorderly behavior in its presence, or for obstruct- 
 ing the business. Such imprisonment shall not exceed 
 ten days for any one offence." 
 
 " The members of the General Assembly shall, in all 
 cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, 
 be privileged from arrest during their attendance at 
 the sessions of their respective houses ; and going to 
 or returning from the same ; and for any speech or de- 
 bate in either house, they shallnotbe questioned in any 
 other place." 
 
 " No bill shall have the force of law, until, on three 
 several days, it be read over in each House of Assem- 
 bly, and free discussion allowed thereon ; unless in case 
 of emergency, if the House, where the bill shall be 
 pending, may deem it expedient to dispense with this 
 rule." 
 
 TAXATION. 
 
 Strike out the first and second clauses of the article 
 on taxation, and insert — 
 
 " The General Assembly shall have power to lay and 
 collect a capitation tax — tax on property, tax on income, 
 and salaries, licenses, law process and notarial seals." 
 
 PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS, AC. 
 
 Strike out the article providing for the creation of a 
 sinking fund, and insert — 
 
 " There shall be set apart annually, by law, from the 
 revenues of the Commonwealth, a sum equal to seven 
 per cent, of the State debt existing on the 1st day of 
 January, 1852, which shall be applied annually to the 
 payment of the interest on the State debt and of such 
 part of the principal as may be redeemable. If there 
 be no part of the State debt redeemable, so much of the 
 sum thus set apart as shall remain after the payment 
 of the annual interest, shall be applied to the purchase 
 of bonds or certificates of debt of the Commonwealth. " 
 
 " All bonds and certificates of debts redeemed or pur- 
 chased as aforesaid, shall cease to bear interest on the 
 day of such purchase, payment or redemption, and 
 shall be regularly destroyed by the' Governor in the pres- 
 ence of the General Assembly, at the first session which 
 shall be holden after the purchase, payment or redemp- 
 tion of such bond or certificate of debt." 
 
 " Whenever, after the 1st day of January, 1852, a 
 law shall be passed authorising the creation of a public 
 debt, it shall be provided in the same act that a sum of 
 money shall be set apart annually from the revenues of 
 the Commonwealth, equal to eight per cent, on the 
 amount of the said debt, which shall be applied annual- 
 ly towards the payment of the interest and principal 
 of the debt authorised by the act, until the entire debt 
 shall be paid, at which time the provision for raising 
 the said sum of eight per cent, shall expire." 
 
 " The Legislature shall pass all laws necessary to 
 carry into effect the foreg©ing provisions of this article." 
 
 " The General Assembly shall not contract loans or 
 cause to be issued bonds or certificates of debt, which 
 shall be irredeemable for a term longer than twenty- 
 four years, and all bonds, or certificates of debt, which 
 shall be issued hereafter, shall contain a stipulation that 
 the holders shall accept of payments in conformity with 
 the provisions of this article." 
 
 " The faith of the State shall not be pledged in any 
 
180 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 form for the debts, obligations, or liabilities of any in- 
 dividual, joint stock company, or corporation." 
 
 " No law enlarging the debt shall take effect and be 
 put into execution until after its enactment by the first 
 Legislature returned by a general election after its pass- 
 age." 
 
 " The General Assembly shall have power to autho- 
 rise the counties, cities and incorporated towns to im- 
 pose taxes for county and corporation purposes ; bu f no 
 county, city or incorporated town shall borrow money 
 or contract a debt to run more than one year, until such 
 measure shall have been sanctioned by a majority of 
 all the holders of real estate in such county, city or cor- 
 poration." 
 
 The proposition was laid on the table and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment have had under consideration various resolu- 
 tions, to them referred, from the further consideration 
 of which they ask to be discharged ; to wit : of a memo- 
 rial of citizens of Jefferson and Rockbridge counties, 
 praying the removal of free negroes from the Common- 
 wealth, and from the following resolutions, viz: 
 
 Resolutions offered by Mr. Whittle, Mr. Botts and 
 Mr. Lyons, respectively, on the 29th of October, rela- 
 ting to the removal of free negroes and mulattoes ; res- 
 olutions offered by Mr. Camden and Mr. Straughan, re- 
 spectively, on the 28th of October, in relation to the ju- 
 risdiction of the Senate, the term of the Senatorial ten- 
 ure, and the times of meeting of the Senate ; a resolu- 
 tion by Mr. Carlile, offered on the 28th of October, in 
 relation to the formation of new counties, and of taking 
 the census of the State in 1855, and every ten years 
 thereafter; a resolution of Mr. Johnson, offered on the 
 28th of October, in relation to the organization of a 
 Board of Public Works ; and a resolution offered by Mr. 
 Muscoe Garnett, on the 30th of October, in relation 
 to lucrative offices, ministers of the gospel, and priests. 
 
 All of these subjects being embraced substantially in 
 the general report, the committee deem it unnecessary 
 to take separate action on these particular resolutions, 
 and have instructed me to ask to be discharged from 
 their further consideration. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly discharged. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 On motion of Mr. BLUE, the Convention resolved it- 
 self into committee of the whole, Mr. Watts, of 
 Norfolk county, in the chair, on the report of the Com- 
 mittee on the Executive Department. 
 
 re-eligibility of the governor. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the first 
 clause of the first article of the report and the amend- 
 ments pending thereto. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I presume that the slimness of 
 the congregation at this early hour will justify me in 
 addressing the committee for a few moments, without 
 any apology. The importance that has been given to 
 the question under consideration, and my connection 
 with the Executive Committee, will, I hope, justify 
 me for trespassing upon the patience of the commit- 
 tee, I fear, already exhausted by the endless debate on 
 this subject. It has been my fortune to study the sci- 
 ence of government only in the history of my own 
 country. Instead of looking back to the mutilated col- 
 umns of Athens and of Sparta for examples, I have 
 sought them in the giant strides of our sister States in 
 the West. When I first entered the political arena, 
 but a few years back, I attempted to banish from my 
 mind the obsolete ideas of the past, and I have sought 
 for information in the practical experience ef the pres- 
 ent. My first appearance before my countrymen was 
 as an advocate of a constitutional convention for re- 
 form ; and whilst I claim to entertain as great a re- 
 spect for the suggestions of the legislature that adopt- 1 
 
 ed the original Constitution of Virginia, and justly to 
 appreciate the wisdom of a few of the delegates that 
 figured in the Convention of '29 and '30, I am bound 
 to believe that 'the Constitution as it exists is directly 
 at war with the true spirit of democratic republicanism, 
 and decidedly unfit for the age in which we live. It 
 was not my fortune, like my friend from Petersburg, 
 (Mr. Rives,) and various other gentlemen here, to print 
 and circulate in my district a written address, but I pub- 
 lished my views and sentiments from every rostrum in 
 the district when I went into the canvass for the elec- 
 tion of delegates to this Convention ; and I am here 
 to stamp them by my votes on every page in your jour- 
 nal. I belong to that party on this floor, who are de- 
 nominated radicals, and if I understand the meaning of 
 the term, and I think Ido, I glory in the ultraism of rad- 
 icalism. 
 
 I voted in the Executive Committee for the proposi- 
 tion now under consideration, offered in this Conven- 
 tion, by the gentleman from Henrico ; and I gave that 
 vote in accordance with a pledge I made to the people 
 of my district. I will not say that I argued and dis- 
 cussed before the people this particular question ; but I 
 pledged myself to go for re-eligibility in every office in 
 the Commonwealth of Virginia. I put that vote on the 
 very ground that one of the highest inducements you 
 can hold out to a man in office to be honest, faithful, 
 and industrious in the discharge of the duties of his of- 
 fice, was the hope of re-election. When this question 
 was first agitated in this body, I was a patient listener 
 to the distinguished gentlemen who have taken the 
 ground of opposition to re-eligibility. I waited to hear 
 some plausible argument presented on that side of the 
 question ; and I propose, for a few moments, to exam- 
 ine the arguments that have been made against that 
 proposition, and to ascertain if those arguments will 
 justify this Convention in restricting the powers of the 
 sovereign people. Among other things, it has been 
 charged here, and I have heard the cry outside of the 
 walls of this house, and before I was a member of this 
 Convention, that it is ranging from the wise principles 
 laid down in the old Constitution, in reference to this 
 question, and is one of the dangerous innovations of the 
 day. This cry of innovation is no new one. In days 
 gone by, when the manwhoseburningeloquen.ee roused 
 a continent to arms, was stirring the House of Burgess- 
 es of Virginia by his passionate appeals for innovations 
 in favor of popular rights, there was heard from every 
 quarter the cry of "treason ! treason ! " Patrick Henry 
 was a radical. He was, to use the language of my 
 friend from Accomac, an "infinite radical." I have 
 the honor in part to represent two counties in this Con- 
 vention, one of which bears his name, and if my hum- 
 ble efforts to defeat every proposition intended to restrict 
 the privileges and powers of the people, brand me as 
 being such a radical and innovator, I plead guilty to 
 the charge, and let him who may desire, make the most 
 of it. 
 
 The main arguments upon which those who oppose 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Henrico depend, 
 is that the Governor of Virginia, if he shall be re-eligi- 
 ble, will become corrupt, and that he will use the pow- 
 ers of the gubernatorial office to secure his re-election. 
 Now, if there is anything in this argument,~T contend 
 that the whole doctrine of the capacity of man for self- 
 government falls, and this Convention ought not to have 
 been called. If the corruption and abuses of power by 
 the governor while in office is to have any effect upon 
 the people of this Commonwealth, so as to secure his 
 re-election against all opposition, then I say the people 
 of Virginia are incapable of self-government, and we 
 should stop here before we trust them with more power 
 than they possess.under the constitution as it is. But I 
 deny that the people will be influenced by any such 
 causes, by any such* corrupt discharge of duty on the 
 part of the Governor, or that he can possibly secure his 
 re-election by a resort to such means when in office. 
 What are the mighty powers of the Governor of Virgi- 
 nia? If I ever heard of a body that were prepared to 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 183 
 
 thought — and I hare no doubt he never said anything 
 that he did not think — if what he has written is any 
 evidence of what he thought, an argument sustained 
 by his opinions would be directly against that ad- 
 vanced by my colleague. What did Mr. Jefferson de- 
 clare, not declare merely, but what did he arrange and 
 intend to propose to the convention to be held at the 
 period at which that writing took place? Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, in 1*783, prepared a projet of a constitution to be 
 submitted to the convention, should it be held, in re- 
 spect to the executive officer, which is as follows : 
 
 "The executive power shall be exercised by a 
 Governor, who shall be chosen by joint ballot of both 
 houses of the General Assembly, and when chosen shall 
 remain in office five years, and be ineligible a second 
 time." 
 
 This was not a letter, not a mere effusion to a friend, 
 but it was the deliberate judgment of Mr, Jefferson, in 
 reference to this question of ineligibility in 1783. It 
 is to be found in his notes on Virginia. That was the 
 deliberate conviction of Mr. Jefferson's mind in 1783. 
 "What do we hear from him afterwards upon the sub- 
 ject of re -eligibility of the chief executive officer of the 
 United States ? He had the subject as much at heart as 
 when a constitution was proposed for Virginia in 1783. 
 What did he say then, with reference to this re-eligibili- 
 ty of the President ? In the letter to Mr. Madison, da- 
 ted December 20, 1787, he uses this language ; I quote 
 from thc e ^cond volume of his correspondence, page 274, 
 as folkrj-Q — 
 
 " The tvcond feature I dislike, and strongly dislike, 
 is the abandonment in every instance of the princi- 
 ple of rotation in office, and most particularly in the 
 case of the President. Reason and experience tell 
 us that the first magistrate will always be re-elected 
 if he may be re-elected. He is thus an officer for life. 
 This once observed, it becomes of so much consequence 
 to certain nations to have a friend or a foe at the head 
 of our affaiis, that they will interfere with money and 
 arms." 
 
 This was what he said in a letter to Mr. Madison. In 
 his letter to Mr. Hopkins, dated March 13, 1789, his 
 language in reference to the subject is this : I quote 
 from page 489, of the same volume — " I disapprove also 
 of a perpetual re-eligibility of the President." Now, so 
 far as Mr. Jefferson's opinions can influence this commu- 
 nity, and so far as his opinions, well settled and con- 
 sidered, can influence my colleague, they are of a char- 
 acter that should induce him to go for the proposition 
 of the gentleman from Pittsylvania. The action of the 
 last convention has been referred to — or rather the ac- 
 tion of the distinguished western gentleman in that con- 
 vention — by my colleague, which I must take the liberty 
 of saying, does not sustain his position in any shape'or 
 form. It did seem to me, with due respect to my col- 
 league, that it was beside the question altogether. And 
 he referred to Mr. Monroe's opinion, as expressed in re- 
 ference to the re- eligibility of the President of the United 
 States, in the convention of Virginia, called for the rati- 
 fication of the constitution of the United States. I will 
 bring him nearer home, and show him what Mr. Monroe's 
 opinion was in reference to this identical question, in 
 the convention of 1829 and 1830. I do not mean to worry 
 the committee by referring to authorities. Mr. Monroe, 
 in giving his views upon this identical question, in the 
 convention of 1829 and 1830, uses this emphatic lan- 
 guage, which will be found by reference to the debates 
 of this convention, page 482 : 
 
 M As to the power the chief magistrate ought to pos- 
 sess, it is another question. Whether he ought to have 
 the power of appointment is a matter that hangs on oth- 
 er considerations. Be his election by whom it may, 
 my opinion is, that he should hold his office for one term 
 only. Then he is made independent. He serves his 
 one term and retires. No selfish motives can operate 
 upon him." 
 
 I might go on to show that the distinguished western | 
 
 gentleman, to whom my colleague referred, when he 
 favored the proposition to which my colleague referred, 
 and upon which he based his belief that Mr. Doddridge 
 was in favor of re-eligibility — that the only object the 
 mover had, was to bring the question as to whether the 
 legislature should elect the governor, or whether he 
 should be elected by the people, beforethat convention. 
 That Avas the only question, I presume, which operated 
 on the mind of Mr. Doddridge at the time he offered 
 the resolution referred to by my colleague ; which was, 
 with the exception that blanks were left for the term 
 for which he should be elected, and a blank as to the 
 number of years he should be ineligible, the very prop- 
 osition, filled with the word " four," that is proposed 
 by the gentleman from Pittsylvania, as modified by my 
 friend from Appomattox. So much for these authori- 
 ties. 
 
 A great deal has been said about the purification 
 which electioneering is to produce. That may be — I 
 do not pretend to have sufficient experience to say that 
 such will not be the case — but I have learned that which 
 I believe in a majority of cases to be true, that the way 
 of public life is dirty. So far as my experience goes, 
 — limited as I concede it to be, — I have not yet found 
 the fumigation of the electioneering canvass so very 
 purifying. I tried to be honest — I tried to discard hy- 
 pocrisy and duplicity. I hope I did. I designed to do it. 
 But I must repeat again, that the path of public life, 
 according to my experience, is a dirty one. Am I no 
 democrat, because I utter the opinions I have ? I sup- 
 pose I shall be read out of the church by the distinguish- 
 ed high priest per se, who has lately been installed, and 
 takes the chief seat in the political synagogue. 
 
 I have been a democrat all my life. I am a demo- 
 crat, not for getting into office. I am a democrat be- 
 cause I believe all the principles of democracy are right ; 
 and whether I am read out of the church or no, I shall 
 continue to regard those principles as right, and shall 
 always act upon them. But while I am a democrat, I 
 am no infinite radical. I have no ultra opinions on the 
 subject of reform, such as have been expressed upon 
 this floor, and I trust I shall be excused by my distin- 
 guished friend from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) — if he will 
 allow me the privilege of so calling him — for asking him 
 to pause, if not for those who are to go after him, at least 
 for the sake of his own fame, before he topples down 
 the main pillars of this temple in which we have been 
 so long accustomed to worship, and so harmoniously, 
 and with such brotherly affection. I say that I hope I 
 may be excused for calling on him to pause before he 
 lends the aid of his name and influence to an unholy 
 work — he will excuse me for so characterising it. 
 
 Now, I am going at the officer. I thought these gen- 
 tlemen — some of them at least — were pledged to go for 
 all sorts of limitations and restrictions upon the agents 
 of the people. I am for restricting the public agent, 
 and I wish to make him what I think he ought to be. 
 I do not desire temptation to be placed before him, nor 
 see him descend to the petty intrigues of office to be 
 retained. How is this an attack upon popular rights ? 
 These gentlemen instead of going for any of the prop- 
 ositions that are before the committee, ought to go for 
 a provision in the constitution that the executive offi- 
 cer shall hold his office during the will and pleasure of 
 the people. Why do gentlemen propose to limit him 
 for a term of four years ? Are not the hands of the 
 people as effectually tied for that four years as if 
 you were to say that he should go out at the end of 
 his term, and they should select another, and for that 
 four years their hands be tied in reference to him ? Let 
 us hear what fractional part of a right do we infringe 
 upon by going for the ineligibility after one term of four 
 years. I presume there are some ninety or one hun- 
 dred thousand voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 
 If we are to take the proposition which has been made 
 by the committee on the right of suffrage and incorpo- 
 rate it into the constitution, it will add, at least, some 
 twenty or thirty thousand more to the list of voters. 
 Now, where is a man out of all this number, save and 
 
184 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 except the portion to whom I shall presently refer, who 
 for four years the people cannot select ? Now I should 
 like to see those gentlemen who are great at figures make 
 the calculation, and ascertain what fractional part of a 
 right we trench upon hy thus attempting to limit this 
 executive eligibility. I am somewhat astonished that 
 these gentlemen, who are the safeguards of the people, 
 par excellence, did not raise up their hands in holy hor- 
 ror when it was reported that the people should not 
 elect to this office an individual in this Commonwealth 
 between the ages of twenty-one and thirty. By that 
 restriction, I suppose, at least one-half of the voters 
 of this Commonwealth are cut off. And, yet, we have 
 had a discussion of some ten days because it is propos- 
 ed that one of the citizens shall be ineligible for four 
 years 1 
 
 It has been held that you ought to make the Governor 
 re-eligible in all time to come, because it is necessary 
 that he should be responsible to the people. Now I have 
 not considered this as a means of making him responsible 
 to the people. Why, suppose he should say he would 
 not be a candidate — do you mean to insert a provision in 
 the constitution that he shall be a candidate for a second 
 term ? But suppose he should be a candidate, and should 
 want to remain in office as long as he can? The gentleman 
 will tell me that the approbation and the approval of his 
 official course would be what he desires by are-election. 
 I think, with due deference to those with whom I differ, 
 that the proposition of the gentleman from Pittsylvania 
 secures that thing in a more eligible form than any which 
 has yet been submitted to this Convention. Why, if a 
 Governor is in for four years, and out for four years, it 
 gives the people an opportunity to examine his conduct 
 deliberately and calmly. It gives them an opportunity 
 not only to weigh it well in their consideration, but to see 
 the practical working of his conduct ; and if he has been 
 this good officer, this man of integrity, this man of emi- 
 nent ability, they will feel a debt of gratitude to such a 
 man, and when the ineligibility shall be removed, at the 
 end of four years, they will re-instate him in the per- 
 formance of those duties which he before was faithful 
 in discharging. It is, I say, the best and most eligible 
 mode by which the public approbation can be attained. 
 Let us look at the workings of a rule of re-eligibility, 
 where it has been adopted. Let us look at the Northern 
 States — how has it worked there? Why, when the Gov- 
 ernor's term of office is out he goes out of it ; and, in- 
 stead of the approbation of faithful conduct which these 
 gentlemen have looked to see, — instead of that respon- 
 sibility to the people to which they have referred so of- 
 ten, — why, he goes out as a matter .of course, by general 
 understanding, as I am informed. Well, do you want 
 this in Virginia? Do you want a man, the incumbent of 
 an office, the duties of which, he has faithfully execu- 
 ted, ejected and mortified, and perhaps disgusted ; and 
 all that without cause ; because, if we adopt the other 
 principle, he goes out any how. If we suppose that the 
 Governor desires to be elected a second time, it is not 
 because he desires responsibility before the people ; but 
 if we know the human heart, because he desires office 
 again, or desires to continue in the office to which proba- 
 bly he may have become partial during the time he has 
 been in office. Well, if we are to elect to the same office 
 the same individual, if he is anxious to remain in his 
 office, will not his official duties be performed in refer- 
 ence to his getting in a second term ? He will so dis- 
 charge his official duties as to secure his re-election, that 
 is, if he desires to remain a second term. Instead of 
 looking to the public good, recommending such measures 
 as, in his best judgment, the interests of the public 
 weal demand, he will be seeking to get votes, and to pro- 
 mote his re-election. I desire that this chief executive 
 officer shall be the Governor of Virginia, and not the 
 tool of a party. 
 
 But we are told that if you do not go for the re-eligi- 
 bility of the Governor, you cannot go for the re-eligi- 
 bility of the Judges ; and if you do go for the re-eligi- 
 bility of the Governor, you must go for the re-eligibility 
 of the Judges. Does this follow ? Though I shall go for 
 
 fixing the ineligibility of the Governor, I claim to be as 
 free as air upon the question of the ineligibility or re- 
 eligibility of the Judges. Gentlemen appear not to see a 
 distinction between these two offices. For the Governor, 
 you have the entire limits of the Commonwealth to range 
 in your selection. Is it so in reference to the Judges? 
 Why, do you not, according to the report of the commit- 
 tee, confine their selection to districts? Is there not some 
 reason, then, why we may go against the re-eligibility 
 of the Governor, and not against the re-eligibility of 
 the Judges ? It appears to me the questions are totally 
 separate and distinct. Are we to tear down some of the 
 pillars of this — I will not say good old constitution ; be- 
 cause many parts of it are extremely objectionable to 
 me — but are we to lay the reckless hand of vandalism 
 upon what is valuable in it ? If that be the feelings and 
 desires of any friend of mine — if he desires to strike 
 from our constitution those vital portions which gave 
 strength and form, and efficacy to that instrument, he 
 will pardon me when I say I cannot go with him. I 
 will march side by side with my friend from Accomac 
 in all judicious reforms, and by judicious reforms I do 
 not understand what some do by judicious tariffs, and 
 who are ready to go for the highest tariff that any body 
 wants, or all the reforms that any body may desire. 
 That is not my position. I am here to go for such re- 
 forms as the state of society demands, and such reforms 
 as the people in my part of the country call for. Have 
 we not already advanced in the cause of ref orm ? Do 
 we not propose to restore to the people thef f right of 
 electing the Governor? And is not that a which 
 the people require ? But I deny, so far as myf 16 eople are 
 concerned, that they have said that 1 shall render him 
 re-eligible. 
 
 The gentleman from Accomac, the other day, seemed 
 to think that he did most satisfactorily answer the argu- 
 ment of the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Mere- 
 dith,) when he said if you do not render him re-eligible 
 he might so manage it in the office of Governor as to se- 
 cure his election by his party in the legislature to the 
 office of Senator of the United States. Well, if he 
 is after the Senate of the United States, the gentle- 
 man will pardon me for saying, that he will use the 
 same means to get there whether he is re-eligible or 
 not. He will pardon me for saying, that those whose 
 duty it will be to elect a Senator of the United States, 
 will not only have these means and appliances brought 
 into use, but will have the same inducements to send 
 him to the Senate of the United States if he is re- 
 eligible. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I do not think the gentleman precisely 
 apprehends my position. Certainly he does not apply it 
 to the argument either as made by the gentleman from 
 Richmond, or the argument which I made on the ques- 
 tion of re-eligibility. I did not understand the objection 
 to be that, the gentleman who was ineligible for Gov- 
 ernor, might electioneer or prostitute his office for a seat 
 in the United States Senate, or any other office. My 
 friend will remember that the argument of the gentle- 
 man from Richmond was this : that the capacity to be 
 re-elected to the office of Governor, was a temptation 
 to the incumbent to prostitute his office. I, in reply, 
 said that it was re-eligibility that would put the incum- 
 bent on his good behavior. He, in reply to that, said 
 that there were other offices than that of Governor to 
 which he might be elected, and which would be a suffi- 
 cient reward to put him on his good behavior. I, in 
 reply, then said that the converse proposition was true — • 
 that if there were other offices to reward him with than 
 this office of Governor, then these offices might tempt 
 him in the same manner to prostitute the office of Gov- 
 ernor. I said that if he was elected by a political ma- 
 jority, and liable to be called on to do party work, that 
 the fear of the people before his eyes, when he came 
 before them for re-election, would secure the purity of 
 his administration ; and the gentleman from Richmond 
 said, that the other offices to which he might succeed 
 would equally secure that purity. And I said in reply, 
 that those other offices would equally tempt him to 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 185 
 
 prostitute his office. A legislature might be corrupt 
 as well as an executive, and a legislature might de- 
 mand of a Governor that he should prostitute his of- 
 fice to their purposes ; and they might hold out as a 
 reward to him, a seat in the United States Senate, or 
 some other office, to tempt him to yield to their de- 
 mands ; and that being ineligible, the principle of ineli- 
 gibility itself produced irresponsibility. That is the 
 argument. 
 
 Mr. FUQUA. I will take the argument of the 
 gentleman from Accomac to be as he has placed it be- 
 fore us. It seems to me that if a gentleman is elect- 
 ed to the gubernatorial chair, and desires to be sent 
 to the Senate of the United States, or be placed, if 
 you please, upon the Court of Appeals bench — and I 
 am now supposing the election of that body to be as 
 has been reported — I ask the gentleman what difference 
 it will make whether he is re-eligible or ineligible, 
 whether he is responsible or irresponsible ? If he se- 
 cures the appointment through the prostitution of his 
 office, would he not resort to that prostitution of his 
 office, for that purpose, whether he was ineligible orre- 
 eligible ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. That is precisely what I said to the gen- 
 tleman from Richmond — that you secure no more purity 
 of office by making him ineligible, than you do by leav- 
 ing bim re-eligible. The gentleman has come exactly 
 to my conclusion. I said you had gained nothing in pu- 
 rity and lost everything in responsibility. That is my 
 ground precisely. 
 
 Mr. FUQUA. I do not view it in that light. Re- 
 sponsibility because of re-eligibility, when the very gen- 
 tleman who is to look to a re-election is conscious of 
 having prostituted his office to accomplish his ends? 
 Will he ever present himself to the people? I should 
 think not. There is another view of this subject, 
 which has been drawn into this discussion, and that is, 
 as to the features of this government. My friend from 
 Fauquier (Mr. Chilton) insisted that there must be 
 monarchial, aristocratic, and democratic features in the 
 government to make it work. I do not understand how 
 it can be otherwise. 1 say that, unless you infuse into 
 this constitution, which you are called on to establish, 
 the good spices of every government, you make it either 
 soricketty that it will not stand, or it dies of plethoric. 
 The good spices of every government must be infused into 
 it, or else the constitution will fall, and it ought not to 
 exist. What is to protect the minority against the tyran- 
 ny of the majority ? Is it not the executive arm ? May 
 it not be called in requisition to protect the minority 
 against the encroachment of the majority? And is not 
 that a monarchial feature ? I do not believe that you can 
 give this people a government that is worth having, un- 
 less the good spices of government are properly infused 
 into it. I would not, if I could, have one body of the 
 legislature elected by the patrician order, and the other 
 by the plebeian. I would not have those two bodies ar- 
 rayed against each other. My wish is, to see a proper 
 infusion of aristocracy and democracy in both these bo- 
 dies. I say that the best government is that in which 
 the good spices of every well regulated government are 
 most judiciously and equitably diffused. 
 
 I said in the opening of my remarks, that those gen- 
 tlemen who have referred so frequently to the people, 
 in my opinion, meant the majority of the people. Now, 
 majorities, founded upon correct principles, I admit, 
 ought, within certain limits, and according to estab- 
 lished rules, to govern and control. What sort of a 
 majority that is, or may be by the action of this body, I 
 do not know. I know what sort of a majority I desire. 
 I shall vote for the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Pittsylvania. I think this the best course to pursue. 
 It will render the executive, in the few duties he will 
 have to perform, more faithful and zealous in their dis- 
 charge, than if you make him re-eligible immediately af- 
 ter the service of his first term. I desire to see the Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia the Governor of the State. I desire 
 to see him forget his party connections, if he be a party 
 man. I desire to see him recommend to the good old 
 
 Commonwealth such measures as in his judgment, the 
 best interests of the people call for. I shall therefore 
 vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Pittsyl- 
 vania to secure that end. 
 
 Mr. ISTEESOK I trust that the little time that I 
 shall claim the indulgence of this Convention, will not 
 be considered as a wasteful consumption of it. although 
 it may possibly be an unprofitable one. It is well 
 known here, at least among ourselves, to be a pre-de- 
 termination of this body, that no matter of constitution- 
 al regulation shall be determined upon, until we shall 
 have settled the great absorbing question of the basis of 
 representation. And inasmuch as we have not arrived 
 at that progress of the business when we can take up 
 and consider and dispose of that subject. 1 think I may 
 claim to occupy the time of the Convention without ex- 
 posing myself to the imputation of a useless consump- 
 tion of time. I come here for the first time, receiving a 
 great trust from the people with whom I have the for- 
 tune to live ; and I have felt, since I arrived here, that 
 it was not only a great, but a most momentous trust ; 
 and I am most solemnly impressed with the high re- 
 sponsibility it imposes upon me. I came here among 
 those who believe in salutary essential reforms. I came 
 here not only to oppose, but absolutely to resist, by all 
 proper means, what I have recently learned to be con- 
 servative doctrines. Among the great reforms with. 
 which I suppose we shall be occupied here, because they 
 have been especially desired by the people — our con- 
 stituency — is, the affirmance of the great cardinal prin- 
 ciples of the government, and particularly the great Ame- 
 rican doctrine of popular election. 
 
 It is now seventy-five years since the illustrious found- 
 ers of this republic first collected together and proclaimed 
 the great fundamental principles of our government. 
 They are to be found in the most compendious and lucid 
 form in our bill of rights. They are political apothegms 
 and I desire to see them fairly expanded and practically 
 applied. I regretted most seriously to hear it declared 
 on this floor that it is to be deplored we have a bill of 
 rights prefixed to our constitution. We have been about 
 seventy-five years living under a government, professed- 
 ly founded upon these great fundamental truths in po- 
 litical science ; and, yet, up to this time 7 the people of 
 Virginia have been excluded from their rightful control 
 or participation in this government. Up to this time, 
 the people of this commonwealth have never had the 
 privilege of electing any officers of the State, except of 
 two descriptions — members of the legislature and over- 
 seers of the poor. By law they are entitled to elect 
 the overseers of the poor, and yet by law that most 
 wretched oligarchy, our odious and irresponsible county 
 court, has deprived the people even of that small parti- 
 cipation in the government ; and they do it while this 
 great American doctrine of popular elections now per- 
 vades the broad limits of this great confederacy, in al- 
 most all cases, except in the two States of Virginia and 
 South Carolina. The people have repudiated that im- 
 propriety, and have come here to record their decree 
 upon the subject. A committee of our body, appointed 
 for the purpose, have reported that the Governor shall 
 be elected by the people, and in this particular have 
 complied with the will of the people ; and yet, no soon- 
 er is that proposition submitted to the Convention than 
 gentlemen immediately propose to restrict the right of 
 election by the people, in excluding an incumbent from 
 a re-election. I desire to give my view of the true pos- 
 ture of this question. I hold that all power is not only 
 inherent in the people, but that no power can be exer- 
 cised by government which is not immediately derived 
 from them. And the legitimacy of the power so de- 
 rived, is evinced by the consent of the people. I will 
 not undertake to say that no republican government can 
 impose any restrictions upon the people. I will not 
 undertake to discuss the position that no natural power 
 of man is restricted in the creation of government. 
 But I will assume the position expressed years ago in 
 this country, that the people are the fountains of pow- 
 
186 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 er ; that the government and all public functionaries are 
 the depositories of power. I would repeat the doctrine, 
 that the people are the great fountains of power. The 
 depositories of power are the government, or public 
 functionaries. If that be true, whenever the represen- 
 tatives of the people undertake to deprive the people 
 of the exercise of power, do they not necessarily, un- 
 dertake to abridge or restrict that power? I hold, then, 
 that this ineligibility is a palpable restriction on the 
 people — an unwarrantable one. The gentlemen who 
 advocate the propriety of this restriction perceive the 
 dilemma in which they are placed, and by various spe- 
 cimens of ingenuity, and, I think, by not a little tortu- 
 osity of mind, they attempt to discriminate between the 
 restriction on the people and the proposed ineligibility 
 of the officer. They feel a necessity for this discrimina- 
 tion, but I submit to you if they succeed in establishing 
 a discrimination. Is it not a distinction without a dif- 
 ference ? That it is an abridgment of the powers of 
 the people, the gentlemen themselves have confessed, 
 for when called upon to show reasons for this depriva- 
 tion of popular power, they recognize the obligation 
 to do so by assuming to justify it by various modes 
 of argument. The obligation devolves on them to 
 show its necessity. This they have undertaken to do, 
 and whether they have succeeded, it is my purpose to 
 inquire. 
 
 I maintain that it is morally and physically impossible, 
 to affix ineligibility upon the election of any officer, 
 without, at the same time, destroying the faculty of the 
 people to the same extent. Now there are three propo- 
 sitions pending here. One is, the report of the commit- 
 tee allowing elections to two terms only ; another is, an 
 amendment prohibiting re-election until an intervening 
 term elapse ; and the third is, an amendment to the 
 amendment, admitting re-eligibility without constitu- 
 tional restraint. The question, according to my under- 
 standing, assumes this posture ; whether re-eligibility 
 shall be allowed in the executive department ; and 
 whether, if allowed, it shall be partial or entire — limi- 
 ted or unlimited My position is, that it is right that 
 the chief executive officer should be endowed with un- 
 restricted eligibility, and that the re-election should be 
 referred to the people by whom its propriety is to be de- 
 termined. But it is said by gentlemen who maintain the 
 propriety of this restriction, that it is in violation of 
 certain important doctrines, and is pregnant with great 
 mischief. I will admit that there are two conditions, 
 the fulfilment of which will, to a certain degree, justify 
 restrictions upon the public will ; and I will define what 
 they are, that they may be perfectly understood. It de- 
 volves upon those who maintain the propriety of a re- 
 striction to establish — first, that the restriction will cer- 
 tainly avert a certain public mischief ; or second, that 
 it will certainly promote a public advantage : And I 
 affirm that unless the restriction in regard to eligibility 
 falls within one of these two conditions, it is utterly in- 
 defensible. 
 
 I propose now to consider, in their order, certain ob- 
 jections which have been urged here against re-eligibili- 
 ty, but which are in fact, arguments in favor of re- 
 striction. First, according to the order in which I have 
 noted them, is that the principle of re-eligibility is vio- 
 lative of the doctrine of rotation in office. I do not 
 wish to be understood as at all hostile to this doc- 
 trine of rotation in office, and what I say, therefore, 
 will be understood to imply a partiality to that doctrine, 
 but modified according to circumstances. What is this 
 doctrine of rotation in office? When gentlemen pro- 
 pound propositions to this committee, at all affecting 
 popular rights, I wish them to define those propositions 
 in terms of more precise signification. Let them not 
 announce certain general views which are so vague that 
 no one can exactly comprehend them : they may be right, 
 or they may be wrong. What is this rotation in office ? 
 Gentlemen, of greater experience and observation than 
 myself, have ascribed the origin of this doctrine to po- 
 litical aspirants. It may be true. So far as my limited 
 experience extends, it confirms that view of the subject, j 
 
 What do you mean then by rotation in office ? Do you 
 mean that the members of Congress and the members 
 of the Legislature shall not be re-elected ? Do you mean 
 that justices of the peace shall not be re-eligible ? Or, 
 on the contrary, do you mean that no officer in the gov- 
 ernment save and except the executive officer — shall be 
 ineligible ? If these are good grounds to sustain this doc- 
 trine of ineligibility in the one case, what reason is there 
 for rendering it inapplicable in other cases ? My idea of 
 rotation in office is this — and it is the doctrine which I 
 will maintain — that every public functionary shall 
 hold his public station for a definite period, and at the 
 expiration of that term, he shall return to the body 
 of the people whence he was taken. But if his su- 
 erior qualifications are such as to render it proper that 
 e may be re-elected, then, I say, that he should be re- 
 eligible ; and I say so mainly beeause the people them- 
 selves, by re-electing him, declare that he is entitled to 
 it. I have said that my observation confirms the remark 
 of gentlemen that this rotation in office, which appears 
 now to be an exclusion after serving one term, was fa- 
 vored rather by political aspirants than by the great 
 mass of the people. 
 
 I remember an instance in my own region of country 
 where sundry gentlemen assembled on a certain occa- 
 sion to nominate a man for Congress. There was a gen- 
 tleman in the district who stood high in the favor of the 
 people ; who possessed high qualifications for the office ; 
 was irreproachable in his integrity, and considerably 
 advanced in experience. He had served in Congress 
 several years, and the fidelity with which he had served 
 his constituents, had endeared him to them, and this ap- 
 peared to excite the envy of certain others who were 
 not his superiors. These gentlemen assembled to de- 
 termine who should be their candidate, and assumed to 
 declare that rotation in office was a proper doctrine ; 
 and rotation in office required, as they explained it — 
 that after a man had served so many years — just a num- 
 ber to cover their case — he had occupied that office 
 sufficiently long, and therefore, no man falling within 
 that proscription should be entitled to a nomination by 
 that Convention. Thus, the favorite of the people was 
 proscribed, and the favorite of the office-seekers pre- 
 ferred. This was not the rotation in office which I ad- 
 mire ; that which I sustain will necessarily bring the 
 man before the people, who may possibly, and will, 
 probably, if he has the requisite merit, be continued 
 in his office by the esteem and consent of the peo- 
 ple. This is my doctrine of rotation in office. I main- 
 tain that the application of this principle of re-eli- 
 gibility is the safest and wisest method of securing 
 and enforcing that doctrine. I desire short periods be- 
 yond which the incumbent shall not hold his office, un- 
 less the people shall voluntarily re-instate him. The 
 propriety of re-eligibility is thus referred to the great 
 constituency, who hare the exclusive right to decide 
 the question, and whose interests ensure the most ju- 
 dicious choice. 
 
 Another objection to re-eligibility is this : — and it 
 came from a singular source and was presented in a 
 singular form — that if you render the incumbent in of- 
 fice re-eligible to the next succeeding term, you place 
 him under great disadvantages in securing that re-elec- 
 tion. I have defined what I believe to be the proper 
 conditions for a restriction of the power of the people, 
 namely: that the only condition which will justify a re- 
 striction is, the certainty that it will avert some public 
 mischief or accomplish some public advantage. Now, 
 whether a particular individual seeking a re-electicn 
 enjoys advantages or suffers disadvantages, is an indi- 
 vidual instance, and does not fall within the definition 
 of the condition which alone will or can justify a re- 
 striction upon popular power. This objection does not 
 fall within the rule, the case being that of an individu- 
 al and not of the people. But, I imagine, if the incum- 
 bent labors under any such disadvantages, and is likely 
 to be defeated, he will not enter into competition with 
 other gentlemen by pressing to be a candidate, and 
 therefore, re-eligibility will not in such instances pro- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 189 
 
 is New Jersey, where the executive is re-eligible after 
 an interval of three years, another is Maryland, where 
 the same provision applies ; another is South Carolina, 
 where there is an ineligibility of four years after a ser- 
 vice of two years ; and the fourth is the " Old Domin- 
 ion," whose example cannot now be invoked, I trust, 
 with very great effect. I came here to reverse that ex- 
 ample, and I hope a majority of this committee agree 
 with me. Then, in point of truth and principle, there 
 is but one of these States which ought to have any in- 
 fluence on this Convention, and this is New Jersey ; 
 and I will give you my reason for this distinction. The 
 State of Maryland is not entitled to much consideration 
 in this view, because of her very peculiar provision 
 on the subject ; and the State of South Carolina is 
 certainly not entitled to any consideration in the ad- 
 justment of this question, for in that State the Gov- 
 ernor is elected by the Legislature. In fact the people 
 in that old State have very little share in their gov- 
 ernment. Even the electors of President and Vice 
 President are chosen by the Legislature, and not by the 
 people. 
 
 But there was another gentleman who favored us on 
 a second occasion with an argument which I desire to 
 consider. It was on the second day that the gentleman 
 from Goochland addressed this committee. On the first 
 day, as I have already stated, he maintained that the 
 re-eligibility of the Governor would result in great in- 
 jury and oppression to the minority — of whom or what 
 he did not inform us. On the second day, however, 
 when the gentleman addressed the committee he was 
 vehemently desirous of repudiating the examples which 
 were adduced from the Northern States, and also from 
 the Western States. It appeared that these examples 
 in favor of re-eligibility had rather militated against the 
 argument of the gentleman, and to destroy as much as 
 possible their influence, he totally and utterly rejected 
 them, because, he said, they were from the northern and 
 western people, who had very imperfect and improper 
 ideas in regard to government, and more especially in 
 regard to the organization of the executive department. 
 He supposed, therefore, he would find some relief by 
 rejecting them, and resorting to the examples furnished 
 by the slave States. Now, according to my judgment, 
 he has either misunderstood the slave States, or I have 
 misinterpreted them. 1 have examined the provisions 
 furnished by the slave States, and they present the 
 'following result : Excluding Virginia, whose example 
 cannot certainly be invoked to sustain any argument 
 here, because, as I have said, we have come to dis- 
 card the example furnished by her, of the twelve slave 
 States — I take that to be the whole number, although 
 there may be some few slaves in other States — eleven 
 of them do allow of re-eligibility in the executive de- 
 partment. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. Will the gentleman allow me to cor- 
 rect him, as I am sure he does not wish to mis state my 
 argument? I think that, on both occasions on. which 
 I have addressed this House, I expressed my design to 
 support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
 Pittsylvania, as modified by my friend from Appomat- 
 tox, which is to elect the Governor for four years, 
 and then to be re-eligible after an interval of a term 
 of four years. I referred to the example furnished by 
 the Southern States, as precisely in point, in favor of 
 that proposition. - 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I am not aware that I misunder- 
 stood the gentleman, and so I supposed when he arose 
 to correct me. I now understand the gentleman to say 
 that he resorted to the example of the Southern States, 
 because they furnished arguments in favor of his po- 
 sition, and that position defined by him is re-eligibili- 
 ty after the lapse of a certain interval. He is then 
 opposed to the immediate re-election of the same ex- 
 ecutive. Well, so I understood him before, and with 
 that understanding I now refer to the examples furnish- 
 ed by the Southern States, as a refutation of that argu- 
 ment. Eleven of the slave States, exclusive of Virginia, 
 allow of re-eligibility, and six of these eleven allow 
 
 of immediate re-eligibility ; that is, election immedi- 
 ately after the expiration of his first term. Five of 
 them allow of his re-election after an interlapse of one 
 term. Are not these examples, then, against the gen- 
 tleman ? 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I stated that every one of the slave- 
 holding States, with the exception of Georgia, sanc- 
 tioned the principle of ineligibility, either after one or 
 two terms ; that is, that they all sanctioned the principle 
 that the Governor, after serving a certain length of time, 
 be it one or more terms, should then go out of office, and 
 be ineligible for a length of time. Does the gentleman 
 mean to say that the Southern States da not sanction 
 that principle, all of them, with the exception of Geor- 
 gia ? My statement was, that all of them, with this soli- 
 tary exception, sanctioned the principle of ineligibility 
 in one way or the other. I shall not go into particulars, 
 but I suppose that I am to understand the gentleman as 
 controverting that statement ? 
 
 Mr. NEESON. Certainly not. I did not controvert 
 it, and therefore, I did not see the propriety of the in- 
 terruption. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. Well, that was the statement I made 
 and it was the only statement, 
 
 Mr. NEESON. When I have finished my remarks 
 upon this portion of the subject, the gentleman will un- 
 derstand that I did not controvert that position. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. That was the position I assumed, and 
 if the gentleman is controverting any other, he is con- 
 troverting what I have not said, 
 
 Mr. NEESON. That will do, I understand it. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. I want you to understand it. * 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I was remarking that six of these 
 States allow immediate re-eligibility — North Carolina, 
 Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Geor- 
 gia. In Georgia, the provision admits perpetual re- 
 eligibili'y. Now, these States allow of four, six, and 
 eight years of continuous service in the gubernatorial 
 office, and one of them of perpetual service, with the 
 consent always of the people. The other Southern 
 States which require an intermediate term to be occu- 
 pied by some other incumbent before the executive is 
 re-eligible, are Maryland, South Carolina, Louisiana, 
 Kentucky, and Missouri. 
 
 South Carolina, for the very obvious reasons to which 
 I have referred, the I act that the people there have no 
 participation in the election of a Governor, but that he 
 is elected by the Legislature, cannot furnish an illustra- 
 tion in this case. In Maryland there is a most remark- 
 able provision, and since the gentleman from Goochland 
 has invoked the authority of the Southern States, I sup- 
 pose it is for the purpose of availing himself hereafter 
 of the example of that Southern State, for it is to that 
 point all his argument gravitates. What is it? Why, 
 if you can succeed now in providing against the re-elec- 
 tion of a Governor, in constitutionalizing ineligibility, 
 then you have accomplished an operation whicri^will 
 enable you to accomplish that, the whole operaj^^ of 
 which is in the Constitution of Maryland. And A is 
 that ? The Constitution of Maryland provides thatkhe 
 State shall be divided into three several districts, to be 
 numbered 1, 2, and 3, from which distric^^he Govern- 
 ors of the State are required to be chojd|^fc|egular ro- 
 tation. Is that the restriction whi^^^^^Mtlemaii 
 from Goochland desires when he iiiVt^HP^M^iples 
 of slave States { If it is, I do not wonder tha^Jpalks 
 about the rights and interests of minorities. And if you 
 can justify one restriction which does not fall within one 
 of the two conditions which I specified, at the outset of 
 my argument, you can justify any other restriction. 
 Some gentlemen could here, I think, with peculiar fe- 
 licity, justify that restriction which is to be found in the 
 Constitution of Maryland, that is, not to enlarge the elec- 
 tion of the chief magistrate to the whole people, but to 
 contract it within certain geographical boundaries. You 
 may elect a Governor, but you shall not re-elect him. 
 You may choose your executive, but you shall not choose 
 him unless he resides within a certain district, Here„ 
 then are two restrictions, the latter of which, in regard 
 
190 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 to sectional restriction, might immediately follow the 
 other rest; iction, and I have no doubt the gentleman 
 from Goochland would maintain that proposition. I 
 wonder that nothing has escaped his lips which will jus- 
 tify me even in hoping that he would not sustain it. So 
 much for the examples which have been introduced 
 here, and the influence which has been claimed by those 
 examples. 
 
 I have gone through, I believe, with all the arguments 
 that have occurred to me at this time, in favor of this 
 restriction, and after giving them a careful and deliber- 
 ate consideration, I believe that it is not only wholly 
 unnecessary, but wholly inexpedient, and that the argu- 
 ments, to give them the greatest force allowable in can- 
 dor, are insufficient and inconclusive. The demonstra- 
 tion of the propriety of this restriction rests exclusively 
 on the gentlemen who maintain that propriety. They 
 have failed to do so, and I might rest the argument with 
 saying that they have not satisfied my mind, nor, as I 
 trust, the minds of this committee in justifying this re- 
 striction. But I may go further, and I think that the 
 friends of the people, although that has become a sin- 
 gular expression here, may easily show that they remain 
 fortified by their adherence to the propriety of re-eligi- 
 bility. 
 
 I regard the principle involved here, whichever way 
 you may settle it, as destined to exert a powerful influ- 
 ence on the incumbent of office, whether he be in the 
 executive or any other department of government. I 
 consider this doctrine ef re-eligibility as identical with 
 the doctrine of responsibility. I hold that to be the 
 true position, that re-eligibility and responsibility are 
 identical ; or if they are not identical, they are insepa- 
 rable. Now we have had the doctrine of responsibility 
 sanctioned in our Constitution for a great while. Re- 
 sponsibility is always proclaimed as an essential ele- 
 ment in a republic. You now have responsibility con- 
 nected with the executive and with the judicial func- 
 tionaries of the State. But how is it to be exercised? 
 And how is it rendered efficacious ? By the power of 
 impeachment, according to the present order of things. 
 That was formerly considered the great instrument 
 of responsibility. But I appeal to the history of the 
 whole nation, and the history of Virginia to say whether 
 that- measure has produced responsibility, and whether 
 it has not proved entirely nugatory. There is another 
 method of securing responsibility ; and that is, by refer- 
 ring the officer regularly and frequently to the people for 
 their review. That is the practically efficacious mode 
 of ensuring this great principle, the great desideratum 
 of responsibility in office. 
 
 Well, is experience in office a matter of little consid- 
 eration ? Is it a matter of no moment? Sir, every man 
 knows^and especially those of greater experience than 
 myselripiow infinitely better they are enabled to per- 
 forrjM|he duties of office to their constituents, and dis- 
 cha^^the great trusts conferred on them, and promote 
 the jBlic welfare, after a certain degree of experience. 
 Carf a man practice law without experience ? Can he 
 make shoes, or practice the healing art, or do any thing 
 else in comjA^ife, with as great benefit to those inter- 
 ested asJ^Hj^^ter he has acquired a certain degree 
 of expej^^^^^We know that this cannot be done. 
 WelUg^WP^^TOther thing, in the executive depart - 
 men^^cially — mutability, change, and instability in 
 the executive department of the government, are more 
 to be deprecated than all the other departments of the 
 government, except, perhaps, the judiciary. How can 
 you have a stable and permanent judicious admini'stra- 
 tion of the executive department, unless you authorise 
 the incumbent of the department to devise, to propose, 
 to advocate, and enforce his measures of administration ? 
 Suppose you limit the executive term to two years, and 
 render him ineligible. Can any executive do more than 
 write one message and deliver it to the Legislature at 
 one biennial session ? Now, what could the executive 
 do? Will he be prepared to advise measures of great 
 public concernment? Will he be energetic in ejiforcim 
 those measured on the public conside .ation ? Certain!) 
 
 not. He will know that he is foredoomed, that he will 
 not have the opportunity of administering these mea- 
 sures, and that he must give place to a successor, who, 
 however friendly ne may be, can never in the nature of 
 things feel so deep an interest in the execution of these 
 great measures, as the man to whom belongs their pater- 
 nity. Every man takes a greater interest in defending 
 and enforcing the measures of his own recommendation 
 than he does in defending and enforcing measures sug- 
 gested by the very best and most intimate of friends, 
 It is so in the nature of things. 
 
 Here you have these three considerations, responsi- 
 bility, experience, permanency, or rather stability, in 
 the executive department to be advanced and promoted 
 by re-eligibility, or to be impaired, if not virtually de- 
 stroyed, by ineligibility. I can appeal to the history 
 of this great country, to bear testimony to this truth, that 
 from the foundation of our republic to this day, if one 
 consideration has more concerned the popular mind than 
 another, it is that of providing an efficacious responsibil- 
 ity in the executive department. Before the time of 
 adoption of the federal constitution, in all of the thirteen 
 States which composed this confederacy there were but 
 two single executives. In all the eleven other States, 
 they had a compound executive ; that is, a chief execu- 
 tive officer, called Governor, and a council. The exec- 
 utive, then, was a compound and plural executive, in- 
 stead of a single one, and the consequence was, that re- 
 sponsibility was divided, expedition was impaired, and 
 energy was paralyzed. The two States which did have 
 single executives were New York and New Jersey. Now 
 come down to 1851, and how many compound execu- 
 tives do you find ? Have they not all, or nearly all, been 
 repudiated ? Yet, to render still more effectual the prin- 
 ciple of responsibility, of stability, and experience, I 
 can appeal to the history of Virginia to furnish a memo- 
 rable example of her high appreciation of these quali- 
 ties. That this idea of responsibility was held in the 
 highest estimation by the people is demonstrated by the 
 fact which I have already submitted to the consideration 
 of the committee, that in the executive administration 
 of the government, under the old constitution, from 1776 
 to 1830, a period of fifty-four years, there was but one 
 single Governor, according to my recollection, who 
 filled a single term and no more. There may have been 
 one or two others who filled a shorter term', by reason of 
 death, or some other Providential occurrences, but thir- 
 teen of them filled the office for three years, consecu- 
 tively, as I have already mentioned. Why was this done ? 
 Was it not done to insure to the service of the State 
 their knowledge, and their experience in the promotion ( 
 of such measures as they had advised, and for the purpose 
 of securing particularly this principle of responsibility ? 
 For it has not been supposed that during that period of 
 fifty-four years so many instances of re-election would 
 have occurred had not the incumbents proved themselves 
 worthy and meritorious of re-election. I think I may 
 then safely assert that the history of this country proves 
 that, in the public mind, the idea of re-eligibility has 
 made a deep and abiding lodgment, and that that idea 
 is to be carried out and rendered more and more ser- 
 viceable. Ineligibility, on the other hand, will cer- 
 tainly depreciate, if it does not eventually destroy re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 1 have occupied much more time than I intended. I 
 have said that the advocates of this restriction acknow- 
 ledge the obligation resting on them to show its proprie- 
 ty. They have attempted to do it. They did so cer- 
 tainly with ability and ingenuity ; but, as I think, most 
 unsatisfactorily. I have no doubt the gentlemen who 
 concur with them in the propriety of a restriction of 
 some sort or other, perceived that, after several days of 
 discussion, they could not maintain that position. And 
 then it was that the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. 
 Chilton,) stepped forward as their ooadjutor. But he 
 clearly changed the posture of the question. He con- 
 tended that the obligation rested on those who main- 
 tained unrestricted eligibility, to vindicate its propriety. 
 He said that he had come here, not for the purpose of 
 reforming the constitution , but for the purpose of pre- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 187 
 
 duce the mischief apprehended. But if the Executive 
 has discharged his duties with an eye single to the pub- 
 lic service ; if he has so demeaned himself in office as 
 to be worthy of a re-election, I say it will greatly re- 
 commend his case to the people, and if he does remain 
 here (at the capital) to the end of his gubernatorial 
 term, in the discharge of his duties, without going 
 abroad to electioneer with the people ; if he is worthy 
 of their support, he will get it whether he goes abroad, 
 or not. But, while I am speaking of this objecti«n 
 raised by gentlemen, I am reminded that I could cite 
 the opinion of another gentleman maintaining the pro- 
 priety of this restriction upon directly contrary and in- 
 compatible ground. I forget who the gentleman was, 
 but it was certainly affirmed here by a gentleman in fa- 
 vor of this restriction, that it would give the executive 
 an advantage over his competitor in the contest for a re- 
 election. Which of these two propositions is correct? 
 I Shall not undertake the invidious task of discrimina- 
 ting between the merits of gentlemen who maintain this 
 doctrine upon repugnant and opposite grounds. I will 
 assume that the gentlemen are of equal merits, but in- 
 asmuch as these are arguments so directly antagonistic, 
 the one neutralizes the other, as the counter action of 
 equal forces produces - physical quiescence. Thus it 
 stands according to these arguments — on the one hand 
 the incumbent labors under serious disadvantages, and 
 therefore should not be re-eligible ; on the other hand, 
 he should not be re-eligible, because he would possess 
 undue advantages over his competitor. I leave gentle- 
 men to reconcile these incongruous arguments. Anoth- 
 er objection arising here to the re-election of the Gov- 
 ernor, and therefore in favor of this restriction, is that 
 indicated by the gentleman from Goochland (Mr. Leake.) 
 And what is it i It is a very singular one, and I cannot 
 appreciate its relevancy to the question in debate. It is 
 that by allowing the executive to be re-elected, he might 
 yield to his feelings and prejudices, he might indulge his 
 sympathies and antipathies, greatly to the- detriment of 
 the public service ; and when the gentleman further ad- 
 vanced in his argument, his mind betrayed greater 
 proclivity towards the doctrine of representation than 
 the organization of the executive department ; for 
 directly afterwards he informed us that the great ob- 
 ject of all government was, not the protection of all 
 the people and the public good, but the protection 
 of the minority. And I think he said that government 
 was instituted for the protection of the minority. What 
 possible objection to re-eligibility does this argument 
 present ? How elucidate the impolicy of the re-eli- 
 gibility of the executive ? There was a singular inex- 
 plicitness, a singular ambiguity and mystery connect- 
 ed with the gentleman's argument on this subject, 
 which, however, is not wholly inexplicable ; for, as I 
 suspect, 
 
 " Of darkness visible so much he lent 
 As half to show, half veil the deep intent." 
 I think, if I can be allowed to predict, there may be 
 a covert, oblique purpose to be accomplished in the 
 event of a successful effort to restrict the eligibility of 
 the executive. There may be interests to be promoted 
 in the adoption of this principle of restriction upon the 
 right of the people not otherwise attainable. The gen- 
 tleman from Goochland not only maintained the impro- 
 priety of electing the Governor two successive terms, 
 because it would be prejudicial to the great interests of 
 the minority; but for another reason, to which I will 
 presently recur, in considering another point in these 
 objections. 
 
 The gentleman from Richmond city, (Mr. Meredith,) 
 who certainly made a very fair argument in this cause, 
 puts his objections to re-eligibility upon the assumption 
 that the executive independence would be debased and 
 his integrity depraved by the admission of immediate re- 
 eligibility. These are grave apprehensions, and cer- 
 tainly worthy of consideration. I propose to consider 
 this objection with as much brevity as I can. Dividing 
 the argument, the first branch asserts, that the re-eligi- 
 bility of the executive would put him at the mercy of 
 
 the legislative department of the government — the nat- 
 ural tendency of which was to encroach upon all other 
 departments of government and absorb their powers. I 
 know this idea has been imposingly presented in a cer- 
 tain distinguished political work called the "Federalist." 
 Mr. Madison, in that work, elaborated the argument, and 
 employed it to demonstrate the propriety of fortifying 
 the executive with power to repel such aggressions, and 
 not to show the impolicy of re-eligibility. If the gen- 
 tleman's apprehension is correct, that the executive de- 
 partment will become servile , and obsequious to the le- 
 gislative department, in consequence of the tendency of 
 the legislature to encroach irpon that department, his 
 arguments will never prove that ineligibility is an ex- 
 pedient to obviate that evil. If the legislative propen- 
 sity to domineer is so formidable to the other co-ordinate 
 departments, and so mischievous as described, you must 
 arm the executive to resist it. Suppose you make the 
 executive ineligible in order to accommodate the view 
 of the gentleman, will it restrain the natural tendency 
 of the legislative department to encroach upon the oth- 
 er department ? By no means. On the contrary, it rath- 
 er instigates — if I may so speak — this encroachment. 
 For if the executive officer shall hold his office for two 
 or four years, and then be ineligible, what interest has 
 he in maintaining the integrity of his station, and the 
 independence of his department ? What if he be en- 
 gulfed in the legislative department, will he lose any- 
 thing by it? He must withdraw at the expiration of a 
 certain term, and will not be likely to incur the dis- 
 pleasure of the legislative department, nor embroil him- 
 self in a controversy with them, having no motive to do 
 so. If he is right, he must lose by the expiration of 
 his term. If he be wrong, he must lose also. But with 
 re-eligibility annexed to his office, he can in self-defence 
 enter into a contest with the Legislature — their judg- 
 ment is not irreversible, and he can submit to the people, 
 who have the great power of ultimate judgment, and 
 obtain their final arbitrament upon the question at issue. 
 Then his department is defended and protected from the 
 encroachments of the legislative department ; but by 
 rendering him ineligible, you deprive him of the mo- 
 tive to resent the pressure of that power ; and un- 
 less you give him either a veto or re-eligibility, you 
 make him powerless to resist. So much for the threat- 
 ened dependence of the executive department by rea- 
 son of re-eligibility. 
 
 Now, as to the executive purity and integrity. How 
 do the gentlemen prove that in the event of a re-elec- 
 tion, the executive officer is likely to become base- 
 ly prostituted to the legislative department ? If he is 
 to. be re-elected, it is assumed that his nomination 
 will be made by the Legislature. This is a gratui- 
 tous assumption, and contrary to reasonable probability. 
 Is the capital in a central or accessible portion of the 
 State? Is it not in some respects remote and inaccessi- 
 ble ? And, according to my supposition, when the candi- 
 dates for office are nominated by their respective par- 
 ties, it will be found that the place of meeting for the 
 caucus will be nearer the centre of the State than Hen- 
 rico county. And you will find this Convention, for the 
 purpose of nominating candidates, composed of individ- 
 uals fresh from the body of the people, and not of in- 
 cumbents of office. I think, therefore, it is gratuitous, 
 and contrary to the probabilities, that he will receive his 
 nomination from legislative caucuses. But still strong- 
 er reasons disprove the assumption. How often will the 
 Legislature assemble hereafter? I assume that annual 
 sessions will be succeeded by biennial sessions. If we 
 have biennial sessions, the members of the Legislature 
 will assemble but once in two years, and the executive 
 incumbent will hold his office either two or four years. 
 If he holds it for two years, I suppose it is not doubted 
 that the term of the office will expire near to or during 
 the session of the Legislature. Now, let that be grant- 
 ed, and it follows that legislative caucuses cannot nomi- 
 nate a candidate, because he must be elected by or be- 
 fore that time. The members in the preceding General 
 Assembly will not nominate a candidate, because then 
 
188 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the incumbent has just been inducted into office, and 
 there is no vacancy to be filled. The same or more co- 
 gent reasons will also apply if the term of the execu- 
 tive should continue for four years instead of two. It 
 thus appears, at least to my mind, that the Legislature 
 never can, from the necessity of the case, nominate a 
 candidate for Governor, and the jealousy of the people 
 will not permit it. 
 
 But there is a historical view of this subject of cor- 
 rupting the executive. Under the old Constitution of 
 this State, we existed as a Commonwealth fifty-four 
 years, from 1776 to 1830. During all that period of 
 fifty-four years, the executive held his office for one year 
 and was re-eligible successively to a second and a third 
 term ; and, according to my recollection, was afterwards 
 ineligible for a period of perhaps three years. It will 
 be remembered that although the executive held his of- 
 fice for one year, and was re-eligible during a triennial 
 period, he received his office from the Legislature, and 
 never directly from the people. Now, if you will make 
 a calculation, it will be found, that during the fifty-four 
 years under the old Constitution — when this regulation 
 prevailed — there were but eighteen triennial periods. 
 You will find further, on research, that thirteen execu- 
 tive incumbents, under the old Constitution, were not 
 only elected by the Legislature to the first, but for the 
 second and third terms, thus occupying thirteen of the 
 entire eighteen triennial periods from 1776 to 1830. 
 Indeed, but one Governor ever left the station at the 
 expiration of the first term. Now, I call upon gentle- 
 men, who are so strongly apprehensive that re-eligibility 
 will produce depravation in the executive, to designate 
 a single instance in these thirteen — your mere declara- 
 tion or assertion will not prove anything of corruption — 
 whereby they secured their re-election. If they will 
 do so, then I will admit that there may be some cause for 
 apprehension ; but until then, mere demonstration of 
 feeling and sentiment on this floor, will not influence 
 me against the experience of some fifty-four years. Not 
 only did the Legislature elect the executive for one, 
 two and three years, under the old Constitution, but of 
 these thirteen Governors who served a full period of 
 three years, two were, after the lapse of the required 
 period of ineligibility, re-elected by the same Legisla- 
 ture. One of them was Patrick Henry, for two years, 
 when he retired, in consequence, it is said of the embar- 
 rassed condition of his domestic affairs ; another was 
 James Monroe, who served after this one year, and was 
 not ejected from office, but was transferred to a more 
 exalted station — to the office of Secretary of State of 
 the United States. I think that the example of James 
 Monroe will be a sufficient reply to the argument just sub- 
 mitted to this Convention by the gentleman from Buck- 
 ingham, (Mr. Fuqua,) based upon his authority. It was 
 said that he was opposed to re-eligibility, and that he 
 declared it to be an unwise and dangerous principle. 
 The same James Monroe consented to serve one, two 
 and three consecutive terms in the executive depart- 
 ment of this Commonwealth ; and when he was again 
 re-eligible, after a period of ineligibility, he consent- 
 ed again to serve one and doubtless intended to serve 
 two or three terms, had not the more attractive office 
 been presented to his acceptance. Mr. Jefferson's 
 opinion was also cited, yet Mr. Jefferson served two 
 consecutive terms, both in the executive of Virginia and 
 the executive of the United States. If actions speak 
 louder than words, let them be an answer to the opin- 
 ions of the same men who are cited as authority against 
 re-eligibility. 
 
 Now, if gentlemen will insist on the corrupting 
 tendency of legislative nominations, let them adduce 
 from the history of Virginia, which furnishes such abund- 
 ant examples, one single instance of the corrupting ef- 
 fect even of legislative elections, and then their argument 
 will be much more worthy of consideration. I think 
 that this is a sufficient answer to the argument of the 
 gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Meredith.) 
 
 I now propose to address myself to one argument in- 
 troduced here first, I believe, by the senior gentleman 
 
 from Henrico, (Mr. Davis.) He has addressed this 
 committee on two several days. In the first argument 
 to this committee he denounced this proposition of re- 
 eligibility as a novelty, and as a total departure from 
 precedent. Why, it appears to me that in this labor in 
 which we are engaged, surely precedent will not be all- 
 powerful. It seems to me that the minds of this Con- 
 vention, as the minds of the great body of the people 
 of this Commonwealth, will be less influenced by pre- 
 cedent than they will be by the power and influence of 
 cogent reasoning. I am willing to defer somewhat to 
 example, but I do hold that in this body, and in this na- 
 tion, government is as much an inductive as it is an 
 experimental science ; and if your induction is er- 
 roneous your experience will correct it. But so far 
 from being correct, the gentleman is under a total mis- 
 apprehension. We are not introducing a novelty here 
 in maintaining the re-eligibility of the executive. I 
 would refer the gentleman not only to the Federal Con- 
 stitution, but also to the thirty Constitutions of the States 
 of this Union. What are the examples furnished us by 
 the thirty States upon this re-eligibility? Examples are 
 useless per se, but may, I admit, be cited as evidence of 
 the result of experience, and therefore may enlighten de- 
 batable questions. 
 
 According to my reading, and I have extended it to 
 the thirty States composing this confederacy, exclu- 
 ding California, whose constitution I have not read, 
 but one single State declares perpetual ineligibility in 
 the executive department, and the constitutions of the 
 other twenty-nine States recognize the principle of re- 
 eligibility. That is to say, nine of them after an in- 
 terval ; twenty to immediate re-eligibility, ten of which 
 may be perpetual, and ten for a limited number of terms. 
 So much then for the novelty which the gentleman dep- 
 recates. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will allow me to 
 correct what I presume is a mistake on his part, I 
 will assure Jiim that I did not say that the principle 
 of re-eligibility was a novelty. I avowed myself dis- 
 tinctly in favor of the principle of re-eligibility for a 
 limited period. And will the gentleman inform this 
 committee how many States in this Union render this 
 great officer re-eligible for life ? I repeat that I was 
 against that principle, and not against the principle 
 of limited re-eligibility — that it was against that prin- 
 ciple, and not against the principle of limited re- 
 eligibility, that I took the liberty to make the objec- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. After the gentleman's explanation, 
 I believe that I did perfectly understand him. I 
 think the gentleman, by a little closer attention, would 
 have discovered that I had already by anticipation an- 
 swered the inquiry propounded by him, that is to say, 
 how many of the States of this Union recognise per- 
 petual re-eligibility? — for no one proposes to elect for 
 life. I have stated already that ten of them do recog- 
 nise that principle. But since we are to invoke the aid 
 and the influence of precedent and example, I beg leave 
 to present to the gentleman, and all others in the same 
 predicament, the judgment of the most enlightened and 
 experienced States in this Union. And since gentlemen 
 are fond of antiquity, let me ask their attention to the 
 old thirteen States, and their judgment on this doctrine 
 of re-eligibility. Of the constitutions of those "old 
 thirteen States," but one of them contains constitution- 
 al interdiction against the re-election of the executive 
 officer. There is perpetual ineligibility in one of them, 
 the State of Delaware, but the other twelve allow of 
 re-eligibility under the folfowing diversities, to wit : 
 four of them after an interval of time, New Jersey, 
 Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia, and eight of 
 them immediately upon the expiration of the first term 
 of office, of which six may be perpetual, to wit : New 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
 New York, and Georgia. I desire simply to pause for 
 a moment and comment upon these four Constitutions 
 of the original thirteen which allow of re-eligibility 
 after an interval of three or four years. One of them 
 
191 
 
 serving it as far as possible ; and that any innovation 
 attempted, imposed upon its authors the burden of proof 
 and argument. In God's name why are we here ? Why 
 does this Convention here assemble ? Is it for the pur- 
 pose of hearing and exciting the ingenuity of gentlemen 
 of peculiar minds t® suggest difficulties and to devise 
 some possible evil that might be corrected \ Are we 
 sent here to search out evils or to search out errors ? 
 The reformation of this constitution is a foregone con- 
 clusion, and the verdict of the people has fixed it inevi- 
 tably. If the gentleman will continue the present con- 
 stitution, he must demonstrate its propriety, for the peo- 
 ple have emphatically rejected and condemned it. Yes, 
 this position is very important, when gentlemen feel 
 that they cannot maintain the propriety of this restric- 
 tion, when the affirmative is put upon them and they 
 cannot maintain it, after several days' very able debate, 
 the gentleman from Fauquier comes in and shifts the 
 position, and announces to gentlemen who favor reform 
 here, that to accomplish that reform, they must prove 
 its propriety, and that too on this very vital question 
 concerning the people's rights. I will notaccede to the 
 gentleman's views. And this is conservatism ! We 
 have had from that gentleman a definition of conserva- 
 tism, to wit: an infusion into the government of the prin- 
 ciples of monarchy and aristocracy, or as equivalent to 
 that, the preservation of the existing constitution. I 
 never did myself have a very exact idea of it. I believe 
 that the dictionaries do not furnish any such definition 
 as that. 
 
 A MEMBER. Webster gives the word. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I believe, though I have not seen it, 
 that it is not exactly in the form that is presented by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier. But now, I do understand 
 it. The gentleman from Fauquier has certainly an- 
 nounced doctrines in this committee that are as excep- 
 tionable to my mind, as abhorrent to my soul, as any 
 political heterodoxy can be. I of course do not apply 
 this remark to the gentleman personally. I speak of 
 his doctrines, and I say that they are utterly repugnant 
 to the honest, unsophisticated minds of republicans, at 
 least. We are told by the gentleman from Fauquier, 
 much as we were told by the gentleman from Gooch- 
 land, that the great object of the government was, not 
 to secure the rights of all the people, but the rights of 
 the minority, expressly. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE. The gentleman is ascribing to me a 
 sentiment that I never uttered. I never said that a go- 
 vernment was not intended for the benefit of the whole. 
 I said that the great object of government was to pre- 
 serve the rights of the minority, for the majority could 
 always take care of themselves. But I never meant to as- 
 sert the idta that government was not for the benefit of 
 the whole ; on the contrary, I believe it to be for the 
 benefit of the whole. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. The difference between the gentle- 
 man and myself is this : that he is particularly anxious 
 to protect the rights of the minority, whereas I am anx- 
 ious to protect the rights of all, discriminating in no re- 
 spect between the majority and minority. It is for that 
 purpose that government is instituted. But the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier maintains that it is impossible to es- 
 tablish and sustain a free government, without a strong 
 infusion into that government of the principles of monar- 
 chy, aristocracy and democracy combined. 1 thank God 
 that such a doctrine is not likely to take root either here 
 or in the hearts of the people of Virginia. They have been 
 repudiated long ago. And according to my recollection 
 Locke and Hampden, who, the gentlemen said, two hun- 
 dred years ago understood the principles of free govern- 
 ment, did maintain more wholesome principles — more 
 in harmony with genuine freedom. These are the prin- 
 ciples of those great men. It is possible, however, that 
 the gentleman did not intend to commend the great prin- 
 ciples of Locke, but intends to refer to the memorable 
 example furnished us in suggesting a government for the 
 Carolinas. He may possibly have alluded to that form 
 of government as containing the genuine principles of 
 Locke, in which the legislative and executive powers of [ 
 
 the State were blended and lodged in the same hands — 
 a miserable, unnatural and insupportable oligarchy, 
 Such doctrines I will not respect as true doctrines whe- 
 ther they come from Locke, or any other eminent man. 
 Locke certainly was a man of pre-eminent wisdom, and 
 in the philosophy of the human mind perhaps has nev- 
 er had any superior. The gentleman himself is a man 
 of superior wisdom ; and if I understand his position, 
 upon this floor, is so greatly superior in wisdom to his 
 constituents that he will not regard their sentiments 
 when he is called upon to act officially in this Conven- 
 tion. Such I understand to be his position. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I said no such thing ; but I will not 
 interrupt the gentleman now. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I beg pardon for misrepresenting the 
 gentleman, and prefer that he would interrupt me. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I prefer not to interrupt you at this 
 time. 
 
 Mr. WISE. He said that he would not inquire into 
 the sentiments of his constituents. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. The gentleman from Accomac cor- 
 rects me by saying that the remark of the gentleman 
 from Fauquier was, that when he came to consider sub- 
 jects before this Convention, he would not inquire into 
 the sentiments of his constituents. I certainly under- 
 stood him stronger than that. 1 may have misunderstood 
 him, however. Here is a position in which I do not 
 misunderstand him. And that is, a declaration that de- 
 mocracy was an abstract idea, an utterly impracticable 
 idea, and he refers us to the examples furnished us by 
 Greece and Rome. They never pretended to have a rep- 
 resentative democracy. The principle of representation 
 is of modern origin, and never had prevailed, either in 
 Greece or in Rome. And moreover, the pure or the 
 simple democracy which they endeavored to exercise 
 there, was restricted to a very small number of individ- 
 uals, who never did equal one-tenth of the people. There 
 was no democracy there at all. But in this country we 
 have adopted the principle of representative democracy, 
 and that is the only practical principle of democracy, 
 and the only just principle of government. The gentle- 
 man has directed our minds to the consideration of a 
 celebrated work published by the elder Adams about the 
 time of the formation of the Federal Constitution ; and 
 according to the gentleman's opinion, although there 
 may be some errors in it, he considers it the ablest and 
 best demonstration of political science that he has ever 
 met with. I have seen the work ; and certainly, in some 
 place in that book, the elder Adams does declare that 
 a republican government depends upon the consent, and 
 is the exponent of the will of the people. But his great 
 object, in writing that work, was, not to advocate or to 
 sanction the doctrine the gentleman advances, that mon- 
 archy and aristocracy are essential to a good govern- 
 ment, but to answer the idea presented by that famous 
 Frenchman, Turgot, a very distinguished man in his day. 
 He made an attack on the American constitutions. The 
 Frenchman complained that, instead of a single delibe- 
 rative body, the Americans had given the legislative 
 power to two bodies. He maintained that pure democ- 
 racy and proper government, required the representa- 
 tion of the people in a single body, which should pos- 
 sess and exercise all the powers of government. It was 
 to correct that notion, to combat that idea, the elder 
 Adams wrote and published that celebrated work of his, 
 a Defence of the American Constitutions. It was 
 not to maintain, as I understood the gentleman to 
 say, that every just and proper government neces- 
 sarily contains an infusion of monarchy and aristoc- 
 racy. 
 
 I have now occupied much more time in addressing 
 the committee than I intended. And the apprehension 
 that I have trespassed upon the indulgence of this house 
 beyond my deserts, admonishes me that I must conclude. 
 I might enlarge on the various propositions announced 
 here, and somewhat improve the proposition I have ad- 
 vanced. But I feel that I have occupied as much of the 
 time of the committee as I am entitled to. I wish gen- 
 tlemen, if any shall deem it worthy to consider my po- 
 
192 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 sition, to remember what it is, that to justify any re- 
 strictions upon ihe power of the pe pie, the restric- 
 tions must fall within the conditions which I have 
 enumerated, namely that the restrictions will certain- 
 ly avert some public mischief, or, second, that the 
 restriction will certainly accomplish some public bene- 
 fit. Not falling within one of these two conditions, 
 I repudiate any restriction whatever on the powers of 
 the people. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. I move that the committee rise. 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. My reason for moving that the 
 committee should rise was that we had reached the 
 usual time for adjournment, having been in session up- 
 wards of three hours. I had not proposed to address 
 the committee until to-morrow, and I confess that now 
 I should prefer to address them to-morrow rather than 
 to-day. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I am ready to fill up the time before the 
 adjournment. 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would suggest that there 
 can be no understanding between gentlemen as to who 
 shall occupy the floor hereafter. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. Certainly not, sir. At the sugges- 
 tion of friends, I will however wait until to-morrow be- 
 fore I address the committee. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I did not contemplate engaging in this 
 discussion, until the views of my colleague from Pow- 
 hatan (Mr. Hopkins) made it necessary, in my opinion, 
 that our views should go out before the country togeth- 
 er, for in the attitude in which we now stand, one or 
 the other of us must, as a matter of course, misrepre- 
 sent our constituents. In this view of the case, there 
 fore, I have thought it proper that the opinions I enter- 
 tain in opposition to him, should go out to the public, so 
 that if our constituents felt an interest in this question, 
 they might have an opportunity of giving us their coun- 
 sel. I differ from my colleague in relation to the duties 
 and powers that we possess in relatiou to the various 
 questions of reform that have been submitted to us here, 
 and I wish on this occasion to define the position that I 
 occupy upon these questions. It is this : that wherever 
 the people at the polls or in the canvass have called on 
 us for reform, I will, whether right or wrong, give them 
 that reform ; but when, without any demand on the part 
 of the people, and without any attempt to show that a 
 particular clause of the Constitution has worked ill, it 
 is proposed that we are to take the Constitution up upon 
 any system of a priori reasoning, independent of the 
 wish of the people, and without some strong reason, 
 showing that such a provision is an improper one, that 
 is, occupying a ground of reform which I will not un- 
 dertake in this Convention, so farifcs my duties are con- 
 cerned. Now what is this restriction ? Gentlemen have 
 admitted that this question was not argued before the 
 people, and ask us to go into this subject and be 
 governed by our mere theoretical speculations on the 
 spur of the occasion, and insist we must go for a re- 
 form in every case, where any individual may deem 
 that a reform ought to be made. What is the condi- 
 tion in which we stand here in reference to this 
 subject. In 1830, this odious restriction, as it i-> termed, 
 was placed by the people of the Commonwealth up- 
 on themselves ; this ineligibility of the Governor after 
 one term, I say, was sanctioned by the people them- 
 selves in 1830. 
 
 I ask my colleague if he has heard from any part of 
 his district, a dissent on the part of the people to that 
 restriction ? If he has not, then I stand on impregnable 
 ground in defending what the people did in 1829 , and have 
 not complained of up to this hour. The gentlemen who 
 have taken the position that the provision should be 
 stricken out, are bound to show some reason, and con- 
 vince my judgment that it is wrong. That is the point 
 and the issue between parties on this floor. What 
 are the reasons that have been urged why it should 
 be stricken out ? Why, gentlemen tell us in ambig- 
 uous phrases that this is a restriction upon popular 
 rights ; and that it is a question of popular pow- 
 
 er. When this discussion first commenced, it was con- 
 sidered a question of expediency. But when it had pro- 
 gressed, and the gentleman from Powhatan and from 
 Montgomery, and the gentleman who has spoken to-day 
 had expressed their views, it ceased to be a matter of 
 expediency, and became one of those great fundamental 
 principles that are to be acted upon here. Can you make 
 a principle when you please, and of what you please « I 
 be] ieve that nobody would claim the bill of rights was 
 not comprehensive enough. Yet gentlemen who have 
 broached this argument have attempted to introduce 
 some new great principle for us to act upon in reference 
 to this restriction of popular rights. No such principle 
 is to be found in the bill of rights. It is a principle adopt- 
 ed for the occasion. Where does it come from, and 
 whence did it originate ? And, by the by, there was one 
 gentleman (Mr. Hoge) who undertook to carry out this 
 principle to the last extreme. He saw a difficulty in his 
 way whenever he was brought down to the question ; 
 and like a prudent soldier, he took a prudent stand, 
 and went so far as to say in reference to the great 
 principles that were laid down, that the only reason why 
 he would not permit minors or ladies to occupy the 
 highest office in the State was that they were not 
 citizens of the State. Now I like to see gentlemen 
 carry out their principles as my friend from Montgome- 
 ry did. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. I dislike very much to interrupt a gen- 
 tleman while he is speaking, but I must correct the gen- 
 tleman's misapprehension. My proposition was this, — 
 and here I beg leave, if the gentleman will pardon me — 
 but for a moment to say, that while engaged in speak- 
 ing on the subject yesterday — the first time I have ever 
 spoken in a deliberative body — perhaps I did not make 
 myself very clear, owing to the embarrassment so natur- 
 al under the circumstances. The position I attempted to 
 maintain was this : that a disfranchised individual was 
 not a citizen. My friend knows that the writers on the 
 subject, from the earliest period down to the present 
 time, define a citizen to mean one who has the right to 
 exercise political power. My position then was not as 
 stated in the papers this morning', that ladies and mi- 
 nors were inhabitants, for so long as they were dis- 
 franchised, they could not be citizens in the technical 
 meaning of the word, because none could be, according 
 to that meaning, except one possessing political rights 
 and power. 
 
 Mr. HILL. I very well understood the gentleman, 
 but does he not see the extent to which this doctrine of 
 re-eligibility would carry him — provided that the diffi- 
 culty of citizenship was out of the way? Citizenship 
 is itself a restriction, and this is the time and place to 
 remove it if necessary, and according to the gentle- 
 man's view, the first clause ought to be so amended 
 that it should read governor or governess. That would 
 meet, exactly, the idea of the gentleman, if his theory 
 is to be fully carried out. I can understand what gen- 
 tlemen mean when they argne this question as a mat- 
 ter of expediency ; but when they place it on the ground 
 of the gentleman from Pulaski, or the gentleman last 
 up, as a broad principle, which, if applied in one case, 
 it is bound to be applied in all cases, without a single 
 exception, I confess I do not so clearly understand 
 them. If that principle is to be acted on in this Con- 
 vention, I hope and trust that these gentlemen will test 
 that doctrine by striking out all restrictions. Let us 
 have their argument stripped of all doubtful positions ; 
 let us allow the foreigner not only to elect, but to 
 be elected as governor ; and I suppose, then, instead of 
 the gentleman from Richmond city addressing the 
 Dutch, we shall have an address from the Dutch. That 
 is a restriction, and when you take the broad ground, 
 or principle, in opposition to all restriction, then the 
 enormity of the doctrine is manifest. Will you, on the 
 nice question on which my colleague and myself will 
 have to act in relation to the restriction of ministers of 
 the gospel, strike it out ? I believe the committee have 
 reported this restriction on that class of men, thus ex- 
 cluding, not an individual as governor, l*ut a whole class 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 193 
 
 of men unsurpassed for usefulness, intelligence and vir- 
 tue. That whole class, according to this report, and 
 by the present constitution, are restricted. And has 
 there been any complaint from the people, that this re- 
 striction was an unwholesome one ? And yet, gentle- 
 men, if they carry out their doctrine, must do away 
 with that restriction, and every other restriction. The 
 amendment of the gentleman from Henrico, itself, con- 
 tains a restriction, for while it goes to make a govern- 
 or re-eligible during his whole life, it adds, " provided, 
 nevertheless, that he shall not accept any other office 
 during his term of service. " That is certainly another 
 restriction on the executive power, and a restriction on 
 the people. I contend, as was properly maintained by 
 the gentleman from Spottsylvania, (Mr. Conway,) that 
 this is not a principle, but a mere matter of expediency, 
 that may be applied to one officer according to his duty, 
 and may be withheld from another as necessity may re- 
 quire, and that will decide the course I shall take in 
 relation to all the cases that may come up before this 
 Convention. Gentlemen seem to have derived their 
 arguments from Alexander Hamilton himself, and this 
 extreme of democracy and that extreme of federalism 
 seem to have come together on this occasion by some 
 strange process. N You may take that principle of feder- 
 alism in which the re-eligibility of the President of the 
 United States is maintained by Mr. Hamilton, who 
 makes the very same argument which has been adduced 
 before this committee in favor of the re-eligibility of the 
 governor. He was in favor of a strong government, 
 and of giving the executive that stability of power the 
 gentleman (Mr. Neeson) just now spoke of. That was 
 the idea of Alexander Hamilton in relation to the office 
 of President of the United States ; and his argument 
 was precisely the same as that of gentlemen who desire 
 to make the executive stable and strong. Summing up 
 in a very brief manner, I shall, therefore, (for I do not 
 propose to occupy much time in the committee,) refer 
 to the great body of arguments which have been ad- 
 duced here in favor of the re-eligibility of the governor 
 of the State. I do not recollect the names of the speak- 
 ers, but I think the arguments may be classified some- 
 thing as follows : 
 
 One of the objections was that the Governor may be 
 at the head of the army when his time expires ; that his 
 ambition may induce him to cut his way to a second term 
 by means of a revolution ; that he will not be able to 
 complete and carry out his measures ; and that he will 
 have no stimulus to discharge his duties, unless a second 
 term is held out to him. This constitutes the substance 
 of all the arguments that have been adduced before this 
 committee. Did it never occur to gentlemen that all 
 those extreme and improbable cases could never be pro- 
 vided for in a fundamental law? Did it never occur to 
 gentlemen that in framing the fundamental law it should 
 have reference to the ordinary duties of the executive, 
 and that no human wisdom is competent to the framing 
 of a government that in its application will guard against 
 all these extreme and improbable cases ? All that we 
 can do in the formation of our constitution is to lay down 
 certain general principles, and these extreme cases must 
 take care of themselves. One leading argument that 
 has been adduced here, and that was adverted to by the 
 gentleman last up, is, that if you do not give the govern- 
 or a second term, you will not give him length of time 
 sufficient to carry out his measures and plans. What 
 plans has a governor to mature in this commonwealth ? 
 Can he make a canal, or a railroad, or any other public 
 •work ? I ask if the governor, conceding that he is to 
 ^propose great plans and measures, will not have ample 
 time within the term proposed by the committee to car- 
 ry them out? What is the difficulty in the President's 
 carrying out his policy during his first term of office ? 
 So soon as a man is known to be a candidate for re- 
 election, the whole power of the party opposed to him 
 and the party press will be arrayed against every one of 
 his measures ; and what is the effect ? They destroy the 
 measures of the administration. Certainly the most vio- 
 lent opposition ever made to the measures of the Presi- 
 
 dent is during his first term of service. Such will be 
 the case also with the Governor, should he be re-eligi- 
 ble. But suppose he should be allowed to hold for a sin- 
 gle term only, what would be the result ? Why the 
 measures to which my colleague referred might be pro- 
 posed and carried out, and would meet with no organ- 
 ized opposition from any man or set of men. They 
 would say that he was about to depart from office with- 
 out the right of being again a candidate, and they would 
 have no motive not to give his measures a full and candid 
 consideration. But if he should be allowed to be a candi- 
 date for the second term, his opponents in the Legisla- 
 ture would be continually engaged in efforts to thwart 
 his measures and render him odious before the people 
 with the view of defeating him in the election. There- 
 fore, I say that the Executive would have a far greater 
 chance of fairly carrying out any system of measures 
 which he might devise were he rendered ineligible, than 
 he would if he were re-eligible. 
 
 There was another argument upon another branch of 
 this subject, from my colleague from Powhatan, I think, 
 that to place such a restriction as ineligibility on an 
 ambitious man might be to induce him, influenced by 
 this passion of ambition, when he found his term was 
 about to expire, to seek to sever that restriction with 
 the sword. Well this comes within a class of cases 
 which, as I before remarked, are of very rare occur- 
 rence, and cannot be provided for in the organic laws, 
 and which cannot, in my opinion, be guarded against 
 either by this principle of re-eligibility. But suppose 
 you have put an ambitious man of this character in of*- 
 fice, will he be less likely — after his appetite for office 
 has been whetted by an enjoyment of the treasury pap 
 for eight years— be less likely to draw his sword and at- 
 tempt to cut his way to a third term if the people should 
 refuse to give it to him ? When was it that the lust for 
 power was ever satisfied or lessened by possession ? The 
 experience of the world teaches us that in proportion to 
 the length of time a man retains power, just in that pro- 
 portion does his love and desire for it increase. Accord- 
 ing to the theory of the gentleman, to prevent the oc- 
 currence of a case of this kind, you must permit the Ex- 
 ecutive to remain in office for life. That, on his ground, 
 must be the only remedy the people can have agains t 
 such an evil. 
 
 But, say gentlemen, the people ought to have the right 
 of selecting in all cases as well as of electing their 
 agents ; and in order to illustrate and give force to his 
 views on that subject, the gentleman from Powhatan 
 cited the case of the late President Van Buren, and said 
 that he, during the whole of his first term, was sound 
 and true to the South. Well, that is all we propose to 
 give to any man — one term — and then we shall keep 
 him as sound as was Mr. Van Buren . But there is anoth- 
 er view of that case, from which a very different moral 
 may be drawn. Suppose that you put a man in the gu- 
 bernatorial chair for four years with this unlimited right 
 of selecting him. The gentleman who last addressed us 
 showed that of thirteen out of eighteen governors here- 
 tofore elected, every man held on to the ultimate extent 
 of his term, and there is no reason to suppose that the 
 love of office or power has decreased since that period. 
 Now this governor who has been elected for four years 
 and is re-eligible for four years more, may happen to 
 prove, as did Mr. Van Buren, not very palatable to you, 
 and what may be the result ? Why, Mr. Van Buren was in 
 for one term, and remained true, but the very moment he 
 found that you were determined not to re-elect him, he 
 turned against you and upset the party. That will be 
 the result of this glorious privilege of selecting your go- 
 vernor as a candidate. He may determine to be re- 
 elected whether you desire it or not, and in the end, 
 perhaps, it will take a two-thirds vote, as it did in the 
 case of Mr. Van Buren, to get rid of him. That will be 
 the practice under this principle of re-eligibility. The 
 Governor will take his stand and insist upon being a 
 candidate, under the threat, if he be not gratified in his 
 desire, that he will overthrow the party ascendancy ; and 
 thus he will make himself a candidate, and the desire to 
 
194 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 preserve party ascendancy will be likely to secure his 
 election. What then becomes of this so much talked of 
 privilege of selecting your candidate as you choose ? 
 
 I did not intend to submit but a very few remarks in 
 relation to this question of re-eligibility. I have believed 
 from the first that the one-term principle would secure in 
 the executive office more independence, and more purity 
 in its administration, and that it would not connect itself 
 with the party politics of the country, as was the case 
 in relation to the Executive of the United States. You 
 may look at it as you please, and you will find that all 
 the corruption complained of in that office, has been the 
 result of this principle of re-eligibility as applied to the 
 incumbent. That is the great source of evil, and if the 
 Governor has the patronage which it is possible may be 
 bestowed upon him, the very same corrupting practices 
 in relation to the exercise of patronage and power will 
 follow and attach itself to the Governor, as it has to the 
 President of the United States. My proposition is to 
 place him in power for a single term. Let there be no 
 temptation to turn him to the right or to the left, for if 
 the idea of getting into office again is held out to him, 
 I cannot but believe that the measures of the Executive 
 will be fashioned more with reference to the interests of 
 himself and his party than the great interests of the 
 country. And if he be not re-eligible, is it expected that 
 the men whom the people will place in this station will 
 not have their patriotism, their love of country and 
 their own reputation, sufficient stimulants to good con- 
 duct and an efficient administration of their duties, with- 
 out the hope of re-election to this same office ? It is 
 impossible for us to say what the powers of the Govern- 
 or may be hereafter. The legislature will have it in 
 their power to bestow on him a vast amount of patron- 
 age in the way of appointments, and becau.3 we cannot 
 know what it may be, and because I believe that re-eli- 
 gibility to a second term, or to one immediately after 
 his first term is calculated to impair the usefulness of 
 the executive and render him corrupt in the discharge 
 of his duties, I am compelled, very reluctantly, to dis- 
 sent from my colleague in his views on this question. 
 
 And then, on motion of Mr. McCOMAS, the Commit- 
 tee rose. 
 
 GRANTING THE USE OF THE HALL. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT stated that, at the request of some 
 of the good people of Richmond, he would offer the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Convention will not object to any 
 arrangement which the owners of this house shall make 
 with Mr. Vandenhoff for its use, provided the arrange- 
 ments for the accommodation of the Convention are in 
 no wise interfered with. 
 
 The question was then taken — a count being had — 
 and there were ayes 40, noes 26 — no quorum. 
 
 And then, on motion of Mr. TAYLOR, the Conven- 
 tion adjourned until to-morrow at 11 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 11, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by Rev. Dr. Empie. 
 
 The Journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 GRANT OF THE USE OF THE HALL. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated the first business in order 
 to be the unfinished business of yesterday, being a res- 
 olution offered by Mr. M. Garnett, granting the use of 
 the hall to Mr. G. Vandenhoff, for the delivery of a 
 course of dramatic lectures. 
 
 The resolution, after an explanation by Mr. GAR- 
 NETT that it was offered at the instance of the propri- 
 etors of the church, was agreed to. 
 
 REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The Committee on the Legislative 
 Department of the government, have, according to or- 
 der, had under consideration various resolutions to 
 them referred, to wit: — A resolution of Mr. Floyd, 
 
 adopted on the 2d day of November, in relation to "tax- 
 ing the goods, wares and merchandise of the non-slave- 
 holding states ;" a resolution of Mr. Hays, adopted on 
 the 8th day of January, in relation to " a restriction of 
 the process casa ;" a resolution proposed by Mr. Cam- 
 den, and adopted on the 10th of January, in relation 
 to securing "a preference to bill holders of insolvent 
 banking associations and a resolution of Mr. Botts, 
 adopted on the 17th of January, in relation to the ab- 
 olition of capital punishment and imprisonment for 
 debt. On these subjects the committee have instruct- 
 ed me to report, that it is inexpedient to make these 
 provisions in the Constitution. Unless some member 
 desires that the resolutions shall be read, I will move 
 that they lie on the table. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I wish to understand if the report just 
 submitted by the chairman of the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department is one in fact, asking to be dis- 
 charged from the further consideration of certain pro- 
 visions. If so, I presume that they ought to be print- 
 ed, just as well as those the committee, in their wis- 
 dom, have thought proper to adopt. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The report of the committee is not 
 one asking to be discharged from the further consider- 
 ation of these subjects, but declaring that it is inexpe- 
 dient that they should be inserted in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. "WISE. That is the same thing. It is the voice 
 of the committee against the propositions. Now, this 
 body may not concur with the committee in their views 
 of expediency. I suppose there will be a number of 
 propositions in which the committee will not concur, 
 and this I expected when the committee was raised. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The motion is to lay on the ta- 
 ble , and therefore is not a debatable one. 
 Mr. GOODE. I will withdraw the motion. 
 Mr. WISE. I am not opposing the motion to lay on 
 the table. But I hope the propositions rejected, as well 
 as those adopted by the committee, will be printed, be- 
 cause the Convention may reverse the action of the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I have no objection to the request of 
 the gentleman from Accomac ; but I would suggest to 
 him and the Convention, that perhaps every resolution 
 referred to the Committee on the Legislative Depart- 
 ment has been already printed for the use of the mem- 
 bers. If the Convention desire them to be printed over 
 again, certainly I have no objection to it. It was sug- 
 gested to me that the proper course would be to lay the 
 resolutions collectively on the table ; and when any 
 gentleman, who felt interested in any one of them, 
 might submit any motion in regard to it, which in his 
 wisdom he may deem expedient, it could then be taken 
 up. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I would simply remark that the very 
 reason urged against the printing the resolutions reject- 
 ed by the committee, might be urged against the print- 
 ing of the resolutions adopted by the committee, and 
 with equal force. They have all, I believe, been print- 
 ed ; but they were merely printed for the purpose of 
 indicating to the Convention at the time, as to what 
 was referred to the committee. The moment the res- 
 olutions were referred to the committees, I presume 
 they were given up immediately to their consideration. 
 The time had net come for the Convention to consider 
 them itself. Now, unless they are printed, members 
 will n©t have them in their possession, and an opportu- 
 nity to examine them carefully and in their rooms. 
 Now, I have myself offered some resolutions which I 
 should like the Convention to consider, which I am in- 
 formed the committee have rejected. I never expect- 
 ed that this committee could consider all the proposi- 
 tions submitted to them ; and I have no doubt they re- 
 jected many propositions for the want of consideration. 
 And with a view that they may be in the hands of mem- 
 bers here, and at their chambers, and by them in their 
 seats, that they may know when they are called up for 
 the consideration of the Convention what they are, I 
 move to print the propositions which have been reject- 
 
ed, so that I may see and know what it is the commit- 
 tee have rejected, as well as what it is they have adopt- 
 ed. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I am perfectly willing that the gen- 
 tleman should be accommodated in the printing of these 
 reports ; and I only wish to say to him, tt at no one of 
 the resolutions of which he is the author, is embraced 
 in the report made to-day. If other gentlemen shall 
 desire to have their resolutions printed, I am content. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I have not made the motion for my own 
 benefit. Not at all. But other gentlemen have sub- 
 mitted propositions to that committee, which I believe 
 have been considered, and which I shall not have the 
 opportunity to consider unless my attention is called to 
 it in the same manner it will be to the report of the 
 committee itself, by beingprinted and put in my hands, 
 that I can examine it at my convenience. I move that 
 the report be printed. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I ask for a division of the question, 
 to be taken first on the motion to print. 
 
 The motion to print was agreed to, a count being 
 had, ayes 43, noes 38, and then the report was laid on 
 the table. 
 
 THE REPORT OP THE COMMITTEE ON THE BASIS OF REPRE- 
 SENTATION. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The report from the Committee 
 on the Basis of Representation having been printed and 
 distributed, I rise now for the purpose of moving its 
 reference to a Committee of the Whole, which I shall 
 do before I sit down. I beg leave to state that there 
 seems to be a very general desire, in which I concur 
 fully, that the subject should occupy the attention of 
 the Convention at an early day. That seems to have 
 been the understanding from the beginning : and with 
 out going into the question of the relative importance 
 of the various subjects that have been reported upon, 
 it is sufficient for me to say, at this time, that there 
 seems to be an opinion that the subject with which that 
 committee was charged, should be disposed of at as 
 early a day as practicable. In order that the time may 
 be fixed for taking up and considering that report, I 
 now move its reference to the Committee of the Whole, 
 and that it be made the order of the day for Thursday 
 next. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. You cannot make an order of 
 the day in Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I did not ask to make such an or- 
 der in Committee of the Whole. But it is certainly 
 competent in the Convention to give any instructions to 
 that committee which it may think proper! 
 
 The PRESIDENT. So it may be, by resolution ; 
 but the house cannot make any order of the day in the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I do not profess to have any ac- 
 quaintance with the rules of order. But I did sup 
 pose that the Committee of the Whole, like any other 
 committee, was subject to the Convention, and that the 
 Convention might indicate to the Committee of the 
 Whole, as they 'may to any other committee, the order 
 of priority in which they desire subjects of business to 
 occupy their attention. The making of this report the 
 order of the day for a given day, is but one form of 
 instructing the Committee of the Whole to consider it 
 prior to other matters before it. It is not material, 
 however, how this matter is reached, and if the Presi- 
 dent is of the opinion that it is not competent for the 
 Convention to make it the order of the day for any 
 specified day, I may be able to attain the same end, 
 by giving notice that on Thursday, I will move that 
 the Convention shall resolve itself into Committee of 
 the Whole, on the Basis Question. 1 have stated Thurs- 
 day, and although gentlemen may prefer an earlier or 
 2l letter dciy— 
 
 SEVERAL MEMBERS. Say to-morrow. Say Mon- 
 day. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I hear some voices suggesting to- 
 morrow and others suggesting Monday next. There 
 seems to be something like an equality for to-morrow 
 
 | and Monday. I think I will adhere to my own propo- 
 sition and give notice that I shall move to make it the 
 order of the day for Thursday. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Committee of the Whole has 
 entire control over its own business, unless they act un- 
 der the instructions of the Convention. The expe- 
 rienced gentleman from Norfolk, (Mr. Watts,) sug- 
 gested to me, that there could not be an order of the 
 day made in committee, that it must be by the Conven- 
 tion, and having looked into the subject, I have become 
 satisfied that the Convention has a right to make any 
 direction to the committee they choose ; for instance, 
 when a debate shall close, or when a vote shall be ta- 
 ken, or what business shall first be considered. The 
 course indicated by the gentleman will accomplish his 
 object. 
 
 The report of the committee was then, on motion of 
 Mr. SUMMERS, taken from the table, and referred to 
 the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON WESTERN LAND TITLES. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I am directed by the Select Com- 
 mittee on the Western Land Titles to make a report, 
 which I send to the Chair, and move that it be read, 
 as it is a very short one, laid on the table and printed. 
 
 The report was then read by the Secretary as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 The committee appointed on the subject of western 
 land titles, &c, have, according to order, had under 
 consideration the subjects referred to them, and have 
 agreed to the following provisions to be incorporated 
 into the constitution, to-wit : 
 
 No person shall, for and during the term of twenty- 
 one years next after the adoption of this Constitution, 
 make an entry on, or bring an action to recover, any 
 land lying west of the Alleghany mountains, but within 
 seven years next after the time at which the right to 
 make such entry, or to bring such action, shall have first 
 accrued to himself or herself, or to some person through 
 whom he or she claims. After the expiration of said 
 term of twenty-one years the limitation of such entry 
 and right of action shall be prescribed by law : Provi- 
 ded, nevertheless, that if any person who is, or shall be, 
 entitled to any such action upon his or her own seizure 
 or possession was under the age of twenty-one years, or 
 non compos mentis, at the time such action accrued, or 
 shall accrue, every such person shall and may, notwith- 
 standing the seven years are or shall be expired, bring 
 and maintain such action within one year next after 
 such disabilities are removed, and not after. And pro- 
 vided, also, that nothing herein contained shall be con- 
 strued to affect any such action which may have been 
 instituted, and is now depending, or which may hereaf- 
 ter be instituted within one year. 
 
 No grant or patent shall hereafter issue to any per- 
 son for forfeited or waste and unappropriated land ly- 
 ing west of the Alleghany mountains, except upon sur- 
 veys made as now prescribed by law, and which shall 
 be returned to the land office before the first day of Oc- 
 tober next. But such land may be proceeded against 
 and sold under decrees of the circuit or superior court 
 of the county in which the same, or the greater part 
 thereof may lie, in such manner as shall be prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 The report was then laid on the table in order to 
 printed. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. Taylor, re- 
 sumed the consideration in Committee of the Whole 
 (Mr. Watts, of Norfolk, in the Chair) of the report of 
 the Committe e on the Executive Department. 
 
 RE-ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The Chair stated the question to be on the first clause 
 of the first article of the report, and the amendments 
 pending thereto. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. I perhaps owe this committe an 
 apology for trespassing upon their time at this late pe- 
 riod in the discussion of the question. I am aware that 
 
196 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 nothing, either in my position, my experience, or any 
 thing; which belongs to me, is calculated to win 
 the attention of this Convention or to add force to what 
 I say. At first, I had no idea of entering into the dis- 
 cussion, or of participating in the efforts on either side ; 
 but it has seemed to me that in the progress of the de- 
 bate, the subject has been thrown entirely out of its le- 
 gitimate channel. At that time I had conceived that, if 
 others than myself did not express the views I enter- 
 tained, that I would lay them myself before the com- 
 mittee. I had hoped that the debate would have come 
 to a conclusion long before this. But it has gone on 
 from day to day, and the discussion has taken the wi- 
 dest latitude ; and it is but lately, as I conceive, that it 
 has been turned to the principle which is really involved 
 in the question. I am happy that, after a number of 
 days, the discussion has come back within the last day 
 or two within the true grounds on which, I think, this 
 subject ought to be discussed. We listened for a num- 
 ber of days in the early part of this discussion to every 
 thing but the question — to every possible collateral issue 
 that it seems to me could be raised on any question. 
 Now, I contend that there is a principle involved in this 
 question — that there is a right and a wrong way, and 
 that the right way is demonstrable, and can be made 
 clear, and that if this Convention would earnestly turn 
 its energies upon this subject, with no other object than 
 to arrive at the truth, there would not be such a variety 
 and difference of opinion as seems to exist among mem- 
 bers here. I make this as a part of my apology for ad- 
 dressing the committee at this time ; because, although 
 this subject has been discussed for a long time, it has, 
 as I think, been in fact, under discussion hardly at all 
 till within the last three or four days. Although it has 
 been ably discussed in many of its points, and many able 
 speeches have been delivered, yet speeches are not al- 
 ways upon principle. I have been myself entertained 
 by these speeches, and I care not how many of them are 
 made, so far as I am individually concerned, because 
 I can listen to them with great pleasure. But as I have 
 said, I repeat, that this subject can be brougnt down in- 
 to a definite compass, that I think every man's mind, and 
 the minds of the people, whom we are to reach by means 
 of our discussion, can at once be brought to know what 
 is the right and what is the wrong. I wish to state 
 what I understand to be the distinct position of the op- 
 position to re-eligibility, for there are a number of pro- 
 jects before this committee, all of which to me are upon 
 principle equally erroneous. I shall, in the remarks 
 that I shall submit, advocate the propositicn of the gen- 
 tleman from Henrico, for the perpetual re-eligibility, 
 not only of this officer, but of every officer in the State, 
 so long as the sovereign power may desire his services. 
 What, when brought into a distinct compass, are the ob- 
 jections raised to this proposition, and which has been 
 assumed in opposition to it r It has been diversified, 
 some taking one and some another, yet almost the whole 
 of them, so far as I remember and can think of them, 
 may be reduced into three distinct propositions. One 
 class of gentlemen deny that in their opposition to 
 this principle of re-eligibility, they are trespassing 
 upon or curtailing the rights of the people. They say 
 that they are not restricting the rights ef the people. 
 The next proposition which they assume is, that they 
 have a right to restrict the powers of the people, and 
 that the very object of a constitution is to restrict the 
 rights of the people. These are conflicting it is true. 
 In the third place they tell us that we are estopped from 
 denying that the people's power should be restricted, 
 because we are willing to support equal ?nd simi- 
 lar restrictions upon the rights of the people ; and, 
 in the fourth place, that taking for granted they have 
 the right lo restrict the people's power, that this is 
 a justifiable instance in which that right should be ex- 
 ercised ; in other words, that expediency indicates such 
 a course. 
 
 But I will not state all the grounds which were raised 
 at present ; but I undertake to say that there has been 
 nothing said to this committee in relation to this subject 
 
 that bears upon the principle at all, which is not com- 
 prehended under one of these heads. I propose to take 
 them up and consider them very briefly, and see 
 whether there is any real, substantial truth in the 
 positions which they take, not "whether on collateral is- 
 sues they may not make a faint attack or an efficient de- 
 fence, but whether brought home honestly and in truth 
 to the hearts of a republican people, there is any truth 
 or reason in the position they have taken. It is always 
 easy, in a desultory debate, to spring upon the Conven- 
 tion a proposition before they are prepared to examine 
 into any of the deta'ls of the question, and to suppose a 
 thousand difficulties which the committee are for the mo- 
 ment unprepared to guard and defend against. 
 
 I adopt the principle of Jefferson that, in laying down 
 the forms for a republican government, whenever we get 
 a true principle, we should hang on to it, and grapple to 
 it to the last, and follow it out in all its legitimate con- 
 sequences. Get hold of the true republican chart, and 
 there is no difficulty about it. Let us see, and here I 
 wish more particularly to address my friend from Buck- 
 ingham, (Mr. Ftjqua,) who, notwithstanding it was very 
 freely discussed by the gentleman who preceded him, 
 on the same side, repeated on yesterday that he did 
 not regard himself as taking away the rights of the peo- 
 ple by the vote he was about to give. I wish to appeal 
 to my friend — I know I may call him so, after my inti- 
 macy with him — if he will not recognise this one truth, 
 that if you should put no restrictions at all in your consti- 
 tution on this subject, would not the people have a right 
 to re-elect their Governor. I know my friend will not 
 deny this. Well, why do you make a restriction at all? 
 Then the people have a right tore-elect, and do you not 
 take that right away. The gentleman tells us that he is 
 restricting the rights of the Governor, and not of the 
 people. Let us look at it. Do you restrict the office of 
 the Governor ? — for when you speak of him as Govern- 
 or, you speak of him in his official capacity, and not 
 personally. Do you check his power of acting as an Ex- 
 ecutive, in any shape or form? Has he any right as Gov- 
 ernor, that he cannot have as Governor if you adopt this 
 restriction ? None. You restrict no right of his as an 
 officer. Then, do you restrict it as an individual? How 
 does this matter stand ? The people say, to a man, we 
 desire some one to perform the duties of our agent in 
 the executive department for four years, and we will 
 give you a salary of five thousand dollars to perform our 
 duties for us during that term. He accepts it, and at 
 the end of that term he proposes again to become the 
 people's agent. He has ceased to be the Governor — he 
 has no claims upon them. His contract is at an end., 
 and he himself comes to them just as any other member 
 of the community. Then does he have any right, as an 
 individual, to an election ? Certainly not. No man will 
 claim that we have a right to force the people, in a re- 
 publican government to take for a Governor any individu- 
 al whom we may prescribe. Then whose rights are left to 
 be restricted, but those of the people? You make a restric- 
 tion, and it must mean something, or you would not put 
 it in your constitution. Then whose rights have you to 
 restrict? Suppose the Governor has rights. Suppose 
 that, in fact, as Governor, or as an individual, rr as both, 
 he has rights, and that among those rights, if unrestrict- 
 ed would be the right to offer himself for re-election ? 
 Does not the fact that he may offer himself for re-elec- 
 tion pre-suppose the right of the people to re-elect him? 
 Then you can put the restriction only on the ground that 
 it is a general restriction upon the Governor and the peo- 
 ple both, for the very right of the Governor to offer him- 
 self to the people for a re-election pre-supposes the right 
 of the people to re-elect him. What if you do thwart the 
 Governor's right, you do not the less thwart the right 
 of the people. And I believe gentlemen, if they will 
 look at the subject directly, fairly, and candidly, will see 
 that they cannot claim that they are not restricting the 
 rights of the people. And the very next position which 
 they take, shows that they are restricting the rights of 
 the people, and is proof of it. For the breath has scarcely 
 passed warm from their lips, in denying that they are 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 197 
 
 taking away from the rights of the people at all, when 
 they tell us, what I have assumed to be their second 
 proposition, that they have a right to take away the rights 
 of the people, and that this case is a justifiable instance 
 of their exercising that right. With these facts before 
 them, and constantly reiterated before the committee, 
 why will gentlemen assume the position that they are 
 not restricting the rights of the people ? With due defer- 
 ence, I must say that I regard it as sailing under false 
 colors. New, if you really believe that the people 
 ought to be restricted, do not say that you are not re- 
 stricting them. Come out like men — come out like my 
 friend from Fauquier, and say that you have the right to 
 restrict them, and that you intend to exercise that right. 
 You may give reasons for it, and I am willing to meet 
 you upon those reasons; and here I am compelled to 
 notice a few of them which have been offered, not at 
 length, but simply by the statement of a few opposite 
 reasons which I think will be regarded as axiomatic. 
 I will here state, however startling it may be, or how- 
 ever radical it may seem to gentlemen, that I am against 
 any and every restriction upon the people ; and although 
 I admit that they may possibly restrict themselves — 
 that they may say they will not do a thing, and may 
 abide by that declaration — still, I say that it is always 
 wrong to restrict the rights of the whole people. And I 
 am prepared to show, that of all those restrictions which 
 they have spoken of, all they can rightfully claim to im- 
 pose is a restriction on the government, and not upc n the 
 people. Now, how many restrictions can you impose 
 on the people? I have looked over the whole ground, 
 and I am able to conceive that there are but two cases 
 of restriction that any will ever dare to think of placing on 
 the people. And one is this very restriction on the 
 choice or selection of candidates for office ; and the oth- 
 er, a restriction upon the constitutional rights of the 
 people. We all acknowledge it to be a true doc- 
 trine that all power is in the people — that sover- 
 eignty not only comes from, but resides with the 
 people, and that the sovereignty cannot be trans- 
 ferred from the people. In our federal government 
 the people, by express grants, have delegated out a 
 portion of that sovereignty, which is designated by dis- 
 tinctly marked lines, and placed under the control of 
 their federal agents, and the residue of the power is re- 
 served to themselves. A portion of this power thus re- 
 served to themselves they have delegated to the State 
 governments, and the residue they retain as unappropri- 
 ated power. In the federal government the people have 
 specifically designated every grant of power, because 
 there, from the nature of the powers, they can do it. 
 The nature of the duties of a State government are 
 too indefinite for such a grant. And therefore, for 
 convenience, the grant is indicated by a reservation 
 of powers by way of exception to the people, in- 
 stead of putting it down in express terms. The peo- 
 ple, who do this, are the grantees to their agents. 
 They do not transfer their sovereignty at any time, 
 they but transfer the exercise of the power to their 
 respective agents in the offices of the government. 
 What then are these restrictions that are proper to be 
 pat in the constitution? A constitution, 1 understand 
 to be a contract between the sovereigns, as individuals, 
 setting forth the number and kind of representatives 
 or agents, that they choose to carry out and exercise 
 the powers which they intend to be exercised Jjy 
 the particular government which they are creating. 
 I understand that the restrictions that are proper to put 
 in a constitution are these: A fair declaration and sav- 
 ing of the inalienable rights of man as an individual, in 
 the first place ; for all power does hot reside with the 
 the people — no government on earth has all power. 
 There are rights which are secured to man, which are 
 secured to him as between himself and his Maker, and 
 of which no government can deprive him. Then, a re- 
 • servation of those powers which the people determine 
 that they will not exercise, not that they do not possess 
 and may not exercise at any moment they choose to do 
 it, but which they do not choose the particular kind of 
 
 agents 'which they are forming shall exercise. That is 
 all. In every kind of governme t which you may form, 
 there will be certain powers of the people, which, 
 from the very nature of things, they will be unwilling to 
 trust to any agent, and they will consequently reserve 
 these powers to themselves. Another species of reser- 
 vation is, that although the people may trust their agent 
 with a particular power, yet they will not permit him 
 to exercise it except in a particular way, and they direct 
 the way in which he shall exercise it. Another kind or 
 species of reservation is, that their agents shall ex- 
 ercise the granted power by a two-thirds vote, or 
 by a greater vote than a majority, or even by a 
 unanimous vote of their agents. Now, all these 
 things are restrictions. But they are restrictions 
 upon what, and upon whom ? Is it not upon their 
 agents? Look over your constitution, and examine 
 the restrictions that have hitherto been imposed, or 
 which are now proposed, and show me a single one ex- 
 cept in relation to those inalienable rights, which are 
 contained in the bill of rights, or those which appertain 
 to the selection of officers, that applies to the restriction 
 of the sovereign rights of the whole people. They are 
 restrictions upon the agents, and I say, unequivocally, 
 because I will not detain the Convention by enlarging up- 
 on it — that it is a perfectly demonstrable and clear propo- 
 sition that you ought never to restrict the rights of the 
 people, and that you cannot, with any propriety, do so. 
 A government of all is made for the good of all. The 
 public opinion as expressed through its agents, for the 
 time being, is the law of the land. The people cannot 
 speak except through this organized agency, so long as 
 the constitution exists ; but if they choose to speak, no 
 human power can prevent them, and it is useless to try, 
 for with the very breath they determine to exercise the 
 power they will blow to the winds the restrictiens you 
 have placed upon them. It is not only useless, it is wrong. 
 This is, in short, the position which I take with regard 
 to the restrictions on the rights of the people. I, of 
 course, will be compelled, when I come to other parts 
 of the propositions, to speak of those exceptions, which 
 gentlemen think we are willing to make, and I will answer 
 them without equivocation or hesitation. We are told 
 that we are estopped from denying this restriction upon 
 the rights of the people, because forsooth, we are willing 
 to make equal and similar restrictions upon the rights of 
 the people, and that this debars us from asserting the con- 
 trary. They tell us that we are willing to make an excep- 
 tion against aliens. Now, with regard to aliens, I will 
 simply say this, that the people have no right to elect an 
 alien, and therefore, we do not restrict their rights. By 
 the law of nations every sovereignty is presumed to have 
 power over its subjects ; and they are under the power 
 and protection of that sovereign, go where they may, 
 whether in this country or any other. He owes alle- 
 giance to another sovereignty, and it would be a viola- 
 tion of the law of nations and a wrong to another sov- 
 ereignty. I therefore deny that the people have any 
 right to elect an alien. You may elect him to-day, 
 and yet to-morrow his services can be called for by 
 the sovereignty to which he owes his allegiance. It 
 is in vain, then, to talk about the people having any 
 such right as this, because there is a superior and 
 adverse right to theirs. We are told that infants 
 are excluded, and persons under thirty years of age 
 will be excluded. Now, I say that I will not do any 
 such thing by my vote. In the first place, I be- 
 lieve that if a man has become a freeman, an adult, af- 
 ter he has arrived at the age which, by the common 
 consent of this Anglo-Saxon race of ours stamps him as 
 a man, if the people choose to elect such a man, they 
 are welcome to d© it, for me. Nor will I restrict the 
 people from choosing an infant under twenty one, and 
 why ? Because I will not insult mankind by any such re- 
 striction. There is no necessity for it. The people 
 would never exercise that right. And if they did, they 
 would have a right to do so. It is an insult to offer to 
 impose any such restriction. And in this report the 
 committee do not restrict the people from electing idiots , 
 
198 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 persons of unsound mind or penitentiary convicts. 
 And why have they not done this ? Why Rave they not 
 restricted the people from the choice of men who have 
 been guilty of the commission of in famous crimes? Be- 
 cause they would not insult the understanding of man- 
 kind by such a restriction. And such is my feeling with 
 regard to the whole of them. Then gentlemen say that 
 we are willing to restrict the selection to a native Vir- 
 ginian. I will do no such thing. I will hold to a prin- 
 ciple that is right till dooms-day. There is no necessity 
 for it. The people of Virginia will never elect an alien, 
 never elect a man that is from out of the State, except 
 he ought to be elected, and there are times when he 
 ought to be elected. There are a thousand instances, 
 and I can cite them at once. General Scott, we know, 
 was born in the State. But suppose he had been born 
 in New York — with all the laurels around his brow, 
 which he has gathered during the last thirty years, and 
 with all the love and admiration his fellow-citizens en- 
 tertain for him — and suppose he had been a resident of 
 Virginia for two or three years, and circumstances had 
 made it expedient to elevate him to the gubernatorial 
 chair, would any gentleman think that any harm or 
 wrong had been done to the people who had elected him ? 
 I c®nfess that as a general proposition, a man born out 
 of the commonwealth, or who has resided in it but a 
 short time, ought not to be elected. Neither ought an 
 idiot, a lunatic, or an infant under twenty-one years to 
 be elected. But where a man should not be elected, the 
 people will never elect him. The people will never 
 elect a man who would be subject to the restrictions 
 which gentlemen propose, unless there should be trium- 
 phant reasons why they should elect him. That is the 
 ground I take ; and I will insult my constituents and 
 the people of Virginia by no such restriction. The la- 
 dies are brought into this argument. And yet, I have 
 looked over this report, and I have seen no restriction 
 on the women at all — none in the world. It may be 
 that gentlemen know that there is already on the la- 
 dies, that which is higher than any restriction that they 
 can make, and that is that they will not have your offices. 
 They do not wish power. We are told that we make a 
 restriction on the people by limiting them to an election 
 every four years. 
 
 I have not heard this idea answered at all, although it 
 was put forth with great boldness that it was a restric- 
 tion on the rights of the people, such as we were con- 
 tending against, to say that they should elect only every 
 two or four years. That will do to throw in as a stum- 
 bling block when you are in a hurry and very hard 
 pushed. But there is no one who will look at the thing as 
 it is but will at once see the necessity for it, and that it 
 does not in reality thwart the people's rights in the least 
 degree. An individual and a unit may appoint an agent 
 to-day, and if he find that he is discharging his duties 
 improperly he may discharge him ^to-morrow. The 
 people, however, are not a unit, but an infinite number 
 of units, and they cannot act in concert, and express the 
 general views of all, except at stated periods. Then 
 there is a necessity for periodical elections, not in prin- 
 ciple, but from the necessity which exists from the na- 
 ture of things. Therefore, there is nothing in that 
 idea. There was another point which was intro- 
 duced by the gentleman from Buckingham, (Mr. Hill,) 
 and that was that we were willing to impose a restriction 
 upon ministers of the gospel. That is a subject to the 
 consideration of which, I come with great pain^because 
 I am compelled to acknowledge that all true republican 
 ideas forbid us to exclude this class of men from a full 
 participation in the rights which belong to every other 
 class. The fact is, that in the early part of our histo- 
 ry, the world had so recently rid itself of priest-craft 
 and ecclesiastical tyranny, that this restriction was 
 thought by our fore-fathers to be necessary. There is 
 no principle of republicanism that will forbid a minis- 
 ter of the gospel from the enjoyment of any right 
 which any other citizen can claim. I know not how 1 
 shall vote when I come to the consideration a f that sub- 
 
 ject. But depend upon it, if I vote to exclude thes< 
 men, I will acknowledge frankly that I violate republi 
 can principles, and that I have done injustice to a clas 
 of my fellow-citizens, either through my own preju 
 dices or in representing others' prejudices. I say tha 
 now, though I do not pledge myself to vote eithe 
 way. But I will not shrink from the position I have as 
 sumed. 
 
 I believe I have gone through with the most of th 
 reasons which are urged why we are estopped from de 
 nying these restrictions on popular rights. And I com 
 now to the last proposition which gentlemen on the otl 
 er side have urged, and that is, that policy demands thi 
 restriction. I might at once leave the subject by sayin 
 that I do not believe that policy demands any restric 
 tion ; but I propose very briefly to examine the reasor 
 which alone can and have been urged for the policy <! 
 this restriction. They tell us that, to render him r< 
 eligible would be to hold out an inducement, or to giv 
 facilities to the Governor to abuse the power of his o 
 fice, to secure a re-election. Now, I appeal to all tl 
 members of this committee, if that has not s been tl 
 sole ground upon which the policy of this restriction h; 
 been urged here. What does this pre-suppose? It pr 
 supposes first, that the Governor of this commonweal 
 will be a corrupt, a truckling, and a drivelling politicia 
 It pre-supposes, in the second place, that this office 
 Governor, as we propose to organise it, will posse 
 dangerous powers, in this particular. In the thi 
 place, it announces to the good people of Virgin) | 
 that they either cannot see, or will not heed ; that th 
 are either incompetent for self-government, or too d 
 honest to heed the trickery of candidates. I am stati 
 the proposition in strong language, but nevertheless, 
 is the exact truth of it, when reduced to the simple, 
 contend that the Governor of Virginia, although he m 
 be a politician, it is hardly probable will be a man w 
 will be guilty of the low disgusting knavery that gent 
 men suppose he will be. And I was amused by so 
 part of the argument by one of my friends, who, w" 
 he was told that you would lose the responsibility of i 
 officer by making these restrictions upon him , said) 
 would have that responsibility in the honesty and inl 
 rity of the incumbent. Now, that same gentleman h 
 but three minutes before, been arguing most perte 
 ciously the corruption of all politicians. I will not si 
 to talk about that, for I am willing to admit that n 
 elevated to power by the people, and politicians g 
 erally, who are, to some extent, personally interest 
 like all other men, are liable to be led into error. J 
 I will £ay that the politicians have received a drubh 
 in this house, to which I think they are not exactly 
 titled, particularly in this place. The members of 1 
 Convention are, perhaps, as respectable and influen 
 a body of politicians as you can find in Virginia, 
 yet 1 hope we have very many honorable and" emin 
 men among them — indeed, I trust that all of them ar 
 the class who would scorn to stoop to the paltry de£ 
 dation which they suppose that a Governor of Virgi 
 will be willing to. I will leave that alone. I am ' 
 an advocate of the honesty and capacity of sii 
 individuals. I am for checking and guarding ui 
 and I go for the honesty and capacity of the gJi 
 aggregate of men ; and not of the single person. B 
 confess I am unable to see the dangerous power wi 
 this Governor is to possess. We are told that he 
 have the power of appointing visitors to the old col. 
 of William and Mary, (where there are some twe 
 five students, I understand,) to the military institute, 
 to the university in the town of Charlottesville, a di 
 tor or two in the banks, and it may be that he wj$l| 
 point a guager for the city of Richmond, or inspeet( 
 oysters, or possibly a dog muzzier. I do not see "V 
 else he will have to do. For it seems to be agreed h 
 I believe, without a solitary exception, that we s| 
 throw the appointment of all the officers of governrrJ) 
 from the Governor down to the overseer of roads 
 the hands of the people. There is, in the judiciar 1 
 port, an exception, which, in God's name, I trusl* 
 
 bette 
 toryi 
 soul 
 
 fie::; 
 
 udl 
 (trth 
 
 kr 
 
 theTv 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 199 
 
 Convention will not agree to accept, and this is, the judg- 
 es of the court of appeals. I can see nothing, therefore, 
 of this tremendous power, the abuse of which, it is sup- 
 posed, is to be apprehended, by those who maintain this 
 restriction. And I ask gentlemen what power over the 
 mass of the people of Virginia the Governor can have 
 through the exercise of any power which it is proposed 
 in this Convention he shall have ? It is even, I believe, 
 proposed to take away from him the power of acting as 
 a member of the board of public works. Then I under- 
 stand all the duties of the Governor hereafter are to be, 
 that he shall announce at the commencement of each 
 session of the legislature, the startling fact that, through 
 the Providence of God, Virginia still continues to exist ; 
 then to dabble a little in politics, and then again to say, 
 at the end of all, that he trusts in God that Virginia 
 will still continue to exist for a year longer, which 
 event, in all human probability, would happen, if the 
 Governor had not said so. This, I understand, will be 
 the chief duty of the Governor of Virginia hereafter. 
 During the residue of the year he may button up his 
 coat, and walk stately around the streets of Richmond. 
 We never know who the Governor is, unless some of us 
 are obliged to send to Richmond to get a man pardoned 
 out of prison. And then we go to the man who has 
 received the last commission in the militia, and ask his 
 name. [Laughter.] I know not how it will be with 
 gentlemen who live nearer the city of Richmond ; but 
 on the banks of the Ohio, the people will never be ef- 
 fected by this tremendous influence of the Governor. 
 I consider the Governor's position to be a ridiculous 
 farce. He is a mere " sounding brass and tinkling cym- 
 bal" — a mere show — a name — a pompous representa- 
 tion of the glorious sovereignty of Virginia — and her 
 M State rights." That is all I regard as belonging to 
 this Governor of Virginia. I appeal to gentlemen — 
 not as lawyers, for I believe you all are, pretty much — 
 but as honest citizens, to put it home to yourselves fair- 
 ly and coolly to think it over, whilst you are comparing 
 him with the President of the United States, and the im- 
 mense power and vast patronage which that officer holds. 
 Do think what you are talking about, when you are com- 
 paring him to the Governor of Virginia. But we are 
 told, in this Convention, that the Governor of Virginia 
 is to use his office to secure his re-election. "Well, I 
 have heard the discussion of this subject, and I must say 
 to my friend from Marion, what the gentleman from 
 Henrico (Mr. Davis) said to his colleague, that I am both 
 hurt a little, and very much pleased. I am hurt a little, 
 because he had the opportunity to get the floor first and 
 speak this part of my speech ; and I am very much 
 pleased that he has said what I had to say on this subject, 
 a great deal better than I could say it myself. I am 
 gratified that he has had the opportunity to do so. I 
 will only say, with regard to the powers of the Governor 
 in this particular, that they can only be prostituted in 
 the event of the legislature being the caucus or body that 
 is to nominate the candidates for Governor. That mat- 
 ter I think has been pretty well determined, and had 
 better be left with the people. If I understand the his- 
 tory of the federal government, the action of Congres- 
 sional caucuses for the nomination of President, satis- 
 fied the people that it was a system that would not do, 
 and I cannot think there is any danger that they will re- 
 sort to it again. I have understood that, for a long num- 
 ber of years, the people have indicated distinctly that 
 they would not suffer the public officers to be nominated 
 by legislative caucuses. That is the only way in which 
 it is argued that the Governor can exercise an undue 
 influence over the people, by the abuse of his power for 
 re-election ; the physical impossibility has been demon- 
 strated by the gentleman from Marion. Again there are 
 always more men out, wanting office, than you ever can 
 stick into office, and if the people cannot see the abuses 
 that are practiced upon them, the politicians will, and 
 the eyes of the opposite party will always be gloating 
 over every single error he may make, or over every ma- 
 chination in which he may engage, against the rights of 
 
 to supplant the incumbent in office will do it — even those 
 of his own party. With all these means to inform them, 
 I appeal to every man, if there is any probability that 
 the people will err, or of their being deceived as to the 
 character of their candidates who have filled the office 
 already. I refer gentlemen to what has occurred in our 
 Presidential canvass, if the people ever erred in taeir 
 selection of them. If they have, it has always been 
 with new men, sprung upon them with a committee on 
 conscience, or a judicious tariff, or some trickery or 
 other of deceit or concealment ; and the people in that 
 way have been for the moment humbugged and deluded. 
 But whenever a man shall come out boldly on the ground 
 of principle, or upon his official acts, and they are such 
 as the people do not concur in, my word for it, the sov- 
 ereigns will cut him down. The reason, as it is admit- 
 ted by our whig friends, that Mr. Clay could never be 
 elected, was, because he was too well known. There is 
 no doubt about it. Were there many who, before his 
 nomination, knew Mr. Polk? And does not every man 
 know that Mr. Clay was the most popular man "in the 
 Union ; that he had more warm personal friends than 
 any man ever did have, who lives' in it ; that he was the 
 idol of his party ; and that he had kissed the ladies by 
 miles ? [Laughter.] But he had been a bold and frank 
 and fearless man. He had been placed in positions in 
 which he had been compelled to show his foot ; and it 
 proved to be a cloven one in the eyes of the people, and 
 they rejected him. This is of course according to my 
 democratic opinion. Now, I venture to assert that he 
 who has not only avowed his opinions, but is compelled 
 to abide by his acts, will ever wort to disadvantage 
 against a cunning adversary, who will take unknown 
 and uncertain grounds. And that is the main difficulty 
 in the re-election of a Governor. Nothiag but the most 
 triumphant demonstration will save him against the 
 cunning of the hungry aspirants, and all those of his 
 own party, who may desire that he shall be set aside, 
 and not be re-nominated. My experience as a politi- 
 cian is very limited. I have not been among the people 
 much. But I have rode the creeks and hollows, the 
 mountains and cross-roads some, and I tell you, and I 
 intend to act upon that sentiment as long as I am a 
 member of this Convention, that the proper and true 
 way to secure the confidence of mankind, is to be ab- 
 solutely and honestly determined to deserve it. Trickery 
 and cunning may triumph for a while ; but if you come 
 out openly and above-board, my word for it, the people 
 will not only appreciate it, but the shafts of calumny will 
 fall harmless at your feet. It is in vain to talk about it. 
 Mankind are more capable and more honest than they 
 are given credit for. 
 
 But we are told that these doctrines of ours are ab- 
 stractions. Says my friend from Buckingham, (Mr. 
 Fuqua,) this doctrine that all power resides in the peo- 
 ple is an abstraction. We were told also by another 
 gentleman, a colleague of his, that these principles of 
 ours are a vague, unknown and undefined something. 
 Now, I do not understand it so. I maintain that, when 
 we say the sovereignty resides in the people, and that 
 they are the sources of all power legitimately belonging 
 to the government, I do not understand that to be an 
 abstraction. What do gentlemen mean by abstraction ? 
 I have heard this cry often. I have heard it often from 
 the federal papers of the country. Yes, sir, I have heard 
 the glorious doctrines of '98- '99 denounced, because 
 they were abstractionists. And old father Ritchie, who 
 has stood and battled all his life for these principles, 
 has almost been thrown, together with states rights, 
 into ridicule, by this single cry of abstraction. You 
 have only to call a thing an abstraction and you kill it 
 at once, for it means nothing and it means everything. 
 What is an abstracticn? Is it a lie or a truth? Is it an 
 abstract truth or an abstract falsehood ? If it is an ab- 
 stract truth, if it is a principle, upon what is it found- 
 ed ? Upon what is all principle founded ? Is it not the 
 stewed down essence of facts ? [Laughter.] Is it a 
 true principle? If it is, it must work right. And if 
 
 the people. If the people will not doit, those who wish J it is a false principle, it is not an abstraction it 
 
200 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 simply a falsehood. Why will gentlemen bring up 
 this time-worn federal cry against us ? I am tired of 
 this cry of abstraction, and never hear it that 1 do 
 not tremble for the consequences to the rights of man. 
 You cannot legislate for the people, or preserve the 
 rights of mankind, without an often recurrence, as Jef- 
 ferson says, to fundamental principles. It is in vain to 
 try it. 
 
 My friend from Buckingham speaks of the vandalism 
 of tearing away the sacred relics of the past. I will 
 not go into what has already been so well done, and 
 show the gentleman that a divided vote was had on this 
 very subject in the last Convention. I will not go over 
 the ground which has been occupied by other gentle- 
 men, and show him that in no instance heretofore, un- 
 der the Constitution of Virginia, has this principle ever 
 come up. Heretofore it was a restriction on the Legis- 
 lature, because the people did not appoint their agent, 
 but authorized their legislative agents to appoint him, 
 and only restricted the work of their agents. I will 
 not talk about this thing, but I will talk about this idea 
 of vandalism. Gentlemen talk about breaking down 
 tbe Constitution because we propose to give the peo- 
 ple the right to re-elect a man after he has served them 
 well. Strange and startling proposition, I admit. Eve- 
 ry man in this Convention and out of it will admit that 
 sometimes an officer ought to be re-elected. None de- 
 ny that. They admit that the people have all capacity, 
 that they have confidence in those whom they call 
 the " dear people," and yet they are unwilling to say, 
 when this does happen, that the people shall have 
 that privilege. It is a startling innovation, they say, 
 while we are in the very act of making a new Con- 
 stitution. It is vandalism, and we are laying the hand 
 of a Gothe upon the Capitol of Rome. But, if I did 
 that, I did not wish, like my old democratic friend, to 
 lay my hand on the Constitution of Virginia, and rip 
 from it the entire bill of rights — the whole embodiment 
 of man's rights. 
 
 Mr. FUQ.UA. I do no remember my language. 
 But I think I said that this discussion had well nigh 
 made me doubt the propriety of attaching a bill of 
 rights to the Constitution — not that I was for expung- 
 ing it. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. Well, I am sorry that my friend 
 doubts. There is but one step between doubt and de- 
 spair. One step, tnd he is over to the enemy. [Laugh- 
 ter.] "We are told a great deal about this idea of au- 
 thority and precedent. I do not know how other gentle- 
 men feel about this idea of authority — it may be a great 
 thing ; but I will tell you how it strires me, very deci- 
 dedly. Gentlemen who come here thus to make altera- 
 tions in the instrument, have no regard for authority 
 when they wish to carry out their own peculiar principle ; 
 but when another principle comes up, in which they do 
 not concur, at once they begin to cry out " precedent.' ' 
 It looks to me not only unfair, but like a man who was 
 very hard pushed, and had nothing else to say. It looks 
 to me as if a man was hard pushed on principle, or he 
 would not resort to authority. Why should we call upon 
 authority at all ? Have we not all the facts on which 
 all authority has heretofore been based, to form an opin- 
 ion? Or are we going to follow the opinion of any man, 
 because it is his opinion ? Now, no man on this floor will 
 say that. Will you consent to yield your judgment to 
 the judgment of any body else ? If you will not, why 
 appeal to authority ? Why not take the reasons on which 
 these men have their opinions founded, and give them 
 to us to convince our reason ?, Why appeal to these as 
 authority and precedents? Do gentlemen consider how 
 far this will take them back, if they carry out their idea? 
 We call on the Convention of '29 for authority, and 
 what did they do? Go back and read what they did, 
 andjou will find that they called on the former Conven- 
 tion as authority for them. And what did they do ? 
 They appealed to the bill of rights of 1688. And what 
 did they do in 1688? They battled about the rights of 
 Englishmen under the magna charta, and appealed to the 
 days of King John. Do not gentlemen see the ope- 
 
 ration of it, that it will lead them back to barba- 
 rism? It seems to me that they cannot fail to see that 
 this is not a fair way of argument at all. We not only 
 have the light which they had, but we have all the light 
 which they had, and more too. Why not then act upon 
 our own lights, with all the facts before us, and abide 
 by our principles? I wish to say a word to my friend 
 from Richmond, (Mr. Davis,) if I may call him my 
 friend. I regretted to hear a remark which he made. 
 It did not offend me in the least — it did not even touch 
 a sensitive nerve. But I notice it, because I think the 
 gentleman was not perhaps aiding that which it is the 
 object of this Convention to arrive at— truth. Nor do I 
 think, that by taking that course, we are likely to ar- 
 rive at truth. The gentleman said that he was himself 
 happy to learn that this principle for which we are con- 
 tending, originated not in the east, but came from the 
 west, the extreme north-west. I am sorry my friend has 
 so poor an opinion of western members, but I must say 
 to him that it is very possible for truth to spring from 
 the north-west of Virginia, and that it is better to an- 
 swer it than to decry it because it did not come from 
 the east. I think it a highly probable thing that truth 
 might spring from the west. When I oppose a propo- 
 sition, I will not do it because of eastern origin. I will 
 fight you fairly upon it, and if you whip me, I will cry 
 enough. I promise the gentleman that I will do that. 
 My friend is known to be a perfectly brave man. His 
 ability in argument is well tested, for we have seen it 
 exhibited. And I ask the gentleman if it is hardly fair 
 or magnanimous when a matter of pure principle is up, 
 and he knows us to be in the minority, to throw him- 
 self behind his bulwarks and cry " Marmion, to the res- 
 cue." I beg pardon for having tendered advice to so 
 old a gentleman. 
 
 There is another little matter which I wish to suggest 
 to the committee. It is something in relation to northern 
 and southern examples. Now, I can talk about this sub- 
 ject, for although it is not known here, those whom I con- 
 sider to be most particularly interested, that dear constitu- 
 ency, do understand most distinctly that I am a southern 
 man. I have felt its effects too clearly not to know that 
 my constituents do not misunderstand that fact. I am 
 even a chivalry man at home. I do not know what I 
 shall be here. 1 will tell you what 1 do think, and will 
 say it in the same spirit in which I spoke to the gentle- 
 man from Richmond just now. 
 
 I do say that I see Virginia dwindling into insignifi- 
 cance — that I see her energies paralyzed, and that I see 
 her greatly deficient in all that makes a people proud, 
 envied and happy. I have seen Virginia scoff many a 
 good thing, as I think, because it was of northern ori- 
 gin. I think all this to be wrong — to be little and un- 
 worthy of ourselves. I am as willing to accept a good 
 thing from the north of Mason and Dixon's line, as I 
 am if it came from the south of that line. Would to 
 God that we could cheat the north out of half the good 
 things which they have — not that I would deprive them 
 of it ; 1 mean cheat them so as not to take it away from 
 them. [Laughter.] I would take a good principle 
 from any quarter. I would take a principle from Tim- 
 buctoo if I could get a good one. And I trust that 
 while we see the practical effects, and the operations at 
 the north, we shall shake off this listlessness, idleness, 
 and false pride, and follow their example. Why is it 
 that we find the blush of shame flushing to our cheeks 
 every time that we turn to the north ? Follow their 
 virtues, and we shall have no further cause to blush. 
 I trust that we shall here no more of this decry- 
 ing a principle merely because it may be of northern 
 origin. 
 
 There is another idea of which I wish to speak, and 
 that is that the dignity of this kingly representative is 
 to ba preserved. And why ? You have added no pow- 
 er to the Governor. You have taken away from him his 
 position as a member of the board of public works, and 
 you have raised his salary from $3,000 to $5,000, and 
 all, I suppose, for the purpose of enhancing the dignity 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 201 
 
 of what gentlemen wish to be the monarchical feature 
 of the government. 
 
 I am tired of this old, and should be worn out feeling 
 in Virginia. There is a false feeling and false notion, 
 as I humbly conceive, upon this subject of dignity. 
 Why does this idea of dignity and irresponsibility stand 
 tiver in association with the Governor or Senate in pre- 
 ference to the House of Delegates ? Why ever cling to 
 the mind of a certain class of politicians whenever 
 those branches of government which are supposed to 
 represent monarchy or aristocracy are mentioned ? Does 
 it not arise from a slumbering and but half concealed, 
 though perhaps unconscious feeling of veneration and 
 awe for kingly power? Are we not at heart, bowing in 
 humble vassalage to the forms and feelings of the past ? 
 Else why do they never speak of giving to the House 
 of Delegates — that body which they all propose to bring 
 nearest the people, the true sovereigns? Sir, I confess 
 I have no veneration, no reverence, for such dignity. I 
 would not give executive power to a single man to rep- 
 resent kingly power, or impersonate royal dignity, but 
 because executive power is, from its very nature, a unit. 
 I would not organize a Senate to represent aristocracy, 
 and the irresponsibility of aristocracy, for the purpose 
 of checking the more popular branch, but as a co-rep 
 resentative and co-deliberative body, producing checks, 
 not by the character, but by the number of deliberative 
 bodies. That while one body of representatives may 
 be sw.ayed by eloquence, party leaders, or intrigue, the 
 other shall have time to deliberate, and may correct the 
 errors and impulses which will creep into all delibera- 
 tive bodies, however formed. Sir, I would have every 
 department of government the plain, substantial, and re- 
 publican representation of a plain, republican, and hon- 
 est people. 
 
 But this would not satisfy gentlemen. The dignity 
 of Virginia, and the dignity of this type of royalty must 
 be preserved. Sir, Virginia has already stood upon her 
 dignity until she has nothing else to stand upon — until 
 the weight and burden of that dignity, te>o great for her 
 overtasked powers, is like to press her to the earth. 
 She prates of it till it has become a mockery and a jest. 
 Dignity, indeed! Sir, Virginia stands attitudenizing — 
 diving upon the memory of her great names, swelling 
 and bloating with false pride, while the vampires of 
 aristocracy are draining the very currents of her life. 
 What a picture to the eye of the true patriot has this 
 false notion helped to make Virginia already, and yet 
 they would still pander to the feeling. You have here- 
 tofore given a Governor a mansion and $3,000 a year 
 to sustain this load of idle pomp, (for you might have 
 hired a justice of the peace to perform his labors for 
 $25 per year.) This sum has proved sufficient for all 
 ordinary purposes of this ridiculous notion of pomp ; 
 an4 yet they must, without adding to his utility, take 
 $2,000 a year more from the pockets of the people. 
 And why % I suppose for this great purpose of enhancing 
 his dignity, and to enable him to pray more fervently 
 for the Commonwealth, and to announce still more 
 solemnly once a year that it still continues to exist. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Virginia should check this idea of dignity — this false 
 dignity. It is a relic of barbarism and of monarchy; 
 and springs from a source which has been our ruin. She 
 may swell with all the pride and dignity of a Highland 
 chief or Spanish Don, but it will put no money in her 
 pocket. She may stalk forth with the haughty tread of 
 a Carrolianus — her form is not the less withered like a 
 Richard the Third. 
 
 Sir, I repeat, I am tired of seeing old Virginia 
 like a withered mummy, dressed in all the robes and 
 dignity of a Roman Senator. Let us hear no more 
 of dignity until we shall have something to De dignified 
 about ! 
 
 Gentlemen say, as another argument, for the retention 
 of this restriction, that this reform is not desired or de- 
 manded by the people. I would ask them how they be- 
 came so knowing on the subject? How do gentlemen 
 know what I voted for in sustaining the call of thisCon- 
 14 
 
 vention, or what my constituents demand in this hall ? 
 is it because it has not been demanded in the east? 
 If so, how do they know that it has not been demand- 
 ed in the west, and beyond the mountains ? Do gen- 
 tlemen mean to set themselves up as the exclusive judges 
 of what the people demand ? And will they tell me 
 that my people are not demanding this reform, and that 
 I am not representing my constituents ? How do gentle- 
 men know this thing ? I will not refer to that subjeet 
 further. 
 
 Gentlemen desire rotation in office, and that is a prin- 
 ciple which, as a democrat, I am in favor of. I am in 
 favor of rotation in office, but I want the people to make 
 that rotation in office, and I know perfectly well that 
 they will do it. You will see other subjects come up 
 before this Convention before it has concluded its la- 
 bors, and you will hear it said that the people are so 
 fickle and so changeable, and so ungrateful, as has al- 
 ways been said of republics, that they will not re-elect 
 and hold to a good officer. That is the argument used 
 for a life office. The conservative party heretofore, 
 when they have wished a man to stay in office for life, 
 have declared that the people were so fickle that they 
 would not re-elect a good officer. Now, to answer the 
 same purpose in another direction, they tell us that the 
 people are too constant. I will tell gentlemen that they 
 are neither. If a man suits the people , they will re-elect 
 him. If not, they will tell him to stand aside ; he has 
 been a good servant, but they have another man whom 
 they wish to honor. There is no doubt that the people 
 will understand this thing most distinctly, and I go for 
 rotation in office, and I have no doubt when my time 
 comes, the people will rotate me out. I shall not grum- 
 ble at it either. [Laughter.] 
 
 I wish to say a single word with regard to an idea 
 which it seems to me, has not been exactly answered by 
 any gentleman who has addressed this committee before. 
 Gentlemen have labored a long while in trying to show 
 that the principle of ineligibility, although not recog- 
 nised in the federal constitution, had been established, 
 so far as the Presidency was concerned, by the example 
 of Washington, or somebody else. Now, did it never 
 occur to gentlemen how beautiful the people had regu- 
 lated this thing, and without any restriction upon them, 
 either. Look for a moment at the various Presidential 
 elections, and see how little the people have been influ- 
 enced by all this immense power and patronage of which 
 gentlemen have talked so much. Washington was elect- 
 ed for two terms, and does any body object to that? 
 John Adams, the federalist, was elected for only one 
 term, and I believe the world has not regretted that he 
 was not re-elected. Thomas Jefferson, I have a slight 
 idea, was elected for two terms, and the people, neither 
 of the north nor south, have never grumbled at that. 
 Madison and Monroe were both elected for two terms, 
 and nobody, I believe , objects to that. Then came John 
 Q. Adams, who was rather a federalist; or, at any rate, 
 came from rather a suspicious source, and was elected 
 for only one term. Then Jackson was elected for two 
 terms, ^ind was followed by Matty Van, who could not 
 be re-elected to a second term to the regret, not of the 
 democratic party, certainly. Then Gen, Harrison fol- 
 lowed. Providence did the work ; the people did not. 
 John Tyler took up the fag-end of the term, and went* 
 out with his corporal's guard. Mr. Polk then came in, 
 and at the end of four years retired. There was a man 
 who has immortalized his name by the principles which 
 he carried out and vindicated, and yet, at the end of his 
 term, he retired, worn-out and broken-hearted, and the 
 people forgave him and sent him home as he asked them. 
 Mr. Polk was followed by General Taylor, and Provi- 
 dence took him off before he had served one-half of his 
 term. Mr. Fillmore has taken up the fag-end of the 
 term and you may rely on it that he will be followed 
 by a democrat. 
 
 I do not mean, in what I have said, any disrespect to 
 either party, and I am willing to avoid these instances of 
 modern times, and refer to the examples of the earlier 
 Presidents, and I will ask gentlemen if the people and 
 
202 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Providence together have not most signally taken care 
 that this doctrine of rotation in office should be carried 
 out? Has it not so happened, that under the guidance 
 of a kind Providence, the people have wielded the power 
 of re-election, when unrestricted, most ably and for 
 their own good ? Let gentlemen , then , not come raising 
 objections against politicians, and the want of capacity 
 in the people to determine for themselves in this mat- 
 ter, until they can show by examples, or by some other 
 reasons than mere declamation, that they have not done 
 it. I have been talking about everybody's opinion ex- 
 cept my own, and now I am going to tell you what my 
 own is. I have saved it for the last, not because it was 
 best in the estimation of the people, but because I think 
 it to be best. I have said that I have become tired of 
 this kind of dignity which heretofore existed in Vir- 
 ginia, and I wish to turn the sentiments and people of 
 Virginia into another channel. In a word, I wish to see 
 this government popularized in every department and 
 feature of it. I find Virginia to be sectionalized in eve- 
 ry sense of the word. I find a democrat on this side of 
 the mountains desiring a palpable admixture of aristoc- 
 racy, in so many terms, in both branches of the govern- 
 ment, while a western democrat scouts at the very idea. 
 [Laughter.] An eastern whig tells us that he goes for 
 a sprinkling of aristocracy and monarchy, while the 
 very salt wells of Kanawha would bubble afresh at the 
 bare idea of such a thing. I find, on the subject of in- 
 ternal improvements, a feeling in the east one way, and 
 I find in the west a feeling another way. You can pro- 
 pose no one thing for the good of a section, that all the 
 rest, like the dog in the manger, do not pounce upon it 
 at once. I find one people divided and torn asunder by 
 every diversity of feeling and opinion. Now, without 
 saying who is right or who is wrong, I attribute the de- 
 cline of Virginia, in a great measure, to this state of 
 things. The whole power of the State has been taken 
 from the hands of the people, and thrown into the hands 
 of cliques. The masses themselves must be awakened, 
 and power given into their hands. Nothing can regen- 
 erate Virginia but a heaving up from the very bottom. 
 I tell you it no longer depends on one man's arm, or the 
 aristocratic arm, or the sectional arm. It depends upon 
 a mighty struggle of the whole people to make Virginia 
 what she should be. Say it, but think it, and Virginia is 
 redeemed already. 
 
 I would make this Governor an electioneering officer. 
 I would not have him go into ©very county of the State, 
 but I would send him to every quarter of the State, so 
 that he might understand and know the interests of all 
 quarters and all sections. I, am under instructions in 
 this matter. My constituents made me pledge myself to 
 them to use every exertion in my power to present to 
 them a live Governor. [Laughter.] Yes, they would give 
 more to see one than they would to see Jenny Lind her- 
 self. I never saw a Governor in my life until I came to 
 Richmond ! What a condition of things is this for a re- 
 publican government. Send this man among the peo- 
 ple — let him understand our local and our sectional 
 questions, too, if you please. Heretofore everything 
 has been either whig or democrat, but you have never 
 had any State politics. Yeu have clung to the resolu- 
 tions of 1798 and '99 like grim death, sinking with them 
 in your teeth ! You have never, for one moment, arous- 
 ed the old Commonwealth to the consideration of great 
 questions of State Policy. This is what I desire this 
 Governor to do. You propose to give him a salary of 
 #5.000 rW annum. But if he is not to engage in this 
 labor, I will never consent to give him a salary of more 
 than $200 a year to represent your dignity, with the pri- 
 vilege, perhaps, of a clerkship in the second auditor's 
 office. [Laughter.] No, let him go among the peo- 
 ple and he may know better whom he is to represent, 
 and be better prepared to understand their interests. 
 If he be an eastern man, let him rub a little against 
 the hunting-shirts and moccasins of the mountains. 
 It will increase his digf stion and brighten his percep- 
 tions. If he be a west, rn man, he will be more likely 
 to appreciate the grievai ces of the slaveholder of Al- 
 
 bemarle, the tobacconist of Lynchburg, or oysterman 
 of Accomac. 
 
 Once produce this state of things, (which can alone 
 be done through the office of Governor,) and the sharp 
 angles of sectional opinions will be worn off by discus- 
 sions and concessions, a State policy will be formed — 
 progressive and conservative parties, a go-ahead, and a.. 
 stand-still party will be formed over the whple State. 
 The State elections will become more important and 
 more interesting as deciding the present policy of the 
 State. They will turn the eyes of the State to her 
 own interests instead of spending millions in instruct- 
 ing the general government, which but ends in ridicule 
 and contempt. This policy may make Virginia cease 
 to think of everybody's business but her own — may 
 nerve her people to an effort to regain their forme/ 
 greatness. If so, 1 shall be content. Sir, I shall vote 
 for every measure tending to increase the interest in, or 
 the responsibility of, this office* of Governor, believing 
 that it is the true means to secure Ms State policy- I 
 tender my obligations to the committee for their very 
 kind attention to my unpremeditated and much embar- 
 rassed effort. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I ask the attention of this commit- 
 tee for a very few minutes, while I endeavor to explain 
 to them, some, at least, of the reasons that have brought 
 my mind to the conclusion that in the committee of the 
 whole I shall vote against the re-eligibility of the gov- 
 ernor at the end of his first term. I say that I shall so 
 vote in committee of the whole. How I shall vote 
 hereafter I know not, but I feel myself impelled by the 
 spirit of candor to say, that it is not at all probable that 
 the committee of the whole, or that this body sitting 
 in Convention, will or can so organize this great execu- 
 tive department as to induce me to vote for the re-eli- 
 gibility of the governor. I cannot vote for it now, at 
 all events, nor do I think that any gentleman upon 
 this floor ought to vote for it in* this committee of 
 the whole. I •am one of those who, without having: 
 much experience in parliamentary affairs, or without 
 being authorized to pronounce any decided opinion about 
 this matter, think that this whole discussion, from be- 
 ginning to end, is entirely premature. I am of opinion 
 that this question of the re-eligibility of the governor 
 ought to have been the very last question connected 
 with the executive department, which we should have 
 discussed and decided. Does any gentleman doubt,, 
 who has bestowed any reflection upon this subject, that 
 the materiality of this question of re-eligibility, de- 
 pends in a great degree, upon the power and the patron- 
 age with which you propose to clothe this officer ? Is 
 it not so ? Does it not depend upon the length of his 
 term ? Should not both of these questions have been 
 settled before we came to consider the question of re- 
 eligibility ? But the report of the committee is before 
 us. In the month of October last, the committee was 
 raised. Their report came in about ten days ago, and 
 the subject has been discussed during these ten days, 
 upon the single isolated question whether he should or 
 should not be re-eligible at the end of his first term. A 
 skilful debater never exhausts the whole of his powe r 
 in arguing his propositions. No. The best part of 
 his skill is exhausted in the mode of stating his propo- 
 sition, and nobody understands that better than the 
 gentleman who now sits before me, and is honoring me 
 with his attention — my friend from the county of Hen- 
 rico, (Mr. Botts,) — and I am not like some gentlemen 
 here, for I encounter no risk in calling him friend. How 
 does he state the proposition upon a question which, if 
 any question upon earth be so, is eminently of a prac- 
 tical character. We are met by the objection that we 
 are imposing restraints upon the sovereign power of 
 the people. Well, it is a very imposing mode of sta- 
 ting the objection. There is, at least, great plausibility 
 in it, but it is not the only mode in which this question 
 may be stated, by any means. It can be stated in an- 
 other way, quite as pertinent to the matter in hand, 
 and a little less likely to mislead the judgment. It is 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 203 
 
 this : Here is a great executive officer about to be ere- j execution any judgment or decree of any court that they 
 ated by this constitution. There is an amount of power may create? No, sir. What then? Do what this 
 and patronage inseparable by the wit and wisdom j committee has recommended by their report — make a 
 of men, from this executive department; and judging j governor. Put all this immense power into the hands 
 by all past experience, by the history of executive power of one man. It may be a hard necessity, but is it not a 
 in every part of the world, we know that the power and j necessity ? That is the question ? Is it not a political 
 patronage will be abused for the benefit of the holder, j necessity from which we cannot escape, that this im- 
 if he be interested in so abusing it ; and the true ques- imense power of the executive department is to be — and 
 tion is this: Is it wise or proper — not for us, we can im- jmust be, whether we will or no — placed in the hands 
 pose no restraints upon the power of the people — is it j of one man i And while there, for whatever term, 
 wise or proper, in our judgment, deputed here, as we whether three months or six months, or four years, the 
 are, to settle these, among other questions, for the peo- executive power of the people is also annihilated, as 
 pie themselves, in the exercise of their sovereign pow- well as in the case of the legislature and judiciary. It has 
 er, to impose, not a restraint upon their sovereign will, jgone from them, and they cannot recall it until a vacancy 
 but to impose a disability for three years upon one of j occurs, when they must again delegate it to other hands, 
 their high public officers rather than encounter the risk j Is not the question here then one of pure expediency? 
 of abusing his power, so as to prevent the operation of |The principle of giving all executive power to one man 
 their own freedom of election ? That is the mode of j may be a bad one for aught I know, but can you escape 
 stating the question. I do not believe that anybody jit? Is not one better than two, three, or five? "We 
 will find it necessary to catechise me in regard to my must do it. And is not the question for how long a 
 political opinions and principles. I mean to confine my- 1 period you will delegate this executive power, one of 
 
 pure expediency, to be decided by all the circumstances 
 of the case ? 
 
 It seems to me — and I have listened with the utmost 
 attention to the gentlemen who have discussed this 
 
 self to the discussion of the question before us. I do 
 not mean to go into a discussion of other questions which 
 are not before the committee, and which are to come be- 
 fore it in a definite shape for discussion and decision ; 
 
 rive at the truth — that I cannot put my vote on the 
 proposition under consideration on any ground of ab- 
 
 but I will say now that I am a full and firm believer in 'question here, and with the most earnest desire to ar- 
 the doctrine that the sovereign power of this State re- 
 sides in the people of the State, and that power, for the 
 
 purposes of government, is divided into legislative, ju- stract principle whatever. I have said it is a question 
 dicial, and executive. It is in the people; it resides of practical character. The gentleman from Marion 
 there ultimately, and cannot, by any power, be rightly (Mr. Neeson) yesterday stated this question, in my 
 taken from them. But does that advance us one solitary judgment, fairly, and the gentleman from Cabell, (Mr. 
 inch in the discussion of this question? No, sir; not McCoiiAS,) who has just taken his seat, has stated that 
 at alL the principal^ argument that has been urged against 
 
 The gentleman who addressed us on yesterday, and the re-eligibility of the governor is, first and mainly, 
 to whose address I listened with great pleasure — -an that he would abuse the power and patronage with 
 address that I take pleasure in saying did him the high- which he was clothed. The answer to that was of a 
 est credit — said that he was in favor of having biennial two-fold character — that we should not presume he 
 sessions of the legislature. And what does he mean by would so abuse it — that we had no right to assume that 
 that ? He means that a body having the power to tax, he would become corrupt ; and if that argument was 
 limited only by the ability of the people to pay — no not conclusive, the next was, viz : that he had no pow- 
 other limit, none, none — a body whose taxing power has er and patronage, and that he was but a sounding 
 no limit but the ability of the people to pay — which brass, and a tinkling cymbaL Both of the argu- 
 
 - ments 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. My position was this : They con- 
 tended that the governor would use the power of his 
 office for the purpose of securing his re-election. To 
 maintain their argument, they had to pre-suppose them- 
 selves these things. These are arguments put into their 
 mouths, and which I had to pre-suppose. They were 
 not original arguments of mine. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. The governor of Virginia either will 
 or will not abuse his power and patronage. And I un- 
 derstand the gentleman to maintain that he would not, 
 in opposition to the argument used upon the other side' 
 that he would. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. I have not used that argument. 
 Mr. JANNEY. Very well, then, I have nothing fur- 
 ther to say. Then, the argument made upon my side of 
 the question that i.he governor would probably abuse 
 his power anc patronage is unanswered by the gentle- 
 man from Cabell, and therefore I take it for granted 
 that he finds force in that objection. Will he, or will he 
 not abuse it ? That is the question. Look back, if you 
 please, through the history of the United States for the 
 last thirty years. Has there, during the whole time, 
 been a President of the United States in power, that 
 about one half the nation did not charge,- and did not 
 honestly believe, that he was abusing his power and his 
 patronage for his own purposes or for the purposes of 
 his party? I care not who was in p'ower — the very mo- 
 ment that the administration of a particular party cast 
 was succeeded by its opposite, all the others instantly 
 settled down upon the opinion that he too, like his pre- 
 decessor, was abusing his power and patronage for his 
 own selfish ends. 
 
 A great deal has been said here about the infallia- 
 bility of the people. I know of no respectable school, 
 
 has the right to prescribe a law that shall take away the 
 life and liberty of the people, shall hold their power 
 for two years, during which time the legislative power 
 of this sovereign people, about which so much has been 
 said here, is as effectually out of their hands as if it 
 were annihilated by the power of Omnipotence. Is 
 it not so? Surely. What is the question, then?— 
 One of principle? No,' sir. But is it expedient for 
 people, instead of delegating their legislative power to 
 their servants one year, to delegate it for two ? Surely 
 this is a question about which we may well differ in 
 opinion, without raising any test upon it in regard to 
 our radicalism, conservatism, democracy, or aristocracy. 
 What has that to do with it ? Take the judicial department 
 of the government — the power to pass vn questions of 
 life and death, and liberty, and property — the power 
 that in the course of a period of ten y£ars disposes of a 
 mass of property equal to more than half of that which 
 is held in the whole State, real, mixed, and personal. 
 The sovereign people cannot exercise judicial power in 
 their primary capacity. Nobody pretends it. What, 
 then, is to be done? It is delegated to a chosen body 
 of agents, and while so delegated, is it not, for the time 
 beiug, gone from the people as effectually as if it were 
 annihilated? 
 
 I beg the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Hoge) 
 to ponder upon these observations, for they are address- 
 ed as much to his consideration as to that of any gen- 
 tleman in this assembly. 
 
 "What makes the executive department of the govern- 
 ment necessary? Can the one million five hundred 
 thousand people of Virginia — to be two millions five 
 hundred thousand in less than twenty years — can they 
 exercise executive power ? Can they execute any one 
 law passed by the legislature, or can they carry into 
 
204 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 either in politics or in theology, in which any such doc- 
 trine is taught. I know that I am fallible, and I take 
 it for granted that every gentleman who sits here asso- 
 ciated with me in this Convention, would admit that he 
 was fallible, and it would he a most extraordinary spec- 
 tacle of a body consisting of one hundred and thirty - 
 five men, all fallible, representing an infallible constitu- 
 ency. The Governor of Virginia, if you give him the 
 power and the patronage, will do like other men, and I 
 will not, in the performance of our duty here, base this 
 constitution upon confidence, except in those cases where 
 confidence is indispensable. But he has no power and 
 patronage ; and according to the gentleman from Ca- 
 bell, is a sounding brass and tinkling cymbaL Aye, is 
 it so? 
 
 Your report does not propose to take that which he 
 now has away ; it proposes to give him more : and I 
 am. called upon now to vote, not upon the idea that you 
 will take away from him what he has, but upon what 
 he has got under the laws of the land ; for all that you 
 do not take from him, he will retain under the law of the 
 land, which law this body cannot change, unless you 
 provide for it in the constitution. I am to vote upon 
 this amendment now, upon the power which he has got, 
 and I state here, without the fear of successful contra- 
 diction, that at this very moment the Governor of Vir- 
 ginia, in proportion to the number of people and the 
 number of interests over which he rules as governor, 
 has more power of a dangerous character than Millard 
 Fillmore or Victoria the First ; and what he has is noth- 
 ing to what he will have in times that are to come. I ( 
 have said, and I repeat it, that there is, inseparable 
 from the executive department of the government, a 
 mass of power and patronage which may and which 
 will be used in a conflict with the people, to turn the 
 scale, whenever the parties are equally balanced in the 
 State. Can you foresee the new offices that must be 
 created in this State in our onward march — and she has 
 within her limits all the elements of greatness, to a de- 
 gree unprecedented by any other of the thirty-one — can 
 you foresee all the influence of the different offices that 
 will become necessary, and that will be created by law ? 
 and can you, in this constitution, provide a depository 
 for the powers and patronage that will be incident to 
 the creation of these offices? No, it cannot be done. 
 The legislature of Virginia, at its session at the White 
 Sulphur Springs, gave a specimen and foretaste merely 
 of what can be done by a legislative body in the way of 
 enlarging executive power and patronage, and in a short 
 bill of some twenty lines, they have clothed him with 
 the appointment, not merely of a gauger in the city of 
 Richmond, as the gentleman from Cabell said this morn- 
 ing, but they have clothed him with the power of ap- 
 pointing every inspector in the whole Commonwealth 
 of Virginia, from one side of it to the other, and they 
 have enumerated in that bill, fifteen articles of mer- 
 chandize for each one of which he is authorized to ap- 
 point an inspector, limiting him to one for each city 
 and town, and six for each county, and beyond that, 
 each one of these inspectors so appointed by the gov- 
 ernor, may, by and with the advice and consent only of 
 his excellency, appoint a deputy ; and that would give 
 him, in the city of Richmond alone, a patronage equal 
 to the appointment of thirty officers; and in the county 
 of Henrico, if he exercises his power to the full extent, 
 he may — for Richmond, as it were, is overflowing her 
 corporate limits, and invading the county of Henrico — 
 he may have, under the existing laws, the appointment, 
 in that county alone, directly or indirectly, of one hun- 
 dred and eighty public officers. 
 
 A man of ordinary imagination, I should suppose, 
 having his attention particularly drawn to the subject, 
 might be able to calculate the influence of the exercise 
 of that power upon a closely contested election in the 
 metropolitan district of Virginia. Would it not turn 
 the scale in nine cases out of ten. But that is not even 
 the beginning. You have, by law, a great State cor- 
 poration called the Board of Public Works, and the 
 
 governor is made a member of that corporation and 
 president of the body, and that corporation appoints 
 its proxies to represent the Commo lwealth in all those 
 great internal improvements which are stretching through 
 the Commonwealth from North to South, and from 
 East to West, and not only proxies, but wherever the 
 State owns three-fifths of the stock, the Board appoints 
 three-fifths of the directors of the companies. And if 
 that were all, it might be tolerable. What else ? You 
 have a bank capital of nearly ten millions of dollars, 
 and for the years '49 and '50, the average loans and dis- 
 counts of these banks amounted to from eighteen to 
 twenty millions of dollars, and this governor, called the 
 " sounding brass and tinkling cymbal," has now, while 
 I speak, the power of appointing three out of every 
 seven of the directors of all the banks spread all over 
 the Commonwealth, and four out of nine of all the di- 
 rectors of the mother bank, with a further power ex- 
 pressly reserved by law to give to him, whenever the 
 legislature may please, the power of appointing four 
 out of seven at the branches, and five out of nine at 
 the mother banks. 
 
 And now I ask if the President of the United States, 
 in the proportion which the State bears to the Union, 
 holds in his hands a power that so reaches down to the 
 business transactions of the people, that so touches the 
 vital interests of all the people, as this single power 
 at this moment possessed by the Governor of this Com- 
 monwealth? I cannot, under these circumstances, vote 
 for the re-eligibility of the Governor of this Common- 
 wealth? I cannot, under these circumstances, vote for 
 the re-eligibility of the governor at the end of his first 
 term. I will not permit him by my vote — when he 
 comes into the contest with a large portion, perhaps one- 
 half of his own fellow citizens for his re-election, to 
 be able to throw into the scale — which hangs, per- 
 chance, at the end of the beam opposite the popular 
 scale — this immense power and patronage which will as 
 effectually turn it as the sword of Brennus, when cast 
 into the scale at Rome. 
 
 Some of the illustrations of the gentleman, upon this 
 subject, did not seem to be of the most felicitous de- 
 scription. The gentleman to whom I have referred al- 
 ready, told us yesterday, that under the old constitution, 
 the governor was permitted to be elected for three 
 terms, and then be ineligible for life. Thirteen out of 
 eighteen, between 1776 and 1829 were re-elected just as 
 long as the constitution permitted them to be. Insert 
 no clause of ineligibility in this constitution and does 
 my friend from Marion wish the governor to be able to 
 re-elect himself as long as he lives, because, if the analo- 
 gies hold which he himself has cited, such will in all prob- 
 ability be the case. We are told that this re-eligibility 
 of the governor secures the responsibility of the office. 
 I have listend to that argument with great attention, 
 but gentlemen will pardon me for saying — for I certain- 
 ly mean no disrespect to them — that on a subject upon 
 which Alexander Hamilton has exhausted his genius in 
 defence of the re-eligibility of the President of the Uni- 
 ted States, and Mt me a skeptic still, it can hardly hap- 
 pen, that I shall be converted by any arguments here, 
 respectable and strong as they may be. I do not know 
 that any gentleman who has ever discussed any question 
 upon which Alexander Hamilton poured the full tide of 
 his genius, has ever further illuminated it to any very 
 great extent, nor do I know that the manner, although 
 respectable and worthy of consideration, in which his 
 arguments upon that topic have been pressed upon the 
 consideration of this Convention, have added any strength 
 or force to them. 
 
 The gentleman from Powhatan the other day, by way 
 of illustrating his ideas on the subject, told us of the 
 case of a distinguished statesman who departed this 
 life about the period I think of the memorable Buffalo 
 convention — I mean his political life — once President of 
 the United States ; once filling the highest and the 
 proudest, and — if the gentleman from Cabell will par- 
 don me — the most dignified office in the world ; a man 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 205 
 
 who had attracted to his support one of the most pow- 
 erful parties that the world ever saw. But he fell ; he 
 fell says the gentleman from Powhatan, and now there 
 is none — none here certainly — so poor as to do him 
 reverence. Why did he fall, if fall he did, after leaving 
 the presidential chair on the fourth of March, 1848 ? 
 That is a question which I shall not go into the discus- 
 sion of. But according to the argument of the gentle- 
 man from Powhatan, he fell at this time, and why ? Be- 
 cause the door of re-eligibility was opened to him. That 
 is the reason he fell. He had been defeated once, but 
 there was no clause of ineligibility in the constitution 
 of the United States, and having tasted the fruits and 
 the sweets of power, he wanted to take another chance, 
 and what did he do ? There was temptation in his path 
 — temptation of not the same kind, but having the same 
 effect precisely that power and patronage will have in 
 the hands of your governor. Temptation fell in his 
 way. A new party which, so far as its leaders are con- 
 cerned, is the most corrupt and wicked that the sun of 
 heaven in his course around the globe ever shone upon, 
 held up to Mr. Van Buren the glittering diadem, and 
 told him that he should wear it again if he would fall 
 down and worship at their altar ; and he did so. He 
 became their standard bearer and he entered into a stip- 
 ulation with them that he would bear that flag, if need 
 be, over the sacked cities and villages and desolated 
 fields of that very South that had stood by him un^ilhis 
 own native State had turne/1 her back upon him as un- 
 worthy of her. I find nothing in the precedent of the 
 gentleman from Powhatan to reconcile me to the doc- 
 trine of re-eligibility; nothing at all. I am for putting 
 your governor, clothed as he will be in despite of you, 
 with immense power and patronage, so far as competi- 
 tion for public honor is concerned, on the same platform 
 that is occupied by all of his fellow-citizens. Is there 
 v any democratic republicanism in that idea ? I am for 
 saying to him if you perform your duties faithfully for 
 this term, during which we repose our confidence in you, 
 you shall not be re-eligible at the end of it, because all 
 history warns us that it is proper for us to impose this 
 disability upon you ; but if you perform your duty faith- 
 fully for this term, at the end of the next, when you 
 have come back among us and become one of us ; when 
 you shall have no power and patronage which you may 
 throw into the scale against popular sentiment, we will 
 give you another chance and re-elevate you to the office 
 in which you served us. And what do the people suffer 
 from the adoption of this plan. There has not a report 
 come from any committee, in which you do not impose 
 some restraint, not upon popular sovereignty — that. is not 
 the idea — but upon the exercise of popular power, in 
 point of time. And there has not a report come from 
 any committee, and no report can come from any com- 
 mittee, that will not and must not of necessity impose 
 restraints of this kind. What will the people do ? Why 
 they will take a governor for four years and put him 
 into office, leaving out of it ten thousand men just as 
 well qualified to fill it as himself ; and when he shall 
 have served out his term, instead of having the ten 
 thousand and one to choose from again, they have but 
 ten thousand, and that is the extent of the people's loss. 
 Well now I ask, is it wise, is it proper in the face of 
 all history and of all experience, when this is the only 
 evil that can happen to the people — the only evil that 
 can happen to the people I repeat, although the gentle- 
 man from Accomac shakes his head. Will you encoun- 
 ter the hazard of all the evils which have ever flown 
 from temptation to abuse power and patronage, and 
 which will be experienced as long as it becomes neces- 
 sary for the people to delegate power to the hands of 
 one man? 
 
 I have detained this committee longer than I expect- 
 ed. I meant to confine myself strictly and entirely to 
 the question that is before the committee. Our parlia- 
 mentary law is founded as far as practicable, upon the 
 idea of absolute impersonality, and in my judgment, he 
 best respects the spirit of that rule, who in a delibera- 
 
 tive assembly like this or another, adheres strictly and 
 pertinaciously to it. I shall vote in this committee 
 against the re-eligibility of the governor at the end of 
 his first term. After that, I am content that he shall 
 take his chance for another term. I believe that I sac- 
 rifice no principle in this matter, that I am not curtail- 
 ing the sovereign power of the people. I transport 
 myself in imagination, to the adjournment of this Con- 
 vention, when I shall go back, and be among, and be one 
 of the people, and I ask myself, will I as one of them, 
 when I come to vote upon this constitution, give my 
 preference to it, with the re-eligibility feature in it, 
 and I have no hesitation now, at this moment, to say, 
 that I shall prefer ineligibility at the end of the first 
 term. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I have listened with a great deal of plea- 
 sure to the gentleman from Loudoun (Mr. Janney) and 
 with great attention, from the fact, that I expected to 
 have been shaken somewhat — or modified — if not sha- 
 ken, in the opinions which I had previously expressed. 
 Knowing the gentleman's great power and art of argu- 
 ment, I thought and felt that now the blow was to be 
 struck, which if any blow can strike will strike down 
 the position which I have taken. I owe it to the gentle- 
 man to say, that his arguments have confirmed me in my 
 views. The gentleman did not seem to understand him- 
 self as well as I understood him, after hearing almost 
 the first sentence that he uttered. The gentleman told 
 us and he was emphatic and deliberate and self-poised 
 in telling us too, that he should, in the committee of 
 the whole, vote against the proposition of the gentleman 
 from Henrico, and that afterwards in Convention — as I 
 understood him — he did not know how he should vote. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I said I felt myself bound in candor 
 to say now, that I did not at all anticipate that this con- 
 vention would so adjust this Executive department and 
 its powers and patronage as to secure my vote for re-el- 
 gibility under any circumstances. 
 
 Mr. WISE. He did not know exactly what would be 
 his course ; but so fixed and so strong were his objec- 
 tions, that I clearly saw that the cat would out before 
 long, and that under no circumstances would he vote for 
 re-eligibility. If this question has been discussed out of 
 place for ten days, why has not the experienced gentle- 
 man from Loudoun (Mr. Janney) arisen before this late 
 day — on the tenth day and at a late hour of it — to warn 
 us that we were thinking and speaking out of place? 
 The gentleman's influence might have placed us at the 
 proper point in the advance. He has permitted the de- 
 bate to go on, though he says that the decision of the 
 point under debate will depend upon a previous decision 
 which must be made as to the powers with which the 
 executive shall be invested. Now, I take issue with 
 the gentleman there. The executive is to be invested 
 with power — more or less — with great power, or with 
 small power ; is to have a large patronage or a small 
 patronage. He will abuse those powers, or he will ex- 
 ercise them for the public good. I care not whether he 
 be a mammoth executive, or a dwarf executive, I shall 
 vote for the principle of re-eligibility ; on the most de- 
 liberate reflection aided by the lights which the gentle- 
 man from Loudoun (Mr. Janney) has set before me. 
 The gentleman has said there were those who argued 
 with the arguments of Alexander Hamilton. I must 
 say, that if anything I uttered was drawn from Alexan- 
 der Hamilton, I did not know it. He is not a very pop- 
 ular politician with me. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I said simply, ihat it was the doctrine 
 of Alexander Hamilton, as contained in one of his num- 
 bers of the Federalist, where he argued the question at 
 large. I did not mean to impute to any gentleman here 
 that he had deliberately given to us verbatim et literatim 
 et punctuatim, the doctrines of Alexander Hamilton. 
 Far from it. But I took it for granted that every gen- 
 tleman who undertook to discuss this subject had read 
 that book. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Undoubtedly. And the gentleman will 
 permit me to say that could I find an argument in the 
 works of Alexander Hamilton that could support the 
 
206 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 power of the people, I should state it just as soon, and 
 just as readily, as I would an argument taken from the 
 works of James Madison, or Thomas Jefferson, though 
 I must confess that with me an argument drawn from 
 the reflections of Alexander Hamilton might not be so 
 popular, and prima facie it might be an argument for a 
 strong, rather than a weak executive. Alexander Ham- 
 ilton 's opinions may be more a favorite with the gentle- 
 man than with me. What I was about to remark, was, 
 that the gentleman had said whether the argument be 
 Alexander Hamilton's or not, that no man has presented 
 it here with any additional force as compared with that 
 which the great, the giant mind of Alexander Hamilton 
 brought to the aid of the argument. The gentleman 
 will, I am sure, pardon me for saying, that although he 
 has — I will not say that he has arrogated to himself any- 
 thing, by no means — that although he had, but in the 
 most modest and unassuming style, undertaken the giant 
 task of answering the arguments of Hamilton, that he 
 has been as unsatisfactory to me in his reply to them as 
 I am to him in citing them. 
 
 Mr. J ANNEY. I do not like to interrupt the gentle- 
 man, but I call upon this whole committee to bear me 
 witness that I admitted the force and power of the ar- 
 guments of Alexander Hamilton, but I went upon the 
 ground that even allowing them their just weight, still 
 our own experience, since his work was written, should 
 induce us to reject them— that the evils of re-eligibility 
 outweighed all the advantages to be derived from it. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I will do the gentleman again the justice 
 to say, that his argument has been put with pertinency: 
 and nothing called me to my feet but that I felt there 
 was a little too much force in what he did say. I hope 
 the gentleman is content with compliments now. [Laugh- 
 ter.] I only wonder, and that is what I rise to say, that 
 the gentleman, considering that some of the doctrines 
 which Hamilton held at that day are hardly second to 
 the conservatism of my friend from Fauquier — did not 
 yield con amore to the doctrines of Alexander Hamilton. 
 Did I understand the gentleman from Loudoun aright 
 when he declared here that the power of the people 
 consisted of executive, legislative and judicial powers 
 only ? 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I will repeat my words. I am per- 
 fectly ready and willing at all times to explain precise- 
 ly what I did say. I said that all the sovereign power 
 of the State resides in the people, and that for ordinary 
 governmental purposes it was divided into legislative, 
 executive and judicial. And that the people not being 
 able to exercise, directly, either the one or the other, 
 delegated it to their agents, — that is what I said, pre- 
 cisely. 
 
 Mr. "WISE. And I understood the gentleman, pre- 
 cisely. The gentleman did say that the sovereign pow- 
 er — the sovereign power of the people, mind you, is di- 
 vided into judicial, executive and legislative. Sir, the 
 sovereign power is not so divided. Alexander Hamil- 
 ton, himself, would correct the gentleman on that sub- 
 ject. It is the mere division of municipal government 
 and not the division of the sovereign power. Sover- 
 eign power has a fourth division, and that the gen- 
 tleman has entirely overlooked. The power that the 
 people choose simply to delegate for administrative pur- 
 poses to the agents which constitute your municipal gov- 
 ernment, is divided as the gentleman has divided itfinto 
 legislative, executive and judicial ; and all the power 
 not thus delegated, resides in the people. 
 
 There is the class of reserved powers, not carved out of 
 the sovereign power of the people, and that is the er- 
 ror which has pervaded the wh^ole argument here. The 
 sovereign power has four divisions. It has three grants 
 or delegations divided into executive, judicial and leg- 
 islative ; but the reserved powers, the greatest of all 
 the powers remain. Wow, what is the issue upon this 
 question of eligibility? The gentleman says, as a mat- 
 ter of fact, that this limitation, this ineligibility does 
 not restrict the people in their work. Certainly he 
 must be incorrect, and would admit it. To say that the 
 
 people having ten thousand men to select from — should 
 select the nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine, 
 but should not select the one is, no doubt, a matter of 
 fact, a restriction, a limitation of the people upon them- 
 selves. They may do it, it is true. I do not base the 
 doctrine of eligibility upon its force as a principle, but 
 as a fact. It is not because it is a restriction, as I said 
 previously in this debate, that I found my opinion on it. 
 Not at all. My opinion is founded on this, which the 
 gentleman has not touched at all, that unless there be a 
 necessity for the delegation of this power, or rather for 
 the restriction of this power of the people, it must be 
 left with the mass of the sovereign and reserved rights 
 in the people, and must not be a limitation on the ex- 
 ecutive. If the gentleman can show me a reason for 
 the restriction ; if he can show me that it is necessary 
 as the restrictions in reference to nonage, sex, to sanity 
 and insanity, I would willingly go with him. He has 
 attempted to show that there, is a reason for the restric- 
 tion. He has logically pursued the question I admit, 
 and what is his argument? That all experience proves 
 that a man elected for one term will not abuse his pow- 
 er; but that a man elected or re-eligible for one or more 
 terms will abuse his power. And he has said that this 
 is the experience of all mankind. I deny the fact as I 
 have asserted before in this debate ; and I repeat it now 
 that the re-eligibility of the President of the United 
 States has secured for the first term a purer adminis- 
 tration of office than for the second. The gentleman 
 has given us the instance of* Mr. Van Buren. He has 
 most aptly and most emphatically put the question, by 
 vhat law of nature was it that this — not archangel — fell. • 
 By the same law he tells us that angels did fall from 
 Heaven. Does not the gentleman's knowledge of hu- 
 man nature, and his reflections upon the philosophy of 
 that fall, teach him the very lesson in the reverse ? Sup- 
 pose that man had been ineligible. Disappointed in his 
 re-election, he ended the knave. "Who can tell if there 
 had been no hope of re-election he would not have begun 
 the knave? Who can tell what we escaped from by the 
 influence of eligibility in that instance ? As I told the 
 gentleman from Richmond the other day, this is a ques- 
 tion that pertains not to the good man but to the bad 
 man — not to the man that is pure and incorruptible, but 
 to the man that is of the earth, earthy. 
 
 Who knows, tell me, if Aaron Burr had been elected 
 President of the Unfted States, whether he would have 
 been most likely to have been a good or a bad Presi- 
 dent in the first term, had he been eligible or re-elibi- 
 ble ? We know that not only one devil, but that a le- 
 gion of devils was in that man. Having been disap- 
 pointed in his election to the Presidency of the United 
 States, he armed himself, or attempted to arm himself, 
 with the money in the banks of New Orleans ; and al- 
 most committed overt acts of treason against the Uni- 
 ted States in order to form, as he said in his dying mo- 
 ments, the most splendid example of empire in Mexi- 
 co. Suppose that in the early history of our republic 
 in his day Aaron Burr had been elected, and how many 
 ballots was there between him and Jefferson? How 
 many ballots did it tak£ to decide the question between 
 Jefferson and Burr ? 
 
 A MEMBER. Thirty-five or thirty-six. 
 Mr. WISE. Thirty-five or six, I am told, it took to 
 decide the question between Jefferson and Burr. Sup- 
 pose Burr had been elected, and you had had this prin- 
 ciple of ineligibility,, with no hope of a re-election, 
 and an ambition that gnawed within like the worm 
 that never dies, what security would there have been 
 for the liberties of this country against that man, a 
 soldier of the revolution too, and the country hardly 
 yet placed on the soild foundation laid by the father of 
 his country? Would you have preferred to trust that 
 bad man with that power without the hope of succession, 
 or would you not, as I have often said in this debate, 
 have put him on his good behavior by making him re- 
 eligible? Does not the gentleman see that the phi- 
 losophy of human nature in the very instance he has 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 207 
 
 put, turns against him non constat what Mi*. Van Buren 
 had done had he been ineligible ? 
 
 But the gentleman tells us not only that the sovereign 
 power of the people is divided into legislative, executive 
 and judicial, and that is the 4east like Alexander Ham- 
 ilton of many things which the gentleman uttered, but 
 he uttered an idea more awful still, more erroneous far 
 than that. Gravely, deliberately, with a manner that 
 could not fail to impress all who heard him, pleasing, 
 attractive and oracular, the gentleman has told us 
 here to-day that the power which people grant to a le- 
 gislature is granted and gone from the people for the 
 time as if annihilated ! — that the power granted to an 
 executive is granted and gone from the people for the 
 time being as if annihilated — and that the power grant- 
 ed to the judiciary for the time being is granted and 
 gone from the people as if annihilated ! Is that senti- 
 ment really entertained ? Is that the gentleman from 
 Loudoun's serious theory of our republican institutions? 
 Is that the true doctrine, that the delegation of a pow- 
 er from the people to their mere trustees and agents 
 acting for them, to be held and in parts and parcels 
 such as they themselves define by special limitations to 
 be exercised for them and held responsible to them, is 
 granted and gone for the time being as if annihilated ? 
 I think I heard the gentleman aright, and that I have 
 not misunderstood his words. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I wish the gentleman when he in- 
 tends to do me the honor to reply to any remarks 
 of mine, would first take notes of them, for the human 
 memory is a frail thing. What I said was precisely 
 this : That the sovereign ,power belonged in the peo- 
 ple ; that they could not exercise it, but had to dele- 
 gate it, the legislative power for example, to the 
 general assembly ; and that during the time for which 
 it was delegated, for all practical purposes, it was gone 
 from the people as effectually as if annihilated. That is 
 what I said. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I exactly understood the gentleman, al- 
 though I have not exactly repeated his words. I am 
 speaking in ■ his presence, and my friend must pardon 
 me for not taking notes— notes bother me very much. 
 Mr. JANNEY. Very probably. [Laughter.] 
 Mr. WISE. Yes, and I find these " duel's amang 
 us taking notes," they are very troublesome. I have 
 sometimes to exercise my mind, and I find it well ex- 
 ercised in listening to the gentleman. He repeats the 
 idea that the delegation of this power for the time 
 being is equivalent to its annihilation. I scout that 
 doctrine toto c<xU>! It is not so. The people when 
 they grant executive power grant it to a servant of 
 their own, an organized being of the people, and 
 the power is still theirs, theirs precisely, theirs 
 potentially, as much in fact as in theory. ~No wonder 
 that with this doctrine that the delegation of power to 
 the public agents is a grant of power of the people and 
 an annihilation of the power of the people, that the 
 gentleman should have uttered the startling fact here 
 that our superintendant of the penitentiary, yclept a 
 Governor, was equal in power with Queen Victoria 
 herself. That was the first time I ever knew of it. I 
 ask the gentleman, ai d in connection the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton,) who has avowed the 
 same doctrines, whether the Governor of Virginia has 
 any rights of prerogative ? Let us understand the ques- 
 tion and the distinction between a republican executive 
 and this principle of monarchy ? Has the .President of 
 the United States, or the Executive of any State in this 
 Union, any right of monarchy ? Why, you may have a 
 king with scarcely any power at all, and you may have 
 him elective and still be a king ; and you may have a 
 republican executive with a vast deal of power entrust- 
 ed to him, and yet be a pure republican officer. We 
 have many kings of the old world who are elective, 
 and there are several kings now on the continent of 
 Europe who have very little power, but yet they are 
 kings ; and our President, with a great deal of power, 
 
 is not a king, and why ? Because a king is such in his 
 nature. What is a king? His power is not derived 
 from the people, not held from the people, and not re- 
 sponsible to the people ; and his right to the crown, by 
 hereditary right, by the right of prerogative, and by 
 the doctrine of majesty, makes the king, and not the 
 investment of power in the hands of one man. Once 
 I heard the idea of this concentration of power in the 
 hands of one man expressed in a phrase and in a tone 
 which made the blood course quickly through my veins, 
 by a man of whom I never wish to speak on this earth. 
 The worst wish I have for him on earth is, that he was 
 only about my age in life — that he was a great deal 
 younger than he is — for reasons good or bad, that is 
 nothing to* you, sir. I heard Henry Clay of Kentucky, 
 in the Senate of the United States, upon the removal 
 of the deposites express that idea once, and it wrs the 
 most magnificent sentence he ever did utter. And, by 
 the by, with all his eloquence, I hardly ever heard a 
 good speech from him in my life. I could listen to it 
 while it was being delivered, but could never read it 
 after it was printed. He said, on the occasion to 
 which I have referred : " Mr. President, we are in the 
 midst of a revolution; hitherto bloodless, but rapidly 
 tending to the concentration of all power in the hands 
 of one man." And from that day to this there has 
 been an awful "raw head and bloody bones" horror in 
 this country of the concentration of all power in the 
 hands of one man. He was alluding at that time to 
 what he considered to be usurpation, and the unlaw- 
 ful and unorganized exercise of power, unsanctioned 
 by a constitution and unsanctioned by the grant of the 
 people. But do geutlemen mean here to say that we 
 create kingly power, in its nature, by giving mere exec- 
 utive functions, executive or not, in fact, t in the sense 
 of Montesquieu, and as defined by all the writers ? Sir, 
 it is a remarkable fact that in the formation of our 
 federal government for example, we have taken the 
 most vast of the powers which are executive in their 
 nature, from the executive department, and transferred 
 them to the legislative department. I cannot for- 
 get a criticism which I heard Mr. John Q. Adams 
 once make on the constitution of the United States, 
 when he said that it first declared "that the very high- 
 est attribute of executive power, as described by the 
 writers — the power to declare war and make peace — • 
 should be vested in the Congress, and then vested the 
 executive power in a President. Though the executive 
 power is vested in a President, yet all powers which are 
 in their nature executive even, are not given to the Pres- 
 ident, and no prerogative power whatever is given to him 
 or to any of our State Governors. You have stripped 
 the executive of a great deal of executive power in 
 this country, and there is the error of the gentleman 
 from Fauquier (Mr. Chilton.) His idea of monarchy 
 is derived from the confounding of royal executive 
 power with the mere representative executive power. 
 
 The placing of the power in the hand of one man does 
 not make it royal — it does not make the power itself a 
 prerogative power. No, it is a representative power; 
 and for the very reason that the nature of* the duties 
 require it, a unit representative is required by the con- 
 stitution, limited in his powers, responsible in his du- 
 ties, holding nothing, but as, and of, and for the peo- 
 ple, and all by virtue of the constitutional grant of 
 the people — no not granted, and I beg the reporter to 
 throw away that word whenever I use it, but merely 
 delegated. It is then power to them and from them, 
 and is not only exercised for them, but in fact is exer- 
 cised by them. The executive is but the hand, the eye, 
 the arm of the people — their power, merely personified 
 — that is all. The power is not annihilated. If you 
 make it a prerogative power, if you carry out this con- 
 servative idea that there must be an admixture of 
 monarchy in your executive, why then forsooth the gen- 
 tleman is right. The very moment you convey by the 
 constitution perogative power independent of the peo- 
 
208 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 pie, then and then only is the power of the people anni- 
 hilated ; and some gentlemen have such strong notions 
 of government and conservatism that I wonder they have 
 not carried out that idea. I have been corrected about 
 that word conservativeism — Webster calls it " conserva- 
 tism ;" that is Mr. Webster's word, but the party word of 
 this country is " conservativeism." That is the techni- 
 cality of the day, and it means, as has been explained, 
 a party that holds that there is a prerogative power or 
 royal attribute of the executive. I deny it altogether, 
 and when I speak to gentlemen about a pure republic 
 and pure republicanism, I mean the word pure in its two 
 fold and double sense — an unmixed republic and an 
 undefiled republic, an unmixed democracy and an unde- 
 filed democracy. And you can have in tiat sense 
 and in either sense as pure, that is as unmixed, as pure, 
 that is as unadulterated, a democracy in the form of 
 this representative principle as you can have it en masse. 
 And I go further, and say that a democracy thus con- 
 stituted, representative, unadulterated, and unmixed, 
 either with aristocracy or with monarchy, is the least 
 destructive principle upon the face of God's earth — 
 that it builds up and does not destroy. It is aristocracy 
 and perogative and royal power which destroys ; 
 it is that conservatism or conservativeism which as- 
 sumes to be the God saving power by the right di- 
 vine. All here proclaim, and I can say with truth 
 that I little thought I should ever be called on, or that 
 there should be any necessity that I should proclaim that 
 I recognise no royal or sovereign power on this earth, 
 and that I recognise none in the universe except that 
 Omnipotent power which created and can destroy. 
 No, the power of the people in the delegation of mere 
 municipal government to their agents is not annihilated ; 
 is not even granted, it is merely delegated in trust, and 
 exists just as potentially — is just as much from the peo- 
 ple, of the people, to the people in every sense, going, 
 coming, abiding or acting as if all the power was reserv- 
 ed and undelegated. No wonder, then, that with these 
 ideas, the gentleman from Loudoun and myself do not ' 
 agree. No, we will diverge as opposite as the poles ; 
 and, it is not worth while to conceal it, it is to pervade 
 every idea of government, and these differences be- 
 tween us are to continue throughout. I see it and let 
 it be met at once. It is the fresh, pure and unadulter- 
 ated democratic principle at war with a democracy, 
 mixed with aristocracy and monrchy. 
 
 Now as to the power that you are to give to the execu- 
 tive. Will it be much or little ? If it is but little power 
 that he is to have, then practically the question is not 
 worth debating about, but if it is much power which you 
 propose to give him hereafter, the more steadfastly will 
 1 contend for the doctrine of eligibility. In what — I 
 failed to see it in anything that was said by the gentle- 
 man from Loudoun — is the purity of the exercise of 
 the executive power promoted by this doctrine of ineli- 
 gibility ? He has detailed to us for the purpose of illus- 
 tration, the additions that were made to the power of 
 the Governor in commissioning a number of officers such 
 as inspectors, by the legislature last year at the Fau- 
 quier Springs, and he tells us that all these Bureau 
 Arms, these tenticles of the executive, the inspectors 
 and bank officers, &c, may be weilded for and in aid of 
 his own re-election. I thought I had argued that on 
 yesterday with my frienG from the south side. Will 
 the. gentleman please to tell me, for I cannot see, how 
 ineligibility in office would purify or restrain the exercise 
 of undue power. Suppose the democratic party gets a 
 Governor in office, does his re-eligibility or ineligibility 
 touch the question of the purity of his office at all ? 
 Not at all. The democratic party elect a Governor, he 
 has all this power and patronage under his control, and 
 may he not, I ask the gentleman from Loudoun, wield 
 it just as potentially and corruptly to select a successor 
 of his own party as to re-elect himself? Why un- 
 doubtedly. And he is more liable to do so, for as 
 I have before contended, a man will do an improper 
 
 thing for his party which he will not do for himself. A 
 strong party in the legislature demands of the Gov- 
 ernor that he shall wield his patronage, not only for his 
 own re-election, but for the re-election of all his parti- 
 sans — not for himself but for his party — and what do 
 you gain in the purity of the office ? Nothing, but you 
 do lose everything in the responsibility. The man may 
 be called upon to do an act which he would not dare do 
 if he had to go back to the people to canvass for his re- 
 election, but knowing that he is ineligible, he will obey 
 the behests of his party not only without a blush but 
 with impunity. So far then as the question of the 
 amount of power is concerned, it matters not touching 
 the purity of the office, and so far as whether the power 
 will be abused or not, it matters not, and nothing that 
 the gentleman from Loudoun has said tends to show 
 that that ineligility will secure purity in the office. 
 On the contrary, 1 reply again, the capacity to be re- 
 elected, tends if anything, to put him on his good beha- 
 vior, and will cause him to do that for which he de- 
 serves to be rewarded in his own person. And what is 
 the result of that argument in the converse — where a 
 governor is not popular with the legislature, where 
 the just and the good man will be maligned in office, 
 where for doing his duty and refusing to discharge the 
 duties of his office, in aid of the prostitution and cor- 
 ruption of party, he may be arraigned by partizans ? 
 You leave him no opportunity to appeal from a corrupt 
 legislature to a pure constituency. 
 
 The gentleman from Loudoun has said that he has heard 
 a great deal of talk about the infallibility of the people. 
 Now, I feel that I should daily, so far as I am concerned, 
 and I have not a constituent, so far as I know, who ought 
 not to put up the prayer without ceasing, " God be mer- 
 ciful to me a sinner." We are hardly capable of doing 
 the first worthy act, hardly worthy of salvation itself, 
 and can be made worthy of it only by the blood of the 
 atonement. And it is the fallibility of your public agents 
 that I wish to guard against, and that lam bound to 
 guard against, more than , against the fallibility of the 
 people. We are told that the people may err, and re- 
 elect a man whom they ought not to re-elect. And have 
 they not a right to do it ? What would I say of the 
 constitution of the State, if I should be told that I did 
 not cultivate my plantation properly, that I knew noth- 
 ing of agricultural chemistry, or of the science of hus- 
 bandry ; that \ might err in making a corn crop, and 
 that the constitution undertook to regulate it for me ? I 
 would ask the constitution and the constitution makers, 
 very sedately, what right have you to interpose between 
 me and my private rights ? Is it necessary for the gov- 
 ernmental purposes of mere municipal administration 
 that you should take into your hands my power to make 
 my corn crop ? No, it is not necessary. Well, then, is 
 it necessary that you should take into your hands and 
 limit the power of the people to select their own officers 
 and to say what man they shall and shall not re-elect ? 
 If it is necessary, if you can show me that it promotes 
 purity in office, or secures purity in office, then I shall 
 not object. But if it is a vain and unnecessary restric- 
 tion, one that leaves the officer more temptation of falli- 
 bility, one that does not improve the condition of the 
 country and the people, one that does not come within 
 either contingency so clearly laid down by the gentleman 
 who sets before me, (Mr. Neeson,) to whom personally 
 I return most cordially my thanks for the very able and. 
 clear views which he presented to us — I say this power 
 of the people should be reserved to the sovereigns them- 
 selves, and that there is no necessity to delegate it to 
 these mere municipal agents. What is the doctrine 
 laid down by the gentleman from Henrico ? The posi- 
 tion has not been met, unless those who advocate the 
 restriction can show the necessity for it, the argument 
 fails. 
 
 But gentlemen take up the other ground that this ex- 
 isting constitution is something that is not to be invaded ! 
 The question here is about the change of the present con- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 209 
 
 stitution, and they would have us governed by the rule, 
 stare decisis. I was seat here expressly to break down 
 that rule. I came here, and I tell gentlemen most em- 
 phatically that it is a vain argument, when they urge it 
 on me^-it is the precise question which we have here 
 for discussion — what change shall we make in this con- 
 stitution ? I do not know that miserable wreck of ideas 
 and curse of Virginia, the present constitution of the 
 State ! I do not come here to amend it at all ; it is not 
 worth amending, not worth the work of a cobble. I came 
 here to start the constitution anew — to lay anew the ship 
 of State from kelson to truck. I will begin now, and I 
 will start with the power of the people. Ah, gentlemen, 
 if you have heard of the power of the people to your 
 annoyance thus far, you shall hear it and re-hear it, as 
 long as I have voice and lungs, until your ears will tingle 
 in your sleep with theory of the people, the people, the 
 people ! No, all the gravity in the world, all the impos- 
 ing and impressive airs that can be conjured up, can never 
 drive me from the sentiment that I feel out and out to 
 be true, and in me to be irreversible — to have old things 
 torn away, and all made new, the aristocracy of the State 
 to be destroyed, and the power delegated by Heaven to 
 the people and not to us, restored to them. The thun- 
 der and lightning of reform must strike through the 
 waters of this commonwealth to purify them and relieve 
 them from their stagnant green scum. 1 would draw 
 from the fountains of life to purify the waters in her 
 streams and fountains. Let the stagnant tadpole pools 
 of lo land Virginia receive the rills of the mountain. 
 
 " The voice of freedom is not a still small voice ; 
 'Tis in the fire, the thunder and the storm, 
 The Goddess of .Liberty delights to dwell. 
 If rightly 1 foresee (Virginia's fate,) 
 The hour of peril is the halcyon hour ; 
 The shock ol parties brings her best repose, 
 Like her wild waves, when working in a stoim, 
 That foam and roar, and mingle earth and heaven, 
 Yet guard the shore which they seem to shake." 
 And that my friend from Loudoun will find to be the 
 real, the holy, the purifying conservatism by which every 
 man in this republic ought to be guided — action ! action ! 
 and action, if you please — brought on by the winds and 
 storms of agitation itself. It is required, it is necessary 
 to regenerate this old commonwealth of ours and we 
 must have it. Great God, I cannot repress a thousand 
 thoughts that crowd around me ? You have done long 
 and long ago with the school of Oxford ; you must take 
 up the school of Cambridge. It is the hour of physics, 
 not of metaphysics. I shall adhere to one old thing 
 in this commonwealth, by adhering to the re-eligibility, 
 that has always delighted me when Hook at the relation 
 between the people of Virginia and their public servants, 
 and that is the faithfulness, the constancy with which 
 the people of Virginia, when they have once tried and 
 trusted their public servants, adhere to them. It gives 
 their public servants a moral power, it gives them a 
 strength, and actually purifies them for public life. How 
 many years did that most excellent man, Burwell Bas- 
 set, represent the Williamsburg district in Congress? 
 Nearly thirty. How long did Thomas Newton repre- 
 sent the borough of Norfolk ? Thirty-one years, I am 
 told. Has Missouri lost any thing by even returning 
 Tom Benton to the Senate ? [Laughter.] I am obliged 
 to say it — no. Bad as is even Tom Benton, I will take 
 the worst example that could be adduced against me on 
 the face of God's earth — I'll take big Bully Bottom 
 himself — did Missouri ever lose any thing by her con- 
 stancy, even though it were to Tom Benton? No, she 
 has wielded a power in this country, that she would not 
 otherwise have wielded, and the moment that he got to 
 be past endurance, and a crying shame to her, she sent 
 him home at last — if he has a home — though I do not 
 believe he has a home on this earth. 
 
 I have got another idea which is just as common as the 
 grass of the field, and which, like that grass, I tried upon 
 the idea, that because public men are public men, they 
 necessarily are corrupt. I deny it. It is due to the 
 public men of this country, to ourselves, to myself to 
 
 say, and I appeal to every man who has ever been in 
 public life to say, whether the public life and service of 
 the people in this country tends to corrupt a man or not. 
 It does not. I deny it, and on the contrary, I assert 
 that the very reverse is the fact; and that as you elevate 
 the man to the discharge of higher duties in life, you 
 elevate his morals. And I can say it with pride and 
 pleasure, that I have seen as a lawyer at the bar, and I 
 will appeal to the profession whether I am right or 
 wrong, more lower vice in private life than I have ever 
 seen in public life. If it be true that public life is cor- 
 rupting, then our liberties cannot last. What are you, 
 gentlemen, but public men? Are we corrupted by our 
 places here, or would we be in any office in the executive, 
 judiciary, or legislative department? Not at all. No, 
 the bad man, the corrupt man is the bad man, the cor- 
 rupt man, whether you place him in public or private 
 life. The dishonest politician is a scoundrel, place him 
 where you will. It is not public life that corrupts the 
 public man— not at all. And I say that public service, 
 the honor, the pride, the dignity of serving the people, 
 elevates the man in the moral scale, binds him to the 
 duty of self-examination, and makes him feel that if he 
 does not possess real virtue, he must at all events imi- 
 tate it, in order to be worthy of his station. Whence 
 comes this outcry which we often hear against politi- 
 cians and public men ? My friend, I am sure, will never 
 interpret the remark I am about to make as applicable 
 to him, for he is worthy of all his influence both in pub- 
 lic and private life. Whence comes this outcry which 
 we often hear against the politicians and the public 
 men of the country for their corruption and their abuses. 
 There are ten to one the number of the public men in 
 this country of those who desire the places of the pub- 
 lic men, and nine times out of ten when you hear some 
 trusty politician, some pure patriot denouncing public 
 men in their place, two to one if it is not some knave 
 that has been disappointed in getting that very public 
 place. 
 
 Let us set ourselves right all around. The people are 
 not to be trusted, because they are fallible ! Who is to 
 be their guardian, will gentlemen tell me? Who is to 
 set up to be the God Almighty of the earth to correct 
 their errors? Leave that to Heaven. Leave it to the 
 pulpit. Leave it to the schools. Educate your people 
 and you will find them infinitely more fit and worthy 
 than any other tribunal or body that could be created, 
 not only to elect but to select their public agents. The 
 gentleman from Halifax, (Mr. Edmunds,) and the gen- 
 tleman from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Tredway,) I must do 
 them the justice to say, did this subject justice. They 
 argued the question fairly upon the ground of expedien- 
 cy, and not upon principle, and attempted to show the 
 fact that this restriction was necessary. But when lam 
 told that the restriction is made merely because the 
 people may err and not select a good man, I ask gentle- 
 men who urge that argument, what business have you, 
 a worm of the earth also, to undertake to set your falli- 
 bility above the fallibility of the people, and correct 
 their errors? Aye, but they tell us it is all necessary 
 and essential to protect the minority. What has a mi- 
 nority or majority to do with the question of the princi- 
 ple of ineligibility or eligibility ? Nothing. If you make 
 the officer eligible, it is true the majority will always 
 re-elect him, if they choose, over the minority. And if 
 you make him ineligible, the majority still will elect his 
 successor at their will over the minority. How, then, 
 does the principle of eligibility or ineligibility affect 
 the rights of the minority or majority? I will tell you 
 one way in which it affects it. In JEsop's Fables — 
 
 A MEMBER, Will the gentleman give way for a 
 motion that the committee rise ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. No, no. I rose merely to reply to the 
 gentleman from Loudoun, and had no intention of occu- 
 pying the time of the committee, as long as I have. I 
 blame him for all this. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I'll take the responsibility. [Renewed 
 laughter.] 
 
 Mr. WISE. I was about to close by saying that I 
 
210 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 read once, of a people who happened to he a people in 
 a pond. I read once of a people called frogs, who had 
 a King Log, whom they treated with the greatest in- 
 dignity, whom they hopped on, for he had no power of 
 action whatever. This people at last, dissatisfied with 
 their king, called on Jupiter to give them another — that 
 is what you ask who favor ineligibility — and he threw 
 them another, the stork, a king who devoured them. 
 How, I ask the minority, will you better your condition, 
 and in what particular will your rights be protected by 
 the principle of ineligibility more than by the principle 
 of eligibility. If the majority give you a man to-day 
 whom you do not like, if you force him to go out of of- 
 fice, they may give you King Stork for King Log. The 
 majority first and last will rule you. 
 
 My friend from Fauquier, I am afraid, will come back 
 upon me, and give me another rebuke. I beg of him not 
 to quote upon me Jack Falstaff again. [Laughter.] I 
 know he won't promise, for I see a laughing devil in his 
 eye. I tell him, and I mean it for no idle threat, be- 
 ware, beware. [Laughter.] 
 
 And then, on motion of Mr. CHILTON, the commit- 
 tee rose. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned until to-morrow morn- 
 ing, at 11 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February, 12, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Jones, of the Episcopal 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 JOURNAL OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS intimated a desire to present a reso- 
 lution requiring the Secretary to keep a journal of the 
 proceedings in Committee of the Whole, giving as a 
 reason, therefore, the fact that it was impossible — the 
 yeas and nays not being taken in committee — to ascer- 
 tain with sufficient accuracy the decision of questions. 
 He referred to instances in former Conventions in re- 
 gard to which, from the absense of a rule requiring such 
 ajournal to be kept, there was great doubt as to the 
 actual votes. He would not offer it unless it would 
 meet the general wish of the Convention. 
 
 There being considerable opposition manifested, Mr. 
 Hopkins did not submit the resolution. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON". Some time since a report of the 
 Committee on the Right of Suffrage and the qualifica- 
 tions of members elected to the general assembly, was 
 laid on the table and ordered to be printed. I now 
 move that the report be taken up and considered with 
 a view to its reference to the Committee of the 
 Whole. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the report was ac- 
 cordingly taken up and referred to the Committee of 
 Whole. 
 
 REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DE- 
 PARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The Committee on the Legislative 
 Department have, according to order, had under con- 
 sideration a resolution on the subject to which the re- 
 port relates, and have instructed me to make the fol- 
 lowing report : 
 
 The Committee on the Legislative Department of the 
 Government having, according to order, had under con- 
 sideration a resolution to them referred, instructing 
 them to inquire into the expediency of inserting into 
 the Constitution a clause providing, " That no law shall 
 be passed abolishing or impairing the rights of individu- 
 als in their property without the consent of the owners 
 thereof,' ' and have resolved to recommend the adoption 
 of the following clause, to wit : 
 
 " The legislature shall not by any act call in question 
 the right of property or slaves, nor abolish slavery with- 
 in the limits of this Commonwealth." 
 
 \ 
 
 The report was laid on the table and ordered to be 
 printed. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment have also had under consideration a resolution 
 of Mr. McCamant, in relation to the publication and 
 distribution of the laws of the Commonwealth, and 
 direct me to report that it is inexpedient that such a 
 clause should be incorporated in the Constitution. I 
 ask that the report be laid on the table. I shall not 
 ask for its printing. 
 
 Mr. WISE moved that the report be printed. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment have under consideration certain resolutions 
 offered by Mr. Wise, in relation to the restrictions on 
 legislative power, in relation to the veto power, and 
 also in relation to the subject of levying a tax in the 
 nature of a premium on insurance, and ask to be dis- 
 charged from the further consideration of the same. 
 
 The report, on motion of Mr. Wise, was laid on the 
 table and ordered to be printed. 
 
 restriction of debate. i 
 
 Mr. STRAUGHAN. I hold in my hand a resolu- 
 tion which I wish to offer. It is known that this is 
 the 12th day that the amendment now before the 
 Committee of the Whole has been under discussion, 
 and my resolution is — 
 
 Resolved, That the debate in the Committee of the 
 Whole on the pending amendments be concluded to-day 
 at half-past 2 o'clock. 
 
 My object in offering the resolution is not to pre- 
 vent any gentleman from speaking who wishes to ad- 
 dress the committee ; bnt it appears that the twelve 
 days is sufficiently long enough to discuss one single 
 amendment. 
 
 Yesterday we had notice given by the gentleman from 
 Kanawha, (Mr. Summers,) that he would move to take 
 up the report of the Committee on the Basis Question, 
 and I hope, therefore, the debate will be terminated to- 
 day, because, if this question is postponed until after 
 the report of the Basis Committee is disposed of, when 
 it again comes before the committee, this whole discus- 
 sion will have to be gone over again, and equally as 
 much time be again consumed by it. My object is not 
 to prevent any gentleman from speaking who wishes 
 to address the committee, and I really think that I 
 can offer this resolution with a good grace, from the 
 fact that I have not spoken and do not intend to speak 
 on this question. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I hope the resolution will not be adopted. 
 I move that it be laid on the table. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was 
 laid on the table. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CN THE JUDICIARY. 
 
 On motion of Mr. MONCURE, the report of the 
 committee on the judiciary was taken up from the table 
 and referred to the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The Convention, then, on motion of Mr. HALL, re- 
 sumed the consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
 (Mr. Watts, of Norfolk in the chair,) of the report of the 
 Committee on the Executive Department. 
 
 RE-ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the first 
 section of the first article of the report, and the amend- 
 ments pending thereto. 
 
 Mr , CHILTON. I feel very sensibly the embarrass- 
 ment of my position. I feel that, in part, probably 
 owing to myself, the discussion of the question which 
 has engaged the' consideration of this committee for 
 some days past, has taken a range, a latitude, and 
 embraced such a variety of subjects as to have di- 
 verted, to a considerable extent, our minds from the 
 true question. 
 
VIR&INIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 211 
 
 The rebuke administered on yesterday by the gen- 
 tleman from Loudoun (Mr. Ja^xet) was deserved, and 
 I take my full share of it, and should apologize to this 
 committee for again trespassing upon their attention, 
 if it were not for what has occurred in relation to my- 
 self, and the position that I have taken. I charge no 
 gentleman with intentional misrepresentation. It is 
 misconception, no doubt; but whatever it be, it 
 puts me, in the opinion of many of my friends, in a 
 false position. I said when I addressed the committee 
 some days since, that I was indifferent, when this 
 proposition was first moved by the gentleman from 
 Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) as to its fate ; that such was my 
 first impression, and that I was induced to change this 
 impression by the propositions announced by the gen- 
 tleman who moved this amendment, and by the gentle- 
 man from Accomac (Mr. Wise) who came directly to 
 his aid, propositions which I had come here pledged to 
 meet and resist to the utmost of the feeble ability 
 that I might possess. 
 
 In the canvass which resulted in my election as a 
 member of this body, I took the positions I have taken, 
 or such as I intended to take, here. I know they were 
 fully understood by the people who sent me here, and 
 having avowed and discussed them fully before them, I 
 came here pledged to carry them out. A remark I made in 
 the progress of my former speech, to the effect that I would 
 not consult my constituents respecting my action, has 
 been referred to in debate, and misunderstood. I have 
 been misrepresented in regard to it, not intentionally, 
 as I have already said. I shall take occasion, in the 
 progress of the remarks I make at this time, to set my- 
 self right in this matter. I may be permitted to say 
 here that I have never been a politician. It is true that 
 the people I now represent, in conjunction with others, 
 honored me with a position in politics of some distinc- 
 tion—a seat in the Congress of the United States. I 
 held it for one term. I found that I was not suited to 
 politics, or that politics did not suit me, and I retired 
 voluntarily from it, when, I hope I may be permitted 
 to say here, without boasting, I might have been re- 
 elected without opposition. I therefore meet the two 
 distinguished gentlemen to whom I have alluded in dis- 
 cussion, upon the subject of politics, on terms of great 
 inequality. I had, it is true, in preparation for the pro- 
 fession which has engaged my pursuit for the last twen- 
 ty-one or twenty-two years, studied the science of gov- 
 ernment, the principles of government being intimately 
 connected with, and necessary to, the proper understand- 
 ing and prosecution of the duties of that profession. I 
 have, in connection with my professional pursuits, given 
 attention to the politics of the day, and to what I have 
 said to be the science of government. I came here 
 thinking there was a science of government ; not, I 
 agree, one of the certain sciences, not mathematical 
 science — not mechanical science — not a science by which 
 the governmental machine could be adjusted to certain 
 action ; but I came here believing, because I have been 
 so taught, that there was a science of government — that 
 there were books that taught that science — that there 
 were elemental principles of government, and that 
 they were undisputed — universally received. I thought 
 that Vattel, and Montesquieu, and a whole host of others, 
 as I had been ta ught to regard them, were authorities 
 upon this subject. I thought that the sages of the revo- 
 lution, their opinions, their teachings, were authority 
 upon this subject. I thought that Marshall, Kent, and 
 Story, and all the eminent men of our own country, 
 who have written on the elementary principles of gov- 
 ernment for the instruction of those who Were to have 
 a hand in its administration, understood something of 
 the subject upon which they wrote ; that they were au- 
 thority to be relied upon ; that their teachings were to 
 be guides for our instruction. Bnt I am mistaken, if 
 gentlemen on the other side be correct. If I under- 
 stand the positions taken upon the other side, what all 
 these men have taught, however it may have been au- 
 
 thority for past time, is no authority for the present — 
 that it is not to be regarded here — that it is something 
 past and — to be now resorted to, rather to gratify 
 curiosity, than for instruction, I had learned, Mr. Chair- 
 man, if I had learned anything of the principles of gov- 
 ernment, that ours was a mixed government. I had 
 learned that there were three great elements of gov- 
 ernment — monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and 
 that the history of the world showed that these three 
 forms of government had, at various times and in sun- 
 dry places, existed in their purity ; that there had 
 been pure democracy, pure aristocracy, and pure mon- 
 archy, which I understand to be absolute despotism. I 
 did understand that a new form of government, un- 
 known to the ancient world, had in later times arisen, 
 which was called a republican government — a mixed 
 government. The British government is a mixed gov- 
 ernment, but it is called a monarchy, and why ? Be- 
 cause the monarchical element predominates in it. Ours 
 is called a republican government — why ? Because the 
 republican or popular principle predominates aad has 
 control in it. 
 
 There is no writer that I have cited who has not 
 called it a mixed government — a compound government — 
 a government in which the elements of monarchy, aris- 
 tocracy, and democracy are mixed up — the infusion of 
 the monarchical and aristocratic elements being as slight 
 as the nature of efficient government would admit of. 
 When gentlemen in a contest of this sort meet positions 
 such as those I take, with a denial that there is any 
 foundation for such positions, there is an end of argu- 
 ment, x^o argument of any proposition in the legiti- 
 mate sense of argument can take place between gen- 
 tlemen unless they can start from some conceded point. 
 Where the premises on both sides, the very starting 
 point, is a matter of controversy, and is denied upon 
 the one side or the other, there can be no argument. 
 Because, if I understand argument by induction, the 
 only just mode of argument, there must be a starting 
 point, or it cannot exist. 
 
 Now, sir, I am not a monarchist, not at all. I am no 
 aristocrat. I am one neither in fortune, in taste, nor in 
 habits. 
 
 Mr. WISE. It requires pride also. 
 Mr. CHILTON. The gentleman says it takes pride 
 to make an aristocrat. There are many kinds of pride ; 
 just pride I hope every gentleman in this assembly pos- 
 sesses, pride of independence, pride of truth, pride of 
 justice, that sort of pride which every man who has any 
 self-respect must possess. There is another sort of 
 pride founded upon contempt for our fellow men, found- 
 ed in a spirit which I will not stop to define and char- 
 acterize, a pride which leads man rather to despise and 
 injure than to esteem and assist his fellow man. That 
 sort of pride I trust I do not possess, and if it be neces- 
 sary to make an aristocrat, I have not a single particle 
 of the ingredient in me — not in my nature certainly, 
 and I think not in my opinions. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I shall take it for granted, whatever 
 gentlemen say on the other side, however they may 
 deny it, I must rest before this Convention and before 
 those who sent me here, as believing to be true and 
 sound, the positions that I take, that in every republican 
 government, the three ingredients to which I have re- 
 ferred are found in existence — the features of a mon- 
 archical, an aristocratical, and a democratical govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Now, I do not mean to contend that the executive 
 office has all the monarchical features, or that every 
 feature attached to it is monarchical. I do not intend 
 to maintain before this Convention that the aristocrati- 
 cal feature is a pure aristocracy; nor do I mean to con- 
 tend, nor will the gentlemen on the other side contend, 
 that the government we propose to establish is a pure 
 democracy. It cannot be so contended. It is im- 
 possible in view of the very work in which we are 
 engaged, of the very manner in which we are to per- 
 form it, and the results which are to flow from it : 
 
212 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 it is utterly impossible, I say, for any gentleman to main- 
 tain that the government which we are about to estab- 
 lish will be a pure democracy. And why, let me ask, 
 should not these elements be mixed up together? We 
 may draw lessons sometimes from nature. "We some- 
 times see the mingling of good and evil essentially ne- 
 cessarv to the production of what is useful and good. In 
 the medical world we see poisons the most deleterious 
 when taken alone, when infused and mixed with other 
 ingredients, become the most sanitary medicines. I 
 myself have often taken arsenic in no inconsiderable 
 quantities, but it was in solution mixed with other in- 
 gredients. It was taken for disease and resulted in 
 cure. Yes, I wish to give a government to you mixed 
 ip as you have always had it. I wish to keep you to a 
 governmental medicine, a political food upon which you 
 have fed and grown from almost helpless infancy to ma- 
 ture and vigorous manhood. 
 
 It is a very small matter to me what you call me — 
 you may call me monarchist, aristocrat, democratic re- 
 publican, or what you please, so long as you make these 
 names merely, the foundation of your attacks upon me, 
 I shall not complain or care to argue with you. I meet 
 your attacks now because they are calculated to put me 
 in a false position, and make me misunderstood. Call 
 my principles by what name you please, yet meet the 
 substance of my propositions, meet them face to face, 
 bold, upright and vanquish me in the argument, and I 
 will be the last man on the face of the earth to complain. 
 I will go further, and say that I can be convinced if I 
 am wrong, and if convinced I will acknowledge it, and 
 reform my opinions accordingly. 
 
 While upon this branch of my remarks, I will pro- 
 ceed to say all that 1 have to say upon these fundamen- 
 tal principles of government. I will pass from this 
 question on the elements of government, and endeavor 
 to get at something more practical. I understand the 
 position of the gentleman from Accomac to be this: and 
 in which I perfectly concur with him to a certain ex- 
 tent — that all lawful governmental power resides in the 
 people, belongs to the people, emanates from them, and 
 is to be exercised in that manner and to the extent they 
 declare it shall be exercised, and none other; and that 
 any power that is exercised outside of this rule and this 
 definition, is usurped and unlawful power. I agree to 
 this proposition entirely ; but the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac goes a step further. It is to my mind the great 
 fallacy of the positions of gentlemen who have argued 
 this question. They perpetually resolve themselves in- 
 to a state ©f nature, a state that I do not believe ever 
 did exist — I mean politically — I do not believe that from 
 the time of the expulsion from Eden down to this day, 
 there has ever been found a people who did not recog- 
 nize some law, however absurd, however unwise, how- 
 ever oppressive it might be ; I say I do not believe that 
 a people ever did exist, who did not recognize some es- 
 tablished form of government. There have been bad 
 governments enough certainly, there have been usurped 
 governments, there have been despotisms, there have 
 been governments of every description ; but for the 
 time being they were the government, and those over 
 whom their jurisdiction extended, were subject to them. 
 We are certainly not in a state of nature in this com- 
 monwealth. We have an established government. We 
 have an established system of laws. We have institu- 
 tions, we have rights, and we hold them all under the 
 authority and in virtue of the existing government, every 
 one of them; and I stand here to deny that the people 
 of this State — and when we speak of the people in a 
 political sense I take it for granted that we speak of 
 that portion who wield the political power — can law- 
 fully and rightfully change the existing government 
 without the assent of that government. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Worse and worse! 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. It may be worse and worse, but if 
 the gentleman will have a little patience, I think I will 
 show him that it is true. The gentleman on yesterday 
 objected to a definition made by the gentleman from 
 Loudoun, (Mr. Janney,) that the sovereign, political I 
 
 ^ — . 
 
 power of the State was divided into three depart- 
 ments—executive, legislative and judicial— and he scout- 
 ed the idea that that was any division of sovereignty at 
 all, but said that it was a mere municipal division. He 
 said subsequently, it was true, that there were three de- 
 partments or divisions of sovereign power, but that 
 there was another division, and that was the reserved 
 power. I so understood the gentleman. Now I confess 
 that I do not understand the gentleman's proposition. I 
 do not understand what he meant by reserved power. I 
 did suppose that when the government of this State or 
 any other sovereign State was formed, the fundamental 
 law embodied the whole sovereign power that then ex- 
 isted. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman does not understand me, 
 I think when he does get to understand me, that he will 
 find himself, I hope, convinced of his error. That gov- 
 ernment which is divided into the three departments, le- 
 gislative, executive and judical, is a mere creature of the 
 sovereign power. It is created by the conventional 
 power. The gentleman understands that. There is a 
 vast, an infinite difference between the power of the 
 mere creature, and the power of the creator, just the 
 difference of infinity itself. Well, the people having the 
 power of the creator, the conventional power of the sov- 
 ereign, do not to the creature, do not to the mere muni- 
 cipal government, nor can they ever possibly, delegate 
 the whole of their sovereign creative power. All then 
 that they do not delegate to the creature, remains and 
 abides with themselves. The bare statement of this 
 great truth, which the gentleman will find, not in the 
 writers of the old world, but in every American writer, 
 attacks at once the monstrous heresy which he has su- 
 peradded to the others which he has uttered, that the 
 sovereign, the creative power, the conventional power 
 of the State, cannot alter and change the creature, with- 
 out the consent of the creature. He might as well tell 
 me that the God of our being, the God of the universe, 
 could not change the atoms of animate or inanimate na- 
 ture without its consent. I hold that the constitutional 
 power of this people who created, can at will destroy, 
 and without its consent. It is laid down in our declara- 
 tion of independence, in our bill of rights, and in every 
 creed of republican or democratic faith, that any gen- 
 tleman can cite in the whole annals of our entire histo- 
 ry. I never contended that such a thing as pure democ- 
 racy, in the sense in which he understands it, ever ex- 
 isted. Talk about the democracy of Rome and of 
 Athens. They deserve not the name of democracy. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I did not misunderstand the gentle- 
 man. I think I can make it manifest that he is uttering 
 the heresy, and not I. I agree that his position is the 
 legitimate fruit of his principles, as I understand him. I 
 purpose to show, and I think I can show, that his prin- 
 ciples are disorganizing and destructive of all regular 
 established government. The gentleman speaks of con- 
 ventional power. Well, it is a very good name, because 
 we are sitting here under the name of a Convention 
 now; but the gentleman did not define the modus oper- 
 andi of this conventional power. He says that the gov- 
 ernment which now exists is the creature of the sov- 
 ereign power, but it does not embody all the power of 
 the sovereign. I undertake to show that that creature 
 holds in its hand control over the sovereign from which 
 it emanated. I do not mean to rest upon mere declara- 
 tions, I will rest upon legislative provisions of our own 
 State. The gentleman talks about conventional power. 
 If there be a conventional power, where does it reside? 
 Does he hold upon the Dorrite principle, that the people 
 of this State, without any action upon the part of the 
 legislative authority of the existing government, and it 
 may be against its consent, can lawfully assemble in 
 convention and set up a government in place of the ex- 
 isting government ? That is what I understand to be 
 his position. He says the creature, the existing govern- 
 ment, has no control; that there is a great conventional 
 power superior to the creature. Now, I wish to know 
 where such a power is found. Permit me to read to the 
 gentleman a statute of Virginia, which has existed and 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 213 
 
 bee n in force from the year 1789 I think, and was re- 
 enacted in the new code, and by a democratic legisla- 
 ture too. Does the gentleman know the statute to which 
 I refer. It is this: 
 
 " Treason shall consist only in levying war against 
 the State, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid 
 and comfort, or establishing without the authority of the 
 Legislature, any government within its limits, separate 
 from the existing government, or holding or executing 
 in such usurped governments any office, or professing 
 any allegiance or fidelity to it, or resisting the execu- 
 tion of the laws under color of its authority; and such 
 treason, if proved by the testimony ef two witnesses 
 to the same overt act, or by confession in court, shall 
 be punished with death." 
 
 The gentleman may smile at it, but in my apprehen- 
 sion, if the legislature had power to pass that law, if 
 it is not a nullity upon your statute book, then it upsets 
 the whole position which he assumes. Suppose we 
 were here sitting in Convention without the authority 
 of a legislative provision of the existing government. 
 Suppose we came here sent by the people, and that we 
 framed a constitution, and declared that it shall be the 
 constitution of the State, and that the existing consti- 
 tution be overthrown. If this act of the assembly, as 
 I stated before, be not a dead letter upon your statute 
 book, we who were engaged in such a work, would be 
 guilty of treason. Well, the gentleman may smile. 
 This is, however, my construction, if I am wrong, I 
 would be pleased to have it shown to me. But, Mr. 
 Chairman, if there be any principle which I have un- 
 derstood to appertain in an especial manner to republi- 
 can government, as it exists in these United States, it 
 is this, viz: that it is not within the rightful power of 
 any majority to amend, change or overturn an existing 
 government, without the assent of such government. 
 Suppose it were otherwise. Suppose, as the gentleman 
 imagines, or contends here, this sovereign of whom he 
 speaks, this sovereign who cannot be controlled by its 
 creature, the existing government, a sovereign which, 
 in my view of the matter, resides with and is represent- 
 ed visibly by that portion of the people who wield the 
 political power of the State, in the gentleman's view of 
 it, as I understand him, residing with and represented 
 by the whole people, has the right, in the way that may 
 be most acceptable to it, to abolish the existing govern- 
 ment, and with it to abolish every right and interest 
 which depends upon it, a right that results necessarily 
 from the right to abolish the government itself. Why, 
 in such a state of things what safety is there for person- 
 al rights ? what security is there for rights of proper- 
 ty ? what stability is there in the foundation upon which 
 rests the whole social fabric ? Mr. Chairman, I repeat, 
 that under the statute law of this State, as it has exist- 
 ed almost from the very foundation of our government, 
 any set of men — I care not who, nor how many they 
 be — who, without the sanction and authority of the ex- 
 isting government, assembling themselves together to 
 change or alter that government, or to set up a new 
 government in place of it, and carry such purpose into 
 execution, are guilty of the overt act of treason against 
 the commonwealth. I do not deny the right, or rather 
 the power of revolution, but I suppose there is no gen- 
 tleman upon this floor who will maintain that if our 
 forefathers had been unsuccessful in the war of inde- 
 pendence, that they would not have been responsible as 
 traitors, legally and politically, to the government 
 whose jurisdiction and authority they had as subjects 
 resisted ? I suppose there is nothing more familiar than 
 that successful revolution establishes independence of 
 the power resisted, while unsuccessful revolution ends 
 in treason and subjects the revolutionist to liability to 
 the pains and penalties of that offence. It may be said 
 that I am considering this question as a lawyer. It is 
 the only way in which I have been accustomed to con- 
 sider it. I am not attending so much to the phraseolo- 
 gy as to the substance of things, and it became my du- 
 ty, in the short space of my political career, to investi- 
 gate and consider this very principle which is now an- 
 
 nounced and sustained by gentlemen upon this floor ; 
 the very principle contended for by the gentleman from 
 Accomac, was sought to be put in operation in the State 
 of Rhode Island, by the movement made there a few 
 years since, and known as the Dorr insurrection. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Will the gentleman allow me to say, 
 most emphatically, there is no principle which I have 
 avowed in this discussion, that will give countenance 
 to the idea of Dorrism, and I am prepared at any time 
 to show, that their complexion is very distinct from 
 those entertained by Dorr. Cannot the gentleman see 
 the plain distinction between the natural people defined 
 by the natural law, and the conventional people, defined 
 by the conventional law? It is a distinction as plain as 
 the sunbeam, I think. I take the occasion to thank the 
 gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to disclaim 
 ail Dorrism. 
 
 M.r. CHILTON. Will the gentleman refer me^ to 
 some book that contains that conventional law of which 
 he speaks ? I wish to know where it is found. The 
 book of nature, did some one say? 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman wishes to know what 
 book I refer to, when I speak of the conventional law. 
 Why, I refer to the constitution of the United States. 
 I refer to the constitutions of the different States. 1 re- 
 fer to what is called the constitutions of the British 
 government. The law of nature is divided into two 
 chapters — the law of force and the law of moral right, 
 and the conventional law, which is as much a law of 
 nature as any other thing or being that exists, in that 
 short chapter which interposes to defend the moral 
 right from an invasion by the physical force, and that 
 when organized by the consent of mankind in any form 
 whatever, becomes the conventional law. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. It is my misfortune, no doubt, but 
 I do not understand the gentleman. No doubt, the 
 fault is with me, but I will ask leave to make a remark 
 here — which probably will save the gentleman the ne- 
 cessity of any disclaimer in regard to any principle I 
 may impute to him as the consequence of his opinion — 
 that in this discussion I have been dealt with, or rather 
 my position has been, with gloves off. I have not taken 
 it as personal or objectionable. We need here free and 
 full discussion. My positions have been characterized 
 as monarchical, aristocratical, monstrous, abhorrent, 
 damnable, as positions which the English language did 
 not furnish epithets strong enough to characterize. 
 Now, having stood all this, I intend to be free with the 
 gentlemen upon the other side, and whatever result I 
 may think their positions lead to, I intend to speak 
 freely of it, and to call it by such epithets as I think it 
 deserves, and if I should speak of demagogueism, or 
 any other ism, in this debate, gentlemen must not take 
 it as personal to themselves. [Laughter.] I design to 
 speak freely and unreservedly of the legitimate re- 
 sult of their positions. To return from this digres- 
 sion. I said I did not understand the gentleman's po- 
 sition about this conventional law, nor his great di- 
 vision of the natural law. I will say further that I do 
 not understand that right of force. Did I understand 
 him to say — 
 
 Mr. WISE. I ask the gentleman to permit me to 
 say that if he interrogates me and expects me to an- 
 swer, that I really cannot conduct a lecture in this way; 
 that I could not teach him exactly my understanding. 
 The gentleman and I have been taught in entirely dif- 
 ferent schools, and I perceive that he does not under- 
 stand me. I do understand him. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. The gentleman spoke of this great 
 moral right of the people to establish a government, 
 being found in the book of nature. I have said too of- 
 ten that in this debate there has been too great loose- 
 ness of terms, and that when gentlemen talk of the peo- 
 ple here in the sense that they are entitled to be heard 
 in this assembly and to be regarded in the progress of 
 what we are doing here, I want to know what they 
 mean by the term ? Do they mean the whole people 
 without distinction of age, or sex* or condition ; or do 
 they mean that portion of the people in whom, in every 
 
214 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 free government that has been established upon this 
 continent, at least in the United States, the political 
 power resides, the political power that operates in the 
 administration of the government, and in effecting those 
 changes, modifications, alterations and reforms that are 
 made in the fundamental law ? 
 
 But I will not ask the gentleman further questions. 
 I understand his position to be this, at least I shall treat 
 it as such, for I cannot, from what he has said, under- 
 stand it in any other way, viz: that there does reside in 
 the people a conventional power, defined, he says, in all 
 the constitutions that have been framed in the Umted 
 States, where he says I may read it — a conventional 
 right in the people to change the existing government, 
 when, and in what form they please. Is that his po- 
 sition? 
 
 Mr. WISE.- No sir, no — the gentleman has mistaken 
 it. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I so understood it. My position is, 
 that in this government, and in every government in 
 these United States, the power, the right, thelegal au- 
 thority to change the government is found in the people 
 it is true, but subject to the control of this creature that 
 the gentleman has spoken of — a form of government 
 that they (the people) have established, and which they 
 have endowed with the exercise of the powers and in- 
 vested with the principles of sovereignty ; and I say 
 that although the gentleman may not think so, although 
 I* am sure he does not intend it, yet his principles lead 
 him as inevitably to Dorrism as cause in any instance 
 ever led to effect. Tor what is Dorrism ? A claim on 
 the part of the people, without the assent of the exist- 
 ing government, to eleGt delegates to assemble in Con- 
 vention to frame a government to supersede the exist- 
 ing form of government. The question of the legitima- 
 cy of such a government has, I think, been tested by the 
 highest judicial tribunal in the United States. I do not 
 recollect the precise form in which it came up, but it 
 did come before the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and there was solemnly adjudicated by that high 
 tribunal. I may be met by the objection that that is a 
 federal tribunal — an objection I do not deem it necessa- 
 ry now to meet or answer ; these learned judges of law 
 and government, in view of the principles of republican 
 government as established in this country, and of the 
 rights of the people under such governments upon their 
 oaths, have declared Dorrism to be disorganizing 
 and revolutionary— and without any just authority. 
 The gentleman from Accomac yesterday attacked the 
 position that I assumed when last before the Conven- 
 tion, that we had come here to amend the existing con- 
 stitution, to take it as it now stands, and to devise and 
 counsel amendments to it, and that that constitution, 
 notwithstanding the result of our labors here, will stand 
 unimpaired, except in the particulars in which we 
 change it, and will preserve unimpaired, the whole 
 frame work of the social and municipal fabric that rests 
 upon and is now upheld by it. I understand that to be 
 our object here. The gentleman said he knew nothing 
 about that constitution, and if he did, he would not 
 touch it. It had been tried, condemned and rejected. 
 I looked, Mi-. Chairman, to the very authority under 
 which the gentleman sits in this house — and what is it ? 
 In looking at the act under which we are convened and 
 by authority of which alone we have a right to convene 
 here as a Convention, and effect anything at all, I find 
 that it begins in these words, " Whereas, it is represent- 
 ed to the General Assembly of Virginia, that a por- 
 tion of the good people of this commonwealth are de- 
 sirous of amending the Constitution of the State, &c." 
 Now, if amendment means destruction, then the gentle- 
 man is correct. But I will not stop to argue before 
 this enlightened assembly, that amendment does not 
 mean destruction. It may mean change ; but to destroy 
 is one thing and to amend or change is another thing. 
 The thing amended does not cease to exist. And would 
 we not be in a state that no gentleman here could con- 
 template without apprehension, if the gentleman's posi- 
 tion were carried out? 
 
 If I understand anything about government, unless 
 there be a fundamental law of some sort, unless there 
 be a form and structure of government, with power to 
 administer and render it efficacious, deposited some- 
 where to be exercised, there is no right of any sort, no 
 right of property, no right of life, liberty or anything 
 else, the strong man prevails, and unlicensed will and 
 power are the only rule. Sir, if it were in the power 
 of any set of men to strike down the existing constitu- 
 tion to-morrow, with it would go the whole fabric of our 
 institutions and laws — with it, would go every right 
 that we hold — with it, would go some institutions about 
 which we feel peculiarly sensitive in some portions of 
 the State. In my apprehension, sir, the gentleman's 
 position, if true, admits a power to do this, to strike 
 down any rights that we enjoy under the laws of the 
 municipal government ; because they are but the super- 
 structure upon this foundation of the constitution — they 
 exist with it, they are erected upon it and cannot exist 
 without it. It is this that I call radicalism, the infinite 
 radicalism of the gentleman from Accomac. I have 
 always rejoiced to believe, Mr. Chairman, that I live 
 under the protection of a form of government, and of 
 institutions that were not under the control of any ma- 
 jority ; I intend to be understood, sir, that I did not act 
 under and by authority of the existing form of govern- 
 ment ; and that whenever the question of a change in 
 the fundamental law comes to be agitated, that no set 
 of men, actuated either by sectional or other motives, 
 although they might constitute a majority, could assem- 
 ble themselves together, and effect a change, either in 
 the government, or my rights and security, under it, 
 without my voice in the proposed change through my 
 right secured to me by the authority of the existing 
 law, be heard by representation in the body by which 
 such change is devised and recommended. These are 
 my opinions. They may be very erroneous, but such 
 a? they are, they are honestly entertained. The oppo- 
 site of these 1 understand to be the result of the gen- 
 tleman's position, whether he designs that result or 
 not. And permit me to say, I have just as much con- 
 fidence in that gentleman's purity of purpose, as I have 
 in my own or any other man's; but if the dearest 
 friend I have on earth, promulgated principles that in 
 mv judgment led to mischiefs, mischiefs not only to 
 myself, but to those in whom I feel an especial interest, 
 as well as to the whole people of the commonwealth, 
 I must denounce them, I must point out their conse- 
 quences, I must point to their mischiefs, and warn, 
 to the best of my ability, those who have the deepest 
 interest in the subject of the tendency of those princi- 
 ples, and the results to which, in my opinion, they inevi- 
 tably lead. 
 
 So many positions have been taken in the discussion 
 of this question, that if I examine them all, or even 
 those that appear to me to be most important, I shall 
 weary the attention of those who are treating me with 
 so much indulgence. I did intend to speak more at 
 large upon this doctrine of reserved power. I very 
 well understand the doctrine of reserved power in 
 the people, under such a government as the federal 
 government, but I do not understand, I confess, the 
 existence of such a power, when the people of a sov- 
 ereign State, such as Virginia, have put in the form 
 of a written constitution, their sovereign will in re- 
 gard to the forms and powers of government, nor how 
 it is, that they are not bound by such a government 
 at all. 
 
 These are my positions. I think them the proper, the 
 only safe, the only secure positions. I think they are 
 the only positions that accomplish the great end of gov- 
 ernment — the protection of life, liberty and property — 
 the greatest good to the greatest number. I repeat they 
 may be entirely erroneous, they may be heretical, I am 
 sure they are anti-democratic in the sense in which de- 
 mocracy has been urged upon this floor — the opposite 
 of the principles avowed upon the other side, which lead 
 in my judgment inevitably to anarchy, disorder, and the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 215 
 
 one-man power, or monarchy. The people of the State, 
 or the political power of the State, when they estab- 
 lish a government wisely, I think, lay these limitations 
 upon themselves. 
 
 I cannot, Mr. Chairman, compete with the gentleman 
 from Accomac in the interest he imparts to his discus- 
 sions upon this floor. There is a power of language, 
 which, when uttered by a gentleman gifted as is the gen- 
 tleman from Accomac, both in manner and voice, arrests 
 and leads captive the judgment of the audience, when 
 upon principles of sound philosophy and political truth 
 there is really nothing of substance in the language it- 
 self. This power of the gentleman I have felt the full 
 force of in this discussion. 
 
 I have not risen here to make a display. I have ris- 
 en solely for the purpose of putting before this as- 
 sembly my views upon those important questions of 
 government — those principles of government which lie 
 at the very foundation of the work in which we are en- 
 gaged. 
 
 The gentleman said he would have no monarchical 
 feature in this government at all. He scouts the " divine 
 right of kings." In this sentiment no man concurs with 
 him more heartily than I do, and I think upon the prin- 
 ciples I have already stated. He said he would have no 
 prerogative power in this constitution. When we use 
 terms in a discussion of this sort it is well to understand 
 their precise import. I would like to know if there is 
 to be n@ prerogative power in this government that we 
 establish. "What is prerogative power ? What is its de- 
 finition ? Whether it has been distorted from its legiti- 
 , mate purposes or not, I shall not stop here to argue. I 
 admit that under the name of prerogative there have 
 been abuses in the British government, but I am accus- 
 tomed to look in matters of this kind rather to substance 
 than to names. I brought into the Convention a legal 
 work of great authority — Bacon's Abridgment — in which 
 is found a definition of prerogative, and some idea giv- 
 en of the object and uses of the power of prerogative. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 " Prerogative is a word of large extent, including all 
 the rights and privileges which follow the king as head 
 and chief of the Commonwealth, and as entrusted with 
 the -execution of the law." 
 
 It is defined further by the same author to be the 
 special pre-eminence which the king hath over and above 
 all other persons, and out of the ordinary course of the 
 common law, in right of his royal dignity : that it sig- 
 nifies, in its etymology, from prce and rogo, something 
 that is required or demanded before or in preference to 
 all others, and hence that it can only be applied to 
 those rights and capacities which the king enjoys alone, 
 and in contradistinction to others, and not to those 
 which he enjoys in common with any of his subjects. 
 It is also said in this connection "that the nature of the 
 British constitution is that of a limited monarchy, in 
 which the legislative power is lodged in the king, lords 
 and commons, but the king is entrusted with the execu- 
 tive part, and from him all justice is said to flow: hence 
 he is styled the head of the Commonwealth, supreme 
 governor, parens patrice, &c; but still he is to make the 
 law of the land the rule of his government, that being 
 the measure as well of his power as of the subject's 
 obedience," <fec. 
 
 Soms of the objects of the prerogative power are de- 
 fined to be escheats, derelict lands, wrecks, coins, fines 
 and forfeitures, allegiance oaths, writ de ne exeat regno, 
 exemption from the operation of the statutes of limita- 
 tion upon the principle of nullum tempus occurrit regi, 
 the power of pardon and many others. All these are 
 subjects of prerogative power, which power is supposed 
 to be exercised by the king as the sovereign for the 
 good of the nation, and for no other purpose. No doubt 
 the power has been abused in Great Britain, and in its 
 name, by reason of the corruption of that government, 
 powers have been assumed and exercised to the oppres- 
 sion of the subject, in violation of the end, nature, and 
 
 purport of prerogative power. But I am not now speak- 
 ing of the abuse of power, but of its nature. In Great 
 Britain the sovereignty resides in the king ; in Virginia 
 the sovereignty resides in the State, the State being the 
 existing government, subject to such changes as the peo- 
 ple may choose, from time to time, to make in it, ac- 
 cording to law. To this sovereignty has been transfer- 
 red many, very many, of the powers which belong to 
 the sovereign of Great Britain — I mean powers the 
 same in kind and nature, but different in extent and de- 
 gree. The gentleman says he will have no prerogative 
 powers in the government we are about to form. I think 
 he is mistaken. He will give the government power 
 over all the subjects I have enumerated, and many oth- 
 ers, in their nature the subject of prerogative— a pow- 
 er which it has always held and exercised — a power 
 which the State necessarily holds exclusively of the 
 citizen, and which the citizen cannot be permitted to 
 hold and enjoy. 
 
 The gentleman says he will have no majesty in this 
 government. Now, sir, I do not understand the term 
 majesty to imply any power at all. It is a term ex- 
 pressive of dignity, nothing more, signifying about as 
 much as the term honorable, applied to a member of 
 Congress, which sometimes signifies very little, unless 
 it hj^interpreted upon the principle of lucus a non lu- 
 eenao. We frequently speak of the majesty of the 
 people, a majesty to which there is not imfrequently 
 offered an abundance of sycophancy, and servile adula- 
 tion. 
 
 There are many other matters that I must of necessi- 
 ty pass over, but there was one remark of the gentleman 
 that struck me with peculiar force. In the midst of a 
 most impassioned strain, when he seemed almost trans- 
 ported in his own feelings beyond the bounds of earth — 
 when he spoke of two worlds, and of man's residence in 
 each — when he spoke of men as sinners — none good, no, 
 not one, he told us — I do not remember precisely in 
 what connection, but somewhere about that point in 
 his speech — he told us that democracy was an active, 
 warring principle. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman is mistaken. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. Yes, sir. Warlike was the word. 
 He used the word warring or warlike in connection with 
 democracy. I understood him that democracy was a 
 fighting principle. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. WISE. On the contrary, if the gentleman will 
 allow me to explain, I think it is the dove of peace — 
 not the fighting principle. But I said that out of revo- 
 lution liberty came — that even we had to fight for lib- 
 erty to obtain and secure our democratic rights ; but if 
 it is pure and undefiled, it was above all others a truly 
 conservative principle. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. It is only warlike when raised. 
 [Laughter.] I certainly understood the gentleman to 
 say that it was warlike, and I was going on to say that I 
 perfectly agreed with him thac it was a warring princi- 
 ple. [Laughter.] I was going to treat it as such a prin- 
 ciple, from the character I have understood the gentle- 
 man to give it upon this floor — a disorganizing principle 
 — a radical principle. I really did, Mr. Chairman, un- 
 derstand the gentleman, that it was dangerous to med- 
 dle with it ; [laughter,] that it was a fighting principle. 
 He was so impassioned that it was very difficult, indeed,, 
 to catch the precise language that he used. Republi- 
 canism, I agree, is the dove of peace, but democracy is 
 not — I mean pure democracy — radicalism. The triumphs 
 of peace, we are told, are greater than those of war — - 
 that monarchy is the warring spirit — that it embodies 
 those qualities that make it a warring spirit. That it is 
 chivalrous, active, guided by one will, and capable of 
 wielding power more readily and effectively. On the 
 other hand, democracy, in its purity, is vindictive, ma- 
 lignant, disorganizing, violent. And when I speak of 
 democracy, I hope no gentleman under the sound of my 
 voice will suppose that I am attributing to him as a de- 
 liberate opinion, that pure democracy should be estal> 
 
216 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 lished here. I am only maintaining thai the positions 
 which the gentleman took, lead necessarily, to the estab- 
 lishment of it. I know you do not mean to establish a 
 democracy in this constitution. I deem better of you. 
 Bat the great effect of the establishment of a republi- 
 can government, as I have heretofore endeavored to 
 treat it, as one of checks and balances that restrain 
 all properly, who make up the sum of community — the 
 effect, I say, of this republican government has been to 
 elevate man — to enlarge the sphere of his hopes and 
 aspirations — to put down strife and war. Its triumphs 
 are commerce, literature, agriculture, and general morali- 
 ty ; at least, if the true spirit of it be carried out, such 
 will be its results. I wish to see it established over this 
 Commonwealth in all its purity — a republican govern- 
 ment, checked and balanced, and restrained so that no 
 one portion of this State can war in any form upon an- 
 other. I desire to see it spread its benign influences 
 throughout the west as well as the east — in the east as 
 well as the west. For there is no man on this floor who 
 would rejoice more in the prosperity and development 
 of the great resources of the west than myself. I wish 
 to establish a government upon such principles that it 
 will commend itself to every portion of the State. And 
 the worst result, in my judgment, that could befall this 
 old State, would be a result of our labors here, whi^a, 
 when presented to the people of the State, whether rati- 
 fied or rejected by a majority, should be accepted or re- 
 jected by a sectional vote. And if there is any one feel- 
 ing that has influenced me more than another, anything 
 to which I have looked as more desirable than another, 
 it is the hope that we can compromise and harmonize 
 all portions of this machinery of government, and settle 
 all difficulties in such a form that when the result of 
 our labors goes back to those who sent us here, it shall 
 be received by the whole State — and if received by the 
 unanimous voice of the State, so much the better — so 
 much the better. Let gentlemen say what they please 
 about it ; a form of government which commends itself 
 to the affections and confidence of the whole people may 
 be theoretically wrong, and yet, for all practical purpo- 
 ses, a better one than another that is theoretically right, 
 but doe3 not commend itself to the whole people, but 
 secures the hostility and disaffection of a considerable 
 portion. These are the triumphs to which I look in the 
 establishment of a republican government — the triumphs 
 that I think can be pointed to as the legitimate result 
 of such a government. On the other hand, the triumphs 
 of a government organized upon the gentleman's prin- 
 ciple are, in my humble apprehension, triumphs of vio- 
 lence, disorder, passion, and of blood. In modern times, 
 it seems to me these principles have been carried out 
 to their full extent only in France. I will not detain 
 the Convention with any detailed description of what 
 occurred there. It was all done in the name of democ- 
 racy, of liberty. We may be told that we have not the 
 same sort of people here. I trust we have not ; but we 
 know that these very doctrines of radicalism — uproot- 
 ing, overturning — there the predominant principles of 
 government, in their results, make a dark picture upon 
 the page of history. 
 
 It was said by the gentleman from Accomac that there 
 was no such word as conservatism, that conservatism 
 was not the right word. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I said Mr. Webster had a word called 
 conservatism, but that was not the word applicable to 
 the party technicalities of the day — the political tech- 
 nicality of this part of the State — that there was an- 
 other word that had a different sense, a sense, in my 
 opinion, not to conserve, but to destroy, and that word 
 was conservativeism. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON". Did the gentleman find the word 
 conservativeism in Webster? 
 
 Mr. WISE. No, not in Webster, but in the political 
 vocabulary of this day in Virginia ; a word invented for 
 the day, that has a peculiar meaning of its own, that 
 must not be confounded with Webster's word. That is 
 a very good word. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. If the gentleman will refer to the 
 remarks I made the other day, he will find I used con- 
 servatism, not conservativeism. 1 never used conserva- 
 tiveism. I consulted Webster to see the definition he 
 gives of my word conservatism, and he said it means 
 opposition to radical change, the very word I wanted to 
 express the position I took. [Laughter.] That is one 
 of the definitions — those who wish to preserve against 
 injury and violence, and who go against radical changes. 
 There were some other definitions, but I took this par- 
 ticular one, because it seemed to suit me rather better 
 than any other. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Do I understand that Webster .has 
 been guilty of such an unphilological definition as to say 
 that conservatism means one who is opposed to radical 
 chauges ? 
 
 Mr. CITILTON. The gentleman is at his old game, a 
 play upon words. [Laughter.] I do not remember the 
 precise form in which I expressed it. Certainly, my 
 meaning was that conservatism was what those pro- 
 fess, who go against the gentleman's position of radical 
 change. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Does Mr. Webster speak of me ? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. Not by name, but very distinctly by 
 general description. I mean so far as it regards the 
 gentleman' position here. 
 
 I must now part company with the gentleman from 
 Accomac, so far as the remaining part of my remarks 
 will be concerned, and will hasten to a conclusion. I 
 must say a word or two to the gentleman who addressed 
 us a day or two since, the gentleman from Marion, 
 (Mr. Neeson.) It gives me great pleasure to concur in 
 those very high encomiums that have been passed upon 
 him. I understand he is a very young man, one who 
 comes up from amongst the people, having depended 
 mainly upon himself for his position. It always gives 
 me pleasure to recognise in such persons the indications 
 given by him. His argument was a very imposing one. 
 The only objection I had to it was, that I thought it was 
 an argument which might come under the description 
 of an argument upon extremes, a kind of argument that 
 has been very much indulged in, I think, by all the 
 gentlemen upon the other side — an argument rather for 
 victory than to elicit truth. When he came up to the 
 question I thought he shyed it. He is ingenious, and 
 stated his propositions clearly, and I thought that when 
 he did shy the question he made it manifest that he 
 intended so to do. I have no complaint to make of him, 
 but I thought on one or two occasions he treated the 
 remarks that I had made in no unkind spirit certainly, 
 but rather in a spirit of ridicule. For instance, he said 
 that I had represented myself here as a wise man, wiser 
 than all my constituents. Well, that was a form of ex- 
 pression that carried with it a little irony. If I gave 
 utterance to such a sentiment, I am sure that I did not 
 understand myself, for I think I am regarded — indeed I 
 so regard myself — as a modest man. [Laughter.] I 
 could not have made such a boast. What I did say 
 was this, (or I intended to say it at least,) that in regard 
 to the machinery of this government we are engaged in 
 framing, in regard to the application of principles, I 
 should not stop to inquire, that it was not expected of 
 me to inquire of those who sent me here, what I should 
 do in the frame-work of the great principles of republi- 
 canism and civil liberty. I believe the people that I 
 represent know that whilst there are some of them who 
 would have been more competent to do this particular 
 service to which I have alluded than myself, yet that I 
 was better competent to decide upon these things than 
 a great majority of them, not from any great mental 
 superiority of mine, but simply from my experience in 
 regard to matters of this kind; that my studies and my 
 pursuits had led me to learn something of the form of 
 government and of the meaning of terms — for in every 
 form of government that has ever been established, we 
 have to resort to legal terms — that I understood those 
 terms better than they did, and that they trusted me 
 entirely in regard to those matters. But if there was 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 217 
 
 one principle that I believe they abhorred and repelled 
 more than any other, it is the very principle that I am 
 resisting; and if there is a principle that they approve 
 more than any other, it is this hated conservative prin- 
 ciple upon whieh I stand before this Convention. I trust 
 I have put myself right in regard to this matter. The 
 gentleman said that in defining my position in regard to 
 those elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, 
 found, as I contend, in allrepublican governments, that 
 I said that I believed a strong infusion of aristocracy and 
 of monarchy is necessary to be put into this constitution. 
 That was the mode of stating my position, which gave 
 the gentleman very firm ground to stand upon in his 
 answer ; but, if I did so express myself, and was so un- 
 dent ood, I was very unfortunate in giving utterance to 
 my own opinions and sentiments. 
 
 The gentleman went into a very lengthy examination 
 of the constitutions of the different States to deduce 
 from the example and practice of other States, in regard 
 to this matter, support for the positions that he main- 
 tained. Well, I think the information was that nine 
 States had based their constitutions upon the principle 
 that has been moved by the gentleman from Henrico, 
 (Mr. Botts,) and sustained by the gentleman to whom I 
 reply. I have not made a very critical examination of 
 those details, but those nine States were northern States, 
 and in them the majority principle prevails, because in 
 every one of them, I believe, the governor when elected 
 by the people must be elected by a majority of the whole 
 people, and there is rarely an instance of an election of 
 Governor by the people by reason of the impossibility of 
 obtaining a majority, and hence elections in those States, 
 though intended to be by the people, are rarely ever so 
 made, but have to go to the legislature to be completed 
 by that agency. We are about to put a different princi- 
 ple into our constitution, and I adverted to it the other 
 day. We are about to put into it the right and power 
 of the minority to elect, because a plurality and not a 
 majority of the whole voters of the State are required 
 to elect a Governor by the plan of the executive reported 
 by the committee, and now under consideration. What 
 may be, or probably what will be the result ? Why, 
 that on scarcely any occasion, unless it be upon some 
 great sectional question, some question that every man 
 in the State would be pained to see exert its influence 
 upon an election, the great probability is, that unless 
 caucus machinery be effective, the Governors for all 
 time, under this new constitution, if it be adopted, will 
 be elected by the minority. If that be the case, what 
 goes with this great majority principle? But the gen- 
 tleman told us that no southern State had adopted this 
 principle but Georgia. I was curious enough to look 
 into the constitution of Georgia, md I may misinterpret 
 it, but if susceptible of the interpretation that has been 
 put upon it, I confess that I very much misunderstand 
 it. We were told that the executive there was re- 
 eligible indefinitely. The language *of the constitution 
 is this : 
 
 " The executive power shall be vested in a Governor, 
 who shall hold his office during the term of two years, 
 and until such time as his successor shall be chosen and 
 qualified." 
 
 Mr. WISE. (In his seat.) Is that all ? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. No, sir. 
 
 " He shall have a competent salary, established by 
 law, which shall not be increased or diminished during 
 the period for which he shall have been elected, neither 
 shall he receive whhin that period, any other emolu- 
 ment from the United States, or either of them, or from 
 any foreign power." 
 
 Now, it may be rather hypercritical, but I cannot think 
 it was intended by that constitution that a man should 
 be his own successor. There is no such language used 
 in our constitution. This is my interpretation. It may 
 be wrong, but I go further with the Georgia constitution. 
 Do gentlemen invoke the constitution of Georgia as the 
 one proper to be followed, because I find in that consti- 
 tution, that — 
 16 
 
 " No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor 
 who shall not have been a oitizen of the United States 
 twelve years, and an inhabitant of this State six years, 
 and who hath not attained the age of thirty years, and 
 who does not possess five hundred acres of land in bis 
 own right, within this State, and other property to 
 the amount of four hundred dollars, and whose estate 
 shall not, on a reasonable estimation, be competent 
 to the discharge of his debts, over and above that sum." 
 
 That constitution was adopted in the year 1839, and 
 the Governor is invested with a veto power as fully as 
 the President of the United States. This veto can only 
 be reversed by a vote of two-thirds. I suppose that 
 the gentleman did not intend to commend this example 
 of Georgia in regard to the office of Governor ? But 
 hastening on, I come to the main point of the gentle- 
 man's argument. His main argument was this : that 
 permanency was desirable in the executive, to secure 
 wisdom and experience, and as he expressed it, that he 
 (the Governor,) might have time to mature and carry 
 into effect his system of measures ; that he might begin 
 a system, and his successor not carry it out. Does the 
 gentleman intend hereafter to seek to give power to the 
 Governor to devise and carry out a system of measures ? 
 His reasons, if worth any thing, must apply to the sys- 
 tem upon which he founds hu theory, and I do hold, 
 that if I understand any thing, or have ever conceived 
 that I understood any thing about the doctrine of the 
 executive power, the one man power, the government 
 of the people (in the phrase of Louis Napoleon,) by one 
 man upon which the democrats of the days of Jefferson 
 and Madison — republicans as they were then called — 
 made bitter, earnest, and unappeasable war, it was such 
 executive power as the gentleman from Marion desires 
 to see established ; a power in the executive to devise a 
 system of measures, and having powers adequate to 
 carry them out, with which I take it for granted the 
 gentleman intends he shall be invested, and by bringing 
 a party to his aid, by the exercise of the powers so con- 
 ferred upon him, to divert the course of the legislation 
 of the country from its legitimate ends. In my appre- 
 hension such a position as this is the rankest federalism 
 let gentlemen call it by what name they may. That is> 
 what has been charged upon the federal executive of the 
 United States — that is the very thing — endeavoring to 
 influence the Legislature of the country, shaping and 
 controlling its policy ; and, as I understand the reason- 
 ing held by gentlemen, he ought to be continued in 
 power, that he may have the opportunity to do this 
 very thing. Or, if it be not that— if he is to be confined 
 to simple and powerless executive duties, then there is 
 no necessity for continuing him in office, to give him 
 time to mature and carry into effect his system of meas- 
 ures. The gentleman, no doubt, believes that he is car- 
 rying out democratic principles, true republican princi- 
 ples — democratic republican principles, if he chooses to 
 have it so. He may be right, but it is contrary to the 
 teachings I have received, and contrary to all the doc- 
 trines of that party to which he belongs. It is what 
 we of the whig party have charged upon the opposite 
 party —the democratic party. We have charged them 
 with departing from their faith. And I hope I may be 
 excused for introducing any reference to these two par- 
 ties into this body, because reference has been made by 
 others, and distinctions between the two parties have 
 been urged here as grounds of objections to measures 
 proposed. We have heard western democrats arraign- 
 ing eastern democrats and vice versa for a departure from 
 democratic principles. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. Did I allude to them ? 
 Mr. CHILTON. No, sir, I do not remember that you 
 alluded to them at all. The gentleman must excuse me 
 if I take his position in connection with those who are 
 co-operating with him. If he is found in bad company 
 he must take the consequences. I say that in my judg- 
 ment the principles avowed by, and the ground upon 
 which that gentleman placed himself, would lead to 
 the establishment of this executive power in a form the 
 
218 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 most objectionable in which it could be mouided, so far 
 as old democratic principles, the democratic principles of 
 Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, the fathers of the church, 
 ■went ; but probably carrying into full effect the princi- 
 ples of the democratic party of a later time, upon which 
 the gentleman from Accomac — I am compelled to refer 
 to him briefly again — once waged a war that first intro- 
 duced me to him, when, standing side by side with me 
 in the same party, he made, in conjunction with another 
 gentleman, the most gallant and effective onslaught up- 
 on this overshadowing executive power, that ever com- 
 mended itself to my regard; a war, in the progress of 
 which — probably from reading the impassioned argu- 
 ments of the gentleman — I became acquainted with the 
 dangerous tendencies and results of this strong executive 
 power ; a war that in its results fastened upon me a con- 
 viction which cannot be shaken, in regard to the nature 
 of this executive power and the necessity of restricting it. 
 
 I have but a remark or two to make when I shall con- 
 clude this desultory and unconnected address. I have a 
 word or two to say to the gentleman from Montgomery, 
 (Mr. Hoge.) I mean no disrespect to that gentleman, 
 but I am under the necessity of saying to him that his 
 positions were beyond my reach, and that I cannot reply 
 to them, because most of them I do not understand. It is 
 my fault no doubt, and not his. 1 say it in no spirit of 
 irony or ridicule. I must therefore pass by what he 
 said. I have a word to say to the gentleman from Ca- 
 bell, (Mr. McComas.) I must be permitted to say that 
 that gentleman's speech was an extraordinary one. I 
 had intended to take up some of his positions. Some of 
 them, I confess, were like those of the gentleman from 
 Montgomery — too refined and sublimated for the grasp 
 of my feeble intellect. But I could not but be struck 
 with the tone and temper of the gentleman's speech, 
 and especially with his most extraordinary phraseology. 
 It wa9 new to me. One remark of his attracted my at- 
 tention particularly — that he would go even to Timbuc- 
 too for a principle of Government. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. For a good principle. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I understand that— (it was all pro- 
 per) — that he would go to Timbuctoo. They had gov- 
 ernment there ; I think Mungo Park tells us they had 
 government there, when he visited that enlightened 
 kingdom. And then the genth man gave us a very in- 
 teresting disquisition upon dignity of office — the sort of 
 dignity of office he desired to see in this old commonwealth 
 I shall not dispute with any gentleman about dignity ; 
 probably I am not very well acquainted with it myself. 
 But I do like to see dignity- — true dignity. He spoke 
 of wanting to see the governor, under certain contingen- 
 cies, brought down to a salary of two hundred and fifty 
 dollars a year. That gentleman's ideas comport some- 
 what with the opinions of an old gentleman in my dis- 
 trict, who heard another gentleman discoursing very ex- 
 travagantly upon the splendor of the Roman govern- 
 ment, particularly upon the costume of the Romans, 
 the tunic and the toga, when he remarked with a good 
 deal of simplicity that he had always been under the 
 impression that Julius Csesar dressed in Virginia cloth ; 
 [laughter,] or at least if he did not, he ought to have so 
 dressed. I will not dispute about this thing, but as the 
 gentleman went to Africa, or said he would go there, 
 for lessons of government, he may go there possibly for 
 dignity. [Laughter.] I think it is Bruce, a celebrated 
 traveler, that tells us that in his travels in Abysinia, or 
 somewhere there, on one occasion he was ushered into 
 the presence of a soveregn prince sitting under a tree 
 on a sort of throne, with tw© wives with sharp sticks 
 feeding him with raw beef, the blood streaming from 
 the corners of his mouth ; and that as soon as he could 
 find utterance, he asked Bruce what was thought and 
 said of him and his government in London. 
 
 I ought to apologize to this Convention for detaining 
 them with these matters, and I hope they will be re- 
 garded as mere pleasantries, and nothing worse. I shall 
 
 not detain them further, and 1 return my -sincere thanks 
 for their kind indulgence. 
 
 Mr.BOTTS. The debate has taken a most extraor- 
 dinary latitude. .We have had discussions upon almost 
 every question connected with governments and consti- 
 'utions, but the direct and immediate question before 
 the Convention I shall not follow the example of gen- 
 tlemen who have preceded me, but shall endeavor upon 
 this occasion, as upon all others on which I shall pro- 
 pose to occupy any of the time of this Convention, to 
 confine myself strictly to the question under considera- 
 tion. " Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." Each 
 question that may lie presented to this body for its con- 
 sideration and its action, I take it for granted, will come 
 up seriatim for the decision of the body, and as they 
 come up 1 shall, wherever I feel it to be my duty, and 
 on no other occasion, endeavor to express my views 
 upon that particular questien. It is, I beg leave to as- 
 sure this body, with the most unaffected reluctance, that 
 I again propose to occupy any portion of their time. I 
 feel that I have already occupied as much, if not more, 
 of the time of this Convention upon this question 
 than I was entitled to occupy, nor should I do so now 
 but for the observations that were made on yesterday 
 by my friend from the county of Loudoun, (Mi*. Jan- 
 ney.) There was, as there always is, in regard to what- 
 ever may fall from the lips of that distinguished gen- 
 tleman — for whom, as he knows, I entertain not only 
 the profoundest respect, but the warmest personal re- 
 gard — a degree of gravity and solemnity that imparts 
 to what he may utter a weight of importance that does 
 not attach to every member of this body. There is more 
 than that — there is a weight of character that attaches 
 to the gentleman that gives importance to his opinions. 
 With these remarks 1 feel assured the gentleman will 
 not take it unkindly if I say it was that gravity and 
 that solemnity of manner, and that weight of character 
 to which I attached importance, and not to the argu- 
 ment itself, whi h I hold to be, and will undertake to 
 show, was altogether unworthy of the high intellect of 
 the gentleman. I feel that this duty especially devolves 
 on me, as the mover of this proposition, because of the 
 attitude in which it has been placed by the remarks of 
 that gentleman. 
 
 I take occasion here to say, that I have never, from 
 the first moment, attached any practical importance to 
 the decision of this question, so far as it applied to the 
 election of a governor of Virginia. It was with refer- 
 ence to other^questions, and with reference to the estab- 
 lishment of a principle at the first step in the forma- 
 tion of ihe constitution, that was to pervade the whole 
 body of that constitution, and more especially in refer- 
 ence to the judiciary, that I did attach importance to 
 the decision of this question, and the rule to be adopt- 
 ed in regard to the -power of the people over their rep- 
 resentatives. I apprehend that my friend has taken 
 precisely the same view of this question, and that he 
 himself attaches more importance to its decision in re- 
 ference to other officers whose terms of office are to be 
 designated by this constitution, than in its reference to 
 the governor of the State. I very much fear that my 
 friend has the judiciary in his view, and that he will be 
 found among those co-operating with the committee on 
 the judiciary department of the government, who have 
 reported agains-t the re-eligibility of the judges. 
 
 He set out with the declaration that in his opinion 
 this, the first question that was presented to the con- 
 sideration of this body, was the last that ought to have 
 been presented, because we did not know what extraor- 
 dinary power might yet be conferred by this Conven- 
 tion upon the governor of the State. He had made up 
 his mind to vote against the proposition of re-eligifili- 
 ty in the committee, reserving to himself the right to 
 change that vote, if occasion should make it necessary, 
 when it came before the Convention. Now I take an 
 entirely different view of the question. I think this is 
 the first question that ought to have been presented, 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 219 
 
 ani that we ought first to establish the fact in regard 
 to the re-eligibiiity of the officer, before we decide upon 
 the power that he shall exercise. And as I am one of 
 those who hope to curtail the powers of the executive, 
 who propose to strip himof all patronage, aal ail pow- 
 er not necessarily and indispensably connected with 
 the office, and as I go for short terms and frequent 
 elections I entertaiu the nope that if we can establish this 
 first principle of re-eligibility, it would-be the means of 
 bringing a number of other gentlemen of the Conven- 
 tion into co-operation with those who entertain this 
 opinion in com uon with myself, in regard to curtailing 
 the powers of the executive. 
 
 My friend expressed a desire on yesterday that the 
 gentleman from Accoiriae, ani all others who proposed 
 to answer his remarks, would take notes of what he 
 said. Well, I am very happy to comply with the wish 
 thus expressed, and I have complied with it. It is my 
 habit, universally, when I undertake to answer the re- 
 marks of others, to note down at the time the precise 
 language they employ, that I may neither misrepresent 
 them myself, nor misrepresent them before the public. 
 I beg leave now to refer to the remark of the gentle- 
 man from Loudoun, in regard to the disability which 
 he proposes, as he says, to impose, not upon the people, 
 not up >n the rights of the people, bit upon the individ- 
 ual odi-er himself — the disability of ineligibility — be- 
 cause of the corruption and abuse to wh ch the officer 
 will be exposed. What does that imply, I beg to in- 
 quire ? Why* it necessarily implies either corruption 
 on the part of the people, who are to be corrupted by a 
 corrupt officer, or an absence of such a degree of intel- 
 ligence as will enable them to detect it. Do you im- 
 agine that the Governor of Virginia, to remain in office 
 for either two or four years, can practice the abuses 
 mentioned, the corruption which the gentleman has re- 
 ferred to, and that he could be re-elected by the same 
 people who first put him there, unles-> they theu?selves 
 had become corrupted by him, or were so stupid and 
 unintelligent that they could not be made to realize that 
 corruption and that abuse ? I have on many occasions 
 found fault with and complained of the action of the 
 people. I have believed, and still believe, that they 
 often committed errors, gross errrors, and palpable er- 
 rors. But they are errors of the head, and not of the 
 heart. I believe that the people are liable to be mis- 
 led, that they have been misled, and that they w r ill be 
 misled again; but I have never seen the first momeut 
 that I had not confidence enough in their integ- 
 rity as well as their intelligence to believe that when- 
 ever that error was detected, they would be most prompt 
 to correct it ; and if a wrong is to be done either by the 
 people or by their agents, I for one prefer that It be 
 done by the people themselves. They are the most apt 
 to detect it, and the most certain to correct it. 
 
 Gentlemen have argued that this was a mere ques- 
 ' tion of expediency, aud that there was no principle in- 
 volved. I grant that, to a certain extent, it is a ques- 
 tion of expediency, but it is no less a question of prin- 
 ciple. Has any gentleman here undertaken to deny — 
 I will not say to refute — the proposition on which I set 
 out in my former remarks on this question, the platform 
 on which I placed myself then and now, that this was a 
 popular government, and that being a popular govern- 
 ment, all power was derived from the people, and that 
 unless public necessity or public convenience required 
 it, the power should remain undelegated in the hands 
 of the people rather than in the hands of their agents. 
 This is a question of principle ; it is not a question of 
 expediency merely. But if you can show that neces- 
 sity, if you can show that public convenience will'" be 
 promoted by it, without impairing the rights of the 
 people, then I grant you you may regard it as a question of 
 expediency, and divest them of the power. Now has 
 any gentleman undertaken to show that public necessi- 
 ty, public convenience, or expediency, requires that this 
 power should be taken from the people? I certain- 
 
 ly have not, anj until they do show it, as I main- 
 tained before, it does not devolve upon the friends 
 of this proposition to show the absence of that ne- 
 cessity. It devolves upon those who deny the right 
 of the people, to show the necessity for taking it from 
 them. 
 
 The gentleman deprecates the proposition, as tending 
 to an accumulation of executive power in the hands of 
 one man. Why, I may have mistaken the effect of the 
 proposition Ihave male, bat ever since I first entered into 
 political life, aud before I had any participation in pub 
 lie life, from the first moment that I took an active in- 
 terest in politics, I hive been waning against the one 
 man executive /power. It has been the power of the 
 people, as expressed through their representatives, that 
 I have struggled for, and fought for, for more than 
 twenty years, and that is the struggle that I am still 
 maintaining. 
 
 Why, what is the magnificent power of the Govern- 
 or of Virginia ? What enormous power has he yet ex- 
 ercised ? What wonderful power have you ever con- 
 ferred upon him ? And then, the next question is, what 
 is it your propose to do by this new constitution ? Is it 
 your purpose to enlarge his powers, or to diminish 
 them? It is my purpose, certainly, to diminish and 
 not to enlarge them, and yet I maintiin that there has 
 been no dangerous power ever yet conferred on the 
 Governor of Virginia. No, not one half the power that 
 is conferred upon a member of Congress, who is re-eli- 
 gible for life at stated periods, if ic shall please the 
 good people of his district to re-elect him; because, by 
 his single vote in the House of Representatives — or, 
 if he be a senator, in the Senate of the United States — 
 he may control the whole foreign" and domestic policy 
 of the government of the United States ; and such a 
 thing has resulted in the history of our government more 
 than once. What are the powers of the governor that 
 are so dangerous to be exercised, and what is it that has 
 alarmed my friend from Loudoun, and has enabled him, 
 with a facility of which I had no previous conception , 
 to magnify mole- hills into mountains ? Why, first of 
 all the gentleman has been examining the new code of 
 Virginia, and has discovered in it a new law passed at the 
 Fauquier Springs during the last summer a year ago, of 
 which I was entirely ignorant, but by which he has as- 
 certained that the powers of the Governor of Virginia 
 are infinitely greater than the powers of Millard Fill# 
 more, the President of the United States, or of Victoria 
 the First, Queen of Great Britain. 
 
 Well, then, I think before I get through, I shall show 
 that Millard Fillmore and Queen Victoria (so far as the 
 power of each is concerned) are extremely insignificant 
 persons. The gentleman has discovered that by this 
 law to which he has referred, the governor of Virginia 
 has the power of appointing not less than 180 of his 
 agents in this one county of Henrico, in which I reside, 
 and which will furnish him with a degree of patronage 
 that cannot-be resisted. I said I had not seen that law, 
 nor heard of its passage, and I will take the county 
 which the gentleman himself has selected out of the 
 130 odd in the State — my own county, of which I hap- 
 pen to know more than any other — and so little occa- 
 sion has there been for the exercise of this power, so 
 little practical operation has it had, that I was igno- 
 rant that such a law was in existence. And I will put 
 the practical operation of any law against the theory 
 that may be contended for by any lawyer in this Con- 
 vention. The law providing for the appointment of 
 these inspectors read as follows : 
 
 " Inspectors may be appointed of any of the follow- 
 ing commodities, to wit : flour, corn-meal, bread, salt, 
 fish, pork, beef, tar, pitch, turpentine, lumber, lime, 
 hemp, butter, or lard. Such an appointment shall be 
 made annually in September or October, by the govern- 
 or, for the several counties and towns in whiefcit may 
 be necessary to appoint such inspectors. Tue same 
 person may be appointed inspector of two or more of 
 
220 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 said commodities. But there shall not be in the same 
 town more than one, nor in the same county more than 
 six, inspectors of the same commodity." 
 
 Well, now, let us look at the practical operation of 
 this tremendous power, that exceeds even the power of 
 the Queen of Great Britain, or the President of the 
 United States. The law goes on to provide for the 
 manner in which these various articles to be inspected 
 shall be put up, showing that it was intended to refer 
 to articles of export, or intended for foreign trade. For 
 instance, it declares that each barrel of flour or corn 
 meal shall contain 196 pounds. Now, it happens in re- 
 gard to the first article, of flour, that not a barrel 
 of it is manufactured in the county, and, therefore, we 
 have no occasion for the services of an inspector of 
 flour. There goes then 12 out of the 180 officers. Of 
 corn meal I do not know, but I believe there is not a 
 barrel of it now manufactured in the county for export, 
 or brought here in barrels to be exported. Nor does 
 the law require the inspection to be made, but declares 
 if it shall be, it shall be under the provisions therein 
 contained. There goes another 12 of the 180 officers, 
 making 24. Inspectors of bread. Now, I have never 
 heard of a loaf of bread being baked in the county of 
 Henrico for export, or for market of any sort, and there 
 is no occasion for an inspector in that particular. There 
 goes 12 more of the 180 officers, making 36. We do 
 not make salt in Henrico, and there is no salt brought 
 here to market to be inspected, and, therefore, there is 
 no occasion for an inspector of salt. That disposes of 
 12 more of the 180 officers, making 48. Fish are brought 
 here in pretty considerable quantities for the domestic 
 market, but not from the county of Henrico in barrels. 
 There may be some few herrings put up in barrels on 
 the James river, but not many. There goes 12 more of- 
 ficers of the 180, making 60. There may be some pork 
 killers beyond the limits of Richmond, who put up pork, 
 and it may be necessary, in some rare instances — though 
 I am not aware of it — to have an inspection of a few 
 barrels of pork. I do not believe that there is any pork 
 put up in the county of Henrico for export, for I have 
 never heard of it. There goes 12 more of the 180 offi- 
 cers, making 72. We make no tar, no pitch, no lumber, 
 none that I know of, for market. We do not make 
 hemp, nor lard, nor butter, not more, certainly, than is 
 sufficient to supply the Richmond market. Then of the 
 ^80 officers which the gentleman says are to be appoint- 
 ed by the governor, when you come to the practical ope- 
 ration of the thing, there is not one I know of, or whom 
 I believe necessary to be appointed. Thus vanishes 
 into thin air the apprehensions of my friend from Lou- 
 doun in regard to this particular county of Henrico. I 
 do not think the people of Henrico are much alarmed, 
 or entertain very serious apprehensions of the over- 
 whelming power of the governor in regard to their do- 
 mestic concerns. There are some counties, perhaps, 
 and no doubt there are — as, for example, in Kanawha, 
 where salt is manufactured — where it is necessary to 
 have one inspector, or six for aught I know — it depends 
 entirely upon the amount of business and the compe- 
 tency of his agent or agents. But it will be remem- 
 bered that by the law itself the governor has no power 
 of appointment over those agents, and that the appoint- 
 ment is to be made by the inspector, with the approba- 
 tion and consent of the governor, and there is not in the 
 limits of the whole State, perhaps a single county that 
 will require a half dozen officers to be appointed. Well, 
 I think the Convention must concur with me that no 
 very serious apprehension is to be entertained on the 
 subject, and if there is, let the efforts of gentlemen be 
 applied to the repeal of the law, rather than to restrict 
 the eligibility of the officer. That argument, I main- 
 tain, is only applicable to the repeal of that law, and 
 has no necessary connection or affinity with the re-eligi- 
 bility of the officer ; but if it has, let my friend go with 
 me in curtailing that power, by reducing the term of 
 service to two instead of four years. Why, if I could 
 be impressed with the views of my friend from Loudoun 
 ;,, m-rard to this power of the Governor of Virginia, I 
 
 would have no governor at all. If it be true, as he as- 
 serts, that you must necessarily confer on this executive 
 greater power than he now exercises, which power is 
 greater now than that of the Queen of Great Britain, 
 or of the chief executive magistrate of this nation, then 
 I say it strikes at the root and foundation of this gov- 
 ernment, and I should substitute some other department 
 of government for the governor of the State ? Is it ne- 
 cessary that this power should be conferred upon him ? 
 Well, so long as we have been a State, it has never been 
 thought necessary until the last eighteen months, and 
 that necessity has not shown itself from the practical 
 operation of the law. But if it is necessary in the es- 
 timation of my friend, I shall indulge the most earnest 
 hopes that he will not refuse to reduce the term from 
 four to two years. 
 
 There was another very alarming power to which my 
 friend referred as being already conferred on the Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia, in the appointment of the bank di- 
 rectors. He had the control, I understood him to say, 
 of God knows how many millions of dollars. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. 1 said that the loans and discounts 
 of the banks for the years 1849 and 1850 amounted to 
 $18,000,000 or $20,000,000. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. The loans and discounts of the banks 
 for 1849 and 1850 amounted to from $18,000,000 to $20,- 
 000,000. Well, now, permit us to examine somewhat 
 into the practical operation t of that power. It is fact, 
 and not theory, that we are searching for. According 
 to the statement of the gentleman himself, this extra- 
 ordinary power, this great monied influence which he ap- 
 prehends may at some future day be used for political 
 purposes, and made to accomplish great political and 
 party objects, consists in the power of the governor to 
 appoint three out of the seven directors of the branch 
 banks, and four out of nine of the directors in the mother 
 banks. They are in a minority in each instance. If 
 the po*ver of the minority of the directors appointed by 
 the governor is so much to be dreaded, pray what has 
 my friend to say of the power of the stockholders, who 
 appoint the majority of the board of directors ? It is 
 an argument, as I said in the other case, which ought 
 to be addressed to the banking system of this State. If 
 the power is thus dangerous, bring forward a constitu- 
 tional provision depriving the governor of the appoint- 
 ment of those, whose duty it is to see that the interests 
 of the State are looked to in these banking institutions. 
 But to come down more immediately to the practical 
 operation of the question. What is it? I am not, and 
 never have been, and never desire to be, a director of a 
 banking institution. It has been a good while since I 
 have had any connexion with any banking institution of 
 this State, either as depositor or borrower. There are 
 directors, I have no doubt, of these institutions in this 
 body, who can give me some information upon the sub- 
 ject. I desire to know how many negative votes it re- 
 quires to reject a piece of paper offered for discount? 
 A MEMBER. Two. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Two. Does my friend from Loudoun 
 entertain seriously the apprehension — or was the argu- 
 ment addressed here for effect on another question — that 
 any man selected by the people of Virginia to preside 
 over its destinies, in order to see its laws faithfully exe- 
 cuted, is to exercise such an influence, not only over 
 the directors of his own appointment, but, also, over 
 the directors appointed by the stockholders of these in- 
 stitutions, as to secure loans, or discounts of paper, to 
 be used for political or party purposes ? Does he enter- 
 tain any such apprehension as that ; or, in other words, 
 has he so little confidence in the integrity and the in- 
 telligence of the people of this commonwealth as to 
 suppose that a governor will be successful in the resort 
 to such means for securing his election ? Is there a gen- 
 tleman on this floor who does not believe in his heart 
 that it would be the most certain means of the candi- 
 date's defeat? I cannot believe it possible that a man 
 can be instigated to abuse the place and station of gov- 
 ernor in this way ; nor can it be argued from practices 
 that have been supposed to prevail to some extent ia 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 221 
 
 Washington, that the same abuses would be practised 
 here, simply because, as you diminish the area within 
 which the corruption is to operate, to the same extent 
 do you increase the probabilities of detection and ex- 
 posure ; as the people of a county or district would be 
 more familiar with the conduct of their immediate rep- 
 resentatives, so would the people of a State be more fa- 
 miliar with' the conduct of their governor, than would 
 be the people of the United States with the conduct of 
 their President. I believe this power of the appoint- 
 ment of directors by the governor has been exercised 
 since the first establishment of the banking institutions 
 of this State. Has any member ever heard of an abuse 
 of power on the part of the directors ? Has any gen- 
 tleman ever heard an instance in which the power was 
 abused by a director at the instigation of the governor ? 
 Or has he ever heard any objection to the governor pos- 
 sessing that power of appointment on account of improper 
 appropriation of money, to be applied either to his per- 
 sonal or political uses? The case has never, and is not 
 likely to happen. If it ever should, he stands a doomed 
 man, not only for re-election at the time, but for all time 
 to come. I want no surer means of disfranchising him, 
 entirely, in that Commonwealth in which he should 
 dare to prostitute the powers of his office to so base a 
 purpose. 
 
 Gentlemen talk about the infallibility of the people. 
 My worthy friend from Loudoun thinks it would be a 
 very extraordinary spectacle to see a body of men, (135), 
 themselves all fallible and imperfect, representing a 
 constituency who are infallible and perfect. It would, 
 indeed, be a most extraordinary spectacle, and no gen- 
 tleman has occupied that ground that I am aware. 
 
 The gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) took occa- 
 sion to speak of the difference between men in public 
 and private life, and awarded to the man in public life 
 a higher degree of virtue than to those in private life, 
 and that he had witnessed more scenes of depravity in 
 private life than he had in public life. "Well, it would 
 be equally as extraordinary a spectacle if he had not 
 seen greater and more flagrant instances of vice in pri- 
 vate than in public life, when you look at the propor- 
 tion of men in public life, as compared with those in 
 private life. There are few instances, I presume, amongst 
 the public men of the day, who have been selected for 
 their virtue and intelligence, against whom charges 
 have been proved, and verdicts rendered, for the com- 
 mission of theft, murder and arson. That is not the 
 species of corruption to which reference has been made, 
 but there is a greater or lesser degree of personal am- 
 bition — the desire for advancement — in every man who 
 enters into public life, that has a natural tendency to 
 corruption. What I mean by corruption, is a sacrifice 
 of the public interests to advance his own individual 
 prosperity ; that is the kind of corruption of which I 
 speak. A sacrifice of the public interest; a sacrifice of 
 the interests of those for whom he acts, whether in the 
 gubernatorial or the legislative capacity. That is the 
 kind of corruption to which, I presume, reference has 
 .been made, and the only kind. 
 
 The gentleman made reference, also, to the powers of 
 the governor in regard to the board of public works. I 
 am rather inclined to think that the report of the com- 
 mittee proposes to strip him of all power in the board 
 of public works. There is, then, no very dangerous 
 power, to be exercised by the governor in that respect. 
 If we are to carry out the provision of that report, as 
 presented in this body — and with a modification of that 
 report, he may be stripped of all dangerous power- 
 even if he has a participation in the board itself. My 
 friend from Loudoun desired to know what great injury 
 would result to the people ; and by what process they 
 could be made to suffer from the want of power to re- 
 elect this public officer. Will my friend allow me to 
 tell him of a case in which they would suffer. 
 
 Now, let us take the argument of the gentleman as a 
 correct one, and the position that he has fully maintain- 
 ed, that the governor of Virginia will abuse the powers 
 
 of his office, and that it is necessary to restrict his eligi- 
 bility in order to secure another in his place, and com- 
 pel him to return among the people, which I maintain' 
 he does, whenever he comes before them for re-election, 
 just as effectively as if he were disconnected from the 
 public service. Suppose it be true, that in a majority 
 of instances your governor will be corrupt, and that he 
 will abuse the powers of his office. And suppose that 
 after you have suffered from several such public offi- 
 cers — after you have endured this heavy calamity some 
 twenty odd years, or even half of that time — it was at 
 length the good fortune of the people to select out of 
 their whole number one honest man, who would not 
 abuse this power. Will no injury arise to the people of 
 this Commonwealth by this restriction which you pro- 
 pose to impose, and by declaring in advance that when 
 they do find such a man in office they shall not be per- 
 mitted to retain, but shall discard him from service, and 
 return him to the great body of the people ; to take 
 some other man, who, perhaps, will abuse his power, as 
 have those who last preceded him. There is one case 
 where the people will sustain injury, and I think my 
 friend would acknowledge that very serious injury 
 would be sustained by them. I am not aware of any 
 other argument, or of any other position assumed by 
 my friend from Loudoun, whether enforced or not ; and 
 I flatter myself that there is no real or substantial ob- 
 jection growing out of those positions that he did as- 
 sume. I flatter myself that I have answered his ob- 
 jections, by reducing his theories to practical operation, 
 and that I have shown what I set out -to show, that 
 with the powers proposed to be given to the governor, 
 or with the powers that he now exercises, and which 
 are proposed to be diminished, or with the powers pro- 
 posed to be conferred on him by the report of the 
 committee, that Queen Victoria and Millard Fillmore 
 are very insignificant persons, if they can exercise 
 no more dangerous powers than the governor of Vir- 
 ginia. 
 
 We have heard mnch to-day, and on other occasions, 
 about the science of government ; we have heard of 
 what John Locke had written on government ; and 
 what Vattel and Montesquieu had written on the sub- 
 ject of government. I did not come here to study the 
 science of government. The science of government — I 
 mean a popular one — is just now beginning to develop 
 itself. John Locke, I maintain, knew nothing of the 
 science as adapted to popular representative govern- 
 ment ; and especially, he knew nothing of the propriety 
 of the re-eligibility of the Governor of Virginia. 
 [Laughter.] He never heard of a governor in all his 
 life in the sense in which we employ that term. If I 
 were a representative in the chamber of deputies of 
 France — if I were in a French Convention, about to 
 adopt a constitution for the people of Franc — I migh t 
 go back to Montesquieu and Locke to inquire into the 
 principles of the science of government ; but I believe 
 we are a different people from any other that ever did 
 live, or ever will live on the face of the earth. I be- 
 lieve that this Anglo Saxon race of people in the 
 United States of America are the only people ever 
 formed by the hand of God, that are capable of self- 
 government. And believing this, I shall endeavor to 
 make a constitution for the people of the present day, 
 and not for the people of the days of John Locke. 
 
 I should like to know what sort of a figure my 
 friend from Fauquier would cut when he goes home to 
 his constituents, and they should happen to object to 
 his course in regard to this, or any other feature of the 
 constitution which he was sent here to make for them, 
 and they should inquire of him why he voted against 
 the re-eligibility of the governor, and he should reply, 
 I voted against it, because, on reading an essay that 
 was written by John Locke, I could not find that there 
 was any authority, or that, according to the principles 
 and science of government — as he understood them — 
 there was any propriety in giving this great power of 
 selecting their own officers to the people ; nor was I 
 
222 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 satisfied with reference to John Locke, but I consulted 
 Montesquieu, and he rather reprobated the idea of 
 giving this power to the people, and so did Vattel. 
 The question would be put to him, who is this man 
 John Locke ? Was he a member of this Convention ? 
 | Laughter.] Who is Montesquieu, and who is Vattel ? 
 I mean no disrespect to the constituency of the gentle- 
 man. This question would, in all probability, be put to 
 me when I should go on the stump aud account for my 
 stewardship. [Laughter.] They would Avant to know 
 who was John Locke. Now, t have not read John 
 Locke for more than twenty- five years, and I think it 
 will be at least twenty -five^ years more before I read 
 him again. But if I recollect right, I think he wrote 
 about the time of < marles the 1st or 2d, and to sustain the 
 nobility of England by infusing a certain degree of 
 aristocracy into the monarchy. 
 
 Several MEMBERS. Oh, no ! oh, no ! 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Yes he did. if I am not mistaken. Well, 
 what do I care for the principles of John Locke, Mon- 
 tesquieu or Vattel. While on this point, 1 am reminded 
 of an anecdote I have heard related — and very often, so 
 often that I believe it to be true — strictly true; for I 
 have never heard it contradicted. [Laughter.] I have 
 heard it told where it would be contradicted if it were 
 not true. It was related of John Quincy Adams and 
 General Jackson When General Jackson was arraigned 
 before the House of Representatives, in consequence of 
 misconduct in the Seminole war, Mr. John Q. Adams, 
 who was one of his warmest advocates, was in private 
 conversation with him on one occasion, when General 
 Jackson inquired of him, "Mr. Adams, what will be the 
 result of this?" "Well," said Mr. Adams, "I don't 
 know what will be the result, but certainly authorities 
 are very strong against you. I will endeavor to make 
 the most of it." "Authorities! What authorities?" 
 said Jackson. " Well, Puffendorf, and Grotius, and 
 Vattel say so, and they are very strong against you." 
 "By the eternal !" replied General Jackson, "I. wish 
 you to let Mr. Puffendorf, Mr. Grotius and Mr. Vattel 
 know, if they take any such position as that in regard 
 to my conduct in the Seminole war, I'll cut their ears 
 off close to their heads. I'll let them know that this is 
 a question between Jim Monroe and i." [Laughter.] 
 
 I imagine that when my f. iend from Fauquier goes 
 back and tells the people the reason that he did not 
 vote for reforms and improvements, was, because Locke 
 and Montesquieu said they were impracticable, his con- 
 stituents would be very apt to tell him that if they can- 
 not get hold of Montesquieu and Locke, they will cut 
 his ears off. 
 
 I will not dispute with the gentleman on the science 
 of government as laid down by these ancient writers. I 
 have not yet gone into a discussion of them, nor will 1. 
 Neither will I imitate the personality that has been,re- 
 sorted to here, let me say, in regard to the course of 
 public men. I will not follow the example that has 
 been set me, of dragging down and denouncing high and 
 distinguished public men in this country, who are not 
 here to answer for themselves, whether it be Mr. Clay, 
 or Mr. Van Buren, or Mr. Benton. They have nothing 
 to do with the question of the re-eligibility of the Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia. I think it a practice more honored 
 in the breach than in the observance. 
 
 And now let me say to gentlemen, that when they 
 hear me speaking of the rights of the people and of de- 
 mocracy, it is not in a spirit of partizansnip to which 
 the gentleman from Fauquier has this morning referred. 
 I do not mean to have any reference, and still less had 
 I reference a few days since when I said that there was 
 more of the spirit of true democracy in me, than in 
 ninety nine hundredths of the democracy of the present 
 day, to the modern democracy. I mean the true prin- 
 ciples of democracy, and not the spurious. I am no 
 demagogue. No man ever charged me with that, nor 
 do I suppose that it was the purpose of the gentleman 
 from Fauquier to lay that charge at my door. The fault 
 
 found with me is, that I do not court the popular favor 
 enough I am no demagogue. 1 am a friend to the 
 people, and the rights of the people. I have been sent 
 here to defend and main ain them, and I will — so help 
 me God — do so to the best of my ability. But the last, 
 the very last thing that I expect, or will be drawn into, 
 is to occupy any position here by which I am to secure 
 a neighborhood, a county or district popularity. I came 
 here with a design, which I will carry out to the best of 
 my ability, to make, not for John Locke, or for the peo- 
 ple for whom John Locke wrote, but f r the people, the 
 whole entire people of Virginia, a constitution the best 
 calculated, in my judgment, to protect and to preserve 
 their rights of life, liberty aud property, irrespective of 
 the influence it may have upon my personal popularity. 
 On all the great questions that have been presented to 
 us, when the proper time arrives, I will, as I said in the 
 first of my remarks, endeavor to explain my views of 
 each as they come up. 
 
 In regard to the selection of Governor of Virginia, I 
 I have heard it out of doors, that if this power of re-eli- 
 gibility was given, the east would never have a gover- 
 nor of this commonwealth. Well, I do not care wheth- 
 er the east ever have a governor of the commonwealth 
 or not, if the principle be sound and correct, that the 
 people have a right to elect their own governor. I do 
 not care whether he comes from the east or the west, 
 any more than I care whether a President comes from 
 the north or the south. I go for the best man, the man 
 that is best calculated to serve the public interest, and 
 the man who will take the most enlarged, liberal, and 
 statesmanlike views, such as, I mean, with the capacity 
 that God has given me, and the reflections that I can be- 
 stow on these different subjects, to pursue here. And 
 verjf probable the east will never have a governor, for I 
 believe the voting power of the State is against us. But 
 the only way to secure the disfranchisement of the east 
 in regard to this or any other officer, is to" perpetuate 
 this sectional difference between the two. And why has 
 an effort been made to give a sectional aspect to this 
 question ? What has it to do with the eligibility of the 
 office? If the west have the power of re-electing one 
 man to office, have they not the same power to elect a 
 new one in his stead? If they have so little of the spirit 
 of liberality and kindness as to exclude us from all 
 office in the commonwealth subject to their control — if 
 they mean to exercise this power tyrannically and op- 
 pressively upon the east, I see no means by which we 
 can consistently restrain them, after we have extended 
 the right of suffrage to every free white male citizen 
 over the age of twenty-one. I have confidence enough 
 in the western people to believe, that if at any time the 
 east can present a true man for this or any other office, 
 they have just as much patriotism, just as much integri- 
 ty, and just a3 much desire to do justice to the east, as 
 the east have to do justice to the west ; and if they can- 
 not present a better man, why let the west take the 
 whole. That is my view. I will not impose an improp- 
 er restriction upon any portion of the people, to serve 
 the purposes of any other portion. But do not let gen- 
 tlemen infer from this, as they inferred before, that I 
 am a friend to the white basis. "Lay not that flatter- 
 ing unction to your souls " Do not count me among you. 
 The reasons why, I'll tell you by and by, if I may imi- 
 tate my colleague from Richmond in perpetrating a lit- 
 tle poetry. [Laughter.] I will tell you when the 
 time comes, but I will not impose any improper restric- 
 tion to serve any improper purpose. I come here, as I 
 said, to the best of my ability to make a good constitu- 
 tion for the whole State, and one that will be suited to 
 every part of the the commonwealth of Virginia. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I desire to make a very few remarks 
 to the committee, but I do not know whether they de- 
 sire to hear me or not. Unless I see some disposition 
 to the contrary, I shall move that the committee now 
 rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the commitiee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 223 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON COUNTY COURTS, &C. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond, the report 
 of the Committee on County Courts, &c, was taken up 
 from the table, and referred to the Committee of the 
 Whole. 
 
 And then, the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 morning at 11 o'clock. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 13th, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Manly. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. , 
 
 REPORT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. The Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment have had under consideration various resolu- 
 tions to them referred, from the further consideration 
 of which they beg leave to be discharged. 
 
 A resolution adopted on motion of Mr. McCamant, re- 
 lating "to the sequestration of all the qualified voters of 
 the commonwealth;" a resolution of Mr. Botts, adopted 
 on the 28th of October, in relation to "a uniform system 
 of taxation upon the ad valorem principle ;" a resolution 
 adopted on motion of Mr. Carlile, m the 28th of Octo- 
 ber, in relation to "restrictions upon the legislature in 
 the appropriating of the public money and the pledging 
 the faith of the State; and providing that bills might 
 be originated in either house of the General Assembly ;" 
 a resolution proposed by Mr. Brown, and adopted on 
 the 28th of October, in relation to "the rights of indi- 
 viduals in their property, a uniform system of taxation, 
 to restricting the legislature in appropriating and bor- 
 rowing money, and pledging the faith of the State, and 
 in relation to a uniform system of banking laws ;" a re- 
 solution adopted on the 29th of October, on motion of 
 Mr. Martin, of Marshall, in relation to "the most equita- 
 ble principle of taxation and restricting the legislature 
 in their appropriating power ;" a resolution of Mr. Fultz 
 adopted on the 4th of November, in relation to "provi 
 ding that a majority of all the members of the General 
 Assembly be necessary to pass a bill into a law ; and 
 that the faith of the State shall not be given;" a resolu- 
 tion of Mr. Ridley, aud adopted on the 9th of January, 
 in relation "to providing that every law shall embrace 
 only one subject, and that no law shall be amen led by 
 reference to its title ;" a resolution of Mr. Randolph 
 adopted on the 14th of Jauuary, and relating to "the 
 public debt and a sinking fund; and of appropriating of 
 the public money, and pledging the faith of the State ;" 
 a resolution adopted on motion of Mr. Goodeoii the 15th 
 of January, providing for "a division of the two houses of 
 the legislature into chambers, and the manner in 
 which the vote is to be taken in certain cases;" a resolu- 
 tion of Mr. McComas, adopted on the 17th day of Janua- 
 ry, restraining the legislature from passing any law im- 
 pairing the remedies for enforcing contracts or collecting 
 debts;" a resolution of Mr. Letcher, in relation "to a 
 commissioner for the settlement of private claims ; re- 
 stricting the legislature in granting divorces, and in ma- 
 king allowances to the owners of convict slaves;" are- 
 solution of Mr. Wise, adopted on the 17th of January, 
 in relation to '"State bonds, appropriations of money for 
 works of int ernal improvement, and to a tax in the nature 
 of a premium of mutual assurance ;" a resolution of Mr. 
 M. Garnett, adopted on the 18th of January, in relation 
 to "the abolition of imprisonment for debt ;" a resolu- 
 tion of Mr. Trigg adopted on the 20th of January, in re- 
 lation to an annual appropriation for tl e payment of the 
 State debt ;" a resolution of Mr. Dale Carter, adopted 
 on the 20th of January, giving power to the legislature to 
 provide for a compensation of officers, &c, not provided 
 for by the constitution, and prohibiting the legislature 
 from granting extra compensation in certain cases, and 
 also for increasing or diminishing the salaries of offi- 
 cers, during their term of office ;" a resolution of Mr. 
 Fulkerson, adopted on the 25th of January "in relation 
 to commonwealth's attorneys in the county court serving 
 
 in the legislature;" a resolution of Mr. Neeson adopt- 
 ed on the 25th of January, in relation to capitation tax- 
 es, and taxes upon property ; and resolutions of Mr. 
 Botts in relation to ad valorem taxation, and the appro- 
 priation of money and the creation of debt by the legis- 
 lature." 
 
 The motion to discharge the committee from the fur- 
 ther consideration of the resolutions, was agreed to, and 
 the report laid on the table. 
 
 report of the basis committee. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I gave notice on Tuesday last, that 
 on this day I should move that the Convention resolve 
 itself into Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of 
 taking up and considering the report on the Basis and 
 Apportionment of Representation. When I gave that no- 
 tice, I supposed that the debate on the pending proposi- 
 tion, or amendment, to the executive report, would have 
 terminated by this time. That debate, however, is still 
 in progress, and I certainly have no desire to deprive 
 any gentleman of the privilege of addressing the Con- 
 vention who desires to do so, on the questions growing 
 out of the propositions which have been submitted. It 
 is perhaps best that the vote should be taken on the 
 pending amendment to the report of the Executive Com- 
 mittee, before the House shall pass to the consideration 
 of other subjects. It seems to be the general desire, so 
 far as I have been able to ascertain the wishes of mem- 
 bers, that a vote should be taken on this amendment be- 
 fore this subject is left. I have therefore determined 
 not to ask the House to resolve itself into committee to 
 take up the basis report to-day, as it seems to be desired 
 by many members of the body, that the residue of this 
 week should be given to the consideration of the report 
 of the executive department ofthe government. I have 
 no particular wish on this subject. 1 only desire that 
 an early day should be fixed for the taking up of the re- 
 port on the basis of representation, regarding that as the 
 question of the greatest importance. In lieu of the pro- 
 position of which I gave notice the other day, I would 
 submit for consideration, a resolution which I hold in 
 my hand. I deem it desirable that the Convention 
 should express its opinion in the form of a resolution as 
 to the day when it will go into the consideration of the 
 basis report. 
 
 Resolved, That the Convention will on Monday next 
 the 17th iust. and daily thereafter, until it be otherwise 
 ordered, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole 
 House for the purpose of considering the report on the 
 Basis and apportionment of Representation, and such 
 amendments as may be offered thereto. 
 
 I have named Monday, but I am willing to say to- 
 morrow or Saturday. I have inserted Monday because 
 it seems to meet with more general approbation than 
 either of the other days to which I referred. There 
 seems to be a general acquiescence in the belief that it is 
 better to give up the lesidue of this week to the report 
 of the executive department, ami make as much pro- 
 gress in that report as we are able to do during the 
 week. Therefore i have inserted Monday as the day to 
 take up the report. I amwilling, however, to acquiesce in 
 any suggestion which may be made as to to-morrow or 
 next day, but I am not willing to insert a later day than 
 Monday. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I should regret very much if the po- 
 sition which I occupy in reference to the debate on the 
 subject pending before the committee, has any agency 
 in influencing the gentleman from Kanawha (Mr. Sum- 
 mers) m postponing his purpose of moving to take up 
 the report of the committee on the basis to-day. When 
 I sought the floor yesterday in committee. I was not 
 aware that to-day was set apart for considering this re- 
 port on the basis, that is, that the gentleman had given 
 notice to take it up. I do not desire for my part, to 
 prolong discussion. I presume every gentleman has 
 made up his mind, and I do not expect if I should say 
 anythiug, to influence the vote of a single member. I 
 do not desire to do the vain thing of making a speech 
 Jin this discussion. I think it more important that we 
 
224 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 should progress, than that we should make speeches, 
 and I shall yield the floor cheerfully, if it be the wish 
 of the Convention to go to-day into the consideration of 
 the basis report. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. Understanding that it will not 
 be at all disagreeable, but rather a pleasure for the gen- 
 tleman from Appomatox, (Mr. Bocock,) to forego the 
 privilege to which he is entitled, and being like him ex- 
 ceedingly desirous to make progress, and believing on 
 this question of the executive report with the gentleman 
 from Loudoun, (Mr. Janney,) that if we discuss this 
 proposition until Monday week, that we shall not be 
 prepared to vote on it, I intend at a proper time, to 
 move to postpone its further consideration for the pre- 
 sent, and lay it on the table. My vote on that question 
 depends entirely on the decision of the question as to 
 how much power and patronage this governor is to have. 
 Upon that I base my vote, and I am not prepared to 
 vote until that question is first settled. I therefore, 
 with the concurrence of the gentleman from Appomat- 
 ox, (Mr. Bocock',) will move to amend the motion of 
 the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Suemers,) by mo- 
 ving to strike out Monday and to insert to-day. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I stated that I was perfectly wil- 
 ling to acquiesce in any thing that might be the wish of 
 this body in reference to the disposition of the resolu- 
 tion, so far as the time was concerned when we should 
 proceed to consider the report on the basis of represen- 
 tation. I hope my friend from Essex (Mr. M. Garnett) 
 will not insist on the amendment, to take up the report 
 to-day. If he thinks proper to move the amendment 
 changing the time indicated in the resolution, I hope at 
 least he will not name an earlier time than to-morrow. 
 I trust he will not be guided by any thing which has 
 fallen from the gentleman faom Appomatox, (Mr. Bo- 
 cock,) as to his willingness to forego his right on the 
 floor to-day. I think that we ought not to go into the 
 committee of the whole to-day on the report on the ba- 
 sis, under the circumstances. The gentleman from Ap- 
 pomatox (Mr. Bocock) has the floor on this question, 
 and I am sure it will give the Convention great pleasure 
 to hear the gentleman. I think it very probable that 
 there may be others who desire to be heard on the sub- 
 ject, and I have inserted Monday in the resolution, be- 
 lieving that it would meet more generally the approba- 
 tion of the members of this body, and thereby give the 
 residue of the week to the consideration of the execu- 
 tive report. I hope, at all events, that the gentleman 
 will not move to amend by naming to-day. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I will with very great pleasure 
 accept the suggestion of the gentleman from Kanawha, 
 and say to-morrow. For my part, if I had my say in 
 this matter, I would make the basis question the last 
 question to be taken up and acted on. I would go on 
 and settle all those other questions of reform which I 
 think are desirable first, before our blood shall get at 
 all heated, before any thing like feeling has risen on the 
 subject, and while we are all calm, cool and deliberate; 
 but as I know a large majority of the membars think 
 that the basis, of all questions, should be first settled, I 
 shall defer to their judgment. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. I hope the amendment to the resolution 
 will not be adopted, and for the very reasons urged by 
 the gentlemen in its favor for its adoption, and that is, 
 a desire on their part to promote progress. Now for 
 that very reason, I am at present opposed to its adop- 
 tion. We are now engaged on one subject; very great 
 progress has been made in discussing that subject, and 
 I do not perceive how we are to gain time, before we 
 dispose of it, by laying it down and taking up a totally 
 different one. If I thought the circumstances warranted 
 me in the conclusion, that with the termination of this 
 day would terminate our action on the subject now in 
 hand, I would certainly go for fixing to-morrow as the 
 day for taking up the basis question. But does any 
 gentleman believe that we shall make a final disposition 
 of the executive report to-day, or even of the particu- 
 lar question which has been discussed here for the last 
 eleven or twelve days ? I think that question has been 
 
 debated long enough, and I am ready to vote upon it 
 now, as I was ten days ago ; but there are gentlemen 
 who desire to discuss it further, and who are entitled to 
 do so, if such is their wish, and who will do so, and 
 thus this whole day will be consumed in debate without 
 arriving at any conclusion. Under these circumstances 
 what shall we gain in the way of progress, by laying it 
 on the table and taking up a different subject? We 
 should gain this: The flood of debate is now nearly 
 run out, but give it a respite for a few days, and we 
 shall have another which will deluge this Convention. 
 I think, therefore, if we are to regard economy of time, 
 that we should go on now and dispose of this executive 
 report, and then take up the next report in its order. 
 After all, I do not know that is the universal wish hera 
 to take up the basis and settle it before all other ques- 
 tions; ®n the contrary, I think there are other questions 
 which ought to precede it. I think we ought to take 
 up the report on the bill of rights, then the report on 
 suffrage, and then the basis question or any other that 
 may be thought proper; but I see no reason why the ba- 
 sis report should come first, or even precede the ques- 
 tion of organizing the executive department. I see no 
 reason in favor of the proposition of the gentleman 
 from Essex, (Mr. M. Garnett,) and I do hope that it 
 will not be adopted by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. STRAUGHAN. I agree in part with the re- 
 marks of the gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Btrd.) 
 I see that no time can be saved by laying this report of 
 the executive committee on the table, until the basis 
 question is disposed of. I for one, am opposed to ta- 
 king up t the basis question until this and every other 
 question is disposed of. It may be that I am in a deci- 
 ded minority. This is only to be ascertained, however, 
 by an actual vote. My reasons for it are these: It is 
 not to be disguised that the question involved in the ba- 
 sis is one of political power, and it is a discussion that 
 will have a tendency to create warmth of feeling in this 
 body, perhaps resulting in bitterness, and whenever sec- 
 tional feeling is excited here, there will be a manifest 
 indisposition, I am afraid, on the part of gentlemen 
 from the respective sections of the State, to go on and 
 carry out those other reforms for which we were as- 
 sembled. There were some remarks which fell from 
 gentlemen in the early part of the session, that, not- 
 withstanding they were elected as radicals and sent here 
 by their constituents to carry out certain specific re- 
 forms, yet that their votes in regard to these reforms 
 depended on the settlement of the basis question. ,Was 
 not this as much as to say, if you do not give me the ba- 
 sis I am in favor of, I will suppress all other reforms ? 
 I am free to declare that my vote on other reforms does 
 not depend in a single instance on the settlement of the 
 basis question. I see no relation between the settle- 
 ment of the basis question and the question as to whethr 
 er the people shall elect a sheriff or a governor, or as 
 to the terms of these officers. I am in favor of set- 
 tling all other reforms, and when we come to the basis 
 question, let it be the very last question disposed of by 
 this Convention. These views which I entertain, are 
 concurred in by other gentlemen in this Convention, and 
 for the purpose of testing the question in regard to the 
 propriety of this movement, I move to lay the resolu- 
 tion on the table. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I understand that the motion to lay on 
 the table is not debatable, and that no gentleman can 
 give his reasons for voting against it. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The motion is not debatable. 
 
 The motion to lay on the table was rejected. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. M. 
 GARNETT, to substitute to-morrow, as the day on 
 which the report of the basis committee should be con- 
 sidered, and it was rejected. 
 
 , The resolution, as introduced by Mr. Summers was 
 then adopted. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SHEFFEY, the Convention again 
 resumed the consideration, in committee of the whole, 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 225 
 
 (Mr. Watts of Norfolk in the Chair) of the report of 
 the Committee on the Executive Department. 
 
 RE-ELIGIBILITY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the first 
 clause of the first article of the report of the committee 
 on the executive, and the amendments pending thereto 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I came here without much expecta- 
 tion on my own part, of entering into this discussion, 
 and I am induced to do it now, in the main, from one or 
 two remarks that fell from the gentleman who last ad 
 dressed the Convention on yesterday, (Mr. Botts.) 
 That gentleman closed the remarks which he made by 
 reference to an impression which he said was prevail- 
 ing to some extent, and which he had heard out of doors, 
 that this was a question between the east and the west. 
 Now, I cannot believe, that this question of the re-eli- 
 gibility of the governor, which we are here discussing, 
 is a question between the east and the west. I do not 
 think so, although it is true that several gentlemen from 
 the west have spoken on this question and have taken 
 the same ground; and although I heard with some re- 
 gret, my able friend from Marion (Mr. Neeson) make 
 one allusion which I thought looked to that, yet I could 
 not believe, nor do I yet believe, that it has become a 
 question between the east and the west. I recol- 
 lect a remark of that gentleman which struck me 
 with some force at that time. He was comment- 
 ing on the constitution of Maryland as sanctioning the 
 principle contended for on our part, that the gover- 
 nor after serving one term, should go out. He re- 
 marked that in that constitution was another peculiar 
 provision, that the governor should come from different 
 sections of the State in each succeeding term ; and he 
 very significantly put the question to the gentleman 
 from Goochland : Is that the motive which induces 
 you to go for ineligibility? I do not know what were 
 the views of the gentleman from Goochland, (Mr. 
 Leake,) but I could not help thinking that the very op- 
 posite to that might be the reason which induced gen- 
 tlemen from the west to go for re-eligibility, name- 
 ly: that they do not desire the governor to come 
 from different sections of the State. If the one reason 
 could induce the gentleman from Goochland to go for 
 this restriction of the governor, would not the opposite 
 reason induce the gentleman from Marion to go against 
 it ? My own view of the subject is this : If I was 
 dreading sectional influence in the executive depart- 
 ment, and if I apprehended that western Virginia, hav- 
 ing a majority of the votes in the election, would al- 
 ways cast them sectionally, 1 would rather that the same 
 governor should stay in office all the time, so far as that 
 is concerned, because his sectional feelings would wear 
 away, and he would become imbued with State feelings. 
 So far as sectionalism is concerned, therefore, if I be- 
 lieved the western section desired to avail itself of its 
 own strength to perpetuate the office in a man from 
 that section, I would rather have the same man than 
 a new man fresh from that section and imbued with 
 all its peculiar sectional feelings. I can see no rea- 
 son, therefore, why this question should be sectional. 
 Another remark was made by the gentleman from Hen- 
 rico, which I think claims attention. Now, the propo- 
 sitions before this committee are three-fold. One is, 
 the report of the committee on the executive depart- 
 ment, that the governor should be elected for four 
 years, then go out and be ineligible. Another is, the 
 proposition of the gentleman from Pittsylvania, (Mr. 
 Tred way.) that he should be elected for four years, then 
 go out for one term and return to the people to be re- 
 eligible at the expiration of the succeeding term. The 
 third is, that he shall be re-eligible for life. The gen- 
 tleman from Henrico yesterday, in the conclusion of 
 his speech, said he cared very little for the matter of 
 re-eligibility in the executive, but that re-eligibility was 
 a principle which he desired to carry out, and that its 
 decision now was to decide the principle which we were 
 to apply to other officers. I cannot understand the 
 force of that remark. I do not see how a decision as 
 17 
 
 to the propriety of re-electing a governor decides the 
 propriety of re-electing members of the legislature. I 
 do not know how the propriety or impropriety of re- 
 electing a governor decides the propriety of re-elect- 
 ing our judges. I humbly apprehend that the proprie- 
 ty or impropriety in each particular case depends upon 
 that particular case. Will gentlemen say that re-eli- 
 gibility is a principle which should be carried out in re- 
 gard to every officer. The gentleman from Accomac, 
 I am sure, will not contend for that, for he has said he 
 would not have sheriffs re-eligible. 
 Mr. WISE. For a special reason. 
 Mr. BOCOCK. Well there is a special reason in every 
 case. The special reason applies to each case, and there 
 is no necessity for a general reason. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Will the gentleman allow me to state 
 the special reason? 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. When the question as to sheriffs comes 
 up, that will be the proper time. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Very well, I will not interrupt the gen- 
 tleman. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to put the gentleman on the 
 right track as to my proposition. I desire the gentle- 
 man to notice the discrimination in the argument I made 
 on Saturday between the right to re-elect and the pro- 
 priety of re-electing. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I will come to that point. I mean 
 simply to take the position that the re-eligibility or in- 
 eligibility of the Governor does not decide in any de- 
 gree the question of the ineligibility or re-eligibility of a 
 judge or of members of the legislature, or of a sheriff, or 
 of any other officer in the government. Special reasons 
 apply to the sheriff; special reasons apply to the gov- 
 ernor; and special reasons apply in every case. I say 
 that when gentlemen assume that the principle of re- 
 eligibility in its application to all other cases is to be 
 decided in this case, they might as well say that the 
 principle of length of term for all officers is to be de- 
 cided in deciding the term of the governor. Gentle- 
 men might as well say that they would go for a term of 
 four years for all the officers of government, because 
 that principle is decided in fixing the term of governor 
 at four years, and they mean to carry out that principle 
 throughout. There is no more principle involved in re- 
 eligibility than there is in fixing the term of office. The 
 special reasons applicable to each and every case de- 
 cide that case. That is my proposition. I do not 
 agree with the gentleman from Spottsylvania, f (Mr. 
 Conway,) that if the governor is to be re-eligible, a for- 
 tiori, a judge is to be re-eligible. I do not hold the 
 question to be decided in every case when we decide it 
 in reference to the governor. I see a difference between 
 the sheriff and the governor. I see a difference between 
 a member of the legislature and the governor. There 
 is no analogy between the several cases. Each depends 
 upon the special reasons applicable to each. 
 
 The great argument which gentlemen make in regard 
 to this principle of ineligibility is that you cannot, ©r 
 ought not, to restrict the po wer of the people. What right 
 have we, they ask, to restrict the power of the people? 
 Do I state their proposition correctly or not ? I am 
 sure the gentleman from Montgomery can answer me 
 that. We have no power to restrict the powers of the 
 people. Am I right? The gentleman does not contra- 
 dict me. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. That was not my proposition. 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I appealed to the gentleman from 
 Montgomery. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. Does the gentleman ask me for a reply ? 
 Mr. BOCOCK. 1 was simply stating your proposi- 
 tion. Am I right or not ? 
 
 Mr. HOGE. I do not answer questions categori- 
 cally. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I can answer the question categori- 
 cally. We have a right and the power to do so if we 
 choose. What are we ? So far as we think it right 
 and proper we are competent to exercise any power of 
 the people, because we are the representatives of the 
 
226 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 people — we are the people. They have sent us here to 
 make a constitution for them. Are we a body separate 
 from and independent of the people? No, we are the 
 people assembled in primary convention. For what? To 
 form a plan of organic law. Cannot the people in framing 
 their organic law, impose any restrictions which they 
 please upon themselves ? Are not the people competent 
 to deny to themselves or to their agents the exercise of 
 any powers which they may choose ? Can they rot agree, 
 as all power belongs to them, that there is one power 
 which they will not exercise ? I wish to know about 
 this fourth class of power— this reserved power. What 
 is it? It is a power which the people agree in their 
 primary convention that they will not exercise, and 
 that nobody else shall exercise. All these reserved 
 powers which the gentleman from Accomac speaks of, 
 are powers which the people agree, by their own con- 
 sent, are not to be exercised, and which are to be re- 
 served and not to be brought into action or delegated. 
 It is as perfectly competent for the people, as it is for 
 individuals, to bind themselves by a contract. That is 
 the great merit of a restriction. It binds every one 
 who is a party to it. It is by that means that not only 
 the power but the liberties of the people are preserved. 
 Gentlemen do not make a proper distinction between 
 restricting the powers of the people and restricting their 
 liberties and rights. The powers of every man ought to 
 be restricted in regard to others with whom he acts. 
 The powers of the whole people ought to be restricted 
 in regard to every individual member ©f the people, for 
 that is the only security to the one man as against the 
 whole of the population of a State that he will enjoy his 
 liberties. The people have entered into a contract with 
 him, the people being one party and he the other, that his 
 liberties shall not be infringed upon by them. They have 
 the power to appropriate all that he has — they can do it if 
 they choose. The majority always have the power over 
 the minority. The people have the power over every in- 
 dividual member, and the great object of the constitution 
 is to guard every single individual in the community 
 from the power of the whole community. Restrictions 
 upon power are not restrictions upon liberty ; they are 
 the guaranties and safe-guards of liberty. When I am 
 told that the people are capable of self-government I 
 admit it in its fullest extent. I know that unless the 
 people govern themselves they never will be well gov- 
 erned. And what is the best evidence they can give 
 that they are capable of self-government? I look with 
 great anxiety, when I am called upon to judge of the 
 ability of the people to govern themselves, to the con- 
 tract which they make with each other in forming 
 their government. When they frame a constitution 
 and impose such restraints upon their power that 
 the humblest and poorest citizen is as safe under 
 their government as the proudest, and strongest, and 
 wealthiest — that is the best evidence they give me 
 of their capability for self-government. The best 
 evidence of their capacity is given in the exercise of 
 their forbearance, and justice, and wisdom in so framing 
 the constitution as to secure the property and liberty of 
 each and every citizen by limitations upon power. There 
 has been one attempt in the history of this world to try 
 this plan of self-government without restriction upon 
 power. There was a government created which was a 
 pure representative democracy. It was created by the 
 French National Assembly and the French Convention. 
 It was carried to its legitimate results in the action and 
 proceedings of the French constituent assembly. There 
 were the people of France without restrictions upon 
 their power, represented by a single representative 
 body, exercising the whole power of the country and 
 the whole power of the people. And what was the 
 character of that government? Was it a government of 
 liberty ? It was a government in which the £ower; of 
 the people was entirely unrestricted ; but was it a gov- 
 ernment which secured the happiness and safety of in- 
 dividuals? No, it was a reign of terror. That people 
 were radicals, for they discarded every thing that was 
 of old. They were infinite radicals, for they dethroned 
 
 the God of Heaven, and erected a Goddess of P eason, and 
 worshipped her. They were infinite radicals, and the only 
 ones that I ever knew of, until the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac declared himself. They were infinite radicals, 
 and what was the reign of infinite radicalism ? The 
 bloody guillotine ceased not its motions day or night. 
 The blood of innocent citizens ran like water through 
 the streets. Unoffending citizens perished by thous- 
 ands, and the most sanguinary despotism which has 
 been known in the history of man grew out of that 
 government, of that unrestricted power of the people, 
 that government of infinite radicalism. What was the 
 result? Why, the people gladly passed from that 
 government, under the dominion of a military hero, 
 and from that again to the quiet dominion of a mon- 
 archy. 
 
 You may tell me if you choose that the majority has 
 a right to gjvern. I know that in the ordinary trans- 
 actions of government, the majority overrules the mi- 
 nority ; but the t lan of government which we ought 
 to adopt, and which best secures the rights and liber- 
 ties of the people, is that where not only the rights of 
 the minority, but every individual man is protected. 
 Well, the guards to be thrown into a plan of govern- 
 ment to achieve that object, depend upon the circum- 
 stances of the case. The gentleman from Marion said 
 that government was as much an inductive as an ex- 
 perimental science. If by an inductive science he 
 means deducing principle from facts that are known, I 
 agree with him. But if he tells me that one system 
 works well in practice and the other ill,, but that the 
 last system is moie inductive according to his philoso- 
 phy, I tell him I want none of his inductive philosophy. 
 I want a system that secures the life, liberty, and pro- 
 perty of each and every citizen. I repeat, then, that 
 the distinction which gentlemen fail to draw, is between 
 a restriction upon the liberties and rights of the citi- 
 zens, and a restriction upon the powers of the people. 
 But I wish to know what restriction is this, even upon 
 the powers of the people. The gentleman from Acco- 
 mac tells us that when there were a thousand men from 
 whom to select a governor, and one should be taken 
 away, and the people were told they should select out 
 of the nine hundred and ninety -nine, that that was rae 
 restriction upon their powers. Well, I admit that there 
 is a restriction to that degree ; but I wish to know how 
 it affects the rights and liberties of the people ? Does 
 it restrain the rights and liberties of the people, for 
 they are what I desire to preserve. Gentlemen have failed 
 to tell us how it is a restriction upon the rights and 
 liberties of the people. My friend from Montgomery 
 admits that he thinks that even a restriction against the 
 election of an alien is wrong — all are restrictions upon 
 the powers of the people, and in his opinion, every one 
 is wrong. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. I do not ask the gentleman to yield the 
 floor for me to answer his inquiry. I do not answer 
 questions categorically, and therefore shall not attempt 
 to answer him in that manner. I rise, now, merely to 
 set the gentleman right as to my idea. 
 
 I did think that my position on this subject had been 
 made plain enough for the comprehension of the plain- 
 est mind. It was this : That we come here, sent by 
 the people in accordance with the spirit of our institu- 
 tions, as declared in the bill of rights ; that our fathers 
 intended by that declaration, that the government should 
 be absolutely and strictly a popular one, and that the 
 people sent us here to make the government conform 
 to that principle. Then my position was, that con- 
 sistently with the theory of a popular government, we 
 could not restrict the people ; for the theory of a popu- 
 lar government is, that all power is in the hands of the 
 people, and that if you restrict that power to the 
 greatest or smallest extent, the restriction to that ex- 
 tent is not contrary to the theory of popular govern- 
 ment. It is to that extent strictly a popular govern- 
 ment. If you hold that all power is in the people, and you 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 227 
 
 take away airy of that power, certainly it is not strictly 
 a popular government. And my positian was, that con- 
 s'stently with the theory of a popular government you 
 cannot take away the powers of the people. If you 
 do, to the extent to which you take away that power 
 it ceases to be a popular government. I think I am 
 understood now. 
 
 I wish to allude to another subject in connection with 
 this. It is in regard to the election of minors and females. 
 I said expressly, and I repeatel it, that I con- 
 tended for no such right. My position on that subject 
 was that the powers of government rested in the 
 hands of those having the right to the exercise of politi- 
 cal power ; that political p^wer was not lodged in the 
 hands of minors or females. They could not exercise 
 them, and therefore could not be selected. 
 
 Mr. B3CO0K. I do not think I misunderstood the 
 gentleman. His statement now, as I supposed it was 
 before, is, that if you have a popular government you 
 cannot restrict the rights of the people. That is, as 
 all power belongs to the people, when they come to- 
 gether to frame a form of government they cannot re- 
 strict their own power, and if they do it is not popu- 
 lar government at all. I dissent from that proposition. 
 I insist that if the people desire to retain all power un- 
 restricted in their hands, it is better that they should 
 not make any constitution, by which, in any way, they 
 should bind themselves. They hold the power and are 
 able to exercise it without any restriction. Now, the 
 Tery contract which forms the government restricts 
 them. All power belongs to the people, says the gen- 
 tleman, and I agree to that, but I ask the gentleman if 
 lie would not restrict, in some degree, the power of the 
 people ? For instance, if a man was arrested and charged 
 with murder, he would not allow the people to gather 
 together in a mob and hang him, if they desired. Yet 
 to prevent this, is a restriction in the government upon 
 their powers He would put that restriction there, and yet 
 tells us that in doing so we are not making a popular gov- 
 ernment. Is that not so ? All power belonging to the 
 people, of course the people have the power to do it. 
 I know they have the power to take every one of, us 
 and hang us before we get our dinners, and they might 
 •do it, had they not restricted themselves under laws 
 ■which prevent their exercising all their power in that 
 •way. Yet will it be said that on that account our gov- 
 ernment is not a popular government. The gentleman 
 is mistaken in his proposition. A popular government 
 is one created by the people, giving certain power to 
 chosen agents of the people, who exercise it for the 
 people, and the more restriction you have upon that 
 exercise, the better it is fur the people. When you under- 
 take to preserve all this power to the people, you leave 
 the weak at the mercy of the strong. I desire that we 
 should have restrictions, not for the benefit of the 
 strong or the powerful — not for the benefit of the man 
 of great power and ample purse, but for the feeble man 
 and the man of empty purse. These things are, and 
 must be regarded "by every government. The distinc- 
 tion is apparent. It is not a question how much power 
 you restrict, but whether your restriction of power is a 
 restriction upon, or preservation of our rights and 
 liberties. That is the question. 
 
 But the gentleman tells us that we must frame our 
 constitution upon the principles in the bill of rights. I 
 take him at his own position. We have got to form 
 no constitution upon the French ideas of popular liberty. 
 We are to form one upon that plain charter before us, 
 which is not to be scouted because it is old, or because 
 it came from our forefathers. I think with the gentle- 
 man, that we must and should forma constitution based 
 upon the bill of rights. I think it is a declaration of 
 the rights of the people of this State, much more to be 
 relied on than any of those opinions which the gentle- 
 man from Montgomery advanced, and which will not 
 bear the test of a moment's reflection. Well, -what are 
 our rights and liberties as contained in thia declaration 
 
 made heretofore by the representatives of the people ? 
 What is one of them ? 
 
 " That the legislative and executive powers of the 
 State should be separate and distinct from the judicial, 
 and that the members of the two first may be restrained 
 from oppression by feeling and participating in the bur- 
 thens of the people, they should, at tixed periods, be 
 reduced to private stations, ret irning into that body 
 from which they were originally taken — vacancies be- 
 ing supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, 
 in which all, or any part of former members to be again 
 eligible or ineligible, as the law shall direct." 
 
 The bill of rights, then, says that eligibility is no prin- 
 ciple at all. That is to be settled just as the law shall 
 settle it. This is the declaration of the rights of the 
 people of Virginia, and they have said that it is not 
 one of their rights that every officer shall be re-eligible, 
 but that they may be so, or may not be so, as the law 
 shall direct. But they have said that it is one of their 
 rights that the members of the legislative and execu- 
 tive departments of government should return at fixed 
 periods to private stations, and to the body from which 
 they were elected. They have said that the governor 
 should lay down his aristocratic plume, and that he 
 should mingle again with the people as one of them; 
 that instead of taking the chair of State as Chief Magis 
 trate again, he should take his seat in the galleries as 
 one of the people, know something about them and parti- 
 cipating in their feelings and interests. Thi 9 is one of the 
 rights which belongs to the people of Virginia. Now, are 
 you going to carry out that right when you say "that 
 the governor shall be re-eligible continually? But gen- 
 tle men say that it is an important principle, and that 
 he must be re-eligible as long as the people choose to 
 elect him, and they say further, that he does vacate his 
 chair and become one of the people, after his term has 
 expired, even if he should be re-elected. Now, the 
 governor does not serve a few months and then go home, 
 -te serves from the first of January to the thirty -first of 
 December ; and he goes on in this way until his term 
 is out and a new term commences. If you re-elect him 
 again, I desire to know when does he return to the peo- 
 ple and take his station among them at the close of his 
 term? His term is out at 12 o'clock at night, and he 
 commences another term at 12 the next day. I sup 
 pose in such a case, had the governor's term expired 
 last night, he might have mingled to some extent with 
 the people by attending the Hebrew Ball. I do not 
 know how much he would learn ©f the grievances or 
 the interests of the people there ; but he would have 
 had two or three hours to participate, as a private citi- 
 zen, among the amusements of the people. Or he 
 might have gone to the theatre and mingled with the 
 people there. But this would be the fullest extent to 
 which he could have mingled with them. How, then, 
 are you to carry out the rights of the people as declared 
 in their great charter ? I would require him to lay- 
 down his aristocratic plume not only for the moment, 
 but for some little time, so that he may go and mix with 
 the people, and learn again to be one of them. Let 
 him forget those aristocratic feelings which come upon 
 all men in high office — for it does come upon them 
 sooner or later — which leads them to think that they 
 are not one of the people, and to believe that they are 
 superior to their fellow-men. The bill of rights requires 
 that they shall undergo a course of teaching which will 
 direct them and the ideas which they have thus acquired 
 in office. I know that a member of the legislature may 
 be re-elected as often as his constituents choose to re- 
 elect him ; bat his case is different from that of the 
 governor. He serves for two or three months only, and 
 whether he remembers or forgets the people during 
 those days, he soon goes home as one of _ the peo- 
 ple. He participates in all the duties of citizenship, 
 learns all about the people, their wants, their inter- 
 ests, and their grievances, because he mingles with 
 th'dm and is, in fact, one of them. 
 
228 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 He may be re-elected according to the spirit of the 
 the bill of rights. But with the governor the case is 
 very different. He is every day acting as governor, 
 whether he is here or elsewhere. Members of the house 
 of delegates are not members when they go home. 
 There is no such body as the house of delegates or the 
 senate in existence when they adjourn and go home. 
 They are of the people, and mingle with them. Not so 
 with your governor. He is a governor every day, every 
 night, every moment. You cannot bring him down to 
 the people from whom he sprung, as required by this 
 article in the bill of rights, unless you make him lay 
 aside his robes of office. Then, I say, that this prin- 
 ciple of re-eligibility of the governor is one which the 
 bill of rights does not assert, but leaves to be regulated 
 according to the circumstances of the case by law. It 
 is no principle at all, but a mere matter of expediency, 
 and in the case of the executive, the true principle of 
 the bill of rights rather requiring ineligibility, at least 
 for an interval, the principle is that these legislative and 
 executive officers, and especially the executive, should 
 " be restrained from oppression by feeling and participa- 
 ting in the burthens of the people," by being " at fixed 
 periods reduced to a private station, and returning to 
 that body from which they were originally taken." 
 
 That is the right of the people of Virginia as de- 
 clared in their bill of rights. Gentlemen forget this 
 right when they contend that re- eligibility is the. only 
 principle involved. For myself, I prefer to stand by 
 the bill of rights rather than to act upon the opinions 
 of those gentlemen. I supposed, when we heard of this 
 doctrine of the restriction of the rights of the people, that 
 we should have it presented to us in various other forms. 
 The gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Hoge) goes against 
 various restrictions which the gentleman from Accomac 
 (Mr. Wise) deems to be proper. The gentleman from 
 Accomac, I think, admits the right to protect the peo- 
 ple from the election of an unwise governor. He advo- 
 cates the greatest liberty of the people, and yet he has 
 so little confidence, apparently, in the capacity of the 
 people to judge, that he is willing to restrict them from 
 the election of aliens or lunatics. 
 
 Mr. HOGE. I expressly said that I would impose no 
 such restriction. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman is speaking in reference 
 to me, but I have nothing to say now. When a gentle- 
 man- appeals to another in debate, and he asks an op- 
 portunity for explanation, and it is denied him, he 
 must take some other opportunity to carry out his 
 purpose. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. You asked an opportunity to give me 
 the reasons why you thought a sheriff ought not to be 
 elected, and to give the special reasons, therefor. I 
 tell you that I cannot yield the floor for such a purpose 
 at this time, nor will I. You will have ample opportu- 
 nity to do so when that question shall come up. If I 
 make any allusion to your' argument in relation to the 
 governor, which is wrong, you shall be welcome to 
 explain, because I think I can set forth the proposition 
 I make, after you have explained. 
 
 The CHAIR. It is not in order for the gentleman to 
 address others than the Chair. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I only wish to remark, that my own rule, 
 where I refer to gentlemen in debate, if I do think it ne- 
 cessary to refer to them, is always to give them the op- 
 portunity to explain. 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would take this occasion to 
 remind gentlemen of the impropriety of addressing 
 themselves to particular members. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I am aware that I was out of order 
 in that particular ; and I ask the pardon of the Conven- 
 tion. 1 am willing, if I state the proposition of any 
 gentleman improperly, in the matter of discussion in 
 which I am engaged, that he shall correct me ; for I do 
 not intend or desire to misrepresent any one. The gen- 
 tleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) had stated in debate, 
 that for special reasons he would make the office of 
 sheriff ineligible. I referred to that fact ; and to that 
 
 alone, to show that he regarded special reasons as appli- 
 cable to each case. He desired me to give way in order 
 to state the special reasons which are applicable to the 
 case of sheriff. 1 did not think it proper to give way 
 for him or any other man, to say what special reasons 
 he had on this subject in regard to any officer. I did not 
 refuse to give place to that gentleman or any other to 
 correct me in regard to any matter connected with this 
 discussion. That is the distinction I make and I think 
 the gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) will himself 
 see that it is right and proper. 
 
 The CHAIR. There can be no personal difference 
 between the gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I am aware of that— at least I hope I 
 am. I repeat that gentlemen should not contend for 
 re-eligibility as a right guarantied in the bill of rights, 
 because it is not there laid down as a right of the people. 
 It is expressly admitted to be a matter which may be 
 regulated one way or the other by law. But the right 
 of the people to have their executive and legislative of- 
 ficers again returned to them, to be one among them, is 
 a right laid down. And 1 maintain that as to the exec- 
 utive officer, the only way in which you can enforce 
 that right is by making him ineligible occasionally, be 
 it the long or short term — for if he is re-elected to each 
 succeeding term he never does return to the people 
 at all. 
 
 Let us now consider the mere question of expediency 
 and set aside this matter of right. As a question of ex- 
 pediency, should the governor be re-eligible forever or 
 ineligible for a term ? Gentlemen tell us that in this 
 discussion the burthen of proof lies on us, and my friend 
 over the way (Mr. Neeson) very clearly stated that un- 
 less we can show either that some evil is to be avoided 
 or some good obtained by our restriction we could not 
 claim that there was a necessity for it. That I un- 
 derstood to be the proposition of the gentleman. Now, 
 I differ from the gentleman altogether in this respect. I 
 think that the burthen of proof lies upon gentlemen who 
 seek to make this change. I do not deny that gentle- 
 men, who because they find this in the old constitution 
 think it ought to be otherwise in the new, can fairly 
 under their view contend that the burthen of proof 
 does not rest upon them, since I suppose they believe 
 that the people have condemned everything in the old 
 constitution, and of course that they have condemned 
 this thing, and if it is desired to retain it, under their 
 view, those who express that desire, must show affirma- 
 tively that it ought to be retained. But I do not be- 
 lieve their view is correct. We come here to make 
 a constitution for the people, and in making that 
 constitution, what ought to be our course ? Not to 
 change everything for the sake of change ; not to put 
 in a different clause, because a certain clause is in the 
 constitution, but to change it in such particulars and 
 in such instances as the people have indicated to us they 
 desired changes to be made. I am not an infinite 
 radical ; I am not a conservative ; I stand in that mid- 
 dle position of being a reformer, and my desire and 
 object is to make those changes in the government of 
 the State, which the people have indicated it is desir- 
 able should be made. I will give to them the election 
 of the governor and of the judges, and of every other 
 officer that they may desire to elect. Now as to this 
 clause in the present constitution, that the governor 
 shall be in-eligible, I desire to know what member ever 
 heard the first of his constituents complain of that pro- 
 vision ? "Who can tell us that the people are dissatis- 
 fied with it ? I should like to hear. I never heard a man 
 among my constituents say that he desired that provis- 
 ion to be changed. I have not yet heard the first griev- 
 ance that has grown out of it, or the first objection that 
 has been made to it. It was established in the consti- 
 tution of '76 ; it was retained in the constitution of '29 
 and '30, and so far I as know it is approved by the peo- 
 ple. I certainly have never heard any complaint of it. 
 Well, if it is not complained of by the people, I think 
 the burthen of the proof does lie on those who ask the 
 change to be made, to show that we are wiser than the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 229 
 
 people. And when you assert that we, or any part of us, 
 are wiser than the people, I must think that the burthen 
 of proof lies on you. If the people have indicated their 
 disapprobation of This provision, and have sent us here 
 to make this reform, then I will confess that the burthen 
 of proof does lie upon us. I know that the people re- 
 quire changes, and I am going for the changes which 
 they require ; I am not going to change every thing for 
 the mere sake of change. That would be following the 
 example of the commonwealth of frogs to which the 
 gentleman from Accomac alluded the other day. When 
 they changed king log for king stork-that was not reform, 
 it was change — because they had had king log, therefore 
 they wanted king stork. That is not the reform I advo- 
 cate. I am willing to make such changes as will render 
 the constitution more satisfactory to the people, and 
 which will, if they are suffering under grievances, rem- 
 edy those grievances. I will not follow the example of 
 that commonwealth of frogs, who, for the sake of change, 
 transferred themselves from king log to king stork. Did 
 it ever occur to the gentleman from Accomac that the 
 election of king stork was the very last election which 
 that commonwealth ever held ? I have never heard that 
 there was an election after king stork was elected ; and 
 why ? Because if they had desired change — if they had 
 desired another ruler, king stork would immediately 
 have swallowed every one who intimated that wish. 
 [Laughter.] How then could they have ever rid them- 
 selves of king stork? Why by a principle of ineligi- 
 bility. I desire that principle to be retained in our con- 
 stitution to save us from king stork. 
 
 The gentleman tells us that to contend that the gov- 
 ernor can re-elect himself by doing wrong or seducing 
 the people to re-elect him by evil conduct, is to assert 
 that the people are incapable of self government. Some 
 of my friends have told me elsewhere that if I would 
 answer that proposition I would make the best speech 
 that has been made. Of course I cannot answer it, for 
 I cannot begin to make the best speech that has been 
 made. But I will tell gentlemen what I think. I do 
 not believe that, because the officer is to be elected by 
 the people, he will be certain always to be a more wor- 
 thy and honest officer than if he was otherwise elected. 
 I know, as was well remarked by the gentleman from 
 Loudoun, (Mr. Janney,) that I am fallible _ind capable 
 of being deceived, and I presume that every member of 
 the Convention knows it to be true of himself. I will 
 not repeat the proposition so beautifully put by the 
 gentleman from Loudoun that if we are all fallible, how 
 dees it happen that fallible men are sent here to rep- 
 resent infallible constituents ? It does not imply that 
 the people are not capable of self-government because 
 they are fallible, and are also capable of being deceived, 
 subject to like passions, and operated upon by the same 
 feelings and prejudices, good or bad, which operate 
 upon us here. But I may illustrate this point better 
 by referring to the idea of the gentleman from Henrico 
 that the people ought to have the selection, as well as 
 the election of their officers. That gentleman says that 
 if you show that the bad conduct of an officer makes 
 him. more acceptable to the people, then you prove 
 that the people are not capable of self-government. Let 
 us refer to the practice in the election of officers, and 
 see by whom and how this re-election will be made. Be- 
 fore the governor can be re-elected he must be a candi- 
 date, and he must be brought out by his party. A 
 governor desires to be re-elected ; his party begin to 
 think they would prefer some other man. Well, the 
 people cannot all come here and meet in convention to 
 nominate a candidate ; and how is the matter arranged ? 
 They get up meetings in the different counties and 
 send delegates to represent them. Now, this governor 
 is a man of very plausible conduct, a man who appears 
 well, but who is a very deep, designing man. Such 
 men there are. Well, the convention has assembled, and 
 you will observe on that occasion some three or four 
 men, active friends of his nomination, and who indeed 
 are the most active men in the convention. These men, 
 
 you will notice, have more to say and do uhan any other 
 dozen men in the convention, and you will at once con- 
 clude that they represent a large portion of the people ; 
 and you inquire who they are ? You ascertain that 
 they are bank directors whom the governor, has appoint- 
 ed in a distant part of the State. 
 
 Mr. BLUE. They cannot do that in my county; 
 they have no power at all there. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. No power? Why the gentleman 
 from Henrico told us yesterday that two bank directors 
 could stop discounts — that the governor had a right to 
 appoint three, and any two of them could stop the dis- 
 counts of any citizen. But it is not in your county, I 
 presume, that this convention would meet, but in the 
 city of Richmond. And you may have a bank director 
 in your county who has no power at all there, and who 
 would be a very valuable, active, and talking man, on 
 such an occasion as this, and seem to represent more 
 people than anybody else, and this man, the caucus 
 being nearly equally divided, may decide the nomina- 
 tion. But the gentleman will say that he cannot be 
 elected if he is not a good governor. How will this be ? 
 He is nominated by this caucus, and will be regarded as 
 a nominee of the party, and will run upon party grounds. 
 The other party will pursue the same course, and thus 
 a selection of the people is confined to the two persons 
 whom these two party caucuses will have presented to 
 jthem. Well you come to the election ? You tell the 
 people that this officer, be he whig or democrat, has 
 acted improperly, and you ask them if they are going 
 to vote for him. The answer will be, I shall vote with 
 my party. I know that he is not exactly what he 
 should be, but yet a faulty democrat is better than a 
 whig, or vice versa, and I will vote with my party. Now, 
 in • such a case as this — and such will be the course 
 pursued — I ask you if the people are electing a gov- 
 ernor upon his merits ? Most clearly not ; for, in their 
 election, they are obliged to choose between him and 
 the man nominated by the other caucus. I have seen 
 these nominating conventions assemble, and I have seen 
 the most strenuous exertions made by individuals 
 against the general desire of the convention, to nomi- 
 nate a particular man. I have seen the occasion when 
 nothing but the lightning from Heaven has saved the 
 accomplishment of such a nomination, but the lightning 
 of Heaven will not always relieve the convention from 
 the nomination of improper men. That is the chance 
 which the people have, and I do not think it is an impu- 
 tation upon their power of self-government to say that 
 they may not re-elect the man who has been a good 
 officer. I think it far preferable to let the man who has 
 been in office go out, and then give the people an op- 
 portunity to choose between two men, both of whom 
 are fresh from themselves. Then let the patronage of 
 the governor be ever so little, or ever so much, there 
 should be no object for him to abuse it. But gentle- 
 men say that he will use it for his party if he does not 
 for himself, and some have said that he will be more 
 likely to abuse it for his party than himself. I was not 
 aware that men were apt to exert themselves more for 
 their friends than for themselves. I did not know that 
 men in office were so singularly disinterested as that. 
 I suppose, however, it is to be accounted for on the 
 principle broached here, that being in effice for a 
 long time makes a man better. That is not accord- 
 ing to the doctrines of, I will not say Locke, but 
 it is not according to the doctrines of the old men whom 
 I have heard talk on the subject. It is not according to 
 the doctrines I have heard among the people. They 
 do not think that a man, by staying in office and en- 
 joying power for a long time, becomes better. It is not 
 the doctrine of the bill of rights either, and I rather think 
 that from the days of Hazael king of Syria down to the 
 present time, the enjoyment of power has been found 
 to be more or less corrupting in its effects upon the 
 person who enjoyed it. I know that there are many illus- 
 trious exceptions to this rule. I do not mean to apply 
 it to the legislative representative, or to any man who 
 
230 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 discharges his duties for a few mouths, and then go back to 
 the people to be approved by them. Such a man may 
 become better, and may, from the long confidence which 
 has been reposed in him by the peopie, think more and 
 more of the responsibility and obligation under which 
 he is to the peopLe. I mean one who, by the duties of 
 his office, is separated a long time from the people. In 
 such cases — and the office of governor is one of them — 
 I do not think that the enjoyment of power makes a 
 man better, or has a tendency to make him better. 
 
 It has been said here — and the executive adminis- 
 tration of the United States government has been re- 
 ferred to as evidence of the fact — that most of the 
 bad acts of an execu tive are performed during the sec- 
 ond term, when he is not re-eligible. If 1 were to use 
 that illustration, I should say that if the second term 
 had been productive of such bad consequences, it was 
 better not to have it. But gentlemen say that these 
 bad consequences arise from the fact that the incumbent 
 for a second term cannot expect again to be re-elected, 
 and does not, therefore, feel himself responsible to the 
 the people, from the knowledge that he w.ll not again 
 come before them. Well, what would be the legitimate 
 result of that argument ? Why, if that you "wanted to 
 keep a man from becoming corrupt in office, you must 
 continue to re-elect him for life. If he will become 
 corrupt in the second term, from being deprived of a re- 
 election, he will be equally liable, under the same in- 
 fluences, to become corrupt in the third, or the fourth, 
 or the fifth term ; and how then can you keep him pure 
 but by holding out to him the hope of re-election for 
 every term ? But I do not think that gentlemen have 
 assigned the true reasons for the abuse of power in the 
 second term. The main reason, in my opinion, is the 
 fact that the incumbent is less familiar with the people 
 in the first than the second term, has become familiar 
 with the tricks of office, and has become intoxicated 
 with the love of power and desire to perpetuate its en- 
 joyment. Power is like strong drink, the longer a man 
 indulges in its use, the more reluctant is he to aban- 
 don it. 
 
 A MEMBER. Do you ?peak from experience ? 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. No, I speak not from any personal 
 experience, but I have friends in my eye who probably 
 could give us their personal experience on the subject 
 [Laughter.] But every man who has the slightest 
 knowledge of human nature, knows that the remark I 
 have male is true in regard to everything that intoxi- 
 cates; and power intoxicates as much as anything 
 else. Gentlemen have said that re-eligibility is the 
 only means by which the public officer can be held to 
 an accountability. This, as I have before stated, would 
 be to require the incumbent to be re-elected for life, 
 beciuseyou could not otherwise hold him accountable 
 for the last term of his service. But I ask if it is the 
 surest way of holding an officer to an account, to tell 
 him that if he abuses his power he may stand a trial or 
 not as he chooses. The accountability is only to be 
 secured if he choose to be a candidate again. If it is a 
 trial I insist that he ought to be subjected to it, and 
 to secure that you would be obliged to compel him to 
 he a candidate whether he would or not. But if it 
 it is a trial, as gentlemen contend, it is not a fair trial. 
 Suppose • the incumbent, on his trial, that is a can- 
 didate for re-election. If he is a good and conscientious 
 man he wi!J believe that his primary obligation is to 
 discharge the duties of his office, and thus, while his 
 opponent is engaged in electioneering throughout the 
 State, he will be engaged in his duties at Richmond. 
 Now, I appeal to every member of this Convention to say 
 whether a man, in the canvass for any office, has exact- 
 ly a fair chance, a fair trial, if he obliged to remain 
 at home while his opponent is abroad electioneering 
 against him? Thus the conscientious gentleman in 
 office who feels it incumbent on him to attend first to 
 the discharge of his public duties, will not have a fair 
 trial by any snaans. The bad man who loves power 
 
 better than an honest discharge of his duties on the 
 other hand, would not only take the field and election- 
 eer to the neglect of his duties, but he would be tempt- 
 ed to prostitute the power and patronage of his office in 
 aid of his re-election. And he would in this way too 
 have two chances against his opponent —first in the in- 
 fluence which his patronage would secure to him, and 
 second, in his own efforts -in electioneering. I do not 
 like this trial which gives a better chance to a ba I man 
 and a worse chance to a good man, And such, it seems 
 to me, will be the result of re-eligibility. 
 
 There is another objection which I have to this idea of 
 re-eugibihty as a trial of merit. The office of governor is 
 a political one and the election to fill it will be decided 
 upon party ground,. Weil, the governor is elected by one 
 party and it is understood that he is to be a candidate for 
 re-election, aud what is the result? Why forthwith, every 
 man of the other party begins to find fault with him, 
 and at once a great party is arrayed against him, to 
 denounce every one of his acts, whether it be good or 
 bad, with a view of prejudicing the minds of the peo- 
 ple against his re-election. On the other hand, the 
 other party, and whose candidate he is to be are 
 equally earnest in the defence of all his acts, whether 
 good or bad. Thus the passions of the people are ex- 
 cited, men are committed before hand, aud the election 
 is decided by the relative party strength of the candid- 
 ates, wholly irrespective of the consideration of 
 the question, whether the incumbent is a good or a bad 
 officer. The incumbent is not put on trial as to his 
 merits or demerits, and the result therefore does not 
 decide the question as to whether he is a good or a bad 
 officer. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico has told us repeatedly 
 that although he could have quoted from Mr. Jefferson 
 in support of his position, yet he would not do it be- 
 cause if Mr. Jefferson differed from him, he would not 
 regard his opinion. Now there have been great states- 
 men in this country who have taken sides on this ques- 
 tion, and I think Mr. Jefferson took our side. There 
 have been great statesmen also who have taken the 
 other side, and I think Alexander Hamilton was the 
 greatest of them all. He it was, who urged that the 
 Chief Executive Magistrate of the United States should 
 be re-eligible from term to term, and for the reasons 
 which have been given by the gentleman from Pow- 
 hatan, (Mr. Hopkins,) particularly, that, there ought to 
 be permanency in the office, that the President ou^ht to 
 have time to mature and carry into effect his plans, 
 and that one term was too sh )rt for such a purpose. 
 The legitimate result of the argument was, that the 
 President ought to serve during good behavior. He 
 went for continued re-eligibility because he be- 
 lieved that the President should not return at all 
 to the great 1 body of the people, but should serve 
 during good behavior. Those who sustain his 
 proposition, mu^t go for the same thing, for certainly 
 their arguments lead to that result. It is, in fact, 
 an argument in iavor of the election of a governor for 
 life. I do not mean to say that any gentleman has 
 expressed that idea, but such, I contend, is the result 
 to which the carrying out of their arguments to their 
 full and legitimate extent will lead. Does not the Con- 
 vention remember the notice taken by the gentleman 
 from Loudoun (Mr. Janney) of the statement of the 
 gentleman from Marion, (Mr. Neeson,) that in thirteen 
 out of eighteen cases fie governor had been elected in 
 Virginia as long as he cou.d be, under the cor stilution? 
 Do they not also remember the remark of the gentleman 
 from Accomac that there was a good old thingin Virginia 
 for which he honored the people, and that was a disposi- 
 tion to keep their officers a long time in office, and he 
 referred to the instance of Mr. Newton, whom the people 
 elected for thirty-one years, and of Mr. Burwell Basset 
 whom they elected for thirty-five years. Now in this 
 discussion of the eligibility of the governor he has told us 
 that the governor ought to be re-elected without restric- 
 tion, and he has told us also that one good thing which 
 characterised the people of Virginia, was their disposition 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 231 
 
 to retain the public officers in service for a long time. 
 What is the inference to be drawn from these remarks of 
 the gentleman when taken together, if it be not that the 
 governor should be continued in office as long as he con- 
 ducted himself properly ? I am against it, whether he be 
 a good or a bad officer. I desire that he shall, in the lan- 
 guage of the bill of rights, return to the body of 
 the people and become one of them again. I be- 
 lieve it necessary in order to preserve the administra- 
 tion of the office pure and untarnished. In my opinion 
 the framers of our constitution thought that from the 
 fact that the governor's was more of an aristocratic office, 
 one more monarchical in its form and substance than 
 any other, that it was necessary that this restriction 
 should be imposed to guard against the tendency to 
 monarchy or to a life office, which is but another form 
 of monarchy. And gentlemen who advocate the removal 
 of this wholesome restriction imposed with such a view, 
 should give us the fullest evidence that the people de- 
 sire its removal, before they call upon us to aid them 
 in removing it. This they have failed to do. Believing, 
 therefore that the establishment of the doctrine of the 
 re-eligibility of the governor is not desired by the peo- 
 ple, that it is against the bill of rights, and that it is anti- 
 republican in its tendency, I am against it. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. I am aware that at this late hour of 
 the discussion the committee must be much weari- 
 ed. I feel it myself, and if I did not, the indications 
 which have been manifested too frequently within the 
 last few days, would admonish me most clearly of it. I 
 did not intend when this discussion arose, to have ming- 
 led in it at all. nor should I do so now, but for the unfor- 
 tunate position in which I find myself placed, differing 
 in the vote which 1 shall be compelled to give, from the 
 majority of those who come from my immediate district. 
 It devolves upon me then, the necessity of doing what 
 in my whole life, I never expected to do, what hereto- 
 fore I have never felt either a desire or a necessity to 
 do — to define my position. I have been greatly aston- 
 ished, not only at the different issues which have been 
 brought into this debate, but at the great magnitude of 
 the debate itself. I had supposed, when this question 
 was first presented, that we might have decided it in 
 ten hours, instead of ten days. But the debate has 
 taken a wide range, has embraced almost every 
 subject which can come before this body; and 
 it is begun to be clearly indicated now, that the 
 decision of every question which will be likely to 
 come before this body, is to depend upon the decis 
 ion which this committee make of this question 
 now before us. I do not mean that my course shall be 
 determined by any such vote. I mean to give my vote 
 upon each pending question, independent of all conside 
 rations connected with all other questions which maybe 
 brought up. It will matter little with me whether we 
 make the governor elected for two, three, four or any 
 number of years, it will not change the votes which I 
 intend to give, either for or against the proposition for 
 a second term, or to let the people decide whether he 
 shall be restricted. That is the question at last, whether 
 this body intend to restrict their officer to one term , 
 without regard to the popular will upon the subject, or 
 whether they intend to leave it to the popular will to 
 determine whether he shall continue in the executive 
 office or not. I have been astonished by the positions 
 which have been taken by gentlemen on this subject. I 
 was astonished at first, that the question should have 
 originated the issues as to whether we had a right to im- 
 pose restrictions upon the popular will, as to whether 
 there should be any restrictions upon the popular will, 
 and as to whether these restrictions should be carried 
 to a definite or unlimited extent. I was raised in the 
 school of politicians that taught me that the government 
 itself, all the laws which were made in pursuance of that 
 government, were designed, as they really were when they 
 were executed, to be restrictions upon the people as well 
 as upon their agents, and my imagination has never yet 
 been so vivid, and I trust in God it never will become 
 so, that I could conceive of a government which im 
 
 posed no restrictions whatever upon those who were to 
 be subject to that government. I never read in history, 
 I never heard from the lips of mortal man, until I came 
 into this body, that such a government could be organ- 
 ized on the face of the earth. Why, your federal gov- 
 ernment is a government of restrictions, and there are 
 complaints on the one side that the restrictions are too 
 limited, and on the other side that restrictions them- 
 selves are too heavy to be borne. There is not a gov- 
 ernment of any kmd that I can imagine, in which the 
 Constitution of the government is not a restriction upon 
 the rights of those who originate that government, as 
 well as upon the agents who are to carry that govern- 
 ment into effect. 1 am not one of that class of politi- 
 cians who hold that no restrictions are to be imposed on 
 the rights or the powers of the people. On the contra- 
 ry, I believe that we have met here for the very purpose 
 of imposing restrictions on the people. Why, to my 
 mind, if you impose no restrictions whatever on the 
 rights of the people, you reduce us to a state of anarchy. 
 The people did not send us here for any such purpose. 
 I came myself for the same pu ose that my friend from 
 Appomattex (Mr. Bococx) declares he came. I came 
 to look at every question which might be brought before 
 us, and say how far it was an expedient or an inexpedient 
 restriction upon the rights of the people and upon the 
 agents whom the people have selected. I regard this 
 question of re-eligibility of the governor of the com- 
 monwealth as a question of expediency, to be determin- 
 ed as the best judgment of this body may think it ought 
 to be determined, either the one way or the other. Sub- 
 scribing to the general views in reference to govern- 
 ment, which my friend from Appomottox lays down, I 
 regret most siucerely that I have to differ with him, not 
 oniy in the conclusions to which he has arrived, but also 
 in some of the incidental remarks which he made. One 
 objection which he urges to the re-eligibility of the ex- 
 ecutive, is that of the .bill of right requires that office- 
 holders of the government, shall return at stated peri- 
 ods to the people, and to private station, to mingle 
 again with the people and become a part of the people. 
 Now I do not see* how that clause in the bill of rights 
 is to decide in one single particular as to the course 
 which we should pursue upon the amendment of my 
 colleague, (Mr. Tredway) or upon the amendment of 
 the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts.) I do not 
 s;e that if we take that as a basis upon which we are 
 to build all our rights and as a guide to the course which 
 we may pursue upon this question, we are thereby com- 
 mitted . me way or the other. Why, my friend h imself has 
 practically demonstrated the contrary and shown that 
 this principle of re-eligibility does not require that the 
 officer should return at stated periods to Ihe people. 
 He foresaw that this would be declared to him, and 
 hence he told us that although members of the legislature 
 were elected annually, yet actually they were in the exer- 
 cise of the duties of their office but three months during 
 the year, and then they returned to the people and made 
 one or more crops as they thought best. Then the 
 question should be whether the governor should be a 
 farmer, and whether he shou.M be possessed of the 1 
 means of cropping, for in truth whether the governor is 
 re-eligible or ineligible, he would occupy the same po- 
 sition as the members of your State legislature, who are 
 elected every year, and he might make his crops 
 through his agents, as most farmers do. But there is 
 an anomaly in the office of a member of the legislature 
 which would hardly occur in the office of the executive,, 
 at least it could not occur for so long a period of time. 
 They take their seats in December or January. Well, 
 if they were members of the last legislature, they have 
 that office and the office which they before held, stilt 
 suspended over them. This could never occur in re- 
 gard to the executive. 
 
 I was a little struck with the argument of my friend 
 from Appomattox, that the governor had the appoint- 
 ment of bank directors, and my friend savs that two* 
 bank directors out of three could prevent any discount, 
 and this he said in connection with an argument whichl 
 
232 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 he was pressing to show that the patronage of the ex- 
 ecutive, if he was rendered re eligible, would be so awful 
 and dang-erous as to corrupt the people. Now, did any 
 man ever hear of the people being corrupted by the re- 
 fusal of a loan on the part of the banks ? I should 
 like my friend to tell me how many votes he supposes 
 a candidate could make by the refusal of those two bank 
 directors to discount paper. Another position which 
 my friend from Appomattox took, was, the ineligibility 
 of the governor would most certainly break down the 
 caucus system. Now it is precisely for the purpose of 
 breaking down this caucus system that I shall give an 
 opposite vote to him. If there is any one means which 
 can be devised by the wit of man above all others to 
 perpetuate the caucus system in Virginia in regard to 
 the executive officer of the commonwealth, and to throw 
 the election of that officer into the hands of politcians, 
 and corrupt politicians if you please, it is to render him 
 ineligible. The struggle commences as soon as he en- 
 ters upon the duties of his office, and commences among 
 the politicians. There are always fifty men out who' 
 desire to get in, where you will find the third of a man 
 in that desires to get out. The effort will be among 
 politicians to take his place, for they know that at the 
 expiration of his term, his service is ended forever ; that 
 the acts of his administration will not be subject to pop- 
 ular revision, whether for approval or condemnation; 
 and they will set themselves to work to fill his place 
 with one of their own body. Where will it commence ? 
 Why, in your legislature— your executive will be at- 
 tacked there. The debate will go out to the people, 
 and then every evil which is to result from partisanship 
 in the election, to which my friend from Appomattox re- 
 ferred, will come with doubled and redoubled force in 
 every election that shall take place. If you would 
 strike an effectual blow at the caucus system, you must 
 render your executive office re-eligible. Let the people 
 decide whether they will re-elect him or not. Let the 
 office-holders keep silence. Let them know that if they 
 attempt to force an individual upon the people through 
 the caucus, they will be entirely defeated by the effort 
 on the part of the governor himself, or of his political 
 friends, to succeed without the nomination. 
 
 Now, it has been argued that the first term of the of- 
 fice of the President of the United States has always 
 been the best term of that officer, and I suppose it would 
 have been conceded as resulting necessarily in an ar- 
 gument in favor of re-eligibility, but in the view of the 
 gentleman from Appomattox, the intrigues and corrup- 
 tions in their second term proceed not from the officer's 
 ineligibility to the third term, but because he has been 
 re-eligible and been absent from the people until he 
 has learned the tricks of office, and become corrupt. 
 Now, I hold that in making the governor re-eligible, 
 you will restrain his conduct by the hope of reward on 
 the one hand, and the fear of punishment on the other. 
 Where there is hope of reward there will be the effort 
 to obtain it ; where there is fear of punishment there 
 will be an effort to avoid it. Where you hold . out to 
 him the hope of re-election, as a reward for just services 
 rendered, you will secure purity and fidelity in the of- 
 fice holder; you will thereby have a better assurance 
 of a good and faithful administration. Iam not one of 
 those who believe that re-eligibility to any office is the 
 only means of securing responsibility or accountability. 
 There are some officers that we shall create whom I 
 shall vote to render ineligible, because the reasons which 
 govern me there have satisfied my own mind that 
 it will tend to make the office holders in that instance 
 "better, more faithful and honest in the discharge of their 
 official duties. In high political offices, like the execu- 
 tive officer of government, and it may be said in regard 
 to all political officers of the commonwealth, I know of 
 no responsibility and of no accountability which can pos- 
 sibly be expected to be rendered by him which is so 
 likely to produce an honest discharge of the duties «f 
 the office, as to make him amenable to the people by 
 the ballot-box. 
 
 But I did not rise for the purpose of making a 
 I rose merely to explain my own position in this "body, 
 which, I will take occasion to say, in the language of my 
 friend from Appomattox, is neither that of an " infinite 
 radical, nor of a conservative," in the sense indicated 
 by my friend from Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton.) I stand 
 on a middle ground prepared to go for every amend- 
 ment, for every change, or every reform, which may 
 be introduced in this Convention, which, in my judg- 
 ment, will be an improvement upon the government 
 of Virginia, and I am prepared to vote against every 
 change attempted to be made which, in my humble 
 judgment, may result in the destruction of the powers 
 or rights of the people, or impair and destroy the gov- 
 ernment itself. 
 
 Mr. STEWART, of Morgan. I do not rise at this late 
 hour of this protracted discussion for the purpose of 
 making, or attempting to make, a set speech. A great ma- 
 ny of the views which I entertain upon this subject, have 
 been already more happily expressed by ottier gentle- 
 men advocating the amendment proposed by the dis- 
 tinguished gentleman from Henrk-o, (Mr Botts,) than 
 I could have hoped to have expressed them myself. 
 For this reason, I will not worry the committee by 
 attempting any lengthy repetition or reiteration of 
 those views. But I do entertain some opinions on this 
 question, which I think have not yet been expressed — 
 at least, only in an incidental way — and which I will en- 
 deavor to present to this committee in as brief a form 
 as possible. I beg leave here, in passing, to remark 
 that I have listened to the whole of this discussion 
 with a great deal of pleasure. It is true that it has 
 taken a very wide range, and has been discussed in al- 
 most every variety of shape and form, gravely, solemn- 
 ly, philosophically, metaphysically, eloquently, and 
 laughingly, so that the field of argument has been near- 
 ly exhausted, and those of us who come in to partici- 
 pate in it now, must be satisfied with being mere glean- 
 ers of the work. I have said we have had every va- 
 riety of questions discussed, and we have had a little 
 of democracy, republicanism, monarchy, aristocracy and 
 oligarchy defined and refined by gentlemen here — until 
 yesterday, I thought we had reached the "jumping off 
 place," and would go no further, when the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton.) was about to show de- 
 mocracy to be a fighting cock, and the devil, [laughter,] 
 when the gentleman from Accomac came to his feet, 
 and turned the devil into a dove. I then thought, 
 the devil had come to us with an olive branch, 
 
 as 
 
 that we 
 
 had at last found a resting place for our ark, and should 
 find the water* retiring, and the deluge almost gone. 
 But, sir, I began to fear this morning, while my worthy 
 friend from Appomattox, (Mr. Bocock,) — who, I am 
 sure, meant no disrespect to the gentleman from Acco- 
 mac — was speaking, that we were going to have a little 
 more of the lightning and the tempest. If they will not 
 deem it presumptuous in me — which I feel assured 
 they will not — I beg them to remember that we neces- 
 sarily must have free discussion here, and that we must 
 bear and forbear with each other, and not get angry 
 at trifles. I know myself to be one of the most excitable 
 men in the world, yet, so help me Heaven, I do not 
 mean to get angry with any body during the sitting 
 of this Convention. [Laughter.] The gentleman 
 from Richmond city, (Mr. Davis,) has set us the exam- 
 ple of quoting poetry, and it has become quite fashion- 
 able, and as I do not wish to be singular, I will quote 
 a little for my friends from Accomac and Appomattox, 
 and beg them to remember that — 
 
 " Let dogs delight to bark and bite, 
 For God hath made them so ; 
 Let bears and lions growl and fight, 
 For it is their nature too. 
 But little children you should never let 
 Your angry passions rise, 
 Your little hands were never made 
 To tear each other's eyes." [Laughter ] 
 
 Now, in all conscience, we have trials and difficul- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 233 
 
 ties enough, to get through with the ordinary duties of 
 this Convention, without the introduction of any extra- 
 neous subjects, and I regret, nay sir, I deplore, every 
 time I hear any allusion made to the sectional controver- 
 sies existing in this State, and among members upon this 
 floor. I do not like this outcry about eastern and wes- 
 tern Virginia, It falls as gratingly upon my ears and 
 as heavily upon my soul, as the outcry of north and 
 south when applied to our National Union. The least 
 we refer to such views the better for us — the better 
 for our children — the better for the common renown, 
 the common glory, and the common prosperity of our 
 beloved old State. I am a western man — perhaps too 
 western in my feelings — but I do not mean to let them 
 control me so far as to forget who I am, and where I 
 am. I hope and trust in God, that while I am a wes- 
 tern Virginian, that I shall never forget that I am a 
 Virginian. I love this old commonwealth in all its 
 length and breadth — from the Potomac — my own 
 home — to the Tennessee line, and from the sea to the 
 Ohio — and I know she has trials enough, as a member 
 of this great confederacy, to try her patience and excite 
 her apprehensions, without stirring up strife among her 
 own sons living in the eastern and western sections of 
 her domain. I hope, before we get through with the 
 discussions which must necessarily take place in this 
 Convention, we shall be enabled to reconcile — I was go- 
 ing to say — ail this dissimilarity of feeling and interest ; 
 but I will not admit that there is any material dissimi- 
 larity of interest between eastern and western Virginia. 
 No — we are one people, one in interest, one and indivis- 
 ible for weal or woe. I cannot understand why 1 who 
 came from a county lying immediately west of the 
 Blue Ridge, and my friend, in my eye, from Henry, 
 (Mr. Martin,) from a district lying immediately east of 
 that beautiful range of mountains, should belong to a 
 different people, and have such great dissimilarity of 
 interests as to drive us asunder. We never were any- 
 thing else than one people, but at this day we are em- 
 phatically one people, of mutual hopes, mutual inter- 
 ests, and mutual dependences. A new era has come — 
 the spirit of improvement has taken possession of our 
 people, and has aroused, and will continue to arouse, if 
 judiciously managed, the old commonwealth to a true 
 sense of her condition and high mission. I hope, as the 
 gentleman from Accomac remarked the other day, that 
 we may live to seethe pure mountain rills gushing down 
 through the gorges of our mountains, and rushing on to 
 swell and disturb the stagnant tadpole pools of eastern 
 Virginia. Aye, sir, I hope that day is not far distant 
 when we shall see the lofty peaks of the Blue Ridge 
 and the Alleghanies bowing their heads under the in- 
 fluence of the pick-axe and the shovel of improvement ; 
 and the deep and solemn vales of those mountains ring- 
 ing with the echoes of the mighty steam engine as it 
 bears the rich treasures of the trade and commerce of 
 the Mississippi valley to enrich, build up and prosper 
 our commercial cities and towns in the east. I trust that 
 our western friends may yet be enabled to see the com- 
 pletion of our great water line improvement, and proud- 
 ly hail with exulting voice the rich wave of commerce 
 as it comes rushing from the ocean, through the gorges of 
 our mountains, to mingle itself with the bright waters 
 of the beautiful Ohio. Then we are one people, and 
 it is commerce that is to level our mountains and fill up 
 our vallies. Commerce is the grand leveler of this 
 day — it is the great radical, who, like the mighty giant, 
 has risen up in his strength, and stricken down all of the 
 impediments which their old theories and impracticable 
 abstractions had placed in the way of progress. It has 
 created a tie which will ever bind our people together. 
 It must be one of harmony because of mutual advantage 
 and benefit. The connection of interest promotes social 
 intercourse — it secures the bond of affection. We all 
 know the ties of blood and kindred may be severed and 
 broken, but it is rarely ever that the ties of commerce 
 are broken. It is the golden link which now secures 
 the harmony of our own country and England. It was 
 18 
 
 the link which held the colonies to England to the last. 
 Look at its influence everywhere. Look at it at home. 
 Why is it that eastern Virginia is now seeking to reach 
 the Ohio ? Why is it that western Virginia wishes to 
 draw near to the Atlantic f It is because we are one 
 people — one and indivisible — of mutual interest and 
 mutual dependences, and because we are sensibly aware 
 that the ties of commerce are more difficult to separate 
 than the ties of blood. If these views be correct, let us 
 hear no more on this floor about eastern and western 
 Virginia dissimilarity and want of homegeneousness of 
 interests. 
 
 The gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) has allu- 
 ded to the talk that he has heard out of doors, that if 
 we should adopt this principle of re-eligibility, the west 
 having a majority of the voters of the State, that the 
 game is up with the east, and that the east will never 
 get another governor. I suppose we will elect one of 
 our own men and keep him there as long as we choose, 
 and when he retires, we will elect another, and so on 
 ad infinitum. Truly those who make use of such argu- 
 ments must regard us as perfect " outsiders," as barba- 
 rians, as men who have come here to fight for power 
 for the sake alone of its possession, to enable us to con- 
 trol and monopolize the honors and offices of the State. 
 Perhaps we are to be measured by other people's bush- 
 els, and as the east has always had the power, the offi- 
 cers and honors of the State, that therefore the west 
 wishes to play her for even from this time forward. 
 G-entlemen who talk this way, know but little of western 
 character — of that sterling patriotism and homespun 
 magnanimity of which our people are composed, and 
 which they practice upon. We would scorn to act upon 
 any such paltry considerations. I predict the sequel will 
 prove that we have dealt more fairly than we have been 
 dealt with. No western man on this floor has ever hinted 
 such a desire or purpose. We have sought to make no 
 sectional issues, or make any sectional appeals since the 
 commencement of our labors here. Who came into this 
 hall to throw such a demon of discord among us ? Who 
 started this idea ? Wa^ he an eastern or a western 
 man ? My friend from Prince George told me the other 
 day that this was going to be an eastern and a western 
 question, and that he wanted to see eastern gentlemen 
 face the music." I wish him to tell us how this ques- 
 tion is to assume this shape ? 
 
 Mr. RIVES. I have yet to hear a western gentle- 
 man advocate the adoption of this resolution. I arrived 
 at my conclusion from facts. I have yet to hear a 
 western gentleman advocate this doctrine of ineligibil- 
 ity. Facts speak louder than words, and to that degree 
 certainly the question has assumed an eastern and wes- 
 tern form. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. That is no sufficient ground for a 
 correct conclusion. Let us wait till the vote comes and 
 then see. I know of western gentlemen, and one of 
 them is a colleague of mine, who, if I mistake not, dif- 
 fers with me in this view,* and who will assume the 
 same position as my friend from Prince George and 
 other eastern gentlemen who have spoken. There are 
 others from the west who will also go with the gentle- 
 man, and as he well knows, there are many from the 
 east who will go with me. My friend seems to think 
 because western gentlemen do not choose to get up here 
 and inflict a speech on the committee upon every sub- 
 ject, in opposition to grounds assumed by eastern gen- 
 tlemen, that therefore they must all ex necessitate be 
 against those views. That is his evidence — those "the 
 facts that speak louder than words." In the name of 
 God has old Virginia come to that \ Deplorable 
 as she has been represented to be, I never knew before 
 that she had bowed her head so low, or was hobbling 
 upon such crutches. Great God, what an issue — what 
 a question for sectional feeling and sectional division ! 
 I trust we shall hear n© more such arguments as those. 
 No. I advocate the principle of re- eligibility from high- 
 er and more noble considerations, I trust. I do not ad- 
 vocate it as the gentleman from Spottsylvania (Mr. Con- 
 
234 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 way) advocates it, as a question of expediency simply. 
 I think there is a principle — a vital principle involed in 
 it — if I did not think so, I would not take it upon the 
 mere ground of expediency alone. I take it because 
 there is a principle in it, which is above any mere idea 
 of expediency. 
 
 We have heard all kinds of despotism spoken of on 
 this floor, but of all the despotisms that have ever ex- 
 isted under the sun, this doctrine of expediency leads 
 to the worst. It is the doctrine, the palliating plea and 
 excuse of the Jesuit, and carried out in its full extent, 
 it would quench liberty in blood, raze religion to its 
 foundations, and shut the gates of mercy on mankind. 
 Tell me not of expediency alone! I never will sacri- 
 fice a principle to expediency. But whenever I know 
 a principle to be safe and sound, and it is right and pro- 
 per and expedient to apply that principle, I will do it. 
 
 Gentlemen have refreshed us with a vast deal of 
 learning and knowledge drawn from the philosophers, 
 historians, poets and fable makers of both ancient and 
 modern times. We have heard of the Goths and Van- 
 dals — and of king log's kingdom and king stork's king- 
 dom — of Locke, Milton, Puffendorf, Vattel, &c, — of 
 the Tribunes at Rome, and the Archons of Athens. 
 Indeed, of all the world and " the rest of mankind " — 
 for the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Chilton) yester- 
 day gave us a glance into the palace of the king of Tim- 
 buctoo, where the illustrious monarch of that distin- 
 guished " infusion of aristocracy, monarchy and democ- 
 racy " had two wives feeding him with raw beef fixed 
 upon sharp sticks. [Laughter.] This morning my 
 friend from Appomattox has paraded before us the old 
 " raw head and bloody bones " of the French revolution. 
 Guibono? What application has it to the subject in 
 hand ? — And I ask the question with great respect and 
 deference to the able gentleman from Appomattox. That 
 detestable French revolution — that disgrace to mankind 
 — that reign of terror which stained the history of the 
 world with the blood of the peaceable and unoffending — 
 which crushed law and order, and swallowed up religion 
 in the gulf of infidelity. 
 
 The CHAIR. (Mr. Sheffet, temporarily occupying 
 it.) It is not in order for the gentleman to address any 
 but the Chair. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. I do not think I am out of order, 
 but I will turn round to you, however. [Laughter.] I 
 was about to say that the gentleman had warned us 
 that the French revolution had settled down into a mil- 
 itary despotism. That is true — but even that was an 
 improvement upon the state of things previous to the 
 revolution. It was escaping from a rotten and corrupt 
 despotism of priestcraft, which was infinitely worse 
 than the despotism of the bayonet. I speak of what 
 history tells me to be true. After all, this much abused 
 revolution has accomplished good. Religion finally 
 emerged from its fangs in a purer state — the wild efforts 
 at popular rights and popular liberty were crushed — but 
 the seed was not altogether destroyed — it has bursted 
 forth again after many years, and we yet hope to see it 
 grow into a tree sufficiently strong to withstand the 
 lightning and the tempest of that volatile people. 
 
 But to come more closely to the real question at issue 
 before us. Is it right for this Convention, as the repre 
 sentatives of the people, to take away the power of 
 electing the governor from the legislature — the popular 
 agents— and transfer it to the people themselves ? No 
 gentleman pretends to controvert that proposition. It 
 is conceded on all sides, that the Governor ought to be 
 elected by the people. In fact we have passed unani- 
 mous sanction upon that feature of the report of the 
 committee on the executive department. Then, if it be 
 right for the people to elect a governor in the first in- 
 stance, it certainly is right for them to re-elect him if 
 they choose to do so — and as often as they may choose 
 to do so. Then, if the principle of re-eligibility, as pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Henrico, be wrong, the 
 principle of action by the people is itself wrong. This 
 is the point to which this question resolves itself, when 
 
 narrowed down, and gentlemen cannot blink it, or es- 
 cape from it. I say it resolves itself into a question of 
 the capacity of the people for self government, and 
 without intending any disrespect whatever to gentlemen 
 who have argued this question on the other side, I must 
 say that I think I have seen the cloven foot sticking out 
 of the whole of their argument. Gentlemen have a 
 fear of the people, and though they may avow them- 
 selves full believers in the capacity ©f the people for 
 self-government, yet unconsciously, perhaps, they have 
 a doubt in mental reservation really as to their capacity 
 for self-government. I repeat, if the right to re-elect be 
 improper, then by the same course of reasoning? it is 
 equally improper to elect in the first instance. Indeed 
 the reasons in favor of a re-election and of the principle 
 of re-eligibility, are stronger even than those which ap- 
 ply to the election in the first instance. When you elect 
 a governor for the first time, you must take him alto- 
 gether upon his general reputation, and how do you get 
 at that general reputation ? Why, by hear say— from 
 the mouths of his personal and political friends and par- 
 tizans. We have to take him as a lady does a husband, 
 for better or for worse, and when he is elected he is in 
 for four years. But when we come to re-elect, then we 
 may act upon some judgment of our own, founded upon, 
 knowledge and acquaintance with the officer, his views 
 and course while in office, and of the manner in which, 
 he has discharged his official duties. Thm gives the 
 people an opportunity to judge the man — to pass in re- 
 view the course and acts of the incumbent. 
 
 But gentlemen tell us he will become corrupt in office,, 
 and will use his position to secure his re-election. low 
 it strikes me if the Governor means to become corrupt 
 for the purpose of securing a re-election, two things are 
 necessary — he must have somebody to corrupt, and 
 something to corrupt with. Who is he to corrupt % Hi* 
 only object to corrupt any body is to get into office 
 again, and again — it must then be the appointing pow- 
 er—the people— whom he is to corrupt. Gentlemen must 
 take one horn of the dilemma or the other. If the gov- 
 ernor becomes corrupt, and corrupts- the people — then, 
 as a consequence, the people must foe knaves and fools„ 
 This is the legitimate deduction from the argument of 
 gentlemen, and is a denial, to tha t extent, of the capa- 
 city of the people for self-government. The theory of 
 our government is, that it is founded and rests upon the 
 virtue and intelligence of the people. We consider 
 these cardinal requisites to exist in the people. All re- 
 gard them to be as necessary to the existence and safe 
 conduct of free government, as are the properties of 
 light and heat to the sun. Then if it be true, as gen- 
 tlemen argue, that the people can become corrupted, 
 and the governor can corrupt them, I say they are both 
 knaves and fools, and if knaves and fools they are not 
 capable of self-government, for they neither have the 
 moral nor intellectual capacity for the discharge of the 
 duty. Knaves and fools cannot administer government 
 on correct principles — freedom would soon sink into 
 vice and imbecility in such hands. That, I insist, is the 
 legitimate result of the argument, and goes to show 
 that the people are not safe depositories of power — but 
 yet gentlemen will not so openly avow. But admit 
 gratia argumenti, that the incumbent would become cor- 
 rupt, and that the people could be corrupted, how and 
 with what is the corruption to be effected ? There 
 must be some quid pro quo — some reward — some patro- 
 nage to bestow. Now, the executive plan under con- 
 sideration proposes to strip the governor of power — 
 absolutely to denude him. The gentleman from Loudoun, 
 (Mr. Janney,) who all so highly respect, lectured us sol- 
 emnly the other day upon executive patronage, its dan- 
 gers and tendencies to corruption. He spoke of the pa- 
 tronage of the governor being greater than that of Pres- 
 ident Fillmore or Queen Victoria. And what did it 
 amount to — to the appointment of bank directors, in- 
 ternal improvement proxies, inspectors of fish, lard, 
 flour, <fec, at some few points in the State. The argu- 
 ment was so fully and triumphantly met by the gentle- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 235 
 
 man from Hetirfro, (Mr. Botts,) that it needs no further 
 -elaboration from me or any one else. In fact, the gov- 
 ernor n<rw has very little patronage, and will have less 
 under the new constitution. The intelligent gentleman 
 from the city of Richmond, (Mr. Meredith,) who ad- 
 dressed so clever and plausible an argument to us some 
 days ago, seemed to have this same ghost of executive 
 patronage haunting his imagination. He said it was 
 growing in the State, and the disposition to increase it 
 In the hands of the governor had grown with fearful 
 strides in the last ten year?— -and especially by the 
 legislature, in their extra session at the Fauquier 
 Springs. Now I deny that there is a disposition and 
 desire to increase patronage in the hands of the ex- 
 ecutive of this State. The action of the legislature 
 at the springs was shaped, as was openly avowed, not 
 to increase executive power, but to curtail power in the 
 liands of that obnoxious, and I hope doomed oligarchy, 
 the county courts. That was it. The county court des- 
 potism had become so corrupt and overbearing, that it 
 became necessary to remove all the power possible from 
 their hands. They preferred to place it in the hands of 
 the governor, till such time as the people could take 
 the dispensation of it into their own hands. They wished 
 to curtail the powers of that political and family despo- 
 tism in the State, and the people have sanctioned their 
 action. While in the hands of the county courts, every 
 appointment was made from political and family consid- 
 eiations. A man of opposite politics to the majority of 
 the court, whether whig or democratic, stood no more 
 chance of success, than a patriotic Hungarian would of 
 pardon if in the hands of the blood-thirsty autocrats of 
 *' the allied powers." 
 
 The OH AIR. The Chair would remind the gentle- 
 man that the question is upon the ineligibility or re- 
 eligibility of the governor, and that therefore debate 
 cannot be entertained on the question of the county 
 courts. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. I am much obliged to the Chair 
 for calling me to order, but in truth I think I ought to 
 have a little latitude in the debate, inasmuch as 1 have 
 not spoken before, and in consideration of the fact that 
 everybody else who has occupied the floor, has been 
 allowed to discuss everything under heaven. I was re- 
 plying to an argument made against the action of the 
 legislature in transferring the appointment of inspec- 
 tors, <fcc., from the county courts to the governor. If 
 the argument was right and in order in the first place, 
 of course the reply was right. But I am content to 
 to leave it, as I was done with that point when called 
 to order. 
 
 But I come back to the point whence I digressed, 
 and I beg gentlemen to remember that if the people be 
 capable of self-government, then it is as wrong to restrict 
 them in the power of re-election, as it would be to 
 restrict them in the first instance. I wish the gentle- 
 man from Petersburg, (Mr. Rives,) who is a good demo- 
 crat, to discard his eastern notions, and act upon his 
 democratic creed, and come up on the republican plat- 
 form — the capacity of the people for self government. 
 
 The fear that the governor will electioneer, is another 
 " gorgon, hydra and chimera dire" which seems to dis- 
 turb the minds of gentlemen. I have not time to elabo- 
 rate the argument here, but I hope he may — it will do 
 him no harm, but much good — it will prove a mutual 
 good to both parties — the governor and the people. 
 Free canvassing — discussion among the people, imparts 
 knowledge to the people — clips genius of its wings and 
 teaches common sense — establishes practical views in 
 the place of impracticable abstractions. It was the 
 steel which struck the fire from the flint of the revolu- 
 tion, aroused the people, and made all understand its 
 merits. Our public men need to know Virginia. One 
 spirited, free canvass upon State issues would impart 
 more Virginia knowledge to the people than all of the 
 legislation for the last ten years, and effectually break 
 down this eternal cry which we hare so constantly rung 
 
 in our ears of eastern Virginia interests, and western 
 Virginia interests — of eastern people, and western peo- 
 ple. 
 
 It seems to be getting very unfashionable and dis- 
 tasteful in this hall to speak of the people, and the 
 rights of the people. It was not so with gentlemen 
 when they were on the hustings in August last. Aye, it 
 was not demagogueism then to speak of the people — of 
 popular rights and popular liberty. But when any 
 one rises here now and speaks of these subjects, it is 
 sure to curl the tip end of some conservati/e nose, and 
 to call down the maledictions of some conservative rad- 
 ical! Now we are denounced as demagogues, because 
 of our professions of regard for the people and their 
 rights. Be it so. I am proud of being such a dema- 
 gogue. But what shall we say of radicals who in Au- 
 gust last preached as we now do, but who now sneer at 
 these dear people ? I should call this the double distilled 
 essence of the demagogism of conservatism. Perhaps 
 some of these " dear people" in the counties will teach 
 gentlemen when they get home, that they too under- 
 stand it. I hope so at least. 
 
 Now I am a radical, and I take pride in saying on this 
 floor, that I belong to the school of infinite radicalism. 
 Yes, I am an infinite radical, and in that I mean to con- 
 vey the idea that I am a true conservative. An infinite 
 radical in this Convention means one who is going to the 
 i( radix," and with a determination to eradicate and ex- 
 tirpate every particle of monarchy, aristocracy, and oli- 
 garchy from the organic law. 
 
 The gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Chilton) says we 
 have come here to amend, but I cannot see what there 
 will be left for amendment by the time all of its mon- 
 archy, aristocracy, and oligarchy is eradicated. It will 
 be literally used up. The gentleman knows it does 
 not answer well to put new wine in old bottles, or in- 
 sert new cloth in old — it is sure to make the rent wider. 
 This is what we mean by our radicalism. My friend 
 from Berkeley, (Mr. Faulkner,) now in my eye, on 
 a memorable occasion in his county, when he and 
 I stood shoulder to shoulder on the radical plat- 
 form, and warred against new-fangled conservatism, 
 defined " republican government to be a government 
 of the people, in which a majority prescribed its 
 laws and policy, and exercised all functions of legis- 
 lative supremacy." That is a republican govern- 
 ment, and all the consequences flowing from such a 
 government assert the capacity of the people for 
 self-government. That is all that an infinite radical 
 wishes to assert. He wishes the people to exercise all 
 powers which it is not necessary and indispensable to 
 the existence of good government to give to their ap- 
 pointed agents. That is " the head and front of all 
 the offending of infinite radicalism-— it has that extent, 
 no more." 
 
 But I have trespassed too long now upon the patience 
 of the committee with these desultory remarks, and 
 therefore will conclude in a few words. 
 
 As I remarked in the outset, I did not rise to make a 
 set argument, I believed the committee were tired of 
 argument — hence the desultory character of my remarks. 
 I wished to cultivate good feelings in this body — to 
 harmonize, as far as my humble efforts could avail, the 
 sectional feelings of gentlemen, and lead them to be- 
 lieve that we were yet children of one common house- 
 hold, and ought to remain so in peace and harmony, 
 and endeavor to promote a common good in every- 
 thing. 
 
 I think my friend from Appomattox (Mr. Bocock) 
 need have no fears of his western brethren — they will 
 vote for eastern governors. I, myself, will do so, when- 
 ever I think it right to do so. I may vote for my friend 
 from Appomattox, but I will not do so until he mends 
 his ways and gets himself a wife. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I do not doubt that the people of 
 the west will vote for an eastern governor. As to the 
 qualification which he requires of me, should I desire 
 
236 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 to become a candidate, I doubt very much whether the 
 gentleman is not right. I think it is probable that he 
 is ; but I suppose, upon his principle, that he does not 
 mean to put it in the constitution. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I think it was the duty of the gen- 
 tleman from Morgan to comprehend the position which 
 I occupied the other day, before he attempted to answer 
 it. The committee will remember that upon that occa- 
 sion I did not propose to enter into a discussion of the 
 various questions which had been presented to the com- 
 mittee. I desired simply to define my own position, and I 
 did not occupy more than five or six minutes of time in 
 so doing. I did not at all discuss the principle, if it 
 be one, of eligibility or ineligibility, but I merely stated 
 that I considered its application to the governor as a 
 question merely of expediency. As to the general 
 policy of restrictions upon power, I entirely concur with 
 the remarks of the gentleman from Appomattox, (Mr. 
 Bocock.) And on that occasion I expressly stated that 
 in their general views of government, I concurred 
 with those gentlemen who had advocated the restriction 
 here proposed, but that I must differ from them in the vote 
 I should give, because, so far as the application of that 
 principle was concerned, my own opinion was, that it 
 was unwise and inexpedient. In other words,that — look- 
 ing to the great end in view in all these various proposi- 
 tions, to wit: official purity and diligence in the incum- 
 bent — in my judgment, re-eligibility would better secure 
 that end than ineligibility. That is the position which I 
 occupied. I did not pretend to discuss the principle of 
 eligibility or ineligibility, as applied to any other case, 
 but merely insisted that its application to this case was 
 a mere question of expediency. And I take it for 
 granted that the gentleman from Morgan, and no other 
 gentleman on this floor, will be so bold as to deny that 
 the application of this principle is other than a mere 
 question of expediency. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. I comprehended the . gentleman 
 fully, and stated him precisely upon the very applica- 
 tion which he has given. I say that there is a principle 
 involved, and that the gentleman alone referred to the 
 question of expediency. I said that upon the ground of 
 expediency alone, separated entirely from principle, that 
 I never would vote for it under any circumstances where 
 a principle was not involved. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. I understand myself as occupying 
 the position taken by the gentleman from Henrico, 
 when last up, upon this point. Certainly there can be 
 no difference of opinion between gentlemen as to the 
 nature of the question. Look to the other provisions 
 of this report. There is the restriction as to age, sanity, 
 residence, <fec. Each one of those presents the question, 
 is it or is it not expedient to impose it ? That, then, is 
 the simple question, and it cannot be made one of popu- 
 lar sovereignty at all. I trust I am now understood. 
 
 The CHAIR. The friends of a section, or of any 
 portion of it, have the right to perfect it before any 
 portion of it is stricken out. The question then comes 
 up first on the motion of the gentleman from Pittsylva- 
 nia (Mr. Treadway) to strike out the following words 
 from the first section : 
 
 " He shall be ineligible to that office after his second 
 term shall have expired, and to any other office during 
 his term of service," and to insert in lieu thereof the 
 words, " he shall not be eligible for the term next suc- 
 ceeding that for which he was elected, nor to any other 
 office during his term of service," so that the section 
 will read as follows : 
 
 1. The chief executive power of this Commonwealth 
 shall be vested in a governor. He shall hold his office 
 for the term of four years, to commence on the — day 
 
 of next preceding his election, and he shall not 
 
 be eligible for the term next succeeding that for which 
 he was elected, nor to any other office during his term 
 of service. \ 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I prefer, if the question is about to 
 
 be taken, to present the amendment which I have of- 
 fered in a somewhat different form. I prefer to offer a , 
 substitute for the section in the following words: 
 
 1. The chief executive power of this Commonwealth 
 shall be vested in a governor. He shall hold his office 
 
 during the term of years to commence on the 
 
 day of ■ next succeeding his election, and he- 
 shall be ineligible to any other place of honor or emolu- 
 ment. 
 
 The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. 
 Tredway — a count being had, Messrs. Sheffey and 
 Taylor acting as tellers — and there were — ayes 51, 
 noes 33. 
 
 So the amendment was agreed to. 
 The question then was announced to be on the substi- 
 tute as proposed by Mr. Botts. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I move that the committe rise. It 
 is manifest, from the vote that has been taken, that the 
 committee is very thin, and ail must be aware that there 
 are many gentlemen who desire to vote on one or the 
 other side of this question. It was certainly * holly 
 unexpected that the vote was to be taken to-day. 
 
 The motion that the committee rise was not agreed to. 
 The question was then taken on the substitute offered 
 by Mr. Botts— a count being had, and the same gen- 
 tlemen acting as tellers — and there were- — ayes 41 , 
 noes 50. 
 
 The question was announced to be on the first sec- 
 tion as amended. 
 
 THE TERM OF OFFICE. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I move to strike out the word "four" 
 and insert "two," so that the term of office shall be for 
 two years. I do not expect the proposition to carry, 
 but my impressions are so strong as to its propriety, 
 that I desire to see a vote taken on it. 
 
 The question being taken, the the motion to strike out 
 was not agreed to. 
 
 The question was then taken on the first section as 
 amended by the adoption of Mr. Tredway' s motion, 
 and it was agreed to. 
 
 MODE OF ELECTION. 
 
 The second section was then read as follows : 
 
 2. The governor shall be chosen by the electors of 
 the members of the general assembly, at the times and 
 places when they respectively vote for members there- 
 of. The returns of every election shall be sealed and 
 transmitted by the proper returning officer to the Sec- 
 retary of State, who shall deliver them to the Speaker 
 of the House of Delegates, on Ihe first day of the ses- 
 sion of the general assembly then next to be holden. 
 The speaker of the house of delegates shall open and 
 publish them within one week thereafter, in the pres- 
 ence of a majority of the senate and house of delegates. 
 The person having the highest number of votes shall be 
 governor • but if two or more shall be equal and high- 
 est in votes, one of them shall be chosen governor, by 
 joint vote of both houses of the general assembly. 
 Contested elections shall be decided by both houses of 
 the legislature in such manner as may be prescribed by 
 law. 
 
 There being no amendment proposed, the second sec- 
 tion was then agreed to. 
 
 QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICE. 
 
 The third section was then read as follows : 
 
 3. No person shall be eligible to the office of governor 
 unless he shall have attained the age of thirty years, 
 shall bp a native citizen of the United States, and shall 
 have been a citizen of Virginia for five years next pre- 
 ceding his election. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 237 
 
 Mr. CLAfBORNE. I move to strike out the word 
 u native," where it occurs before the word " citizen" in 
 that section. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I move the committee rise. 
 
 The motion was not agreed to — a count being had — 
 ayes 40, noes 47. 
 
 The quest ion was then taken on the motion of Mr. 
 Claiborne, and it was rejected — a count being had — 
 ayes 28, noes -55. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. I move to strike out that portion 
 of the section which imposes a restiiction as to age — 
 the words "he shall have attained the age of thirty 
 years." 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. According to the vote taken on the 
 substitute offered by the gentleman from Henrico, I 
 believe there were about forty-rfour members absent. 
 By the last vote there appears to be fifty-two absent. I 
 ■do not think, therefore, these questions ought to be 
 pressed here, for it is very important that what is done 
 here should be done by a majority of the body. 
 
 A MEMBER. We cannot get them here. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Then we ought to adopt some mode 
 by which we will get them here. I move the com- 
 mittee rise. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I hope the committee will rise for no 
 such reason. 
 
 The CHAIR. It is not a debatable motion. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I am aware of that, but gentlemen pre- 
 face their motions by explanatory remarks. It will be a 
 goo. I warning to absent members. 
 
 The motion that the committee rise was not agreed 
 to. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. 
 Mc Comas, audit was rejected. 
 
 Mr. McCOM.lS. I move to strike out the latter! 
 clause of the section, which is in these words : " Andj 
 shall have been a citizen of Virginia for five years next; 
 precediug his election," and to insert in lieu thereof the 
 words " and shall be at the time of his election a citi- 
 zen of Virginia." 
 
 The motion was rejected. 
 
 DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. M. R. EL GARNETT. I move to add the fol- 
 lowing proposition at the close of the section : 
 
 " Provided, That no member of this Convention shall 
 be eligible at the first election under this Constitution." 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 The motion was rejected. 
 
 The third section was then agreed to. 
 
 SALARY OF THE GOVERNOR. 
 
 The fourth section was then read as follows : 
 
 4. The Governor shall reside at the seat of govern- 
 ment, and shall receive for his services the sum of five 
 thuusaud dollars for each year of his term, and shall 
 not receive within that period any other emolument 
 from this or auy other State or government. 
 
 Mr. G J JDS. I move to strike out the words five 
 thousand,*' and to insert in lieu thereof the words 
 11 four thousand." 
 
 The motion was rejected. 
 
 Mr. BY'RD. I move to strike out the words "for his 
 services the sum of five thousand dollars," and to insert 
 in lieu thereof the words following : " a compensation 
 to be fixe 1 by law, which shall neither be increased nor 
 diminished.'' 
 
 I think this body should carefully refrain from exer- 
 cising any of the ordinary functions of the legislature, ' 
 and if there is any one function which is peculiarly one 
 of legislation, it does seem to me it is this business of 
 fixing salaries. In regard to the amount of salary, as 
 fixed in the section, I am not prepared to say it is too 
 high or too low ; although I am inclined to think that 
 $5,000 is an enormous salary for the present time, but 
 what may be an enormous salary now, may be too small 
 
 a salary ten years hence, and that is evidence of the 
 impropriety of this Convention attempting to fix any 
 salary whatever. It is a matter exclusively of legisla- 
 tion, and it should be left to that body. 
 
 The question being then taken, the motion was re- 
 jected. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I move to amend the section by stri- 
 king out the word -'term," and to insert in lieu'there- 
 of the word " services." His term is for four years, 
 and before the expiration of it he may die, or resign his 
 office. 
 
 The amendment was agreed to, as was the section 
 thus amended. 
 
 POWER OF THE GOVERNOR OVER THE MILITIA. 
 
 The fifth section was then read : 
 5. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully exe- 
 cuted ; shall from time to time, communicate to the 
 Legislature the condition of the Commonwealth, and 
 recommend to their consideration such measure? as he 
 may deem expedient ; he shall be commander-in-chief of 
 the land and naval forces of the State ; shall convene 
 the Legislature on application of a majority of the mem- 
 bers of both houses of the General Assembly, or when, 
 in his opinion, the interests of the Commonwealth shall 
 require it. He shall have power to embody the militia, 
 when, in his opinion, the public safety shall require it ; 
 to remit fines and penalties, under such rules and regu- 
 lations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves 
 and pardons, or commute the punishment, except 
 when the prosecution shall have been carried on by the 
 House of Delegates, or the law shall otherwise parti- 
 cularly direct ; to conduct, either in person, or in such 
 other manner as shall be prescribed by law, all inter- 
 course with other and foreign States ; and, during the 
 recess of the legislature, to fill, pro tempore, all vacan- 
 cies in those offices for which the Constitution and 
 Laws make no provision: Provided, That his appoint- 
 ments to such vacancies shall be by commission to ex- 
 pire at the end of thirty days after the commencement 
 of the session of the Legislature next preceding the 
 date of such commission. 
 
 Mr FUQUA. I move that the committee rise. 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 morning, at 11 o'clock. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 14, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Kepler, of the Episcopal 
 church. 
 
 The Journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. WHITTLE, 
 resumed the consideration, in Committee of the Whole, 
 (Mr. Watts, of Norfolk in the Chair,) of the report of 
 the Committee on the Executive Department. 
 
 POWER OF THE GOVERNOR OVER THE MILITIA. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the 5th sec- 
 tion, which was read by the Secretary, as follows : 
 
 5. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully exe- 
 cuted ; shall, from time to time, communicate to the 
 Legislature the condition of the Commonwealth, and 
 recommend to their consideration such measures as he 
 may deem expedient. He shall be commander-in-chief 
 of the land and naval forces of the State ; shall convene 
 the Legislature, on application of a majority of the 
 members of both Houses of the General Assembly, or 
 when, in his opinion, the interest of the Commonwealth 
 shall require it. He shall have power to embody the 
 militia, when, in his opinion, the public safety shall re- 
 
238 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 quire it; to remit fines and penalties under such rules 
 and regulations as may be prescribed by law ; to grant 
 reprieves and pardons, or commute the punishmeut, ex- 
 cept when the prosecution shall have been carried on 
 by the House of Delegates, or the law shall otherwise 
 particularly direct ; to conduct, either in person or in 
 such other manner as shall be prescribed by law, all in- 
 tercourse with other and foreign States ; and, during 
 the recess of the Legislature, to fill, pro tempore, all va- 
 cancies in those offices for which the Constitution and 
 L iws make no provision : Provided, That his appoint- 
 ments to such vacancies shall be by commission, to ex- 
 pire at the end ol thirty days after the commencement 
 of the session of the Legislature next succeeding the 
 date of such commission. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. Yesterday evening when 
 that clause was read, was the first occasion on which 
 my attention was called to it, and hearing it read, it 
 struck me that it proposed to grant to the Governor 
 mosi extraordinary powers, and such as ou^ht never to 
 be given to him. I will call attention to the clause in 
 thU section, which struck me as being improper. It is 
 the words, And he shall have power to embody the 
 militia when, in his opinion, the public safety shall re- 
 quire it." I perceive it is an extract from the existing 
 constitution, but the fact that it is thus extracted, is no 
 reason to my mind why we should continue it in the in- 
 strument. You will perceive, that the power given to 
 the Governor, to call out the militia, is limited only by 
 his own discretion ; and whether it be an ill or a sound 
 discretion, he alone is to exercise it. There may occa- 
 sions arise when this power may be very much pervert- 
 ed by a Governor. Suppose that the Governor should 
 believe that a laur of the general government was ad- 
 verse to the interests of the State, or which might be, in 
 his judgment, unconstitutional, here is power given to 
 him, if in the exercise of his discretion, he should deem 
 it proper, to call out the militia to resist the execution 
 of that national law. Again, suppose that North Caro- 
 lina or Maryland, or any other State in the Union, 
 should become a little refractory, and resolve to resist 
 the laws of the Union, the Governor is vested with the 
 discretion to .determine that the public safety requires 
 that the militia should be called out to aid in the re- 
 sistance of that law. I do not say that his power ever 
 will be exercised in this way, but the power thus to 
 exercise it, certainly exists under this clause of the re- 
 port of the committee ; and it may be exercised, as the 
 committee may well see, in a manner most alarming 
 and dangerous to the rights of the people. I need not, 
 in this discussion, enlarge on constitutional rights, 
 and my own opinion is, that it is proper to confine our- 
 selves strictly to the questions in controversy before the 
 Convention. 
 
 I suggest these objections to the clause of the report 
 with all due deference, for it has not, I confess, received 
 much consideration on my part. I think the clause has 
 been copied from the old constitution, upon trust as it 
 were, and without a great deal of consideration on the 
 part of the committee, as to the effects which might re- 
 sult from it. There may, however, be good reason why 
 it should remain as they have reported it, and which 
 may be sufficient to satisfy and remove my objections 
 to it, but if none can be given other than the fact than i 
 it is so found in our present constitution, that alone 
 will not satisfy me that it ought to be retained. I hope i 
 that the chairman, or any of the members of the com- 1 
 mittee who have had the subject under consideration, i 
 nuy give some reason for its retention. In the absence 1 
 of any such reason, however, I move to strike out from i 
 the section the words, { when, in his opinion, the pub- 1 
 lie safety shall require," and to insert in lieu thereof the 1 
 words, '"to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, to ] 
 enforce the execution of the law, and for such other f 
 specific purposes only, as may be authorized by the t 
 legislature." The clause thus amended, will read as ( 
 follows : 
 
 " £Le shall hard power to embody the militia to repel < 
 
 3 invasion, to suppress insurrection, to enforce the execu- 
 t tion of the law, and for such other specific purposes 
 
 - only as may be authorized by the legislature." 
 i This puts the whole subject under the control of the 
 j legislature, and it will not be in the power of the Gov- 
 i ernor, if his political notions should happen to beincon- 
 
 - flict with those of the Union and of the whole State, to 
 r call out the militia against their own judgment, and it 
 
 • might be on an occasion that would result in the sever- 
 l ance of this Union, or in putting this State in conflict 
 
 with the other States of this Union. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I beg leave to suggest to the gentleman 
 » from Kanawha, that he had better modify his amend- 
 : ment so as to reach his object. I do not think the 
 amendment which has been sent to the chair does reach 
 i the very proper object which he has in view. I con- 
 i cur with him, that we ought to limit the discretion of 
 , the Executive in calling out the militia. Now, if he 
 
 • may call it out to repel invasion, to suppress insurrec- 
 i tion, and to enforce the execution of the law, it leaves 
 i the discretion just as latitudinous as it is now, because 
 i the Governor will be the judge when invasion is coming; 
 i he will be the judge, of course, when there is danger of 
 
 insurrection, and he will be the judge of the manner of 
 
 • enforcing the execution of the law. Now, there is a 
 i phraseology which the gentleman may adopt, which 
 
 will reach his purpose better. I concur with him fully 
 i in that purpose, and suggest to him this alteration, that 
 he shall have power to embody the militia in cases of 
 actual invasion and actual insurrection, and when called 
 upon by the judiciary or the Legislature, to enforce the 
 execution of the law in cases of the actual resistance to 
 the authority of the courts. I know of no occasion in 
 the execution of the laws where the power is necessary 
 to be exerted, except in cases of resistance to the judi- 
 cial authority. When the sheriffs, for example, cannot 
 execute the law and the judicial authority of the courts, 
 it will be time enough for the Governor to execute the 
 law when called upon officially to do so. I can very 
 well imagine that a Governor, with a particular set of 
 opinions either on one extreme or the other, may choose 
 to judge when insurrection or invasion is coming, that it 
 is almost upon us, or he may create a danger by choosing 
 to suppose a danger, and may call out the militia to war 
 upon something or other that is sacred to us. I would! 
 not give him that discretion. It is a power of which 
 we ought to be very chary. I would wait until there 
 was actual invasion or actual insurrection before he 
 should have the power to call out the militia. I 
 hope the gentleman will so modify his amendment. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. I have no especial par- 
 tiality to the language which I used, in making the 
 amendment. I am arriving, if I can, at the substance, 
 and with the utmost deference to the opinion of the 
 gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) I really think 
 that the language which I used is better adapted to the 
 purpose, than that which he proposes. That is the im- 
 pression that I have, and I will state the reasons why I 
 think it is preferable to that which he proposes, "to 
 repel actual invasion and to repel actual insurrection." 
 Now, that would prohibit the Governor from calling 
 out his forces whenever invasion was coming upon us — 
 to take it at the first hop — to repel invasion. Foreign 
 invasion may come in ships from the ocean, and when 
 we have an assurance that there is an invasion coming 
 upon the country, why this authorizes the Governor 
 to prepare for it, to be ready for that invasion. So it 
 is with insurrection. We want to resist insurrection 
 the very moment it commences, and not to wait until 
 it assumes so definite a form that there can be no ques- 
 tion of the fact. Therefore, for these reasons, while 
 the gentleman and I aim at precisely the same object, 
 I really think that the words which I have used in the 
 amendment which I have offered, are better calculated 
 to produce the desired object than those which he re- 
 commends. 
 
 Mr. WISE. If the gentleman will allow me, I will 
 cite the language of the constitution of the United 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 239 
 
 States, if the Clerk has it by him. At any rate, I think 
 I have used the substance of the language of that instru- 
 ment. If insurrection or invasion has actually com- 
 menced, it is actual invasion or insurrection. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. The ships might be enter- 
 ing the capes, and ready to land upon us. He should 
 have the power to meet them and drive them out. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The capes are within the jurisdiction of 
 the State. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. Suppose they have not 
 yet landed, that they are on the ocean. I think it would 
 t>e better to let the Governor go that far, and meet them 
 •a little out of the capes if necessary. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I was about to say, and I throw out 
 •the suggestion with diffidence, that it occurs to me, that 
 whenever a proposition is made to amend the report of 
 any committee, it might be a good rule to adopt, as a 
 matter of courtesy, I may say, of right, that the chair- 
 man of the committee making the report, should either 
 <adopt or answer the proposition thus made. In that view 
 I was ready to yield" the floor to the chairman of the 
 committee. It seems to me that a new spirit has come 
 •over some of my friends. There is an officer who is 
 to be elected by the people, and gentlemen who are so 
 anxious for that election by the people, are really 
 alarmed at this power proposed to the Governor to be 
 given him, to embody the militia when the public safety 
 shall require it. I think it a good rule, though my 
 friend from Accomac and other & differ from me, that 
 when we come here to reform the constitution, we 
 should look somewhat to the past, and not reject all its 
 wisdom and experience. This power has existed in this 
 commonwealth ever since it has been one, and I ask if 
 there has evef been an abuse of it ? Is it likely ever to 
 be abused ? What is this power to embody the militia ? 
 It is merely, I presume, that of calling the militia to- 
 gether for the purpose of defending the public safety. 
 And when called together, the act must be sanctioned 
 hy law in making provision for their payment. There 
 is no reason to apprehend that any Governor will be so 
 anxious to make himself conspicuous as to mount his 
 charger aad place himself at the head of the militia and 
 impose >on the commonwealth the heavy expense of em- 
 bodying its forces to repel the mere phantom of danger. 
 As 'to the idea of my friend from Accomac, that the 
 .governor is not to discipline or embody the militia until 
 the invasion or insurrection has already taken place, 
 until our houses are burned and the throats of our chil- 
 dren are cut, I submit that it is very much like calling 
 out the fire engines to puc out a fire after the house has 
 been destroyed. Is it a power which if properly re- 
 stricted, can never be abused ? The power is given as a 
 means of protecting and guarding the public safety, and 
 we cannot in any constitution we may frame avoid the 
 necessity of reposing some confidence in those to whom 
 the powers of government are committed. There must 
 be confidence, and whilst I would go as far as any gen- 
 tleman in preventing the abuse of power, or in granting 
 power likely to be abused, I am yet to see how this sim- 
 ple power of embodying the militia, when, in the opin- 
 ion of the governor, the public safety shall require it, 
 is likely to be abused by any governor in this free com- 
 monwealth. I trust it will be the pleasure of the com- 
 mittee to leave the report in this particular to stand as 
 it is. 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I shall vote for the motion to strxke out, 
 but not to insert as proposed by the gentlemau from 
 Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) but I will make this suggestion. 
 If no other one proposes it, I propose, and I will suggest 
 it now, by way of argument, to insert the words " under 
 such rules and limitations as may be prescribed by law." 
 It appears to me that language of that construction will 
 accomplish the purpose of both the gentlemen who have 
 had the floor and suggested amendments. I would re- 
 mark that that provision of the constitution of the United 
 States which contains the substance of the amendment 
 proposed by the gentleman from Kanawha, does not 
 give to the President the power to execute the laws of 
 
 the Uaion, or to suppress insurrection and repel inva- 
 sion. That clause of the constitution of the United 
 States simply provides that Congress shall have the 
 power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute 
 the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, or ttpel 
 invasion. Now, it seems to me that if we strike out and 
 insert the words, " under such rules and limitations as 
 may be prescribed by law," we will g,ve the power to 
 the legislature to take the whole subject up, and in fact 
 make a provision to harmonize and prevent abuses on 
 the one hand, while on the other the power may Le made 
 co-extensive with legislative control, or without any re- 
 striction they may impose. I do not know whether it 
 would be more proper to move to insert the words that 
 1 have read instead of those, but I desire, if it is proper, 
 to divide the question on striking out. 
 
 The CHAIR. The question is first to be taken on the 
 motion of the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Smi'ih.) 
 
 Mr. hJDMUJNDS. The words in the report now under 
 consideration are the same as are used in the present 
 constitution. 1 am one ol those who believe, that where 
 a particular clause in the constitution has for a long 
 course of time brought with it no evil whatsoever, and 
 when the evil consequences to result from that clause, 
 if inserted in the new constitution, are drawn from the 
 imagination or theory or suspicions of gentlemen, that 
 the test of the experience of some fifty or sixty years 
 is better than the imaginary fears of any gentleman. 
 We know that no evil or inconvenience has arisen under 
 this clause ; therefore, it was inserted in this report, and 
 1 have yet to hear any sufficiently sound and good reason 
 why we should not retain it. The gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha (Mr. Smith) objects to it because he feats that 
 some conflict of opinion upon some abstract question 
 between the State government and the government of 
 the United States may induce the Governor of Virginia 
 to call out the militia on an improper occasion, Now, 
 the Governor of Virginia is sworn to support the con- 
 stitution of the United States and the laws made in pur- 
 suance thereof, and the constitution of the United 
 States expressly declares that the constitution and the 
 laws made in pursuance of it shall be the supreme law 
 of the land, the constitution and laws of any State to 
 the contrary, notwithstanding. The Governor of Vir- 
 ginia is as much bound to execute the laws made in pur- 
 suance of the constitution of the United States, as he is 
 to execute the laws of Virginia. It is not his business 
 to interpret those laws, but the judges of the courts of 
 the United States, or the judges of the courts of his 
 own State, must expound and interpret the law. both in 
 respect to the constitution of the United States and 
 that of his own State. His duty is to execute the law. 
 How? By the ministerial officers of the law, if it can 
 be executed in that way, if not, then by the militia I 
 might tell the gentleman, that I fear an unconstitutional 
 law passed by the Congress of the United States might 
 be attempted to be enforced by the Governor of Vir- 
 ginia, and he might call out the militia to execute a law 
 under the constitution of the United States, which the 
 courts of Virginia declared to be unconstitutional, asad 
 which the Supreme Court of the United States might 
 declare to be constitutional. Where is the final arbiter 
 who is to decide in this case ? Because the Governor 
 ot Virginia is bound to carry out the law of the United 
 States, made in pursuance of the constitution, and is 
 bound ( o execute the laws of his own State. I might 
 raise that imaginary fear, but I have no such apprehen- 
 sion whatever, nor have I any • apprehension that the 
 Governor of Virginia will declare a law of the United 
 States to be unconstitutional, and call out the militia on 
 an improper occasion. Suppose you restrict him in the 
 way that the amendment of the gentleman from Spott- 
 sylvania proposes, that he shall not call out the militia 
 except in case of an actual invasion. There may be in- 
 vasion threatened; it may be communicated by the Presi- 
 dent o the United States to the Governor of Viryhua, 
 He may know, but how can the Legislature of Virginia 
 know i His correspondence with foreign authorities 
 
240 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 may admonish and warn him that invasion is threatened, 
 and he may cominunicate to the Governor of Virginia that 
 it is necessxry for the public safety, that he should em- 
 body tier militia. It is a private communication made 
 by the President to the G-overnor of Virginia. Shall the 
 Governor then not be allowed to act on information 
 thus communicated to him by the President ? Yet you 
 have not provided for it in this amendment. And in 
 case of insurrection, you surely mean to give the Gov- 
 erner power to embody the militia before open and ac- 
 tual insurrection shall have occurred. If a large num- 
 ber of private citizens should communicate their fears of 
 an insurrection to the Governor of Virginia, should he not 
 have the power to embody the militia if he should deem 
 it necessary ? You must give him a discretion, and how 
 shall it be given, except that when the put lie safety re- 
 quires it, it matters not in what manner the communica- 
 tion is made to him, whether through the executive of 
 the United States, or through the well-grounded or even 
 idle fears of a large number of citizens, however it comes, 
 he ought to have the pow r to embody the militia 
 promptly and efficiently. But the idea of the gentleman 
 in my rear is, that the governor shall not call out the 
 militit except under such rules and regulations as the 
 law may prescribe. That, I suppose, applies only to the 
 mode of calling them out, and not to the cause for that 
 call. Well, you must have an organization of the mili- 
 tia. Tne State has exclusive control of their regulations, 
 and you must prescribe the mode in which the governor 
 shall call them out before the militia can be embodied. 
 But the question as to when they should be called out, 
 and why they must be embodied, i* a totally different 
 thing fram the organization of the militia. This section 
 confers on the governor the privilege of calling out the 
 militia only when the public safety requires it, and he 
 alone can possess in many instances information of what 
 the public safety does require. I do not conceive that 
 language can be used more guarded on this subject than 
 is contained in this report, and until stronger reasons 
 are offered for a change, I shall sustain it. 
 
 Mr JACOB. I will say to the gentleman who is in 
 my fr-rnt, though I am not a military man, [laughter,] 
 and may not understand precisely the meaning of the 
 word rmbody, that I did suppose it possibly meant a 
 little more than simply to call out the militia, but 
 whether I am wrong in that construction of the word 
 embody or not, it seemed to me that my proposition is 
 not calculated, unless your legislature is obstinate or 
 shall refuse to act, to embarrass the governor or to 
 bring them in conflict with the governor, for that is the 
 last thing that I would do in any constitution that I may 
 be called upon to make. But I am free to confess that I 
 have some respect to the independence of the various 
 departments of the government, and am disposed to 
 Turing thera in check whenever it can be done with prop- 
 er harmony, if I may use the expression. Now it strikes 
 me that when you have provided that the governor 
 should embody the militia, subject to such regulations 
 as the legislature may require, you then have imposed 
 upon the legislature the necessity of presenting a state 
 of things which would show that it was requisite, in or- 
 der to secure the due enforcement of the law. It was 
 in view of the difficulty of providing for all these cases 
 in the constitution that I offered the suggestion which I 
 Shave, that it should be left to the legislature to decide 
 the special cases. I am not, however, tenacious on the 
 subject. 
 
 The CHAIR. Does the gentleman offer an amend- 
 ment ? 
 
 Mr. JACOB. I prefer to take the question first on 
 the motion to strike out. I will however offer the amend- 
 ment here indicated. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I beg leave to call the attention of the 
 committee, and ef the gentleman from Kanawha, to the 
 language of the constitution of the United States on this 
 subject, and it will be seen that I was right on this sub- 
 ject when I was up before. The power to suppress in- 
 
 surrection and to repel invasion is given to the legisla- 
 tive department of the government of the Union. Then 
 wnen you turn to the executive department, the consti- 
 tution of the United States reads thus ; "The President 
 shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the 
 United States, and the militia of the several States 
 when called iuto the actual service of the United States." 
 it i»not then for the executive of the United States to 
 take command of any force until it is in actual service. 
 So the two provisions of the constitution, taken togeth- 
 er, do not put it in the power of the President of the 
 United States to judge when he shall embody the 
 militia or the army either. They must first be 
 called into actual service before be can put him- 
 self at their head. And that is exactly what I 
 desire of the executive of the State of Virginia, that 
 there must be an actual necessity, and let me say to 
 the gentleman from Halifax that it is not necessary that 
 invasion or insurrection should be flagrant before it is 
 actual. The governor when he calls out the militia 
 will' be compelled, under a due responsibility to the leg- 
 islative department, to makeout the actual invasion and 
 the actuality of the insurrection. In all cases where the 
 insurrection or the invasion shall be so eminently 
 threatening that there is a necessity for calling out the? 
 militia there is a case of actual insurrection. I can well " 
 imagine that there is a necessity for this action at this 
 time, and I do know the fact upon authority which I 
 cannot doubt, that it is not exactly true that within the- 
 last fifty years the State has never been in danger from 
 the exercise of this power. I happened to be informed 
 from the highest authority, no less than the actors them- 
 selves in the scene, that in my time of day and actually 
 within my time of public life, unknown to this common- 
 wealth, unknown perhaps to the legislature or the lead- 
 ing men in it, that this commonwealth has been at one 
 period of time in the most imminent danger of -the exercise 
 of executive authority, in calling out the militia of this 
 State. We have at times been in perfect repose over a. 
 smouldering volcano, and it maybe the case again. The 
 constitution of the United states by the case in* refer- 
 ence to the legislative department and the clause in re- 
 ference to the executive taken together, guard the powers- 
 of the Union in this respect against an executive ; and 
 I tell gentlemen there may be a fearful nece-sity for 
 guarding against the abuse of that power in this State. 
 I have no fear that in case of insurrection, in ease of 
 another Southampton scene, that the militia will be' 
 called out in time. And in the event of invasion; from 
 abroad, the national executive will always know of it in. 
 time to apprize the state executive. And in case of an- 
 other class of invasion, I pray God that there may be 
 every restriction thrown in the way of speedy — of wors& 
 than speedy action. 1 can well imagine an occasion, I 
 say, upon one side or the other, when laws may be pass- 
 ed by the federal government which are unconstitutional,, 
 when we have a governor who would gladly enforce an. 
 unconstitutional law on this people. Or I can imagine on 
 the other side an occasion when there may be a man at 
 the head of the State government of Virginia, that de- 
 sires to see the Union dissolved, and who may seize upon- 
 any crisis in our affairs that may come in less than eighteen,' 
 months after this Convention adjourns, to call out the 
 militia. I wish this Convention to stand as a peace 
 maker between all warring spirits. I wish an obstacle 
 to be interposed between them. I wish to see actual in- 
 vasion here before an executive shall have the power to 
 raise the keen spirits of the land and send theni forth an 
 embattled host against our peace. There is a necessity 
 for some such guards as this, and I again suggest to the 
 gentleman from Kanawha, that his words do not reach 
 his ends. I would use the language that is used in the 
 constitution of the United States, that he shall be the 
 head of the militia, that he shall embody the militia in 
 case of actual insurrection, in case of actual invasion, or 
 when called upon by the judiciary, or when called upon 
 by the legislature. That will reach it and be power 
 enough ; and " sufficient unto the day will be the evil 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 241 
 
 thereof," when actual invasion or actual insurrection 
 occurs. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. Chairman 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would remark that several 
 gentlemen have already exhausted their privilege of 
 speaking under the rule. 
 
 MANT MEMBERS. Leave! Leave! 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I rise merely for explanation. The 
 gentleman from Accomac surely could not think I was 
 conversant with any subject in this government which 
 he says was unknown to more than five or six public 
 men in Virginia. What was the case to which the gen- 
 tleman refers ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. I could tell the gentleman, if it were 
 proper on this occasion, but I do not wish to involve 
 persons or names. I repeat again, that I do know that 
 the question has been actually ai-gued in the executive 
 chambers of this State, on one very vital occasion. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. 1 could not be expected to 
 know what has transpired in the chambers of the execu- 
 tive of this government. That changes the matter al- 
 together. I have nothing more to say, of course, 
 having exhausted my privilege of speaking. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I should like to hear the gentleman 
 from Halifax express his vie.^s on this subject, and I 
 hope he may be permitted to proceed. 
 
 The CHAIR put the question on the motion to sus- 
 pend the rules so as to give leave to the. gentleman from 
 Halifax to proceed, audit was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I am obliged to the committee, 
 though I had no idea of a speech being imposed upon 
 me. The gentleman from Accomac, I know, is aware of 
 the fact that the President of the United States, can 
 never command the militia until they are called out. 
 But, then there is a standing army of the United States, 
 and he is the commander-in-chief of the army of the 
 United States — not of the militia at all, until called 
 into actual service. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I will read to the gentleman from the 
 constitution : 
 
 " The President shall be commander-in-chief of the 
 army and navy of the United States, and of the militia 
 of the several States, when called into the actual service 
 of the United States." 
 
 And he is commander of neither until called into 
 that actual service. He is no more commander-in-chief 
 of th3 army of the United States than he is of the 
 militia, until they are called into actual service. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The gentleman from Accomac is 
 certainly mistaken. He is commander-in-chief of the 
 army of the United States at all times. 
 
 Mr. WISE. At all times when they are called into 
 service. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. They are always in the service of 
 the United States. They are enlisted in the service of 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. WISE. There is no difference between us. In 
 time of peace the army and navy of the United States 
 are in actual service, and, therefore, the President com- 
 mands them. But he cannot call out an army — that is 
 what I meant to draw attention to — in the sense of em- 
 bodying, to which the gentleman called the attention of 
 the gentleman from Wheeling. The law must embody 
 and create the army first. It is not a force which 
 sleeps, like the militia, in repose until called out by the 
 President. The standing army is formed by enlist- 
 ment under regulation by law, and when called into 
 service — that is, when formed and embodied by law — 
 the President of the United States takes command of 
 them. But here is the distinction. The militia, though 
 organized by law, is not commanded by the President 
 of the United States ; it reposes until called into actual 
 service. There is certaiuly a distinction between the 
 two. I would make the governor, in like manner, com- 
 mander of the militia only when it was embodied by 
 law, and called into actual service, and then he should 
 command them. 
 19 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The army of the United States is 
 always in actual service. It is enlisted, and the number 
 regulated by law, but from the moment the soldier is 
 enlisted, he is in the service of the United States, and 
 the President is the commander-in-chief. And so in 
 respect to the navy. But in respect to the militia of 
 the States, the control belongs to the several States 
 until called into actual service by the United States, 
 and the President has no more authority over them 
 than he has over a private citizen. When called into 
 the service of the United States, then he becomes their 
 commander-in- chief, but not until then. Of the army and 
 navy of the United States he is the commander-in-chief 
 at all times. 
 
 The Governor of Virginia may embody the miiltia 
 only when the "public safety" requires. He cannot 
 for light and trivial causes embody the militia, or to re- 
 sist a law passed in pursuance of the constitution of the 
 United States. If he undertook to do that, why he him- 
 self would be impeached by the house of delegates, and 
 carried before the senate for trial. If the judiciary of 
 his own State pronounce the law unconstitutional, and 
 the Supreme Court of the United States pronounce the 
 law constitutional, if resisted at all, it must be rented' 
 by the marshals of the district, or by the sheriffs ; pf your 
 own counties. Now, the only fear that can be enter- 
 tained is, that when^the^.government of the United 
 States have passed <itfj&tf& and the Judges of the Su- 
 preme Court have p*Bjpnced that law to be constitu- 
 tional, and the marshal of-- tb^e United States is proceed- 
 ing to execute that.,iaw^ : --€he government of Virginia 
 may call on the^^pjM^or of Virginia to embody the 
 militia to resi s t^fnlexecution of that law within the 
 limits of the^Eate. How can he interfere in the case 
 of South Carolina ? Suppose that State should under- 
 take, at this moment, to secede from the Union, how can 
 the governor call out the militia to interfere ? Is there 
 any law to be executed in Virginia which he can resist ? 
 Can he embody the militia to repel invasion, to sup- 
 press insurrection, or to provide for the public safety of 
 Virginia ? Clearly not, and he is not called upon to 
 provide for the public safety of South Caroliuia. He 
 is not called upon to resist the law of South Carolina, 
 nor is he called upon to carry the law into execution 
 there. He is only called on to embody the militia when 
 the public safety of Virginia requires it, and at no 
 other time. If the general government undertakes 
 to execute a law in Virginia, they must execute it 
 through your sheriffs, or their marshals, and if it be 
 constitutional in reference to the constitution of Virgi- 
 nia, and of the United States, the governor is sworn to 
 execute the law with the whole military power of the 
 State. If he fails to execute, with the whole military 
 power of the State, if necessary, a law which has been 
 pronounced by your judicial authorities to be con- 
 stitutional, then he is liable to impeachment for mal- 
 administration in office. You must give a discretion to 
 him in calling out the militia, for if you limit the ex- 
 ercise of the power, great evils must arise, while from 
 the discretionary exercise of the power, I cannot imag- 
 ine a single evil which will result. In what man- 
 ner can the governor involve the State government in 
 a conflict with the United States ? Here is the legis- 
 lature, which may call itself into session, and which can, 
 in any attempt of the governor to abuse this power, at 
 once check and restrain him. They can remove him 
 from office, and then there is the lieutenant governor 
 to take his place, and then, also, the provision of the 
 constitution, which declares that if both are incompetent 
 to hold the office, the general assembly may provide for 
 some other person to hold the offiee. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I dislike to trouble the committee in 
 this matter, but I can give the gentleman the examples, 
 one at either end of the Union, and first I will take an 
 example north. Nullification in the south is a most 
 odious thing to the north ; and I should think that nul- 
 lification at the north ought to be equally odious to the 
 
242 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 south. It is to me. Here is a State of the Union that 
 undertakes to declare that a fugitive slave shall not be 
 reclaimed. Suppose it goes a step further, and de- 
 clares that the owner of the slave shall be a k/dnapper 
 ipso facto, if he pursues a slave in the north. Suppose 
 it goes further and by an ordinance of a Convention at 
 once applies an odious test oath to the State judges, not 
 to execute the fugitive Slave Bill. Well, suppose you 
 or I go to the north to recapture fugitive slaves; 
 apply then this principle. The State government, say 
 of Vermont, instead of delivering up under the consti- 
 tution and laws of the United States, our fugitive 
 slaves, commands us to be arrested as kidnappers. The 
 State judges are sworn to execute the law of Vermont. 
 They put us in prison ; we apply to the State judge 
 for a writ of habeas corpus to release the body, the 
 State judge is sworn to execute the law of the State, 
 and not to execute the fugitive-slave law. We then 
 apply to the federal judge to release our bodies. He 
 orders the marshal to bring the body, on a writ of 
 habeas corpus, before him. A State sheriff stands at the 
 door of the bastile and forbids the execution of the 
 order of the federal judge. What is to be done ? I 
 suppose there would be a report to the judge by the 
 marshal, that he could not execute his order, and that 
 he was resisted by the State authorities of Vermont ; 
 and there would be a report made by the United States 
 judge to the President of the United States, that the 
 laws of the Union could not be executed. Then, un- 
 der the constitution of the United States, he must call 
 forth the army and navy to compel Vermont to yield 
 the body of a Virginia citizen from imprisonment. 
 The army of the United States starts from its various 
 posts, and some intervening abolition State chooses to' 
 call that march of the federal army across her borders 
 an invasion, and to take up the doctrine that a State 
 cannot be compelled to obey the laws of the constitu- 
 tion and the Union. They undertake to say that their 
 borders shall not be passed by the forces of the federal 
 Union, to open the bastile which imprisons the body 
 of a southern slave-holder. I ask gentlemen of the 
 south, whether they can tolerate the idea of a governor, 
 say of the State of New York, — it might be a Governor 
 Seward — in calling out the militia of New York, in 
 undertaking to say by his magisterial authority, that it 
 was invasion; and that a sovereign State of this Union 
 could not be made to release your body or mine, im- 
 prisoned under such circumstances ? I beg leave to say, 
 that I can imagine that case at the north ; and I can 
 easily put a case in the south. Suppose that there had 
 been a flash of a musket in Texas the other day. Sup- 
 pose there had been a flash of a musket in South Caro- 
 lina in attempting to collect the customs of this country 
 there ; and to reverse the case, that an army was to 
 set out from fortress Monroe here, or to come from its 
 various posts to pass Virginia's borders, and the Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia should put his arms akimbo and say 
 that this force shall not march through this State, and 
 he would find a great many too, who would be ready 
 to seize on fortress Monroe. God knows where any of 
 us would be in such a case. Which side is the Govern- 
 or to take here? If he is a good man, if he is a 
 Washington, according to the best lights before him, 
 according to the dictates of his reason and his love of 
 country, he will try to keep the peace, he will under- 
 take to preserve order, and the right of the law, and 
 the rule of the constitution, according to the best of 
 his abilities. If he is an extremist on the one hand or 
 the other, he will resist in the north the passage of the 
 troops to release the body of a citizen of Virginia 
 from imprisonment; he would call it an invasion; 
 and if it was a Virginia governor who had to resist the 
 power of a federal government marching south, he 
 might choose to consider that an invasion; he mi^ht 
 undertake to decide that he was the judge of the pal- 
 pable and gross violation of the constitution of the 
 United States. I tell the gentleman again that that 
 very question has been once discussed solemnly over the 
 
 midnight lamps in the executive chamber in Virginia. 
 It is no case of imagination — it is no case of fiction. 
 It is a case that is daiJy debated in the minds of men, 
 of every man here present and of every man in the com- 
 munity, east and west, north and south. The ques- 
 tion is, what will we do in case civil war comes upon 
 us ? It is not worth while to be mawkish about it. 
 We need not pretend to discuss it here, but still we 
 must look at the dangers that not CDly may come, but 
 which I fear will come, and it is a time when you 
 you should impose restraints, looking either to nulli- 
 fication of the north, or to nullification of the south, 
 or to consolidation from the one side or the other. I 
 wish to guard the State rights of the State ; I wish to 
 preserve the peace of the country, and I will never con- 
 sent here to put the peace of my constituents at the 
 sole and unguarded discretion of any State executive. 
 At the time when the constitution was formed, the dan- 
 gers t hat beset us now were never foreseen, or if foreseen, 
 it was trusted that there were guards enough to resist 
 it then. But I tell you that if ever any rash man, any man 
 of extreme opinions has, at this day, in his power to 
 risk the peace of the country, either under one tocsin 
 of alarm or the other, either upon grounds of alarm for 
 the Union, or alarm for the rights of the State, the 
 peace of the country maybe endangered, and that right 
 soon. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The first case put by the gentleman 
 from Accomac, as I understand him, is this : A citizen 
 of Virginia may pursue a fugitive slave into a northern 
 State, and may be apprehended there under a law 
 which declares that the apprehension of a fugitive slave 
 shall be, ipso facto, kidnapping. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Such a law has passed. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. Admit that such a law has passed. 
 Now the judiciary of every State are sworn to support 
 the constitution of the United States, and the laws 
 made in pursuance thereof, and the governor of every 
 State is sworn to execute the laws of the Upited States 
 when in pursuance of the constitution. The case put 
 is where the State legislature prescribes an oath — 
 
 Mr. WISE. I will put a case that is not merely 
 supposable or imaginary, but one that has actually 
 happened in our history. The case of South Carolina, 
 who by convention passed an ordinance which swore 
 thejudges to execute all her laws against the constitu- 
 tion of the United States, and above everything else. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I intend to come to that when I 
 get through the first case. A test oath which swears 
 the judge to expound and interpret a law under which 
 a citizen of Virginia in pursuit of his slave is declared 
 ipso facto a kidnapper ; and this when the judges of the 
 States are sworn to expound the law made in pursuance 
 of the constitution of the United States ! "When such 
 a case as that arises the gentleman from Accomac must 
 be fully aware of the fact that the constitution and law 
 of the United States, made in pursuance of that con- 
 stitution, cease to have any effect in the government. 
 The judge of every State is sworn to expound that consti- 
 tution and the laws passed in pursuance of it, and is 
 bound by his oath to set aside the law of any State when 
 the law of that State is in violation of the constitution 
 of the United States ; but if he disregards his solemn of- 
 ficial oath, and if the governor of the State disregards his 
 solemn official oath, 1 can only say that it is a case for 
 which we cannot provide. If a citizen of Virginia when 
 in pursuit of his slaves, under the laws of the United 
 States, is declared to be a kidnapper under the law of 
 any one State, and if the authorities of that State shall 
 refuse to deliver him up on a writ of habeas corpus- 
 from a federal court, then it is the duty of the marshal 
 to report that fact to the supreme court of the United 
 States; then it becomes the duty of the supreme court 
 of the United States to call upon the President to exe- 
 cute this law of the United States, which he is bound 
 to execute by the military power of the United States. 
 He must execute the law; and it is no case for Vir- 
 ginia to interpose. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 243 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman has misunderstood me 
 entirely in the application of the argument. I do not 
 put it that it is a case for Virginia to interpose, but I 
 put a case where, by virtue of this discretionary power 
 vested in him, the Governor of Virginia might declare 
 that the march of the United States forces through her 
 limits would be an invasion of the territory of Virginia. 
 "What is to limit the discretion of the governor in deci- 
 ding what is invasion? Thatjs what I desire, and to 
 that t call the attention of the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I was following the case which the 
 gentleman put, through every phase of it. So far as the 
 State is concerned which has imprisoned the citizen of 
 Virginia, he is under the protection of the laws and 
 constitution of the United States. The gentleman sup- 
 poses that the marshal, in attempting to execute the or- 
 der >f the United Stites court, arid release the citizen 
 of Virginia thus imprisoned, is resisted by the State au- 
 thorities, and that the President of the United States 
 is then called upon to execute the law and carry out the 
 process of that court, and that for that purpose it may 
 be necessary to march the army of the United States 
 through the territory of New York, which State then 
 calls out her militia. This is the case supposed. Now, 
 in such a case, for what purpose would New York call 
 out her milicia ? Would it be because her public safety 
 require 1 it? No, and wherefore then should she call 
 them out ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. I will tell the gentleman. The governor 
 of New York may call them out for precisely the reason 
 which it is dreaded the governor of Virginia in an op- 
 posite case may call out the militia of Virginia, to pre- 
 vent a free soil State from being compelled to obey the 
 laws of the Union. The governor of New York might 
 sympathise so far with the governor and legislature of 
 Vermont, as to aid her in resisting the execution 
 of the laws of the Union, That is the reason which I 
 apprehend might induce the action of a governor of the 
 north, and on the other hand I can imagine the case of 
 a governor of the south interposing to prevent a south- 
 ern State from .being compelled to obey the law. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The case presented is one of a clear 
 conflict between the authorities of the State of New 
 York and the authority of the general government. The 
 government is marching its forces through New York, 
 and New York sympathising with the State which holds 
 a citizen of Virginia in custody contrary to the laws 
 and constitution of the United States, its governor in- 
 terposes to arrest the march of the forces of the United 
 States through its territory. That is the case supposed, 
 and for what purpose does the governor of New York 
 do this ? Merely because he sympathises with the. gov- 
 ernment of the other State. I can only say that when 
 that case does actually occur this confederacy will be 
 at an end. Whenever the case arises that a State gov- 
 ernment refuses to allow the marshal of the United 
 States to execute the law, and the President of the Uni- 
 ted States undertakes to march the forces of the United 
 S:ates to the assistance of the marshal in the execution 
 of the law, and the passage of that army through this 
 State is prohibited by the governor of Virginia, and he 
 calls out the militia for the purpose of resisting the 
 march of that army, then there is an open conflict be- 
 tween our State authorities and the general govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr WISE. That is what I desire to prevent. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. And are we to provide here for 
 such a case as that ? I really thiuk it is a case which 
 ou^ht not to be supposed. Should South Carolina nul- 
 lify the law, and the President of the United States un- 
 dertake to execute the law within her limits, and the 
 troops of the United States be ordered there to aid in 
 their execution, is the public safety of Virginia endan- 
 gered thereby? Is the governor of Virginia under this 
 clause of the constitution which we propose to retaiu 
 authorised to call out the militia, because the President 
 of the United States has ordered the forces to South 
 
 Carolina ? If the public safety of Virginia requires it, 
 then he may call them out, but no one will suppose that 
 in the case referred to. the public safety of Virginia will 
 require the calling out of the militia, and therefore he 
 would not be authorized to do so under the constitution 
 in any such emergency. The " public safety '' of Vir- 
 ginia and the public safety of South Carolina, or of any 
 northern state, are distinct and separate questions ; 
 and the power to embody the militia when the "public 
 safety " of Virginia requires it, does not carry with it 
 any discretionary right to interfere between the general 
 government and any other State. That, I think, is an 
 answer to the gentleman. 
 
 Mr -JACOB. In the present state of the question I 
 prefer to withdraw my amendment and let the question 
 be first on the motion to strike out. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the motion 
 of Mr. Sm'th, of Kanawha. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. I regret that my friend from Ohio 
 (Mr. Jacob) has withdrawn his amendment to the amend- 
 ment, and I rise for the purpose of renewing it in a 
 somewhat different form. I move it as an amendment 
 to the amendment, and ask the indulgence of the com- 
 mittee to submit a word or two in relation to it. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Allow me to ask a question as a mat- 
 ter of order. Suppose the amendment which the gen- 
 tleman from Jefferson (Mr. Hunter) proposes to offer 
 is offered, is it not competent still to ask a division of 
 the question, and will not the question first come up on 
 striking o at ? 
 
 The CHAIR. It is an amendment to an amendment, 
 and the question will be first upon the amendment. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. The amendment I propose is this: 
 to strike out the word " embody " and the words " when 
 in his opinion, the public safety shall require it," and 
 insert the words that will make the paragraph read 
 thus : 
 
 " He shall have power to call out and employ the mi- 
 litia in such cases as may be authorized by law." 
 
 The object of this amendment is to present to the consid- 
 eration of the committee the question, whether it be not 
 better to confide the whole subject of defining the exigen- 
 cies or the cases in which the governor may exercise his 
 executive power of employing the militia, to the legisla- 
 ture, and not to attempt it in the organic law of the 
 land. My impression is, that this subject is one of the 
 most important and most dangerous that has yet em- 
 ployed the attention of this Convention. I beg lea\ r e to 
 advert for a moment to a remark made by the gentle- 
 man from Norfolk, (Mr. Taylor,) that it was sufficient 
 to justify us in retaining this provision in the constitu- 
 tion, that we had not, from past experience in this com- 
 monwealth, found any evils resulting from it. Now, in 
 regard to this matter, I say this, that in my humble 
 judgment, we are likely to commit a great error, not 
 only upon this, but upon many other subjects, by this 
 mode of looking backward too much — if I may use a 
 homely expression — this wearing our eyes in the back 
 of our heads too much. I am not for discarding the les- 
 sons of history, or of experience — very far from it — but 
 in this progressive age, when we are now engaged in the 
 great experiment of self-government, and have reached 
 a point that is full of interest, if not of danger, it strikes 
 me that it will be far more proper, and far better, while 
 listening to the lessons that are taught us by history, 
 and by past experience, that we look forward to what is 
 before us. And in this view, in my humble judgment, 
 the investing the governor with this wide discretionary 
 power upon the subject of calling out the militia, and 
 wielding the war-arm, there is much danger. 
 
 Now, lest I forget it, let me answer the inquiry pro- 
 pounded by the gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Edmunds) 
 in regard to the exercise of this power by the governor, 
 in the ordinary cases that arise out of the necessity of 
 enforcing the decrees of the courts. It is We that the 
 ordinary mode known to us all is, that when the sheriff, 
 with his posse, finds difficulties interposed in the way of 
 his executing the precepts of the court, he must call 
 
244 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 upon the executive for aid and he, of course, must call 
 out the militia for that purpose. If any one will take 
 the trouble to turn to the fourth volume of Munford's 
 reports, he will find there a case reported, which, at the 
 t.me excited great interest — the celebrated case of Hun- 
 ter vs. Fairfax, in which these facts are presented : It 
 was a land case, and was decided by the court of appeals 
 in favor of the plaintiff. At that day, if I am correctly 
 informed, it was necessary, in order to carry a case of 
 that kind, to the supreme court of the United States, 
 that the record should be certified by the State court or 
 one of its judges. At first this certificate was refused, 
 but was eventually grmted under circumstances, into 
 which I will not stop to inquire. The record was brought 
 up before the supreme court of the United States, and 
 there the judgment of the State court was reversed. 
 Then according to the practice of that day, in the course of 
 proceedings, an order was sent down from the supreme 
 court of the United States, to the court of appeals of 
 Virginia, directing that court to carry out the judgment 
 of the supreme court of the United States. The court 
 of appeals of Virginia, after a solemn argument which 
 covers 100 pages of the reporter, refused to do it; and 
 thereupon, one or more judges of that court intimated 
 to the plaintiff that if he desired it the sheriff should 
 put him in possession of the property, notwithstanding 
 this reversal of their judgment on the part of the su- 
 preme court of the United States. The offer, I say 
 was made, as I am well informed, (being indirectly 
 one of the victims of the decision of the supreme 
 court, if erron ous) to send the sheriff to put the plaintiff 
 in possession of the property in despite of that decision, 
 and while the plaintiff was considering the matter, an in- 
 timation was received, that if such an attempt was made 
 the marshal of the federal court would be directed tu 
 prevent it. What would have been the result here ? 
 The sheriff would have been directed to execute his 
 process, difficulties would have been interposed in his 
 way, and a requisition would have been made on the 
 governor, and he exercising his discretion would have 
 called out the militia. Of course the President of the 
 United States, upon a similar requisition being made 
 upon him by the authority of the supreme court, 
 would have called out either the regular army or the 
 militia from some other quarter, and what then would 
 have followed ? Bloodshed would have been the re- 
 sult, and then where would we have been? Now, this 
 thing may occur again, and I am unwilling that, in a 
 case of that kind the governor should have the power 
 to jeopardize the very existence of the Union. I am 
 unwilling that, in any case, it should be left at the dis- 
 cretion of any single individual, to light up a fire which 
 may consume this glorious Union itself. I have put 
 this case, in addition to others that have been mentioned 
 by gentlemen, to show that there may an exigency 
 of this kind arise even in times of profound peace, 
 which would render it improper and dangerous to in- 
 vest any one man with this power. The power must 
 be somewhere, however, and the question then is, who 
 is to ext rcise it ? It seems to me the safest course is to 
 commit the whole matter to the legislature, where 
 the popular voice can be heard, so that if it ever be- 
 comes necessary to place this State in collision with 
 the federal government, or any other government, it 
 may be done in accordance with the popular voice of 
 the Commonwealth. There should be careful conside- 
 ration, full deliberation, earnest inquiry, and deep 
 thought, before such a course should be decided upon, 
 but once decided upon by the people of the State, what 
 would be the action of the legislature ? They would 
 at once give the governor the power to call out the 
 militia. There is no difficulty about that. But the 
 question of power in case of invasion is one of some 
 difficulty, and I would prefer that provision should be 
 made by law to meet this necessity. 
 
 In respect to foreign invasion, there is no difficulty — 
 but what might be termed an invasion of the Federal 
 Government is another question. 
 
 What is the state ol things which exist around us 
 in Virginia ? 1 dislike to refer to it as it now exists, or 
 may be made to exist in a few weeks. What may be 
 the awful character of the exigency or crisis— to use 
 a common phrase — which may be upon us in a short 
 time? I do not choose to follow this idea out, but 
 there is no man in this body, who will permit his thoughts 
 to go forward a little, who will not perceive at once 
 that we may be placed in imminent danger, to say the 
 least, of the most deplorable occurrences, if we give 
 this power to a governor, elected for four years, who 
 by a mere mistake may bring about a state of things that 
 may lead to blood-shed. I would prefer that the legis- 
 lature, by law, should give the power at once in those 
 plain cases, that can produce no danger— that of sup- 
 pressing insurrection , and if it is thought best, within cer- 
 tain limitations, of enforcing the decrees of the courts 
 — and then, whenever the exigency arises, let the gov- 
 ernor exercise his power of calling the legislature to- 
 gether, and ask them to vest him, for the time being; 
 and only for the time being, with the power of em- 
 bodying the militia, if it should be necessary. The 
 legislature can thus dc what we cannot do in the'ergan- 
 ic law. We must necessarily deal in generals, and must 
 be brief and concise. The legislature having its atten- 
 tion drawn to the subject, may set to work and occupy 
 more space in framing the required law. They can 
 guard the power, take from its exercise all danger, and 
 may make it temporary in its execution. 
 
 Not to detain the committee longer, I submit to the 
 deliberate and serious consideration of everv member 
 of this body, whether there are not dangers, and not im- 
 aginary dangers either, which may lead to the most se- 
 rious consequences, and which are even imminent be- 
 fore us at this time, that render it highly expedient 
 that we should take care that power is not vested in the 
 hands of any single individual, the exercise of which 
 may by any possibility precipitate upon us consequen- 
 ces such as these. Is it not better to leave it with the 
 legislature and in the hands of the people, to be exer- 
 cised as they may desire, when the exigencies arise. 
 There can be no difficulty in the case where it is re- 
 ferred to the legislature. There will always be time 
 enough for them to act, except in cases of domestic in- 
 surrection, acd in such cases I would confer upon him 
 the power to act. But whenever he is called upon to 
 meet a crisis of this kind, it ought to be by the unani- 
 mous expression of the people, if possible, or at least 
 by such an expression of the popular will as will be 
 undoubted evidence of the public feelings, for he will 
 need such support in order to carry him through. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I would suggest to the gentleman from 
 Kanawha, that he modify his amendment by accepting 
 the amendment of the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. 
 Hunter,) so as to make the clause read, "He shall have 
 power to embody the militia to repel actual invasion or 
 to suppress actual insurrection, and in such other cases 
 as may be provided for by law." 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. I would leave out the word "inva- 
 sion." 
 
 Mr. WISE. He will then have a definite power with- 
 out the aid of a statute, which will be restricted by the 
 word actual, and all cases beyond that may, according 
 to the idea of the gentleman from Jefferson, be provi- 
 ded for by law. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I would suggest that the amendment 
 be withdrawn for the purpose of testing the sense of this 
 committee in reference to the discretionary power being 
 vested in the governor. If the committee agree to strike 
 out that portion of the section indicated by the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha (Mr. Smith) it will be in its power 
 to fill the blank with such phraseology as it may agree 
 upon. Let the test question be on depriving the gov- 
 ernor of this discretionary power. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. I will withdraw my amendment for 
 that purpose. 
 
 The CHAIR stated that the question would then re- 
 cur on the motion to strike out from the section the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 245 
 
 •words "when in his opinion the public safety shall re- 
 quire it," a division of the question having been asked 
 for. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The case put by the gentleman 
 from Jefferson, (Mr. Hunter,) as I understand it, was 
 this : There was a conflict between the supreme court 
 of the United States, and the court of appeals of Vir- 
 ginia. They entered different judgments, and both on 
 constitutional grounds, as the gentleman says. Now, it 
 is the duty of the executive, certainly, to execute the 
 laws. The only question then was, what was the law? 
 Had the supreme court of the United States, or the 
 supreme court of Virginia interpreted the law cor- 
 rectly? 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman will permit me to re- 
 mind him, that in that case the court of appeals took 
 the ground that the supreme court of the United States 
 had no jurisdiction in the case. It was a case arising 
 under the treaty of 1783. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. That does not alter the aspect of 
 the case. The supreme court of the United States de- 
 cided that they did have jurisdiction, and they exercised 
 it. Then the question comes up, what was the law of 
 the State which the governor should execute ? The law 
 was properly expounded on the one side or .on the 
 other, which the governor of Virginia must execute at 
 his discretion, or under the constitution. Now, the 
 proposition of the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Hun- 
 ter,) is to throw upon the legislature the interpretation 
 of the law, and the execution of the law. The inter- 
 pretation of the law is a judicial function, and not a func- 
 tion of the legislature. The execution of the law is an 
 executive function, and not a legislative one. To adopt 
 the gentleman's idea, then, would be to say that the 
 legislative power shall make the law, then decide what 
 is the law, when there is a conflict between the supreme 
 court of the United States and the supreme court of the 
 State, and in addition, shall provide for the execution 
 of the law. I trust the gentleman will see the impro- 
 priety of throwing upon the legislative department of 
 the government the interpretation of the law, and then 
 the executi n of the law. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. I certainly did not argue for any- 
 thing looking to the end which the gentleman suggests, 
 by any means. I simply pointed out the case referred 
 to as one of the cases which might arise, which in my 
 judgment would place the executive officer of this 
 Commonwealth in a position where he might be able, by 
 a mistake on his part, to embroil us in a collision with 
 the federal government, and that therefore it was a se- 
 rious and important power to be placed into his hands. 
 I urged that in cases of this kind the legislature should 
 take up each specific case, and decide each by itself, 
 but before a collision should be brought on between the 
 State and Federal government that might end in blood- 
 shed. I would have the legislature determine not the 
 the question of law, but whether the militia of the 
 State should be embodied to vindicate it. Indeed I 
 would rather require a convention of the people and 
 their primary direct action on the subject before that 
 result should happen, than to leave it even with the 
 legislature to decide. That is my position. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. I understand the position of the gen- 
 tleman to be this : There certainly was a law in the case to 
 be executed. The courts of Virginia had certainly decided 
 what was the law, and the supreme court of the Uni- 
 ted States certainly decided that the reverse was the 
 law. Now, the duty was devolved on the executive 
 department of executing the law, but the question 
 arose, which was the law, the decision of the court of 
 Virginia, or of the court of the United States? If 
 there was law, that law is to be executed, and it 
 must be executed by the executive, or under the direc- 
 tion of the legislature. To execute the law, the legis- 
 lature, in a conflict between two courts, must decide 
 what is the law, because the two supreme judicial tri- 
 bunals have expounds d the law — the one on the one 
 side, and the ot ler on the reverse. If the governor ex- 
 ecutes the law, he must either decide the question him- 
 
 self, or throw upon the legislature the decision of the 
 judicial question, because there is no other tribunal. 
 The law must be enforced by some department of the 
 government. But if you throw back upon the legisla- 
 ture the duty of deciding what w^s the law in ihe case, 
 and then the responsibility of the execution of the Jaw, 
 it strikes me that you very improperly mix up the three 
 departments of government, the law-making, the law-in- 
 terpreting, and the law-executing departments. Ihe leg- 
 islative, judicial, and executive functions of the govern- 
 ment will be devolved upon one department. The three 
 departments of the government are declared to be sepa- 
 rate and distinct, so that neither shall exercise the powers 
 properly belonging to another, and I cannot c< nsentto 
 such an arrangement of the powers as will unite the 
 functions of two in one. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I agree with those gentle- 
 men who are in favor of the clearest definitions of the 
 powers which are to be confided to the chief magistrate 
 of this Commonwealth ; and I agree, also, that we 
 should leave as little as possible to individual discre- 
 tien. I shall vote therefore, for the motion to strike out, 
 but none of the propositions with which it is contem- 
 plated to fill the blanks exactly meet my views. I 
 am unwilling to confer upon this officer the power to call 
 out the militia whenever, in his judgment, the public 
 safety may require it. Such a grant of power, it seems 
 to me, carries with it no limitation whatsoever. He 
 will be made the judge of the occasion ; he will deter- 
 mine for himself when the public safety may require 
 the embodying of the militia. I do not see any neces- 
 sity whatsoever for clothing him with this broad power. 
 I am willing to clothe him with the power to call out 
 the militia of the State in certain exigencies, and I see 
 no difficulty whatsoever in defining in the constitution 
 itself, in plain terms, the exigencies in which the pow- 
 er shall be exercised. I think he ought to have the 
 power to call out the militia to repel invasion, whether 
 that invasion be actual or threatened ; I think he ought 
 to h tve the power to call out the militia to suppress 
 insurrection, whether the insurrection be raging, or 
 about to rage ; 1 think he ought to have the power to 
 call them out to enforce the law, and he ought to have 
 this power irrespective of the legislature. It is impos- 
 sible to organize an executive department with proper 
 efficiency to meet the emergencies of the State, unless 
 we clothe bhat department with some discretionary 
 powers. We must confide some trust to it, but there 
 is no trust, however broao or however limited, which it 
 will not be in his power to abuse. This clanger, how- 
 ever, we must encounter whenever we vest authority 
 anywhere. If we empower the governor to call out 
 the militia to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, 
 and to exeaute the law, why is it necessary to confer up- 
 on him any further power ? What case can arise ? 
 What case is it probable will arise other than those 
 enumerated, which will justify the governor in calling 
 out the military of the State. I do not think we ought 
 to leave these things to legislative discretion. If you 
 adopt the suggestion of my friend from Jefferson, (Mr. 
 Hunter,) and refer this matter entirely to the legisla- 
 tive department, what must that department do ? What 
 authority must it confer on the executive branch of the 
 government ? Must it withhold all authority until the 
 case for its exercise shall arise ? Must it withhold the 
 power to repel invasion until invasion shall come, and 
 the legislature be convened to consider of it ? Must it 
 withhold the power to suppress insurrection until insur- 
 rection rages, and to execute the law until the law is re- 
 sisted ? Is it not plain to every one that there are oc- 
 casions requiring prompt action ? Prompter action than 
 it would be possible to obtain if these powers were to 
 lay dormant until called into activity by special acts of 
 legislation. What danger can there be in conferring this 
 power upon the governor ? I apprehend that the case 
 put by my friend from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) of the 
 marching of troops of the United States, through the 
 territory of Virginia, could not, by aay construction, 
 
246 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 authorize the governor to call out the militia under the 
 plea of repelling an invasion; whereas I do see that 
 such an occasion might very readily give the opportu- 
 nity to call out the mlitia under the pretext that the 
 public safety required it. It would be no invasion, if 
 the troops of the United States, under the authority of 
 the United States, were to march through the territory 
 of Virginia, to any destination, for any purpose, but up- 
 on the suggestion of the gentleman from Accomac, I 
 repeat that it might well be considered by a governor, 
 holding peculiar opinions, as an occasion upon which 
 the public safety of this Commonwealth might require 
 the military force to be embodied. I am for striking 
 out, therefore, those words from the committee's report. 
 I am for taking from the executive officer this broad 
 discretion — a discretion which, in my judgment, would 
 clothe him with unlimited power. Bat if the report be 
 amended so as to specify the occasions upon which the 
 power is to be exercised, and the specifications be limited 
 to the cases of invasion, insurrection and the execution 
 of the law, I shall have no objection whatsoever to it. 
 I am willing to confide this power to the chief execu- 
 tive magistrate, however he be appointed, whether by 
 the popular vote or by the legislative branch, because 
 thus limited, I do not apprehend that it is a power very 
 liable to abuse. I do not know the precise terms of 
 the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha, (Mr. Smith,) but I infer from the discussion, that 
 he proposes to strike out those words from the report, 
 and supply their place with others which will limit the 
 power to call out the militia in cases where it shall be 
 necessary to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and 
 execute the law. To that extent I concur in the amend- 
 ment. But there is no occasion to go further. We need 
 say nothing here of the legislative department. If it 
 were proposed to define the legislative power, and de- 
 clare that the legislative department of the government 
 should exercise no other powers than such as shall be 
 specially granted by the constitution, there might be 
 some propriety in that portion of the amendment which 
 contemplates conferring power in respect to this sub- 
 ject upon the legislature, but I apprehend that it is not 
 proposed to attempt to define the powers of the legis- 
 lature, and all that we mean to do is to place certain 
 restrictions upon their exercise, leaving the legislative 
 department to exercise all powers in their nature legis- 
 lative, not prohibited in this or the constitution of the 
 United States. But in respect to the executive depart- 
 ment, we design to proceed upon a different principle, 
 and to define in clear and precise terms all the powers 
 which under this government that department is to 
 exercise, and not permit it to exercise any power, how- 
 ever executive in its nature it may^ be, unless conferred 
 by the constitution or an act of legislation. Therefore, 
 as I said before, I am in favor of striking from the re- 
 port of the committee the objectionable words, because 
 they confer a vast and unlimited discretion upon the 
 Governor, and to substitute the words declaring spe- 
 cifically that he shall have power to call out the mili- 
 tia to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and execute 
 the laws. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. There is an objection ta- 
 ken by the gentleman from Fauquier, to the latter clause 
 of the amendment, which objection seems to be founded 
 upon the opinion that it gives more power than ought 
 to be given to the executive. Now, I insist, that the lat- 
 ter clause referred to, instead of conferring power upon 
 the governor, is a limitation upon it. If you strike it 
 out, you leave the legislature full power to confer such 
 authority upon the governor as to them may seem prop- 
 er. All power not withheld from the legislature by the 
 constitution, is undoubtedly returned by and vested in 
 that body. Well, now, the legislature may grant a gen- 
 eral power to the governor in these matters, and thus 
 is intended to restrict the action of the governor in eve- 
 ry instance where the power is not given especially, 
 and in reference to an especial case. It is designed as a 
 limitation upon the governor, and to deny to him the 
 
 right of exercising any power granted by the legisla- 
 ture, which is not specific in its terms. Hence it is 
 not an extension of the powers of the governor as I 
 understand it. The legislature may do wrong — they 
 may grant a general and sweeping power to the gov- 
 ernor in this matter, but under this clause of the con- 
 stitution, the governor would not be at liberty to exer- 
 cise any such power, because it would not be specifical- 
 ly given. This was intended to be the effect of the 
 amendment. It was drawn up by me hastily. I have 
 no particular partiality for its phraseology. I go for 
 the substance, and any proposition that can be offered, 
 which will attain the result desired, will be equally 
 acceptable to me. My desire is to guard against re- 
 sults, which I have supposed, need only to be mention- 
 ed, to be seen and observed by all. This seems to be 
 the desire of all who have spoken here, and I repeat I 
 am willing to agree to any amendment which will 
 efficiently limit this immense power. It is a power of 
 peace or war, and a power which may dissolve the 
 Union, and that certainly is a power too vast and mo- 
 mentous in its consequences to be placed in the hands 
 of any one man. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The gentleman from Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott) coincides more nearly with my own opin- 
 ions on this subject, than any gentleman who has yet 
 spoken. He is opposed to mingling the three depart- 
 ments of government, though he is disposed to permit 
 the legislature to specify the case in which the govern- 
 or may call out the militia. Now, in the three cases 
 of which he speaks, I suppose he means to leave it dis- 
 cretionary with the governor when he shall call out 
 the militia. For instance, when in his opinion inva- 
 sion is threatened, he may call out the militia. I de- 
 sire to know what is the understanding of the gentle- 
 man, because I am anxious to know in whom this dis- 
 cretion is to rest. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I would use just the lan- 
 guage of the federal constitution. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. That is the language of 
 the amendment. ' 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. If you confer the power unlimited 
 on the executive, to call out the militia to repel inva- 
 sion, to suppress insurrection, and to enforce the execu- 
 tion of the laws, I cannot see how the powers are guard- 
 ed. For example, the gentleman from Fauquier would 
 not require the governor, in calling out the militia, to 
 specify the cause for which they were embodied. It 
 might be improper, and there might be some secret cor- 
 respondence between him and the federal executive, 
 which would require him to call out the militia without 
 proclaiming the reasons for the call. It might be commu- 
 nicated to him that there was imminent danger of insur- 
 rection, the knowledge of which it might be necessary 
 to conceal in calling out the troops. Now, if it requires 
 the governor to specify the reasons for which he calls out 
 the militia in such case, the amendment might be of 
 some effect, rut if he is not thus to specify the reasons, 
 and has the unlimited discretion to call them out in those 
 cases, he may abuse the power just as much as he may 
 under the unlimited discretion imposed upon him in the 
 clause as it stands. The assumption is, that there will 
 be no danger of an abuse of this power of calling out 
 the militia unless the governor does abuse the power 
 conferred on him by the constitution. The idea is, that 
 he will, under the pretext that the public safety requires 
 it, improperly call out the militia, and call them out 
 too, when the public safety does not require it. That 
 would be a gross abuse of power ; but I concur with 
 the gentleman from Fauquier, in saying that he must have 
 confidence, both in the legislature and executive, that 
 they will use their power with discretion. We are 
 obliged to confide in the discretion of the executive in 
 other cases, and we must do it in this case. If the 
 governor is disposed to abuse the discretionary power 
 confided to him, and to call out the militia when the 
 public safety does not require them to be embodied, he 
 he may equally abuse the power, if there, be a specific 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 247 
 
 grant of power. If you once presume an abuse of his 
 power, that abuse may arise, whether his power is 
 limited by "public safety," or by the three specified 
 grants — " insurrection, invasion, or execution of the 
 laws." 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I agree with the gentleman, 
 and I said when I was up before, that it is impossible 
 when you create a power and appoint an agent to exercise 
 it, to guard against every possible abuse ; that we ought 
 to guard against abuse as far as practicable, and in this 
 case we progress to some extent towards that object, 
 when we limit this power to certain cases and define 
 clearly what those cases are. If the report stands, cloth- 
 ing the executive with power to call out the militia 
 whenever, in his opinion, the public safety requires it, 
 does not every one see that it clothes him with a power 
 to call out the militia in every conceivable case what- 
 ever ? Is there any gentleman in this body in favor of 
 clothing the executive department of the government 
 with that broad and unlimited power — power over the 
 military strength of the State, a power to call it into 
 action whenever, in his individual judgment, the safety 
 of the commonwealth may require it. I think there 
 may be occasions when safety will require the governor 
 to call out the militia. I think the Convention can 
 foresee those occasions, and foreseeing, can define them. I 
 think it is its duty to define them, and not leave it to the 
 broad discretion of the governor. I think that in cases 
 of invasion, of insurrection, and of opposition to the 
 execution of the law, it may be necessary to call out 
 the militia. And we do all that is possible for human 
 agents to do, to guard against abuse, when, in the act of 
 conferring it, we require that it shall be exercised only 
 when the safety of the commonwealth shall be endan- 
 gered, by one or the other of these emergencies. I think 
 there is a great difference — a wide difference between 
 the grant of power in these restricted terms and the 
 grant of power contained in the report of the commit- 
 tee. 1 think there is a great difference between giving 
 this power to the governor in the enumerated cases, and 
 giving it to him in any or in every case according to his 
 judgment and discretion. 
 < Mr. SOUTH ALL. I am glad to see that the indica- 
 tions of the committee are against conferring upon the 
 governor this, to my mind, most unlimited executive pre- 
 rogative — that of deciding upon the occasion when the 
 public safety shall require the calling out and the em- 
 bodying of the militia of the State ; and our object, it 
 seems to me, should be so to confer this power upon 
 the executive of the State as to guard against any im- 
 proper exercise of it. In the exercise of this indefinite 
 power the chief magistrate might deem the State or its 
 safety in danger when a very large portion — perhaps a 
 large majority — of the people might entertain the opin- 
 ion that there was no danger at hand, and that the pub- 
 lic safety did not require its exercise. It seems to me 
 that the gentleman from Fauquier, so far as he has gone, 
 indicated the right view on this subject, and if we add a 
 single word to the amendment, it will perhaps carry out 
 the object in view, and deny to the legislature, if it should 
 be diposed to exercise it, the power of conferring upon 
 the chief magistrate any other power touching the mi- 
 litia of the commonwealth than those prescribed in the 
 constitution. I understand the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, and others, to indicate, and in that I go with them, 
 that the governor should possess the power to call forth 
 the militia to repel invasion, whether the invasion be 
 threatened or actual, to suppress insurrection, whether 
 there be a case of overt act or threatened, and to enforce 
 the due execution of the laws. If this be a power all- 
 sufficient with which to arm your executive for the pur- 
 pose of taking care of the public safety, you must limit 
 the other departments of government from conferring on 
 him any additional power upon the subject, otherwise 
 you will not have advanced an inch. Because if you 
 only go so far as to prescribe and declare in your organic 
 law that the governor mar call out the militia for the 
 
 three purposes mentioned, you have not thereby denied 
 to the legislature the power of conferring on him other 
 and additional power over the militia. You are just 
 running in a circle, and may not guard against the ap- 
 prehended power ultimately finding its way into the ex- 
 ecutive department. If you believe it is inexpedient to 
 confer upon the executive the discretion to determine 
 when the public safety may require the embodiment of 
 the militia, certainly we ought to deny to the legisla- 
 tive department the power to confer that right upon him. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I presume that we are now 
 upon the article organizing the executive and not the 
 legislative department, and we are to consider what 
 power it is proper or improper to confer upon the ex- 
 ecutive. When we come to consider the legislative 
 branch of the government, then we may consider in what 
 it may be proper to restrict that branch of the govern- 
 ment. As to what my iriend proposes, it does seem to 
 me to be such a limitation upon the legislative power as 
 would not find a proper place in this report. 
 
 Mr. SOUTHALL. That may or may not be. In or- 
 ganizing your executive department, it may be proper or 
 necessary to prescribe and to limit his duties, and there- 
 by to prohibit the legislative department when they 
 come to exercise the powers conferred on them to extend 
 to the executive any additional prerogatives over the 
 militia ; or it may be, as the gentleman says, a matter of 
 policy first to prescribe in general terms, without limita- 
 tion, the powers and duties of the executive, and then 
 when we come to organize the legislative department, 
 there to restrict them in the exercise of their power. But 
 it seems to me that we might at once, so far as this com- 
 mittee is disposed to unite in the proposition, and settle 
 the question by simply prescribing here that the gover- 
 nor shall have power to call out the militia only to re- 
 pel invasion, only to suppress insurrection, and only to 
 execute the laws. You will determine then at once 
 what power the executive should exercise, and render it 
 wholly unnecessary, when we come to the legislative de- 
 partment, to say that they shall not confer on the execu- 
 tive any power touching the prerogative which you 
 propose to confer on him over the militia. It is to me 
 a matter of entire indifference where this limitation shall 
 come in, whether in the legislative or in ti e executive 
 department. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I presume there is very little difference 
 of opinion prevail ng in the Convention as to what is 
 proper to be done upon this subject. I had not the 
 good fortune to come in at the moment that the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha submitted his amendment, nor 
 had I the good fortune to hear the proposition submitted 
 by the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Hunter,) but I 
 heard his remarks, and I have listened with attention 
 and interest to the remarks made by others who follow- 
 ed him. It seems to me that there is but one opinion 
 that does or ought to prevail in this Convention, and 
 that is to provide especially, so far as it is in our power 
 to do, for the cases in which the governor shall be au- 
 thorized to exercise his powers of calling out the militia. 
 But it seems to be apprehended, and perhaps with some 
 propriety, that other questions may arise which we can- 
 not expressly provide for in the constitution. Under 
 these views it has suggested itself to my mind that the 
 most proper provision which could be incorporated in 
 the constitution on this subject, which would meet en- 
 tirely, if I understood them, the views expressed by the 
 gentlemen from Fauquier, Jefferson, and Albemarle, and 
 I hope, entertained by the resolution of the Convention 
 would be to incorporate in the constitution a provision 
 of this kind, that he shall have the power to call out 
 the militia for the purpose of repelling invasion, sup- 
 pressing insurrection, or in such cases as the legislature 
 may specially authorize. 
 
 It does appear to me that there is no case likely to 
 arise in which we ought to call out the militia except 
 in the special cases of repelling invasion and suppressing 
 insurrection ; but if, in his opinion, a case should arise 
 
248 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 and a necessity should exist, you have already in the pre- 
 ceding section* given the governor power to " couvene 
 the legislature on application of a majority of the mem- 
 bers of both houses of the General Assembly, or when in 
 his opinion the interest of the commonwealth shall re- 
 quire it." Now, what is the case likely to arise other 
 than those of invasion and insurrection, in which the 
 governor might feel it his duty to call out the militia ? 
 Is there any case likely to happen thut will require such 
 prompt and instant action as would forbid him for want 
 of time, from convening the legislature and asking for 
 authority? Suppose the case instanced of the federal 
 government to suppress an invasion or an insurrection 
 elsewhere than in this State. Suppose the Governor of 
 Virginia, knowing nothing of public opinion, should hold 
 that the public safety required that the marching of 
 those troops should be resisted. Is that a case in which 
 the Convention proposes to vest this high discretionary 
 power in a single individual? Should they not make it 
 his duty in such circumstances, before he should exercise 
 the power, to call together the legislature and ascertain 
 what was public sentiment on the question? It seems 
 to me that such a position as I have indicated, would be 
 proper to incorporate in the constitution, and would 
 cover all the cases likely to arise. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. With one exception the 
 amendment indicated by the gentleman is identical with 
 the one I offered. He has simply omitted the words 
 " enforce the execution of the laws." The amendment I 
 offered, provides that besides these cases specified, he 
 shall have power in only such cases as the legislature 
 may specially authorize him to act 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I stated that I had not heard the propo- 
 sition. If it is as the gentleman says, I have no objec- 
 tion to it. 
 
 The question was then taken, (a division having been 
 ordered,) on the motion to strike out from the report 
 of the committee the words following : " when in his 
 opinion the public safety shall require it," and it was 
 agreed to. 
 
 The question then recurred on the motion of Mr. Smith, 
 of Kanawha, to insert in lieu of the words thus stricken 
 out, the following : " to repel invasion, to suppress in- 
 surrection, to enforce the execution of the laws, and for 
 such other specific purposes only as may be authorized 
 by the legislature." 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. There seems to be a gen- 
 eral misunderstanding of the latter clause of the amend- 
 ment. It seems to be supposed that it is a restriction 
 upon the legislature. It is not so. It is a restriction 
 upon the governor. The governor is to exercise no 
 power but that which is first granted by the legislature, 
 and it must be a special grant from that body, before he 
 can exercise it. Suppose the legislature was to pass a 
 law on this very same question. This is a restriction 
 upon the power of the governor, in the execution of any 
 such general law which the legislature may pass. It is 
 not to restrict the legislative power at all; it is a re- 
 striction upon the powers of the governor under a gen- 
 eral legislative act. The very purpose of the amend- 
 ment is to restrict the action of the governor to such 
 matters as should be specially defined by the legisla- 
 ture. 
 
 Mr. WISE. My objection to the latter terms of the 
 amendment is not that they are words of limitation up- 
 on the legislative department, or that they are words of 
 restriction upon the executive department ; but my ob- 
 jection is rather the reverse, that in this place you give 
 the governor unlimited discretion to exercise executive 
 power in any case which the legislature may direct by 
 law. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. When we come to the 
 article on the legislative department, then we may 
 restrict the legislature, if it is desired, from conferring 
 any power on the governor which is not specific, and 
 then the two clauses will be consistent. 
 
 Mr. WISE. It will be impossible, I venture to sug- 
 gest to the gentleman, to incorporate when you come to 
 
 the report on the legislative department, a legislative 
 restriction to the extent the gentleman designs. And I 
 would repeat the suggestion of the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, (Mr. Scott,) that the executive cannot exercise 
 discretionary power beyond the terms and limitations 
 which you propose to have introduced into this article 
 on the executive department. You will have said that 
 he shall call forth the militia only for the purpose of re- 
 pelling invasion, of suppressing insurrection, and of ex- 
 ecuting the laws. That embraces every case, and every 
 category of cases. If you go no further the legislature 
 will not be authorized to confer executive power that 
 is not already conferred by the constitution ; and if you 
 go as far as is proposed by these latter terms of the 
 amendment, why, you go to the extent that has been 
 well put by the gentleman from Albemarle, (Mr. South- 
 all.) You do not restrict the power of the legislature, 
 but you are giving the legislature an unlimited power 
 to create the governor dictator, to clothe his right arm 
 alone with the war power of the Commonwealth, I 
 am not prepared to do that ; I am not prepared to trust 
 myself when we come to the legislative department to 
 guard this power by any limitation there in the consti- 
 tution. I do not believe that human language can do 
 it. Without these words this executive power will be 
 well guarded. We desire him not to exercise this exe- 
 cutive power for any other purpose than to repel inva- 
 sion, to suppress insurrection, and to execute the laws. 
 To give the legislature authority to invest the governor 
 with executive power beyond that, I say is going too far, 
 and I think we had better stand upon the amendment 
 without those words. I move to amend the amendment 
 by striking out the latter words, " and for such other 
 specific purposes only as may be authorized by the le- 
 gislature," so that the clause will read " he shall have 
 power to embody the militia to repel invasion, to sup- 
 press insurrection, and to execute the laws." 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. I have no sort of partiali- 
 ty as to the phraseology of this amendment at all, and I 
 have no objection to accepting the amendment, unless 
 other gentlemen should object to it, because it was one 
 of debatable policy with me when I introduced it ; but I 
 thought occasions might arise in which it might become 
 essential for the governor to exercise other powers than 
 those embraced in the three purposes specified. I will, 
 therefore, yield to the suggestion of my friend, and ac- 
 cept the amendment. 
 
 The amendment was accordingly modified, as suggested 
 by Mr. Wise, so as to read "to repel invasion, suppress 
 insurrection, and to execute the laws." 
 
 Mr. SOUTHALL. I move that the word " only" be 
 inserted in the amendment, so that it shall read he 
 shall have power to embody the militia only to repel 
 invasion, to suppress insurrection, and to execute the 
 laws." 
 
 Mr. WISE. I would remark to the gentleman from 
 Albemarle, that the word is unnecessary. The limita- 
 tions are limitations ex vi termini. They are not only 
 limitations ex vi termini, but from the nature of the ex- 
 ecutive department itself the legislature can confer no 
 power upon it which is not conferred by the constitu- 
 tion. And when you say that the power shall be exer- 
 cised by the executive only to repel invasion, suppress 
 insurrection, and execute the laws, these are the only 
 cases enumerated, and of course it does not include any 
 others. 
 
 Mr. SOUTHALL. If I thought as the gentleman 
 from Accomachas indicated, I certainly should not insist 
 upon the amendment, but I differ entirely with him as 
 to the interpretation which he seems to put on these 
 words, should they stand in the amendment as I have 
 suggested. Do I understand the gentleman from Accomac 
 to say that the legislative committee cannot confer other 
 powers upon the executive, as to embodying the militia, 
 if those words are not inserted ? Why, if the gentleman 
 will look at the existing constitution, he will find that 
 there are many powers now exercised by the Governor 
 of Virginia, that do not appear in that Constitution. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 249 
 
 The constitution of 1829, conferred upon the executive 
 certain powers, and among others the one under discus- 
 sion, also the right t© grant reprieves and pardons, <fec. ; 
 and yet we find that from that time to this the legisla- 
 ture by law have been conferring upon the executive 
 various other powers not conferred upon him by the 
 constitution. Is there any power given to the governor 
 by the constitution of 1829, to appoint inspectors, and to 
 exercise many other powers which might be named; and 
 which have been conferred upon him by the legislature? 
 If I agreed with the gentleman from Accomac as to the 
 interpretation to be given to the words of f the amend- 
 ment, I should be perfectly indifferent as to the insertion 
 of the word, which I now deem necessary as a check on 
 the powers of the legislature. The executive is confined 
 to its grant of powers. The legislature is restrained but 
 by limitation. It is my object at present, (whilst I de- 
 sire to be understood as not being committed irrevocably 
 to the views I have thrown out on this subject,) to tie 
 up the hands of the legislature. The gentleman seems 
 to agree with me that the word " only" inserted here 
 will do no harm. It is a small word it is true, but it 
 will be potent and powerful for the object I have in 
 view. 
 
 Mr. "WISE. I agree it will do no harm, but I do not 
 see that it will do any good. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. Under the solicitations of 
 gentlemen around me, I have acoepted of various amend- 
 ments suggested, but upon further reflection, I am sat- 
 isfied that my amendment, as originally introduced, will 
 better attain the end which I desire, and with the con- 
 sent of the committee I will decline the modifications 
 that have been made, and present my amendment in its 
 original form again. If any gentleman desires the lat- 
 ter clause to be stricken out, he can make a motion to 
 that effect, and the sense of the Convention can be taken 
 on it. 
 
 The amendment was then modified, so as to read as 
 originally introduced. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I renew my motion to strike out the 
 words " and for such other specific purposes only, as 
 may be authorized by the legislature." 
 
 Mr. SOUTH ALL. I renew my amendment to insert 
 the word " only." 
 
 Mr. WISE. The amendment of the gentleman from 
 Albemarle comes in properly only in case the words I 
 propose shall be stricken out, and I suggest to the gen- 
 tleman that he withhold his amendment until the ques- 
 tion is taken on my motion. 
 
 Mr. SOUTHALL. I will withdraw my amendment. 
 
 Mr. BROWK I hope it will be the pleasure of the 
 committee to strike out the latter clause of the amend- 
 ment offered by the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. 
 Smith,) and I trust that after that, it will be their plea- 
 sure to insert the word "only" as proposed by the gen- 
 tleman from Albemarle, (Mr. Southall.) I understand 
 that the Convention is now fixing the powers of the ex- 
 ecutive with regard to the militia of the Conimon wealth, 
 and that the Convention is now considering the amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Kanawha. Now striking 
 out the latter clause, will confer on the executive the 
 power of embodying the militia for three purposes and 
 for three purposes only, so far as the constitution is 
 concerned. 
 
 So far as there is a grant of power by the constitution 
 to the executive, he can only embody it for three speci- 
 fied purposes, if the word only shall be inserted as sug- 
 gested by the gentleman from Albemarle. It is true 
 that the legislature may confer other powers on the gov- 
 ernor, than those conferred by the Constitution;, but I 
 understand the object of the gentleman from Albemarle 
 is to deny to the legislature the power of conferring 
 other executive powers upon the Governor, with regard 
 to the militia. He does not design to limit the power 
 of the legislature, to confer other powers upon the exe- 
 cutive, in regard to other subjects, but he desires to de- 
 signate in the Constitution the entire power of the gov- 
 20 
 
 ernor over the militia. Then we will take from the le- 
 gislature, should the latter clause of the amendment be 
 stricken out, the power of authorizing the executive to 
 embody the militia for any other than the three pur- 
 poses proposed to be designated in the constitution. I 
 know that the power may be left with the legislature, 
 and very properly, of conferring other executive powers 
 upon the governor, upon other subjects than those of 
 embodying the militia ; and when the legislative depart- 
 ment of the government shall be under consideration, 
 we may regulate their powers as we may see proper, 
 but if the latter clause of the amendment ©f the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha be stricken out, and the word only 
 inserted, then, so far as the militia is concerned, the con- 
 stitution will have fixed the executive power. 
 
 Mr. M. R. H. GARNETT. I am glad that the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha has adhered to his amendment, 
 and I am opposed to striking out the latter clause of it, 
 not so much for the effect that clause would have, as on 
 account of the purpose avowed on this floor by some 
 gentlemen at least, in striking it out. As I understand 
 this question, it presents to us the simple issue whether 
 such discretionary power should be lodged with the ex- 
 ecutive or the legislature. I had supposed that gentle- 
 men here would all agree that whenever the public 
 safety required it, the government of the State, in some 
 of its branches, should have the power to embody the 
 militia. Under the old constitution that power was 
 lodged with the governor, and it has been exercised 
 with safety for seventy odd years. The gentlemen 
 from Accomac and Jefferson alluded to certain cases, 
 to show that danger might have resulted from an abuse 
 of power, and yet it appeared that even in such cases 
 no abuses had actually occurred. The governors who 
 safely exercised that power for over seventy years, 
 were elected by the legislature, by that much abused, 
 that corrupt body, as gentlemen are now in the habit 
 of calling it ; but when our governor is to be elected 
 by the people, by what is described to us as an infalli- 
 ble constituency, it instantly becomes necessary to take 
 from him this discretionary power and lodge it in other 
 hands. In such inconsistencies do the advocates of this 
 proposition involve themselves. But the question has 
 assumed another form. It is no longer a question, shall 
 the governor be invested with this discretionary power 
 of embodying the militia, but shall the discretion be 
 taken from the governor altogether, and the power 
 confined to only three cases. In other words, whether 
 we shall now define what the public safety, in all future 
 time, may require. I think the limitations by which 
 gentlemen propose to obtain this object, are perfectly 
 nugatory, for the legislature may enact any law, and 
 under this provision, the governor may embody the 
 militia to execute it. And thus the power may be ex- 
 ercised in the very case which gentlemen wish to pre- 
 vent. There are some gentlemen here who, judging 
 from the tenor of their remarks, desire to prevent any 
 embodiment of the militia that may hereafter be re- 
 quired to aid the oppressed authorities of a sister State, 
 in resisting outrage upon her rights. There are gentle- 
 men who would tie up our hands for years to come, un- 
 til a Convention can meet to form another constitution, 
 and leave us in the meantime at the mercy of a consol- 
 idated federal government. We are told that we must 
 not only deny to the executive the exercise of such a 
 power, but that we must impose upon the legislature 
 itself such restrictions, that it will not be able to au- 
 thorize the governor to embody the militia for any pur- 
 pose but to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and 
 to execute the laws. Now it may be that the federal 
 government will in a few years pass laws to which I 
 presume few gentlemen on this floor will be disposed to 
 submit. The present march of events warns us that it 
 will not be twenty years before a law similar to that 
 passed in relation to the slave trade in the District of 
 Columbia will be passed by congress, prohibiting the 
 slave trade between the States of this Union, and that 
 it will not be forty years, if that law be acquiesced in' 
 
250 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 before another law abolishing slavery in these States. 
 Do gentlemen mean to say that the legislature shall not 
 have the power to authorize the governor to embody 
 the militia to resist such an outrage upon our rights ? 
 Nay, take the very case supposed on this floor ; a sis- 
 ter Southern State may, in consequence of the violation 
 of her rights and inteiests, exercise the power which 
 Virginia, or at all events, which the democratic party 
 of Virginia in all times and on all occasions has solemn- 
 ly declared that every State has a right to exercise — I 
 mean the right of peaceful secession from this Union — 
 and the federal government should make war upon her, 
 and should attempt to march troops through the borders 
 of this commonwealth — do gentlemen mean to say that 
 we shall, by constitutional provision, deprive the legis- 
 lature of the power to embody the militia in such a 
 case? This has not been openly said, it is true, but I 
 infer that such is the purpose from the speeches we 
 have heard. If gentlemen so mean, let them come out 
 openly, and we will meet the question. Let them not 
 do it by implication, but let them declare at once, that 
 while they are tearing up the ancient polity of Virginia 
 from its very foundations, they mean also to surrender 
 all the principles which her people have ever honored, 
 and they will stand meekly and tamely by, while the 
 federal government tramples under foot and crushes 
 by its military power, all State rights and the rights of 
 the South. Let us have their position plainly before 
 us, so that it may be intelligible to all. Let them not 
 do covertly what they dare not attempt openly. 
 
 I trust it will be the pleasure of the committee not 
 to strike out the latter part of the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Kanawha, not because the result would 
 be really to restrict the powers of the legislature on 
 this subject, but because the motion is supported by 
 gentlemen who desire to curtail the power of the legis- 
 lature with a special view to the very case I have sup- 
 posed. 
 
 Mr. "WISE. I do not believe that the gentleman in- 
 tended — 
 
 Mr. M. R. H. GARNETT. I did not refer, as the 
 gentleman from Accomac well understands, to him, 
 when I said that gentlemen should avow their purpose 
 in this matter. I do not believe for a moment, but that 
 gentleman and myself will be standing side by side. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I do not know where 1 should be found. 
 I do not know where any man — let me say to my young 
 friend — would be found, or where we are to expect to 
 find men in crises that may come over the country. 
 But for one, I mean to plant one foot upon the Union of 
 these States, and the other foot upon the rights of these 
 States, and not to be moved from either if I can help it. 
 I am no consolidationist, I am no destructive, and if 
 the power of this government will 'only unite with me 
 and back me in it, 1 will hold one antagonist with the 
 right hand and the other with the left, and I will keep 
 them apart. They shall not come to blows with my 
 consent. I will preserve the peace of this country and 
 the institutions of this country, and one of the most 
 holy causes of my mission here is to endeavor to guard 
 our State constitution, so that, by its own operations, it 
 shall be the guardian, both of the Union of the States 
 and of the rights of the State. Now, let me say to my 
 friend from Essex, (Mr. M. R. H. Garnett,) that con- 
 curring with him that it is all essential to defend the 
 rip-hts of the State as well as the Union of the States, 
 the question here is, not whether we shall deprive the 
 governor or the people of the State of Virginia of the 
 right of interposing at any time that they may elect for 
 the defence of the one or the defence of the other ; but 
 the question is here now, will you entrust to a single 
 man, will you entrust to a single governor, the right of 
 electing whether State rights shall be defended, in case 
 that governor happens to be, for the time being, a con- 
 solidationist ? I will not. On the other hand, as a 
 friend of the Union, I ask, will you leave it to a sin- 
 gle man to determine, whether the Union is to be de- 
 fended or invaded, in case he be a disunionist ? I will 
 not — no. And in case there happened to be a legisla- 
 
 ture on the one extreme or upon the other, I will not 
 grant the power to the legislature, to invest the gov- 
 ernor with the dictatorial power of saying whether the 
 militia shall be called upon, either to destroy the rights 
 of the State or to humble its pride ; or whether they 
 shall be called upon to do the reckless and unholy work 
 of prostrating this Union. I will not clot he the one 
 man with that power and discretion, and I will not in- 
 vest the legislature with that power. Never. All 
 that I can do at this time, is what a brave man and a 
 humane man can do in the dark hour of danger, when he 
 knows not how to strike, and when he knows not wheth- 
 er the blow is to strike friend or foe. I remember an 
 incident that was related to me as having occurred on 
 the night cf the 23d December, 1814, immediately be- 
 fore the battle of New Orleans, the last great battle of 
 the last war, when a foreign army with the war cry of 
 beauty and booty were marching upon a city of our 
 country — when a patriot had the courage, with fifteen 
 hundred men, to march out to meet an enemy of five 
 thousand, his only cover, his only defence, the darkness 
 of the night — when the enemy could not see the pauci- 
 ty of his troops — and when the troops of Carrol and 
 Coffee were so involved in darkness that they knew not 
 which way to fire. All that they could do, as I was 
 told by one of those gentlemen himself, was to stand 
 with folded arms. The night was dark and they could 
 •not see, and it was not until a man, whose name 
 ought to have a monument erected to it — I mean Gen. 
 McCall of Florida — stepped up to the commanding 
 general and volunteered to go to the British line, or tc 
 the line which they could not tell was American o 
 British, and see the color of their uniforms by the flar 
 of the fire — it was then and then only, by the self dev. 
 tion of a patriot, that our army could see which way 
 to fire. I feel exactly in this position now. I am sur- 
 rounded with darkness. I know not where the enemy 
 is. I await the flash of fire-arms before I decide where 
 I am, and I will prevent the flash of a single fire-arm if 
 lean, in our own line, until I know how to distin- 
 guish friend from foe. 
 
 I am ready to vindicate my friend, and I hope I 
 can do so truly, and all who stand in his position, from 
 the imputation of desiring to see an opportunity for the 
 flash of arms. No, it cannot be in his bosom, it cannot 
 be the desire of any man, any being on earth, to see the 
 union of this country brought into conflict with the 
 States and the rights of the States of this country. 
 Standing where I do, a friend of the Union, and a friend 
 of the rights of the State— a friend of the rights of the 
 States and a friend of the Union, I put neither before 
 the other — I will guard both from whatever menaces 
 them. And one of the best ways by which we can 
 guard ourselves in the future, is to limit the governor 
 in the exercise of his power to the only cases of practi- 
 cal utility — the case of invasion, which has its meaning ; 
 the case of insurrection — the term has its meaning ; 
 the execution of the laws — we understand what it is. I 
 will give no governor the power to interpret the march- 
 ing of a federal army this way or that — to go to the 
 North to compel Vermont, or to the South to compel 
 South Carolina to do this or that, as attacking the sover- 
 eignty of Virginia, or of deciding that whatever invades 
 the safety of South Carolina or Vermont, attacks the 
 safety of Virginia, and is therefore an invasion of 
 Virginia. I will give no governor any such power of 
 interpretation. There must be an invasion or an insur- 
 rection, or a necessity to enforce the fexecution of the 
 laws before I will agree that he shall have power to 
 embody the militia at all. 
 
 My friend from Essex — I hope he will permit me so 
 to call him, for I have a deep sympathy for him — seemed 
 to invite the discussion of this agitating question of 
 union or disunion here. I was about to say, let the pa- 
 triotic feelings, let the patriotic fervor of every mem- 
 ber here, whenever that demon of discord shall attempt 
 to rise in this hall, say to it, avaunt ! down ! I am not 
 going to discuss that subject. I am going to repel its 
 discussion, as I would repel invasion or suppress in- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 251 
 
 surreetion. I am not going to discuss that question here. 
 It is a question I intend to discuss with nobody — may 
 God grant that I shall be saved from fighting the ques- 
 tion with any body. Whenever it shall be necessary for 
 this State to be called upon to act, let it be called upon 
 by the legislature. Let it be called upon by the coun- 
 sel of consultation. The legislature is the deliberative 
 department of the government. Whenever this State is 
 to be called upon to decide which way she will act, and 
 she may be called upon so to decide, let us have the 
 representatives of the people sent up directly by the peo- 
 ple themselves to decide it. I will leave it with the le- 
 gislature, but I will not leave it to one man to decide for 
 us and against us. I beg my friend to remember that if 
 he gives this discretionary power to one man — it maybe 
 that the one man may be opposed to him — it is not cer- 
 tain that he will entertain the sentiment which he en- 
 tertains. It may be one man of federal opinions, of 
 ideas of consolidation that will crush the rights and 
 humble the pride of his State. One uniting in my 
 friend's opinions is just as much interested in guarding 
 the State against this discretion in one man, as one who 
 is opposed to him is interested in guarding the peace of 
 the State against such an unlimited and unguarded dis 
 cretion. Let not this little debate sound the tocsin of 
 discord here. Let us act cooly, calmly, deliberately and 
 wisely, protecting the honor and interests of the State, 
 and protecting the great union of the States, and looking 
 to all the end3 and rights of government, both State 
 and Federal. Let us beware of arming any one man with 
 this power of lighting a torch which may destroy all — 
 all North, all South, all East, all West. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I take great pleasure in respond- 
 ing to the noble and patriotic sentiments which have 
 been so eloquently presented by the gentleman who has 
 just taken his seat, (Mr. Wise.) 
 
 Like that gentleman, I am no consolidationist. 
 Like him I am determined to plant one foot on the Union 
 and the other upon the rights of the States, and to de- 
 fend them to the last. I have always, at least since I 
 have been old enough to take part in public affairs, been 
 jealous of executive power. My observation has satis- 
 fied me that that jealousy is well founded, and I shall, 
 therefore, in the organization of the executive depart- 
 ment, do all in my power to restrict and limit that ex- 
 ecutive power. The only question, it seems to me, which 
 is presented by the amendment offered to the amend- 
 ment is, whether we shall give the legislature the power 
 of conferring any other discretion upon the governor 
 than that which is limited by the specific limitations of 
 the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kanawha, 
 (Mr. Smith.) Now it is only necessary for the com- 
 mittee to ascertain what are the specific cases in which 
 discretionary power should be conferred upon the gov- 
 ernor, and to determine whether it is necessary that any 
 other discretion should be exercised by him than those 
 which are specified. And what are they? Why the 
 power to embody the militia upon the occurrence of 
 three different events. First, to repel invasion ; second, 
 to put down insurrection ; and third, when it may be 
 necessary, to enforce the execution of the laws. Is it 
 necessary, is it proper that this discretionary power of 
 embodying the militia should be conferred upon the 
 governor, in any other supposable case? I cannot my- 
 self imagine any other, and I shall therefore, with great 
 pleasure, vote for the proposition to strike out the latter 
 clause of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
 Kanawha, and then I shall cheerfully vote for the 
 amendment which I have understood my friend from Al- 
 bemarle (Mr. Southall) intends to offer. It will then 
 limit the discretion of the governor to the three cases 
 specified in the amendment of the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha. I am greatly astonished that my friend from 
 Kanawha should have declined accepting that modifica- 
 tion. I understood that he did at first accept it, but has 
 since withdrawn that acceptance. I am satisfied, from 
 my long acquaintance with the gentleman, that we en- 
 tertain precisely the same views in regard to restricting 
 or limiting executive power, and I appeal to the gentle- 
 
 man to say, whether he would be willing to confer upon 
 the executive this power of embodying the militia, in 
 any other than the three ca*es specified. I hope, there- 
 fore, that the committee will agree to strike out the lat- 
 ter clause of the amendment of the gentleman from 
 Kanawha, and then adopted it as amended. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I was about to rise, when the gentle- 
 man from Accomac succeeded in obtaining the floor, to 
 express the hope that no gentleman here will be found 
 to enter into a discussion of this agitated question of 
 union and disunion. This is not the place for it. I have 
 no desire — I could not be dragged into a discussion of 
 the kind, because I do not believe that my position on 
 that question requires to be defended here. But it ap- 
 pears to me, that in an endeavor to avoid the one ex- 
 treme, we are likely to run into the other. Now, I wish 
 to avoid both extremes. I need not say here that I do 
 not believe in this doctrine of peaceible secession, es- 
 pecially that sort of peaceable secession, which requires 
 the exercise of authority on the part of the governor, 
 to call out the militia to enforce it, as the gentleman 
 from Essex (Mr. M. R. H. Garstett) has intimated. 
 Nor am I, at the same time that I deny the doctrine of 
 peaceable secession, one of those who deny to the peo- 
 ple the right of revolution ; and it does appear to me, 
 that between these two propositions, the one to restrict 
 the power of the legislature, and the other to restrict 
 the executive, that gentlemen are not only disposed to 
 deny the power of secession, but the right of revolution. 
 Why, the gentleman himself proposes to leave it to the 
 legislature to determine when this power shall be exer- 
 cised. That is precisely the object of the clause in the 
 amendment of the gentleman from Kanawha, which he 
 proposes to strike out. The proposition of the gentle- 
 man from Albemarle goes to impose a restriction on 
 the authority of the governor, while the proposition of 
 the gentleman from Accomac goes to impose a restric- 
 tion on the legislative authorities. I shall vote against 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Accomac to strike 
 out that portion^of the amendment which will authorize 
 the legislature to confer authority on the governor at a 
 subsequent period, if the necessity should arise, to call 
 out the militia. Why, I can very well imagine a case, 
 apart from an actual invasion, or an actual insurrection, 
 or an actual resistance to the law, when it would become 
 proper that the militia of this State should not only be 
 embodied, in the language of the amendment, but should 
 be called out. 
 
 A MEMBER. What case? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Some gentleman calls on me to state 
 a case. Let me suppose an anticipated invasion. Sup- 
 pose a state of things should arise, — God grant that it 
 never may, but in the course of human events a case 
 possibly may arise — in which it would become necessary 
 and proper in which we should be in a state of rebellion 
 to the general government. I do not anticipate such a 
 case, but I will not tie up the hands of the people so as 
 to prevent the exercise of their right of revolution, and 
 the right whenever they may think proper, through the 
 legislature, the deliberative department of the govern- 
 ment, to authorize the governor to embody and call out 
 the militia. Now may not such a case arise? Why 
 else do you propose, and why else did those who prece- 
 ded you in the formation of constitutional provisions, 
 propose to make the governor commander-in-chief of 
 the army and navy of Virginia? You have no navy, you 
 have no army in Virginia, nor are you likely to have 
 any, except in a state of revolution. I say I do not an- 
 ticipate such a case, but I will provide for it, if ever it 
 should arise. In the course of human events, I say it 
 is possible it may arise. 1 shall, therefore, vote for the 
 proposition of the gentleman from Kanawha (Mr. Smith) 
 to authorize the people of Virginia, when the necessity 
 shall arise, through their representatives in the legisla- 
 ture, to authorize the governor to embody and to call 
 out the militia. The effect of the proposition, if amend- 
 ed as proposed by the gentleman from Accomac, would 
 be to impose a restriction on the authority of the legis- 
 lative department ; or, in other words, upon the power 
 
252 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 of the people to empower the legislature, in a certain 
 contingency that may arise hereafter, to authorize the 
 governor to call out the militia. The propesition of the 
 gentleman from Albemarle is to impose a restriction up- 
 on the power of the governor. Now, if the proposition 
 of the gentleman from Accomac shall be voted down, 
 and the power shall be given to the legislature in the 
 event of a certain contingency, then, in my apprehen- 
 sion, the amendment of the gentleman from Albemarle 
 becomes unnecessary. But if the proposition of the 
 gentleman from Accomac shall prevail, and this author- 
 ity shall be refused to the legislature, then the proposi- 
 tion of the gentleman from Albemarle, imposing a re- 
 striction upon the one-man power, becomes eminently 
 necessary, and I shall vote for it. That is the position 
 I occupy. I shall go against the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Accomac to take from the legislature the 
 power in all contingencies, and under all circumstances, 
 and for all time to come, to authorize the governor, 
 when a necessity may exist, to call out the militia. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Concurring in some of the 
 views expressed by the gentleman who has just taken his 
 seat, I find myself differing very widely in others. I am 
 not, as he seems to be, in favor of providing in this consti- 
 tution for the exercise of revolutionary power. I am in 
 favor of providing only for the exercise of £overnnien- 
 tal power. When revolution comes, your law will cease, 
 your constitution be abrogated, and it will be necessary 
 to form a new compact of government. I am especially 
 opposed to clothing the legislative department of this 
 government with revolutionary powers. I do not know 
 why revolutionary powers, if they are to be given to 
 one branch of government, might not as well be given 
 to either branch. I am opposed to conferring such 
 powers upon one branch, or upon two branches of this 
 government, or upon all together. They belong to the 
 people, to be exercised by them, when the occasions 
 and the times, in their judgment, shall make it neces- 
 sary. I have no idea that it is competent for the legis- 
 lature, under the present constitution, t© put this State 
 in a hostile array against another State or all the States ; 
 that it is in the power of this legislature, under the ex- 
 isting constitution, to levy war, save in the exercise of 
 the power to suppress insurrection and repel invasion. 
 The doctrine has been avowed here, it may be enter- 
 tained by a majority of this body, I know not how it 
 be, but whether it be entertained by a majority or con- 
 fined to a minority, or but to two individuals, I repu- 
 diate it. 
 
 • The CHAIR would remind the gentleman to confine 
 himself to the subject. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I mean to confine myself 
 strictly to the question before the house, and I apprehend 
 I am not departing from the strictest line of argument 
 The proposition is, as I understand, the argument of the 
 gentleman from Henrico, to confer upon the legislature of 
 this Commonwealth a right to levy war and commit 
 revolution ? It does no possess it now, and I will pro- 
 test with my vote against conferring it in this amended 
 constitution. We have been sent here for no revolu- 
 tionary purpose, but as members of an organized com- 
 munity, living under law, we have been sent here to 
 amend and reform the existing constitution and provide 
 such alterations in it as the exigencies of the times may 
 make proper, and to frame a constitution for Virginia 
 as a member of this great confederacy of States. We 
 have not been sent here to judge of the casus belli, or to 
 provide for the exercise of revolutionary powers, or of any 
 war powers calculated to place our citizens in array 
 either against the federal government or against the gov- 
 ernment of other States. The war power has been 
 taken from us, and by our own revolutioi ary grant is 
 to be exercised by a government other than this. So 
 far as it may be necessary to repel an enemy from with- 
 out or suppress an insurrection within our borders, or 
 to exercise force in executing the law, it belongs to us. 
 These are administrative, legitimate purposes ; they 
 are lawful and constitutional purposes, and for these 
 
 purposes, I am willing to confer the power upon some 
 one or other of the departments of this government. 
 But to make war, in the common acceptation of the 
 term, and to commit revolution is no proper function of 
 the legislature, for it belongs to the people, and it belongs 
 to the people to be exercised in masses, if they choose, or 
 in Convention if they prefer ; and while I acknowledge 
 this power as broadly and amply as any gentleman upon 
 this floor, I never have agreed, I never can, and never 
 will agree that under the constitution this power ought 
 to be entrusted to any or all the branches of the gov- 
 ernment. I see, then, no reason why, in amending this 
 constitution, we should confer a power on the legisla- 
 ture which, under the present constitution it does not 
 lawfully possess — I mean the power to commit revolu- 
 tion. 1 see no propriety in investing it with the power 
 to levy war when the Constitution of the United States 
 declares that no State shall exercise that power ; when 
 all the States have, by their voluntary consent and 
 agreement, confided this power to the federal govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Now, sir,, for what cause ought the militia to be 
 called forth, except it be for the causes indicated in 
 the amendment of the gentleman from Kanawha. I 
 desire gentlemen to tax their ingenuity and explain to 
 this committee, if they can, one supposable case in 
 which the public safety can require the militia to be 
 called out, for purposes other than those specified. I 
 am at a loss to conceive why, as I understand the gen- 
 tleman from Henrico, he extends his suggestion to a 
 case which, according to his admission, would be a case 
 of revolution. Then there is no occasion for it. We 
 desire no constitution to enable us to revolutionize 
 this government ; we desire no constitution to enable 
 us to commit any act of revolution ; we desire to re- 
 strain this spirit, to confine it, to regulate it, and to 
 make it subject to law. I insist, therefore, that no gen- 
 tleman, as yet, has suggested a solitary case, other than 
 those enumerated, in which it can be imagined that 
 the public safety will require the embodying of the militia 
 by the governor. We are to conclude that no such 
 case is likely to occur, and when we give authority to 
 the executive power of this government to call out the 
 militia and repel invasion, suppress insurrection and 
 execute the law, we create all power over the military, 
 useful for the purposes of this government, to be called 
 into action by the fiat of one man. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I have but one remark to make, and 
 that is in regard to the mode of stating the proposi- 
 tion. The gentleman from Fanquier (Mr. Scott) said 
 very little that I do not subscribe to, and I think that 
 on this question the whole difference between us lies in 
 the manner in which he states the proposition ; that is 
 whether we shall sit in the Convention to legislate in 
 our constitution the power of revolution, or whether 
 we will legislate to prevent a state of revolution ; that 
 is, cut off from the people the power to commit revolu- 
 tion if the oppressions of their government should ever 
 become absolutely intolerable. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. The difference is not that 
 I propose to cut off from the people this power to revo- 
 lutionise the government, but to deprive their agents 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Regarding the legislature as the true 
 exponent of public sentiment, the position I took 
 was, that I would not tie up their hands under 
 all circumstances, at all times, and under every emer- 
 gency so as to restrict them from acting. It is true, as 
 the gentleman says, that we have divested ourselves of 
 the power of making war. That, I presume, is foreign 
 war ; but have we divested ourselves of the power of 
 self-government, of self-protection, of resisting aggres- 
 sion and oppression ? That is the question ; and if we 
 have not done so; does any reaeon now exist why we 
 should? Now I took especial occasion to say when I 
 was up before, that I entertained no apprehension that 
 such a case would ever arise. I have no idea that it is 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 253 
 
 likely to arise ; but who is there here among us so far- 
 sighted as to see all that may happen in the course of 
 time ? I spoke only of our being in a state of actual 
 revolution. An actual state of revolution may exist, 
 or may be brought about, and if it exists, says the gen- 
 tleman, what becomes of your law, your constitution, 
 and government? Why, if the revolution should actu- 
 ally exist, in what respect is the relation of governor 
 changed to his own State ? In what especially are 
 his powers altered under the constitution of Virginia ? 
 Our relations to the federal government are changed, 
 but there stands our State constitution, by which he 
 is bound in all respects as much as he was before. God 
 knows there is no man in the Commonwealth of Vir- 
 ginia, or in the country, who is less disposed, either in 
 the Convention or in the legislature of Virginia, or else- 
 where, to act in a manner to foment discord or to pro- 
 mote revolution. That is not my object. That is not 
 fche form in which the question of revolution has been 
 presented here. The question is, shall we place our- 
 selves in a position to cut ourselves off by constitutional 
 provision from all resoit to revolution, in all times, 
 under every circumstance, and under all contingencies ? 
 Regarding the legislature as the true exponent of the 
 political sentiment of the State, I can see no harm that 
 is likely to result from clothing the legislature with the 
 power, in a contingency that may exist, if the people, 
 their constituents, should desire it, to authorize the gov- 
 ernor to call out the militia for other purposes imagina- 
 ble, than those of actual invasion, insurrection, or re- 
 sistance to the laws. Not to make war, but to prepare 
 for self-protection against oppression. I can suppose a 
 case, as I said before, of a threatened or anticipated in- 
 vasion. Why, suppose the case to exist which the gen- 
 tleman from Essex referred to — suppose the Congress, 
 in the exercise of usurped power, were to undertake to 
 abolish slavery in, the States — and suppose the southern 
 States of this confederacy were in convention, convened 
 for the purpose of determining what action it was pro- 
 per aud necessary to take. (I beg the gentleman to re- 
 member what I have previously said, that I anticipate 
 no such thing, but other gentlemen do anticipate it, and 
 are alarmed at their own disturbed imaginations upon the 
 subject.) Suppose these apprehensions realized, and that 
 the southern States were in convention for the purpose of 
 determining what course of proceeding they should all 
 adopt. Well, suppose in this state of things there was 
 an attempt on the part of the federal government not 
 to make an actual invasion on the territory of Virginia, 
 but to pass through the state to make an invasion on 
 some other State then in convention with Virginia, 
 would that be a proper case for resistance ? Would it 
 be a proper case in which the deliberative department 
 of the government should authorize the governor to 
 call out militia ? The use to be made of them is another 
 question to determine. That is a question on which the 
 people in their sovereign capacity, in their primary 
 assemblies should determine. But it would be pro- 
 per to call out the militia to put them in training and 
 discipline them so as to be prepared for the emergency, 
 in the event that the people themselves should deliber- 
 ately determine to resist. 
 
 It does not follow by any means, as the gentleman 
 from Fauquier seems to apprehend, that the governor, 
 having the sanction of law to call out the militia, is to 
 be authorized without further authority to use them in 
 resistance to the federal authority. By no means. But I 
 amagine that in such a case as that, if we could see in 
 the prospective that an invasion was probable, your raw 
 militia would cut a very sorry figure before the regular 
 treops of the federal government disciplined and equip- 
 ped for war. It might then be necessaay to call out 
 and discipline your troops, to drill them and put them 
 in martial order. I will go as far as the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, or any other gentleman, in denying to 
 the legislature the right, under any circumstances, to 
 determine the question of war or peace, union or dis- 
 union ; but I would not deny their right to put themselves 
 
 in a state of preparation in a case which the people 
 may determine requires it. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I understand the gentle- 
 man from Halifax to argue that with the change I have 
 sustained, and which is contemplated by the amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Kanawha, the power of the 
 governor of the commonwealth will not be less than 
 what it would be if the report of the committee is per- 
 mitted to stand. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. The chances for the abuse of 
 the power will not be reduced. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I agree with the gentle- 
 man, and I said when I was up before that it is im- 
 possible, when you create a power and appoint a*n agent 
 to exercise it, to guard against every possible abuse, 
 but we can guard against those abuses as far as possi- 
 ble. And we progress, to some extent at least, to that 
 object when we limit this power to certain cases, and 
 define clearly what those cases are. If the report stood, 
 clothing the executive with a power to call out the 
 militia whenever, in his opinion, the public safety re- 
 quires, does not every man see that it would thereby 
 clothe him with the power to call out the militia in 
 every conceivable case in which he might choose to 
 judge that the public safety was involved. Is there 
 any gentleman in this body in favor of clothing 
 the executive department of this government with 
 the broad and unlimited power — a power over the 
 whole strength of the State — a power to Gall it into 
 action whenever, in his individual judgment, the 
 safety of the commonweal h may require it? I think 
 there are occasions when the safety of the common- 
 wealth will require the governor, to call out the militia. 
 I think this Convention can foresee these occasions, 
 and can define them. I think it is the duty of 
 this convention, foreseeing the necessities that may 
 arise, to define the cases in which the power shall be 
 exercised, and not leave it to the broad, unlimited dis- 
 cretion of the governor. I think this Convention can 
 foresee that, in case of invasion, it may be necessary 
 to call out the militia — that it may be necessary to call 
 them out also in cases of insurrection, and in cases of 
 opposition to the execution of the laws ; and we do all 
 that it is possible for human agents to do to limit and re- 
 strict that power, when, in the act of conferring it, we 
 require that it shall be exercised only when the safety 
 of the commonwealth shall be endangered by invasion, 
 by insurrection, or by resistance to the law. I think 
 there is a great and wide difference between a grant of 
 power in these restricted terms, and the grant of power 
 contained in the report of the committee — a great dif- 
 ference between giving this power to the governor in 
 the enumerated cases, and giving it to him in any and 
 every case, according to his judgment and discretion. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SHEFFEY, the committee then 
 arose. 
 
 And then, on motion of Mr. BYRD, the convention 
 adjourned till to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. 
 
 SATURDAY, February 15, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Woodbridge, of the Episco- 
 pal church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was then read 
 and approved. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I will take this occasion to offer a 
 paper which at some future time \ intend to offer as a 
 substitute for the report of the Committee on the Right 
 of Suffrage. I ask that it now be read over, laid on the 
 table and printed. 
 
 The proposition was then read by the Secretary, as 
 follows : 
 
 Every white male citizen of this Commonwealth, resi- 
 dent therein, aged twenty-one years and upwards, who 
 has a freehold estate in land,in the county, city or town, 
 borough or election district, in which he may offer to 
 
254 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 vote, to the value of twenty-five dollars, and so ap- 
 praised to be, if any assessment thereon be required by- 
 law, whether the said freehold be in possession, rever- 
 sion or remainder, or the said person offering to vote, 
 be a joint tenant, tenant in common or eoparcenor, and 
 every such citizen, who for twelve months next preceding 
 has been an actual resident within the county, city, 
 town, borough or election district, where he may 
 offer to vote, and who has been assessed with a part of 
 the revenue of the commonwealth or levies of the coun- 
 ty the preceding year, actually paid the same ; and no 
 other person shall be qualified to vote for members of 
 the General Assembly, and such other officers of gov- 
 ernment, executive, judicial, ministerial, civil or milita- 
 ry , in the county, city, town, borough or election dis- 
 trict, wherein such land shall lie or such person shall re- 
 side ; but no person whether a free-holder or otherwise, 
 shall give more than one vote in the same election : Pro- 
 vided, however, that the right of sum-age shall not be 
 exercised by any person of unsound mind, or who shall 
 be a pauper or a non-commissioned officer, soldier, 
 seaman or marine in the service of the United States, 
 or by any person convicted of any infamous offence. 
 
 The proposition was laid on the table and ordered to 
 be printed. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, (fee. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. The Convention resolved 
 the other day that it would go into the consideration of 
 the report of the Committee on the Basis of Representa- 
 tion on Monday next. I apprehend that some difficul- 
 ty and embarrassment will result from the form in 
 which the report known as the report of the eastern 
 members of the committee has been made. Difficulty, 
 I apprehend, will grow out of the fact that the report 
 provides in detail not only for the number of the mem- 
 bers of the two houses, but provides for an apportion- 
 ment of representation amongst the counties. It pro- 
 vides also for bennial sessions of the General Assem- 
 bly. In whatever manner these reports shall be con- 
 sidered, if that report retains its present form, we shall 
 be engaged in a protracted debate in respect to many 
 of those matters of detail. I thought it desirable that 
 when we come to consider this important question of 
 the basis of representation, we should consider it upon 
 a report which may present an isolated question to the 
 body. I have prepared a substitute which I propose to 
 submit to the Convention and ask that it may be printed. 
 This substitute, it will be seen, while it leaves these mat- 
 ters of detail to be supplied hereafter, presents an isola- 
 ted question upon the proper basis of representation, and 
 it seems to me that upon a report presenting that ques- 
 tion in an isolated form, the body can act more under- 
 standing^ upon the matter, and come to a conclusion 
 upon a proper principle to be engrafted in the Consti- 
 tution when it will be undisturbed by matters of differ- 
 ence in respect of detail. I beg leave to read the sub- 
 stitute as I have prepared it. 
 
 1. The legislature shall be formed of two distinct 
 branches, which together shall be a complete legisla- 
 ture, and shall be called the General Assembly of Vir- 
 ginia. 
 
 2. One of these shall be called the House of Dele- 
 gates, and shall consist of members, to be chosen 
 
 for and by the several counties, cities and towns 
 
 of the commonwealth. The other shall be called the 
 
 Senate, and shall consist of members, for the 
 
 election of whom the counties, cities and towns shall 
 be divided into districts. Each county, city and town, 
 of the respective districts at the time of the first elec- 
 tion of it- delegate or delegates under this amended 
 constitution, shall vote for one Senator ; and the sheriffs 
 or other officers holding the election for each county, 
 city or town, within five days at furthest after the last 
 county, city or town election in the district, shall meet 
 at some convenient place, and from the polls so taken 
 in their respective counties, cities and towns, return as 
 
 j a senator the person who shall have the greatest num- 
 ber of votes in the whole district. 
 
 3. To keep up the Senate by rotation, the districts 
 | shall be divided into classes and numbered by lot ; and 
 
 at the end of years after the first general election 
 
 \the members elected by the first division shall be 
 
 j displaced, and the vacancies thereby occasioned sup- 
 plied from such class or division by a new election in 
 the manner aforesaid. This rotation shall be applied 
 to each division according to its number, and continued 
 in due order. 
 
 4. Representation in both legislative bodies shall be 
 apportioned amongst the counties, cities and towns, ac- 
 cording to the number of white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes paid, in each ; deducting 
 from such taxes, all taxes paid on licenses and law. pro- 
 cess. In making such apportionment, there shall be 
 allowed one delegate for every part of the said in- 
 habitants, and one delegate for every part of the 
 
 said taxes ; and in like manner there shall be allowed 
 
 | one Senator for every part of the same : Provided, 
 
 that the representation of no city or town shall at any 
 time exceed delegates and senators ; but the sur- 
 plus fractions thereof, whether of population or taxa- 
 tion, or of both combined, shall be estimated in assigning 
 represention to the sections of the State in which they 
 are respectively situated. 
 
 5. The General Assembly after the year , and at 
 
 intervals thereafter of not less than ten years, shall re- 
 apportion representation in both legislative bodies, ac- 
 cording to the principle and in the manner herein de- 
 clared ; but in every re-apportionment, the amount of 
 taxes shall be estimated from the average of the ten 
 preceding years. 
 
 6. The whole number of members to which the State 
 may at any time be entitled in the House of Represen- 
 tatives of the United States shall be apportioned, as 
 nearly as maybe, amongst the several counties, cities 
 and towns according to their respective numbers, which 
 shall be determined by adding to the whole number of 
 free persons, including those bound to service for a term 
 of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths 
 of all the persons. 
 
 Now, the Convention will perceive that according to 
 this plan, the question of the basis of representation will 
 be presented and considered by the body, when it re- 
 solves itself into committee of the whole, without the 
 disturbing influence which will necessarily follow from 
 the detail into which the present report goes. I regret 
 that I had not the opportunity on yesterday, of offering 
 it, so that it might be in the possession of the members 
 on Monday. I came into the Convention after it had 
 resolved itself into a committee of the whole, and did 
 not have an opportunity during the day, to present it. 
 I now offer it and ask that it may be referred to the 
 committee of the whole, and that it may be printed for 
 the use of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I wish to understand the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier, whether his notice is, that he will 
 move the paper which he has read as a substitute for 
 the proposition designated A, in the report of the basis 
 committee, or whether he proposes to offer it as a sub- 
 stitute for the whole. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Ido not know that I shall 
 move it at all. I introduce it now as a proposition of- 
 fered by myself as an individual. I submit it for the 
 consideration of the members of the Convention who 
 agree with me in respect to this matter of the basis of 
 representation, and what will be my final course in re- 
 ispectto it, lam not prepared to say. 
 j Mr. SUMMERS. I understood the gentleman as giv- 
 ing notice that he would at some period after the 
 house had resolved itself into committer of the whole, 
 move a paper as a substitute for something ; whether it 
 | was for the entire report or for a portion of it, I do not 
 know. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I merely proposed it as 
 I the form in which the question would be better present- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 255 
 
 «d, than in the report of the committee, and other gen 
 tlenien have agreed with me. 
 
 The proposition was then laid on the table and order 
 «d to be printed. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. FULTZ, re 
 sumed the consideration in Committee of the Whole 
 (Mr. Watts, of Norfolk in the Chair,) of the report of 
 the Committee on the Executive Department. 
 
 POWER OF THE GOVERNOR OVER THE MILITIA. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the motion 
 to amend the proposition of Mr. Smith, of Kanawha, to 
 fill the blank created in the fifth section of the first ar- 
 ticle, in striking out from it the words "when, in his 
 opinion the puhlic safety shall require," with the words 
 "to repel invasion, to snppress insurrection and for such 
 other specific purposes only as may be authorized by the 
 legislature," by striking out therefrom the words "and 
 for such other specific purposes only as may be author- 
 ized by the legislature." 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I moved an adjournment on yester- 
 day, not for the purpose of making a speech this morn- 
 ing, I had no such intention at the time, nor do I in- 
 tend it now. I thought last evening, though deeply 
 impressed by the arguments of gentlemen on both sides 
 of the question, that at least a fuller attendance of the 
 committee was desirable before a vote was taken on the 
 pending proposition. My opinion is, that if the amend- 
 ment, suggested by the gentleman from Accomac, to 
 strike out the latter clause of the amendment which the 
 gentleman from Kanawha offered, prevails, the effect of 
 the amendment would be simply this: We are 
 providing in this portion of the constitution for 
 those occasions in which the governor, without any 
 other authority of law, shall have the power to 
 call into action the military force of the common- 
 wealth, at his discretion. This is the delegation of 
 power that we are conferring upon the governor, and it 
 will require no further legislation on the part of the 
 general assembly, to authorize the employment of the 
 military power by the governor. We ought, then, to look 
 to those cases where that discretion, as a general thing, 
 ought to be exercised, and I perfectly concur with the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) that the cases 
 named here are the only cases which this discretion 
 should be lodged in the hands of any one man. But sup- 
 pose the governor is authorized to repel invasion,suppress 
 insurrections, and to execute the laws. In that case, 
 the first general assembly that meets under this consti- 
 tution, may declare that the marching of the troops of 
 the United States over the territory of Virginia, shall 
 be deemed an invasion of the integrity of our soil. 
 That wculd be a declaration of a fact, of invasion, in an- 
 ticipation of the occurrence of that fact. The marching of 
 the troops of the United States across the territory of 
 Virginia, in order to punish the people or citizens of a 
 down-trodden State — as the gentleman from Essex term- 
 ed it — should ipso facto be an invasion of the territory of 
 the commonwealth. Well, under this general clause 
 the governor would be obliged to call out the militia, in 
 order to repel such an invasion. I think, therefore, that 
 the gentleman from Essex, (Mr. M. R. H. Garnett,) was 
 mistaken in supposing ^hat if the legislature was to be 
 entrusted with the power to act in this capacity against 
 the general government, this would prohibit the 
 governor from calling out the militia in order to 
 enforce the mandates of the general assembly. But 
 again, suppose this phrase with regard to the exe- 
 cution of the laws, be retained, that the governor shall 
 call out the militia at his discretion, to execute the laws 
 of the commonwealth, in that case the legislature will not 
 be restricted at all by this amendment,and may pass what 
 laws it chooses, so far as this clause of the constitution 
 is concerned ; and I humbly suggest to my friend from 
 Albemarle, (Mr. Southall,) that his word "only" will 
 not cure the defeat at all, because the word "only" will 
 
 restrain the legislative power to no extent whatsoever. 
 It will not prevent the legislature from declaring that 
 the marching of the troops of the government of the 
 United States over the territory of Virginia, shall be 
 an invasion, nor will it prevent the legislature itself 
 from calling into actual service the entire militia of the 
 commonwealth. Not at all. And if the legislature 
 should call the entire militia of the commonwealth into 
 active service, and organize them, who becomes ipso 
 facto the commander-in-chief of the militia ? Why, the 
 governor of the commonwealth, just as when the militia 
 or the army of the United States, are called into active 
 service, the President beccmes ipso facto the commander- 
 in-chief. I think therefore, that the amendment offered 
 by the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) with the 
 modification suggested by the gentleman from Accomac, 
 for the present, should be adopted by the committee, 
 and when we come to the legislative department of 
 the government, if we choose to restrict that power 
 which has been spoken of here, let us do so there. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to give notice of my intention 
 at a proper time to offer the following as an amendment 
 to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha, (Mr. Smith.) If the committee should agree to 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. 
 Wise,) to strike out the provision which he proposes to 
 strike out, it will then, I understand, be in order to 
 move to strike out and insert ; and if the committee re- 
 fuse to strike out, it will still be in order to offer an 
 amendment. 
 
 The CHAIR. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Then I propose to offer at a proper time 
 the following amendment, "or whenever a case may 
 arise that in the opinion of the legislature, the public 
 safety shall require it, and may authorize it by law. 
 When I submit the proposition I have a very fe^P words 
 to say upon it. 
 
 Mr. FULTZ. I regard the question now under con- 
 sideration as one of great importance. It involves, as I 
 humbly conceive, a vital principle which lies at the 
 foundation of the fabric which we are about to erect. I 
 came here for the purpose of co-operating with, what I 
 trust may prove to be, a large majority of this commit- 
 tee in carrying out those salutary reforms which are best 
 calculated to promote the interests of this old common- 
 wealth. I came here to aid in placing restrictions upon 
 public agents, and to define and limit the powers to be 
 exercised by the different departments of government, 
 and if possible, to get back a portion of t! 1 at power which, 
 in my humble opinion, properly belongs to the people, 
 but which has been vesied in the hands of their agents. 
 I do not see that I am making much progress in this 
 work of reform, when i consent to take away the powers 
 heretefore exercised by one depai tment of the govern- 
 ment and transfer those powers to another department. 
 I do not esteem it reform to take away from the exec- 
 utive department of the government a power which has 
 heretofore been lodged there, and place it, with increas- 
 ed force, and additional latitude in the hands of the 
 legislative department. What was the proposition re- 
 ported by your committee ? It was to authorise the 
 governor to call out the militia, when, in his opinion, the 
 puolic safety required it. A broad delegation of power 
 — a power almost unlimited — certainly unrestricted. 
 He is to exercise this power according to his own opin- 
 ions of propriety. Now, there is an objection to that, 
 as has been very properly urged upon this floor. There 
 is an objection to delegating to any public agent, a pow- 
 er uncontrolled and undefined, and which he can exer- 
 cise at his own will and pleasure. There is danger, be- 
 cause this is one of those remnants of monarchy which 
 was alluded to the other day upon this floor. If you del- 
 egate to a public agent power, and do not fix any limit 
 to that power, do not restrain him in its exercise, but 
 permit him to exercise it according to his own will and 
 pleasure, I should like to understand if that is not mon- 
 archy in the full sense of the word ? It must always be 
 
256 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 desirable in the formation of a republican government, 
 that all the powers that are delegated to agents every- 
 where, should be defined and limited. 
 
 We have stricken out that provision from the report 
 of the committee, and now the proposition is to insert 
 in lieu of it, the governor shall have power to call out 
 the militia to suppress insurrection, repel invasion, to 
 execute the laws, and in such other cases as the legis- 
 lature may authorize. Now in reference to the first 
 three specified cases, those of invasion, insurrection, 
 and execution of the laws, there must exist a discretion 
 in this officer. It is utterly impossible for a convention, 
 or any other body under the sun, to prescribe his duties 
 so accurately that he may not by possibility abuse 
 them. Discretion must be vested there, and if he abuses 
 it, the only remedy is to impeach him. It is proposed 
 to add to these three specified cases, what? A power 
 to be exercised by the governor ? Not at all. But it is 
 proposed to vest in the legislative department, the en- 
 tire sovereignty of the people of this commonwealth. 
 There is no limit to it ; and I beg gentlemen to look se- 
 riously this question in the face. If this latter clause of 
 this amendment should be carried, I wish gentlemen to 
 tell me what is left to the people? Is not the whole 
 power divested from them and vested in the legislature ? 
 The gentleman who moves this amendment, says his 
 object is to restrict the legislature ; that otherwise the 
 legislature would have power to direct, by general pro- 
 visions, when the governor should call out the militia, 
 but by this amendment, they should specify the cases 
 particularly in which they intended the governor should 
 have the power to call out the militia. Is that u re- 
 striction upon the legislative department ? Is it not as 
 easy for the legislature to specify cases, as to speak in 
 general terms ? Is it not as easy for them to pass a law 
 violatit% every reserved rijht in our constitution, and 
 in that law direct the governor to embody the militia for 
 the purpose of carrying it out ? "What is left ? Gentle- 
 men gain nothing by saying that it is not probable that 
 this law will be passed by the legislature. We do not 
 «ome here to d© our duty in that way. We come here 
 to place proper guards, and if this latter clause of the 
 amendment should be passed, we throw all power into 
 the hands of the legislature. 
 
 I was a little surprised at the position occupied by 
 some gentlemen upon this subject. I have listened to 
 the gentleman from Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) with a great 
 deal of pleasure and a great deal of profit, in all the ar- 
 guments that he has submitted to this body ; but I was 
 a little surprised— perhaps I have not taken the correct 
 view of it — to find that gentleman, in reference to this 
 question, advocating an entire delegation of the whole 
 power to one branch of the government, while on other 
 occasions he has fought manfully for restricting the 
 power of public agents in the different departments of 
 government ; here it seems that the gentleman is dis- 
 posed to part with all power and vest it absolutely in 
 the legislature. And what is worse, the legislature now 
 has the purse, and the gentleman, by this amendment, 
 proposes to give them the sword. Is this republican ? 
 Is this such a feature as we ought to incorporate in this 
 ■constitution for the purpose of securing the rights of 
 this people ? It seems to me with due deference to the 
 opinions entertained by other gentlemen, that it cannot, 
 it ought not to be done. If this amendment is carried, I 
 shall endeavor to go back to the report of the committee. 
 I prefer it infinitely to this last clause of this amend- 
 ment, and why" ? Because it is a restriction to some ex- 
 tent. It is a restriction to the extent of the public 
 safety. In the exercise of this discretion, he must have 
 in view the public safety. But if the amendment to 
 this proposition prevails, it is unrestricted, and the whole 
 power is given, without any restriction or limitation 
 whatever. I should prefer it for another reason, because 
 it concentrates the responsibility. You have one man 
 responsible to you. You can call that man to an ac- 
 count. He cannot shift that responsibility but must 
 stand up to it. He cannot t^row it from his shoulders 
 
 as perhaps members of the legislature might, where the 
 responsibility is so much divided. I conceive this a 
 very important question, and one that has not I fear, 
 been, thoroughly considered by the members of this 
 committee. 
 
 But there has been a new doctrine incidentally called 
 up here, a doctrine that I cannot subscribe to, while 
 I entertain the most respect for the opinions of those 
 gentlemen who have advanced it. It is this : That the 
 legislative department of this government possess all 
 power, except that which is expressly withheld from it 
 by the constitution. This doctrine has been advanced 
 here, and really I have been somewhat surprised at it. 
 Perhaps it is my fault because I have not lully compre- 
 hended this subject. But if this proposition should 
 be true, then it seems to me, the very first thing we 
 have to do, is to amend the second article in the bill of 
 rights. 
 
 That article declares that all power is vested in and 
 derived from the people. Now, if this other proposi- 
 tion be true, that provision should read that all power 
 is vested in and consequently derived from the govern- 
 ment. Can this proposition be sustained ? I hold it to 
 be clear that all power appertaining to a free, sovereign 
 and independent people, not delegated by their consti- 
 tution — the State constitution — nor heretofore delegated 
 to the federal government by the constitution of the 
 United States remains with the people to be exercised 
 by them at such times and in such manner as they may 
 think proper. That is my idea in reference to the pow- 
 ers of government. Suppose we go to work here for 
 the purpose of withholding all the powers from the dif- 
 ferent departments of the government. I would like 
 to know how we could do it — there is no man or body of 
 men that could define so minutely all the powers which 
 they intend not to be delegated to the government 9 
 so as to prevent mischief resulting from it. I come 
 here clothed with the sovereignty of the people, who 
 are recognized by our bill of rights, as the source of all 
 power. They have clothed me with that power ; they 
 have sent me here for the purpose of delegating to this 
 government, as much of that power as shall be neces- 
 sary, in order that the remainder of their rights may be 
 amply secured. I have come here prepared to delegate 
 that power ; and let me say here, that that power must 
 always depend upon the character of the people, for 
 which the government is about to be framed. If you 
 have a virtuous and intelligent people, my opinion is, 
 that the government requires less power — that it is not 
 necessary to part with as much of the sovereignty of 
 the people, as if the people were ignorant and vicious. 
 Now, in regard to this matter, I say that if any people 
 under the sun are so capable of governing themselves, it 
 is the people of the United States, and more especially 
 the people of old Virginia. I have come here then es- 
 topped — perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you may not compre- 
 hend that term, inasmuch as I believe you are the only 
 gentleman so considered in the Convention, but my 
 brother lawyers will fully comprehend it. [Laughter.] 
 I come here estopped from denying that the people are 
 competent to govern themselves. I consented to be a 
 candidate for a seat in this Convention, and I was sent 
 here for the purpose of framing the organic law. And 
 does it become me now, after having thus recognized 
 the power of the people, and their competency to act 
 for themselves, to gainsay that proposition ? Can I 
 speak anything else here and reflect the will of my con- 
 stituency ? Then I come here clothed with the sover- 
 eignty of the people. I am prepared to delegate a por- 
 tion of that sovereignty, as much as may be necessary, 
 to create a wholesome and well guarded government. 
 I want to know from those gentlemen who have advanced 
 this new doctrine — for it is new to me — how that sover- 
 eignty can be divested from the people and invest- 
 ed in the government, otherwise than by express provis- 
 ions in the Constitution. How is it to get out of me? I 
 do not delegate it away and then take back a portion of 
 it. The Constitution must show the extent of the pow- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 257 
 
 era delegated, and whatever is nob expressly delegated, 
 and is not necessary and proper to carry out the powers 
 that are delegated, remains to be returned by me to the 
 people. That is my view upon this question, and I 
 think it is the correct view. 
 
 If the legislature must be regarded as in possession 
 of all power except that which the Constitution express- 
 ly withholds — if that be the true mode of construing 
 that clause in the Constitution appertaining to the leg- 
 islative department, it must prevail in reference to the 
 judicial and the executive, aud the very same argument 
 must be carried out, and if carried out what is the re- 
 sult ? Why are we here ? What are we engaged in ? 
 In specifying powers that ought to be entrusted to the 
 executive. We are not engaged in defining the powers 
 we intend to withhold from him, not at all, because all 
 is withheld that is not expressly delegated. If that 
 position is n:>t correct, we are engaged in an idle 
 work, because if all power belongs to the different 
 departments of the government, we ought to be en- 
 gaged not in specifying and delegating powers, but 
 in specifying the powers withheld, because, when- 
 ever we undertake to specify that this, that or the 
 other department shall exercise certain powers, we are 
 doing a useless thing, because that power is vested 
 already, according to this new doctrine, and we should 
 be engaged ia restricting it. I cannot see the force of 
 this argument. I cannot see the propriety of it* I 
 beg gentlemen to look at the consequences which must 
 necessarily result. I can well see how this idea has 
 found its way into the minds of gentlemen in reference 
 to legislative powers. It is because the legislature, for 
 the last ten or twenty years, have been exercising the 
 whole sovereignty of the land, and every member of 
 this committee must agree with me, that if there is any 
 department of this government that needs reform, it is 
 the legislative department. It must be restricted or 
 ruin must inevitably overtake us. I confess that to re- 
 strict the legislative department is one of the most diffi- 
 cult questions in the whole category of reform. I have 
 bestowed some reflection on this subject, and I have not 
 been able to make up my mind how it can be fully ac- 
 complished. It is very important that it should be re- 
 stricted, and every gentleman must see that restric- 
 tion is necessai-y. What is the proposition ? It is pro- 
 posed by the last clause of the amendment of the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha (Mr. Smith) to vest additional 
 unlimited power in the legislature. Now what would be 
 the effect of it ? Would we not if we vote for the amend- 
 ment, lay the foundation for a violation of the constitu- 
 tion of the United States ? We vest in the legislature 
 the power to define the specific cases in which the gov- 
 ernor shall be at liberty to embody the militia. Sup- 
 pose the legislature — and they have, for the last few 
 years, done a great many strange things — should 
 undertake to pass a law which is violative of every right 
 and every provision of the constitution, and in that law 
 they declare that the governor shall call out the militia 
 for the purpose of executing it. Here is a law perfect- 
 ly unconstitutional passed by the State government, un- 
 constitutional in reference to the federal government, 
 and we say here in so many terms, not only that the leg- 
 islature may pass such a law, but that the governor shall 
 enforce it by the bayonet. What then? Suppose there 
 be a conflict between that law and a law of the federal 
 government. Which is to yield ? Is the governor to 
 obey the State law or the Federal law ? It would put a 
 much more difficult question than the one presented 
 yesterday by the gentleman from Henricc. We have 
 imposed this duty upon the governor by a constitutional 
 provision. I should doubt whether if a governor under 
 such circumstances were to go on in good faith to exe- 
 cute such a law, abhorrent as it might be, whether he 
 would be guilty of a violation of the constitution, in con- 
 sequence of our having authorised this act by this clause 
 in this amendment. 
 
 In reference to the other case which was put yester- 
 day, there can be no doubt , it seems to me , upon the mind 
 of any one. If there be a conflict between the laws of 
 21 
 
 the United States and the State laws, there can be 
 no doubt but it is the duty of the governor to execute the 
 Federal laws. And why ? Because that is the supreme law 
 of the land. The people now have thrown off the obliga- 
 tions of the State constitution. We are perfectly free 
 here, we are clothed in sovereignty, we have taken back all 
 the powers that they have heretofore delegated under the 
 constitution, but a portion of their power has been parted 
 with to the federal government, and that power remains in 
 full force, and it is as obligatory upon us as it is upon the 
 people. It would be the duty of the governor, under 
 such circumstances, to enforce the laws of the United 
 States, though they might come directly in conflict with 
 the laws of the State government. 
 
 I have thus briefly presented my views. I did not in- 
 tend to trouble the committee so long. I hope that the 
 the amendment which is offered, that is, the motion to 
 strike out the latter clause of this amendment, will pre- 
 vail. I think that when we have specified, as my col- 
 league remarked, the three cases of repelling invasion, 
 suppressing insurrection, and the execution of the law, 
 we have specified the only three cases that ought to be 
 provided for. If there is any other case that enters the 
 mind of any gentleman in this committee, let him sug- 
 gest it, and let us incorporate it with the other three. 
 Let us put it there, rather than confer this power upon 
 the legislature. I think it is a safe principle that while 
 making this constiution, we should make it as perfect as 
 we can by inserting every proper provision in it, and 
 leaving as little to the legislature as possible. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. The gentleman who last addressed 
 the committee, (Mr. Fultz,) and several others, in the 
 course of this debate, have demanded to know, in what 
 instance, not included in the amendment of the member 
 from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) it would be necessary for 
 the governor to have power to embody the militia. 
 That amendment confers power on him to call out the 
 m'litia to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, enforce 
 the laws, and in any other instances in which the legis- 
 lature may by specific laws authorize him to do so. If 
 the latter clause of the amendment be stricken out, then 
 the governor will be restricted to the three enumerated 
 cases for embodying the militia, and tacitly, at least, de- 
 nied the power of doing so, in any other case, though the 
 legislature should confer that power on him ; indeed it 
 would seem to forbid the legislature to clothe him with, 
 that power, except in the cases referred to. And the 
 argument is, that such restriction will do no harm, as 
 no other necessity can exist for calling out the militia, 
 and if any such there be, those who affirm it are called 
 on to state it. Now, it is necessary to embody the mi- 
 litia in order to train them, though no further use may 
 be had for them ; and yet such a case would fall under 
 neither of the three cases stated in the amendment of the 
 member from Kanawha, if the latter clause be left out. 
 Again, it is necessary to embody the militia, in order to 
 comply with the requisitions of the federal constitution. 
 By that constitution the President of the United States 
 is virtute officii commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy of the United States, but of the militia of the 
 States, only when called into service in virtue of an 
 act of congress passed for that purpose, and as their offi- 
 cers are to be appointed, and they are to be trained — by 
 the laws of the States to which they belong, it would 
 be impossible to comply with this requirement, if the 
 power to call them out be confined to the three cases 
 enumerated in the first part of the amendment. For cer- 
 tainly under it, they are to be called out to repel invasion 
 against this commonwealth, to suppress insurrections 
 occurring within her limits, and to execute her laws. 
 But suppose an insurrection should occur in the State of 
 Pennsylvania, and the President under a law of the gen- 
 eral government, should demand all or a part of the mi- 
 litia to go into Pennsylvania to suppress it, would not 
 the restriction contained in the amendment make it un- 
 constitutional in the governor to answer the demand ? 
 Under which of the three enumerated cases would the 
 supposed case fall ? Might he not in answer say to the 
 President that the constitution of Virginia, under which 
 
258 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 he holds his office, forbids him to respond to the call . ? 
 Here would arise a conflict between the two constitu- 
 tions, and though that of the State wou.d have to yield 
 to that of the general government, yet it would be un- 
 wise, without the slightest necessity for doing so, to 
 plant in our organic law, the seeds of possible difficul- 
 ties. By adopting the amendment of the member from 
 Kanawha, will we put it in the power of the State gov- 
 ernment to comply with all its duties to the Federal con- 
 stitution, and at the same time to use the militia for ai, 
 the purposes of her own wants. To reject it, would 
 leave unprovided for two very important cases in which 
 the militia ought to be embodied. I nm not here for 
 the purpose of divesting the commonwealth of Virginia 
 of any portion of her sovereignty, in any one of her de- 
 partments, nor of dimiMishing or cramping her means. 
 And for maintaining that sovereignty — I desire to place 
 her under the new, where she stands under the present 
 constitution — a perfect government of herself, bound it 
 is true to certain duties and entitled to certain rights, 
 under the federal league, which she had entered into 
 with her sister States — but still a perfect sovereign, en- 
 titled on proper occasions, to the use of the means of 
 defence and aggression, which belong to a sovereign 
 State. The chief and most valued of these means, is 
 her own military power, to be used by her as any other 
 sovereignty may do, except so far as she is restrained 
 by the federal compact. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I think the difficulty in 
 which gentlemen — 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would remind the gentle- 
 man that there is a rule of the Convention which pro- 
 hibits him from speaking again. 
 
 MANY MEMBERS. I^eave, Leave. 
 
 THE CHAIR. That rule is in opposition to all the 
 purposes of a committee of the whole, and ought never 
 to have been adopted. We cannot work with Jt. 
 
 Mr, SCOTT, of Fauquier. I was proceeding to say that I 
 thought the difficulty into which gentlemen involve them- 
 selves proceeds from not giving clue attention to the form 
 and matter of the proposition before the Convention. The 
 gentleman from Augusta, thinking, as I do, that it is 
 proper to confine the executive to three enumerated 
 cases, calls upon other gentlemen to tell this body, if 
 they can, of one other occasion when it would be 
 proper for the executive, of his mere motion, to call out 
 the militia. In response to that call, my friend from 
 Pittsylvania (Mr. Whittle) instances as such a case, 
 the calling out the militia for the purpose of drill. 
 I apprehend that my friend will explore American Con- 
 stitutions in vain — State or Federal, for any authority 
 to the chief executive magistrate to call out the militia 
 for such exercises. An effort, I recollect, was made 
 some years since, to confer this power upon the Presi- 
 dent of the United States by an act of congress. The 
 celebrated army bill, so much discussed over the wide 
 extent of this confederacy, proposed that object. But 
 the gentleman thinks the power ought to be confided to 
 the governor. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. I adopt the opinion expressed by 
 the gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Fultz,) that all 
 power on this subject is conferred upon the governor, in 
 the event of the success of the amendment of the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) and that without it 
 the legislative department of the government would 
 have no power to pass any law calling- out the militia 
 either for the purpose of drill or in answer to a requi- 
 sition of the President, acting under a law of congress 
 to supply him with sufficient military force to answer 
 either of the three purposes specified in the Ccnstitution 
 of the United States. I say that unless the proposition 
 is adopted requiring the legislature, in specified cases, 
 to call out and embody the militia, that there would be 
 no power in the State of Virginia which could call them 
 out, either for the purpose of training, or of answering 
 a requisition that may be constitutionally made by the 
 government of the United States. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. It seems to me that both the 
 
 gentlemen from Pittsylvania (Mr. Whittle) and Augusta 
 (Mr. Fultz) misapprehended the effect of the words which 
 are proposed to be stricken from the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith.) Both seem to 
 regard it as designed to confer power on the legislative 
 department. It is fo; no such purpose, and can have no 
 such effect. If it be proper to impose limitations upon 
 the legislative branch of the government in respect to 
 calling out the militia, this is not the proper place to 
 insert the restrictions. I apprehend, that as the con- 
 stitution now stands, and as I trust it will be allowed 
 to stand, it is competent for the legislature to call out 
 the militia by law whenever, wherever, and for what- 
 ever purpose it pleases. And when the militia is called 
 out for training, and assembled upon your muster fields, 
 it is in pursuance of no requisition of the governor, of 
 no call by him ; but in pursuance of the law enacted by 
 the 1 egislature ; and unless we insert, when we come to the 
 legislative part of the government, some restriction up- 
 on the legislative department in respect to this matter, 
 the legislature will continue to have under the amended 
 constitution as it does now under the existing constitu- 
 tion, a power to call forth the militia whenever and for 
 whatever purpose it chooses. It may abuse this power, 
 but, as I said on yesterday, it is impossible to institute a 
 government without creating power and conferring dis- 
 cretion upon the agents who are to exercise it ; and I 
 shall not, for one, be deterred from continuing this 
 power in the legislature from apprehension of its abuse. 
 It is impossible for us to conceive what emergencies may 
 arise, what occasion there may be, for calling forth the 
 militia. And since it is impossible to foresee this, I 
 think it would be unwise in this convention to insert in 
 the constitution any clause placing a res.riction upon 
 the legislative department in this regard ; but in respect 
 to the executive department, I entertain a different 
 opinion. The danger of abuse there is more imminent 
 than in the case of the legislature. And while I agree 
 that it is proper ; nay, while I admit that it is necessa- 
 ry for the purposes of good government to confide this 
 power to the governor, I will confide it to him only in 
 the enumerated cases, and confine him in his action to 
 these only. Why, then, should we retain in the amend- 
 ment the words proposed to be stricken out ? They cre- 
 ate no limitation upon executive power. They throw 
 no additional power worth talking about upon the gov- 
 ernor. Strike them out, and the constitution will stand, 
 that for purposes of repelling invasion, suppressing insur- 
 rection, and executing the law, the governor may call 
 out the militia. For any other purpose in the world 
 the legislature may do it. When called out by the legis- 
 lature, if the constitution stands as it is, and as this re- 
 port proposes to allow it to stand, the governor will 
 command it. 
 
 But I submit to the committee whether we have not 
 done all that is proper to do when we provide a power 
 to be exercised by the governor to call out the militia 
 in the enumerated cases, leaving it to the legislature to 
 call it out at any time and for any purpose that in its 
 discretion it may think fit. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I do not rise to make a speech, but 
 to refer to one of the positions taken by the gentleman 
 from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Whittle,) that occasions might 
 arise when the government of the United States might 
 call for an embodying of the militia, and that the gov- 
 ernor would have no power to do so. Looking into the 
 constitution of the United States, I perceive that con- 
 gress shall have power " to provide for calling forth the 
 militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress in- 
 surrection, and repel invasions, to provide for organi- 
 sing, arming, and discipling the militia, and for gov- 
 erning such part of them as may be employed in the 
 service of the United States, reserving to the States, 
 respectively, the appointment of the offices, and the au- 
 thority of training the militia according to the discip- 
 line prescribed by congress." 
 
 I suppose that this provision of the constitution meets 
 the gentleman's case. It executes itself. There is no 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 259 
 
 necessity for calling forth by the governor, for it says 
 congress shall have power to provide for calling forth 
 the militia to execute the laws of the Union, &c. I 
 read it solely in reference to the objection that the 
 gentleman makes that one of the cases not enumera- 
 ted here might be, that the militia of the State should 
 be embodied to execute the laws of the general gov- 
 ernment. Now, it does seem to me that this clause 
 of the constitution gives to congress full power over 
 that subject, and there never could be any difficulty 
 in calling upon the executive of the State to embody 
 the militia. 
 
 Mr. MON"OURE. I agree entirely with the object of 
 my friend from the county of Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) in 
 having a power lodged somewhere, to sail out or to em- 
 body the militia whenever the public safety may require 
 it. I agree with my friend from Pittsylvania, (Mr. 
 Whittle,) in wishing so to frame this constitution as 
 that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall have the pow- 
 er of an absolute sovereign. I am for giving to her her 
 whole strength, and her whole power, for all the pur- 
 poses of government. I am for framing her constitution 
 as if she were not a member of this confederacy, except 
 so far as to make that constitution conform to the pow- 
 ers of this confederacy, which, to the extent to which 
 they go, are paramount to the constitution and laws of 
 this State. The constitution of Virginia was framed 
 before the constitution of the United States. The con- 
 stitution of 1776 gave to the government of Virginia 
 all the powers o f an absolute sovereignty. The con- 
 stitution of 1829 gave to the government of Virginia 
 all the powers of an absolute sovereign — powers which 
 shall permit her and enable her to carry on the import- 
 ant purposes and objects of the State, whether she 
 be in or out of this confederacy. I also agree with 
 those who think that the' constitution as it now is upon 
 the subject under consideration, is in the best form in 
 which it can be placed. I was one of those who voted 
 against striking out, and at a proper time I may present 
 to this committee, or to the convention, my views upon 
 that subject. The Convention has determined to strike 
 out, and the question is, what are we to insert ? We 
 are to take care in filling that blank that we shall not 
 cripple or circumscribe the powers of this government. 
 I entirely sympathize with the object of those who have 
 avowed that sentiment, but I do not believe that the 
 powers of this government will be crippled, or will be 
 restricted, by striking out what is proposed from the 
 amendment to the amendment. I believe that the gov- 
 ernment will be left in her unimpaired sovereignty. By 
 the vote which has been taken, the committee have de- 
 cided that it is unwise and unsafe to entrust this whole 
 discretion to the executive ; that public safety, in his 
 opinion, is not a sufficient safeguard against the abuses of 
 that power, and the question now is, what power shall be 
 given to the executive, without any legislative act. The 
 amendment proposes to give him the power "to repel 
 invasion, to suppress insurrection, and to enforce the 
 execution of the law." This power he will have without 
 a legislative act — the power to embody the militia for 
 that purpose. Where is the necessity of going further, 
 and giving to the governor the power to embody the 
 militia in any other specific case which the legislature 
 may grant. That will be imposing a restriction upon 
 the leg ; sLative department, which I am unwilling to im- 
 pose upon it. I am willing to leave to that department 
 the power to authorize the governor to embody the mi- 
 litia for a general or a specific purpose, according to the 
 wisdom of that department, leaving that matter entire- 
 ly at the discretion of the legislature, and that discre- 
 tion covers the whole case contemplated by my friend 
 from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith.) :t goes further ; it covers 
 every exigency which may arise. It may be important 
 for the welfare and safety of the government, that the 
 legislature should give a general power to the governor 
 to embody the militia, by an act which may be altered 
 or repealed at legislative pleasure. In time of war the 
 State of Virginia may have, consistently with the con- 
 
 stitution of the United States, troops and navies under 
 her command. In time of war the State of Virginia 
 may send her troops and her navy into other States, and 
 it may be wise and proper, the public safety may require, 
 that the legislature that we propose shall sit biennially, 
 shall clothe the executive with power to embody the 
 militia whenever the public safety may require it. In 
 the very language of this constitution now existing, the 
 legislature may, by legislative act, to exist so long as 
 the legislature requires its existence, give the governor 
 power to embody the militia whenever, in his opinion, 
 the public safety require it. I think that the amend- 
 ment goes far enough in prescribing executive duties, in 
 authorizing the governor to embody the militia to repel 
 invasion — and by that I comprehend threatened as well 
 as actual invasion — to suppress insurrection, either real 
 or apprehended, and to execute the laws. He is re- 
 quired, by the first part of the report, to execute the 
 laws, and in all human probability, he would have the 
 power, necessarily, to embody the militia for the pur- 
 pose of executing the laws, as an incidental power. 
 Then leave the legislative department, at large, to give 
 power in such other cases as may present themselves. 
 I shall, therefore, vote against the amendment, while 
 I sympathize with the views entertained by the mover 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not rise for the purpose of go- 
 ing at length into this subject, nor should I have risen 
 at all on this occasion, but for some remarks which 
 the gentleman before me has submitted. The gentle- 
 man says that under the constitutions of 1776 and of 
 1830, the government of Virginia was absolute in sov- 
 ereignty. • 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. Except so fir as they were restrict- 
 ed by the constitution of the United Stales. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I never have so understood it, and I 
 totally dissent from the sentiment that the government 
 of the State of Virginia, from and after the year 1776, 
 was a limited, sovereign. The sovereignty of the State 
 of Virginia, I have ever conceived, resided in the people, 
 and not in the government, and I am yet to be informed 
 that there is any government upon this continent that 
 is sovereign. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. If the gentleman will allow me to 
 explain ? He certainly misunderstands me if he supposes 
 I said that the government was absolute and unrestrict- 
 ed. I meant nothing but to say that the Commonwealth 
 was a sovereign, whether that sovereignty resided in the 
 people, or in the government; but to the extent to 
 which it may reside in either, it is absolute except so far 
 as restrained by the federal government. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I am happy, indeed, that the gentle- 
 man has made the explanation, but as my Lord Coke 
 said, I wish this Convention to note the distinction of the 
 sovereignty of the government from the sovereignty of 
 the people. I deny that the government of the United 
 States is sovereign. 1, deny that the government of Vir- 
 ginia is, or has ever been sovereign. And I, for one 
 humble member of this Convention, mean to contend to 
 the last that she shall not be sovereign in her three de- 
 partments of government. She shall not, so far as my 
 humble efforts will go, ever reach that sovereignty 
 which is supposed to reside in a king, lords, and com- 
 mons. The government of Great Britain is a sovereign 
 government, according to her constitution. Whatever 
 that government does is constitutional. They may 
 change the succession of the crown ; they may do, in a 
 word, whatsoever their will may dictate. It is not so 
 in regard to the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is not 
 so in regard to the system of republican governments 
 which the people of America have adopted. There the 
 principle is, that every government is limited to the ex- 
 ercise of those powers conferred, and such powers as 
 are not conferred, are reserved to the people. 
 
 While I am up I beg the indulgence of the commit- 
 tee to express my dissent to another opinion advanced 
 by one gentleman on yesterday. I allude to the opin- 
 ions advanced by my honorable colleague from the coun- 
 
260 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ty of Henrico, (Mr. Boxxs,) who, in reference to this ex- 
 citing subject of federal politics, said of the doctrine of 
 secession, that it was revolution. If that honorable 
 gentleman means bj the term revolution only that it 
 produces a change, I concede that he is right, but. if the 
 gentleman means that the doctrine of State rights, which 
 authorizes the sovereign people acting in their primary 
 capacity, to resume the rights that have been conferred 
 upon the federal government — peaceably to resume 
 those rights which have been conferred — if that is the 
 idea of the gentleman, and that such resumption of 
 rights will be revolution, according to the ordinary ac- 
 ceptation of the term, then I differ altogether with the 
 honorable gentleman. If the idea be avowed publicly 
 that by a resumption of these State rights which have 
 been conferred upon the federal government it author- 
 izes that federal government to make war upon a State 
 and reduce it back to its connection with the Union, I 
 deny, for one, that any such power resides in the fede- 
 ral government, and I deny that it is revolution. I deny 
 that there exists any right on the part of the federal 
 government to make war upon a seceding State ; and 
 before this, however, is settled, I apprehend, in regard 
 to the fighting arm of government, before it is conclu- 
 ded in this Convention, gentlemen will develop their 
 limited principles. It will be found that however men 
 may have originally alienated from the principles in 
 which they were originally induced, like the catholic, 
 when the occasion requires it, they will die catholic 
 still. If I have labored under a mistaken idea and have 
 acted with a party for years and years whose tendency 
 is to amalgamation of States ; whose object has been to 
 consolidate the powers of all the people and, all the 
 States in this Union, then I am willing to admit public- 
 ly my error and retrace my steps. I fear more this cen- 
 tripetal power than the centrifugal. And if an erring 
 sister State shall go off from the Union, there are great 
 natural causes that could be traced through the princi- 
 ples of natural history which will ere long bring her 
 back. They are the principles of cohesion — the princi- 
 ples of attraction. It is known that under these princi- 
 ples small bodies will adhere to large. But once fuse 
 down the lines which separate the people of these 
 States — once bring them into one amalgamated body, 
 and where or how will you separate them, and what 
 power can govern them but a despotism ? Nothing but 
 a strong military arm can govern a country of such ex- 
 tent as ours, fused into one homogeneous body. I go 
 then for the rights of the States and the rights of the 
 people. I go against all sovereignty of government, 
 and I am exceedingly happy that I misunderstood my 
 friend from Stafford. I believe somewhat in regions of 
 country. I confess that I believe in a raee-horse region, 
 but I have been exceedingly disappointed while labor- 
 ing under the error that I was, and I am very happy to 
 err in the sentiments which my friend on my right has 
 corrected me in. The power of the sword and the 
 purse — the power to draw out and embody this militia, 
 may be exercised for the purpose of aiding the federal 
 government in suppressing what may be regarded by 
 some gentlemen as revolution. And I take occasion 
 here publicly to avow it as my opinion, that however 
 misguided a State may be which becomes tired of the 
 confederacy, that however much she may err, yet that 
 when it shall be attempted by this federal government, 
 with the arm of power, to force her back to obedience 
 to the government of which she is tired, it will require 
 no proclamation by your government to embody the 
 militia. In my judgment, it will require no legislative 
 authority to call out and embody the militia. I believe 
 the people of the United States on the southern side of 
 Mason and Dixon's line will never, upon this question, see 
 armies of men marching for the purpose of slaughter- 
 ing their brethren, however misguided these brethren 
 may be, but that there are men, even off the muster 
 list, who will enrol themselves to prevent this thing 
 from being done. These are my sentiments, and these 
 are the sentiments which I have imbibed in my reading 
 
 in the reports of the debates of the Convention that 
 adopted the federal constitution, and ratified it here in 
 Virginia. I believe that the constitution, as it came 
 from the hands of our forefathers, upon this subject, is 
 wise. I believe that this executive power must in the 
 nature of things be strong, and I, for one, am prepared 
 to give to it much strength. I hardly care how strong 
 you make the executive arm, provided you return the 
 incumbent back to the people. It should be strong 
 enough to do good, strong enough to protect the people, 
 their constitution, and their rights, and it would be an 
 impotent power for harm, with the plan of rotation in 
 office, of bringing the incumbent back to a dead level 
 with the people. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. Not having exhausted my privilege 
 under the rule, I beg leave to detain the committee for 
 a very few moments. There are two objects either em- 
 braced in this amendment or avowed in this debate, and 
 one is to restrain the power of the governor, the other 
 to restrain the power of the legislature. Now, the first 
 is, in my judgment, attainable. The amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Kanawha (Mr. Smith) does, 
 to a great extent, attain this particular object. In the 
 plan as reported by the committee, the governor would 
 have the power to call out the militia of the Common- 
 wealth at any time when in his judgment, the public 
 safety required it. The amendment of the gentleman 
 from Kanawha proposes to specify the cases in which 
 the governor shall call them out, and the difference be- 
 tween the two is this : Your object is to impose re- 
 straints upon every department of the government, to 
 hold them responsible for the abuse of their power. 
 And suppose that the constitution stood as reported by 
 the committee, and the governor should abuse his power 
 in embodying the militia of this commonwealth, and he 
 were impeached for it, would it' not be a complete bar 
 to the prosecution to plead that the public safety re- 
 quired him to embody the militia ? The burden of pro- 
 ving the corrupt motive would be thrown on the State, 
 and in nine cases out of ten conviction would be impos- 
 sible. What is the difference ? By the amendment of 
 the gentleman from Kanawha, you deny to him the 
 power to call out the militia except to repel invasion, 
 suppress insurrection, or execute the law. But suppose 
 he does call out the militia, this clause being in the con- 
 stitution, and he is impeached for an abuse of power. 
 In that case he is bound to plead and to prove the fact 
 of the invasion before he can escape the consequences 
 of his abuse of power, and so in regard to all the oth- 
 ers. I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment to that 
 extent, and vote for it with pleasure. 
 
 The other object, viz: the restraint of the legislative 
 power, in my judgment, is not attainable, at least to any 
 great extent ; and if attainable, I doubt whether it should 
 not be done by an amendment applicable to that par- 
 ticular department of the government. As I understand 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Kanawha, espe- 
 cially the latter part of it, it is a restraint, as far as it 
 goes, upon legislative power. For example, it ties up 
 the hands of the legislature from conferring upon the 
 governor the very power which we have just stricken 
 out of the committee's report, viz : the power to call 
 out and embody the militia, whenever, in his opinion, 
 
 - the public safety may require it. "Without that clause 
 the legislature might do that — with that clause they 
 
 i cannot do that, because, if I understand it, they are 
 i bound to specify in the act, the cases in which he shall 
 ! exercise the power. To that extent then it is a limita- 
 : tion upon executive power, and therefore I shall vote 
 s against the motion to strike it out. But it is a limita- 
 F tion to that extent and to that only, and it will be pos- 
 ! sible, even with that, for the legislature, by special acts, 
 
 - to confer this power upon the governor in every case 
 i that the imagination of man can possibly conceive. The 
 • only object then is to prevent them, by any general la-w, 
 j from devolving upon the governor the power of embody- 
 1 ing the militia whenever in his judgment it may be ne- 
 j cessary. It goes no further, and by special act of the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 261 
 
 legislature, they may do that which may be deprecated 
 by every member of this body. Well now, it is in vain 
 to deny it. No man could have listened to this debate 
 without seeing that an apprehension is entertained here 
 by members of this body, that the members of the 
 general assembly of Virginia, to whom we propose to 
 delegate the legislative power of this people so long as 
 there are members of the assembly, can in effect so ex- 
 ercise the power in this particular instance as to change 
 the relation which the State of Virginia bears to the 
 Federal Union. It is in vain to deny that that appre- 
 hension is felt and has been expressed. I do not mean 
 to say now, whether this apprehension is ill or well 
 founded, but I shall, if nobody else does it, devote my 
 mind zealously and earnestly to the consideration of 
 some provision to be inserted into this constitution, not 
 in the executive but in the legislative department, by 
 which the gentlemen whom we elect every year or every 
 two years, to come here to pass the ordinary acts of 
 legislation, shall not, without the consent of the sover- 
 eign people, their masters, expressed in Convention, 
 solemnly assembled an pursuance of the law of the land, 
 which law shall notify the people of the objects for 
 which this Convention assembles, change the relation 
 which this sustains to the federal Union. I do not think 
 this is the proper place for it. Gentlemen have said 
 here, that they are for preserving all the rights and all 
 the sovereignty of this Commonwealth. I understood 
 my friend from the county of Stafford (Mr. Moncure) 
 perfectly well, I understood what he meant just as well 
 as I did after he made his explanation — I understood 
 him exactly as he explained it himself. That question 
 is beyond our jurisdiction. We have nothing to do with 
 it. The people of this Commonwealth, in the year 1788, 
 decided for themselves what portion of their sovereignty 
 they would part with, and the terms upon which they 
 would part with it. They have reserved to themselves 
 all the rest, and we cannot deprive them of it by any 
 action of ours. Our business here is to make a form of 
 government for the State of A^irginia that shall best 
 promote the prosperity and happiness of the people of 
 Virginia, and the people of Virginia as members of this 
 federal Union. 
 
 I trust that I have not wandered from the real point 
 before the committee. It was not my purpose to do so. 
 I repeat that I shall vote against the motion to strike 
 •out the latter part of the amendment of the gentleman 
 from Kanawha, because, in my judgment, as far as it goes, 
 it is a restraint upon legislative power. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I may have attached a degree of im- 
 portance to this question which it does not deserve, but 
 I hope that the committee do not regard me as indulg- 
 ing in mere declamation, when I say in sincerity, that I 
 regard this question as second in importance to no other 
 that can be brought to the consideration of the commit- 
 tee. I regard it as a question of infinitely greater im- 
 portance than the basis of representation. I put no 
 question in comparison with the safety of the people. 
 Jb'rom the foundation of this government, from 1776 to 
 1829, it was deemed advisable to confer the power upon 
 the governor and his executive council, to call out and 
 embody the militia whenever in their opinion the public 
 safety might require it; and from 1829 to the present 
 period of 1851, that power has been conferred upon the 
 Governor of Virginia with or without the advice of his 
 executive council. In the constitution of 1776 he was 
 required to do it with the advice and consent of his 
 council ; under the constitution of 1829 he may take the 
 advice of his council, but may reject and repudiate it if 
 he thinks proper. He is under no obligations to regard 
 that advice ; and thus in point of fact, the power is en- 
 tirely with him, and he alone can exercise it at his dis- 
 cretion. We have reason to believe, from the opinions 
 entertained by some gentlemen in this Convention, that 
 this is a dangerous power to be entrusted to the chief 
 executive alone, and that it ought to be restricted ; and 
 accordingly this committee has already struck out the 
 feature which was reported by the committee, to vest 
 
 in the governor alone the power to call out the militia 
 whenever in his opinion the public safety required it. 
 And the proposition is to insert, what ? The amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Kanawha proposes to specify 
 the particular cases in which this one man power may 
 be exercised. Why do you grant him power to call out 
 the militia to suppress insurrection, repel invasion, and 
 execute the laws ? Because the public safety may re- 
 quire that it should be done promptly, and before the 
 action of the legislature can be had on the subject, or 
 perhaps before a Convention can be called. But the first 
 question that arises is, is there any imaginable case like- 
 ly to occur, when the public safety may require that the 
 militia shall be embodied, other than the cases specified 
 in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha — to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and en- 
 force the execution of the laws ? If a case can be sup- 
 posed, if a case is likely to arise, I imagine that it is the 
 duty of this Convention to provide for or against that 
 case. You have but to imagine that you have a chief 
 executive officer of the United States, a military despot, 
 and where, as I said on yesterday, is the gentleman 
 possessed of the foresight, the gift of looking into futuri- 
 ty, to ascertain and determine now, what may happen 
 during the existence of the constitution that you are 
 about to make for the people of Virginia? Shall you 
 look to the possibility of revolution ? The gentleman 
 from Fauquier says no. I say yes. I look to every 
 possible contingency that can arise. I go with the gen- 
 tleman from Stafford, (Mr. Moncure,) for the purpose of 
 securing the rights and safety of the people of the Com- 
 monwealth of Virginia, in their sovereign capacity, un- 
 der all circumstances and under any contingency that 
 may arise. Now all seem to admit that they will lodge 
 somewhere in the constitution of the State, the authority 
 to call out the militia in these specified cases. The 
 gentleman from Kanawha proposes to confer additional 
 power upon the legislature, and specify these additional 
 cases. The simple question then, that is presented to 
 our consideration, appears to me to be this : shall the 
 power of calling out the militia when the public safety 
 requires it, other than in cases of invasion, insurrection, 
 and enforcement of the execution of the laws, be entire- 
 ly abrogated ; or shall it be lodged somewhere else ? 
 Now the gentleman from Fauquier, if I understood him 
 correctly, asked the question, why invest the legisla- 
 ture with this unlimited power ? 
 
 Mr. SCOT of Fauquier. No sir. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I certainly understood the gentleman 
 so, if he did not say so. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I think in the course of my 
 remarks, when I gave utterance to some sentiment of that 
 kind, it was in reference to what was said by other gentle- 
 men, probably by the gentleman who is now occupying 
 the floor, when he stated that one of the cases which re- 
 quired the calling out of the militia, was to commit revo- 
 lution. I said I thought there could be no revolution or 
 any occasion to call out the militia, and that I would not 
 invest the legislature with the power to commit revolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Nor am I disposed to confer on the le- 
 gislature the power to perpetrate revolution. That is a 
 question not belonging to the legislature or the gover- 
 nor either, but to the people in their sovereign capacity ; 
 but I will put it in the power of the legislature, in cer- 
 tain contingencies, to provide for a revolution which the 
 people may possibly, at a future day, determine upon. 
 How is this to be consummated? If I was mistaken in 
 the remark of the gentleman from Fauquier, I was not 
 mistaken in the argument and language of other gentle- 
 men. It was a dangerous power to be vested in the le- 
 gislature. Now how, I ask, is it to be considered as a 
 dangerous power to be invested in the legislature, when 
 we have entrusted it from the foundation of the govern- 
 ment into the hands of a single individual ? 
 
 And what is the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Kauawha, and what do I propose to substitute for it ? 
 Why, instead of giving this general, unrestricted power 
 
262 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 to one man in the Commonwealth, who may abuse the 
 power; not to transfer it to the legislature and give 
 them exclusive control of it; but to divide it between 
 the two departments of the government, and also to 
 limit and restrict the authority of the legislature still 
 further than gentlemen suppose, because I propose to 
 confine the action of the legislature to certain cases. My 
 purpose is to defeat the object avowed by the gentle- 
 man from Stafford this morning, of authorizing the legis- 
 lature to pass any general law conferring general pow- 
 ers upon the governor. If we mean to confer the pow- 
 er entirely upon the legislative department of the gov- 
 ernment, it is wholly unnecessary to insert these enumer- 
 ated cases and restrictions on the power in regard to the 
 governor himself. They can give him the power ; they 
 have your constitutional authority to give him the pow- 
 er to suppress insurrection or to repel invasion, but I 
 mean to restrict him in that power. Well now, it is 
 with no little degree of hesitation that I undertake to 
 express an opinion on a legal constitutional question, 
 differing with the able and distinguished gentlemen 
 from Stafford and Fauquier, in regard to the power of 
 the legislature. I hold the opinion, that it never should 
 be the purpose of any statesman in forming the organic 
 law of the country, to vest the same power in two dis- 
 tinct branches or departments of the government at the 
 same time. It never was the purpose, and it never 
 ought to be the purpose, to confer this power to the 
 same extent on the executive and legislative depart- 
 ments of the government, because they may thus be 
 brought into conflict. In the distribution of power, the 
 question arises what will you do with the military 
 power? If you confer it on the legislature, you neces- 
 sarily withhold it from the executive, and in like man- 
 ner, if you confer it upon the executive, you necessarih 
 withhold it from the legislature. Why, if you vest the 
 exercise of this power, both in the executive discretion 
 and in the discretion of the legislative department of 
 the government, what might be the result ? Suppose 
 the case of the federal troops marching through 
 Virginia, to invade the territory of a neighboring 
 State. Suppose the legislature should regard it as 
 an invasion of the State of Virginia, and they were to 
 call out the militia in order to repel it, what would be 
 the language of your governor, if he happened to enter- 
 tain a different opinion ? Why, he would say to the le- 
 gislature, you have exerted an authority, you have ex- 
 ercised a discretion, which in the wisdom of the fram- 
 ers of the constitution was taken from you, and which 
 was confided to my individual discretion. I am to be 
 the judge ; I am to be the sole judge ; I am to be the 
 responsible individual to call out the militia, whenever 
 in my opinion, there is an invasion upon this territory, 
 and I do not regard the marching of the United States 
 troops through it as an invasion. Suppose, on the other 
 hand, the governor should happen to regard it as an in- 
 vasion, and the legislature do not, then you have to re- 
 sort to the legislative power for payment of the troops ; 
 he cannot make an appropriation, and there is a clog 
 upon his action. Now, we propose to divide the re 
 sponsibility in every other case that may arise. Take 
 for instance the case I have supposed, that you have a 
 military despot at the head of your federal government, 
 who is suspected, and justly suspected, of entertaining 
 very wicked designs, and of covering up his wicked de- 
 signs with what may, at the moment, appear to be very 
 innocent acts. He may quarter his troops upon you, 
 and may design to subvert the liberties of the country, 
 and may have even made an invasion upon another and 
 adjoining territory. He may have made an actual in- 
 vasion on Maryland or Forth Carolina. The militia of 
 all the other States in the Union may be called into re- 
 quisition, and may be in the field, and the question 
 arises shall the militia of Virginia be called out, not for 
 the purpose of making war, as gentlemen seem to ap- 
 prehend ; and in this I think they fall into a great error, 
 in assuming that because the militia are equipped and 
 called out, it necessarily tends to a. dissolution of the 
 
 Union, civil war, or secession. But it may become ne- 
 cessary that they should be called out for the purpose 
 of being organized, armed and drilled. Then the ques- 
 tion will arise, where is the power of the governor to- 
 call them out for this purpose ? The governor will say, 
 I have no power ; and why ? Because the cases are 
 particularly enumerated and specified in which I am at 
 liberty to call out the militia. This is not an invasion 
 of the territory of Virginia. An invasion of Maryland 
 or North Carolina is not an invasion of the territory of 
 Virginia ; it is not an insurrection in Virginia ; it is not 
 a case of resistance to the laws of Virginia. Now, what 
 do we propose to do ? We propose that whenever a case 
 may arise that in the opinion of the legislature the pub- 
 lic safety may require it, he may be authorized by law 5 
 that is to say, (if the clause be taken in connection with, 
 the preceding sentences,) that he shall have power to 
 call out the militia for the purposes of suppressing in- 
 surrection, repelling invasion, and enforcing the laws, or 
 whenever a case may arise when in the opinion of the 
 legislature the public safety shall require it, they shall 
 authorize him by law. Now, is not this a power that 
 must be lodged somewhere? Is not the public safety to 
 be provided for under all circumstances? Why, before I 
 would vote for striking out the amendment giving the 
 legislature the power in specified cases, I would be 
 strongly tempted to adopt the proposition of the gentle- 
 man from Stafford, to strike out the enumerated cases 
 and leave the whole discretion with the executive. 
 
 The gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Fultz) expressed 
 some surprise at the course I have pursued, as he had 
 listened with great attention and profit to what I said 
 on other questions before the Convention, that I should 
 now be disposed to surrender the sword as well as the 
 purse-strings. Pray to whom do I propose to surrender 
 the purse-strings and the sword of this State ? What 
 portion of my remarks or of my proposition has been ob- 
 noxious to the declaration of the gentleman that I was 
 in favor of surrendering the sword and the purse- 
 strings? To whom have I proposed to surrender the 
 purse-strings of the country ? Have I submitted any 
 proposition to take the control of the purse-strings from 
 the legislature and confer it on the governor ? 
 
 Mr. FULTZ. I understood the gentleman to say on 
 yesterday, that the amendment submitted by the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha, with this latter clause retained in 
 it, would be giving to the legislature the right to speci- 
 fy other cases in which the governor would be at liberty 
 to call out the militia. I argued, if the gentleman heard 
 my argument, that that clause vested an unlimited pow- 
 er in the legislature ; that they now had the ; urse- 
 strings, and by that amendment they would get the 
 sword. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Why, I take it for granted that the 
 power over the purse strings and the sword must be 
 vested somewhere. What human institution is there, 
 that can be imagined, that is not liable to be abused. 
 The power may be abused. We have no power over 
 the purse-strings and sword here. Our responsibility 
 and our duties terminate in a very short time. Who is 
 it that must necessarily exercise power over the 
 purse-strings and sword ? It is to be delegated some- 
 where, and who is so fit to exercise that power as the 
 legislature of the commonwealth, except in the specified 
 cases which I have already proposed to take from the 
 legislature and confer on the executive department. I 
 take it for granted that it is only done on account of the 
 promptness, haste and dispatch necessary in order to 
 execute the laws, to suppress insurrection and repel in- 
 vasion, without waiting for the action of the legislature. 
 So, if I propose to give the sword and purse-strings to 
 the governor — if that is the meaning of the gentlem m — 
 I propose also to control his power by specifying the 
 particular case in which he may be authorized to act, 
 and further to limit and restrict the power of the legis- 
 lature in regard to all the cases in which they shall act. 
 Is that the power of the purse and the sword at which 
 the gentleman is alarmed ? Why, I take it for granted 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 263 
 
 that the power is much safer under the proposit ion which 
 we now propose, than it ever has been yet, for the rea- 
 son that to exercise it we require the co-operation of 
 the three branches of government, the senate, the house 
 and the sanction of the governor. Each one will oper- 
 ate as a check upon the other, and is it reasonable to ap- 
 prehend — as my friend from Loudoun (Mr. Janney) has 
 expressed his apprehension — that a state of things is at 
 likely to exist in this country in which the co-operation 
 of the house of delegates, the senate and the governor, 
 is'likely to be obtained in any hasty action involving 
 the public safety ? In respect to what has passed in 
 the legislature of Virginia, and in regard to their reso- 
 lutions of resistance at all hazards and to the last ex- 
 tremity, that was only a paper war, thoughnot entirely 
 harmless, yet it created no great alarm and less blood- 
 shed. The legislature of Virginia have been in the 
 habit of adopting resolutions and engaging in paper war- 
 fare ever since I recollect any thing about the legisla- 
 ture of Virginia. It is a very different question when 
 they come to bring down to practical operation these 
 '.resolves, and call out the militia and disturb the peace 
 and quiet of their constituents. I have no apprehension 
 that such a case will arise, but I say if it should arise ; 
 if in the apprehension of the two branches of the legis- 
 lature and the governor of the commonwealth, that case 
 shall have arisen when the public safety will require 
 that the militia should be called out, I am willing to 
 trust them with the power. There may be an abuse of 
 power, but as I before said, all human institutions are 
 liable to be abused. All human power is liable to be 
 abused, but you must repose confidence somewhere, and 
 you must take the chances of abuse. It is better to do 
 that than to lodge the power to protect the public safe- 
 ty nowhere. Gentlemen seem to think, however, that 
 whenever that case shall arise, there will be no occasion 
 for legislative action, that the people will rise up en 
 masse to protect themselves, their own houses and fire- 
 sides. Well, very true, perhaps they may; but if they 
 will do it in the cases you specify, are the people more 
 likely to arise en masse, and resist the laws of your 
 federal government, or in resisting a border State in 
 making aggressions on your territory, are they at all 
 more likely to rise en masse to accomplish that object, 
 than they would be to suppress insurrection or to repel 
 invasion? Not at all. What they would do in the one 
 case, they would do in the other. But then a question 
 arises, suppose they should do it. Is it better to have 
 it done by law, or without law; by the authority and 
 sanction of law, or against the authority and sanction 
 of law ? Is it better that you shall have your mob 
 companies and mob armies, armed with shot guns, 
 pitch-forks, pick-axes, shovels, and whatever else they 
 may take up; or to have them regularly armed by the 
 authority of the State, regularly enrolled and regularly 
 equipped, and with a head to command them? Why, 
 who is to take command of this mob army thus to rise 
 up in this extreme haste, to repel danger? The gover- 
 nor of Virginia certainly would not be the commander- 
 in-chief. Why is the governor of Virginia selected by 
 the constitution as commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy of the State? Why, because he has been selected 
 by the people of the commonwealth for his virtues, his 
 energy and his patriotism, and thus it is supposed he 
 would be enabled to command the confidence of the 
 community. Now, is it better that a man thus selected 
 by the people, should take command of this army reg- 
 ularly organized, according to law, or that you should 
 leave it all to the mob? Now, I prefer law, to leaving 
 it to any contingency. If I were willing to leave this 
 contingency to such a result, I would certainly be will- 
 ing to leave the contingency of suppressing- insurrec- 
 tion, repelling invasion or executing the laws. The 
 gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) — I think I did 
 not misunderstand him — said, that he was not to be 
 driven from his purpose to vest this power in the legis- 
 lature, from an apprehension of its abuse. Well, if I 
 did not misunderstand the gentleman, and he says I did 
 
 not, I pray to know the difference between us. I am 
 not to be deterred from bestowing this power some- 
 where, from an apprehension of its abuse, if the power 
 is necessary to exist; nor will I be driven from the pro- 
 priety of£my position, in guarding, at all times, the pub- 
 lic safety, because the same position has been urged by 
 gentlemen who are opposed to me on other questions. 
 It is no consideration with me, that the gentleman from 
 Essex, (Mr. M. R. H. Garnett,)— with whom I differ 
 in toto ccelo on many other positions — has advocated 
 this proposition. Does it become us as wise men, as 
 statesmen, sent here to prepare a constitution, to pro- 
 vide for the public safety under all circumstances; to be 
 driven from the propriety of our positions, because 
 they may be advocated by those whose opinions on oth- 
 er subjects are somewhat peculiar and extreme ? I 
 could not for the life of me perceive in what we differed 
 when the gentleman made the remark, that he would 
 not be deterred from an apprehension of an abuse of 
 this power from conferring it on the legislature. I pro- 
 pose to restrict them in all cases, to the emergency 
 when it shall arise, to check a too general exercise of 
 the power, while other gentlemen seem to be for leav- 
 ing the unrestricted power with the legislature, to pass 
 a general law on the subject. Aye, at its very first 
 session under the constitution we are framing, to pass 
 a law, giving indefinite, unlimited power and discretion 
 to the governor, to call out the militia whenever, in his 
 judgment, it is necessary; which supercedes the neces- 
 sity for the restrictions we have already imposed. 
 Well, the other gentleman from Fauquier. I mean the 
 gentleman who read the Constitution of the United 
 States, (Mr. Chilton,) undertook to show, that there is 
 no necessity for conferring this power upon any of the 
 departments of this government because, by the federal 
 constitution, congress is already vested with the pow- 
 er? Because congress has the power to call out the 
 militia ! is that the only reason why the gentleman is 
 afraid to trust the constituted authorities of our own 
 State with the power over our own militia ? Why that 
 would be an additional reason with me, to confer this 
 power on the constituted authorities of this State. 
 
 I have rapidly run over this subject, expressing my 
 general views, as to the propriety and importance of 
 that provision. I repeat again, that I look to the pub- 
 lic safety, under all circumstances, as a question that 
 is not to be brought into comparison with any other; I 
 regard it as second to none in importance that can be 
 brought to the consideration of this Convention; and to 
 adopt the language of the gentleman from Fauquier, 
 (Mr. Scott,) yesterday, if I stand here alone, I never 
 will agree to surrender the right in some one or more 
 departments of this government, to embody the militia, 
 whenever these departments may deem the public safe- 
 ty to require it. So far from being a dangerous power 
 which would be an innovation upon our institutions, it 
 would be a novelty to strike it out. It will be dangerous 
 not to put it somewhere, put it where you will; but put 
 it somewhere you must. If gentlemen can designate 
 any other safer place where it can be lodged, let them 
 propose it, and I will vote for it, but it must be some- 
 where, or in my judgment we fail, and wofully fail, in 
 the discharge of the duty that we have been sent here 
 to perform, in guarding and protecting the public safe- 
 ty at all times and under all circumstances. 
 
 Mr. WISE. As I offered the amendment to strike 
 out those words, I desire in a very brief and didactic 
 way to explain my understanding of that amendment, 
 and at the same time to answer the argument, and I 
 hope, satisfy the reason of the gentleman from Henri- 
 co, (Mr. Botts.) We are now on the question of limi- 
 ting the power which we will commit to the executive ; 
 we have naught to do with the question of organizing 
 the legislative department. The gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha (Mr. Smith) proposes to limit the executive 
 power, on this subject of calling out and embodying the 
 militia to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and en- 
 force the execution of the laws; and this amendment 
 goes further, and proposes '* and for such other specific 
 
264 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 purposes as may be authorized by the legislature." 
 Now, if this power be committed to the executive, to 
 call out the militia, if by expressing the powers of the 
 executive, we exclude any powers from the legislature, 
 the argument of the gentleman from Henrico would be 
 all right; but by saying to the governor that he shall 
 call out the militia to repel invasion, suppress insurrec- 
 tion, and enforce the execution of the law, do we de- 
 prive the legislature of this necessary governmental 
 power of providing for the public safety ? No. Let 
 me ask the gentleman from Henrico — suppose you had 
 just instituted a government, and said that its deliberative 
 body should consist of two houses, which should constitute 
 the legislative power, and that you had constituted an 
 executive to wield executive power; to which depart- 
 ment of the government would the power belong to 
 provide for the public safety? Why, I presume there 
 is no difference between him and me in the position 
 that it would be a power belonging to the legislative de- 
 partment. Well, then follows logically, the question, 
 if you grant to the executive department simply the 
 power, permissive, not exclusive, but absolutely per- 
 missive, so far as it goes, to repel invasion, suppress in- 
 surrection, and enforce the execution of the laws, do 
 you still exclude the power of the legislature to pro- 
 vide for the common safety ? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask 
 him a question ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. Always. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to ask him wherefore the ne- 
 cessity of enumerating these particular powers in re- 
 gard to the executive, if the power is still lodged in the 
 legislative department to exercise it ad libitum. 
 
 Mr. WISE. For the plainest reason in the world, 
 that the legislature, when there may be occasion to re- 
 pel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and to enforce 
 the execution of the law, may not be in session, and if 
 in session may not be able to act with sufficient promp- 
 titude. But you say that although this legislative pow- 
 er to provide for the common safety still exists, yet as 
 exigencies may arise, to wit : the necessity of repel- 
 ling invasion, of suppressing insurrection, of enforcing 
 the execution of the law, in which this power may 
 not be so well exercised by the legislature, that 
 you will permit the governor in these enumerated 
 cases to have an executive power to this extent, no 
 more. Even in these cases, after we have made the 
 grant to the governor to call out the militia in these 
 cases, were he to fail to do so when they ought to be 
 called out, the legislature will still have the power to 
 order the governor to call them out. The gentleman 
 then is answered. And I concur with the gentleman 
 from Stafford, (Mr. Moncube,) in the very strong ground 
 he took here to-day, and which was taken also by the 
 gentleman who sits before me, that if this limitation on 
 executive authority would deprive the sovereign State 
 of Virginia of the least sovereign attribute, either on 
 the right hand or the left of power, I would certainly 
 go for imposing no limitation whatever. But the pro- 
 position here is simply to limit the executive depart- 
 ment of the government, and is not a proposition to 
 take away any of the powers of the government at all. 
 All that you do not permit the governor to exercise, 
 you leave to the legislative department, and that neces- 
 sity answers the whole argument made by the gentle- 
 man from Henrico. The expression of the power to 
 the governor does not exclude the power of the legis- 
 lature, and it is not necessary therefore to grant to the 
 legislature the power by adding to this amendment 
 the words " and such other specific powers as may be 
 authorized by the legislature. " The legislature has 
 the power already, and the object is the limitation of 
 the power of the executive. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I regret to interrupt the gentleman, 
 but as I do not propose to speak again on this subject, 
 I desire to submit another question to him. Suppose 
 the Legislature of Virginia at its first session after the 
 adoption of this constitution, were to declare that the 
 
 governor should have the power to call out the militia 
 whenever in his discretion the public safety should re- 
 quire it, or whenever he thought proper to do so, would 
 it not be in violation and in conflict with those proposed 
 specified cases ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. That question is as easily answered as 
 the others. We establish specific limitations of the 
 power as we suppose of the executive, and if the legis- 
 lature attempt to substitute their action for a provision 
 of the constitution, they pass an unconstitutional law — 
 that is all. Without this latter clause they can pass a 
 law providing for the public safety, and providing like- 
 wise authority to the executive to execute and enforee 
 the laws. Do you not perceive it is tautologous ? I 
 call the gentleman's attention to the reading of the 
 amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kanawha. 
 He has the power to repel invasion, to suppress insur- 
 rection, and you propose to give him power to enforce 
 the execution of the law. Is it not tautologous then to 
 say in addition, and for such other specific purposes as 
 may be authorized by the legislature ? If he is to en- 
 force a law, who is to pass it ? The legislature, do you 
 not perceive ? Does not my friend perceive that the 
 words that the governor shall enforce the execution of 
 the law is precisely the same thing? It covers the 
 whole ground, and why add then and for such other 
 specific purposes as may be authorized by the legisla- 
 ture ? He has only been contending in his whole argu- 
 ment for tautology in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I beg pardon for again interrupting 
 the gentleman. I desire to know what would be the 
 law of Virginia which would authorize the governor 
 under the provision to call out the militia to repel an 
 invasion, suppress an insurrection, or to execute the 
 laws, to act in the case I supposed of a military despot 
 at the head of the federal government who was march- 
 ing his troops upon a neighboring State ? How would 
 he enforce the law& of the commonwealth in that case ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. The first clause of the amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Kanawha will. A mili- 
 tary despot, as he supposed, is marching towards the 
 State of Virginia — recollect this committee refused to 
 insert the word actual invasion upon the suggestion in 
 part of the gentleman from Henrico himself, and thus 
 declared that we were not to wait for the helium fla- 
 grante, that we were not to wait for the actual invasion 
 and insurrection, but were to allow the governor to ex- 
 ercise his discretion in cases of threatened invasion and 
 insurrection. Suppose that the legislature of Virginia 
 is apprised by the governor that the danger is approach- 
 ing, that the houses of our neighbors are already in 
 flames, that the war is raging in North Carolina and in 
 Maryland, and that the turn of Virginia may come 
 next ; they will declare that the public safety is in dan- 
 ger, and they will declare by law that the governor 
 shall take steps to defend the public safety. We pro- 
 pose here to give the governor power to act at once to 
 repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the 
 execution of the law. Is not that enough for the gov- 
 ernor ? If the legislature passes a law proclaiming the 
 public safety in danger, and provides in that law that 
 steps shall be taken to defend the public safety, does it 
 not devolve on the governor the duty of executing and 
 enforcing that law ? What efficiency will be added to 
 the amendment, then, by retaining the words " and for 
 such specific purposes only as the legislature shall re- 
 quire ? " Take the case put by the gentleman himself, 
 that the legislature might require the governor to act 
 in defence of the public safety, and that the governor 
 might refuse to act because there was no invasion of, or 
 insurrection in Virginia, in his opinion. What would 
 be the reply of the legislature to the governor in that 
 very case ? They would tell him, sir, you are to enforce 
 the requirements and the execution of the law, and you 
 are held accountable if you fail to obey the law and to 
 execute the law, as you are ordered by the legislature, 
 within the limitations of the constitution. You are as 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 257 
 
 ers delegated, and whatever is not expressly delegated, 
 and is not necessary and proper to carry out the powers 
 that are delegated, remains to be returned by me to the 
 people. That is my view upon this question, and I 
 think it is the correct view. 
 
 If the legislature must be regarded as in possession 
 of all power except that which the Constitution express- 
 ly withholds — if that be the true mode of construing 
 that clause in the Constitution appertaining to the leg- 
 islative department, it must prevail in reference to the 
 judicial and the executive, and the very same argument 
 must ba carried out, and if carried out what is the re- 
 sult \ Why are we here ? What are we engaged in ? 
 In specifying powers that ought to be entrusted to the 
 executive. "We are not engaged in defining the powers 
 we intend to withhold from him, not at all, because all 
 is withheld that is not expressly delegated. If that 
 position is not correct, we are engaged in an idle 
 work, because if all power belongs to the different 
 departments of the government, we ought to be en- 
 gaged not in specifying and delegating powers, but 
 in specifying the powers withheld, because, when- 
 ever we undertake to specify that this, that or the 
 other department shall exercise certain powers, we are 
 doing a useless thing, because that power is vested 
 already, according to this new doctrine, and we should 
 be engaged ia restricting it. I cannot see the force of 
 this argument. I cannot see the propriety of it. I 
 beg gentlemen to look at the consequences which must 
 necessarily result. I can well see how this idea has 
 found its way into the minds of gentlemen in reference 
 to legislative powers. It is because the legislature, for 
 the last ten or twenty years, have been exercising the 
 whole sovereignty of the land, and every member of 
 this committee must agree with me, that if there is any 
 department of this government that needs reform, it is 
 the legislative department. It must be restricted or 
 ruin must inevitably overtake us. I confess that to re- 
 strict the legislative department is one of the most diffi- 
 -cult questions in the whole category of reform. I have 
 bestowed some reflection on this subject, and I have not 
 been able to make up my mind how it can be fully ac- 
 complished. It is very important that it should be re- 
 stricted, and every gentleman must see that restric- 
 tion is necessary. What is the proposition ? It is pro- 
 posed by the last clause of the amendment of the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha (Mr. Smith) to vest additional 
 unlimited power in the legislature. Now what would be 
 the effect of it ? Would we not if we vote for the amend- 
 ment, lay the foundation for a violation of the constitu- 
 tion of the United States ? We vest in the legislature 
 the power to define the specific cases in which the gov- 
 ernor shall be at liberty to embody the militia. Sup- 
 pose the legislature — and they have, for the last few 
 years, done a great many strange things — should 
 undertake to pass a law which is violative of every right 
 and every provision of the constitution, and in that law 
 they declare that the governor shall call out the militia 
 for the purpose of executing it. Here is a law perfect- 
 ly unconstitutional passed by the State government, un- 
 constitutional in reference to the federal government, 
 and we say here in so many terms, not only that the leg- 
 islature may pass such a law, but that the governor shall 
 enforce it by the bayonet. What then? Suppose there 
 be a conflict between that law and a law of the federal 
 government. Which is to yield? Is the governor to 
 obey the State law or the Federal law? It would put a 
 much more difficult question than the one presented 
 yesterday by the gentleman from Henricr. We have 
 imposed this duty upon the governor by a constitutional 
 provision. I should doubt whether if a governor under 
 such circumstances were to go on in good faith to exe- 
 cute such a law, abhorrent as it might be, whether he 
 would be guilty of a violation of the constitution, in con- 
 sequence of our having authorised this act by this clause 
 in this amendment. 
 
 In reference to the other case which was put yester- 
 day, there can be no doubt, it seems to me, upon the mind 
 of any one. If there be a conflict between the laws of 
 21 
 
 [the United States and the State laws, there can be 
 no doubt but it is the duty of the governor to execute the 
 ; Federal laws. And why ? Because that is the supreme law 
 j of the land. The people now have thrown off the obliga- 
 I tions of the State constitution. We are perfectly free 
 J here. we are clothed in sovereignty, we have taken back all 
 j the powers that they have heretofore delegated under the 
 constitution, but a portion of their power has been parted 
 | with to the federal government, and that power remains in 
 full force, and it is as obligatory upon us as it is upon the 
 j people. It wonld be the duty of the governor, under 
 ;such circumstances, to enforce the laws of the United 
 I States, though they might come directly in conflict with 
 the law T s of the State government. 
 
 I have thus briefly presented my views. I did not in- 
 tend to trouble the committee so long. I hope that the 
 the amendment which is offered, that is, the motion to 
 'strike ©ut the latter clause of this amendment, will pre- 
 vail. I think that when we have specified, as my col- 
 I league remarked, the three cases of repelling invasion, 
 'suppressing insurrection, and the execution of the law, 
 | we have specified the only three cases that ought to be 
 j provided for. If there is any other case that enters the 
 'mind of any gentleman in this committee, let him sug- 
 gest it, and let us incorporate it with the other three. 
 I Let us put it there, rather than confer this power upon 
 j the legislature. I think it is a safe principle that while 
 (making this constiution, we should make it as perfect as 
 we can by inserting every proper provision in it, and 
 leaving as little to the legislature as possible. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. The gentleman who last addressed 
 the committee, (Mr. Fultz,) and several others, in the 
 course of this debate, have demanded to know, in what 
 instance, not included in the amendment of the member 
 from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) it would be necessary for 
 the governor to have power to embody the militia. 
 That amendment confers power on him to call out the 
 militia to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, enforce 
 the laws, and in any other instances in which the legis- 
 lature may by specific laws authorize him to do so. If 
 the latter clause of the amendment be stricken out, then 
 the governor will be restricted to the three enumerated 
 cases for embodying the militia, and tacitly, at least, de- 
 nied the power of doing so, in any other case, though the 
 legislature should confer that power on him ; indeed it 
 would seem to forbid the legislature to clothe him with 
 that power, except in the cases referred to. And the 
 argument is, that such restriction will do no harm, as 
 no other necessity can exist for calling out the militia, 
 and if any such there be, those who affirm it are called 
 on to state it. Now, it is necessary to embody the mi- 
 litia in order to train them, though no further use may 
 be had for them ; and yet such a case would fall under 
 neither of the three cases stated in the amendment of the 
 member from Kanawha, if the latter clause be left out. 
 Again, it is necessary to embody the militia, in order to 
 comply with the requisitions of the federal constitution. 
 By that constitution the President of the United States 
 is virtute officii commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy of the United States, but of the militia of the 
 States, only when called into service in virtue of an 
 act of congress passed for that purpose, and as their offi- 
 cers are to be appointed, and they are to be trained — by 
 the laws of the States to which they belong, it would 
 be impossible to comply with this requirement, if the 
 power to call them out be confined to the three cases 
 enumerated in the first Dart of the amendment. For cer- 
 tainly under it, they are tc be called out to repel invasion 
 against this common wealth, to suppress insurrections 
 occurring within her limits, and to execute her laws. 
 But suppose an insurrection should occur in the State of 
 Pennsylvania, and the President under a law of the gen- 
 eral government, should demand all or a part of the mi- 
 litia to go into Pennsylvania to suppress it, would not 
 the restriction contained in the amendment make it un- 
 constitutional in the governor to answer the demand ? 
 Under which of the three enumerated cases would the 
 supposed case fall ? Might he not in answer say to the 
 President that the constitution of Virginia, under which 
 
258 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 he holds his office, forbids him to respond to the call ? 
 Here would arise a conflict between the two constitu- 
 tions, and though that of the State would have to yield 
 to that of the general government, yet it would be un- 
 wise, without the slightest necessity for duing so, to 
 plant in our organic law, the seeds of possible difficul- 
 ties. By adopting the amendment of the member from 
 Kanawha, will we put it in the power of the State gov- 
 ernment to comply with all its duties to the Federal con- 
 stitution, and at the same time to use the militia for aij 
 the purposes of her own wants. To reject it, would 
 leave unprovided for two very important cases in which 
 the militia ought to be embodied. Iam not here for 
 the purpose of divesting the commonwealth of Virginia 
 of any portion of her sovereignty, in any one of her de- 
 partments, nor of diminishing or cramping her means. 
 And for maintaining that sovereignty — I desire to place 
 her under the new, where she stands under the present 
 constitution — a perfect government of herself, bound it 
 is true to certain duties and entitled to certain rights, 
 under the federal league, which she had entered into 
 with her sister States — but still a perfect sovereign, en- 
 titled on proper occasions, to the use of the means of 
 defence and aggression, which belong to a sovereign 
 State. The chief and most valued of these means, is 
 her own military power, to be used by her as any other 
 sovereignty may do, except so far as she is restrained 
 by the federal compact. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I think the difficulty in 
 which gentlemen — 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair would remind the gentle- 
 man that there is a rule of the Convention which pro- 
 hibits him from speaking again. 
 
 MANY MEMBERS. Leave, Leave. 
 
 THE CHAIR. That rule is in opposition to all the 
 purposes of a committee of the whole, and ought never 
 to have been adopted. We cannot work with it. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I was proceeding to say that I 
 Ihought the difficulty into which gentlemen involve them- 
 selves proceeds from not giving due attention to the form 
 and matter of the proposition before the Convention. The 
 gentleman from Augusta, thinking, as I do, that it is 
 proper to confine the executive to three enumerated 
 cases, calls upon other gentlemen to tell this body, if 
 they .can, of one other occasion when it would be 
 proper for the executive, of his mere motion, to call out 
 the militia. In response to that call, my friend from 
 Pittsylvania (Mr. Whittle) instances as such a case, 
 the calling out the militia for the purpose of drill. 
 I apprehend that my friend will explore American Con- 
 stitutions in vain — State or Federal, for any aithority 
 to the chief executive magistrate to call out the militia 
 for such exercises. An effort, I recollect, was made 
 some years since, to confer this power upon the Presi- 
 dent of the United States by an act of congress. The 
 celebrated army bill, so much discussed over the wide 
 extent of this confederacy, proposed that object. But 
 the gentleman thinks the power ought to be confided to 
 the governor. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. I adopt the opinion expressed by 
 the gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Fultz,) that all 
 power on this subject is conferred upon the governor, in 
 the event of the success of the amendment of the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) and that without it 
 the legislative department of the government would 
 have no power to pass any law calling- out the militia 
 either for the purpose of drill or in answer to a requi- 
 sition of the President, acting under a law of congress 
 to supply him with sufficient military force to answer 
 either of the three purposes specified in the Constitution 
 of th© United States. I say that unless the proposition 
 is adopted requiring the legislatures in specif ed cases, 
 to call out and embody the militia, that there would be 
 no power in the State of Virginia which could call them 
 out, either for the purpose of training, or of an 1 wering 
 a requisition that may be constitutionally made by the 
 government of the United States. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. It seems to me that both the 
 
 gentlemen from Pittsylvania (Mr. Whittle) and Augusta 
 (Mr. Fultz) misapprehended the effect of the words which 
 are proposed to be stricken from the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith.) Both seem to 
 regard it as designed to confer power on the legislative 
 department. It is fo, no such purpose, and can have no 
 such effect. If it be proper to impose limitations upon 
 the legislative branch of the government in respect to 
 calling out the militia, this is not the proper place to 
 insert the restrictions. I apprehend, that as the con- 
 stitution now stands, and as I trust it will be allowed 
 to stand, it is competent for the legislature to call out 
 the militia by law whenever, wherever, and for what- 
 ever purpose it pleases. And when the militia is called 
 out for training, and assembled upon your muster fields, 
 it is in pursuance of no requisition of the governor, of 
 no call by him ; but in pursuance of the law enacted by 
 the legislature ; and unless we insert, when we come to the 
 legislative part of the government, some restriction up- 
 on the legislative department in respect to this matter, 
 the legislature will continue to have under the amended 
 constitution as it does now under the existing constitu- 
 tion, a power to call forth the militia whenever and for 
 whatever purpose it chooses. It may abuse this power, 
 but, as I said on yesterday, it is impossible to institute a 
 government without creating power and conferring dis- 
 cretion upon the agents who are to exercise it ; and I 
 shall not, for one, be deterred from continuing this 
 power in the legislature from apprehension of its abuse. 
 It is impossible for us to conceive what emergencies may 
 arise, what occasion there may be, for calling forth the 
 militia. And since it is impossible to foresee this, I 
 think it would be unwise in this convention to insert in 
 the constitution any clause placing a res;riction upon 
 the legislative department in this regard ; but in respect 
 to the executive department, I entertain a different 
 opinion. The danger of abuse there is more imminent 
 than in the case of the legislature. And while I agree 
 that it is proper ; nay, while I admit that it is necessa- 
 ry for the purposes of good government to confide this 
 power to the governor, I will confide it to him only in 
 the enumerated cases, and confine him in his action to 
 these only. Why, then, should we retain in the amend- 
 ment the words proposed to be stricken out ? They cre- 
 ate no limitation upon executive power. They throw 
 no additional power worth talking about upon the gov- 
 ernor. Strike them out, and the constitution will stand, 
 that for purposes of repelling invasion, suppressing insur- 
 rection, and executing the law, the governor may call 
 out the militia. For any other purpose in the world 
 the legislature may do it. When called out by the legis- 
 lature, if the constitution stands as it is, and as this re- 
 port proposes to allow it to stand, the governor will 
 command it. 
 
 But I submit to the committee whether we have not 
 done all that is proper to do when we provide a power 
 to be exercised by the governor to call out the militia 
 in the enumerated cases, leaving it to the legislature to 
 call it out at any time and for any purpose that in its 
 discretion it may think fit. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON". I do not rise to make a speech, but 
 to refer to one of the positions taken by the gentleman 
 from Pittsylvania, (Mr. Whittle,) that occasions might 
 arise when the government of the United States might 
 call for an embodying of the militia, and that the gov- 
 ernor would have no power to do so. Looking into the 
 constitution of the United States, I perceive that con- 
 gress shall have power " to provide for calling forth the 
 militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress in- 
 surrection, and repel invasions, to provide for organi- 
 sing, arming, and discipling the militia, and for gov- 
 erning such part of them as may be employed in the 
 service of the United States, reserving to the States, 
 respectively, the appointment of the offices, and the au- 
 thority of training the militia according to the discip- 
 line prescribed by congress." 
 
 I suppose that this provision of the constitution meets 
 the gentleman's case. It executes itself. There is no 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 259 
 
 necessity for calling forth by the governor, for it says 
 congress shall have power to provide for calling forth 
 the militia to execute the laws of the Union, &c. I 
 read it sohly in reference to the objection that the 
 gentleman makes that one of the cases not enumera- 
 ted here might be, that the militia of the State should 
 be embodied to execute the laws of the general gov- 
 ernment. Now, it does seem to me that this clause 
 of the constitution gives to congress full power over 
 that subject, ani there never could be any difficulty 
 in calling upon the executive of the State to embody 
 the militia, 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. I agree entirely with the object of 
 my friend from the county of Kanawha, (Mr. Smith,) in 
 having a power lodged somewhere, to call out or to em- 
 body the militia whenever the public safety may require 
 it. I agree with my friend from Pittsylvania, (Mr. 
 Whittle,) in wishing so to frame this constitution as 
 that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall have the pow- 
 er of an absolute sovereign. I am for giving to her her 
 whole strength, and her whole power, for all the pur- 
 poses of government. I am for framing her constitution 
 as if she were not a member of this confederacy, except 
 so far as to make that constitution conform to the pow- 
 ers of this confederacy, which, to the extent to which 
 they go, are paramount to the constitution and laws of 
 this State. The constitution of Virginia was framed 
 before the constitution of the United States. The con- 
 stitution of 1776 gave to the government of Virginia 
 all the powers o f an absolute sovereignty. The con- 
 stitution of 1829 gave to the government of Virginia 
 all the powers of an absolute sovereign — powers which 
 shall permit her and enable her to carry on the import- 
 ant purposes and objects of the State, whether she 
 be in or out of this confederacy. I also agree with 
 those who think that the constitution as it now is upon 
 the subject under consideration, is in the best form in 
 which it can be placed. I was one of those who voted 
 against striking out, and at a proper time I may present 
 to this committee, or to the convention, my views upon 
 that subject. The Convention has determined to strike 
 out, and the question is, what are we to insert ? We 
 are to take care in filling that blank that we shall not 
 cripple or circumscribe the powers of this government. 
 I entirely sympathize with the object of those who have 
 avowed that sentiment, but I do not believe that the 
 powers of this government will be crippled, or will be 
 restricted, by striking out what is proposed from the 
 amendment to the amendment. I believe that the gov- 
 ernment will be left in her unimpaired sovereignty. By 
 the vote which has been taken, the committee have de- 
 cided that it is unwise and unsafe to entrust this whole 
 discretion to the executive ; that public safety, in his 
 opinion, is not a sufficient safeguard against the abuses of 
 that power, and the question now is, what power shall be 
 given to the executive, without any legislative act. The 
 amendment proposes to give him the power " to repel 
 invasion, to suppress insurrection, and to enforce the 
 execution of the law." This power he will have without 
 a legislative act — the power to embody the militia for 
 that purpose. Where is the necessity of going further, 
 and giving to the governor the power to embody the 
 militia in any other specific case which the legislature 
 may grant. That will be imposing a restriction upon 
 the leg sLative department, which I am unwilling to im- 
 pose upon it. I am willing to leave to that department 
 the power to authorize the governor to embody the mi- 
 litia for a general or a specific purpose, according to the 
 wisdom of that department, leaving that matter entire- 
 ly at the discretion of the legislature, and that discre- 
 tion covers the whole case contemplated by my friend 
 from Kanawha, (Mr. Smith.) d goes further ; it covers 
 every exigency which may arise. It may be important 
 for the welfare and safety of the government that the 
 legislature should give a general power to the governor 
 to embody the militia, by an act which may be altered 
 or repealed at legislative pleasure. In time of war the 
 State of Virginia may have, consistently with the con- 
 
 stitution of the United States, troops and navies under 
 her command. In time of war the State of Virginia 
 may send her troops and her navy into other States, and 
 it may be wise and proper, the public safety may require, 
 that the legislature that we propose shall sit biennially, 
 shall clothe the executive with power to embody the 
 militia whenever the public safety may require it. In 
 the very language of this constitution now existing, the 
 legislature may, by legislative act, to exist so long as 
 the legislature requires its existence, give the governor 
 power to embody the militia whenever, in his opinion, 
 the public safety require it. I think that the amend- 
 ment goes far enough in prescribing executive duties, in 
 authorizing the governor to embody the militia to repel 
 invasion — and by that I comprehend threatened as well 
 as actual invasion — to suppress insurrection, either real 
 or apprehended, and to execute the laws. He is re- 
 quired, by the first part of the report, to execute the 
 laws, and in all human probability, he would have the 
 power, necessarily, to embody the militia for the pur- 
 pose of executing the laws, as an incidental power. 
 Then leave the legislative department, at large, to give 
 power in such other cases as may present themselves. 
 I shall, therefore, vote against the amendment, while 
 I sympathize with the views entertained by the mover 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not rise for the purpose of go- 
 ing at length into this subject, nor should I have risen 
 at all on this occasion, but for some remarks which 
 the gentleman before me has submitted. The gentle- 
 man says that under the constitutions of 1776 and of 
 1830, the government of Virginia was absolute in sov- 
 ereignty." 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. Except so far as they were restrict- 
 ed by the constitution of the United States. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I never have so understood it, and I 
 totally dissent from the sentiment that the government 
 of the State of Virginia, from and after the year 1776, 
 was a limited sovereign. The sovereignty of the State 
 of Virginia, I have ever conceived, resided in the people, 
 and not in the government, and I am yet to be informed 
 that there is any government upon this continent that 
 is sovereign. 
 
 Mr. MONCURE. If the gentleman will allow me to 
 explain ? He certainly misunderstands me if he supposes 
 I said that the government was absolute and unrestrict- 
 ed. I meant nothing but to say that the Commonwealth 
 was a sovereign, whether that sovereignty resided in the 
 people, or in the government; but to the extent to 
 which it may reside in either, it is absolute except so far 
 as restrained by the federal government. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I am happy, indeed, that the gentle- 
 man has made the explanation, but as my Lord Coke 
 said, I wish this Convention to note the distinction of the 
 sovereignty of the government from the sovereignty of 
 the people. I deny that the government of the United 
 States is sovereign. deny that the government of Vir- 
 ginia is, or has ever been sovereign. And I, for one 
 humble member of this Convention, mean to contend to 
 the last that she shall not be sovereign in her three de- 
 partments of government. Sne shall not, so far as my 
 humble efforts will go, ever reach that sovereignty 
 which is supposed to reside in a king, lords, and com- 
 mons. The government of Great Britain is a sovereign 
 government, according to her constitution. Whatever 
 that government does is constitutional. They may 
 change the succession of the crown ; they may do, in a 
 word, whatsoever their will may dictate. It is net so 
 in regard to the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is not 
 so in regard to the system of republican goven ments 
 which the people of America have adopted. There the 
 principle is, that every government is limited to the ex- 
 ercise of those powers conferred, and such powers as 
 are not conferred, are reserved to the people. 
 
 While I am up I beg the indulgence of the commit- 
 tee to express my dissent to another opinion advanced, 
 by one gentleman on yesterday. I allude to the opin- 
 ions advanced by my honorable colleague from the coun- 
 
260 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ty of Henrico, (Mr. Botts,) who, in reference to this ex- 
 citing subject of federal politics, said of the doctrine of 
 secession, that it "was revolution. If that honorable 
 gentleman means by the term revolution only that it 
 produces a change, I concede that he is right, but if the 
 gentleman means that the doctrine of State rights, which 
 authorizes the sovereign people acting in their primary 
 capacity, to resume the rights that have been conferred 
 upon the federal government — peaceably to resume 
 those rights which have been conferred — if that is the 
 idea of the gentleman, and that such resumption of 
 rights will be revolution, according to the ordinary ac- 
 ceptation of the term, then I differ altogether with the 
 honorable gentleman. If the idea be avowed publicly 
 that by a resumption of these State rights which have 
 been conferred upon the federal government it author- 
 izes that federal government to make war upon a State 
 and reduce it back to its connection with the Union, I 
 deny, for one, that any such power resides in the fede- 
 ral government, and I deny that it is revolution. I deny 
 that there exists any right on the part of the federal 
 government to make war upon a seceding State ; and 
 before this, however, is settled, I apprehend, in regard 
 to the fighting arm of government, before it is conclu- 
 ded in this Convention, gentlemen will develop their 
 limited principles. It will be found that however men 
 inav have originally alienated from the principles in 
 which they were originally induced, like the catholic, 
 when the occasion requires it, they will die catholic 
 still. If I have labored under a mistaken idea and have 
 acted with a party for years and years whose tendency 
 i3 to amalgamation of States ; whose object has been to 
 consolidate the powers of all the people and all the 
 States in this Union, then I am willing to admit public- 
 ly my error and retrace my steps. I fear more this cen- 
 tripetal power than the centrifugal. And if an erring 
 sister State shall go off from the Union, there are great 
 natural causes that could be traced through the princi- 
 ples of natural history which will ere long bring her 
 back. They are the principles of cohesion — the princi- 
 ples of attraction. It is known that under these princi- 
 ples small bodies will adhere to large. But once fuse 
 down the lines which separate the people of these 
 States — once bring them into one amalgamated body, 
 and. where or how will you separate them, and what 
 power can govern them but a despotism ? Nothing but 
 a strong military arm can govern a country of such ex- 
 tent as ours, fused into one homogeneous body. I go 
 then for the rights of the States and the rights of the 
 people. T go against all sovereignty of government, 
 and I am exceedingly happy that I misunderstood my 
 friend from Stafford. I believe somewhat in regions of 
 country. I confess that I believe in a race-horse region, 
 but I have been exceedingly disappointed while labor- 
 ing under the error that I was, and I am very happy to 
 err in the sentiments which my friend on my right has 
 corrected me in. The power of the sword and the 
 purse — the power to draw out and embody this militia, 
 may be exercised for the purpose of aiding the federal 
 government in suppressing what may be regarded by 
 some gentlemen as revolution. And I take occasion 
 here publicly to avow it as my opinion, that however 
 misguided a State may be which becomes tired of the 
 confederacy, that however much she may err, yet that 
 when it shall be attempted by this federal government, 
 with the arm of power, to force her back to obedience 
 to the government of which she is tired, it will require 
 no proclamation by your government to embody the 
 militia. In my judgment, it will require no legislative 
 authority to call out and embody the militia. I believe 
 the people of the United States on the southern side of 
 Mason and Dixon's line will never, upon this question, see 
 armies of men marching for the purpose of slaughter- 
 ing their brethren, however misguided these brethren 
 may be, but that there are men, even off the muster 
 list, who will enrol themselves to prevent this thing 
 from being done. These are my sentiments, and these 
 are the sentiments which I have imbibed in my reading 
 
 in the reports of the debates of the Convention that 
 adopted the federal constitution, and ratified it here in 
 Virginia. I believe that the constitution, as it came 
 from the hands of our forefathers, upon this subject, is 
 wise. I believe that this executive power must in the 
 nature of things be strong, and I, for one, am prepared 
 to give to it much strength. I hardly care how strong 
 you make the executive arm, provided you return the 
 incumbent back to the people. It should be strong 
 enough to do good, strong enough to protect the people, 
 their constitution, and their rights, and it would be an 
 impotent power for harm, with the plan of rotation in 
 office, of bringing the incumbent back to a dead level 
 with the people. 
 
 Mr. J ANNE Y. Not having exhausted my privilege 
 under the rule, I beg leave to detain the committee for 
 a very few moments. There are two objects either em- 
 braced in this amendment or avowed in this debate, and 
 one is to restrain the power of the governor, the other 
 to restrain the power of the legislature. Now, the first 
 is, in my judgment, attainable. The amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Kanawha (Mr. Smith) does, 
 to a great extent, attain this particular object. In the 
 plan as reported by the committee, the governor would 
 have the power to call out the militia of the Common- 
 wealth at any time when in his judgment, the public 
 safety required it. The amendment of the gentleman 
 from Kanawha proposes to specify the cases in which 
 the governor shall call them out, and the difference be- 
 tween the two is this : Your object is to impose re- 
 straints upon every department of the government, to 
 hold them responsible for the abuse of their power. 
 And suppose that the constitution stood as reported by 
 the committee, and the governor should abuse his power 
 in embodying the militia of this commonwealth, and he 
 were impeached for it, would it not be a complete bar 
 to the prosecution to plead that the public safety re- 
 quired him to embody the militia ? The burden of pro- 
 ving the corrupt motive would be thrown on the State, 
 and in nine cases out of ten conviction would be impos- 
 sible. What is the difference ? By the amendment of 
 the gentleman from Kanawha, you deny to him the 
 power to call out the militia except to repel invasion, 
 suppress insurrection, or execute the law. But suppose 
 he does call out the militia, this clause being in the con- 
 stitution, and he is impeached for an abuse of power. 
 In that case he is bound to plead and to prove the fact 
 of the invasion before he can escape the consequences 
 of his abuse of power, and so in regard to all the oth- 
 ers. I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment to that 
 extent, and vote for it with pleasure. 
 
 The other object, viz : the restraint of the legislative 
 power, in my judgment, is not attainable, at least to any 
 great extent ; and if attainable, I doubt whether it should 
 not be done by an amendment applicable to that par- 
 ticular department of the government. As I understand 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Kanawha, espe- 
 cially the latter part of it, it is a restraint, as far as it 
 goes, upon legislative power. For example, it ties up 
 the hands of the legislature from conferring upon the 
 governor the very power which we have just stricken 
 out of the committee's report, viz : the power to call 
 out and embody the militia, whenever, in his opinion, 
 the public safety may require it. Without that clause 
 the legislature might do that — with that clause they 
 cannot do that, because, if I understand it, they are 
 bound to specify in the act, the cases in which he shall 
 exercise the power. To that extent then it is a limita- 
 tion upon executive power, and therefore I shall vote 
 against the motion to strike it out. But it is a limita- 
 tion to that extent and to that only, and it will be pos- 
 sible, even with that, for the legislature, by special acts, 
 to confer this power upon the governor in every case 
 that the imagination of man can possibly conceive. The 
 only object then is to prevent them, by any general law, 
 from devolving upon the governor the power of embody- 
 ing the militia whenever in his judgment it may be ne- 
 cessary. It goes no further, and by special act of the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 261 
 
 legislature, they may do that which may be deprecated 
 by every member of this body. Well now, it is in vain 
 to deny it. No man could have listened to this debate 
 without seeing that an apprehension is entertained here 
 by members of this body, that the members of the 
 general assembly of Virginia, to whom we propose to 
 delegate the legislative power of this people so long as 
 there are members of the assembly, can in effect so ex- 
 ercise the power in this particular instance as to change 
 the relation which the State of Virginia bears to the 
 Federal Union. It is in vain to deny that that appre- 
 hension is felt and has been expressed. I do not mean 
 to say now, whether this apprehension is ill or well 
 founded, but I shall, if nobody else does it, devote my 
 mind zealously and earnestly to the consideration of 
 some provision to be inserted into this constitution, not 
 in the executive but in the legislative department, by 
 which the gentlemen whom we elect every year or every 
 two years, to come here to pass the ordinary acts of 
 legislation, shall not, without the consent of the sover- 
 eign people, their masters, expressed in Convention, 
 solemnly assembled in pursuance of the law of the land, 
 which law shall notify the people of the objects for 
 which this Convention assembles, change the relation 
 which this sustains to the federal Union. I do not think 
 this is the proper place for it Gentlemen have said 
 here, that they are for preserving all the rights and all 
 the sovereignty of this Commonwealth. I understood 
 my friend from the county of Stafford (Mr. Moncure) 
 perfectly well, I understood what he meant just as well 
 as I did after he made his explanation — I understood 
 him exactly as he explained it himself. That question 
 is beyond our jurisdiction. We have nothing to do with 
 it. The people of this Commonwealth, in the year 1788, 
 decided for themselves what portion of their sovereignty 
 they would part with, and the terms upon which they 
 would part with it. They have reserved to themselves 
 all the rest, and we cannot deprive them of it by any 
 action of ours. Our business here is to make a form of 
 government for the State of Virginia that shall best 
 promote the prosperity and happiness of the people of 
 Virginia, and the people of Virginia as members of this 
 federal Union. 
 
 I trust that I have not wandered from the real point 
 before the committee. It was not my purpose to do so. 
 I repeat that I shall vote against the motion to strike 
 out the latter part of the amendment of the gentleman 
 from Kanawha, because, in my judgment, as far as it goes, 
 it ds a restraint upon legislative power. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I may have attached a degree of im- 
 portance to this question which it does not deserve, but 
 I hope that the committee do not regard me as indulg- 
 ing in mere declamation, when I say in sincerity, that I 
 regard this question as second in importance to no other 
 that can be brought to the consideration of the commit- 
 tee. I regard it as a question of infinitely greater im- 
 portance than the basis of representation. I put no 
 question in comparison with the safety of the people. 
 From the foundation of this government, from 1*77 6 to 
 1829, it was deemed advisable to confer the power upon 
 the governor and his executive council, to call out and 
 embody the militia whenever in their opinion the public 
 safety might require it; and from 1829 to the present 
 period of 1851, that power has been conferred upon the 
 Governor of Virginia with or without the advice of his 
 executive council. In the constitution of 1776 he was 
 required to do it with the advice and consent of his 
 council ; under the constitution of 1829 he may take the 
 advice of his council, but may reject and repudiate it if 
 he thinks proper. He is under no obligations to regard 
 that advice ; and thus in point of fact, the power is en- 
 tirely with him, and he alone can exercise it at his dis- 
 cretion. We have reason to believe, from the opinions 
 entertained by some gentlemen in this Convention, that 
 this is a dangerous power to be entrusted to the chief 
 executive alone, and that it ought to be restricted ; and 
 accordingly this committee has already struck out the 
 feature which was reported by the committee, to vest 
 
 in the governor alone the power to call out the militia 
 whenever in his opinion the public safety required it. 
 And the proposition is to insert, what ? The amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Kanawha proposes to specify 
 the particular cases in which this one man power may 
 be exercised. Why do you grant him power to call out 
 the militia to suppress insurrection, repel invasion, and 
 execute the laws ? Because the public safety may re- 
 quire that it should be done promptly, and before the 
 action of the legislature can be had on the subject, or 
 perhaps before a Convention can be called. But the first 
 question that arises is, is there any imaginable case like- 
 ly to occur, when the public safety may require that the 
 militia shall be embodied, other than the eases specified 
 in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha — to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and en- 
 force the execution of the laws ? If a case can be sup- 
 posed, if a case is likely to arise, I imagine that it is the 
 duty of this Convention to provide for or against that 
 case. You have but to imagine that you have a chief 
 executive officer of the United States, a military despot, 
 and where, as I said on yesterday, is the gentleman 
 possessed of the foresight, the gift of looking into futuri- 
 ty, to ascertain and determine now, what may happen 
 during the existence of the constitution that you are 
 about to make for the people of Virginia? Shall you 
 look to the possibility of revolution ? The gentleman 
 from Fauquier says no. I say yes. I look to every 
 possible contingency that can arise. I go with the gen- 
 tleman from Stafford, (Mr. Moncure,) for the purpose of 
 securing the rights and safety of the people of the Com- 
 monwealth of Virginia, in their sovereign capacity, un- 
 der all circumstances and under any contingency thai- 
 may arise. Now all seem to admit that they will lodge 
 somewhere in the constitution of the State, the authority 
 to call out the militia in these specified cases. The 
 gentleman from Kanawha proposes to confer additional 
 power upon the legislature, and specify these additional 
 cases. The simple question then, that is presented to 
 our consideration, appears to me to be this : shall the 
 power of calling out the militia when the public safety 
 requires it, other than in cases of invasion, insurrection T 
 and enforcement of the execution of the laws, be entire- 
 ly abrogated ; or shall it be lodged somewhere else ? 
 Now the gentleman from Fauquier, if I understood him 
 correctly, asked the question, why invest the legisla- 
 ture with this unlimited power ? 
 
 Mr. SCOT r, of Fauquier. No sir. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I certainly understood the gentleman 
 so, if he did not say so. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I think in the course of my 
 remarks, when I gave utterance to some sentiment of that 
 kind, it was in reference to what was said by other gentle- 
 men, probably by the gentleman who is now occupying 
 the floor, when he stated that one of the cases which re- 
 quired the calling out of the militia, was to commit revo- 
 lution. I said I thought there could be no revolution or 
 any occasion to call out the militia, and that I would not 
 invest the legislature with the power to commit revolu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Nor am I disposed to confer on the le- 
 gislature the power to perpetrate revolution. That is a 
 question not belonging to the legislature or the gover- 
 nor either, but to the people in their sovereign capacity ; 
 but I will put it in the power of the legislature, in cer- 
 tain contingencies, to provide for a revolution which the 
 people may possibly, at a future day, determine upon. 
 How is this to be consummated ? If I was mistaken in 
 the remark of the gentleman from Fauquier, I was not 
 mistaken in the argument and language of other gentle- 
 men. It was a dangerous power to be vested in the le- 
 gislature. Now how, I ask, is it to be considered as a 
 dangerous power to be invested in the legislature, when 
 we have entrusted it from the foundation of the govern- 
 ment into the hands of a single individual ? 
 
 And what is the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Kauawha, and what do I propose to substitute for it ? 
 Why, instead of giving this general, unrestricted power 
 
262 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 to one man in the Commonwealth, who may abuse the 
 power; not to transfer it to the legislature and give 
 them exclusive control of it; but to divide it between 
 the two departments of the government, and also to 
 limit and restrict the authority of the legislature still 
 further than gentlemen suppose, because I propose to 
 confine the action of the legislature to certain cases. My 
 purpose is to defeat the object avowed by the gentle- 
 man from Stafford this morning, of authorizing the legis- 
 lature to pass any general law conferring general pow- 
 ers upon the governor. If we mean to confer the pow- 
 er entirely upon the legislative department of the gov- 
 ernment, it is wholly unnecessary to insert these enumer- 
 ated cases and restrictions on the power in regard to the 
 governor himself. They can give him the power ; they 
 have your constitutional authority fco give him the pow- 
 er to suppress insurrection or to repel invasion, but I 
 mean to restrict him in that power. Well now, it is 
 with no little degree of hesitation that I undertake to 
 express an opinion on a legal constitutional question, 
 differing with the able and distinguished gentlemen 
 from Stafford and Fauquier, in regard to the power of 
 the legislature. I hold the opinion, that it never should 
 be the purpose of any statesman in forming the organic 
 law of the country, to vest the same power in two dis- 
 tinct branches or departments of the government at the 
 same time. It never was the purpose, and it never 
 ought to be the purpose, to confer this power to the 
 same extent on the executive and legislative depart- 
 ments of the government, because they may thus be 
 brought into conflict. In the distribution of power, the 
 question arises what will you do with the military 
 power? If you confer it on the legislature, you neces- 
 sarily withhold it from the executive, and in like man- 
 ner, if you confer it upon the executive, you necessarily 
 withhold it from the legislature. Why, if you vest the 
 exercise of this power, both in the executive discretion 
 and in the discretion of the legislative department of 
 the government, what might be the result ? Suppose 
 the case of the federal troops marching through 
 Virginia, to invade the territory of a neighboring 
 State. Suppose the legislature should regard it as 
 an invasion of the State of Virginia, and they were to 
 call out the militia in order to repel it, what would be 
 the language of your governor, if he happened to enter- 
 tain a different opinion ? Why, he would say to the le- 
 gislature, you have exerted an authority, you have ex- 
 ercised a discretion, which in the wisdom of the fram- 
 ers of the constitution was taken from you, and which 
 was confided to my individual discretion. I am to be 
 the judge ; I am to be the sole judge ; I am to be the 
 responsible individual to call out the militia, whenever 
 in my opinion, there is an invasion upon this territory, 
 and I do not regard the marching of the United States 
 troops through it as an invasion. Suppose, on the other 
 hand, the governor should happen to regard it as an in- 
 vasion, and the legislature do not, then you have to re- 
 sort to the legislative power for payment of the troops ; 
 he cannot make an appropriation, and there is a clog 
 upon his action. Now, we propose to divide the re 
 sponsibility in every other case that may arise. Take 
 for instance the case I have supposed, that you have a 
 military despot at the head of your federal government, 
 who is suspected, and justly suspected, of entertaining 
 very wicked designs, and of covering up his wicked de- 
 signs with what may, at the moment, appear to be very 
 innocent acts. He may quarter his troops upon you, 
 and may design to subvert the liberties of the country, 
 and may have even made an invasion upon another and 
 adjoining territory. He may have made an actual in- 
 vasion on Maryland or North Carolina. The militia of 
 all the other States in the Union may be called into re- 
 quisition, and may be in the field, and the question 
 arises shall the militia of Virginia be called out, not for 
 the purpose of making war, as gentlemen seem to ap- 
 prehend ; and in this I think they fall into a great error, 
 in assuming that because the militia are equipped and 
 called out, it necessarily tends to a dissolution of the 
 
 Union, civil war, or secession. But it may become ne- 
 cessary that they should be called out for the purpose 
 of being organized, armed and drilled. Then the ques- 
 tion will arise, where is the power of the governor to- 
 call them out for this purpose ? The governor will say, 
 I have no power; and why? Because the cases are 
 particularly enumerated and specified in which I am at 
 liberty to call out the militia. This is not an invasion 
 of the territory of Virginia. An invasion of Maryland 
 or North Carolina is not an invasion of the territory of 
 Virginia ; it is not an insurrection in Virginia ; it is not 
 a case of resistance to the laws of Virginia. Now, what 
 do we propose to do ? We propose that whenever a case 
 may arise that in the opinion of the legislature the pub- 
 lic safety may require it, he may be authorized by law; 
 that is to say, (if the clause be taken in connection with 
 the preceding sentences,) that he shall have power to 
 call out the militia for the purposes of suppressing in- 
 surrection, repelling invasion, and enforcing the laws, or 
 whenever a case may arise when in the opinion of the 
 legislature the public safety shall require it, they shall 
 authorize him by law. Now, is not this a power that 
 must be lodged somewhere? Is not the public safety to 
 be provided for under all circumstances? Why, before I 
 would vote for striking out the amendment giving the 
 legislature the power in specified cases, I would be 
 strongly tempted to adopt the proposition of the gentle - 
 man from Stafford, to strike out the enumerated cases 
 and leave the whole discretion with the executive. 
 
 The gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Fultz) expressed 
 some surprise at the course I have pursued, as he had 
 listened with great attention and profit to what I said 
 on other questions before the Convention, that I should 
 now be disposed to surrender the sword as well as the 
 purse-strings. Pray to whom do I propose to surrender 
 the purse-strings and the sword of this State ? What 
 portion of my remarks or of my proposition has been ob- 
 noxious to the declaration of the gentleman that I was 
 in favor of surrendering the sword and the purse- 
 strings? To whom have I proposed to surrender the 
 purse-strings of the country? Have I submitted any 
 proposition to take the control of the purse-strings from 
 the legislature and confer it on the governor ? 
 
 Mr. FULTZ. I understood the gentleman to say on 
 yesterday, that the amendment submitted by the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha, with this latter clause retained in 
 it, would be giving to the legislature the right to speci- 
 fy other cases in which the governor would be at liberty 
 to call out the militia. I argued, if the gentleman heard 
 my argument, that that clause vested an unlimited pow- 
 er in the legislature; that they now had the purse- 
 strings, and by that amendment they would get the 
 sword. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Why, I take it for granted that the 
 power over the purse strings and the sword must be 
 vested somewhere. What human institution is there, 
 that can be imagined, that is not liable to be abused. 
 The power may be abused. We have no power over 
 the purse-strings and sword here. Our responsibility 
 and our duties terminate in a very short time. Who is 
 it that must necessarily exercise power over the 
 purse-strings and sword ? It is to be delegated some- 
 where, and who is so fit to exercise that power as the 
 legislature of the commonwealth, except in the specified 
 cases which I have already proposed to take from the- 
 legislature and confer on the executive department. I 
 take it for granted that it is only done on account of the 
 promptness, haste and dispatch necessary in order to 
 execute the laws, to suppress insurrection and repel in- 
 vasion, without waiting for the action of the legislature. 
 So, if I propose to give the sword and purse-strings to 
 the governor — if that is the meaning of the gentleimn — 
 I propose also to control his power by specifying the 
 particular case in which he may be authorized to act, 
 and further to limit and restrict the power of the legis- 
 lature in regard to all the cases in which they shall act. 
 Is that the power of the purse and the sword at which 
 the gentleman is alarmed ? Why, I take it for granted 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 263 
 
 that the power is much safer under the proposition which 
 we now propose, than it ever has been yet, for the rea- 
 son that to exercise it we require the co-operation of 
 the three branches of government, the senate, the house 
 and the sanction of the governor. Each one will oper- 
 ate as a check upon the other, and is it reasonable to ap- 
 prehend — as my friend from Loudoun (Mr. Janney) has 
 expressed his apprehension- — that a state of things is at 
 likely to exist in this country in which the co-operation 
 of the house of delegates, the senate and the governor, 
 is'likely to be obtained in any hasty action involving 
 the public safety ? In respect to what has passed in 
 the legislature of Virginia, and in regard to their reso- 
 lutions of resistance at all hazards and to the last ex- 
 tremity, that was only a paper war, thoughnot entirely 
 harmless, yet it created no great alarm and less blood- 
 shed. The legislature of Virginia have been in the 
 habit of adopting resolutions and engaging in paper war- 
 fare ever since 1 recollect any thing about the legisla- 
 ture of Virginia. It is a very different question when 
 they come to bring down to practical operation these 
 resolves, and call out the militia and disturb the peace 
 and quiet of their constituents. I have no apprehension 
 that such a case will arise, but I say if it should arise ; 
 if in the apprehension of the two branches of the legis- 
 lature and the governor of the commonwealth, that case 
 shall have arisen when the public safety will require 
 that the militia should be called out, I am willing to 
 trust them with the power. There may be an abuse of 
 power, but as I before said, all human institutions are 
 liable to be abused. All human power is liable to be 
 abused, but you must repose confidence somewhere, and 
 you must take the chances of abuse. It is better to do 
 that than to lodge the power to protect the public safe- 
 ty nowhere. Gentlemen seem to think, however, that 
 whenever that case shall arise, there will be no occasion 
 for legislative action, that the people will rise up en 
 masse to protect themselves, their own houses and fire- 
 sides. Well, very true, perhaps they may; but if they 
 will do it in the cases you specify, are the people more 
 likely to arise en masse, and resist the laws of your 
 federal government, or in resisting a border State in 
 making aggressions on your territory, are they at all 
 more likely to rise en masse to accomplish that object, 
 than they would be to suppress insurrection or to repel 
 invasion? Not at all. What they would do in the one 
 case, they would do in the other. But then a question 
 arises, suppose they should do it. Is it better to have 
 it done by law, or without law; by the authority and 
 sanction of law, or against the authority and sanction 
 of law ? Is it better that you shall have your mob 
 companies and mob armies, armed with shot guns, 
 pitch-forks, pick-axes, shovels, and whatever else they 
 may take up; or to have them regularly armed by the 
 authority of the State, regularly enrolled and regularly 
 equipped, and with a head to command them? Why, 
 who is to take command of this mob army thus to rise 
 up in this extreme haste, to repel danger? The gover- 
 nor of Virginia certainly would not be the commander- 
 in-chief. Why is the governor of Virginia selected by 
 the constitution as commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy of the State ? Why, because he has been selected 
 by the people of the commonwealth for his virtues, his 
 energy and his patriotism, and thus it is supposed he 
 would be enabled to command the confidence of the 
 community. Now, is it better that a man thus selected 
 by the people, should take command of this army reg- 
 ularly organized according to law, or that you should ; 
 leave it all to the mob? Now, I prefer law, to leaving 
 it to any contingency. If I were willing to leave this ( 
 contingency to such a result, I would certainly be will- \ 
 ing to leave the contingency of suppressing insurrec- - 
 tion, repelling invasion or executing the laws. The \ 
 gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) — I think I did ] 
 not misunderstand him — said, that he was not to be i 
 driven from his purpose to vest this power in the legis- } 
 lature, from an apprehension of its abuse. Well, if I j 
 did not misunderstand the gentleman, and he says I did L 
 
 l not, I pray to know the difference between us. I am 
 - not to be deterred from bestowing this power some- 
 f where, from an apprehension of its abuse, if the power 
 i is necessary to exist; nor will I be driven from the pro- 
 . priety ofgmy position, in guarding, at all times, the pub- 
 . lie safety, because the same position has been urged by 
 ; gentlemen who are opposed to me on other questions. 
 3 It is no consideration with me, that the gentleman from 
 [ Essex, (Mr. M. R. H. Garnett,)— with whom I differ 
 in toto coelo on many other positions — has advocated 
 I this proposition. Does it become us as wise men, as 
 [ statesmen, sent here to prepare a constitution, to pro- 
 vide for the public safety under all circumstances; to be 
 driven from the propriety of our positions, because 
 , they may be advocated by those whose opinions on oth- 
 er subjects are somewhat peculiar and extreme ? I 
 , could not for the life of me perceive in what we differed 
 [ when the gentleman made the remark, that he would 
 not be deterred from an apprehension of an abuse of 
 ( this power from conferring it on the legislature. I pro- 
 , pose to restrict them in all cases, to the emergency 
 [ when it shall arise, to check a too general exercise of 
 ' the power, while other gentlemen seem to be for leav- 
 \ ing the unrestricted power with the legislature, to pass 
 ; a general law on the subject. Aye, at its very first 
 session under the constitution we are framing, to pass 
 1 a law, giving indefinite, unlimited power and discretion 
 ! to the governor, to call out the militia whenever, in his 
 \ judgment, it is necessary; which supercedes the neces- 
 sity for the restrictions we have already imposed. 
 ! Well, the other gentleman from Fauquier. I mean the 
 1 gentleman who read the Constitution of the United 
 States, (Mr. Chilton.,) undertook to show, that there is 
 no necessity for conferring this power upon any of the 
 departments of this government because, by the federal 
 1 constitution, congress is already vested with the pow- 
 er? Because congress has the power to call out the 
 militia ! is that the only reason why the gentleman is 
 afraid to trust the constituted authorities of our own 
 State with the power over our own militia ? Why that 
 would be an additional reason with me, t© confer this 
 power on the constituted authorities of this State. 
 
 I have rapidly run over this subject, expressing my 
 general views, as to the propriety and importance of 
 that provision. I repeat again, that I look to the pub- 
 lic safety, under all circumstances, as a question that 
 is not to be brought into comparison with any other; I 
 regard it as second to none in importance that can he 
 brought to the consideration of this Convention; and to 
 adopt the language of the gentleman from Fauquier, 
 (Mr. Scott,) yesterday, if I stand here alone,' I never 
 will agree to surrender the right in some one or more 
 departments of this government, to embody the militia;, 
 whenever these departments may deem the public Safe- 
 ty to require it. So far from being a dangerous power 
 which would be an innovation upon our institutions, it 
 would be a novelty to strike it out. It will be dangerous; 
 not to put it somewhere, put it where you will; but put 
 it somewhere you must. If gentlemen can designate 
 any other safer place where it can be lodged, let them 
 propose it, and 1 will vote for it, but it must be some- 
 where, or in my judgment we fail, and wofully fail, in 
 the discharge of the duty that we have been sent here 
 to perform, in guarding and protecting the public safe- 
 ty at all times and under all circumstances. 
 
 Mr. WISE. As I offered the amendment to strike 
 out those words, I desire in a very brief and didactic 
 way to explain my understanding of that amendment, 
 and at the same time to answer the argument, and I 
 hope, satisfy the reason of the gentleman from Henri- 
 co, (Mr. Botts.) We are now on the question of limi- 
 ting the power which we will commit to the executive ; 
 we have naught to do with the question of organizing 
 the legislative department, The gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha (Mr. Smith) proposes to limit the executive 
 power, on this subject of calling out and embodying the 
 militia to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and en- 
 force the execution of the laws; and this amendment 
 goes further, and proposes 46 and for such other specific 
 
264 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 purposes as may be authorized by the legislature." 
 Now, if this power be committed to the executive, to 
 call out the militia, if by expressing the powers of the 
 executive, we exclude any powers from the legislature, 
 the argument of the gentleman from Henrico would be 
 ail right; but by saying to the governor that he shall 
 call out the militia to repel invasion, suppress insurrec- 
 tion, and enforce the execution of the law, do we de- 
 prive the legislature of this necessary governmental 
 power of providing for the public safety? No. Let 
 me ask the gentleman from Henrico — suppose you had 
 just instituted a government, and said that its deliberative 
 body should consist of two houses, which should constitute 
 the legislative power, and that you had constituted an 
 executive to wield executive power; to which depart- 
 ment of the government would the power belong to 
 provide for the public safety ? Why, I presume there 
 is no difference between him and me in the position 
 that it would be a power belonging to the legislative de- 
 partment. Well, then follows logically, the question, 
 if you grant to the executive department simply the 
 power, permissive, not exclusive, but absolutely per- 
 missive, so far as it goes, to repel invasion, suppress in- 
 surrection, and enforce the execution of the laws, do 
 you still exclude the power of the legislature to pro- 
 vide for the common safety ? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask 
 him a question ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. Always. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to ask him wherefore the ne- 
 cessity of enumerating these particular powers in re- 
 gard to the executive, if the power is still iodged in the 
 legislative department to exercise it ad libitum. 
 
 Mr. WISE. For the plainest reason in the world, 
 that the legislature, when there may be occasion to re- 
 pel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and to enforce 
 the execution of the law, may not be in session, and if 
 in session may not be able to act with sufficient promp- 
 titude. But you say that although this legislative pow- 
 er to provide for the common safety still exists, yet as 
 exigencies may arise, to wit: the necessity of repel- 
 ling invasion, of suppressing insurrection, of enforcing 
 the execution of the law, in which this power may 
 not be so well exercised by the legislature, that 
 you. will permit the governor in these enumerated 
 cases to have an executive power to this extent, no 
 more. Even in these cases, after we have made the 
 grant to the governor to call out the militia in these 
 cases, were he to fail to do so when they ought to be 
 called out, the legislature will still have "the power to 
 order the governor to call them out. The gentleman 
 then is answered. And I concur with the gentleman 
 from Stafford, (Mr. Moncure,) in the very strong ground 
 he took here to-day, and which was taken also by the 
 gentleman who sits before me, that if this limitation on 
 executive authority would deprive the sovereign State 
 of Virginia of the least sovereign attribute, either on 
 the right hand or the left of .power, I would certainly 
 go for imposing no limitation whatever. But the pro- 
 position here is simply to limit the executive depart- 
 ment of the government, and is not a proposition to 
 take away any of the powers of the government at all. 
 All that you do not permit the governor to exercise, 
 you leave to the legislative department, and that neces- 
 sity answers the whole argument made by the gentle- 
 man from Henrico. The expression of the power to 
 the governor does not exclude the power of the legis- 
 lature, and it is not necessary therefore to grant to the 
 legislature the power by adding to this amendment 
 the words " and such other specific powers as may be 
 authorized by the legislature. " The legislature has 
 the power already, and the object is the limitation of 
 the power of the executive. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I regret to interrupt the gentleman, 
 but as I do not propose to speak again on this subject, 
 I desire to submit another question to him. Suppose 
 the Legislature of Virginia at its first session after the 
 adoption of this constitution, were to declare that the 
 
 governor should have the power to call out the militia 
 whenever in his discretion the public safety should re- 
 quire it, or whenever he thought proper to do so, would 
 it not be in violation and in conflict with those proposed 
 specified cases ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. That question is as easily answered as 
 the others. We establish specific limitations of the 
 power as we suppose of the executive, and if the legis- 
 lature attempt to substitute their action for a provision 
 of the constitution, they pass an unconstitutional law — 
 that is all. Without this latter clause they can pass a 
 law providing for the public safety, and providing like- 
 wise authority to the executive to execute and enforce 
 the laws. Do you not perceive it is tautologous ? I 
 call the gentleman's attention to the reading of the 
 amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kanawha. 
 He has the power to repel invasion, to suppress insur- 
 rection, and you propose to give him power to enforce 
 the execution of the law. Is it not tautologous then to 
 say in addition, and for such other specific purposes as 
 may be authorized by the legislature ? If he is to en- 
 force a law, who is to pass it ? The legislature, do you 
 not perceive ? Does not my friend perceive that the 
 words that the governor shall enforce the execution of 
 the law is precisely the same thing? It covers the 
 whole ground, and why add then and for such other 
 specific purposes as may be authorized by the legisla- 
 ture ? He has only been contending in his whole argu- 
 ment for tautology in the constitution. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I beg pardon for again interrupting 
 the gentleman. I desire to know what would be the 
 law of Virginia which would authorize the governor 
 under the provision to call out the militia to repel an 
 invasion, suppress an insurrection, or to execute the 
 laws, to act in the case I supposed of a military despot 
 at the head of the federal government who was march- 
 ing his troops upon a neighboring State ? How would 
 he enforce the laws of the commonwealth in that case ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. The first clause of the amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Kanawha will. A mili- 
 tary despot, as he supposed, is marching towards the 
 State of Virginia— recollect this committee refused to 
 insert the word actual invasion upon the suggestion in 
 part of the gentleman from Henrico himself, and thus 
 declared that we were not to wait for the helium fla- 
 grante, that we were not to wait for the actual invasion 
 and insurrection, but were to allow the governor to ex- 
 ercise his discretion in cases of threatened invasion and 
 insurrection. Suppose that the legislature of Virginia 
 is apprised by the governor that the danger is approach- 
 ing, that the houses of our neighbors are already in 
 flames, that the war is raging in North Carolina and in 
 Maryland, and that the turn of Virginia may come 
 next ; they will declare that the public safety is in dan- 
 ger, and they will declare by law that the governor 
 shall take steps to defend the public safety. We pro- 
 pose here to give the governor power to act at once to 
 repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the 
 execution of the law. Is not that enough for the gov- 
 ernor ? If the legislature passes a law proclaiming the 
 public safety in danger, and provides in that law that 
 steps shall be taken to defend the public safety, does it 
 not devolve on the governor the duty of executing and 
 enforcing that law '{ What efficiency will be added to 
 the amendment, then, by retaining the words " and for 
 such specific purposes only as the legislature shall re- 
 quire ? " Take the case put by the gentleman himself, 
 that the legislature might require the governer to act 
 in defence of the public safety, and that the governor 
 might refuse to act because there was no invasion of, or 
 insurrection in Virginia, in his opinion. What would 
 be the reply of the legislature to the governor in that 
 very case ? They would tell him, sir, you are to enforce 
 the requirements and the execution of the law, and you 
 are held accountable if you fail to obey the law and to 
 execute the law, as you are ordered by the legislature, 
 within the limitations of the constitution. You are as 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 265 
 
 much in violation of your duty as you would be if you 
 failed to suppress insurrection or to repel invasion. I 
 cannot, therefore, imagine any effect whatever, that 
 would result from this last clause of the amendment. 
 Do not the words "to enforce the execution of the 
 law" fully include such specific purposes as may be 
 authorized by law ? I can imagine no effect those words 
 would have, either to enlarge or to restrict the powers 
 of the legislature, or to enlarge or restrict the powers 
 of the governor, except that some governor who would 
 stick to the letter and not the spirit of his duty, might 
 reply, I will not obey your law because you have not 
 specified your purposes. I submit to the sense of this 
 Convention, that in letter and sense both, by every prin- 
 ciple of interpretation it is tautology to say, "He shall 
 have power to embody the militia, to repel invasion, to 
 suppress insurrection, to enforce the execution of the 
 laws, and for such other specific purposes as may be au- 
 thorized by the legislature." It is positive repetition, 
 it is tautology, for all the cases that gentlemen have | 
 supposed are embraced in the general provision that he 
 shall enforce the execution of the laws. Now, I have 
 to say that I am not willing — for the reasons so clearly 
 stated by all the gentlemen who concur with me, that 
 there ought to be some limitations on the executive 
 power — to give this power of embodying the militia, of 
 wielding the red right arm of the commonwealth, with- 
 out limitation to the one man, to the executive. There 
 is no one man whose discretion I would trust on the 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. Shall I understand the argument 
 of the gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) to be, that 
 should the latter clause of the amendment of the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha (Mr. Smith) be stricken out, 
 that the governor under the authority conferred by the 
 first member of the amendment, viz : " to execute the 
 laws," would be authorized to embody the militia to ex- 
 ecute any law whatever 8 Suppose in Vermont there 
 should be an insurrection or invasion, and the President 
 should make a requisition on the Governor of Virginia 
 for a part of her militia, shall I understand the gentle- 
 man to say that under the terms of the amendment re- 
 quiring the governor to embody the militia " to execute 
 the laws," he could of his own motion, embody them and 
 march them to Vermont, or that he would desire him to 
 have such power ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. That is exactly one of those questions 
 which I wish to leave to the legislature. The laws of 
 the general government and the laws of Virginia to- 
 gether regulate the manner in which the militia shall 
 be called forth and put into the service of the United 
 States. I would have the governor obey the laws of 
 the general government and of Virginia, and not obey 
 an unlimited, an unguarded discretion, and this clause 
 limits him sufficiently. While I do desire that the 
 powers of the one man shall be limited, and that his 
 discretion shall not be unlimited, I would be as far 
 as any gentleman on this floor from curtailing the 
 sovereignty of Virginia in the least. No. Whilst I do 
 not agree with any gentleman who asserts the opinion 
 that mere municipal government is the sovereign, yet 
 so far as powers are delegated to it by the sovereign 
 it is the conventional power of the people, it is the ex- 
 ercise of sovereign power, and they should exercise it 
 to that extent fully. There may be cases when, in pro- 
 viding for the public safety — and as to when that time 
 comes the gentlemen from Fauquier and Henrico may 
 perhaps find me to differ from them — the legislature 
 of Virginia in the exercise of the parental care over 
 the people, of providing for their safety, may call upon 
 the governor to organize the military power. They 
 may do it without my position, and I shall never dis- 
 sent from that command. I will risk my all to fight 
 the battles of the State by law. I shall not wait for 
 the calling of a Convention, whenever the legislature 
 of Virginia by law orders me to defend the State. I 
 shall not wait until a Convention of the people shall 
 
 have assembled and adopted a constitution authorizing 
 any such power. The constitution already formed, has 
 granted governmental power, and one of the most sa- 
 cred powers of government is the power of defending 
 the safety of the people. That is the duty of the le- 
 gislature. All that I ask is that it shall not be the du 
 ty of the governor to call upon me to defend this State 
 at his discretion, for he may call on me to-day to defend 
 consolidation, and to-morrow to defend nullification. I 
 do not desire to be in the power either of the latitudi 
 narian or of the straight-jacket doctrines of any one 
 man. I desire that this power to call on the people to 
 defend the public safety be vested in the legislature, 
 and there is where it can be safely and wisely invested. 
 I will trust the governor in cases of emergency to repel 
 invasion, to suppress insurrection, and would make it 
 his duty to enforce the execution of the laws ; and to 
 say that he shall also call out the militia for such other 
 specific purposes as may be authorized by law, is but 
 j adding phrase to phrase, and saying again that he shall 
 execute the laws. 
 
 I agree then with the gentleman from Henrico, that 
 whenever a President shall abuse his powers, or all the 
 federal government combined shall abuse its powers, 
 and shall pass acts which are palpably in violation of 
 the constitution of the United States, or grossly and 
 onerously oppressive to the people of the United States, 
 the State of Virginia, by her legislature, shall have the 
 power to call fey law, upon her governor — and the pow- 
 er shall be exercised by him in no other way than by 
 law — to defend the people or to defend the constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 But this is a digression. I cannot under any circum- 
 stances whatever be drawn into the debate that has 
 arisen on the one hand, as to where this power resides — 
 whether we should be driven to a Convention of the 
 people, or whether the legislature has sufficient power — 
 or on the other hand to discuss whether secession be a 
 revolutionary on a reserved right. I will not discuss 
 those questions. The sole question here is, shall you 
 impose these limitations on the executive discretion. 
 All the discretion that I would trust him with is express- 
 ed by the words to repel invasion, suppress insurrec- 
 tion and to enforce the execution of the laws. If the 
 grant of this power to the executive, this mere permis- 
 sive power, to call out the militia, in this case, excluded 
 the power of the legislature, I should willingly go with 
 the gentleman from Henrico. But it does not. It 
 does not exclude the power of the legislature, but on 
 the contrary, it grants power to the legislature, in the 
 terms " enforce the execution of the laws," and when- 
 ever they call on him to execute the laws he will be 
 obliged to do it, and this will include all the cases sup- 
 posed by the gentleman from Henrico. I hope there- 
 fore that the gentleman from Kanawha will consent to 
 strike out the last clause of his amendment, for it is 
 really nothing but a proposition to make your constitu- 
 tion tautologous. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. I rise to vindicate the 
 amendment against the criticism of the gentleman from 
 Accomac. He aliedges that the latter clause of the 
 amendment is tautologous, as all that is provided for by 
 it exists in that other clause of the amendment which 
 relates to the execution of the law. It is not tautolo- 
 gous in language. The words are, " for such other spe- 
 cific purposes only as may be authorized by the legis- 
 lature." The words " such other " expressly exclude 
 the previously enumerated cases. But it is contended 
 that if the power is not given to the governor it is 
 vested in the legislature, and if they enact a law it 
 comes within the meaning of the third clause of the 
 amendment, to execute the laws." Strike out the 
 latter clause, and it is true the legislature is vested 
 with the residue of the power to call out the militia, 
 which is not granted to the governor, and that when 
 they act it must be by a law or joint resolution. If the 
 law or resolution direct the governor to perform any 
 
266 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 . act under the law, and to do it, it may be necsesary to 
 appeal to the militia, he would have the power under 
 the third clause of the amendment, and the clause pro- 
 posed to be stricken out would be wholly unnecessary. 
 But suppose the legislature should pass a law in gen- 
 eral terms, that all the residuary power vested in them, 
 relating to the calling out of the militia, which is an ex- 
 ecutive power, should be transferred to the executive, 
 and that the governor may resort to it when, in his opin- 
 ion, the public safety shall require it. To execute such a 
 law as this, military lorce is wholly unnecessary. Its 
 purpose is to transfer executive power to the governor, 
 and the law is executed by its passage. So soon as it 
 becomes a law the transfer of the power, which is the 
 object of the law, is effected. The amendment, if the 
 latter clause is stricken out, would authorize the gov- 
 ernor, on his own mere motion, to call out the militia 
 to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and to ex- 
 ecute the laws. This would be only a portion of the 
 power given to the executive by the report of the com- 
 mittee, but the legislature, by transferring to him the 
 residue of that power, if there be any, the power of 
 the executive would be substantially the same as that 
 given to him by the report of the committee. The lat- 
 ter clause of the amendment proposed to be stricken 
 out, is designed to guard against the possibility of such 
 an unlimited discretionary power being transferred by 
 the legislature to the executive branch. It is a direct 
 check upon the governor, and an indirect check upon 
 the legislature. The governor is prohibited by the lat- 
 ter clause of the amendment, from executing any general 
 power which the legislature might transfer to him ; 
 and the legislature would be restrained from granting 
 general powers, which the governor could not execute. 
 When the legislative branch of the government is be- 
 fore us, we should make it conform to the executive 
 branch, by inhibiting them from granting general pow- 
 ers on this subject to the executive or other agent, 
 and thus give symmetry to the constitution. If the lat- 
 ter clause is stricken out, the legislature may give to 
 the governor all the objectionable discretionary power, 
 found in the report of the committee. If it is not strick- 
 en out, the governor could not receive from the legis- 
 lature such discretionary power, nor would the legisla- 
 ture attempt to do the idle thing, to grant power which 
 the agent could not execute. The legislature would be 
 compelled to assume the resposibility of granting a 
 specific power, for which their constituents would call 
 them to account. The power granted by the report of 
 the committee, confides an unlimited discretion to the 
 governor, which I wish to be given to the legislature, 
 and in such form as to prevent that body from transfer- 
 ring it back to the governor. If it does not effect that 
 purpose, I do not desire its adoption. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I differ very widely from the 
 gentleman from Kanawha in the construction which he 
 puts upon his own language, and I hope I may be per- 
 mitted to submit a few remarks in reply to those which 
 have just fallen from that gentleman. I believe that 
 the gentleman and myself have the same great object 
 in view : that is, to restrict executive power in this 
 respect to as narrow limits as the public safety will per- 
 mit. I understand that the gentleman from Kanawha 
 opposes the amendment of the gentleman from Acco- 
 mac, on the ground that it will enlarge the executive 
 power. As I differ with the gentleman in respect to 
 the effect of this amendment, I beg leave to offer a few 
 remarks upon that subject, and that only. I believe 
 if the amendment of the gentleman from Kanawha be 
 adopted in toto, that is retaining the latter clause, 
 the power of the governor will be very considerably 
 enlarged instead of restricted as he desires ; because it 
 authorizes the legislature to confer power upon the 
 governor in cases not embraced by those specified in 
 the amendment. If that is not the effect, then there is 
 no meaning in the amendment, and it is altogether un- 
 necessary. I am opposed to giving the legislature 
 
 power to enlarge the authority of the executive on this 
 subject. As I remarked yesterday, I cannot conceive of 
 any case in which the governor should be authorized 
 to exercise this great power of calling out the militia 
 except in the three cases specified, and I am for limiting 
 the executive discretion to these three cases. I call upon 
 gentlemen to state any other case. I have heard none 
 stated that can satisfy me. The gentleman from Hen- 
 rico (Mr. Botts) has stated a case, it is true, of the 
 federal government attempting to invade a sister State 
 and marching its troops through Virginia to enforce 
 a law of congress providing for the emancipation of 
 slaves, but even in such an extreme case, the govern- 
 or might convene the legislature and they could confer 
 upon him power for the purpose. They have power 
 to pass any law upon the subject, and it will be the 
 duty of the governor to convene them in such a case. 
 I am opposed to that part of the gentleman's amend- 
 ment now sought to be stricken ought, for the plain 
 reason that it confers on the legislature the power to 
 pass a law on this subject bv which the governor, as 
 in the specified cases, may be authorized to embody the 
 militia without assembling the legislature for that pur- 
 pose. If any other case should occur, when it would 
 be proper to caH out the militia, I had much rather that 
 the legislature should be convened, and that it should 
 be the duty of the governor to submit the subject to 
 them, and act only when specially authorized by them 
 to embody the militia. It was clearly shown on yes- 
 terday, that if you invest the governor alone with 
 this power in any other case, he might consider it his 
 duty to resist the passage of the United States troops 
 through the territory of Virginia, and might embody 
 the militia for that purpose. I am not willing to give 
 the governor power to sever at will, the union which 
 exists between the States of this confederacy. I would 
 rather that the question should always be first submit- 
 ted to the people through their legislature, and when- 
 ever the legislature of Virginia shall act upon that sub- 
 ject, I hope I shall be prepared to act with it; hut I 
 would not submit the power to the governor alone. I 
 advocate the amendment of the gentleman from Acc6- 
 mac, because I am unwilling to authorize the legislature, 
 by this constitutional provision, to enlarge the powers 
 of the governor by investing him with the power in 
 any case, not included in the three cases specified in 
 the amendment ; and I hope that all who agree with me 
 in desiring not to enlarge the powers of the governor 
 beyond these three cases, will vote for the amendment 
 of the gentleman from Accomac. 
 
 Mr. RIVES. It appears to me that the real point at 
 issue has been founded upon this : that the governor 
 shall have power to repel invasion, suppress insurrec- 
 tion, and execute the laws. That I understand to be it, 
 because the laws passed by the legislative department 
 of the government, as I understand it, embrace all the 
 laws. The amendment adds that he shall also have pow- 
 er to call out the militia to enforce such other acts as 
 shall be specified by the legislative department of the 
 government. Well now, I ask, does not this latter 
 clause of the amendment proposed'to be stricken out, 
 from the very fact of its requiring that the governor 
 shall use the power for such purposes as may be specified 
 by the legislature, and obey the law by calling out the 
 militia to carry it into effect, pre-suppose legislative 
 action ? If it does, and legislative action is taken upon 
 it, does it not make it a law ? Specify a particular 
 case, if you please, in which the governor shall not act, 
 yet, let that particular case come under legislative ac- 
 tion, and be passed upon by the legislature, and it then 
 becomes a law. Is it not a clear case then that you 
 have provided for its enforcement, in providing that the 
 governor shall execute the laws ? After'you have done 
 so, is the governor left without power to act unless you 
 insert this amendment ? Not at all. I have said strike 
 out that portion of the amendment which is proposed to 
 be stricken out by the gentleman from Accomac, and if 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 267 
 
 it be a law, it plainly comes under the head of the 
 clause "he shall have power to call out the militia to 
 enforce the execution of the laws." Either it does that, 
 or a specific act of the legislature is not a law. If there 
 is a difference between a law that is clearly provided 
 for now, and specific action in a particular case, then 
 we have the law suspended until some specific case 
 shall arise hereafter. "Well, suppose a case does 
 arise when the executive cannot exercise this power 
 until the legislative department of the government take 
 action. Now, it would be folly to say, that some case 
 hereafter might arise, when, although the legislature 
 had passed a law, yet because they had not specifically 
 provided for its enforcement, therefore it was not a 
 law. Grant that the action of the legislature when 
 carried through both houses, as required by the consti- 
 tution, makes a law of the land, then the executive of 
 the commonwealth, in the event of the adoption of the 
 amendment proposed by the gentleman from Accomac, 
 is bound to carry it out, or the words execute the laws 
 mean nothing — one or the other. I rose for the simple 
 purpose of trying to present the question in such a 
 shape as to enable this committee to see in what state 
 the question stands. Clearly, there must be something 
 to show me that a specific act of the legislature in a 
 particular case is not a law, and when you show me 
 that, then I can see some necessity in that clause of the 
 amendment. I have heard of a joint resolution passing 
 both houses, in which I think the governor would be as 
 much bound to act as in a law, for I believe it has been 
 construed as a law. It does seem to me, that after 
 voting to strike out that portion of the amendment of 
 the gentlemaa from Kanawha, as proposed by the gen- 
 tleman from Accomac, we have provided for every case 
 that can occur. Grant him all power to repel invasion, 
 suppress insurrection and enforce the laws, andin cases 
 other than that grant, the only question, it seems to me, 
 is, would the matter go before the legislature, and 
 would the action of the legislature thereupon be a law ? 
 If it would be a law, then it is his duty to enforce it. 
 I beg my friends not to bring into this discussion here 
 the subject of federal relations, for the reason, that if 
 Virginia is to take » stand on that question now or 
 hereafter, I hope it will be such a stand as will resist 
 all assaults, either from the North or the South. I hope 
 they will pause before they enter upon this discussion, 
 bocause I fear that if we once get into that field we 
 shall never get out of it. I shall vote for striking out 
 this clause of the amendment, and I hope it will be 
 clearly seen that the great object of the committee is 
 to have the laws enforced as passed by the legislature. 
 
 Mr. BOCOOK. I regret, very much regret, that the 
 committee on yesterday struck out the words from the 
 report which they did, and I apprehend, that if that 
 vote could be taken over again, there are members 
 enough of this committee who see the propriety of re- 
 taining those words, to reverse that decision. The 
 words struck out are the same contained in the existing 
 Constitution, and I cannot believe that a majority of the 
 committee can see in the present aspect of affairs 
 around us, in this confederacy, any reason for lowering 
 the organization of Virginia as a sovereign State, 
 any reason why the organized power of her sovereign- 
 ty should be more restricted than in times gone by. 
 Yet such, I regret to see, is the desire here, as mani- 
 fested by the general current of debate. Do gentle- 
 men understand the position they are taking ? I am 
 sure, at any rate, whatever may be the case with other 
 members, that the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) 
 understands his position, and I do not believe that a ma- 
 jority of the Convention will agree with him in that posi- 
 tion. We are organizing a government here, and for what 
 purpose ? Not only for the government and regulation of 
 the people of the commonwealth, but to represent that 
 people before the world as a sovereign and independ- 
 ent State. I understand then well enough what the 
 gentleman from Fauquier means. He desires the pow- 
 
 er of the governor to be limited. He wishes it to be 
 effectual in its operation for the enforcement of the 
 laws on the people of Virginia ; but, while he admits 
 that the people have the right of revolution, as 
 against the federal government, he does not wish there 
 should be any constitutional provision whatever as to any 
 department of the State government under which they 
 could ever exercise that right. No, he desires that 
 if they attempt the exercise of that revolutionary 
 right ^ they shall do it as a mob, without regular 
 organization. He knows that rebellion, if unsuccess- 
 ful, is treason; he knows that a mob rebellion is 
 always unsuccessful, and he knows also, if his views 
 be carried out, that the people will be allowed 
 no other resort for a redress of grievances than rebel- 
 lion, and that a mob rebellion, which will end in trea- 
 son. I will agree to no suGh proposition, and I will 
 vote for none such to be incorporated in the Constitu- 
 tion of Virginia. I will organize this government, so 
 far as my vote goes, not only go as to execute the laws 
 of Virginia on the people of Virginia, but to invest the 
 people of Virginia as a sovereignty, with all the rights 
 and attributes of sovereignty. The gentleman from 
 Accomac has just said that this phrase to enforce the 
 execution of the laws, covers everything intended by 
 the gentleman from Kanawha, but although I listened 
 to his argument, that it was tautologous to add the 
 words which the gentleman from Kanawha proposes 
 to add, I still think I can see a difference. The 
 governor is to enforce the execution of the 
 laws — upon whom? Upon the people of Virginia. 
 Who are bound by fihe laws of Virginia ? The peo- 
 ple of Virginia, and upon them alone are your laws to 
 be enforced. My friend from Accomac would enable 
 the governor to raise the red right arm of war, as he 
 expresses it, against the people of Virginia, and 
 against no body else. 
 
 Mr. "WISE. I should like to know upon what au- 
 thority the gentleman quotes me as advancing such a 
 sentiment. 
 
 Mr. BO COCK.. The gentleman is for giving to the 
 governor the power to call out the militia only to en- 
 force the execution of the laws, and this can be done 
 on the people of Virginia alone. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I said that I would have no tautology 
 on the subject. Now, the execution of the laws do not 
 apply only to the citizens of Virginia. In the case of 
 invasion we can execute the law on the invader, though 
 he be as foreign to us as the Chinese, and we can exe- 
 cute it on things as well as on persons. But the sole 
 question here is, not whether the government of Vir- 
 ginia shall be deprived of the right of revolution, but 
 whether the powers of revolution shall be exercised by 
 the governor or by the legislature. I say I will not 
 again ever entrust a governor of Virginia with a power 
 of revolution ; but I am willing to trust the legislature 
 with the power of calling on the citizens to defend the 
 State. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I understand that very well ; but so 
 far as this execution of the law goes, I ask, upon whom 
 are the laws to be executed, and against whom is this red 
 right arm of war to be bared ? 
 
 Mr. WISE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask 
 him in reply, would he have a governor to have the 
 power of executing any other authority than that 
 which is authorized by law ? That is the question. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I tell the gentleman what I would 
 have, and that I set out with and mean to conclude 
 with. I would have the sovereign power of Virginia so 
 organized that they can bare the red arm of 
 war against others than the citizens of Virginia. 
 I would not provide in this Constitution that, 
 no matter what may occur, the governor shall have no 
 authority to embody even a company of militia, except 
 in case of invasion or insurrection, until he can send all 
 over the broad limits of this Commonwealth and call to- 
 gether the legislature of the State. I apprehend that 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 there might be occasions which are neither invasions nor 
 insurrections, on which it -would be right that the 
 militia should be embodied. If this be true, if such oc- 
 casions can exist, where, if the views of the gentleman 
 should be carried out, would be the authority in Vir- 
 ginia to embody even a single company of militia ? 
 The views expressed by the gentleman from Henrico, 
 I concur with, in the main, and return my thanks to 
 him for his expression of them, but I differ from him in 
 the idea that this power must necessarily be given to 
 the legislature. I will give it to the governor and to 
 the legislature. I will give it to the governor to exer- 
 cise, when, in his opinion, the public safety may require, 
 because that public safety may require him to act be- 
 fore the legislature could be got together. I would give 
 it to the legislature also, because I believe that they 
 would be the best judges of what the public safety 
 would require, when they were in session. In this 
 way, I would secure a certain and efficient exercise of 
 the power under all emergencies when it would be ne- 
 cessary. We have been told that when we grant this 
 power to the governor to repel invasion, suppress in- 
 surrection, and to enforce the execution of the laws, that 
 we are investing him with as much poorer as the federal 
 constitution has invested in the President, and that the 
 language used here on this subject, is used in that in- 
 strument in reference to the same subject. But gentle- 
 men should remember that the state of things in re- 
 gard to each is very different. The federal constitution 
 makes the President the commander-in chief of the ar- 
 my and navy, both of which are always in existence 
 and at the will of the President of the United States. 
 He orders that army where he pleases. He has no ne- 
 cessity for calling out the militia, and therefore, he 
 cannot do it without a law of congress. Where is 
 the army and navy of Virginia ? Her only army 
 is the militia. To-morrow the news may be received 
 that the property, if not the lives of the people, is in 
 jeopardy, and shall you require the governor to send 
 all over the State, and convene the legislature, and 
 wait until they have passed a law before he can embody 
 even a company of militia ? I deny the propriety of any 
 such arrangement. 
 
 I take the difference between the gentleman from 
 Kanawha and the gentleman from Accomac to be this: 
 The gentleman from Kanawha looks to the phrase, " to 
 enforce the execution of the laws," as referring to an ex- 
 ecution of the laws of the State upon the people of the 
 State, but he desires further, that the governor may 
 have the power to call out the militia whenever the 
 legislature _ shall grant him the power, for any 
 other specific purpose. There is a difference be- 
 tween executing a law and acting in obedience to 
 a law. Acting in obedience to the law is executing it 
 in one sense, but in this instance the meaning of execu- 
 ting the laws of the State, is their enforcement upon 
 unwilling citizens. Therefore, when you restrict the 
 governor to the execution of the laws in this sense, you 
 are restricting him to their enforcement only upon the 
 citizens of Virginia and those within the limits of the 
 State. It is against them only, that the militia is to ;be 
 called out and exerted under the power to enforce the 
 execution of the laws. But the gentleman from Kana- 
 wha, by his amendment, leaves to the legislature the pow- 
 er to authorize, in a specific case, the militia to be em- 
 bodied, by the governor, whether it be to enforce the exe- 
 cution of the law, or, for example, to resist the execution 
 of an unlawful act of the congress of the United States. 
 
 Mr. WISE. "Would the gentleman be disposed to 
 leave it simply to the discretion of the governor to 
 judge whether an act of congress be unconstitutional or 
 not, and to call out the militia accordingly ? I am for 
 leaving that question to the legislature. Would he leave 
 it to the governor ? 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I would leave the governor, as the 
 representative of the people of the State, the power to 
 take care of the safety of the people of the State — even 
 
 if, in so doing, he was required to embody a company 
 of militia — until the legislature could meet. Thatisall 
 I mean. I would go as far as any gentleman in confining 
 this power to the legislature, if the legislature were 
 always in existence like the governor. I would rather 
 trust it to them than to the governor ; but my desire is 
 to lodge this power of taking instant action for the safe- 
 ty of the State somewhere in the organization of the 
 government. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I do not think that the gentleman's an- 
 swer is a categorical one to my question. Would he 
 give the governor the power to decide that a law was 
 unconstitutional, and also to decide that the emergency 
 was so pressing and imminent as to require him not to 
 wait for the legislature, but actually in his own discre- 
 tion to repel the execution of the law of the United 
 States, in his judgment unconstitutional ? Would the 
 gentleman leave that power to the governor ? 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I am for giving the power to act 
 promptly, when such a case, involving the public safe- 
 ty, shall arise, to some department of the State gov- 
 ernment, and if the legislature cannot be here, I 
 would give it to the governor. 
 
 Mr. WISE. There is the difference between us. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I am for giving to the governor the 
 same power, on this subject, that he has always had 
 heretofore. I am not for limiting the power of the 
 State to act promptly in these particular emergencies. 
 I do not believe that in such a case the governor would 
 ever act rashly. It would have to be an exceedingly 
 plain case — one that would justify his action, not onlj 
 in his own eyes, but in the eyes of the people to who* 
 he is accountable. A case might occur in which th 
 voice of the people, with one accord, might demand a< 
 tion, and shall all action be deferred until the action o.. 
 the legislature be had, which may result in a delay of 
 a month or more ? I go for giving the governor, as well 
 as the legislature, the power to embody the militia, 
 when, in his opinion, the public safety shall require it, 
 and I do not believe that it will lead to anything wrong. 
 I go for the highest sovereign organization of the State. 
 I go for arming the governor, not alone against the good 
 people of the State for executing on them the laws of 
 the State, but against all who are not the good people of 
 the State, who may seek to endanger the safety of the 
 commonwealth. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I did not propose to occupy 
 the attention of this committee in the further discussion 
 of the proposition before it. But as I have been referred to 
 in a manner that this body has witnessed, by the gentle- 
 man who has just taken his seat, I trust that I may be 
 pardoned if I again thrust myself upon their indulgence. 
 I listened, with sentiments of the most profound aston- 
 ishment, to the remarks of that gentleman. He said 
 that I understood my position. I trust I do. He said 
 that he understood it too. In that I think he was mis- 
 taken. He says, that while I agree that the power to 
 commit an act of revolution resides in the sovereign 
 people of this commonwealth, I was for so organizing 
 this government, as to leave the act of revolution to a 
 mo b — an unorganized mob. In what I have said here, 
 or in what I have said elsewhere, I think the gentleman 
 will find no warrant whatever for the opinion and the 
 desire which he has ascribed to me. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. Let me mention to what I did refer. 
 The gentleman has said that he was not disposed to put it 
 into the power of the legislature of Virginia to commit 
 an act of revolution. I understood him by that to mean 
 that he does not wish to organize the State so that its 
 authorities — its constitutional authorities — can commit 
 an act of revolution. Am I mistaken in that ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier In understanding me to that 
 effect he understood me right. Yet it does not follow that 
 I would leavethis act to be committed by an unorganized 
 mob. Not at all. He understood me right when he un- 
 derstood me to say that I would not provide, in the or- 
 ganization of this government, authority in any one of 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 269 
 
 its departments, to commit an act of revolution. I think 
 that great act belongs to the sovereign people, and is to 
 be exercised by them when the emergency shall arise, 
 by agents other than those who may be appointed to 
 conduct the government of this Commonwealth. The 
 gentleman differs, I know, from me in this respect. I 
 believe that the opinion entertained by that gentleman, 
 and participated in by others in this State, is an opinion 
 confined to the limits of Virginia. Everywhere else 
 where this doctrine has been discussed, it has been con- 
 ceded to belong to the people in convention, it being re- 
 garded as an act without the scope of the authority of 
 the government agents to commit revolution. "When 
 the day comes when it shall be proper for Virginia to 
 revolutionize this government, to overturn the exist- 
 ing state of things, to draw the sword, to levy war, the 
 day will come when it will be proper to submit that 
 question — that grave question — to the people in conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I know that the gentleman is pointing 
 out what may appear to be a distinction, and I will in- 
 terrupt him merely to make an inquiry. 
 
 The gentleman says he differs from my under- 
 standing of his remarks in this : He does not mean 
 to say that he would have a mob revolution. When I 
 used the word mob, I simply meant a revolution with- 
 out authority of law — the people acting without legal 
 authority. He says it would have to be submitted to 
 the people in solemn convention. Well, when the peo- 
 ple in convention have agreed to act, are they to have 
 no laws, no acts of assembly, no acts of their governor 
 to carry out their will ? He desires the legislature or- 
 ganized so that they cannot commit an act of revolution 
 against the government of the United States. Suppose 
 a convention of the people of Virginia meets and de- 
 termines to commit an act of revolution ; according to 
 his argument, they must first form a new constitution, 
 and grant new powers of a revolutionary character to 
 the legislature, otherwise the legislature is as much tied 
 after that Convention has made the decision, as they 
 were before, and can pass no law for carrying out the 
 decision of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Unquestionably, when the 
 casus belli happens, when the revolution comes, it must 
 sweep away the existing organizations. New powers must 
 be conferred upon your executive and your legislature be- 
 cause unless these new powers are conferred, unless these 
 changes are made, our social condition must remain the 
 same ; and remaining the same, it must conti nue upon 
 us all existing obligations. The gentleman thinks that 
 the legislative power of this government have authority 
 to commit revolution — t o change the peaceful relation 
 of this State with our associated States — to abrogate 
 the constitution of the United States, as far as this 
 community is concerned, and put the people without its 
 pale and without its protection, and there is the differ- 
 ence between us. I read in the constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States that the members of the several State legis- 
 latures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the 
 United States and of the several States, shall be bound 
 by oath to support the constitution. With that oath 
 upon their lips, is it possible that a member of the leg- 
 islature, the executive or any judicial officer of any 
 State can set on foot resistance to the constitution — a 
 constitution which, in their official capacity, they have 
 sworn to support. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I desire to ask the gentleman a question, 
 not wishing, however, to produce any confusion, what- 
 ever the opinions of the gentleman may be in relation to 
 this right of perpetrating revolution — into which I have 
 not gone and do not mean to go on this occasion — I do 
 not, surely understand the gentleman from Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott) as saying that the municipal government 
 of Virginia, an organized legislature and executive, have 
 not the power by law, to call upon their citizens to arm 
 themselves, and actually to wage war to repel an inva- 
 sion, suppress an insurrection, and enforce the execu- 
 
 tion of the laws. I do not understand the gentleman 
 from Fauquier as going to that extent, but as agreeing 
 that the legislature may order, by law, the governor to 
 call out the militia for the legitimate and lawful purpo- 
 ses of government. I ask the gentleman, because of 
 the position that may be assumed hereafter, when we 
 come to the legislative department. I see no necessity 
 of discussing this constitutional right when we are up- 
 on a mere governmental right to enforce the execution 
 of the laws, repel invasion, and suppress insurrection. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I certainly never denied, nor 
 do I mean to be understood as denying, any of the princi- 
 ples involved in the inquiry of the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac, (Mr. Wise.) I am only repelling this monstrous 
 heresy. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I only desired the gentleman to be under- 
 stood as referring to the power of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I hope the gentleman will be allowed 
 to make himself understood. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. If I am indulged on this sub- 
 ject, I shall endeavor to make myself understood. I have 
 been arguing against the monstrous heresy, broached here 
 by the gentleman from Appomattox, (Mr. BococK,)which 
 claims for the organized authorities of this State gov- 
 ernment the right, without the intervention of the peo- 
 ple, and with the oath upon their lips to support the 
 federal constitution, to take measures to break thac 
 constitution down. I am not arguing against the right 
 of the people to commit revolution, to withdraw them- 
 selves from this government, if, in their judgment, they 
 think proper to do so, or to exercise any power, howso- 
 ever broad, that belongs to their sovereignty. The gen- 
 tleman from Appomattox (Mr. Bocock) not only claims 
 this power for an ordinary legislature, sworn to sup- 
 port the constitution, but he is now claiming it for the 
 executive branch of this government, and finds great 
 fault with the action of the committee, yesterday, in 
 striking out from this report that part of it which 
 proposed to confer upon the executive the wide discre- 
 tion that has been so much debated. And when the 
 question was put to him directly by the gentleman 
 from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) so far had he become in- 
 volved in the course of his argument, that the alter- 
 nate was presented to him of retreating from his posi- 
 tion, and confessing his error, or persisting in it. And 
 rather than retreat, he boldly claimed that he should 
 give the power to the executive to judge — when the 
 occasion of war shall come — to judge of the necessity 
 for resistance, and to prescribe, himself, its mode and 
 measure ; and this upon the plea of the public safety. 
 
 Sir, he must be fresh from the reading of antiquity. 
 He has studied, doubtless, the history of the rise and 
 progress of the Roman States. He will find an exam- 
 ple there for this purpose, or, coming down to more 
 modern times, he will find example in the revolutionary 
 history of revolutionary France. He will find it no- 
 where else. And, upon the plea of public safety, the 
 gentleman from Appomattox (Mr. Bocock) — a democrat 
 of the straightest sect — proclaims here in this commit- 
 tee that he is willing — nay, more, that he desires — to 
 see the executive of this Commonwealth clothed with 
 the powers of a dictator — what else is it? — to judge 
 when congress exceeds its powers, and pass upon the 
 constitutionality of a law ; to determine, according to 
 his own discretion, the occasion of resistance, and then 
 to prescribe its mode and measure ; to clothe him, in one 
 word, with legislative, executive, and judicial power ; 
 and that is his democracy. 
 
 And he knows my position. Sir, I did not know his 
 before. For upon my conscience, I say that I did not 
 believe there was one human being within the limits 
 of this State — nay, more, within the wide extent of the 
 United States — who, at this day, would hazard the ut- 
 terance of such opinions. I did not misunderstand the 
 gentleman, my friend from Accomac was startled, as I 
 was, at his proposition. He interrupted the gentleman, 
 
270 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 propounded a question directly, and asked for a categor- 
 ical answer, and the answer was given. 
 
 Now, I am not for a dictator. God forbid that the 
 necessity should ever arise in this free commonwealth, 
 for clothing any man, however eminent for virtue, intel- 
 ligence and learning he may be, with dictatorial 
 power, which all history teaches us in the end is sure 
 to be perverted to the destruction of liberty. No sir, 
 we come here with no such duties assigned us, clothed 
 with no such power. We come here to amend the con- 
 stitution of Virginia — one of the States of this great and 
 glorious confederacy — to make a government such as 
 will suit cur social condition, our condition as a member 
 of this Union, and to adopt provisions necessary for the 
 carrying out, for the fulfilment, the faithful, honest ful- 
 filment, of every obligation that our association imposes 
 upon us. We cannot provide, therefore, in organizing 
 this State government for revolution. It is beyond the 
 scope of our trust. It is not our duty. We are to make a 
 constitution consistent with the constitution of the United 
 States. In that constitution limitations and restrictions 
 are imposed upon the powers of the States, and we can- 
 not, if we would, impart to this government a power 
 inconsistent with it. We cannot give to a governor, or 
 to a governor and legislature together, a power to de- 
 clare war. The constitution of the United States says 
 that no State shall declare war. We cannot, therefore, 
 impart the power if we would ; and I am not so fond of 
 revolution — I am not so attracted by the glare and glit- 
 ter of military fame and applause, which follows deeds 
 of arms, as to desire to see this country plunged into 
 war, or this State enter upon a wild experiment of a 
 revolution. I am not so much in love with these scenes 
 as to be willing, as the gentleman from Appomattox 
 seems to be, to arm the governor or any one man with 
 the power to declare war or commit revolution. I am 
 not disposed to provide in the constitution — when the 
 United States constitution says that your governor shall 
 swear to support that instrument — that he shall be au- 
 thorized to overthrow it. I do not think that authority 
 would consist together well with the restriction of the 
 federal constitution, nor with the obligation and duties 
 which Virginia's position as a member of this Union 
 casts upon her. But the gentleman from Appomattox 
 differs altogether from me in this opinion. He loves rev- 
 olution so much that he would not only provide in your 
 constitution that an ordinary legislature should commit 
 it, but also that your executive should. The gentleman 
 may smile ; but if this is not the legitimate deduction 
 from his argument and position, my intelligence has not 
 been equal to the task of making a true one. I shall 
 leave to the gentleman to explain his position if I have 
 misunderstood him, or to justify it if I have not. I de- 
 sire, above all things else, to know whether for such 
 opinions, as I have understood him to avow, he can find 
 a second on this floor. When all seem to be agreed that 
 in entrusting power to a single individual there is dan- 
 ger of abuse, and that in view of that danger in creating 
 the power and conferring it upon the executive we 
 should define and point out the specific purpose for 
 which it shall be exercised, attheheel of the discussion, 
 when this seems- to be the collected opinion of this body, 
 the gentleman from Appomattox (Mr. Booock) rises in 
 his seat, rebukes what has been done as unwisely done, 
 and puts forth a proposition 'that in the constitution of 
 Virginia we should provide for dictatorial powers in the 
 person of its governor. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I am not very fresh from the 
 reading of the history of ancient times, or par- 
 ticularly conversant with N the history of the an- 
 cient republics, or even revolutionary France, and 
 therefore, I am surprised to learn from the gentleman 
 that I was really displaying so much scholarship when 
 1 propounded the proposition which I did. I certain- 
 ly thought I was looking to the constitution as it 
 stands, and simply arguing for a retention of the same 
 words in the new which exist in the old constitution 
 
 on this subject. Now, I have heard far and wide in 
 this State, arguments upon all the questions upon which 
 the gentleman from Fauquier has touched in his speech, 
 but I have waked up the gentleman to the declara- 
 tion of an opinion which 1 never have before heard de- 
 clared, and that is, that the government of Virginia 
 heretofore has been armed with the power of a dicta- 
 tor ! And he says that my categorical answer to my 
 friend from Accomac, conceded the necessity for a dic- 
 tator. My friend from Accomac asked me where I 
 would lodge this power of determining when to call out 
 the militia. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. No, to judge of the consti- 
 tutionality of a law which is to be resisted. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. Well, I said I would lodge in the 
 governor's hands the power to embody the militia, 
 when the public safety shall require it, and if in 
 doing that he will be obliged to judge of the con- 
 stitutionality of the law, why let him do it. I desire 
 the government organized in such a manner that the 
 people will mot be forced to re3ort to a mob to defend 
 their safety. And I want the authority placed some- 
 where to judge of the imminency of any danger to their 
 safety. I apprehend I was not mistaken, then, in the 
 gentleman's position that he would vest no such power 
 in the government, or any department of it. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. My position is, that the 
 people in Convention have the right to revolutionize, 
 but that the legislature have not. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. But when the people meet in conven- 
 tion, what power then have they ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, oi Fauquier. They have all power— all 
 sovereign power. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. What if the people, when assembled 
 in convention, should determine upon withdrawing from 
 the Union ? Does the gentleman admit that they have 
 the right to withdraw from the Union ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Unquestionably— in the 
 exercise of this revolutionary power. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I do not care what power it is they ex- 
 ercise, the gentleman admits that the people, in Con- 
 vention assembled, have a right to withdraw from the 
 Union. That is his proposition, and I desire to know then, 
 if he is not a secessionist ? Is he not in favor of secession 
 as aright ? He says the people of Virginia, in Conven- 
 tion assembled, have the right in the exercise of their 
 revolutionary power, to withdraw themselves from the 
 Union of these States, and I ask him if that is or is not 
 secession ? I wish my friend to come to the point, 
 and tell me whether he believes the people of Virginia, 
 in Convention assembled, in the exercise of what he 
 calls their revolutionary power, have the right to secede 
 from this Union ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. If the people choose to rev- 
 olutionize the government they have the right to do it — 
 the revolutionary right, iheyhaveno constitutional 
 right to do so, however. There is nothing in the consti- 
 tution of the federal government, or in the constitution 
 of the State government, that would warrant it, but 
 there is a power above and beyond the constitution, and 
 that is the power of the sword. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I hope my friend will indulge me in 
 asking him one further question. I wish to know wheth- 
 er, when the people have done this thing, they are still 
 bound in their allegiance to the federal constitution as 
 much as they were before, or whether they are dis- 
 charged from it ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. My opinion is this : unsuc- 
 cessful rebellion is treason, successful rebellion is revo- 
 lution. Is the gentleman answered ? 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. No, not at all. Biave not a catego- 
 rical answer from the gentleman. The gentleman will 
 prove that I have not misunderstood him. When the 
 people have met in Convention, and have exercised 
 as he chooses to designate it, the revolutionary power to 
 withdraw from the union of these States, I desire to 
 know whether the people of Virginia are still bound 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 271 
 
 by their allegiance to the federal government, or wheth- 
 er they are discharged from it ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Faquier. I thought I had answered 
 that question. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I ask a categorical answer. Yes or 
 no. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I said that unsuccessful re- 
 bellion was treason, and that successful rebellion was 
 revolution. If I understand the point of the gentle- 
 man's inquiry, and he does not consider this a categori- 
 cal answer, I have this further to say, that I do not be- 
 lieve in this heresy of constitutional secession. I do not 
 believe that it is in the power of any one of the States 
 of this Union, to cast off at its pleasure, the obligations 
 which it has come under to the federal government, and 
 if that attempt is made, and it fails, and the actors are 
 punished under the laws of the United States, they will 
 be denominated felons. Is the gentleman answered? 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I think I understand the gentleman 
 now. His proposition now is, that if the people choose 
 when they meet in Convention, they have the right to 
 revolutionize the government, but if they are whipped 
 in the fight, then they are to be executed as traitors. 
 He makes it out an act of rebellion ; and I told 
 you that he knew full well that an unsuccessful re- 
 bellion was treason. Then I desire to know what dif- 
 ference it makes, whether the peopie of Virginia meet 
 in Convention to accomplish the thing, or whether they 
 accomplish it without meeting in Convention at all. 
 There could be no difference in their position according 
 to his argument, for they would be rebels in either event. 
 In either case, they would have to submit to fate. If 
 unsuccessful they would be executed as traitors, if suc- 
 cessful they would have accomplished a revolution. 
 What good then, would a Convention do them? 
 
 I think, therefore that I have not misunderstood or 
 misrepresented the gentleman. He believes that we have 
 no power but that of rebellion against the government of 
 the United States. Recollect that he said a while ago,that 
 we ought to organize this government of Virginia in refer- 
 ence to its social state and condition, as a member of the 
 confederacy, but he studiously omitted to say a worjd 
 about organizing it as a government of a sovereign State. 
 I therefore conclude, that he believes that we ought not 
 to organize this government in reference to the sover- 
 eignty of the State, and there is where I differ from 
 him. I hold that Virginia, in her present position, is not 
 stripped of her powers as a sovereign State, and that 
 she has not surrendered all her power of sovereignty, in 
 the delegation of powers to the federal government. 
 The gentleman makes a great outcry about the opinions 
 I have avowed on this question, but my only position has 
 been, that in forming a new constitution, we should vest 
 in the executive the same discretion upon this subject 
 that he has possessed under the present constitution. 
 In that respect only, I differ from my friend from 
 Accomac, who believes as I do, that this attribute 
 of sovereignty should be vested somewhere in the gov- 
 ernment. And I would give it to the executive, only 
 because the legislature is not always in session. I 
 think the power to guard the safety of the people 
 should be vested somewhere, where it could be exe- 
 cuted promptly ; and simply because the legislature 
 cannot always act promptly, because not always sit- 
 ting, I would vest it in the governor, as heretofore. 
 
 On motion the committee rose. 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier, the report 
 of the Committee on Education was taken up from the 
 table and referred to the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until Monday 
 morning at 11 o'clock. 
 
 MONDAY, Fcbuaryin, 1851. 
 The C®nvention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Manly. 
 
 The Journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 The PRESIDENT presented the following communi" 
 cation from the Auditor's office, which was read by the 
 Secretary: 
 
 Auditor's Office, 
 Richmond Feb. 15, 1851. 
 Sir : Herewith I have the honor of sending to you, 
 for the use of the State Convention, "A table showing 
 the number of free white persons, over the age of twen- 
 ty years, in the several counties, cities, towns, and grand 
 divisions of the State of Virginia, who cannot read and 
 write;" also, "A table showing the number of free 
 white, free colored, and slave titheables in the several 
 counties, cities, towns, and grand divisions of the State 
 of Virginia, in the years 1830, 1840, and 1850." 
 
 I also send you "A table showing the free white, free 
 colored, and slave population, distinguished in each of 
 the counties, cities, towns, and grand divisions of the 
 commonwealth of Virginia, in the years 1830, 1840, and 
 1850, arid the amount and per cent, of increase or de- 
 crease in each county, city, town, and division aforesaid, 
 of each class of population aforesaid, between the pe- 
 riods aforesaid;" also a table showing the aggregate 
 amount of taxes assessed in each county, city, town, and 
 grand division of the State of Virginia, in the years 
 1840 and 1850, substituting, however, in 1850, the esti- 
 mated tax on lots and lands, in 1851, at the present rate 
 of taxation, under the late assessment, for the actual 
 tax of 1850, under a former assessment ; together with 
 the amount and per cent, of increase or decrease of tax- 
 es, so ascertained, between the periods aforesaid. 
 I have the honor to be, 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 Your ob't servant, 
 
 Ro. P. Johnston. 
 
 First Auditor. 
 
 To the Hon. Jno. Y. Mason, 
 
 President of the Virginia State Convention. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, moved that the communication be 
 laid ©n the table, and ordered to be printed. . 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I would suggest to my friend from 
 Harrison, the propriety of printing an extra number of 
 this document. It is a very valuable and desirable one, 
 and 1 would suggest to him the propriety of moving the 
 printing of two thousand copies of it. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON. I accept the suggestion of my 
 friend and move the printing of two thousand copies, 
 and that the resolution be laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I prefer that the question should be 
 taken first, on printing the document for the use of the 
 members, and that there be a separate question on the 
 additional printing. I do not see the necessity of print- 
 ing an additional number of these Census returns, be- 
 cause we all know that they have to be revised and cor- 
 rected at Washington, and that they will be printed in 
 almost unlimited numbers by congress. It seems to me 
 to be superfluous to involve us in this additional expense 
 of printing, under these circumstances. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I had not supposed there would be 
 the slightest objection to the printing of an additional 
 number of this document for the use of the Convention, 
 when it must be known to every member that the great 
 expense of printing is in setting up the types, and that 
 the increased number would cost but a trifle. It has 
 been suggested also by many of the members of the gen- 
 eral assembly that these documents, or many of them, 
 would be valuable to them in the discharge of their du- 
 ties, and I think it would be but courtesy to them to 
 print enough of these documents to supply them also. 
 It is not to be expected that the printing of the census 
 returns by the federal government, will furnish us with 
 the list of the taxes paid in each of the counties of this 
 State. This is what the document just sent to us fur- 
 nishes, and it is desirable information to ail, and I trust 
 that it will be the pleasure of the Convention to adopt 
 the motion of the gentleman from Harrison. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. The people in the country take very 
 considerable interest in many of the documents that 
 have been prepared and printed by order of the Conven- 
 
272 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 tion. I have been frequently written to for them, but 
 in consequence of the course pursued by the Convention 
 in printing a few copies, I have been unable to furnish 
 them. As it is evident that the expense of printing 
 these documents principally consists in the setting up of 
 the types, I hope it will be the pleasure of the Conven- 
 tion to order the printing of at least a few extra copies 
 of it, in order that not only the members of the legisla- 
 ture may be supplied with them, but the people at large 
 to some extent may have access to them. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. I understand that there is a standing 
 order for the printing of a certain number of all docu- 
 ments for the use of the members. I have no objection 
 to printing that number of this document, and I confess 
 I do not attach a great deal of importance to the print- 
 ing of an extra number. But it seems to me that it 
 would be unnecesary to print a large number of these 
 census returns, when, as I have before said, they will 
 have to be corrected at Washington, and will be printed 
 in almost unlimited numbers thereby order of congress. 
 I feel very little interest in the subject at all, but I de- 
 sire that the question may be taken first on printing the 
 usual number. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated that the question would be 
 divided, to be first taken on the motion to lay on the ta- 
 ble and print according to the standing order. The 
 question would then recur on the motion to print an ex- 
 tra number. 
 
 The question being then taken, the motion to lay on 
 the table and print was agreed to. 
 
 The motion to print two thousand copies was rejected 
 — a count being had — ayes 38 — noes 40. 
 
 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 On motion of Mr. GOODE, the report of the commit- 
 tee on the Legislative Department, was taken from the 
 table and referred to the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. 
 
 Mr. EDWARDS. I beg leave to present to the Con- 
 vention certain amendments, which at the proper time 
 I shall propose to the report of the Committee on the 
 Right of Suffrage, and which I ask may be laid on the 
 table and printed. 
 
 The proposition is as follows : 
 
 1. In the article relating to the qualifications of elec- 
 tors, strike out of the first section all from the word 
 " Commonwealth" in the first line, to the word "provi- 
 ded" in the fourteenth line, and insert, "of the age of 
 twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have resided 
 in the State one year, and in the county, city or town 
 in which he may claim the right to vote three calendar 
 months next preceding an election, shall be deemed a 
 qualified elector ; Provided, nevertheless, that the right 
 of suffrage shall not be exercised by any person who 
 shall ha^e failed to pay 3 before the day of the election 
 at which he may offer to voce, the State and county 
 tax with which he may have been assessed for the pre- 
 ceding year, nor by any person of unsound mind, or who 
 shall be a pauper, or non-commissioned officer, soldier, 
 seaman or marine in the service of the United States, or 
 by any person convicted of an infamous offence." 
 
 2. Strike out the whole of the article in relation to 
 the qualifications of senators and delegates, from the 
 words " age of" in the second line, and insert, " thirty 
 years ; have been a citizen of this commonwealth for 
 two years, and actually a resident of the district for 
 one year next preceding his election. And any per- 
 son may be elected a member of the house of dele- 
 gates who shall have attained to the age of twenty-five 
 years; have been a citizen of this commonwealth for 
 two years, and actually a resident of the county, city, 
 town, or election district for one year next preceding 
 his election ; Provided, however, that all persons holding- 
 offices under the government of this State or of the Uni- 
 ted States, and ministers of the gospel and priests of ev- 
 ery denomination, shall be incapable of being elected 
 members of either house of assembly." 
 
 The proposition was then laid on the table and order- 
 ed to be printed. 
 
 EXECUTIVE — BASIS REPORT PRIORITY OF CONSIDERATION. 
 
 Mr. SCOGGIN. I would inquire whether the report 
 of the basis committee has priority over the executive 
 report to-day ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Both reports have been referred 
 to the committee of the wltole, and the question can on- 
 ly be answered in committee of the whole. The Con- 
 vention has adopted no order on the subject. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. The Convention adopted an order fixing 
 this, as the day on which it would take up the report of 
 the basis committee and consider it on every day here- 
 after until disposed of. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair remembers the order, 
 but what I intended to say was, that it would be for 
 the committee of the whole Convention to determine 
 the question, if it should be raised there. 
 
 Mr. SCOGCIN. I intend, if it be in order, to move 
 the postponement of the consideration of the report of 
 the basis committee, until we shall have gone through 
 with the consideration of the executive report. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. That report is not pending be- 
 fore the Convention. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. It seems to me that the committee of 
 the whole are bound by the order of the Convention 
 made some days ago. I regard that order as equivalent 
 to an order of the day. It was an instruction to the 
 committee of the whole to take up the basis report and 
 consider it. It seems to me, therefore, that when the 
 Convention resolves its elf into a committee of the whole, 
 it is bound to take up that report in obedience to the 
 order made by the Convention. What disposition they 
 may make of the report when they take it up, is anoth- 
 er question to be decided by the committee of the whole. 
 They may take it up and consider it for a time, and then 
 take up any other subject. 
 
 Mi-. SCOGGIN. I ask if it is not competent for the 
 Convention to rescind the order directing this report to 
 be taken up now ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I have been absent from the Con- 
 vention for two or three days, and may not therefore be 
 perfectly conversant with what has been done here. 
 The Convention has undoubtedly the power to direct 
 the committee of the whole as to how it shall dispose 
 of its business. When the Convention shall resolve it- 
 self into committee of the whole, the same gentlemen 
 compose that committee who compose the Convention 
 itself, and therefore if the Convention will give an in- 
 struction to the committee of the whole, it is but a fair 
 and reasonable inference, that the committee of the 
 whole will pursue the same course in regard to its bu- 
 siness if left uninstructed, as if the instructions were 
 adopted by the Convention. I do not understand that 
 an order has been adopted, making it imperative on 
 the committee of the whole to adopt any particular 
 order in regard to its business. I will examine the 
 order. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. The order is obligatory on the course of 
 proceeding in the committee, unless re-considered by the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. So I understood at the time the 
 resolution was offered, and in fact it was offered in pur- 
 suance of an intimation which I received, when a few 
 days previous I had attempted to make it an order of 
 the day. I was then informed by the Chair that it was 
 not competent to make an order of the day in commit- 
 tee, but that the committee of the whole, like any other 
 committee, being in subordination to the Convention, is 
 bound to obey the instruction of the Convention. On 
 the very next day, on Thursday last, I offered a resolu- 
 tion to "accomplish that end which was adopted. And 
 while I am up I will move in pursuance of that resolu- 
 tion, that the Convention now resolve itself into com- 
 mittee of the whole to take up that report. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 273 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Is it not now in order to move a re-con- 
 sideration ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. There is no motion to re-con- 
 sider. 
 
 Mr. BGTTS. Do not the rules provide for a motion 
 to re-consider ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. They do, but the motion must be 
 moved the next day by a gentleman who voted in the 
 majority. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I think the President refers rather to 
 the rule in congress, than the rule adopted by this 
 body. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. There can be no doubt that if the 
 gentleman from Richmond voted for the proposition, 
 that he has certainly the right to move a re-considera- 
 tion. The rule of the Convention is, that any question 
 once decided, must stand as the judgment of the Con- 
 vention, and shall not again be called in question. That 
 does not prevent a motion for re -consideration. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The eighth rale is, " A question 
 being once determined, must stand as the judgment of 
 the Convention, and shall not again be drawn into de- 
 bate." 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Is there no rule thereafter that provides 
 for a motion to re-consider ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. I am not aware of any. The 
 general parliamentary law is. that when the jour- 
 nal of the preceding day is read for approval, it is com- 
 petent for any one who voted in the majority, to ask for 
 a re-consideration, or in other words, that the question 
 shall be again put, that he and others may have an op- 
 portunity to correct their votes. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. The proper motion then, under the de- 
 cision of the Chair, would be to rescind the resolution 
 heretofore adopted. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Kanawha 
 has already submitted a motion to go into committee of 
 the whole. 
 
 Mr. SCOG-GTN. I thought I had made a motion pre- 
 vious to that. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Lunenburg, 
 the Chair supposed, confined himself to an inquiry. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I make this inquiry. Was it ne- 
 cessary that I should submit the motion ? By the terms 
 of the resolution, is not the Convention bound to go into 
 committee at once ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Convention would be bound 
 if the hour was fixed, but there being no hour fixed, it 
 is necessary that a motion should be submitted. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desire to suggest to the Convention 
 that the only consideration that has operated upon my 
 mind iu deciding to move a re-consideration of the res- 
 olution, or in voting now for the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman over the way (Mr. Scoggix) to rescind that res- 
 olution 
 
 Mi*. SUMMERS. With the permission of the gentle- 
 man from Henrico, let us understand where we are. 
 What is the motion pending before the Convention ? Is 
 it not my motion to go into committee of the whole ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair did not understand 
 the gentleman from Lunenburg (Mr. Scoggin) as sub- 
 mitting a motion. If he did, then the Chair is bound to 
 entertain the motion. 
 
 Mr. SCOG-GTN. It was certainly my intention so to 
 do, and the gentlemen around me so understood me. I 
 was merely asking information on a question of order. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. The gentleman rose and indicated 
 his purpose, when in order, to submit a motion, which 
 under the construction that the Chair at the time put 
 on the rule, the Chair indicated to him it was not then 
 in order to make. The Chair having since re-consider- 
 ed its decision on that subject, the gentleman from Lu 
 nenburg's motion is certainly as .much before the Con- 
 vention at this time, as if the Chair at the time had con- 
 sidered it in order. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. But in the meantime I had sub- 
 mitted a motion to go into committee, which motion, I 
 understand, is not debatable. 
 3S8 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I understand from the Chair that that 
 motion is not now pending. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The only motion pending is that 
 made by the gentleman from Kanawha. The Chair has 
 not re-considered or changed its decision on the subject. 
 The question put by the gentleman from Lunenburg 
 (Mr. Scoggin) was, whether it was competent for the 
 Convention to go into committee, on another question. 
 The Chair replied that it was a question for the com- 
 mittee to decide. There is really no practicable differ- 
 ence here. Whether the question be put on the motion 
 of the gentleman from Kanawha, or on the motion indi- 
 cated by the gentleman from Lunenburg, the result will 
 be exactly the same. 
 
 A MEMBER. One motion is debatable, the other is 
 not. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I submit, with very great deference to 
 the Chair, whether if the gentleman from Lunenburg 
 did submit a proposition to rescind the resolution, the 
 Chair is not under obligation to entertain the motion, 
 whether it heard it or not ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Unquestionably. The Chair ac- 
 knowledges the obligation fully, and if the gentleman 
 from Lunenburg will say that he did submit a motion to 
 that effect, the Chair will certainly entertain it. Will 
 the gentleman from Lunenburg state what his motion 
 was ? 
 
 Mr. SCOG-GLN. There is some impression around 
 that I did not do what I intended to do. My object in 
 making the inquiry of the Chair was with a view to 
 ascertain if it was in order to make the motion. The 
 Chair, however, did not decide in time to give me a 
 chance. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I presume it will be equally in order, 
 if I can obtain my object by assigning my reasons why 
 we should not go into committee of the whole on the 
 Basis. 
 
 Several MEMBERS. The motion is not debatable. 
 
 Mi-. WATT£. I would suggest to the gentleman 
 from Henrico that if we adopt the motion of the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha, and go into committee of the 
 whole on the Basis question, if the committee do not 
 think proper to go on with that question, they can rise 
 and report and then take up such other questions as 
 they design. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. What is the question now before the 
 committee ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is on the motion to go into 
 committee of the whole. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Am I not at liberty to assign a reason 
 why we should not go into committee of the whole ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Under the 9th rule, I do not un- 
 derstand that the gentleman is. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Then we are sitting here in Convention 
 with no power to re-consider a question, or to state rea- 
 sons, &c. 
 
 < The PRESIDENT. It is competent for the Conven- 
 tion to alter its rules, or to rescind an order. It is, 
 perhaps, a misapprehension of terms under which gen- 
 tlemen labor in reference to the decision of the Chair. 
 The rule adopted by the Convention is, that its decis- 
 ions must stand, and not be again brought into debate. 
 But it is in order to make a motion to rescind, which 
 is equivalent to a motion to re-consider, and if the 
 Convention do not adopt that motion, it is still compe- 
 tent for the committee of the whole to pass by the 
 subject, and rise and report, thus putting in the control 
 of the Convention, at every step of its proceedings, the 
 disposition of its business. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Is it in order to move to suspend the 
 rule? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Not until the Convention have 
 decided on the motion of the gentleman from Kanawha. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Well, then, I will give up for the pre- 
 sent. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Under the ninth rule it is the ques- 
 tion of reference that is not debatable, and that ques- 
 tion has been decided. The question that is not debata- 
 
274 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ble is not now before the body, and all motions are de- 
 batable except those which it is provided shall not be. 
 The Chair is perfectly right in having disregarded the 
 suggestion of the gentleman from Lunenburg as a mo- 
 tion, and it was perfectly in order for the gentleman 
 from Kanawha to move to go into committee of the 
 whole. Upon the decision of that motion rests the 
 question whether the Convention will go into commit- 
 tee of the whole on this subject, or not. The Con- 
 vention might refuse to go into committee for the whole 
 day, and if it did, then the resolution would fall, of 
 course, and a new resolution would have to be offered to 
 go into committee on another day. The Chair is not 
 wrong in its position, as a reference to the manual will 
 phow. The question of going into committee is always 
 to be determined on a motion. The resolution before 
 us is, in my view, in the nature of an order of the day — 
 that is, that on such a day the Convention will go into 
 committee of the whole. Now what is the parliament- 
 ary rule on the subject ? It is, that when an order has 
 been made that a particular subject shall be taken up 
 on a particular day, the question is put, when the ques- 
 tion is called up, whether the body will then proceed to 
 the consideration of the matter. Surely, gentlemen do 
 not consider the resolution, adopted the other day, as 
 any more than an order of the day: and even an order 
 of the day requires a motion to go into committee. I 
 maintain, therefore, that it is perfectly in order, on a 
 motion to go into committee of the whole, for gentle- 
 men to suggest the reason whether we shall go into 
 committee or not, and that the Convention has a right 
 to determine whether it will, or not. This is my view 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. According to my recollection, I 
 think that in the early part of the session, when the 
 motion was first made to go into committee of the 
 whole on the executive report, the precise question 
 was raised whether it was in order to discuss that mo- 
 tion. If I am not mistaken, on that occasion, the Chair 
 decided that it was in order to discuss the question, and 
 many speeches were made on both sides, on the subject. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I understand that the Chair has made a 
 decision, and that there is no appeal from that decision. 
 I ask, then, that the question may be put, or that this 
 question of order shall not be further discussed when no 
 appeal has been taken. 
 
 Mr. WOOLFOLK. I think there can be no difficulty 
 about this matter. If any gentleman desires to pro- 
 ceed with the consideration of the report of the execu- 
 tive committee, all he has to do is to move to amend 
 the motion of the gentleman from Kanawha, by insert- 
 ing that the Convention will go into committee, and 
 take up for consideration the report of that committee. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair will always take plea- 
 sure, in regard to the proceedings of this body, in re- 
 ceiving suggestions upon any new questions that may 
 arise. The order that was adopted in regard to the bu- 
 siness of the Convention, is in these words : 
 
 Resolved, That the Convention will, on Monday the 
 17th inst, and daily thereafter until otherwise ordered, 
 resolve itself into a committee of the whole house for 
 the purpose of considering the report on the basis and 
 apportionment of representation, and such other amend- 
 ments as may be offered thereto. 
 
 This is a standing order of the Convention until it 
 shall be otherwise ordered. At its pleasure, therefore, 
 the Convention may otherwise order. The power not 
 only exists generally, but is expressly conferred in the 
 resolution itself. It is not competent to re-consider that 
 order, for that is a technical expression, and would ope- 
 rate to set aside the order as if it had never been made. 
 But the power of the Convention, while it does not ex- 
 tend to re-consideration in the technical sense, necessa- 
 rily extends to the power of rescinding, and thus attains 
 the object of a re-consideration. The resolution fixes no 
 hour at which the Convention shall resolve itself into 
 committee of the whole, and it is necessary, therefore, 
 
 as in all matters that are orders of the day, that there 
 should be a motion made for the purpose of executing 
 that order. 
 
 The interpretation which the Chair puts upon it is, 
 that the order prescribes the course of proceeding, and 
 that a motion is necessary to go into committee under 
 that order. If, on the motion made by the gentleman 
 from Kanawha, the Convention determine to go into 
 committee of the whole, the first question that comes 
 up before the committee will be the report on the basis 
 of representation. But then the committee of the 
 whole will have the control of the subject, and may 
 pass it by, and report to the Convention, and the Con- 
 vention can make another order, if it is their pleasure 
 to do so. There can be no difficulty on the subject at 
 all, for the simple reason that the same gentlemen com- 
 pose the committee of the whole as compose the Con- 
 vention. I am not sure that the question of going into 
 committee is r not one on which reasons may not be as- 
 signed. The ninth rule, which has been alluded to, is, 
 that the reports of the various committees, when made, 
 are to be referred without debate. Upon reflection, I 
 do not think that the rule applies to a motion to go into 
 committee of the whole. I am not, therefore, pre- 
 pared to decide that the motion to go into committee 
 of the whole is not one which, to a certain extent, is de- 
 batable. I am inclined to think — and, unless some 
 gentleman shall suggest reasons to the contrary, shall 
 decide — that it is a question upon which reasons may 
 be given why it should, or should not, be done. I shall 
 be happy to hear suggestions from gentlemen who may 
 differ from this construction. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. My own impression is, 
 that in the present condition of the question , reasons 
 cannot be assigned why we should not go into commit- 
 tee. There is an imperative order of the Convention, 
 that on this day the house will resolve itself into com- 
 mittee of the whole, and my colleague has moved that 
 the Convention do now resolve itself into committee 
 of the whole. What will it avail to suggest reasons to 
 the Convention why we should not go into committee, if 
 it be true that this order adopted by the Convention is 
 imperative upon the Convention ? The suggestion of 
 reasons can result in no valuable purpose. The motion 
 of my colleague takes precedence of any proposition to 
 rescind that order. The question must be submitted 
 to the Convention, and, therefore, I beg leave most re- 
 spectfully to say, that it does seem to me that, under 
 the peculiar circumstances in which we are placed, that 
 it is not competent, on this motion, to designate any 
 reasons why we should not go into committee of the 
 whole. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion, that un- 
 der a proper interpretation of the rule, that reasons 
 may be given, at any hour of the day, why the Con- 
 vention should not then resolve itself into committee 
 of the whole. It is in order, therefore, for the gentle- 
 man from Henrico to state his reasons, if he desires to 
 do so. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I desired only to suggest a single rea- 
 son why I was opposed to the order, and why I desired 
 it to be re-considered or rescinded. I decidedly prefer 
 that the basis report shall be the last that shall be acted 
 upon by the Convention. Personally I am entirely in- 
 different to the order of business. I had as lief, person- 
 ally, take up that question as any other, and any other 
 as that. But, in consideration of the public duty, be- 
 lieving that I shall best promote the interests of those 
 who sent me here, as well as the best interests of the 
 entire Commonwealth, I decidedly prefer to see every 
 other question acted on before that is taken up, and for 
 one reason, and that only. The reason has had its influ- 
 ence upon my mind, and I have no doubt that it has en- 
 tered into the minds of other gentlemen. If we take up 
 this basis report, and act upon it as the first question 
 that is to be considered, I am apprehensive that we 
 shall adopt a provision iu the constitution that will be 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 275 
 
 obnoxious to a very large p©rtion of this body. Adopt 
 what basis you may, .take either of the reports that 
 have been submitted to the committee, and it must be 
 objectionable to a very large portion, consisting of very 
 nearly half of this body. Now, I mean to make no im- 
 putation upon the motives of any gentleman here, but 
 human nature is human nature the world over, and 
 what I apprehend is this — 
 
 Mr. W IS E. I rise to a point of order. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. State the point of order. 
 
 Mr. WISE. My point of order is this : This Con- 
 vention has solemnly resolved the very point which the 
 gentleman is discussing. He is not debating, under the 
 decision of the Chair, whether we shall go into commit- 
 tee at this hour, but whether we shall take up the basis 
 report first or last. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I call the gentleman to order, unless he 
 takes an appeal from the decision of the Chair. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Accomac is 
 stating his point of order. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The Chair has decided that the point to 
 be discussed is, whether we shall go into committee this 
 day at the hoar moved. The Chair has decided that 
 the Convention has adopted, as a standing order, the 
 resolution to go into committee some time to-day, but 
 as no hour was fixed, a motion was required to go into 
 committee at some hour. Now, that is the sole ques- 
 tion here. The question which the gentleman from 
 Henrico is discussing id, whether we shall, in effect, re- 
 scind the resolution or not. He is giving reasons to 
 show that we ought not, in fact, to have adopted that 
 resolution — that we ought not to have resolved, to-day, 
 to take up the basis report. I hope that the Chair will 
 understand me. I say that the only point that remains 
 to be determined is, whether we shall agree to the mo- 
 tion to go into committee, or not, at this hour, and not 
 whether we shall take up the basis report first or last. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The decision of the Chair was, 
 that reasons might be suggested why the Convention 
 should not now entertain the motion to go into commit- 
 tee of the whole, for the purpose of executing this or- 
 der adopted by the Convention. The objection to the 
 arguments of the gentleman from Henrico is, that they 
 go to the merits of the original question. The Chair 
 cannot decide that that course of debate is out of order. 
 It may be a reason for not going into' committee of the 
 whole. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I was about to say, when I was inter- 
 rupted by the gentleman from Accomac, that human 
 nature is human nature the world over, and that I in- 
 tended to cast no imputation upon the motives or con- 
 duct of any gentleman here, when I expressed my ap- 
 prehension that if we take up this question first, and 
 make a decision upon it, so obnoxious to so large a por- 
 tion of the house, as I apprehend it will be, let it be de- 
 cided as it may, that instead of bending all our energies 
 to perfect a constitution, and to make every part of the 
 constitution as perfect as passible, that there will be an 
 indisposition to labor to that end, if there is not a dis- 
 position of an opposite character to make every other 
 provision as objectionable as it may be made, in order 
 to secure the rejection of the constitution when it shall 
 come to be submitted to the people. Now, I believe 
 that if we take up every other proposition first — and I 
 can see no reason for hastening this question, and I do 
 not believe that its determination is to depend upon the 
 time at which it is to be taken up — there will be a gen- 
 eral and universal desire on the part of every mem- 
 ber of this body, to perfect every part of the con- 
 stitution and to make it as acceptable as possible to the 
 people of the Commonwealth. On the other hand, I 
 believe that if we make the first provision so obnox- 
 ious and unacceptable to a large portion of the body, 
 that we shall find gentlemen here looking to destroy in- 
 stead of looking to perfect it. That is the reason, and 
 the only reason, which has operated on my mind in this 
 
 matter, and I think it is entitled to the consideration of 
 the members of this body. 
 
 Mr. SCOGCIN. The only reason that I desired that 
 the consideration of the basis report should be postpon- 
 ed, was, that I thought that time might be saved by get- 
 ting through with the consideration of the executive re- 
 port. I had no other idea than the saviDg of time, and 
 I do not see how any inconvenience can result to any 
 body by the adoption of that course. When I inquired 
 of the Chair if it was in order to submit a motion, and 
 when, while waiting for the decision of the Chair, and 
 before I could submit that motion, the gentleman from 
 Kanawha moved to go into committee of the whole, 
 that was the only object I had in view. I desired, with 
 a view of saving time, that we should dispose of the 
 executive report, before we took up the report on the 
 basis. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I regret that the submission of a 
 motion by myself interferes in any degree with the pur- 
 poses of the gentleman from Lunenburg. I certainly 
 was not aware that he had indicated his purpose of sub- 
 mitting a motion, or I should not have interfered with 
 his intentions in that respect. The reason he suggests 
 for not going into committee of the whole for the pur- 
 pose of considering the basis question, is a very legiti- 
 mate one for those who think as he does. It may be 
 that a large portion of the Convention may be of the 
 opinion that it is better to go on with the report of the 
 executive committee and finish it before we take up oth- 
 er business, and how far this opinion may be correct or 
 incorrect, it is not for me, of course, to determine. But 
 I regret that my friend from Henrico has deemed it his 
 duty to submit the reason which he has, why we should 
 not proceed to the consideration of the basis report. 
 He seems to think that if we shall go into this exciting 
 subject, let it be determined as it may, it will unfit us 
 for the due consideration of the other great questions 
 connected with the remodeling of our organic law. 
 Now, if I am not very much mistaken, if my memory 
 has not failed me in this particular, my friend from the 
 county of Henrico, in the month of October, united with 
 those who desired an adjournment of the Convention 
 for the very purpose of procuring the materials upon 
 which we were to act upon this very identical question. 
 I understood the gentleman as concurring with those 
 who advocated the adjournment of the Convention, 
 that the basis question should stand in the front and not 
 in the rear, where he now seeks to place it. I certainly 
 understood that gentleman with others who voted for 
 the adjournment of the Convention at that time, to do 
 so for the reasons suggested by the gentleman from Hal- 
 ifax, and I believe, by the gentleman from Pittsylva- 
 nia, that this basis question should precede all others. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. Will the gentleman allow me to cor- 
 rect him ? 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. He is entirely mistaken. I voted for 
 the adjournment in order to afford time and opportunity 
 to obtain statistical information deemed important to 
 the consideration of this basis question. And I call on 
 the gentleman himself, as well as every other gentle- 
 man, to bear witness to the fact* that I stated on that 
 occasion, as I have stated to-day, that, for my own part, 
 I was perfectly indifferent as to the order of business, 
 but that my belief was, that if we remained in session 
 from the 1st of October until the 1st of January, with- 
 out these statistics, that nothing would be done, except 
 to turn our hall of meeting into a political debating 
 club room. My object was to save time. But if it was 
 not, if the gentleman has not misapprehended me, I pre- 
 sume it would be a sufficient answer to him to say, that 
 upon reflection I have changed my mind. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. Every gentleman has the right to 
 change his mind on any question, and I do not charge 
 any thing improper in the gentleman from Henrico if 
 this change has come over him. I may be mistaken in 
 assigning the gentleman the position whieh my memory 
 
276 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 does, but has he not said that now, which is equivalent 
 to taking the same position? He says that he expressed 
 himself as personally indifferent to the course of pro- 
 ceeding, as he now expresses himself, but he took it for 
 granted, that if the Convention proceeded to the con- 
 sideration of other departments of the government, in 
 the absence of materials, having reference to the basis 
 question, that the body would be converted into a po- 
 litical debating society, or something of the kind. "Was 
 it not a natural inference then, that the basis question 
 should first occupy the consideration of the body ? Oth- 
 erwise, what was the necessity for the statistics, the 
 absence of which produced the adjournment ? If then 
 he was in favor of the adjournment of the Convention, 
 for the purpose of procuring this statistical infoimation, 
 to enable the Convention to proceed to the considera- 
 tion of the subject of the basis, does it not necessarily 
 follow that he must have entertained the opinion, 
 that the basis question should first have occupied the 
 attention of the body ? If, in the absence of this in- 
 formation, we were in a condition to do nothing, and 
 could have proceeded to the consideration usefully of 
 no other branch of the Constitution, it carries with it 
 the concession that this subject ought first to have occu- 
 pied the attention of the body. But I have regarded 
 it as conceded all around. It had seemed to me to be 
 the general, if not the universal opinion in this body, 
 that this great agitating question should first be grap- 
 pled with, and I had certainly considered the gentleman 
 from Henrico as concurring in that opinion. The ad- 
 journment of the Convention, and every thing which has 
 occurred since, has but confirmed me in the belief that 
 the general opinion was, that we should first take hold 
 of that subject and settle it. Let me ask the gentleman 
 from Henrico, if his opinion or prophecy be correct, that 
 if we proceed now to the disposition of this subject, 
 that there will be half the house one way or the other 
 dissatisfied, and that we shall be in a condition unfit- 
 ting us for the proper consideration of the other busi- 
 ness of the Convention, if he does not perceive that if 
 we now pass by this subject, and proceed to the consid- 
 eration of other business, that he will be producing the 
 very feeling that he anticipates ? And while up, per- 
 mit me to say that one very great consideration with 
 me, in now desiring to go into committee for the pur- 
 pose of taking up this basis report, is, that we may rid 
 ourselves of other and exciting topics of agitating dis- 
 cussion, which, with all due deference to those who 
 have participated in it, I cannot but regard as an ex- 
 tremely unfortunate one to have been aroused here. If 
 I have any knowledge of what we were sent here to do, 
 we were at least not sent here, as I conceive, to discuss 
 or to decide whether secession would be a constitutional 
 remedy for State grievances, or whether it be a right 
 of revolution. Where are we now ? Upon an open sea, 
 wide and shoreless ; and if we shall fail to go into the 
 consideration of this basis question, this executive re- 
 port again comes up, and we are to go still further on 
 with the wide and boundless discussion which has been 
 entertained here in reference to the powers of the exec- 
 utive, and the powers that shall be conferred upon him. 
 A foreigner who should have come among us within the 
 last two or three days, unacquainted with our institu- 
 tions and with the proceedings of this body, might well 
 have conceived that we were here deliberating on a ques- 
 tion of peace and war, and on the propriety of a de- 
 claration of war. The least he could say would be that 
 there were those here who deemed it more important 
 to arm the State government with the power to battle 
 with and resist the authority of the federal government, 
 than to infuse into the State government itself those 
 principles which shall give it internal vigor and develop 
 its own powers and resources. I think that the people 
 of this Commonwealth sent us here to infuse into this 
 government of ours a degree of popular energy which 
 it has never yet had. They have not sent us here to go 
 out of the Union, to resist the action of another gov- 
 ernment to which we belong and of which we are a part, 
 
 but to settle the foundation of our own prosperity, and to 
 place our institutions on the best and wisest footing. And 
 it is for the very purpose of getting rid of topics so agitat- 
 ing and exciting as those which have recently entered this 
 body, that I prefer now to go into the consideration of 
 this basis question. You talk of the basis question as 
 being an agitating one, and as unfitting the minds of the 
 members of this body to proceed candidly and fairly to 
 the consideration of other subjects, yet are you better 
 enabled thus to discharge your duty from a participa- 
 tion in the still more exciting topics of discussion which 
 have entered here ? Lay aside the basis question and 
 go on with the question of secession and disunion, and 
 what have you gained by the change that will enable 
 you coolly, calmly and wisely to lay the foundation of 
 your State government ? 
 
 I hope that it will not be the pleasure of this body to 
 rescind this resolution, solemnly adopted on Thursday 
 last, and which was regarded on all sides as an expres- 
 sion of the determination of this body to take up the 
 basis question first, and to proceed with it. I hope it 
 will adhere to that resolution. If it be an agitating 
 question, and one calculated to excite feeling here, let it 
 be remembered that it is one which above all others in- 
 terests and excites our constituents. The whole State 
 is interested in our proceeding to the settlement of this 
 question in some form, and I will not indulge in the 
 gloomy anticipations which the gentleman from Henri- 
 co has expressed here, and I hope that his prophecy will 
 not be fulfilled. Although I do not concur in the remark 
 made by his colleague the other day, that he was more 
 distinguished for his spirit of prophecy than any thing 
 else, I do hope that at least in this instance, his pro- 
 phetic vision will be found to have been mistaken. I 
 will not permit myself to believe that after we have set- 
 tled this question, we shall be found arrayed as we are 
 now arrayed — half on one side and half on the other — 
 the one exulting triumphant and the other greatly dis- 
 satisfied and desponding. I hope we shall come to bet- 
 ter results than the gentleman anticipates, and I shall 
 yet cling to the hope that we may arrive at results much 
 more in accordance with the general wish, and more 
 harmonizing with the prosperity and glory of this old 
 commonwealth. I hope, therefore, this resolution will 
 not be rescinded, and that the report will at once be 
 taken up. I will conclude the remarks which I have 
 thus hastily thrown out, by asking for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. In rising to reply to the gentleman 
 from Kanawha, I beg leave to say it is net because I 
 consider myself, as in the slightest degree obnoxious to 
 his animadversions in regard to the debate which has 
 taken place on the executive report. The gentleman 
 has wholly misunderstood the nature of my objection. 
 I simply expressed an apprehension — I did not make 
 the prophecy. An apprehension or a fear expressed 
 is not a prophecy. I merely expressed the apprehension 
 that if we decided this question as we must decide it, 
 either in favor of the one plan or the other, that it would 
 produce a very unhappy and unpleasant state of things. 
 It was not the agitation of the question, and I never 
 apprehended the discussion of the question was to un- 
 balance the minds of this body for the determination 
 of other great questions, nor do I indulge in the appre- 
 hensions of the gentleman that the discussion of the 
 question of secession and nullification is to disqualify 
 the minds of the members of this body from the settle- 
 ment of other important questions. Not at all. I de- 
 precate the introduction of these questions into this 
 body as much as any other gentleman, but I can see no 
 effect which this discussion is to produce on my mind, or 
 on the mind of any other member, so as to prejudice in 
 the slightest degree the consideration of other questions. 
 But the very thing is, the decision which may be arrived 
 at on this basis question. We do know that there are 
 two sectional parties here contending for opposite prin- 
 ciples in regard to this basis of representation, and the 
 apprehension that I expressed was. that when you came 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 277 
 
 to decide and fix in the constitution, as you cannot fix 
 nullification and secession in your constitution, a propo- 
 sition so objectionable to a large portion of this Conven- 
 tion as either of these basis reports, that they may be- 
 come utterly indifferent to the fate of other questions, 
 if it did not produce a desire on their part to make ev- 
 ery other provision of the constitution equally objection- 
 able to the particular section of country against whom 
 this question should be decided, so as to insure its defeat 
 before the people. Thus, instead of perfecting the work 
 we are sent here to perform, we should be engaged in 
 destroying it. That was my idea. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I voted for the adjournment of 
 the Convention with the express understanding that the 
 basis question was the foundation upon which this con- 
 stitution was to stand, and I had thought that all those 
 gentlemen from eastern Virginia who voted with me, 
 together with those from western Virginia, in favor of 
 that adjournment, were influenced by the same consid- 
 erations. But it seems to me that the gentlemen are 
 now disposed to shingle the house before the walls have 
 been raised. I am, however, still of the opinion that 
 this question of the basis should be settled before any 
 other step is taken in the progress of our labors. And 
 if we are to break up without accomplishing any thing, 
 why in my opinion the sooner this Convention adjourns 
 the better. If no constitution is to be framed by this 
 body that will be adopted by the people, why the soon- 
 er the deliberations of this body are brought to a close, 
 the better it will be for the commonwealth. And re- 
 garding this question as the first which should be settled, 
 and as the only one in regard to which there will be 
 much difference of opinion in this Convention, I hope 
 that we shall at once enter upon its consideration. And 
 in giving my vote to that end, I shall be only carrying 
 out the purpose established by the adjournment of the 
 Convention in October last. 
 
 Mr. COX. As the yeas and nays have been orderev), 
 I desire to state briefly the reason which will govern 
 me in the vote I am called upon to give. I prefer, with 
 the gentleman from Henrico, that the basis question 
 should be the last settled, and I believe with him that 
 we would be more likely to have abetter constitution if 
 the question was settled last. But the question with me 
 is, can this be done, and I put the question to every gen- 
 tleman here who has watched the progress of our debates 
 from the very moment we met down to the present time ? 
 I appeal to every gentleman who has noticed the lati- 
 tude of discussion indulged inhere, if on every occasion 
 the question of the basis has not in some shape or other 
 been lugged into it \ This has induced me to believe 
 that we can settle no question until we have first settled 
 the basis. If I thought, with the gentleman from Hen- 
 rico, that we could do it, I would vote with him, and 
 put off the basis to the last ; but believing that we can 
 settle no other question until the basis question is set- 
 tled, I shall vote now to go into committee of the whole, 
 and proceed with it until it is decided. I believe that 
 unless some such plan is adopted, there will be no tell- 
 ing when our debates will close. I have no hopes cer- 
 tainly that we shall get away before dog-days. 1 hope, 
 therefore, we shall at once proceed to the settlement of 
 this basis question, and however it may be settled, I 
 trust we shall go on harmoniously to make the best con- 
 stitution we can. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I voted in the month of October 
 for the adjournment of this Convention, until these ma- 
 terials could be procured ; and as I intend to vote now 
 against the motion of the gentleman from Kanawha, I 
 beg leave to state why I do so. It is with no purpose 
 on my part of postponing the decision of the basis 
 question, until we shall have decided all others. But 
 I am of opinion now — I know it is so in regard to my- 
 self, and I apprehend it is so in relation to other mem- 
 bers — that we are not prepared to-day, to take up this 
 basis question. I believe the two reports presented by 
 the committee do not present in any tangible form for 
 our discussion, the real question of the basis of repre- 
 
 sentation. I believe that question is presented in the 
 form of the amendment submitted by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier ; and that has this morning, for the first 
 time, been put in my hands in a printed form. I desire 
 time to examine it, and I should have been very glad if 
 my friend from Kanawha (Mr. Summers) had consented 
 to postpone this matter, for at least one day longer. It 
 is a very grave question, and I am perfectly certain, in 
 my own mind, that if we go into discussion now, upon 
 the reports submitted by these two committees, or by 
 the committee in the name of its two sub-committees, 
 that we shall make no progress. We shall find our- 
 selves, as a matterof necessity, involved in a discussion,, 
 not of the basis of representation, but, in the first place, 
 as to the mode in which the representation ought to be 
 apportioned in the four great divisions of the Common- 
 wealth. I hope, therefore, it will be the pleasure of 
 the Convention not to go into that subject to-day,, 
 but to pass it by until all shall have had an opportunity 
 of examining this amendment, which in my judgment, 
 does present the real question for us to discuss. 
 
 Mr. EDMUNDS. As those with whom I act upon 
 this question are not ready to go into this discussion to- 
 day, I trust that the Convention will postpone the order 
 for a day or two, with the understanding that it shall be 
 taken up in a very short time. It is a mere question of 
 courtesy I think. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The remark submitted by my 
 friend from Halifax, (Mr. Edmunds,) calls upon me to 
 act upon a ground not heretofore presented. He re- 
 quests the postponement for a short time on the ground 
 of the want of preparation on the part of some gen- 
 tlemen in the body, to proceed in the discussion now. 
 If I pursued the inclinations of my mind, I shou]d most 
 cheerfully yield to any suggestion of the kind. But 
 there is a difficulty which presents itself. If we pass 
 this matter to-day, when shall we get at it again. If 
 we pass this matter to-day, and go into a discussion of 
 the questions which have arisen on the executive report, 
 to-morrow, or the next day, will find us still further re- 
 moved from any probability of taking hold of questions 
 arising on the basis report. If gentlemen will devise 
 any scheme by which the laying over the basis report 
 to-day, will not prevent us from certainly taking it up 
 to-morrow, why, so far as an individual member is con- 
 cerned, I have no objection. But unless I can be satis- 
 fied that passing it by to-day, will not result in produ- 
 cing still greater uncertainty as to the time when it 
 shall come up, I must adhere to the motion which I made. 
 And 1 would remarkto my friend on the other side, that 
 when we have gone into the committee of the whole, 
 and made some progress, it may be that a motion to 
 rise may be made before any necessity shall arise for 
 any objection on their part. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I should be perfectly content, so far 
 as lam concerned, that the day after to-marrow should 
 be fixed, with the general approbation, for taking up this 
 basis report. I do not know the precise manner in 
 which this is to be accomplished. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I ask my friend from Loudoun, 
 if we go into the consideration of the executive re- 
 port, if it may not be that to-morrow when we adjourn, 
 some gentleman will be entitled to the floor. A ques- 
 tion of deep importance may be started, explanations 
 may be considered necessary, in order to place a gen- 
 tleman in his proper position before the country, and 
 thus the basis question may again be shut out. A 
 Sunday having intervened since the last discussion on 
 the executive report, it seems to me the better course 
 will be to begin afresh with another subject this morn- 
 ing. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. This further difficulty presents itself 
 to my mind. Suppose we fail to-day to go into commit- 
 tee of the whole on this subject, will it not in effect re- 
 scind and destroy this force of the order ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. No sir, not unless another or- 
 der was adopted. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. Then I suppose we might pass it by, 
 if gentlemen so earnestly desire it, with a general un- 
 
278 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 derstanding as to when it shall be taken up, without any 
 serious inconvenience. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I think that by going on with the re- 
 port of the basis committee, we shall attain at least 
 one good end, and that is, get clear of the discussion 
 which has sprung up on the report of the executive 
 committee. That, I think, is a very important consid- 
 eration. There is another reason also, why we should 
 go on with the report. It is certainly the most import- 
 ant question that will come up for consideration, and it 
 commends itself therefore to primary consideration on 
 account of its intrinsic importance. My friend from 
 Loudoun says that he is not prepared, but no one, I 
 suppose, has any idea that this discussion will terminate 
 to-day, or to-morrow, or next day. 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I did not say that I would take any 
 part in the discussion. When I said I was not prepared, 
 I meant that I was not ready to go into the considera- 
 tion of the question. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. Then there is no reason for a postpone- 
 ment, for if my friend is not prepared to vote now, he 
 certainly will be, by the time this discussion terminates. 
 I hope, therefore, he will withdraw his objection to pro- 
 ceeding to the consideration of this report. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. I am one of those who originally 
 thought that this question of the basis ought to be the 
 last settled by this body, and that we might have gone 
 on to settle all others before we proceeded to its consid- 
 eration. I am perfectly satisfied, however, from the 
 discussions which have taken place during the last 
 twelve or fourteen days, that we can never proceed with 
 the arrangement of any of the departments of govern- 
 ment, until we have disposed of this question of the ba- 
 sis. Therefore, if the gentleman from Kanawha will 
 defer his motion for a few days, and let us dispose of 
 the question now pending, I, for one, will unite with 
 him and others in advocating the taking up of the basis 
 question, in order to make at once a final disposition of 
 it. I ask of the gentleman that he will accept the prop- 
 osition made by the gentleman from Loudoun, and let 
 this question be deferred until Wednesday, and then we 
 may all come better prepared, having finished this part 
 of the executive report, for the consideration of the ba- 
 sis report. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. I am reluctant to 
 trouble the Convention, but to my mind there is a doubt 
 at least, whether at some future day we can go into 
 committee of the whole on this subject, without now 
 taking it up, arising from the terms of the order itself. 
 That order declares that on this day the Convention 
 will resolve itself into a committee of the whole, and 
 so on from day to day. If we fail this day to resolve 
 ourselves into committee of the whole, is not the order 
 rendered null and void, and is it not necessary, there- 
 fore, to take some substantive and distinct action in re- 
 gard to it ? My object in rising is to ask the atten- 
 tion of the Chair to the terms of the order, and to in- 
 quire whether the result will not follow which I have 
 indicated. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It would appear to me beyond 
 doubt, that the order is a subsisting one, and that it 
 will no more effect that order, should the Convention 
 fail to go into committee to-day, than it would if it 
 should fail to do so any day afterwards. But the mat- 
 ter can be arranged beyond all doubt, if there is any 
 doubt on the subject. If the Convention will resolve 
 itself into committee of the whole, they can pass the 
 subject by and not act on it until a subsequent day. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I hope that course will not be taken, for 
 the reason of the decision which the Chair has made, a 
 reason that will decide my mind not to postpone, upon 
 the ground that a motion was attempted to be made 
 this morning to rescind the rule, which motion was an- 
 ticipated by a motion to go into committee of the whole, 
 upon which the Chair entertained a discussion of the 
 whole merits of the question of rescinding the rule. 
 When the question of going into committee comes up 
 again, we shall have another discussion of the question 
 
 of rescinding the rule, and so on from day to day, and 
 thus this rule which has once been adopted and made a 
 standing order of the Convention, will be kept open from 
 day to day ad infinitum. ISTow that is a controlling 
 reason with me not to postpone this order. I shall vote 
 to go into committee now and for the reasons so clearly 
 and wisely stated by the gentleman from Chesterfield 
 (Mr. Cox.) Every gentleman here will reserve something 
 in his own mind made to depend upon the question of 
 the basis of representation. This debate upon the ex- 
 ecutive department has been kept open for no other 
 purpose than to wait the coming in of the other question. 
 It has been spun out, it has been widened by reason of 
 waiting for this basis question. The question will come 
 up on every other subject other than that of the basis 
 question, and from now until long past the dog-days you 
 will have discussion spun out and attenuated, ad infini- 
 tum, until the basis is fully settled. The moment that 
 great struggle is over and all the strength of debate, all 
 the desire for debate, and all the voting is at an end up- 
 on this question, at once this body collapses, and the 
 other questions will appear to be of so much less conse- 
 quence that we can easily come to a decision upon them. 
 I for one shall vote upon the other questions in this body 
 as if the basis question did not exist. I shall vote pre- 
 cisely on the other questions of reform now as I would 
 hereafter, whether this basis question be decided pro or 
 con. As to the reason assigned by the gentleman from 
 Loudoun that he is not ready because one of the proposi- 
 tions has but just come in to-day, it does not appear to 
 me to be sufficient for a postponement. The proposition, 
 of the gentleman from Fauquier does not differ from the 
 proposition already before the Convention except that 
 the one is a blank proposition and the other is not. I 
 do not know who is prepared or who is not prepared for 
 a blank proposition, and a proposition of that kind may 
 defer our action forever, but I am certain that nothing 
 can be done, that nothing will be done, and that every 
 thing in the heavens above and on the earth below will be 
 debated and discussed until this basis question is settled. 
 Settle that and we are at once collapsed and ready to 
 go home. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion to go into 
 committee of the whole and there were yeas 80, nays 32, 
 as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. John Y.Mason,(Pres't,)An Person, Arm- 
 strong, Arthur, Banks, Barbour, Beale, Bird of Shenan- 
 doah, Bland, Bocock, Brown, Byrd of Frederick, Cam- 
 den, Caperton, Carlile, Carter of Loudoun, Chapman, 
 Claiborne, Cook, Cox, Deneale, Edwards, Faulkner, 
 Fisher, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz, Gaily, M. R. H. Gar- 
 nett, Hays, Hill, Hoge, Hunter, Jacob, Johnson, Jones, 
 Kenney, Kilgore, Knote, Letcher, Ligon, Lionberger, 
 Lucas, McCamant, McCandlish, McComas, Martin of 
 Marshall, Martin of Henry, Meredith, Miller, Moore, 
 Morris, Murphy, Neeson, Newman, Pendleton, Price, Ran- 
 dolph, Saunders, Seymour, Sheffey, Sloan, Smith of Ka- 
 nawha, Smith of King and Queen, Smith of Greenbrier, 
 Smith of Jackson, Stephenson, Stewart of Morgan, Stuart 
 of Patrick, Summers, Tate, Taylor, Trigg, Van Winkle, 
 Watts of Roanoke, White, Whittle, Willey, Williams of 
 Shenandoah, Wise, Wysor — 80. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Botts, Bowles, Burges, Chambliss, 
 Cock, Davis, Douglas, Edmunds, Flood, Garland, Goode, 
 Hall, Hopkins, Janney, Lynch Moncure, Purkins, Scog- 
 gin, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Fauquier, Scott of Rich- 
 mond city, Shell, Smith of Norfolk couDty, Southall, 
 Stanard, Straughan, Tredway, Turnbull, Wallace, Watts 
 of Norfolk county, Williams of Fairfax, Woolfolk— 32. 
 
 So the motion to go into committee of the whole was 
 agreed to. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, &c. 
 The Convention then resolved itself into Committee of 
 the Whole, (Mr. Miller in the chair,) and took up for con- 
 sideration the report of the committee on the Basis 
 and Apportionment of Representation. 
 
 The reading of the report was dispensed with, on mo- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 279 
 
 tion of Mr. Summees, it being printed and in the hands 
 of members. 
 
 Mi-. SUMMERS then moved to strike out all of pro- 
 position A (mixed basis) except the first and last sec- 
 tions, and to insert in lieu thereof all of proposition B 
 (the suffrage basis) except the first section. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I move to amend the 
 amendment of the gentleman from Kanawha, and I 
 propose as a substitute for proposition A and proposi- 
 tion B both, the following proposition : 
 
 1. The legislature shall be formed of two distinct 
 branches, which together shall be a complete legisla- 
 ture, and shall be called the general assembly of Vir- 
 ginia. 
 
 2. One of these shall be called the house of dele- 
 gates, and shall consist of members, to be chosen 
 
 for and by the several counties, cities and towns 
 
 of the commonwealth. The other shall be called the 
 senate, and shall consist of members, for the elec- 
 tion of whom the counties, cities and towns shall be di- 
 vided into districts. Each county, city and town, of the 
 respective districts at the time of the first election of 
 its delegate or delegates under this amended Constitu- 
 tion, shall vote for one senator ; and the sheriff's or other 
 officers holding the election for each county, city or 
 town, within five days at furthest after the last county, 
 city or town election in the district, shall meet at some 
 convenient place, and from the polls so taken in their 
 respective counties, cities and towns, return as a sena- 
 tor the person who shall have the greatest number of 
 votes in the whole district. 
 
 3. To keep up the senate by rotation, the districts 
 shall be divided into classes and numbered by lot. At the 
 
 end of years after the first general election, the 
 
 members elected by the first division shall be displaced, 
 and the vacancies thereby occasioned supplied from such 
 class or division by a new election in the manner 
 aforesaid. This rotation shall be applied to each di- 
 vision, according to its number, and continued in due 
 order. 
 
 4. Representation in both legislative bodies shall be 
 apportioned amongst the counties, cities and towns ac- 
 cording to the number of white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes paid in each ; deducting 
 from such taxes, all taxes paid on licenses and law pro- 
 cess. In making such apportionment, there shall be al- 
 lowed one delegate for every part of the said in- 
 habitants, and one delegate for every part of the 
 
 said taxes ; and in like manner there shall be allowed 
 
 one senator for every part of the same : Provided, 
 
 that the representation of no city or town shall at any 
 
 time exceed delegates and senators ; but 
 
 the surplus fractions thereof, whether of population or 
 taxation, or of both combined, shall be estimated in as- 
 signing representation to the sections of the State in 
 which they are respectively situated. 
 
 5. The general assembly, after the year , and 
 
 at intervals thereafter of not less than ten years, shall 
 re-apportion representation in both legislative bodies, 
 according to the principle and in the manner herein de- 
 clared ; but in every re-apportionment, the amount of 
 taxes shall be estimated from the average of the ten 
 preceding years. 
 
 6. The whole number of members to which the State 
 may at any time be entitled in the house of represen- 
 tatives of the United States shall be apportioned as 
 nearly as may be amongst the several counties, cities 
 and towns, according to their respective numbers, which 
 shall be determined by adding to the whole number of 
 free persons, including those bound to service for a term 
 of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths 
 of all other persons. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I merely rise in order to under- 
 stand precisely the situation of the question. The first 
 question I suppose will be upon the adoption or rejec- 
 tion of the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
 Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 
 The CHAIR stated that the first question would be on 
 the proposition of Mr. Scott. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I did not expect nor do Re- 
 sign to enter this day into the discussion of the question 
 now before the committee. My purpose in moving the 
 substitute, was to place before the body in the form of a 
 distinct proposition, free from embarrassment of all ques- 
 tions of detail, that which, according to my judgment, is 
 the proper basis of representation. The basis upon 
 which this body itself has been assembled, and that 
 which to this extent has received the sanction of the 
 people of this Commonwealth. If gentlemen entertain 
 a different opinion, and have another and a novel pro- 
 position to move, involving a change in the order of 
 things that now exists, it seems to me proper that we 
 should hear from them the reasons which they are pre- 
 pared to urge in support of their change. So far as I 
 am personally concerned, I am perfectly content that 
 the vote on this question shall be taken without the con- 
 sumption of one moment of time ; for I have no expec- 
 tation that to whatever extent this debate may be pro- 
 longed, it will result in the change of the vote of one in- 
 dividual member of this body upon the principle con- 
 tained in the substitute. I repeat I have moved the sub- 
 stitute with a view to present the question of the Lasis 
 in such a form that a vote may be taken involving a 
 decision of the principle only, disembarrassed of all 
 questions of detail. The fourth section of the substitute 
 declares the principle upon which representation ought 
 to be apportioned. In the preceding sections blanks are 
 left which may be filled after the decision upon this 
 principle question according to the judgment of a ma- 
 jority of the committee. If by a vote of a majority the 
 substitute shall be adopted, it determines nothing but 
 that representation in both branches of the general as- 
 sembly shall be apportioned among the several coun- 
 ties, cities and towns of the Commonwealth upon what 
 is termed the mixed basis. We have, then, only to turn 
 | back and determine the proper number for a house of 
 delegates, and fill up the first blank ; and determine 
 whether the general assembly shall be convened annu- 
 ally or biennally, and fill up that blank. So in respect 
 to the senate. I did not, as I have before said, come 
 here with the design of engaging in the debate, but with 
 the expectation of hearing from other gentlemen, who I 
 understand are prepared in the first instance to enter 
 upon this wide field of discussion. And I repeat that so 
 far as I am personally concerned, I have no desire to agi- 
 tate debate, but am willing that the vote should be ta- 
 ken upon the proposition without discussion, deeming it 
 only proper before any final vote is taken that due no- 
 tification shall be given to absent members. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I rise merely to inquire what is the 
 question before the committee. The primary proposi- 
 tion is that marked A, and a motion is made by the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier to strike out a portion of A and 
 insert a portion of proposition B. Then comes, as I un- 
 derstand, the proposition of the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha, to amend the amendment. In that aspect, if 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Fauquier prevails, 
 it would merely strike out the amendment proposed by 
 the gentleman from Kanawha, and then the question 
 would come up whether the committee would strike out 
 also proposition A. But if the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier is to be regarded as a substitute 
 for the whole, why, then on that proposition, we settle 
 the whole question. I ask the Chair to inform me as to 
 the state of the question. Is the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier to be regarded as a substitute for 
 both the other propositions, or merely as an amendment 
 to the amendment? 
 
 The CHAIR. The Chair understands it to be an 
 amendment to the amendment proposed by the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha, operating as a substitute for the 
 whole. 
 
 Mr. "WISE. An amendment operating as a substi- 
 tute for the whole ? 
 
 The CHAIR. The question is to be first taken on 
 the proposition of the gentleman from Fauquier as an 
 amendment to the amendment proposed by the gentle- 
 man from Kanawha. If it should be adopted, then 
 
280 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 it becomes a proposition competing with proposition A. 
 
 Mr. "WISE. Will we have to take two votes or one ? 
 
 The CHAIR. The votes will have to be taken first 
 on the amendment to the amendment. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Yes sir, then what next? 
 
 The CHAIR. Then the question is on the amend- 
 ment as amended. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Then I understand the proposition to be 
 to amend the amendment, and that we shall have to take 
 two votes. 
 
 The CHAIR. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Is it in order for me to ask for a divis- 
 ion of the question to be first taken on striking out pro- 
 position A ? If it is, I ask for a division of the question 
 to be first taken on proposition A. 
 
 The CHAIR. The impression of the Chair is, that 
 the question being first on the amendment to the amend- 
 ment, it is not in order to ask for a division of the ques- 
 tion at this stage of the proceedings. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I have merely desired to ascertain the 
 precise situation of the question. I am not prepared to 
 discuss the question to-day at all, and I would only re- 
 mark in relation to the observation of the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, that his proposition is to disembarrass 
 this question, that in my mind it really tends to embar- 
 rass the question. Proposition A tells us precisely the 
 amount of money that is to be thrown into the scale 
 against the man. His proposition does not tell us wheth- 
 er the man is calculated to be worth a dime or a dollar, 
 a dollar or a pound sterling. Now I might vote for his 
 proposition if he would value the man high enough. I 
 might come to it as a compromise — I do not say that I 
 would. But I know exactly now the valuation of pro- 
 position A, and I do not know what the valuation of the 
 man is in the proposition which the gentleman from 
 Fauquier has submitted. Proposition B, it is said, is a 
 novel proposition ! If it is a novel one in this Common- 
 wealth, it is not a novel proposition in any other. And 
 if those who propose it are to be asked to show a rea- 
 son why it should be adopted, I, in reply, will not say 
 as Cicero said to Cataline — " How long, oh Cataline, 
 how long is our patience to be abused " — but I will ask 
 the gentleman to assign me a reason, how long, oh how 
 long, is money to be weighed in the scale against men 
 in Virginia ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I do not propose, as I 
 said when I was up before, to embark in this discussion 
 now. Nor do I propose to detain the committee by re- 
 sponding to the interrogatories of the gentleman from 
 Accomac, (Mr. Wise.) If this discussion shall proceed, 
 that gentleman will learn, if from no other source, 
 from me, the reason why, in the apportionment of repre- 
 sentation in the legislative department of this common- 
 wealth, property ought to be considered, and he will 
 hear the reasons why, in the distribution of the legisla- 
 tive power, regard should not be had to mere numbers. 
 I rise n©w for the purpose, if indeed, every gentle- 
 man's own intelligence has not already supplied him 
 with an answer, to answer so much of that gentle- 
 man's remarks as represents this substitute as throw- 
 ing embarrassments around the question instead of re- 
 moving them. The proposition A, contains not only 
 the principle of the mixed basis of representation, but 
 it prescribes the number of which the house of dele- 
 gates, and the number of which the senate shall be 
 composed, and provides, also, that the sessions of the 
 general assembly shall be biennial. It does more. It 
 prescribes an actual apportionment of representation 
 amongst the counties. These are all matters of detail, 
 in respect to which individual members of this body 
 may entertain different opinions, however they may 
 concur in the great principle of representation. I may 
 agree with an associate, that the proper principle of 
 representation is that which will combine, in some 
 form, white population and taxation, but I may not 
 agree with him as to the number of which the two le- 
 gislative bodies ought to be composed, nor agree with 
 him upon the question of annual or biennial sessions. 
 I may agree with him upon the principle of the basis, 
 
 and yet differ from him upon the details of the appor- 
 tionment. And does not every gentleman see, that if 
 proposition A is presented to the body for adoption, we 
 must pass by the principle of representation, and ad- 
 dress ourselves to the settlement of these details. It is 
 to avoid that difficulty and disembarrass the question 
 of these matters of detail, that I have presented the 
 substitute, my purpose being to bring this body to a 
 vote first upon the basis of representation. It will not 
 commit any member to matters of mere detail. 
 
 That there is no foundation for the criticism of the 
 gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) must readily be 
 perceived, when members turn their attention to the 
 substitute. It declares in language not to be mista- 
 ken, that representation in both bodies shall be appor- 
 tioned amongst the counties, cities and towns accord- 
 ing to the number of white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes paid in each, deducting 
 from such taxes, all taxes paid on licences and law pro- 
 cesses. Here is a principle palpable to the view — a 
 tangible one, upon which discussion can proceed — a 
 vote upon which will settle, as far as a vote of a ma- 
 jority in this body can settle, whether representation 
 in the legislative department shall be based upon popu- 
 lation alone or upon a combination of white population 
 and taxation. It is true that the substitute does not 
 specifically declare to what fractional part of the in- 
 habitants and to what fractional part of the taxes a re- 
 presentative shall be allowed. But the reason of this 
 omission must be apparent, because it is impossible to 
 determine the true fractional part until we have filled 
 the first blank, and determined of what number we will 
 constitute the two houses. When that shall be done, 
 we will be provided with the means of ascertaining the 
 fraction. The intention is, as I apprehend the gentle- 
 man from Accomac (Mr. Wise) full well knows, 
 when we shall determine upon the proper number of 
 which to compose the two bodies, to fill these blanks 
 in the fourth section so as to distribute representation 
 in equal moities, according to the number of white in- 
 habitants and the amount of taxation. 
 
 Mr. WISE. If the gentleman will allow me, I wish 
 to call his attention to another point. I agree with the 
 gentleman that the fractions which shall divide the 
 white population, and the fraction which shall divide 
 the taxation cannot be determined — but it is this that 
 can be determined : Whether the fraction to divide 
 the population or the devisor, shall be the same in each 
 as the one-seventy-fifth part of the population, is to the 
 one-seventy-fifth part of taxation? That can be de- 
 termined without fixing the number of the House. In 
 the proposition A, it is one-seventy-fifth of taxes to one- 
 seventy-fifth of population, and the number of dollars 
 of taxation being less than the number of population, 
 it results necessarily in making an equal fraction that 
 you value every white man at a price less than $1. 
 The gentleman does not indicate in his proposition 
 what is to be the proportionate fraction. That can be 
 fixed, and until it is fixed by the gentleman's proposi- 
 tion, I shall be very much confused and embarrassed 
 by it. That is the point which the gentleman does not 
 meet. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. It does not seem to me to 
 be proper to fill the blank in the fourth section until 
 the committee shall have fixed the number of delegates 
 and senators with which the two legislative bodies are 
 to be composed. No difficulty can arise out of the 
 present form of the substitute. The settlement of this 
 question of the fraction — the adjustment of the rela- 
 tion which the fractional part of the inhabitants, and 
 the fractional part of the taxation is to bear to each 
 other — is a matter which may be settled, and conve- 
 niently settled, after the vote shall have been taken up- 
 on the substitute as it stands. It does not commit the 
 body in advance to any particular adjustment of the 
 fractions. It leaves that an open question ; or, to use 
 his own figure, leaves the biddings open ; and an op- 
 portunity will be given to my friend from Accomac 
 (Mr. Wise,) when he comes to fill this blank, to bid 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 281 
 
 This ought to furnish no ob 
 
 as high as he chooses 
 jection to him. 
 
 Mr. WISE. The gentleman will allow me to say 
 that then it will be too late. The gentleman first fixes 
 the principle to be a combined basis of taxation and 
 population, and if he has the power to fix that, he has 
 the power to price the horse. I am a bound bidder. I 
 want t© know before I accede to the principle, what 
 shall be the relation between dollars and cents on the 
 one side, and the man on the other — the proportion — 
 that is all I desire. Fix the proportion, and if it is a 
 
 mere question 
 down so that 
 
 man, shall be valued at what 
 throw away the small item. 
 
 , a small picayune matter, and comes 
 the dollar as compared with the white 
 it is worth, why,fl will 
 But if his proposition 
 
 when fixed, will bring about the result of proposition 
 A, and the dollar shall be considered as worth more 
 than one white man, I will not vote for his proposition 
 nor listen to it all. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I do not expect to get the 
 vote of my friend from Accomac (Mr. Wise) for the pro- 
 position, and I shall therefore not be guilty of the vain at- 
 tempt to model it, according to a form that will be agree- 
 ble to him. We know that a difference of opinion exists 
 amongst the members who compose this body in re- 
 spect to the plan upon which the principle of the mixed 
 basis, if it be agreed upon, shall be carried out. Some 
 gentlemen entertain the opinion that the entire number 
 of the white inhabitants shall be added to the entire 
 amount of taxation estimated in dollars, and a distri- 
 bution be made of the representation amongst the coun- 
 ties, cities and towns of the commonwealth, upon a 
 plan calculated upon that basis. That is one mode of 
 working out the mixed basis. Now, the objection to 
 that, as it seems to me, is, that it is an uncertain plan. 
 A plan which will produce one result, if you estimate 
 taxes in dollars, and another result if you estimate 
 taxes in dimes or cents. According to the plan which 
 the substitute contemplates, that ambiguity will be 
 guarded against, that uncertainty avoided ; for the sub- 
 stitute proposes to declare what fractional part of the 
 white inhabitants shall be entitled to a member, and 
 what fractional part of taxation shall be entitled to a 
 member. A result will be achieved in that way not li- 
 able to this objection for uncertainty ; for the same re 
 suit will ensue whether you estimate the taxes in one 
 denomination or in another. Neither the gentleman 
 from Accomac, (Mr. Wise,) nor any other gentleman, 
 as it seems to me, can have any difficulty in understand- 
 ing the proposition. If there be a difficulty resting up- 
 on the mind of any person, 1 desire now to say that 
 when the time comes for filling the blank in section 
 fourth, if no one else makes the motion, I will make it, to 
 adjust these fractions, so that in the practical result, 
 one moiety of representation in both bodies, shall be 
 distributed according to white inhabitants, and the oth- 
 er moiety according to the taxes paid. I explained be- 
 fore, that my only purpose in printing the substitute, 
 was to disembarrass the question before the committee, 
 of the details into which proposition A had descended, 
 and bring this body to a vote by which the principle of 
 representation should be fixed. That was the object 
 of the substitute. Not to change the principle of 
 proposition A, but, on the contrary, to adhere to that 
 principle, and to claim, as that proposition does, that 
 representation shall be distributed according to popu- 
 lation and taxation ; and that equality shall be observed 
 in the actual apportionment between the two, so as to 
 give one moiety of representation to the one, the other 
 moiety to the other. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. The gentleman from Fauquier re- 
 marked, while he was up before, that the principle em- 
 braced in the substitute which he offers is the same as 
 that upon which the present constitution is based. He 
 considers it as a proposition to some extent, at all events 
 passed upon by the people in voting for the call of this 
 Convention. I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
 gentleman from Fauquier whether in that he meant to 
 
 say that proposition A contains the basis adopted by the 
 general assembly, and upon which this Convention is 
 now assembled, or whether he was speaking of his own 
 substitute? I understood him as speaking of his own 
 substitute, and not of proposition A. He announced 
 that the principle he advocated was the principle 
 upon which this Convention was assembled. I desire 
 to know whether that is the proposition contained in 
 plan A, or to what other proposition he referred ? 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I supposed, as I explain- 
 ed when I first introduced the substitute for the consid- 
 eration of the Convention last week, that there was no 
 difference in principle between the substitute and pro- 
 position A. The only difference was, that, whereas, 
 proposition A proposes to settle half a dozen matters of 
 detail, in respect to which differences of opinion may 
 be entertained by all of us, the substitute proposes on- 
 ly to commit this body to the principle of the basis, 
 leaving all matters of detail for future discussion and 
 future adjustment. I said, when I was first up, that I 
 did not intend to participate thus early in the discus- 
 sion, and that I did not come here to-day under any 
 such expectation ; that I was content, if other gentle- 
 men were, to take the vote upon the question pending, 
 without discussion. And I said in that connection, as 
 a justification for the course I had indicated my will- 
 ingness to pursue, that I did not understand the propo- 
 sition of the substitute to involve any violent change 
 from the existing order of things in Virginia ; that the 
 principle of the substitute contained no novelty with 
 us; and, in proof of that, referred to the fact that the 
 Convention itself had been convened upon the principle 
 announced in it. I was not a member of the general 
 assembly when the law was passed which called this 
 Convention, but I have understood that it proceeded up- 
 on the same principle. 
 
 That the apportionment of representation in the con- 
 vention was made between the several grand divisions 
 of the State, upon the principle of the mixed basis, 
 worked out to a result on the principle indicated in the 
 substitute — worked out by assigning a moiety of repre- 
 sentation to the white inhabitants, and a moiety to the 
 taxes. If I am mistaken in that, the gentleman from 
 Kanawha, (Mr. Summers,) who may be better informed, 
 will correct me. But I understand that to be the man- 
 ner in which the bill for the organization ©f this Con- 
 vention was prepared ; and, so understanding , I urged 
 it as a reason why the burden of opening this debate 
 should rest upon the other side. There is the more 
 reason in this when we consider that proposition B pro- 
 poses to adopt a state of things never before known in 
 Virginia ; a novelty in its history — one which never 
 had received, in any form, the sanction of the people. 
 Whereas, according to my understanding, the contrary 
 was the case in respect to the substitute. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I understood the gentleman then, 
 as I do now, to say that his substitute would be made 
 complete by filling the blank with every seventy -fifth 
 part of population, and every seventy -fifth of taxation, 
 half and half of each, so that every seventy-fifth part of 
 the two combined, shall be entitled to send one delegate. 
 This, he says, is the basis upon which the present Con- 
 vention is assembled. This he regards as an old prin- 
 ciple, one to which we have been long accustomed, and 
 so long accustomed, that we are bound to show a rea- 
 son for throwing it off. and abandoning it. Am I to 
 understand the gentleman as maintaining here, that 
 because a majority of the good people of Virginia 
 adopted the proposition submitted by the legislature 
 for the convening of a convention to amend their 
 organic law, or to make a new constitution, that 
 they are thereby to be regarded as having fore-closed 
 the question, and decided for themselves their will- 
 ingness to accept and abide by that basis of repre- 
 sentation in the general assembly of Virginia ? This 
 is an old proposition, one to which we have long been 
 accustomed, and the other is a novelty! Proposition 
 B contains a principle of representation new to us, and 
 
282 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 as I understood the gentleman to say, though I may 1 
 have misapprehended him, new and unknown to his- t 
 tory also. < 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. So far as the action of J 
 our government is concerned ; I mean the common- t 
 wealth of Virginia. s 
 Mr. SUMMERS. If the gentleman means to fill 1 
 the blank in the fourth section with equal amounts of s 
 population and taxes so as to conform to plaa A, why ; 
 does he leave it blank ? Why does the gentleman, in ; 
 reply to the gentleman from Accomac, inform him that i 
 it is in the nature of a bid ? Why does he inform 1 
 him that it is fixed up as a sort of sliding scale, where- < 
 by population can be enlarged on the one hand, and < 
 taxes limited on the other ; or taxes enlarged on the ] 
 one hand, and population limited on the other ? He 1 
 knows very well that it is competent for any member l 
 of the Convention, let his own opinions be what they . 
 may, to move the ©ne-eightieth part in population, and : 
 the one-twentieth part in taxes ; or, to reverse the pro- i 
 position, one-twentieth part in population, and one- i 
 eightieth part in taxes — in a house of one hundred, I i 
 mean. If it be the gentleman's purpose to fill the 
 blank — as he has I understand conceded — with the pre- 
 cise language proposed in plan A, I can imagine no 
 sort of reason for leaving it in blank. He told us, in ' 
 his first remarks, that the value of his proposition was, 
 that upon it gentlemen might vote for the mixed prin- : 
 ciple, and afterwards fix the proposition as might best 
 suit them. When a physician visits me on a sick bed 
 and desires me to swallow a pill which he tells me is : 
 partly composed of bread, and partly composed of 
 arsenic — partly of bread known to be wholesome and 
 the staff of life, and partly of arsenic known to be dele- 
 terious and fatal,and when I ask him to inform me in what 
 proportion these ingredients are mixed, would it be quite 
 proper to tell me to swallow the pill and he will inform 
 me afterwards how he has mixed the ingredients. I de- 
 mand to know before the gentleman fron Fauquier asks 
 me to vote on his substitute, how these ingredients are to 
 be mixed ? I decline to swallow this substitute and then 
 be informed afterwards of the composition of this new 
 medicine for the body politic. His proposition is an old 
 one, and the opening of this debate must be thrown, as he 
 imagines, upon those who propose to parcel out, and di- 
 vide the legislative power of this commonwealth equally 
 among the people who are parties to it ! It is a novel 
 proposition , and the onus probandi is upon those who 
 sustain it ! Why, I have understood that the very defi- 
 nition of the term civil society, was that it was com- 
 osed of equals. I had never supposed that it would 
 e necessary, in this enlightened era of republicanism 
 and constitutional liberty, to maintain that all those 
 who are members of the body politic have equal rights 
 in the government which is to be formed; on the con- 
 trary, I had supposed that those who proposed that a 
 government should be founded one-half on taxation and 
 one-half on population, maintained a proposition so 
 novel and so extraordinary in itself, that we had a right 
 to demand of them their reasons, and the grounds upon 
 which they asked us to assent to it. I have a right 
 now to ask the gentleman from Fauquier by what 
 course of reasoning is it that he expects to maintain that 
 the legislative powers of this commonwealth, are to 
 be withheld from the hands of a majority of the 
 people of the commonwealth ? Give us a reason for 
 this, what I term, new and extraordinary proposi- 
 tion. Let us, I say, hear a reason upon which you are 
 authorized to disfranchise a very large portion of the 
 people of this commonwealth. Let us hear by what 
 process of ratiocination you expect to establish a 
 proposition by which, while you have a majority of 
 100,000 of your people in the western portion of the 
 State, you place the legislative power in the hands 
 of the minority, giving to this minority some twenty or 
 thirty majority on joint ballot in the general assembly. 
 Let us hear the reason which has induced you to import 
 from South Carolina a principle of representation, and 
 to seek to plant it in the commonwealth of Virginia. 
 
 You call upon us to open the discussion, and say that 
 the burthen of proof is on us, to sustain the right to an 
 equal participation in this government ; but I deny it. 
 Let us understand, also, why, if it is deemed necessary 
 that taxation should form a component part of repre- 
 sentation, that we of the west should be deprived of 
 the value and benefit of our increasing taxation ? Look 
 at the table which was presented here this morning, 
 and you will find that between the years 1840 and 
 1850 there has been an increase of upwards of sixty- 
 four per cent, in that portion of the common- 
 wealth lying west of the Blue Ridge ; while the increase 
 of taxation east of the mountains has been but little ov- 
 er thirty per cent. But here, you not only found your 
 representation half on population and half on taxes, 
 but you have adopted the other and the accompanying 
 feature of the South Carolina constitution, both in plan 
 A, and in the substitute, which provides that at every 
 apportionment the amount of taxes shall be estimated 
 upon the average for the ten preceding years. Even 
 upon your own plan of population and taxation you will 
 not give us the benefit of the taxation which we are pay- 
 ing. Are not these novelties that require explanation ? 
 
 I, like the gentleman from Fauquier, had not the 
 least anticipation of addressing a word to this commit- 
 tee on this subject to-day, but inasmuch as my friend 
 has taken the ground that this was a novel proposition, 
 and one which imposed the burthen of proof upon us, 
 I felt myself called upon to reply in the manner in 
 which I have attempted to do. I think that we have 
 much more right to call on him for an explanation of 
 these features of the substitute, and plan A. I think 
 the people of this commonwealth are anxious to hear 
 the process of reasoning upon which the gentleman, 
 able and eloquent as he is known to be, in debate, 
 feels justified as a citizen of this commonwealth, and as 
 a member of this body, in throwing the whole legisla- 
 tive power of the State into the hands of a minority of 
 the people, and depriving the majority of all voice in 
 the government. If there is any novelty in these pro- 
 positions, it is certainly on his side, and if there is any 
 reason growing out of the idea of novelty, why the one 
 side or the other should open this debate, it seems to 
 me to be on his side. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I am sorry to trespass so 
 often upon the time of the committee ; but really the 
 remarks of my friend from Kanawha (Mr. Summers) 
 are of such a character as to require something in reply 
 from me. I do not think the gentleman treats the pro- 
 position submitted by me altogether candidly and fair- 
 ly. He seems to think, or he would have others think, 
 that there is something in the form of the substitute in 
 the nature of a trap, and that my expectation is, that 
 in some way, undefined — because he has left it unde- 
 fined — advantage will be gained over the party with 
 which he acts. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. What I have said upon that sub- 
 ject, I felt justified in saying, because of the remarks of 
 the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. That was laughingly said 
 to the gentleman in response to his own figure. He 
 complained that the substitute did not in express terms 
 fix the fraction, and demanded of me, after I had ex- 
 plained some half dozen times, again to state the rea- 
 sons which influenced me in leaving those blanks. He 
 
 • says that there can be no difficulty whatsoever in my 
 . filling the blank at this time. Does not the gentleman 
 , know — have Inot already explained ? 
 
 Mr. WISE/ Will the gentleman allow me to inter- 
 ; rupt? That is not my proposition. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I am speaking to the gen- 
 - tleman from Kanawha. The reason why these frac- 
 . tions cannot be adjusted now is, that we have not deter- 
 i mined upon the number of delegates and senators of 
 
 • which we shall compose the two legislative bodies. 
 Fix those numbers and you relieve me from all difncul- 
 
 t ty whatsoever, in respect of the precise amount of the 
 I fraction. The gentleman says that I offered him a pill 
 . compounded in part of poison. And he desires to know 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 283 
 
 before he takes the pill, in what proportion these in- 
 gredients are to enter into its composition. Is it a 
 cause of objection to the gentleman that we require 
 him in the first instance to determine whether he will 
 compound this pill of these two ingredients, leaving it 
 for after consideration, to determine the exact propor- 
 tion of the two? What fair ground of objection is it, 
 that the substitute proposes to take the question first 
 upon the ingredients of" which the bill shall be com- 
 pounded, leaving it for the wisdom of this body to ad- 
 just hereafter the proportion ? Ought he not rather to 
 meet the proposition in a different spirit ? Ought he 
 not to consider it as some concession, as intended in a 
 spirit of kindness, if not of mercy, that we leave him a 
 voice hereafter in determining the proportion in which he 
 will take the wholesome food and the poison. The gen- 
 tleman says that he desires to know, and the people of this 
 commonwealth also, the reasons for another feature in this 
 report. If we are to organize the government upon 
 this principle of representation, and distribute the 
 members of the two houses of the legislative depart- 
 ment according to population and taxation, why does 
 the substitute propose to deprive the west of the bene- 
 fit it may derive from its increasing taxation. I did not 
 expect that that feature in the substitute would have 
 been singled out by the learned gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha, (Mr. Summers,; and made the subject of this 
 pointed assault. But the purpose is obvious. It is a 
 purpose of fairness and of justice. It is intended to 
 tie the hands of the legislative department, when it 
 shall come to exercise the power that it is proposed to 
 vest in it over this subject of apportionment, so as to 
 prevent it from practising acts of injustice. To tie its 
 hands so that it can commit injustice neither to the east 
 nor to the west ; to provide a rule, which in all time to 
 come, will put it out of the power of the legislature, by 
 the arrangement of its tax bills, to perpetrate injustice. 
 "Without that restriction, which seems so much to have 
 excited the opposition of my friend from Kanawha, 
 does not every gentleman perceive that with the power 
 to re-apportion representation, and with the power of 
 taxation, it will be in the power of the legislature, if 
 you are to re-apportion according to the latest assess- 
 ment, so to arrange its tax bill as to vary for the single 
 year the proportion of taxes to be paid by the two sec- 
 tions of the State, and thus affect the proportion of rep- 
 resentatives. 
 
 The legislature by its tax bill enacted the year before 
 the re-apportionment is to be made, may so adjust it as 
 to collect in the eastern sections of the State a larger 
 proportion of the taxes than may be collected in the 
 western. It may do this for the specific purpose of 
 casting in the apportionment next to be made, a more 
 preponderating majority in the east. It is for the pur- 
 pose of preventing that injustice ; for the purpose of 
 securing to the western section a representation upon 
 this principle fairly, in accordance to its taxation, that 
 this proposition is inserted. It is for no advantage to 
 eastern Virginia, and is for no disadvantage to western 
 Virginia, but to secure justice to both. If the legisla- 
 ture shall so adjust its tax bill as to throw an undue 
 amount of taxation upon the western section, during 
 any of the preceding ten years, when they come to re- 
 apportion representation according to the substitute, 
 the west will obtain representation as an equivalent for 
 it. There is really no danger that, in arranging the 
 tax bill, eastern Virginia, for the mere purpose of swell- 
 ing its majority, will entail upon itself an undue pro- 
 portion of the pecuniary burdens of the commonwealth. 
 If western Virginia will assume upon itself a majority 
 of these burdens I will vote now to give them a major- 
 ity of representation. If they will take representation 
 in proportion to then- contributions to the public trea- 
 sury ; if they will agree to pay a majority of the tax as 
 they claim to have a majority of the representation, I 
 will say take it. If you pay most of the taxes you shall 
 enjoy most of the representation. The gentleman de- 
 sires to know a reason for this novelty. Why in the 
 adjustment of the constitution of this State, it is pro- 
 
 posed to put the legislative power in the hands of a mi- 
 nority ? He says he desires to have the reason, and 
 the people of Virginia desire to have the reason, i will 
 give him the reason in a few words. It is to promote 
 the general welfare, to secure good government ; it is 
 to guard the interests of the community against abuse ; 
 it is to secure property, that, in our present social 
 condition, I believe will be endangered by surrendering 
 the legislative control to a majority of mere numbers. 
 If the gentleman wants a reason; if his constituents 
 want a reason, I think they have it — to guard the power 
 of legislation against abuse ; to secure the rights of 
 property, as well as the rights of persons ; to promote 
 the common interests of all ; to ordain a government 
 which shall contain within itself a just principle of pro- 
 tection. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I have not done with the gentleman 
 from Fauquier yet, in my effort to get at his proposi- 
 tion. I call the gentleman's attention again to the fact 
 that without filling the blank which is to propose the 
 number of representatives, he can fill the blank that 
 proposes the proportion between population and taxes. 
 I ask the gentleman to give me a reason for this fact, 
 that whilst the number of white population in the 
 State, in round numbers, is 898,000, and the number, 
 the sum of taxation exclusive of the items which he ex- 
 cludes is 495,000, why is it that to the 495,000 of tax 
 he gives nearly the same number of representatives that 
 he would give to the 898,000 of population ? The sum 
 of population and the sum of taxes combined, in round 
 numbers, is 1,393,000. The sum of the white popula- 
 tion is so nearly double that of the sum of taxes, that you 
 may say that it is double it, yet if he has a house of one 
 hundred, he would give to the 898,000 people fifty rep- 
 resentatives, and he would give to the $495,000 of taxes 
 also fifty representatives ! Why is it, I ask him again, 
 that one dollar in money shall be counted as more than 
 two white men ? Admitting even that his principle of 
 the mixed and combined basis is correct, I ask him 
 to give me a reason for this proportion in the dose. He 
 asks the gentleman from Kanawha to take the dose 
 first, and then he will fix the proportion for him after- 
 wards. Does not the gentleman from Fauquier per- 
 ceive that it is an all essential and vital matter to the 
 gentleman from Kanawha, to have him settle the pro- 
 portion, to ascertain the proportion of bread. A little 
 arsenic in the pill might do no harm, but an overplus 
 of arsenic might send the interests of the constituents 
 of the gentleman from Kanawha to the tomb of the 
 Capulets. Now I want to know the proportion, the ex- 
 act proportion, as the number of people is double the 
 sum of taxation. But I got from the gentleman from 
 Fauquier what I intended to get from him. He has let 
 the cat out of the meal to my satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. There is no cat in it. 
 
 Mr. WISE. There was this cat in it : The propo- 
 sition A told us that we could value a white man at 
 just about fifty-three or fifty-five cents apiece. I do 
 not know but the gentleman from Fauquier values a 
 white man higher. He may, as the sum of population 
 is double the sum of tax as two to one, value the white 
 man at a dollar. Well, if he would, he might have got 
 my vote perhaps. At any rate there would have been 
 less of arsenic in his proposition than in proposition A. 
 But I understand him to tell us that he must give us the 
 same double dose. And in response to the inquiries 
 put to him by the gentleman from Kanawha, why is it 
 that the patience of this commonwealth is to be abused 
 any longer by this attempt to weigh the minority against 
 the majority by throwing dollars and cents in the scale 
 against people, he tells us by an omniun gatherum argu- 
 ment that it is to secure better government, to secure 
 the liberty and the property of the people, and to pre- 
 vent abuses. Then I have got another question to ask, 
 and it is one which I hope to have answered to my sat- 
 isfaction. Is it true that that is the only power that 
 can be relied upon to secure good government ? Is it 
 true that the suffrage power cannot be relied upon, in 
 a government that professes that a republican people 
 
284 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 can govern themselves, to secure good government? 
 And he makes the declaration by this proposition that 
 that the voters in this commonwealth shall be equal — 
 one man to one man, equal numbers to equal numbers 
 of men — at the polls. But while asserting the proposi- 
 tion that they shall be equal at the polls, we are told 
 that they are not to be trusted in governing, and that 
 money, mammon, the ami sacra fames, half property 
 and possession alone can secure good government. If 
 this is to be the sort of basis that is to come from the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, I tell him that he will only 
 doubly convince me the other way. I admit that pro- 
 perty should be secured and be represented, but it is 
 not a master to represent. It should be protected by 
 representation, but should not be itself a representa- 
 tive. You not only propose to make it a representa- 
 tive, but you propose to give it the double power of 
 a voter, and when I ask for a reason for this, I am told 
 that it is to secure good government. And we are told 
 that that alone can give good government to a people 
 who profess that a people can govern themselves. I 
 am not satisfied yet, I want another reason. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I will try to satisfy even 
 my friend from Accomac. We have come, in this dis- 
 cussion, to a proposition, in respect of which, at last, 
 we are both agreed. For, with all my heart, I agree 
 with the gentleman from Accomac, that in the adjust- 
 ment of good government, property should be protect- 
 ed, and that it should be regarded as one of the elements 
 of society, entitled to protection through representation. 
 I agree with my friend from Accomac in that, and 
 where we disagree is in the mode and measure of this 
 protection and representation. In the principle we 
 agree — 
 
 Mr. WISE. No, sir ; no. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I agree with you, ac- 
 cording to the express terms in which you announced 
 your proposition — 
 
 Mr. WISE. No, sir ; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. That property was entitled to 
 protection, and protection to be secured by representa- 
 tion. Now the substitute proposes so to distribute re- 
 presentation in this Commonwealth as to secure that 
 protection to property which the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac admits it to be entitled to. So far as it respects 
 that question, I trust my friend is answered. He de- 
 sires to know how long the patience of the good people 
 of this Commonwealth is to be abused by these efforts 
 to continue the control of the government in the hands 
 of the minority. I will answer him that question when 
 he answers me another. How long is the patience of 
 the good people of this Commonwealth to be abused by 
 this eternal demand, on the part of western Virginia, 
 that we should commit the destinies of this Common- 
 wealth to a majority of mere numbers? When he an- 
 swers satisfactorily that question, I shall be prepared 
 to answer satisfactorily his. If patience is assaulted — 
 if patience is abused, I submit to this committee whether 
 the assault and abuse does not come from those who, pay- 
 ing less than one-third of the taxes of this Commonwealth, 
 are eternally clamoring for the possession of the purse- 
 strings. The gentleman misapplies his classics. Cata- 
 line was a conspirator, plotting against the safety of the 
 State. His purpose was to overthrow the consolidated 
 authorities, to subvert the existing order of things, and 
 seize the public treasure. He had the audacity to pro- 
 secute his schemes in the face of day, even in the very 
 sanctuary of the senate; and it was to rebuke that 
 audacity that Cicero used the striking expressions to 
 which allusion has been made. With more propriety I 
 may retort the question, and in this presence, demand 
 to know how long is the patience of the State to be 
 abused by this eternal clamor for the purse strings — a 
 clamor on behalf of those, who paying less than a third 
 of the public taxes, participate but in that proportion in 
 any burthens that the law may impose. 
 
 To go back to the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Accomac, I agree with him that property is entitled to 
 
 protection, and that the only adequate protection is in 
 representation; and if, in the adjustment of representa- 
 tion amongst the counties, cities, and towns of this Com- 
 monwealth, we adopt a ratio of mere numbers — white 
 numbers — we shall organize the government upon a prin- 
 ciple that, instead of affording protection to property, 
 will lay it open to be plundered at the discretion of a 
 mere majority not paying one-third of the public burdens 
 of the Commonwealth or contributing in the proportion 
 of one-third to the common burdens that we have to 
 bear. 
 
 I do not see the propriety of this debate which, 
 against my will, has been this morning thus forced upon 
 me. It seems to me that it would have been more con- 
 sistent with the proper dispatch of the business that has 
 assembled us here, if gentlemen would address them- 
 selves, in a candid spirit, to the consideration of the sub- 
 stitute, because they can but perceive in the terms in which 
 that substitute is proposed, a fair, clear, and perspicuous 
 annuncaition of that principle of representation upon 
 which eastern Virginia has heretofore, throughout all 
 time, stood committed — the principle of representation, to 
 which, in the amended constitution, to come extent, and 
 in the organization of this Convention to a greater extent, 
 th© people of the Commonwealth have given their assent. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I desire but to correct the gentleman 
 from Fauquier. He seems to understand me as if I had 
 said the very reverse of what I did say — as saying that 
 property should be a representative principle. He says 
 that we agree in saying that property should be repre- 
 sented, and I do agree with him to that extent. Prop- 
 erty should be represented, persons should be repre- 
 sented ; and everything in the Commonwealth should be 
 represented. There we agree. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Adequately represented. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Yes, adequately, impartially, paternally, 
 and providentially, if you please. And I go further, and 
 say conservatively and radically represented. [Laugh- 
 ter.] But does that concede the principle that property 
 should become a representative, either by itself or by its 
 agents ? Property is but a part of the constituency, and 
 so a horse, a cow, or the earth and its products. But 
 does that say that a horse or a cow should be a repre- 
 sentative, or an ox, or an ass ? [Laughter,] Not at all. 
 What I said was this, and wherein my friend from Fauquier 
 and myself differ is in this : He says that a fair and equal 
 apportionment of representation based on the voters of 
 the State will not, and cannot, represent property. I say 
 that a fair and equal representation, based on a free and 
 equal suffrage, is the highest protection to property. 
 He says that a majority of voters will plunder property, 
 that the people cannot be trusted with political power, 
 and, in effect, that they will plunder themselves. I say 
 that the people are not plunderers. The only plunder- 
 ers that I have known on earth are monarchs and aristo- 
 crats. The exclusive few — those who attempt, through 
 property, to seize on the political power, are the plun- 
 derers to be feared. It is not a matter of measure of re- 
 presentation at all, and the gentleman does not stand 
 there with me. I do not go one inch with him on the 
 principle. He says that a majority of the people are 
 not to be trusted with power, and that we must have 
 money side by side with them in the halls of legislation 
 to check the majority of the people, and keep them from 
 becoming plunderers one upon another. I deny that 
 proposition entirely. Property shall be protected — 
 property shall be represented— everything shall be pro- 
 tected and represented, and shall be protected and re- 
 presented by a majority of the representatives of a ma- 
 jority of the people. When you deny to the majority of 
 the people the right to protect themselves, each and all 
 alike, you deny all republican principle, and my only 
 object was to bring the issue up for debate. I do not 
 intend to debate it now, and it will be many a day, per- 
 haps, before I do debate it. I desire to hear a great 
 many issues raised on this issue. I am no more prepared 
 now than is the gentleman fr@m Fauquier, but I shall 
 collect myself, and I know the gentleman from Fauquier 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 285 
 
 will collect himself, to set forth the reasons pro and con — 
 money against men — upon the proposition whether the 
 monied power is necessary to protect the people of the 
 Commonwealth, to secure property and to secure per- 
 sons, or whether the people are capable of self-govern- 
 ment unchecked by the property power. The issue is 
 now, I hope, fairly made up, and whether the east or 
 the west leads off, is a matter of very little difference. 
 "We are about to start in the argument, we are about to 
 draw the swords to which the gentleman from Richmond 
 referred when this Convention first opened its session, 
 and on this issue I tell gentlemen I am unchangeable. 
 , On this issue I am prepared to stand, and my only 
 1 prayer — notwithstanding the gentleman from Fauquier 
 says that men's minds are not to be changed here — is, 
 that God will give the battle, not to the strong, but to 
 the side that has the right. It is the right of the people 
 against the right of money — mammon against liberty — 
 and may God, in his mercy, help the people in this 
 fight. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I confess I was not a little surprised 
 when the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) offered 
 the amendment now before the committee, and declined 
 to suggest a single reason why it should be adopted; 
 and was prepared to submit it to a vote, unless objec- 
 tion should be made to it. I am desirous, for one, that 
 the gentleman should suggest some reason to the com- 
 mittee why this amendment should be adopted ; and I 
 should suppose, that upon the submission of a proposi- 
 tion of this kind he would be prepared not only to sub- 
 mit the reasons which influenced him in so doing, but 
 prepared to do so before any argument was brought 
 against the proposition thus submitted. I, for one, am 
 prepared to say that I do not concur with the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier, in considering the proposition con- 
 tained in his amendment as not being a novel one. I 
 c6nsider it — particularly the fourth section of it — as a 
 most strange and novel proposition ; and therefore, I 
 desire to hear some reasons before I shall be expected 
 by that gentleman, and those who think with him, to 
 give a vote on this amendment. The gentleman said in 
 his remarks offering the proposition, that the basis con- 
 tained in it was the same as that decided by the action 
 of the general assembly in calling this Convention. I 
 would inform the gentleman that, according to my re- 
 collection of that body in calling this Convention, no 
 such example as the one contained in his amendment 
 was there adopted, nor did the committee of that body 
 ever report the bill which eventually became a law, and 
 assembled the Convention. The bill reported by the 
 committee was not sanctioned by the general assembly. 
 The bill which they reported contained an apportion- 
 ment of representation according to the principle of pro- 
 position A, but that bill was not sanctioned by the gen- 
 eral assembly. The bill which did subsequently be- 
 come a law, and under which this Convention is assem- 
 bled, was one not coming from any committee, but a 
 proposition submitted by one of the members of the 
 body. I am, therefore, not satisfied with his declara- 
 tion that this is not a novel proposition. And I do hope, 
 that gentlemen who are not favorable to that proposi- 
 tion, will concede to the gentleman from Fauquier, the 
 right and propriety that he should open this discussion. 
 I desire to hear from him, and I desire to hear not only 
 the reasons why a proposition which is so entirely novel, 
 and not contained in our present constitution, nor 
 in the constitution of 1776, should be inserted in the 
 connstitution which we are called upon to submit 
 to the people. I say, that so far as Virginia's his- 
 tory is concerned, it is an entirely novel proposition, 
 and I desire to hear the reasons upon which the 
 gentleman expects the favorable action of this com- 
 mittee in regard to it. And then I desire the gentle- 
 man to assign me another reason why he does not ad- 
 here to his principle after he has once laid it down, and 
 why this proposition is contained in the fourth section : 
 
 Representation in both legislative bodies shall be 
 apportioned amongst the counties, cities and towns ac- 
 
 cording to the number of white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes paid, in each; deducting 
 from such taxes, all taxes paid on licenses and law pro- 
 cess. In making such apportionment, there shall be al- 
 lowed one delegate for every part of the said inhabi- 
 tants, and one delegate for every part of the said 
 
 taxes ; and in like manner there shall be allowed one 
 
 Senator for every part of the same. 
 
 Here he asserts what he considers to be a principle, 
 and yet what does the remaining part of the section de- 
 clare : 
 
 "Provided, That the representation of no city or town 
 
 shall at any time exceed delegates senators ; 
 
 but the surplus fractions thereof, whether of population 
 or taxation, or of both combined, shall be estimated in 
 assigning representation to the sections of the State in 
 which they are respectively situated." 
 
 I desire the gentleman to tell me in the first place, 
 why this discrimination is made, or said to be made, 
 against the cities and towns ; and in the second place, 
 why the representation which these cities and towns 
 would be entitled to, should not be given to those cities, 
 but be distributed through the district in which they are 
 located. I think, with all kindness, that it is at least 
 due the members of this body that the gentleman from 
 Fauquier should be permitted to assign the reasons which 
 have influenced him in offering this amendment, and I 
 trust he will do so. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. Very near four hours 
 have been appropriated to this struggle at arm's length. 
 The combatants must be somewhat exhausted, and must 
 need a breathing spell before they engage in close quar- 
 ters ; and, therefore, I move that the committee now 
 rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned to meet at 11 
 o'clock, to-morrow morning. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 18, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 The Journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 The PRESIDENT submitted a communication from 
 General William H. Richardson, which was read as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Richmond, February 17, 1851. 
 To the Hon. John Y. Mason, 
 
 President of the Convention : 
 Sir : — In obedience to the instructions of the execu- 
 tive committee of the State Agricultural Society, I have 
 the honor to transmit to you the enclosed resolutions, 
 adopted by that committee. 
 
 Very respectfully, your ob't. serv't., 
 
 William H. Richardson, Chairman. 
 At a meeting of the executive committee of the State 
 Agricultural Society, on Monday, the 17th of February, 
 1851— 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the President and mem- 
 bers of the Convention, and the Speakers and members 
 of both houses of the General Assembly, be respectfully 
 invited to attend the annual meeting of the Society, com- 
 mencing on Tuesday evening, the 18th instant, in the 
 Hall of the House of Delegates, at 7 o'clock, and to par- 
 ticipate in the proceedings of the Society. 
 
 Resolved, That the Chairman transmit a copy of the 
 resolution to the President of the Convention, and to 
 the Speaker of each House of the General Assembly. 
 (Copy.) A. Robinson, jr., 
 
 Recording Secretary. 
 
 legislative power of taxation, &c. 
 Mr. FAULKNER. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my 
 hand some propositions which I desire to lay before 
 the Convention, and to ask that this body will consid- 
 er them at some future day, either in connection 
 with the basis report, or as amendments to the re- 
 
286 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 port of the committee on the legislative department. 
 They relate to the subject of taxation, to the limita- 
 tion of existing State debt, and to limitations on the 
 legislative power to create debts in future. I claim no 
 merit whatever for the propositions, if merit they 
 are found to possess. I have culled them from whatever 
 sources were accessible to me, and wherever I found 
 them to conform best to my own ideas. Indeed, in a 
 matter of so much difficulty as I found this subject of 
 limiting the money appropriating power of the legisla- 
 tive department, I have endeavored to avail myself of the 
 wisdom and experience of other States and other govern- 
 ments. I believe that if there is a subject which at this 
 time engrosses the public mind, certainly the anxiety of 
 the reflecting portion of the people of this State, it is 
 the tendency now so manifest in the past and present 
 action of our legislature, to involve us in the evils of 
 an enormous and profitless public debt. I believe that 
 many persons were led most anxiously to look to the 
 call of this Convention of the people of Virginia, be- 
 cause of that defect in our existing system of govern- 
 ment, which places in the power of the agents of the 
 people, in a single department of the government, the 
 power of mortgaging, ad libitum, the property and la- 
 bor of the people of this State. It is my own opinion, 
 and I know it is the known and declared opinion and 
 sentiment of the district which I represent, that if we 
 fail or neglect to impose upon those who wield this pow- 
 er in the general assembly, just and proper limitations, 
 that we shall have failed to accomplish one of the most 
 important objects for which the people have sent us to 
 this place. I shall press these propositions, or a propo- 
 sition looking to the same end, without the slightest re- 
 ference to the fact of whether the east shall retain 
 or the west shall acquire power under the constitution 
 which we are now engaged in framing. Our past expe- 
 rience has shown that where the control of the legisla- 
 tive policy of this State has been confided to an east- 
 ern majority, such fact has not furnished to us any ade- 
 quate safeguard against the wild, reckless and injudi- 
 cious system of public expenditure ; and it would be as- 
 suming more than I am disposed to assume, to suppose 
 that if an unchecked or an unlimited power were now 
 transferred to the west, that we should be free from the 
 abuse of the same power. I shall therefore press this 
 proposition, or a proposition looking to the same result, 
 I care not what may be the decision of this body upon 
 this question of geographical power. I am aware of 
 the extreme difficulty of attempting to regulate this 
 subject of appropriation. I know there is not in the 
 whole structure of government a function that requires 
 to be more cautiously and more deliberately dealt with. 
 I am not opposed to the spirit of internal improvement, 
 or the policy of internal improvement, but I seek to 
 give it a direction ; I would wish to give it a di- 
 rection different from that which it has heretofore 
 had in this State. Above all, I would seek to divest 
 it of those local combinations which have been the 
 bane and destruction of the system wherever it has pre- 
 vailed. I do not flatter myself that the plan I have 
 proposed is perfect, or that it is the best that can be 
 proposed, but it is the best that has yet occurred to my 
 mind, and unless something better calculated to accom- 
 plish that result shall occur to my mind, or be suggest- 
 ed by others, it is the proposition that I shall sustain in 
 this body. I desire now to lay it before the Convention, 
 that it may be printed, and that the members may have 
 an opportunity of reflecting upon it, and of giving to it 
 the consideration which it may merit. 
 
 The propositions were then read by the Secretary as 
 follows : 
 
 I. TAXATION. 
 
 1. Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the 
 State, and no one species of property shall be taxed 
 higher than another species of property of equal value, 
 on which taxes shall be levied. All property in the State 
 shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascer- 
 
 tained as directed by law, except such property as two- 
 thirds of both houses ©f the legislature may think proper 
 to exempt from taxation. 
 
 2. The legislature shall have the power to lay an in- 
 come tax, and to tax all persons pursuing any occupation, 
 trade or profession, provided that the term " occupation" 
 shall not be construed to apply to pursuits either agri- 
 cultural or mechanical. 
 
 II. LIQUIDATION OF EXISTING DEBT. 
 
 1. There shall be set apart annually by the auditing 
 and disbursing officers of the treasury, from the revenue 
 accruing from taxation and the fund for internal im- 
 provements, a sum equal to seven per cent, of the State 
 debt existing on the first of January, 1852. The fund 
 thus set apart shall be called the " Sinking Fund," and 
 shall be set apart and applied by the officers aforesaid 
 to the payment of the interest of the State debt, and 
 the principal of such part as may be redeemable. If no 
 part be redeemable, then the residue of the sinking fund, 
 after the payment of interest, shall be invested in the 
 bonds or certificates of debt of this Commonwealth, or 
 of the United States, or of some of the States of this 
 Union, and applied to the payment of the State debt as 
 it shall become redeemable. For the purpose of setting 
 apart, making and superintending this investment, the 
 said officers shall constitute a board, with all necessary 
 power to carry into effect this article ; the organization 
 of which board may be prescribed by law. 
 
 2. The claims of the State against any incorporated 
 company, to pay the interest and redeem the principal 
 of any loan advanced by the State to such company, 
 shall be fairly enforced, and not released or compro- 
 mised ; and the money arising from such claims shall be 
 set apart and applied as part of the " Sinking Fund," 
 towards the liquidation of the existing debt of the 
 State. But the time limited for the fulfilment of any 
 contract of loan heretofore made maybe extended by law. 
 
 III. LIMITATIONS UPON FUTURE STATE INDEBTEDNESS. 
 
 1. No moneys shall ever be paid out of the treasury 
 of this State, or any of its funds, or any of the funds^ 
 under its management, except in pursuance of an appro- 
 priation by law ; nor unless such payment be made with- 
 in two years next after the passage of such appropria- 
 tion act ; and every such law making a new appropria- 
 tion or continuing or reviving an appropriation, shall 
 distinctly specify the sum appropriated, and the object 
 to which it is to be applied ; and it shall not be suffi- 
 cient for such law to refer to any other law to fix such 
 sum. 
 
 2. The legislature shall not pledge the faith of the 
 State for the payment of the principal or interest of 
 any bonds, bills, contracts or obligations for the bene- 
 fit or use of any person, corporation or body politic 
 whatever. 
 
 3 The State may, to meet casual deficits or failures 
 in revenues, or for expenses not provided for, contract 
 debts ; but such debts, direct and contingent, singly orin 
 the aggregate, shall not at any time exceed one million 
 c f dollars ; and the moneys arising from the loans crea- 
 ting such debts, shall be applied to the purpose for 
 which they were obtained, or to repay the debts so con- 
 tracted, and to no other purpose whatever. 
 
 4. In addition to the above limited power to contract 
 debts, the State may contract debts to repeal invasion, 
 suppress insurrection, or defend the State in war ; but 
 the money arising from the contracting of such debt 
 shall be applied to the purpose for which it was raised, 
 or to repay such debts, and to no other purpose what- 
 ever. 
 
 5. Except the debts specified in the third and fourth 
 sections of this article, no debt shall be hereafter con- 
 tracted by or on behalf of this State, unless such debt 
 shall be authorized by a law for some single work or 
 object, to be distinctly specified therein ; and such law 
 shall impose and provide for the collection of a direct 
 annual tax to pay, and sufficient to pay, the interest on 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 287 
 
 such debt as it falls due, and also to pay and discharge 
 the principal of such debt within eighteen years from 
 the time of the contracting thereof. 
 
 6. No such law shall take effect until it shall, at a 
 general election, have been submitted to the people, 
 and have received a majority of all the votes cast for 
 or against it at such election. 
 
 7. On the final passage of such bill in either house of 
 the legislature, the question shall be taken by ayes and 
 noes, to be duly entered on the journal thereof, and 
 shall be : " Shall this bill pass, and ought the same to 
 receive the sanction of the people ? " 
 
 8. The legislature may, at any time after the appro- 
 val of such law by the people, if no debt shall have been 
 contracted in pursuance thereof, repeal the same ; and 
 may at anytime, by law, forbid the contracting of any 
 further debt or liability under such law ; but the tax 
 imposed by such act, in proportion to the debt and lia- 
 bility which may have been contracted, in pursuance of 
 such law, shall remain in force and be irrepealable, and 
 be annually collected, until the proceeds thereof shall 
 have made the provision herein before specified to pay 
 and discharge the interest and principal of such debt 
 and liability. 
 
 9. The money arising from any loan or stock creating 
 such debt or liability, shall be applied to the work or 
 object specified in the act authorizing such debt or lia- 
 bility, or for the payment of such debt or liability, and 
 for no other purpose whatever. 
 
 10. No such law shall be submitted to be voted on at 
 any general election, when any other law or any bill 
 shall be submitted to be voted for or against. 
 
 11. Every law which imposes, continues or revives a 
 tax, shall distinctly state the tax and the object to 
 which it is to be applied ; and it shall not be sufficient to 
 refer to any other law to fix such tax or object. 
 
 12. On the final passage in either house of the legis- 
 lature, of every act which imposes, continues, or re- 
 vives a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, con- 
 tinues or revives any appropriation of public trust, mo- 
 ney or property, or releases, discharges, or commutes 
 any claim or demand of the State, the question shall be 
 taken by ayes and noes, which shall be duly entered on 
 the journals, and a majority of all the members elected 
 to either house shall, in all such cases, be necessary to 
 give it the force of a law. 
 
 The propositions were then laid on the table and or- 
 dered to be printed. 
 
 ' THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION", &c. 
 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. SMITH, of 
 Greenbrier, resumed the consideration in committee of 
 the whole, (Mr. Miller in the chair,) oFthe report of 
 the committee on the basis and apportionment of repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Scott, of Fauquier. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. I respectfully ask the 
 attention of the committee, whilst, in my imperfect man- 
 ner, I submit to its consideration, my views on this ques- 
 tion of deep and vital interest to the country. In exe- 
 cuting the important and delicate trust confided to us, 
 by our constituents, it is impossible, sir, to be unmind- 
 ful of the character (moral and intellectual) of a por- 
 tion of our immediate predecessors, in the great and in- 
 teresting work of constitutional reform. I speak with 
 reference, exclusive reference, to the very worthy and 
 respectable gentlemen who constituted the eastern del- 
 egation in the convention of '29-30. Many of them were 
 distinguished by pre-eminent ability, and all of them by 
 those virtues of the heart, which impart a peculiar 
 charm to the efforts of strong and brilliant minds. He 
 who looks into the proceedings of that convention, will 
 see inscribed upon the roll of its members, the names of 
 Madison, Monroe, Marshall, Randolph, Leigh, Giles, 
 Tazewell, Barbour, and others confessedly of no or- 
 dinary talents. Some of them — many of them — have 
 sunk into the grave, whilst others of them have lived 
 to witness the meeting of another convention. And now 
 
 here we are, at or about the end of twenty- one years 
 only, to revise, amend, and reform the existing consti- 
 tution of Virginia — the workmanship of their hands. 
 No one cherishes a more profound respect and admira- 
 tion for the talents and virtues of the great and good 
 men to whom I alluded, than I do, and no one, there- 
 fore, I trust, will attribute anything I may say to a sen- 
 timent or feeling of unkindness to them. It would in- 
 deed be a subject of sincere and unfeigned regret with 
 me to utter one "v* ord, which by any possible construc- 
 tion could be interpreted into an imputation upon the 
 motives of the illustrious men, to whom reference has 
 been made. But I have been sent here to represent the 
 sentiments and opinions of most kind, and generous 
 constituents, and I should look upon myself as wholly 
 unworthy of their confidence, if, restrained by the re- 
 spect I have professed, (and which is as strongly felt 
 as professed,) I should forbear to give the freest, yet 
 the most respectful utterance to those sentiments and 
 opinions. It is my purpose, therefore, to deliver a brief 
 but unreserved commentary on the doctrines of the 
 men of '29-' 30, and this I shall do without fear, favor 
 or affection. Intellectual as unquestionably they were, 
 surely they were not infallible. Participating with us 
 in the frailties of our common nature, they might err, 
 and in my judgment have erred. If this be so, then, as 
 I am not so presumptuous as to suppose the proposed 
 task within the competency of my unaided powers, I 
 invoke a common, united, vigorous effort to detect and 
 expose their errors, to the end that full and equal jus- 
 tice may be done to the several parts of this ancient and 
 renowned commonwealth. What then is the general 
 character impressed by the good and wise of '29-30, on 
 the fundamental law of the State ? I propound the in- 
 terrogatory, in the confident expectation that but one 
 response can be given to it, and that response is — it is 
 plainly and obviously anti-republican. Nothing is more 
 apparent to my mind, than that the existing govern- 
 ment violates the great principle of political equality 
 so essential to a representative republican government; 
 that it is aristocratic in all its features ; that it pros- 
 trates in the dust those invaluable truths, which have 
 been wisely embodied in the declaration of rights ; is at 
 war, open war, with the spirit and genius of the age, 
 and at utter variance with the wishes of the people. 
 Do we not see the most impressive proof of the truth 
 of this last remark, in the recent judgment of condem- 
 nation, calmly and deliberately pronounced by the peo - 
 pie at the polls in the month of August last ? A major- 
 ity of twenty-five or twenty-six thousand freemen have 
 pronounced it unfit,wholly unfit, for the beneficial, prac- 
 tical purposes of good government. What a commen- 
 tary upon the wisdom of statesmen ! and how striking- 
 ly does it illustrate the indiscretion, and I will add, 
 without intending to be offensive, the folly of disregard- 
 ing the matured and well considered opinions of the 
 people. Public sentiment must be consulted. It can- 
 not be safely disregarded. For a while it may be re- 
 sisted, successfully resisted, but eventually it must and 
 will be triumphant. It must be so. It cannot be other- 
 wise. It will ever be so, until despotism is erected up- 
 on the ruins of popular liberty, and God grant that it 
 may ever be so in this " land of the free and home of 
 the brave." 
 
 I have remarked, sir, substantially, that one of the 
 characteristic and distinguishing features of our consti- 
 tion is, a marked inequality in the distribution of polit- 
 ical power. Is not this most apparent ? Proof of it is 
 written on the face of the instrument itself, and writ- 
 ten so broadly and distinctly, that he who runs may 
 read and understand. Rejecting white population or 
 the qualified voters, as the only true and legitimate ba- 
 sis of representation, it not only gives to eastern Vir- 
 ginia a present unjust majority, but the power of per- 
 petual control in the legislative department of the gov- 
 ernment, as far as that object can be accomplished by 
 constitutional arrangement. The growing population 
 and increasing pecuniary resources of the west, are dis- 
 
288 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 regarded, and eastern Virginia is secured in the posses- 
 sion of power in defiance of every change which may 
 occur in the condition of the country. Is this right ? 
 Can it be right % Is it just ? Is it not indeed, to the 
 west, injustice, gross, unmitigated injustice ? I call upon 
 the members who constitute the eastern delegation to 
 correct the wrong, the palpable, grievous wrong. I 
 call upon them to render to the people of the west, that 
 justice, which under similar circumstances, would most 
 promptly and cheerfully be rendered unto them. I ap- 
 peal to them to bear testimony by their recorded votes 
 to the obvious, indefensible injustice, against which we 
 of the west una voce enter our most earnest and delibe- 
 rate protest, speedily to apply the corrective, and at 
 once and forever remove the reproach which now un- 
 happily rests on the otherwise fair and spotless escutch- 
 eon of eastern Virginia. I am an eastern Virginian, 
 born and raised almost within cannon-shot of this very 
 building ; educated in part in this very city, and cher- 
 ishing for the east, and the people of the east, all that 
 warm and devoted attachment which it is so natural to 
 feel for the land of one's nativity, and yet I solemnly 
 declare, if I were permanently resident in your midst, 
 and a member of this Convention from the east, I would 
 not hesitate to do that which I have so earnestly and 
 sincerely invoked you to do. I would adopt white pop- 
 ulation or the qualified voters as the only true and le- 
 gitimate basis of representation, because, with all my 
 heart, mind, soul and. strength, I believe in the sover- 
 eignty of the people. Yes sir, the sovereignty of the 
 people. "Where is the Virginian who would call in 
 question this fundamental doctrine ? Where is the 
 intelligent American citizen who would refuse to yield 
 
 it his most cordial assent ? I veriiy 
 
 believe such a Vir- 
 
 ginian- 
 found. 
 
 -such an American citizen — can no where be 
 The doctrine lies at the foundation of all free 
 government, and without it, iu my judgment, there can 
 be no rational, well seemed, well regulated liberty. I 
 do not propose, however, to go into a labored argument 
 in vindication of this now well-established American 
 doctrine. Filmer, the once corrupt and profligate min- 
 ion of power, has no disciples here or elsewhere, I trust 
 in Virginia. Every where throughout Christendom, 
 the advocates of freedom have succeeded in the gradu- 
 al, but steady diffusion of liberal principles. The hu- 
 man mind in a good degree has been emancipated. The 
 jure divino has ceased to exert its paralizing influence, 
 and every where the masses begin to regard it as a mis - 
 erable humbug, contrived to cheat them of their rights. 
 A brighter day has dawned upon the world — but I for- 
 bear, I will not press the inquiry. I forbear to speak of 
 my own hopes and fears, or the interest which the 
 friends of free government every where take in the on- 
 ward march of liberty, and the promise it makes of re- 
 lief to the oppressed nations of the earth. It is enough 
 for my purpose to know, that here, in this country, in 
 Virginia, the sovereignty of the people has long ago 
 been recognized, and may I not hope, forever establish- 
 ed % The doctrine, sir, eomes down to the men of the 
 present day, sanctified by time, and tested and confirmed 
 by experience. It comes to us commended to our ac- 
 ceptance by the treasure expended, the blood shed, and 
 the sufferings endured by the American revolution. 
 The patriots in that ever memorable conflict, purchased 
 it at a high price, and have handed it over to us, to be 
 kept as a most precious, sacred deposit. Let us now 
 look for a single moment, to some only of the many in- 
 valuable truths which these patriots have wisely em- 
 bodied in the declaration of rights. In the second' arti- 
 cle of this declaration these patriots tell us " that all 
 power is vested in and consequently derived from the 
 people." In simple but explicit language, the sover- 
 eignty of the people is briefly but distinctly recognized. 
 Power, and as if that word was inadequate to express 
 the thought with sufficient precision, it is said, all pow- 
 er is vested in the people. And yet this declaration 
 has been pronounced to be an arrant abstraction. What 
 sir, the sovereignty of the people an arrant abstraction ? 
 
 The declaration in the bill of rights, which proclaims 
 the great elementary principle that all power is vested 
 in, and consequently derived from the people, an arrant 
 abstraction? No, sir !— no. It is pure, unmixed, unadul- 
 terated truth— practical truth. If power resides not with 
 the people, with whom does it reside ? With kings ? Un- 
 der the resistless energy of the language thus quoted, the 
 monarch loses his crown, and a pampered, favored no- 
 bility their exclusive privileges. But, sir, there is an- 
 other important principle announced by these patriots 
 in the article under consideration, which we should be 
 careful to remember, because it will serve as a useful 
 guide in the examination and decision of other questions 
 which will come before us. It is declared " that magis- 
 trates are trustees of the people, and at all times amen- 
 able to them." Here the relation between the repre- 
 sentative and the constituent body is plainly and dis- 
 tinctly defined. It is the relation of principal and 
 agent. The representative is invested with temporary 
 power, for the accomplishment of objects connected with 
 the public interests. He is a trustee, a mere trustee ; 
 the people are the beneficiaries, ;to whom belong the 
 power, and as soon as his trust is executed, he goes 
 back to the body of the people, stripped of all authori- 
 ty, to render an account of his stewardship. I have ad- 
 verted to this relation, not because it has any immedi- 
 ate or necessary connexion with the question before us, 
 but because il is found in the same article which de- 
 clares the power of the people, and indicates the rule 
 which will govern me, and I hope will govern this 
 Convention, in the decision of other very important 
 questions. 
 
 In confirmation (if confirmation be needed) of the 
 proposition, that the people are the only legitimate 
 source of all rightful political authority, I take leave, 
 most respectfully, to invite the attention of the Conven- 
 tion to the third article in the bill of rights. After de- 
 claring that government is or ought to be instituted for 
 the common benefit and protection of the people, and 
 indicating the preferable government, the great doctrine 
 of popular rights is re-announced in the following 
 terms — " that a majority of the community hath an in- 
 dubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, 
 alter or abolish the government," whenever it is found 
 inadequate to the ends for which it was instituted. Here 
 we have another instance of the bold, independent and 
 peculiarly expressive language of the fathers of the 
 revolution. The sentiment could not have been more 
 forcibly or beautifully expressed. It is not a simple af- 
 firmation of right, but the right is pronounced to be in- 
 dubitable — not only indubitable but unalienable — not 
 only unalienable, but indefeasible. A majority of the 
 community, it is asserted, hath this right. Let us in- 
 quire briefly what is the kind of community intended 
 by this clause ? What is its character ? How constitu- 
 ted ? What are its elements ? The response to these 
 interrogatories, seems to me to be obvious enough. 
 Clearly it is an association of freemen for political pur- 
 poses — an association I mean, of free white men, not of 
 freemen with black and yellow skins — a society of ra- 
 tional, responsible men, (such as I have described them) 
 capable of entering into the social compact — capable of 
 contracting and being contracted with. And now, 
 with this brief exposition, excluding as you see, women, 
 infants and all other disabled persons, permit me to ask, 
 whether it is possible to suppose that the authors of 
 that inimitable production, the bill of rights, could have 
 contemplated by the clause under consideration, a mix- 
 ed community ? A community of freemen and slaves ? 
 A community compounded of men, dollars and cents ? 
 The supposition cannot be made or entertained for a 
 single moment. It is repelled by that care which dis- 
 tinguishes the announcement of all their principles, by 
 the uniform precision, and accuracy which pervade 
 the entire instrument, and effectually repelled by the 
 natural and reasonable import of the terms employed. 
 If the authors of the bill of rights had intended th e 
 singular compound of which I have spoken, they would 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 269 
 
 not have left it to be deduced by a very loose, and inj 
 my judgment, most unsatisfactory inference. It would' 
 hare been clearly expressed. The elements of popula- j 
 tionand wealth, of men and money would have been de- 
 scribed in appropriate language. The mixed principle, [ 
 in a word, would hare been so distinctly denned, that 
 Misconception would have been impossible. This how- 1 
 ever, they have not done, and I conclude therefore, that ; 
 the strange compound to which I have referred waSi 
 never contemplated by them. 
 
 But, sir, in the progress of time, differences of opin- 1 
 ion must necessarily exist in the community of which I 
 have been speaking, in relation to proposed changes in 
 the fundamental law, and hence the necessity, the ab- 
 solute necessity, of some rule for the adjustment and 
 settlement of those differences of opinion. The article 
 under consideration furnishes that rule. It declares, 
 that a majority of the community hath the indubitable, 
 unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter orj 
 abolish, (tc. Here we have no mixed majority, which 1 
 is but another name for a minority. It is the plain, sim- 
 pie, republican majority, to which the people of this 
 country have long been accustomed, and which for one, 
 I am unwilling to surrender. True, the strict letter of j 
 the rule restricts it to questions of constitutional reform, | 
 but the spirit goesbeyondthe letter and makes it equal-! 
 ly applicable to any and every political operation. Why| 
 not ? Why adopt one rule for constit utional reform, and j 
 another and different rule for the legislative department ; 
 of the government ? If the rule of the bill of rights be 
 safe in the one case, it cannot be unsafe in the other. | 
 If it be wise and expedient in the reformation of the ! 
 government, how can it be unwise and inexpedient in! 
 its application to the ordinary legislation of the coun- j 
 try ? I am aware, of no consideration, however plausi- 1 
 ble, which at any time or place, or under any circum- j 
 stances, could ever tempt me, or ought to tempt anyj 
 other Virginian, to discard the tried, well established) 
 republican doctrine, which affirms the right of a simple, j 
 pure, unmixed majority to govern. Strip the people of) 
 this invaluable right — let the Convention gravely and | 
 solemnly renounce it, and it requires no prophetic spirit | 
 to predict that the day must come, when every -vestige! 
 of popular freedom will be swept away from this an- j 
 cient and renowned commonwealth. In my judgment! 
 there can be no safety, no peace, no quiet to the public 
 mind, except in the adoption of white population or the j 
 qualified voters, as the only true and legitimate basis j 
 of representation. But property or taxation has been! 
 and still is, most vehemently and zealously urged as a 
 proper element in the distribution of political power, j 
 Are gentlemen prepared by another constitutional ar- 1 
 rangement, permanently and indefinitely to fasten upon j 
 the people of the west, a principle not only repulsive to | 
 their feelings, at war with those friendly relations which j 
 should always exist between the different portions of I 
 the commonwealth, but utterly repugnant to all the | 
 principles of free government ? We all profess to be 
 republicans — republicans in theory — republicans in 
 practice — and how then can gentlemen insist upon per-J 
 petuating the power of the country in the hands of a 
 minority ? What right, moral or political, has the mi- 
 nority to that power \ Whence is it derived ? from what 
 source \ from what code? from what compact ? Who) 
 are the parties to it ? I ask what right has the wealth | 
 of the State to control the destinies of the State ? The 
 government of Virginia, organized as it is, is and can 
 be nothing more or less than an odious and most offen- 
 sive aristocracy. In violation of the most solemn de- 
 claration in the bill of rights, the power of the common- 
 wealth is transferred from the hands of the many (its 
 rightful depositories) to the hands of the favored few. i 
 A despotism is established — political equality (the most 
 beautiful and distinguishing feature in the creed of the ! 
 republican) is at an end, and the whole people of the 
 west, by the organic law of the land, are reduced to the 
 miserable and dependent condition of serfs — serfs to the 
 east. I 
 
 I now desire to direct the attention of members con- 
 stituting the eastern delegation in this Convention, to 
 other consequences which must necessarily result from 
 the doctrine maintained by them. If it be true that 
 property or taxation is a necessary and indispensable 
 element in the distribution of political power, and that 
 regard must be had to it, in the apportionment of repre- 
 sentation between the east and west, it must or at least 
 ought to be, adopted in the apportionment between the 
 counties, cities and towns of eastern Virginia. Are 
 gentlemen prepared for this ? Are they willing so to 
 apply their doctrine \ Are they prepared in the appor- 
 tionment between the counties, cities and towns of the 
 east, to give to each a representation in proportion to 
 the white population, and the amount or value of prop- 
 erty held by each, or the amount of taxes paid by each ? 
 Are they willing, by such an arrangement, to give to 
 the cities and counties embracing a very large amount 
 of the wealth of the country, the power of controlling 
 and defeating ad libitum and indefinitely the wishes, 
 feelings and sentiments of counties with more limited 
 means r Are they prepared to practice an injustice so 
 revolting \ Their doctrine leads to that result. Per- 
 haps, however, they are not willing to exhibit towards 
 the latter counties, so much of unkindness and illiberal- 
 ity. Why then do that in the apportionment between 
 the east and west, which it would not be proper to do 
 in the apportionment between the several cities, towns 
 and counties of eastern Virginia \ If the principle be 
 unjust in the one case, it cannot be just in the other. 
 But this is not all. Would gentlemen be willing, by a 
 single blow, to strike down the political equality which 
 exists between the independent freemen of the east ? 
 Would they make eastern voters unequal at the polls } 
 Would they invest one eastern man with an amount of 
 power, because of his wealth, which they would deny 
 to another eastern man, because of his poverty ? 
 Would they give to the one authority to govern the 
 other ? to direct and control his fortunes and destinies ? 
 — in a word, to reduce him to the condition of the veriest 
 slave on earth ? I am sure they would not. The thought 
 is indignantly repelled as unworthy of freemen — as the 
 manifestation of an injustice too gross, too intolerable 
 to be borne for a single moment. Yet I am constrained 
 to say, that this very injustice, this wrong, this griev- 
 ous wrong, has been and is practised upon the people 
 of the west, in the relation they sustain to the people of 
 the east. It is perpetrated by the existing constitution 
 of Virginia, and perpetrated, I must be permitted to 
 say, under circumstances of peculiar aggravation. What 
 are those circumstances \ Look to the organization of 
 the last Convention. True, it was organized on the ba- 
 sis of the senatorial districts, but these districts were 
 arranged according to the census of 1810, and the 
 west lost the benefit of the entire increase of its white 
 population, from that period to the passage of the law 
 authorizing the sense of the people to be taken on 
 the question of convention or no convention. In this 
 there was injustice. That convention not only assigned 
 to the east a present unjust majority, but deliberately 
 invested her with the power of perpetual control in the 
 legislative department s of the government. In this, too, 
 there was injustice — most manifest and palpable. And 
 now, here we are in a convention, so constituted as to 
 secure to eastern Virginia a nominal majority at least 
 of seventeen. These facts, sir, I cannot but regard as 
 so many evidences of a settled purpose, to exclude the 
 west from its just participation in the political power of 
 the State, and thus excluded, to keep it in a state of 
 most offensive vassalage. Is it at all wonderful, there- 
 fore, that the western people should complain — ear- 
 nestly complain — aye, solemnly protest against a wrong 
 which sinks them below the level and dignity of eastern 
 freemen ? The constitution degrades the western white 
 man, when it treats him as politically unequal to his 
 fellow on this side of the ridge, and he who supposes 
 the western people will lie down tamely and quietly 
 under the degradation, has wofully mistaken their char- 
 
290 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CO IS VE M ICK 
 
 acter. I will not, however, despair of relief, unpropi- 
 tious as are the circumstances to which I have advert- 
 ed. Justice may yet be done to the west, and be done 
 by this very Convention. 
 
 Elsewhere it has been said (it was said in the last 
 convention, and may be repeated here) that the princi- 
 ples so earnestly and zealously urged by the west, are 
 mere abstractions, and therefore unfit for any practical 
 purposes whatever. To the suggestion, I have this 
 brief, but on that account no less conclusive response, to 
 make. The doctrines of the west are the doctrines of 
 the fathers of the revolution. These distinguished and 
 illustrious patriots were no visionary theorists. They 
 indulged in no idle, metaphysical abstractions. They 
 were men of sound, practical sense, and fully equal to 
 all the exigencies of the times in which they lived. No 
 difficulties subdued them. The history of our colonial 
 dependence, of British misrule and oppression, of the 
 separation of the colonies from the mother country, and 
 of the revolution which followed, furnishes an impres- 
 sive illustration, not of their patriotism only, but of 
 their superior wisdom. To that wisdom we owe our 
 national independence, the blessings of free govern- 
 ment, and those inestimable principles which have been 
 so carefully and wisely embodied in the bill of rights. 
 These principles are the principles of the western peo- 
 ple. Call them abstractions — call them, if you please, 
 the ravings of a distempered mind, or in derision, by 
 any other nick-name — they are still our principles. 
 We take them as the measure of our rights. We insist 
 upon them as the measure of our rights — willing to 
 take what they will give, unwilling to take less. I need 
 scarcely say, that the authority of these elementary 
 principles of government, is in no wise impaired by the 
 omission to carry them into the constitution of "76. This 
 very omission is but additional evidence of the wisdom 
 of the men to whom, at that time, were committed the 
 interests and destinies of the people. They were enter- 
 ing upon a mighty, fearful struggle, which required 
 all the resources of the country, and the union, firm and 
 unbroken, of all hearts and hands. Hence the necessity, 
 the absolute necessity, of disturbing just then, as little 
 as possible, the order of things as it existed under the 
 colonial government. 
 
 It has been alleged in defence of the mixed basis, and 
 in vindication of the course pursued towards the west, 
 that the west has been subjected to no practical evils. 
 With the truth of this allegation I have nothing to do at 
 resent. I refuse to take issue upon it. I refuse to do so, 
 ecause I am unwilling to make up an issue upon an 
 immaterial fact. Its decision cannot in any manner 
 whatever affect the decision of the question before us — 
 but let it be admitted, for the sake of the argument, and 
 for the sake of the argument only, that in the practical 
 operations of the government, we of the west have been 
 treated kindly, humanely, liberally, if you please, how 
 can the concession avail those to whom it is made ? We 
 are not here to complain of the want of kindness or lib- 
 erality on the part of the eastern people, in the actual 
 administration of the government. We are here for 
 a very different purpose. We are here to deny their 
 right to govern us at all ; to insist upon white popula- 
 tion, or the qualified voters, as the only true basis of 
 a representative republican government, and to urge 
 upon the consideration of the Convention, the fact, that 
 at this very moment there is in the west, of white pop- 
 ulation, a majority between ninety and a hundred thou- 
 sand. The western people can never be induced to em- 
 brace the mixed or black basis, as the proper exponent 
 of representation. They are inseparably wedded to the 
 white principle. Their attachment — their devotion to 
 it, is as immovably fixed, as are the foundations of their 
 native mountains. They will never renounce it. They 
 can never renounce it. No legislation, however bene- 
 ficient, can ever induce them to renounce it. They be- 
 lieve it to be above all just and reasonable exceptions, 
 and to be indissolubly connected with their indepen- 
 dence as freemen. Charge them not with obstinacy. 
 
 Their conduct is not without a precedent. There is a 
 precedent which must commend itself to the acceptance 
 of all. That precedent is furnished by the American 
 revolution. What produced that devolution? Surely 
 not the amount of the stamp tax or the tax on tea. 
 The men of the revolution cared not for its amount. To 
 preserve the connexion between the colonies and the 
 mother country, the parliament was more than willing- 
 to repeal the taxes. The patriots of that day, however, 
 insisted upon a renunciation — a total renunciation — ot 
 the right assumed to tax them to any extent whatever. 
 The assumed right was denied upon the obvious princi- 
 ple, that no legislative assembly,whatever, can legislate 
 for, or rightfully impose a tax upon any people whatev- 
 er, who are unrepresented in that assembly. It was 
 the assertion of this principle on the one hand, and its 
 denial on the other, that brought on that fearful but 
 glorious struggle which terminated in the establishment 
 of our national independence. The men of that day 
 earnestly contended for the truth ; waxed warm in its 
 support, and eventually sealed their devotion to princi- 
 ple, with their blood. It is no wonder, therefore, feel- 
 ing as did the men of the revolution, that the men of the 
 mountains, without reference to the question of practi- 
 cal evils, should warmly, zealously and perseveringly 
 maintain a principle which they believe t© be identified 
 with the perpetuation of their liberties. 
 
 I will here notice in as few words as I may, an argu- 
 ment which on more occasions than one, has been urged 
 with great plausibility, but which, in my judgment, is 
 wholly unsound. It has been said that the revolution 
 teaches the doctrine, that taxation and representation 
 go hand in hand, and that the friends and advocates of 
 the mixed basis claim nothing but what is fully justified 
 by that doctrine. Let the proposition as I have an- 
 nounced it be briefly examined. I have already stated 
 the character of the controversy between the colonies 
 and the mother country, and that the right assumed by 
 the parliament to tax them, was resisted and denied on 
 the plain, sensible, rational principle, that no assembly 
 whatever can rightfully tax any people who are unrep- 
 resented in that assembly. And now, what analogy is 
 there between that principle and the mixed basis ? 
 Certainly none — none whatever. The colonies did not 
 ask a representation in the British parliament, accord- 
 ing to their population, their wealth, their contributions 
 to the government, or upon a combination of any or all 
 of these elements. They presented no basis of repre- 
 sentation whatever. A basis was altogether foreign to 
 their purpose. They denied the right of the parliament 
 to tax them to any extent whatever, and at once placed 
 themselves upon the elevated and impregnable ground 
 just stated. They claimed no representation in the par- 
 liament, and would have taken none, however freely or 
 voluntarily tendered. How is it with eastern Virginia ? 
 She has claimed, aye, demanded and enforced her de- 
 mand, not to a representation for her citizens alone, but 
 for her citizens and their property — for her citizens and 
 their contributions to the public treasury. This brief 
 view, I apprehend, is abundantly sufficient to show the 
 entire absence of the slightest restmblance between the 
 mixed basis and the doct rines of the revolution, and I 
 will not, therefore, detain the committee by further re- 
 marks on this point. 
 
 It appears from authentic official evidence before us, 
 that the political power of this commonwealth, is, at 
 this very moment, in the hands of a small eastern mi- 
 nority. Under the sanction of a doctrine, now too long 
 and too well established to be gravely questioned, we 
 of the west ask that this power, by the organic law of 
 the land, be transferred from those who hold it to an as- 
 certained western majority of more than ninety thou- 
 sand, and we are answered that its continued posses- 
 sion is necessary t o the protection of peculiar eastern in- 
 terests. Fears are professed that those interests will 
 be subjected to excessive taxation, by the proposed and 
 unquestionably rightful depositories of the power. 
 These fears are thus made the pretext for denying to 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 291 
 
 the west a simple act of sheer justice. The eastern 
 people are the present trustees of the power in ques- 
 tion, and how, L ask, has the trust been executed ? If 
 faithfully— if the western people have found in their 
 eastern brethren, honest, kind, and indulgent rulers, will, 
 gentlemen refuse to recognize in that very fact, good 
 and sufficient reason for the opinion, that if the seat of 
 empire be changed, the west will manifest towards the 
 east the same spirit of honesty, moderation and forbear- 
 ance ? Or do the obligations of justice exert a more 
 feeble influence upon the men of the mountains, than 
 upon the men of the lowlands ? Is there less moral re- 
 straint in the traus-montaine country than here ? Less 
 integrity ? Less honesty ? My eastern friends admit a 
 perfect equality in all these respects, but accompany 
 the admission with the disqualifying remark, that temp- 
 tation may prove too strong for all these virtues of the 
 heart. The possible abuse of a right, then, is the pre- 
 text, and in the estimation of some gentlemen, a very 
 sufficient reason, for withholding it altogether. Well, if 
 the west may yield to the force of temptation, so may 
 the east. If eastern property be not safe from the 
 imputed marauding spirit of a western majority, what 
 guarantee has the west, that western property will 
 always be secure against a similar abuse of power by 
 an eastern minority? If danger be great in the one 
 case, how much greater, how infinitely greater is it in 
 the other ? 
 
 But for whom is this protection demanded? The 
 fact cannot be disguised that the interests of a few 
 slave owners, it is supposed, will be imperilled by the 
 proposed transfer of power, and must therefore be se- 
 cured. How many slave owners are there in eastern 
 Virginia ? Their number is less than forty thousand. 
 What a small portion ! a mere fraction of its population. 
 And are the principles of free government to be sacri- 
 ficed for the alleged benefit of this battalion of negro- 
 holders ? I hope not. Heaven forbid it. I do not be- 
 lieve, I cannot believe, that the sacrifice is demanded 
 by the masses any where in Virginia. 
 
 But I must be permitted to say that the feeling of 
 distrust, so strongly manifested towards the people of 
 the west, appears to me to be not only very ungenerous 
 but exceedingly unreasonable. What is there, let me 
 ask, in their entire conduct, ah urbe condita, to excite 
 a well founded apprehension, that the powers of the 
 government would be abused by them, to the oppres- 
 sion and injury of the east? What is there to justify 
 an opinion, a belief, a suspicion even, that armed with the 
 powers of the government, they would in an aggressive, 
 plundering spirit, seize upon the resources ©f the east, 
 and apply them to their own alleged selfish purposes. 
 Where is the proof in support of an imputation so dis- 
 creditable — so derogatory to the hon^r of the west ? On 
 what page of her history is it to be found ? That page 
 has not yet been written, and I apprehend never will 
 be. True, she may have been indiscreet, perhaps, in 
 sometimes co-operating with the east in the establish- 
 ment; of some petty, injudicious local improvement. If 
 this be so, it is " the head and front of her offending — 
 to this extent — no more." But you know, " that trifles 
 light as air, are to the jealous confirmations, strong as 
 proofs of holy writ." I pray gentlemen, to dismiss at 
 •once and forever, the unworthy and unfounded suspi- 
 cion. It can impart no additional credit to the chivalric 
 and otherwise generous character of eastern Virginia. 
 Instead of distrust, there is, in my judgment, abundant 
 reason for confidence. The war of 1812 furnishes the 
 most impressive and memorable illustration of the truth 
 of this remark. Amid its stirring incidents, the com- 
 mon enemy, it will be recollected, made demonstra- 
 tions of his purpose to burn the towns and cities of the 
 east, and to lay waste the entire country on the sea- 
 board. The loud and anxious call to arms, was heard in 
 its thunder tones, beyond the mountains. Did western 
 men fold their arms and look with cold indifference up- 
 on the threatened impending ruin ? Oh no. The 
 struggle was, who should be foremost in pressing on- 
 
 ward to the scene of danger. The west poured its 
 hundreds into the lowlands, whose surface now bears 
 melancholy evidences of western devotion to eastern 
 interests — distinctively so called. No mention was then 
 made of impassible mountain barriers. No distrust was 
 then felt, and none expressed. The east did not then 
 distrust the west, nor the west the east. Animated 
 by a common spirit in defence of a common country, 
 there was a oneness of feeling, of sentiment, and of in- 
 terest. How is it now ? Of the west, I hope I may 
 be permitted to speak with something like the confidence 
 of intimate knowledge. Aa it then was, so it now is. 
 She feels that Virginia with all her proud associations, 
 is the common home of all her sons ; that Virginia hon- 
 ors are her honors ; Virginia rights, her rights ; and that 
 an enemy to the east, whether foreign or domestic, is her 
 enemy — and let me tell you, sir, should the dark cloud 
 of northern fanaticism, which has so long hung over the 
 south, with an increased and increasing blackness, ever 
 break in its fury upon southern rights, in that same 
 hour, will the brave and gallant spirits of the west, be 
 found side by side with their eastern brethren. The 
 west looks and has ever looked with pride and pleasure 
 on this good old commonwealth, as one and indivisible 
 — not only theoretically, but practically so. Therefore 
 it is, as well as for other good and sufficient reasons, 
 we tell our eastern friends, as we have often told them, 
 that the provision in the federal constitution, which se- 
 cures to the south a representation for three-fifths of 
 her slaves, can find no place in the consideration of a 
 question of representation in Virginia. That provi- 
 sion which settles no principle, establishes no proportion 
 whatever between representation and taxation, is sim- 
 ply a compromise between sovereign and independent 
 States. But Virginia is a single sovereignty — a unit 
 — one and indivisible. In this aspect, we have been in 
 the habit of regarding her, and in none other. There is 
 in truth, no substantial difference — no material diversi- 
 ty of interests, between the east and west. Invest the 
 west with the legislative power of the government, 
 and I know of no peculiar western objects to induce un- 
 just and ureasonable levies on eastern means. I know 
 of no western enterprise in conflict with the general 
 public good. A few great avenues of trade, of State in- 
 terest, already commenced, I apprehend would be com- 
 pleted — I hope speedily completed — a consummation 
 most devoutly to be desired — a consummation demand- 
 ed by an enlightened regard to the true interests of our 
 entire country. The tide of emigration which is now 
 annnally reducing our population, and wasting away 
 the energies of the State, would then be arrested; the 
 abundant and inexhaustible sources of wealth and 
 strength, with which our country abounds, would then 
 be fully developed, and the various parts of this good 
 old commonwealth, would be bound together fey cords, 
 to be broken by no power on earth. The prostrate and 
 paralyzed body of Virginia, under the magic influence of 
 a policy so wise, so beneficent, would spring into new 
 life, and once more stand erect, in the midst of the now 
 more prosperous members of the family. Such results, 
 I know, would gladden the heart of every Virginian, 
 and such results, I think, may be confidently anticipa- 
 ted. I again utter the remark already made — in my 
 opinion, there can be no peace, no quiet to the public 
 mind, except in the adoption of white population, or the 
 qualified voters as the basis of representation. Reject 
 it, if gentlemen will, but let them remember it is not 
 therefore rejected forever. The day will soon come, 
 when the demand for justice will be renewed with a 
 sterner purpose, and in a spirit which will take no de- 
 nial. The gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) in- 
 quires, how long will the patience of the east be abused 
 fey the complaints of the west ? I repeat the eloquent 
 response of my eloquent friend from Accomac. " They 
 will be rung in the ears of eastern men, until they are 
 made to tingle," and I will add, until western wrongs 
 are redressed. I have finished, what I intended to 
 say. I thank the Convention for its polite attention. 
 
292 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 Perhaps I hare occupied too much of its time. If so, 
 I hope an apology may be found for me, in the earnest 
 desire I have felt, fully to represent the sentiments of 
 my constituents, on this subject of deep and absorbing 
 interest. .The floor will now be yielded to others, who, 
 no doubt, will conduct the argument with much great- 
 er ability. 
 
 Mr. CHAMBLISS. It is with great diffidence and 
 extreme embarrassment that I rise to address this com- 
 mittee — a diffidence originating from the fact, that it is 
 the first time in my life that I have ever addressed a 
 deliberate body, and, from the fact that I am surround- 
 ed by so much age, by so mueh experience, and by so 
 much talent that is so far superior to that to which I 
 can lay any just claim. A remark which has fallen 
 from my friend from Greenbrier, has brought me to my 
 feet. Those remarks in which he alluded to a bat- 
 talion of slaveholders, caused me to feel that the great 
 interest which I in part represent on this floor, deserves 
 some notice from its advocates and its owners. I am 
 one, and my constituents constitute a large portion of 
 that battalion. Yes, small in territorial extent as my 
 district is, I in part represent on this floor, twenty-eight 
 thousand slaves. But, before I proceed to notice the 
 argument which he adduced in that respect, I trust the 
 committee will allow me for a few moments to allude 
 to the source from which he claims this political power 
 of numbers. 
 
 This question is exceedingly interesting — interesting to 
 us all — interesting because it has so long agitated the 
 public mind in this old commonwealth. We all know, 
 that when questions are thus long agitated, they pro- 
 duce jealousies, heart-burnings and feelings, which I 
 fear will unfit too many of us upon this floor to give 
 calm and deliberate investigation to subjects which 
 may be presented to us. I fear that the channels into 
 which our thoughts have so long run, may induce us 
 to look with some distrust upon any proposition which 
 may be presented — according to the source whence 
 it comes. This is always, and ever will be the inevita- 
 ble result of long cherished opinions, and of long agita- 
 ted questions. The gentleman referred to that ex- 
 position of great truths, political truths, the bill of 
 rights, as the source from which he derives his power of 
 numbers. In defence let me tell him, that there is not 
 a section in that bill of rights which does not give pro- 
 perty as prominent a position as persons. What, is not 
 property one of the very elements of the body politic ? 
 Is it not one of its stays and supports? What would a 
 community of men do without money ? They would be 
 as impotent as money without men. What, I ask, are 
 the uses of government at all if you have nothing but 
 men to govern ? Our bill of rights gives to majorities 
 of numbers the rule, he says, and its great principles are 
 those upon which the white basis has its origin. Why, 
 the declaration of independence itself places property 
 in a middle ground between life and honor. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. I admit that property 
 is the fit subject of protection of the government; but 
 my proposition is, that property is not a just element in 
 the distribution of political power. 
 
 Mr. CHAMBLISS. I did not misunderstand, neither 
 do I intend to misrepresent my honorable friend from 
 the county of Greenbrier. I do not intend to do so, be- 
 cause (if for no other reason) he was one of those illus- 
 trious men who formed the constitution under which 
 we now live. I say, that in all the conventional ar- 
 rangements which have existed, so far as Virginia is 
 concerned, whether as a party to the federal compact, 
 or in her own constitution, property has ever received 
 a prominence equal to persons. I repeat, our fathers 
 gave their solemn pledge to sustain their principles; 
 they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sa- 
 cred honor in defence of these principles. Did they 
 not regard their fortunes as worth something, else why 
 pledge them to sustain the principles they had ad- 
 vanced? But there are more clauses in the bill of 
 rights than my friend alluded to. Pray tell me what 
 
 use there would have been for the bill of rights to have 
 declared that magistrates were the servants of the peo- 
 ple, and their trustees and agents, if it had not been for 
 the management of property ? Do persons need trus- 
 tees and agents to manage them ? My friend does not 
 need a trustee, and men are able to govern them- 
 selves. Why then do you want your trustees and your 
 agents, except to manage your funds? That is not 
 all. There is something else in the bill of rights be- 
 sides. It secures to men life, liberty, and the pursuit 
 of happiness, and the means of acquiring and possessing 
 property. There, the bill of rights places the acquisi- 
 tion and keeping of property in precisely the same cat- 
 egory as it does the rights of persons. I think, there- 
 fore, that property will be here regarded, as it was re- 
 garded by our forefathers, as of some moment. 
 
 But I was astonished, and I approach this argument, 
 therefore, with some greater degree of feeling than I 
 otherwise should approach it, under the threat that is 
 held over this body, " in terrorem," by my honorable 
 friend. I hope he does not mean it as such. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. I certainly do not under- 
 stand the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will make you understand. 
 He warns the east, that if you deny the demand, we 
 will ring and ring again this question till your ears shall 
 tingle. What is that but a threat, that if you deny us 
 what we ask, we will never let you rest day nor night, 
 till our wishes are consummated? 
 
 If this committee will indulge me, and I hope they 
 may indulge me, as it is the first time that I have tres- 
 passed upon their patience, I will examine briefly the 
 grounds upon which we place this claim to the com- 
 bined basis of representation. Now, I do not care 
 what may be the theoretical arguments. I do not care 
 what may be these abstractions ; we are sent here 
 for the purpose of making a practical government, 
 for the purpose of making a government that shall 
 regulate our concerns, and those of our posterity, as 
 practical men ; and pray tell me what do we find is the 
 position in which this commonwealth is placed ? Not 
 with her interests homogeneous ; not with her property of 
 like kinds, alike distributed throughout the State ; but 
 we find that while there is a majority of population of 
 ninety thousands beyond the mountains ; we find in the 
 east a minority possessing two-thirds of the property. 
 And that very battalion, to which my friend has re- 
 ferred, owns, in one single article of property, an excess 
 of upwards of one hundred millions of dollars, and this, 
 taking the estimate of slaves at a very low price. I re- 
 peat that we hold one hundred and odd millions of dol- 
 lars worth of slaves more on this side of the mountains 
 than you do on the other. The gentleman admits that 
 this property is entitled to protection, and he admits 
 that it is entitled to the very best protection. And 
 what is that ? Is it to trust to the magnanimity — and 
 I shall be the last man in this Convention who will 
 pretend to cast any imputation upon the justice of our 
 friends and brethren from the west — is it that we shall 
 trust it to the magnanimity of our western friends ? 
 You are magnanimous we know ; and you have 
 shown it on many occasions, especially the memorable 
 one to which the gentleman from Greenbrier alluded. 
 In the war of 1812, our soil was drenched with the 
 blood of western men, and the bones of many of them, 
 lie now upon the sea shore. For that we thank them, 
 and to our western brethren for their patriotism, and 
 for their magnanimity, in our hearts we have erected a 
 never dying monument. But it is not with questions 
 like that we have to deal, but it is with the practical 
 question of how this government shall be formed, so as 
 best to secure the purposes of justice, moderation, fru- 
 gality and virtue, and how this government can best 
 be made so as to prevent the danger of mal-administra- 
 tion. How can that be done ? It can be done, says my 
 friend from Greenbrier, by committing it to the hands 
 of a majority of numbers. That king numbers can bet- 
 ter rule than a combination of all the various interests 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 293 
 
 of the commonwealth ! Can that be true ? Is the 
 vast property which we hold to be set aside ? Why do 
 our western "brethren want the majority in the legisla- 
 ture of the government ? Why will they ring it in our 
 ears until they tingle again, until they get that major- 
 ity ? He admits that they have never suffered from the 
 administration of the legislative department of the 
 government. He agrees that the west has never suf- 
 fered from this power while it was in the hands of the 
 east. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Greenbrier. I said that was an im- 
 proper issue, and had nothing to do with the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. CHAMBLISS. It is an improper issue, and has 
 nothing to do with the question ! The protection of 
 our property is an issue that has nothing to do with this 
 question ! It is the question, blink it as you may, cover 
 it over as you please ; strip the question of its tinsel, 
 expose it in all the deformity which it appears to us, 
 and its features stand out as prominent as the Greek 
 slave. What is asked of us is, that we shall commit 
 this mighty interest to their hands, and their keeping. 
 That is the privilege which he asks ; that is the privi- 
 lege which the white basis gives. And for what ? That 
 they may manage this great interest which belongs to 
 us ; that they may take upon themselves the burthen of 
 executing this trust. We admit to our western breth- 
 ren that they have a mortgage upon our estates. We, 
 freely of our abundance, give to their necessities ; but 
 we ask for the power and the privilege of appointing 
 the trustees unto whose hands, in whose management, 
 and by whose distribution this fund is to be carried 
 out. That is what we ask, while they ask the east to 
 turn over to them this fund. Is it because you are in 
 pursuit of a principle ? Are your people dissatisfied 
 because you are in pursuit of a principle and cannot 
 find it? Is that all you want? I awfully fear that 
 if the principle stood alone, probably, gentlemen 
 might not be so anxious to adopt it. I repeat that I 
 fear — I do not charge it — that if principle alone was 
 involved, that if our excess of property was not to be 
 placed into your hands, that you would not, probably, 
 t)e so clamorous for a majority, which would give you 
 that control. 
 
 Whence is this right of the majority derived ? Where 
 does it come from ? Where does this principle of a 
 majority of numbers spring from ? Does it spring from 
 any natural law ? I thought that our bill of rights, 
 which has been invoked by my friend, declares that all 
 men are equal. Is there anything in nature which gives 
 any man a right to lord it over his fellow ? Is there 
 anything but the law of force by which the stronger 
 overcome, oppress and distress the weaker ? Surely 
 there is no gentleman on this floor who is desirious of 
 applying that natural law of force in our present or- 
 ganic law ? Does it arise from any conventional ar- 
 rangement ? If so, what? Pray, what conventional 
 arrangement have we, have our constituents, has the gen- 
 tleman from Greenbrier, has any body in the common- 
 wealth of Virginia, ever been a party to, to invest a ma- 
 jority of numbers with the right to rule the whole in- 
 terests of the commonwealth ? It is not derived from 
 this bill of rights, from no law of nature, and there is 
 no conventional arrangement, either federal or State, 
 which gives them that authority. Tell me, should it exist? 
 Are not the great elements of society, persons and pro- 
 perty ? Are not all our laws made for the protection 
 of persons and property ? Are not our courts establish- 
 ed for the very purpose of trying the rights of persons 
 and property ? Is not our executive invested with the 
 power to enforce the execution of the laws in respect to 
 persons and property ? Yet, when in all the machine- 
 ry of government, in all its departments, property is re- 
 garded as standing side by side with the rights of man, 
 and, I am told, that it is to have no influence in the gov^ 
 ernment itself, I am gravely told that property is to 
 stand alone and can take care of itself. How, when, or 
 
 where, did property ever take care of itself? When, 
 where and how did property ever protect itself, except 
 through the agency of those who own it ? They are 
 the active representatives of this fund. They are the 
 trustees to whose keeping it is to be given, and it is 
 only through them that property can be felt in the gov- 
 ernment and receive adequate and efficient protection. 
 I did not intend to detain the committee, and could not 
 do so physically if I desired, but I beg leave to say to 
 my friend from Greenbrier that though he may give 
 this warning, that this question of the white basis will 
 be rung in our ears till the stalwart sons of the west 
 shall have what they term an equal voice in this gov- 
 ernment, that never so long as this battalion, or even a 
 corporal's guard of that battalion, is in this hall,will we 
 surrender to men who do not own it, the control of that 
 slave property. I came here to protect that property ; 
 I came here to protect the slaves of my district as well 
 as the persons; I came here to have an eye single in 
 all the departments of government to that controlling 
 interest which prevails in the district which I repre- 
 sent. While I will do justice to all, as far as I am ca- 
 pable, yet my bond is given, my pledge is given, and I 
 will stand up here at all hazards and to the last ex- 
 tremity, to defend that interest — that paramount inter- 
 est of the constituents whom I in part represent — 2,500 
 of whom in part stand upon this floor in my person. 
 Yes, I represent upon this floor one fourth as many 
 slaveholders as there are living beyond the Blue Ridge 
 mountains ; and could it be expected that I should be 
 silent when we were denominated a mere battalion, and 
 when this interest which I in part represent amounts to 
 upwards of ten millions of dollars, shall be sneered at 
 as a mere corporal's guard ? What great object is to 
 be effected by transferring this power which we are ask- 
 ed to transfer from our own hands to those of our western 
 brethren ? Will it have a tendency to allay any sec- 
 tional strife, any sectional feeling? Will it have the 
 effect of levelling the mountains and making our inter- 
 ests homogeneous ? Will the western people become a 
 commercial community ? What effect I say will it 
 have in soothing this hydra-headed sectional feeling 
 which has. been stalking, from the very foundation of 
 the government to the present day, over Virginia ? 
 While you may soothe the dissatisfaction of our western 
 friends, you will place upon our eastern friends a dis- 
 trust ; and it is useless for me to stop to inquire which is 
 the more deleterious feeling to exist in the community, 
 one of distrust or one of simple dissatisfaction about 
 principle ? To what greater evils will not the one lead 
 than the other ? Our western brethren may be dissat- 
 isfied, but certainly they will have suffered no injury. 
 But we would have the fears of the whole of eastern 
 Virginia aroused, that their property would not suffer 
 from cupidity, not because the western people were 
 disposed to grind us by oppression, but they would dis- 
 trust it. Whether that feeling would be well or ill 
 founded, it is bootless here to inquire. So that you would 
 transfer the feeling of distrust to the east against the 
 feeling of dissatisfaction on the other side of the moun- 
 tains. You do not allay it, you effect no practical good, 
 while you would place in the hands of those who are 
 not entitled to hold them, the purse strings of the State. 
 I trust that the time may soon arrive, I trust that the 
 time is at hand, I trust it will ever be at hand when ev- 
 ery man in every part of Virginia will feel himself to 
 be a Virginian. Does it need a white basis to bind our 
 western brethren to us by a cord which cannot be bro- 
 ken ? Are they not now bound to us by all the cords 
 of sympathy and of brotherly affection, of a common 
 interest and of loyalty to our institutions, that will 
 never allow them to break off from us ? We have no 
 distrust of your people as individuals, but do you not 
 know that we are dealing with you as we deal with all 
 men ? Communities of men do what individuals dare 
 not think of doing. Do we not know in political affairs 
 that communities do what no single individual of that 
 community would dare to even think, much less do ? 
 
294 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 It is by that feeling, and from that feeling, that we are 
 disposed to guard ourselves and our interests. 
 
 I feel exceedingly obliged to this committee for lis- 
 tening with so much attention to one so inexperienced 
 in debate as I am. I owe to this committee an apology be- 
 cause of my want of preparation. While I had thought 
 over this subject somewhat, still I feel the want of due 
 preparation for this discussion. I owe the apology, be- 
 cause I say in sincerity I was brought to my feet by 
 the remark which dropped from my worthy friend from 
 the county of Greenbrier. 
 
 Mr. McCOMAS. As I presume that no one desires 
 to address us at this late hour, I move that the com- 
 mittee rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to — a count being had — ayes 
 50, noes 45, and the committee accordingly rose. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I understand that the gentleman who 
 was not ready at the time the vote was taken, is now 
 prepared to proceed with the discussion. I move, there- 
 fore, that the Convention again resolve itself into com- 
 mittee of the whole. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, 
 
 And the Convention accordingly again resolved itself 
 into committee of the whole, (Mr. Miller in the chair,) 
 and resumed the consideration of the report of the 
 Committee on the Basis and Apportionment of Repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Mr. Chairman, I confess that, so 
 far as I am personally concerned, this debate is, to some 
 extent, forced upon me. I do not deny that I have 
 given some attention to the great principles involved in 
 this question, or that I have investigated the facts con- 
 nected with it. I acknowledge, however, that the doc- 
 uments on which I wish to rely are not, at present, at 
 my command. Not expecting that the debate, on the 
 part of the gentlemen who were to begin the discussion, 
 would be concluded to-day, I did not come armed with 
 those facts to which I wish to refer. But I can make 
 a few remarks in reply to some of those made by the 
 gentleman from Greenesville, (Mr. Chambliss.) That 
 gentleman and myself differ toto coelo, in respect to the 
 great starting point of his argument — of all argument 
 on this subject — that is. that in this great machinery of 
 government — this science in which are involved all 
 the dearest rights and privileges of men, there are no 
 principles — there is nothing to begin an argument with ; 
 that in framing the organic law we are to look to n© 
 fundamental principles of government; that our fath- 
 ers were all wrong in declaring certain rights to be 
 the basis and foundation of government;" that these 
 are mere abstractions — a succession of empty abstrac- 
 tions. I have not so learned the theory of government. 
 
 There was one principle conceded here a few days 
 ago, though all others were denied, by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier (Mr. Chilton) — one staple left on which 
 to hang the frame-work of government. It was, that all 
 power rightfully resides in the people, and that when- 
 ever it is exercised by any other than the people, it is 
 still considered their power, and legitimately derived 
 from them. Yes, sir, it belongs to, and comes from, 
 the people. And who are the people ? The people, it 
 is said by some, are a combination of sentient, intelli- 
 gent, responsible, and immortal beings, and — money. 
 [Laughter.] I am foolish enough to believe that the 
 people are a community of men, with responsibilities to 
 themselves, to each other and to God ; that a free peo- 
 ple have a high and holy mission confided to them, and 
 that their destiny will be noble and exalted if they 
 faithfully observe the laws of their intellectual and 
 moral being ! The power derived from the people is 
 to be exercised for their benefit ; but the gentleman 
 from Greenesville says it is to be exercised for the ben- 
 efit of men and money, and that in the declaration of 
 independence, and in our bill of rights, the rights of 
 property stand side by side with the rights of persons. 
 He says the laws are made rather to protect property 
 than persons — that the courts of justice and the exec- 
 utive are established rather to expound and enforce 
 
 laws concerning property than persons. In this argu- 
 ment lies the radical error of the gentleman : it is in 
 supposing that by our laws property is regarded as a 
 being that has a right to speak, to litigate its interests 
 in our courts, and to demand for itself the execution of 
 the laws. Property is no separate subject or source of 
 government • the right to hold it is a mere personal 
 right, just as the right to life and liberty. One great 
 cause of this assumption of power for property orig- 
 inates, perhaps, in the distinction made by Blackstone 
 and others between the rights of persons and the rights 
 of things. All rights that appertain to men, as mem- 
 bers of a community, are personal rights, and there is 
 no such thing as a right of property independent of 
 the right of persons. In the convention of 1829-'30, 
 there was an eloquent man who came from the county 
 of Northampton — I refer to Mr. Upshur — who, in a 
 speech that reflected immortal honor on his intellect — 
 immortal credit on his ingenuity — spoke of this matter 
 in such a manner as to mystify the thoughts of the 
 great men who were around him. But what did he 
 say? He admitted that property was a creature of 
 society, but argued to show that " a feeling of prop- 
 erty " led to the formation of society. If we can go 
 back to those dark periods of the past, when it may 
 be supposed man was in a state of nature, I would ask 
 what probably prompted him to cease roaming over 
 the plains, or meeting his fellows, by chance, in the 
 forest to form a social compact ? It would seem rea- 
 sonable to suppose that it was to preserve rights which 
 man understood — the value of which he realized. 
 What were they? The answer is — the right to life, 
 the right to liberty — to use his limbs and body accord- 
 ing to his pleasure. These are clearly natural rights, 
 and to preserve them intact, it would seem, men were 
 led — if they ever were in a state of nature — to form 
 the social compact. Feeling the danger to life, with 
 regard to which there is an instinctive and innate sense 
 of apprehension, the danger to liberty — an impulsive, 
 restless love of which — a love — a passion that starts in- 
 stinctively from every human heart, men would band to- 
 gether to protect themselves against the law of force, 
 of which the gentleman spoke awhile ago — from the as- 
 saults of the strong against the weak, from attempts to 
 destroy life, to curtail liberty, and to enslave the body. 
 Self-preservation was the first impulse to society ; a 
 spontaneous impulse to protect clearly appreciated 
 rights, led men to combine, that those who were sepa- 
 rately weak, and a prey to violence, might, by union, 
 become strong to resist the ruthless and the violent. 
 Out of such an association sprung the concession that 
 he who should expend his labor on any work should 
 have the right to claim, and the privelege of using it 
 as his own, by separate title. Prior to this, all proper- 
 ty was held in common, as nature gave the means of 
 sustenance to man. This right to separate property 
 was a concession of society, already formed, to its indi- 
 vidual members. How, then, is property — to use the 
 idea of Mr. Upshur — the offspring, the creature of socie- 
 ty ? And now what is the argument of the gentleman 
 from Greenesville ? (Mr. Chambliss.) Why, that the crea- 
 ture shall become the ruler of the creator — that proper- 
 ty, instead of being an interest, recognized, protected, 
 and allowed, by the consent of society, shall have pow- 
 er to countervail that consent in respect to life and lib- 
 erty — to control the original purposes that brought it 
 into being. The doctrine that property ought to have 
 power to control government, cannot be said to find its 
 origin either in nature or in the original institution of 
 society. But I did not design to speak on these abstract 
 questions. I may refer to them to-morrow. My chief 
 purpose, indeed, is to address to this committee argu- 
 ments founded on facts. Taking the principle, which 
 gentlemen on the other side will concede, that if we, as 
 a people, be homogeneous, and possess identity of in- 
 terests, representation should be so based as to give 
 equal power to equal numbers of voters — I wish to 
 show that we may safely and properly adopt the suf- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 295 
 
 frage basis. I desire to prove, by the statistics that have 
 been laid before us, what will be the legitimate effect 
 of the principle that representation should be appor- 
 tioned according to the number of qualified voters. I 
 wish to satisfy my friend from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) 
 that if this principle be carried out — the principle of 
 equality, not only in regard to suffrage, but representa- 
 tion — his apprehensions of danger are wholly unfound- 
 ed ; and that if there is to be any plundering — if there 
 is to be any marauding — if there is to be any foray 
 from the mountains down on the lowlands, (as in for- 
 mer times was the case in Scotland,) the lowlanders 
 themselves must invite the foray — must open the way 
 for the incursion. And I will endeavor to show that 
 my friend from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) has, in days gone 
 by, been heard sounding the bugle charge, at the head 
 of the mountaineers, in their rush to plunder the treas- 
 ury. [Laughter.] I wish, also, to intimate to tide 
 water that she has, perhaps, as much to fear from the 
 Piedmont district as from the Valley and the West. I 
 wish to show that, if oppressions are anticipated, they 
 have already been inflicted, and that if tide water has 
 any right to complain of burdens on its purse, those 
 complaints must be directed against the Piedmontese as 
 well as western men. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I ask the gentleman if he will not pre- 
 fer to conclude his remarks to-morrow, and give way 
 for a motion that the committee rise ? 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY". It would, perhaps, be better. 
 
 Mr. CHA^BLISS. I never interrupt while speak- 
 ing, and I desire now to correct a misapprehension of 
 the gentleman. In the course of the remarks which I 
 had the honor to submit, I did not say, as he seems to 
 have understood me, that no principles of government 
 were to be referred to. My remark was, that it was 
 useless to refer to fundamental abstract principles, be- 
 cause we had to form a government from materials al- 
 ready furnished to us, and that it was out of those ma- 
 terials that the government was to be formed. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I now move that the committee rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I find that it still lacks a quarter 
 of 2 o'clock, and as I hope the Convention will not ad- 
 journ at so early an hour, I move that we now go into 
 committee of the whole on the report of the executive 
 department. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. I move that the Convention do now 
 adjourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and 
 
 The Convention adjourned until to-morrow morning 
 at 11 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 19, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Hoge, of the Presbyterian 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated that there was a matter of 
 unfinished business, being the motion of Mr. Anderson, 
 to go into committee of the whole on the report of the 
 committee on the executive department, pending which 
 the Convention adjourned on yesterday, but as the oc- 
 casion to which the motion applied had passed, it would 
 be considered as having fallen. Such he understood 
 was the desire of the gentleman who offered the motion, 
 himself. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, Ac. 
 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. PURKINS, 
 resumed the consideration in committee of the whole, 
 (Mr. Miller in the Chair,) of the report of the com- 
 mittee on the basis of representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Scott, of Fauquier. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I trust I shall be pardoned if I re- 
 peat to-day some things uttered by me in the desultory 
 
 remarks I submitted to the committee on yesterday. 
 And now, permit me to say, that I approach again the 
 discussion of the question under consideration, with un- 
 affected distrust of my own ability to cope with the mo- 
 mentous issue it presents. It is indeed a great question, 
 profoundly interesting to all portions of the Common- 
 wealth ; affecting the hearts of the people ; and stirring 
 in their lowest depths the feelings and prejudices of our 
 constituents. I tremble lest 1 be unable to rise to the 
 summit of the lofty theme. J shall be sustained, how- 
 ever, by two considerations which, I trust, will give me 
 power to discharge my duty — the first is, that with all 
 my heart, I believe in the virtue of the cause and in the 
 truth of the principles I advocate ; and the second is, 
 that I am cheered on by the cordial approval of the gen- 
 ereus freemen whom I represent. It is no new-born 
 zeal for the principle of equality which animates my 
 constituents, and I will add, it is no selfish feeling that 
 prompts them to demand for themselves and their breth- 
 ren of the West an equal participation in the govern- 
 ment of the Commonwealth. The district from which 
 I come contains a white population of 34,309 ; a slave 
 population of 9,617 ; and pays annually into the treasury 
 $21,898. My constituents are no seekers after mere 
 power ; they are no mendicants praying for a higher rank 
 in the sisterhood of counties. Whatever be the decision 
 of this question, their political power will not be di- 
 minished. May I not be justly proud of the position I 
 am permitted to occupy, as the representative of a peo- 
 ple abounding in all the elements of prosperity, and 
 contending for a great principle with no interest to be 
 promoted by the result ? The gentleman from Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott) has ventured to declare that if the suffrage 
 basis be adopted, the door now closed against the plun- 
 derers of property, will be thrown wide open — that the 
 people of the West are struggling for the purse-strings 
 and not for principle — and that the clamors of the west 
 for equal representation vex his patience. Should pro- 
 perty be assailed, " the plunderers " will never come 
 irom the Augusta district. The people of that commu- 
 nity have interests too vast at stake to tolerate a threat 
 against the institution of property, much less to become 
 its plunderers; they have purses too capacious and well- 
 filled to be found clutching at those of their neighbors ; 
 but in respect to the principle of equal representation, 
 their unceasing clamors must continue to vex the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier. I have said that the devotion 
 of my constituents to this principle is no new-born feel- 
 ing, called into active energy by appeals to their self- 
 interest. If the scales of the heartless calculator were 
 to be suspended and men's interests estimated by the 
 standard of dollars and cents were to be coldly weighed, 
 it might be found that our interests would bear down 
 our principles. The time has been when the people of 
 Augusta were urged to espouse the doctrines of the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, and were told that it was 
 their interest to do so. Could you have witnessed the 
 manner in which that appeal was met, and however 
 ably pressed, indignantly rejected, you would be satis- 
 fied that it were vain to renew the attempt to pervert 
 their principles in order to promote their interest. 
 They believe from the heart and with the understand- 
 ing, that suffrage should be uniform, and that represen- 
 tation should be equal ; and their faith in these doctrines 
 is strengthened by the memories of the past. They re- 
 member well the events which occurred twenty-five 
 years ago — how they, in common with the people in the 
 Valley and the Piedmont district, groaned, being heavi- 
 ly burdened by the oppression of unequal representa- 
 tion — how cordially the trans-Alleghany district co-op- 
 erated with them to secure political equality, though 
 at the time to its own detriment. I need not remind 
 you that the Valley and the Piedmont district gained, 
 whilst the trans-Alleghany lost political power in the 
 Convention of 1829-30 — lost it under a stern and arbi- 
 trary apportionment — by a constitutional provision, 
 which, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, changes 
 not. Mr. Doddridge, with prophetic eye, foresaw that 
 
296 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the time might come when the Valley and the Piedmont 
 would cast off their faithful associates and turn their 
 backs upon them. Awed, as it were, by this apprehen- 
 sion, how eloquently did he appeal to the people of 
 those districts, to cherish, to keep alive the memory of 
 common struggles for great principles, and never to de- 
 sert their glorious standard. The memory of that ap- 
 peal, which twenty-one years ago was answered by the 
 Valley and the Piedmont with a vow of fidelity, still 
 thrills the hearts of the people of my district — its 
 echoes still linger in our beautiful valley, and I am here 
 to redeem the plighted faith of days gone by — to de- 
 clare now the opinions — to advocate now the principles 
 so dear to the hearts, so cordially approved by the judg- 
 ments of our people twenty-one years ago. I do indeed 
 take pride in their position — feel proud of their consis- 
 tency, and honored by their confidence. And Loudoun 
 — who, if I mistake not, in 1825, called her sister coun- 
 ties into convention at Staunton — who, at least, united 
 in the great purposes of that convention, which were 
 to secure thorough reform of the old constitution in re- 
 spect to suffrage and representation — noble old Loudoun! 
 have the impressions, the principles of the past been ef- 
 faced from her mind by the progress of time or by a 
 change of circumstances ? No, I believe not ; and I 
 would fain hope that her voice, always on the side of 
 liberty and equality, may yet be heard on this floor 
 without one discordant tone. And is it — can it be, that 
 Albemarle, Nelson, Amherst, Bedford, Campbell and 
 other counties in the east, once keenly alive to the elo- 
 quent appeal of the orator of the west, are now pre- 
 pared to turn a deaf ear to theory for justice once uttered 
 by themselves, simply because their cry has been an- 
 swered, and they are content ? 
 
 The gentleman from Fauquier (Mr Scott) has denom- 
 inated the proposition we advocate as new and extraor- 
 dinary, and that this eternal clamor of the people of 
 the west for the white basis vexes his patience ; and has 
 declared that the mixed basis being the foundation of 
 the existing state of things, we must give reasons for a 
 change. I beg leave to give a rapid sketch of the his- 
 tory of representation in this Commonwealth ; this his- 
 tory, I think, will establish two facts — first, that the 
 people of Virginia, as a people, have never had an op- 
 portunity to vote upon and determine for themselves 
 the just principle of representation ; and second, that 
 property has never been recognized as an element in 
 representation, except in the case of the bill calling this 
 convention, the precedents, so far as they go, being 
 against such a doctrine. The colonial government was 
 established in July, 1621. Two burgesses were author- 
 ized to be elected from each town, hundred and partic- 
 ular plantation by the inhabitants ; afterwards they 
 were permitted to send a larger number of burgesses. 
 In 1634 counties were formed; in 1660 each county was 
 authorized to elect two delegates, and so it continued, 
 irrespective of the wealth of the counties, through the 
 revolution and under the old constitution, to the year 
 1830. In 1776 the ordinance of government was adopt- 
 ed —it was established under the authority of an ordi- 
 nary legislative body, and was never submitted for rat- 
 ification or rejection to the people. The circumstances 
 were urgent — the war for liberty was raging — the old 
 government was just thrown off — the reasons for that 
 act and the principles on which freemen fought to erect 
 the structure of government were announced in the bill 
 of rights — a new government was to be organized, in 
 the language of Mr. Jefferson, " for purposes of resistance 
 and temporary self-protection," and therefore the free- 
 hold suffrage, which had been imposed on the colony by 
 the King of Great Britain at the point of the bayonet, 
 and the county representation, were permitted to re- 
 main as they were. It will be seen that property re- 
 presentation wa,s not thought of in 1776. There were 
 twenty-four senatorial districts named in the constitu- 
 tion — twenty east and four west of the blue ridge ; as 
 nearly as we can judge, this was, at the time, a fair ap- 
 portionment of representation according to white popu- 
 
 lation. But in 1790 each eastern senator represented 
 15.726, and each western senator 31,898 white persons; 
 in 1800 the numbers were 16,819 east, and 44,369 west ; 
 in 1810 there were 16,941 east, and 53,181 west ; and 
 in 1815, it was estimated that the four western senators 
 represented two-fifths of the white population of the 
 State, These developments aroused the west, and they 
 began to vex the ears of eastern men with their clamors 
 for equal representation. They did not at that time 
 complain so much of inequality in the house of dele- 
 gates, because, as population increased, new counties 
 were formed, and each new county became entitled to 
 two delegates. In 1815, a bill was introduced into the 
 house of delegates to equalize representation in the sen- 
 ate ; the love of power is strong in man's heart — so 
 strong that his grasp of the sceptre is always reluctant- 
 ly relaxed. Then, as now, the demand for equal repre- 
 sentation was regarded as a selfish clamor for power on 
 account of its emoluments, and not as the assertion of 
 a right to the loss of which freemen cannot tamely sub- 
 mit. To this reluctance to give up the power the east 
 had been wont to wield, and to a certain opinion given 
 by constitutional lawyers, the bill was rejected. That 
 opinion was, that the constitution having defined the 
 limits of the senatorial districts, the general assembly 
 could not alter them. This repulse created profound 
 excitement in the west, and led to the great convention 
 at Staunton in 1816. That convention preferred a peti- 
 tion to the general assembly, praying for the call of a 
 convention to equalize representation, and for other pur- 
 poses. A bill was reported and passed the house of 
 delegates, which provided for the call of a convention 
 for three purposes : first, to enlarge the right of suf- 
 frage ; second, to equalize representation on the basis of 
 the white population ; and third, to equalize the land 
 tax. This bill announced three great principles of a 
 free republican government, viz : enlarged suffrage ; 
 equality of representation, and taxation in proportion to 
 the ability to pay. The combined or mixed basis was 
 still unheard of in Virginia, although as early as 1808, 
 it had been engrafted on the constitution of South Car- 
 olina, whose example we are now invited to follow. The 
 bill thus adopted by the house of delegates, and so fa- 
 tally dangerous to eastern power, went to the senate 
 and was about to pass that body, when the constitution- 
 al lawyers were again consulted, who, after due and 
 careful consideration, came to the same conclusion, at 
 which Mr. Jefferson had arrived as early as 1783 — 
 namely : that as the constitution itself was a creature of 
 legislative power, the same power might change the 
 senatorial districts. Accordingly, to avoid the immi- 
 nent peril of a convention, a bill was prepared and 
 passed, February, 1817, re-apportioning representation 
 in the senate on the basis of white population and for 
 re-assessing the lands. Nine senators were givtn to the 
 west, each representing 23,636 white persons, and fif- 
 teen to the east, each representing 22,589 white persons, 
 as near an approximation to justice as could have been 
 expected. It was of this act that Mr. Leigh said in 
 1829, "to avoid the call of a convention, the bill for 
 equalizing the representation in the senate on the basis 
 of the white population was in an evil hour passed ; I 
 had no share in it ; I thank Heaven for all its mercies, 
 none." I beg to know of the gentleman from Fauquier, 
 whether there is any authority thus far in the history 
 of Virginia for the doctrine that property is entitled to 
 control government — that representation should be made 
 to quadrate with wealth? In the Convention of 1829-30, 
 although there was a majority of twenty-four members 
 from the east, the resolution of the legislative commit- 
 tee, which declared that "in apportioning representation 
 in the house of delegates, regard should be had to white 
 population exclusively," at one time was adopted by a 
 vote of 49 to 47, and no substitute for the resolution 
 asserting any other principle could be carried. The 
 difficulty of agreeing to a principle of apportionment 
 for the senate finally opened the way for Gordon'scom- 
 promise, which has settled down upon the energies of 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 297 
 
 Virginia, with an unyielding arbitrary power that has 
 chafed her people to the present moment. 
 
 But the gentleman from Fauquier relies upon the call 
 of the present Convention as a sufficient justification of 
 his position, that the mixed basis is the existing princi- 
 ple of representation, and that therefore we must show, 
 reasons for a change. What was the condition of things 
 which led to the passage of the act calling the Conven- 
 tion, and to the adoption of that act by the people ? 
 The cry for reform, had for years been heard in the 
 house of delegates. Winter after winter the petitions 
 for a Convention had been either rejected or cooly passed 
 by. At length the east began to feel the burden of 
 grievances as well as the west, and then it was thought 
 expedient to grant the prayer of the people. I had the 
 honor of preparing the original bill which was reported 
 to the house of delegates : it proposed to submit to a 
 majority of the people two questions, 1st, " whether 
 they would have a Convention," and 2nd, " whether it 
 should be based upon the white population or upon the 
 white population and taxation combined. I wished to 
 tender to the freemen of Virginia a choice of principles. 
 But the original bill, so truly republican in its provis- 
 ions, was defeated, and the substitute ©f the gentleman 
 from Halifax (Mr. Stovall) which submitted to the peo- 
 ple substantially this question : " will you have a Con- 
 vention organized as this is, or none?" was adopted, 
 And in voting for a Convention thus organized, it is al- 
 leged there was freedom of choice in respect to the 
 principle on which it ought to have been organized. 
 The body politic was, as it were, starving for reform — 
 we tendered to the fettered and emaciated prisoner the 
 choice between starvation and a parched and wretched 
 diet, which, if the principles of the gentleman from 
 Fauquier prevail, I fear will only serve to keep alive a 
 feverish and fretful vitality. And now, we are told 
 that a free choice was made, and the diet was relished 
 and approved, and has become the staff of political life. 
 In replying affirmatively to the question, "will you have 
 this Convention or none ?" the people acted under the 
 impulse of two common incentives to human action — 
 discontent with present ills, and an eager, oft times, 
 a too sanguine hope of blessings in the future, which 
 will result from change. The people from the West, 
 too, looked with strong hope, almost confidence, to the 
 constituent body in eastern Virginia, to send, at least, 
 some delegates to the Convention who would advocate 
 the cause so ably and eloquently defended by Monroe, 
 Mercer, Cordon and Fitzhugh, in 1829 ; and although 
 their hopes have not been fully realized, I am gratified 
 in being able to say they have not been wholly disap- 
 pointed. 
 
 And now, we are here assembled to perform the most 
 solemnly important functions freemen can delegate to 
 representatives. We are here convened to re-organize 
 every department of our government — to infuse efficien- 
 cy and to create responsibility in all the branches of our 
 polity — to build anew the structure of our institutions, 
 and to render the results of our labors acceptable to 
 the popular mind, so that it may rest contented with 
 the organic law. The executive, legislative and judi- 
 ciary departments are to be remodeled, and improved 
 by us — the county court system, and county organiza- 
 tion — the functions of the justices of the peace — the 
 cause of education — every power of government from 
 that which from the centre of influence at the capital, 
 pervades the whole State, down to that which comes 
 home to the people in their daily walk and intercourse 
 with their fellows — all these subjects of reform are en- 
 trusted to our hands. And who are we ? It is said we 
 are the representatives of the people — that this body is 
 the organ by which the sovereign will of the people is 
 to be expressed in respect to all these momentous 
 concerns. Would that this were such a representative 
 body ! But it is far otherwise. What is the fact ? 
 There are seventy-six delegates on this floor represent- 
 ing 402,771, and only fifty-nine delegates representing 
 26 
 
 494,763 white persons. And why is this? Why is it 
 that so small a minority of the people has so large a 
 majority of power ? Is the minority more exalted in 
 virtue, in character and in wisdom ? — has God impressed 
 upon them the stamp of superiority, that they should 
 so wield the power of the State ? Suppose a stranger 
 were to appear in our midst — one who had read our bill 
 of rights and learned to value its sacred principles — 
 suppose him to question us concerning the theory and 
 practice of our government — how astonished would he 
 not be by the contrast ! You declare he would say in 
 your bill of rights "that all men are by nature equally 
 free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, 
 of which when they enter into a state of society they 
 cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their poster- 
 ity, namely: the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the 
 means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursu- 
 ing and obtaining happiness and safety." Why should 
 not those who are equally free and independent and who 
 are equally entitled to those inherent rights which are 
 to be guarded by this government, who are equally in- 
 terested in the preservation of those rights, be equally 
 represented here ?" Our answer to the inquiry would 
 be, that all the people of this Commonwealth are equal- 
 ly free and independent, and equally entitled to the en- 
 joyment of life and liberty — together with the means of 
 acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and 
 obtaining happiness — they are all equals in right and 
 by going into society they cannot destroy that equality; 
 but it must be remembered that in 1776 the provisional 
 government was so organized as in the course of years 
 to concentrate power in the hands of the minority — that 
 the minority possesses at present a greater amount of 
 property than the majority — that this property is here 
 represented as well as persons, and that is the reason 
 for this apparent, not actual, inequality — in a word, that 
 the interests of society are equally represented. Again, 
 the perplexed stranger inquires, " What means the 
 clause of your bill of rights which declares ' that all 
 power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the 
 people' — that magistrates are their trustees and ser- 
 vants, and at all times amenable to them ?" Our an- 
 swer would be, " that in that clause, the phrase ' the 
 people,' two words which foolish persons have much 
 misunderstood, does not mean the persons who hold the 
 sovereignty of the State, but an association contrived 
 in the laboratory of political metaphysics, compounded 
 of men and their interests in money ; and that the re- 
 sponsibility of public servants is to this compound cor- 
 poration, and not ' to the people' as ordinary persons un- 
 derstand the term ; and this is proven by the use of the 
 word 'trustee' in the latter clause, because, as the gen- 
 tleman from Greenesville (Mr. Chambliss) has Baid, 
 " why use the word ' trustee' unless there was property 
 to be managed — funds to be accounted for ?" 
 
 But, the stranger still filled " with obstinate question- 
 ings" referring to another clause in the bill of rights, 
 that " a majority of the community hath an indubitable, 
 unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or 
 abolish " their form of government, asks how does it 
 happen that a "majority of the community" are not 
 here by their representatives to perform this highest 
 work of sovereignty ? Our answer would be " that out 
 of 897,534, the whole white population of the State, 
 402,771 do constitute a large " majority of the communi- 
 ty," so large as to entitle them to 76 out of 135 dele- 
 gates on this floor ; and the reason of this is, that the 
 word " community" does not mean " people" just as 
 " people" does not mean an aggregate of " persons ;" but 
 in truth means "interest," so that "a majority of the 
 community" means " a majority of the interests of socie- 
 ty." " You submitted then, I suppose," remarks the puz- 
 zled stranger, " the question of the call of the Conven- 
 tion to be decided by 'the majority of the interests of 
 society,' scaling the votes of men so as to make their 
 value correspond with the combined ratio of men and 
 money ?" By no means, is the reply. That question 
 
298 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 was submitted to the sovereign people, and if there had 
 been a majority of one against the call, although all the 
 monied interests of society had been in its favor, this 
 Convention would never have been organized. It is 
 presumed, however, that as " the majority of interests" 
 is to control the government, and as the new Constitu- 
 tion is vitally to affect all the interests in the Common- 
 wealth, you will hardly submit to a mere majority of 
 numbers the decision of a question so momentous as the 
 ratification of the organic law ; you will scale the votes 
 of the people so that if the entire vote be regarded as 
 150, that of the Tidewater district, containing 189,314 
 white persons, shall be counted as 41, that of the Pied- 
 mont district, with 213,45*7 white persons, shall be 
 counted as 41, that of the Valley, with 163,177 white 
 persons, shall be counted as 27, and that of the trans- 
 Alleghany district, with 331,586 white persons, shall be 
 counted as 41 ; so that, in any event, the Constitution 
 may be rejected if " the interests of society" require it. 
 Is this the course to be pursued ? By no means, is the 
 reply. It is proposed to submit this vital question also 
 to the majority of numbers, and not to " the majority of 
 interests." To such contradictions are gentlemen driven 
 who contend that " a majority of interests" should gov- 
 ern society. They declare that less than a majority of 
 those, who under the present constitution are entitled to 
 exercise the right of suffrage, cannot authorize any 
 change in the existing form of government, and that 
 less than a majority of those who are hereafter as voters 
 to possess and exercise the sovereign power of the Com- 
 monwealth, cannot accept the new Constitution, so as to 
 make it binding on the community ; and, furthermore, 
 that if accepted and ratified even by a small majority, 
 and against the voice of "the majority of interests," the 
 Constitution will at once become the supreme law of the 
 land, subject only to the constitution and laws of the 
 United States ; and yet they argue that k< a majority of 
 the community" in the bill of rights means "a majority 
 of the interests of society,' 5 and that by analogy with 
 this principle as interpreted and explained by them- 
 selves they are justified in providing in the legislative 
 department of the government that "a majority of in- 
 terests" shall be clothed with the power. They demand 
 for the minority a majority of delegates in the Conven- 
 tion, and also in the legislature, upon the ground that 
 " a majority of interests" should control the government, 
 deriving that doctrine from a principle in the bill of 
 rights, which principle when applied in practice by 
 themselves they admit means nothing but a majority of 
 the units of sovereignty, of voters. It is this of which I 
 complain. It is the inequality of our positions on this 
 floor. It is the iron-handed tyranny that forces me here 
 as an inferior, against which my heart — my whole soul — 
 revolts. Were we equal representatives, of equal con- 
 stituencies — equals in virtue, in wisdom, in loyal devo- 
 tion to our Commonwealth — equals in right, and equal- 
 ly to be heard on every question affecting the interests 
 of society, I could listen calmly as a brother to a brother 
 to the reasonings of him who would persuade me that 
 the safety and interests of society required a surrender 
 of power by the majority to the minority. I would 
 weigh his reasons ; give heed to his apprehensions ; and, 
 if convinced that it were right, would voluntarily re- 
 sign power for the common good. But such is not my 
 position. I feel like one to whom terms are to be dic- 
 tated, and who is to be told that he must take what the 
 holders of power choose to surrender or nothing. The 
 reins of government are safe in the hands of the minori- 
 ty — they cannot be wrested from it except by revolu- 
 tion or violence, and the long suffering — patience and 
 patriotism of western men are relied on — and, it is 
 thought, safely relied on — as a shield against danger, or 
 a threat of danger, from that quarter. 
 
 But we are assembled once more in council to consult 
 for the common weal, to remodel our organic law. Let 
 us forget — if some of us can — and lay aside all sense of 
 inferiority on the one hand, and of that natural self com- 
 placency that is inherent in him who holds power on the 
 
 other ; and let us reason together as brethren. We are 
 to build the structure of a free government — a govern- 
 ment which shall protect life and liberty, and secure to 
 the people equally the means of acquiring and possess- 
 ing property, and of pursuing and obtainiug happiness 
 and safety. We all agree that these are the great pur- 
 poses of government. The question which first presents 
 itself is, shall our government be founded on principles 
 or expediency — on the solid rock foundation of fixed 
 principles, to which wise and patriotic freemen have 
 every where assented, or on the shifting quicksands of 
 expediency ? Expediency ! how often, in religion and in 
 politics, has short- sighted man, abandoning the principles 
 of eternity, been led astray by the expediency of the mo- 
 ment ? The light of expediency is that of the will-o'-the- 
 wisp, the ignis-fatuus, that beguiles the deluded sons of 
 men from the ways of principle, of truth, and of virtue, 
 into devious paths of error, falsehood and crim e. Untold 
 are the evils it has entailed upon the human race ; and 
 he who surrenders himself to its guidance, who abandons 
 the principles of his faith for the expediency of the mo- 
 ment, will ere long find the foundations of virtue, the 
 props of safety, and the pillars of happiness, crumbling 
 and giving way. And the government that is founded 
 upon the principle that the people may not be trusted 
 with power lest they abuse it, will be found at last to be 
 built on a foundation of sand. The rain will descend ; 
 the storm will come ; that government must fall. Let 
 us not rest our government on the unstable foundation of 
 expediency, but choose as the bright corner-stones the 
 solid principles quarried from the mines once explored 
 by Locke, Hampden and Sydney. The gentleman from 
 Fauquier (Mr. Chilton) said, a few days ago, that the 
 principles of freedom were as well understood two hun- 
 dred years ago by the grea.t men I have named, as they 
 are by us. Yes, the spirit of liberty that had given a 
 sturdy independence to the fathers of our race in the 
 forests of Germany — that followed the Saxon to the 
 Island of Great Britain — that inspired the bold barons 
 to wrest from the hands of the tyrant John the great 
 charter of freedom — that, although oftentimes almost 
 extinguished beneath the pressure of arbitrary power, 
 ever and anon burst forth with a fitful glare to startle 
 the tyrant from his security, shone forth in the writings 
 of Locke, and in the acts of Hampden, with a lustre that 
 has never grown dim ; a light which, having reached this 
 western continent, shall at last be diffused over the world. 
 The great men of 1776 did, indeed, in announcing the 
 rights of man, and the principles of free government, do 
 little more than give vital energy to the speculations of 
 Locke and Hampden. They announced in the bill of 
 rights of Virginia, tbe first declaration of rights pro- 
 mulged in America, those great principles which I in- 
 voke this committee to adopt, and to act upon as the solid 
 basis and foundation of our government. First, that all 
 men are equally free and independent, and equally en- 
 titled to the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the 
 means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pur- 
 suing and obtaining happiness. Second, that all power 
 is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people ; 
 and third, that a majority of the community hath the 
 right to control its government. I will not discuss these 
 propositions at large. I trust they will be elaborated 
 by others. I will content myself with remarking that 
 government in its essence is a compact resulting from 
 the consent of equals ; of men who, before the compact, 
 were equally entitled to the natural rights God had be- 
 stowed upon them, to the free air and light of Heaven, 
 to the enjoyment of life and the blessings of liberty, and 
 to appropriate to their own use the bounties of nature 
 for the support of life, and the pursuit of happiness, free 
 from the control and independent of the authority or do- 
 minion of others. And in entering into the compact of 
 government this equality is not destroyed ; the natural 
 rights of all are equally restrained, but to the extent to 
 which they exist they must continue equa], otherwise 
 some of the parties to the compact, who were originally 
 equals, have surrendered more of their natural rights 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 299 
 
 than others, and deprived and divested themselves and 
 their posterity of a certain portion of those inherent 
 rights to which the bill of rights declares men continue, 
 under all circumstances, to be equally entitled. I am to 
 some extent a skeptic in respect to a state of nature. It 
 was Aristotle who declared he could not imagine man 
 disconnected from a state, from an association with others 
 by consent. But, if we may argue from the postulate, 
 that man was once in a state of nature, and came out of 
 it into a state of society and government, what may we 
 suppose to have been his condition ? His first appre- 
 hensions must have arisen from dangers to life and lib- 
 erty, from the instinct of s<rlf-preservation ; separate 
 property was not essential to the support of life ; the 
 water that gushed from the fountains ; the fruits which 
 grew upon the trees ; the herbs and grain which sprung 
 out of the ground, were the common property of all, and 
 furnished the sustenance of life. The hand of violence 
 raised against the life of man, struck the first blow at 
 the safety of the state of nature ; the dominion of the 
 strong over the weak, leading to tyranny on the one hand, 
 and slavery on the other, spread a second alarm through 
 the ranks of men. Association — a combination of physi- 
 cal forces for self-preservation and personal protection, 
 was at first resorted to — was formed to guard rights, 
 natural, inherent and readily understood, and, the fear of 
 losing which eprung out of the very consciousness of 
 man's nature. 1 cannot but think that society was form- 
 ed at first to preserve men's lives from violence, their 
 limbs from torture, and their bodies from slavery. These 
 are emphatically natural rights, to guard which men 
 combined in society. The right of property, the right of 
 one man to claim as his own, by separate title, any spe- 
 cies of property, must have had its origin in the consent 
 of society. It was recognized, sanctioned and guarded 
 as a personal right founded in justice, and attaching to 
 him who had worked for the property. Prior to society 
 the world and its fruits were the domain of the race • to 
 no one portion of which could any individual lay claim, 
 and such a separate claim or title could only become a 
 right by common consent, which itself pre-supposes the 
 existence of a consenting society. I can easily imagine 
 a society to exist for many years without any separate 
 right in the individuals composing it to any species of 
 property, and yet that the means of subsistence and of 
 comfort should be abundant. The water, air, fishes, 
 fowls, fruits, and flesh, given by nature for man's sup- 
 port, would be, to such a society, a common stock out 
 of which the wants of each member of it would be sup- 
 plied. The right to hold any of these gifts of nature to 
 the separate use of an individual must have originated 
 in the consent of those equally entitled to nature's 
 bounties. And what, I ask, would have been thought of 
 that man who, first asking the consent of society in its 
 earlier stages that he might hold property separately for 
 his own use, should have turned round and claimed as a 
 right, a preponderance of power, by reason of that prop- 
 erty ? The answer to such a claim would have been 
 prompt, and to this effect: that by the consent of all it 
 had been agreed that each should severally hold and en- 
 joy what he could rightfully acquire as property ; this 
 privilege had been accorded to every member of society. 
 It was supposed, at the outset, that some would accu- 
 mulate more than others, but that each would acquire 
 something ; and it was solemnly agreed that the right 
 of each to his all should be equally protected ; and that 
 the expense of protection should be borne in proportion 
 to the ability of* each. How then would he who had, 
 perhaps, been fortunate, and had grown rich, whilst his 
 neighbor, with equal virtue and industry, had remained 
 poor, how could he claim, not only protection for his 
 property, which all were willing to give, but, in addi- 
 tion, the power to dispose of his neighbor's property at 
 his pleasure ? The majority of such an infant society 
 would have replied to such a bold demand for power, 
 thus : " You must rest for the safety of your property 
 upon the same pledges, the same guaranties on which we 
 all rely for our lives, our limbs, our liberties, and our 
 
 property ; for you must remember we have property as 
 well as you. All we can say is, that we will bind our- 
 selves to deal with your property as with our own ; 
 with your lives and liberties as with our own ; and that 
 you shall ever enjoy equal power with us in disposing of 
 our common interests." I think then it must be ap- 
 parent that property in the hands of individuals held by 
 separate titles did not precede but sprung out of socie- 
 ty — was not an element in forming society, but its crea- 
 ture. That the right to hold it belongs to the class of 
 mere personal rights ; a right recognized and sanctioned 
 by the common consent of society after men had. con- 
 federated to protect life and liberty. And now it is ar- 
 gued that an institution which originally owed its very 
 existence to the consent of persons shall control per- 
 sons; that the creature shall be exalted so high as to 
 command the submission and obedience of the creator. 
 
 And now what, in such a society as I have referred to, 
 would be the rule of decision in matters of common con- 
 cern ? I answer, the will of the majority — that, in my 
 opinion, is the natural law of every body which has 
 adopted no other — and no other can be adopted except 
 by universal consent, or by the will of a majority. It 
 would require most cogent arguments to prove that by 
 universal consent the members of society had agreed 
 that a minority should govern the majority ; and if it is 
 argued that a rule differing from that of the majority 
 has been established in certain cases, by the consent of 
 the majority, the very exceptions prove the rule to be 
 as I have indicated. In our State and federal constitu- 
 tions it is no where said that a majority may do certain 
 acts ; that rule is not in the lex scripta, but belongs to 
 the unwritten, common, may I not say, natural law of 
 associated bodies. But when less than a majority may 
 do a certain act, or more than a majority must be re- 
 quired to accomplish a certain purpose, the particular 
 limitations upon the general rule are plainly set down — 
 because, having sprung out of the consent of the majori- 
 ty, they shall restrain its will only according to that 
 consent. Upon this point I beg leave to quote a passage 
 from Locke's Essay on Government — an authority so elo- 
 quently and emphatically approved by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier (Mr. Chilton) some days ago. Locke 
 says : " When any number of men have, by the consent 
 of every individual made a community, they have there- 
 by made that community one body, with a power to act 
 as one body, which i3 only by the will and determina- 
 tion of the majority. For that which acts in a commu- 
 nity, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and 
 it being necessary to that which is one body to move one 
 way, it is necessary the body should move that way 
 whither the greater force carries it, which is the con- 
 sent of the majority ; or else it is impossible it should 
 act or continue one body, one community, which the 
 consent of every one who united in it agreed it should ; 
 and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded 
 by the majority. And, therefore, we see that in assem- 
 blies empowered to act by positive laws, where no num- 
 ber is set by that positive law which empowers them, the 
 act of the majority passes for the act of the whole ; and 
 thus every man, by consenting with others to make one 
 body politic under one government, puts himself under 
 an obligation to every one of that society to submit to 
 the determination of the majority, and to be concluded 
 by it." This is the authority on which our fathers de- 
 clared that " a majority of the community" hath the 
 right to govern ; and yet it is now contended that the 
 rule of the majority is the dominion of mere numbers — 
 is a tyranny not to be borne. It is called sneeringly 
 " king numbers," and is regarded as an unrestrained op- 
 pressor — a lawless despot — more terrible than an abso- 
 lute monarch. It is obvious, too, that the community of 
 which we speak must be regarded as one community, 
 one body, governed by a preponderating will, and that 
 will, the aggregate of the wishes of a majority in the 
 community. If the community cannot be regarded as 
 one — as homogeneous — of the same kind of persons, (that 
 is the definition of "homogeneous") — as possessing the 
 
300 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 same patriotism, intelligence, morality, and virtue — the 
 argument proves that the community should not be to- 
 gether, but should form such new communities out of the 
 original whole as would be homogeneous. In respect to 
 Virginia I resist all such arguments as tend to show 
 that her people are unlike in patriotism or dissimilar in 
 interest ; I resist them as at war with my own convic- 
 tions and with the true glory of the Commonwealth. 
 
 Let us then, regarding Virginia as one community, 
 proceed in detail to consider the various propositions 
 before the committee, and the arguments for and against 
 each. Proposition A (the original proposition before the 
 committee) contains the mixed basis after the model of 
 the South Carolina constitution, and an apportionment 
 in accordance with this principle. It proposes that in 
 the house of delegates, consisting of one hundred and 
 fifty delegates, seventy-five shall represent the taxes 
 and seventy-five the white population of the Common- 
 wealth, thereby making taxes an equal element with 
 persons in representation. The taxes so to be estimated 
 are all the taxes paid except those on merchants' licenses, 
 law process, and deeds. In speaking in this argument 
 of the grand divisions of the Commonwealth, I shall be- 
 gin with the tide-water, as number one, and proceed from 
 east to west to number four, the trans- Alleghany dis- 
 trict. Including the increased land tax then, the white 
 population and taxation of the Commonwealth will stand 
 as follows: 
 
 Districts. 
 1st, 
 2d, 
 3d, 
 4th, 
 
 Total 
 
 White population. 
 189,3 L4 
 213,457 
 163,177 
 331,586 
 
 897,534 
 
 Taxes. 
 $179,744.52 
 167,742.95 
 92,392.05 
 94,893.40 
 
 $534,772.92 
 
 Upon the mixed or combined basis I have said taxes 
 will send seventy-five and white population seventy -five 
 delegates. If the whole population be divided by sev- 
 enty-five, we will have 11,967 as the common ratio for a 
 population delegate. If the whole taxes be divided by 
 seventy-five, we will have $7,130.30as the common ratio 
 for a tax delegate ; or, blending them together, each 
 delegate should represent 5,983 white persons who pay 
 $3,565.15 taxes. Apply these ratios to the population 
 and taxation of the four divisions and the result will be 
 as follows : 
 
 Taxes give 
 
 1st dist. 25 2-10 del., population 15 8-10—41 delegates 
 2d " 23 5-10 " " 17 8-10—41 3-10 del. 
 
 3d " 13 « " 13 7-10—26 7-10 " 
 
 4th " 13 3-10 " " 27 7-10—41 delegates 
 
 75 75 150 
 
 In the Senate it is proposed there shall be 51 mem- 
 bers : The ratio for a tax Senator will be $20,971, and 
 for a population Senator 35,196 white persons : in other 
 words, each Senator should represent 17,598 white per- 
 sons who pay $10,485.50 — apply these ratios to the east 
 and the west, and the results will be as follows : 
 East , taxes give 16.57 Senators : pop. 11.43 — 28 Sen. 
 "West: " 14.05 " " 8.95—23 " 
 
 It will be observed, and I desire it to be remember- 
 ed, that in the Valley, the number of delegates on taxes 
 falls short of that on population only 7-10 of one dele- 
 gate. 
 
 I will follow this mixed basis scheme in some of its 
 details and effects, before I proceed to consider propo- 
 sition B, and the substitute of the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, (Mr. Scott.) I will show what number of per- 
 sons each delegate from the four divisions will repre- 
 sent, and applying the smallest number as a ratio to the 
 other divisions, what effect will be produced. 
 
 1st dis. ratio for a delegate, 4,617 white persons 
 
 2d « « " 5,206 
 
 3d " " " 6,043 
 
 4th " " " 8,087 
 
 Apply the ratio in the 1st district, 4,617, (being the 
 smallest,) to the four grand divisions : It gives: 
 1st district 41 delegates, and leaves no excess. 
 2d " 41 " and leaves an excess of 
 
 24,160 white persons. 
 3d " 27 " and leaves an excess of 
 
 38,318 white persons. 
 4th " 41 " and leaves an excess of 
 
 142,299 white persons. 
 
 150 204,777! 
 
 So that if the white persons in the 1st district have 
 only their due weight in the government, the citizens of 
 the other districts, when compared with them, fall 
 greatly short of a proper participation in the legislative 
 power ; and it appears in fact, the inequality is so great 
 that there are 204,771 out of 708,220, (the whole white 
 population, excluding that of the 1st district,) who may 
 be said to be disfranchised. 
 
 Eegard it in another aspect, and it will appear equal- 
 ly astounding in its developments. Apply 5,983, the 
 average ratio for a delegate, throughout the State, to 
 the white population of each of the grand divisions, and 
 it shows that in allowing 41 delegates to the 1st district, 
 representation is given to 55,989 white persons too ma- 
 ny : in allowing 41 delegates to the 2d district, repre- 
 sentation is given to 31,846 white persons too many, 
 making an aggregate of 87,835 white persons who ought 
 to be in eastern Virginia to entitle her to 82 delegates , 
 but who are not there : and in applying the same ratio 
 to the 3d district, it will be found that in allowing it 27 
 delegates, there are 1,636 white persons not represent- 
 ed, and that in allowing the 4th district only 41 dele- 
 gates, there are 86,283 white persons not represented, 
 making an aggregate of 87,919 white persons more than 
 the number which would entitle western Virginia, on 
 principles of equality, to 68 delegates. 
 
 Proposition B, offered by the gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha, as a substitue to proposition A, declares first 
 that " as individual suffrage should be equal without re- 
 spect to the difference of individual wealth, so an equal 
 number of qualified voters shall be entitled to an equal 
 representation without regard to their aggregate 
 wealth ;" and second, "that representation shall be 
 equal and uniform in this commonwealth, and shall al- 
 ways be regulated and ascertained by the number of the 
 qualified voters ; " and then proceeds to apportion re- 
 presentation as nearly in accordance with this principle 
 for the present as practicable ; and provides that in 
 1855, and every ten years thereafter, there shall be an 
 enumeration of the qualified voters, and apportionments 
 made according to their number. This proposition be- 
 gins with suffrage and declares that " the qualifications 
 necessary to confer the right shall be uniform through- 
 out the commonwealth. " I understand the gentlemen 
 on the other side to agree to this proposition. We be- 
 gin the argument at the same point with our opponents, 
 that is, that the sovereign or elective power should be 
 lodged in the hands of voters — electors — who are to be 
 qualified as we may hereafter prescribe, to wield the 
 power of the State. We go a step further and say, the 
 members of this great elective body, these electors — 
 — are to be equally trusted and in equal proportions- — 
 as individuals — as hundreds, as thousands. Our oppo- 
 nents say they are not to be trused in proportion to their 
 numbers ; but in proportion to their numbers and taxes 
 combined. And to test this question, the gentleman 
 from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) has offered a substitute, de- 
 claring that representation shall be apportioned accord- 
 ing to the number of the white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes paid in any election dis- 
 trict, deducting therefrom taxes on licenses and law 
 process, and that " in making such apportionment, there 
 
 shall be allowed one delegate for every part of 
 
 said inhabitants, and one delegate for every part 
 
 of said taxes. " The gentleman's substitute does not 
 enter into the perplexing and embarrassing details of 
 apportionment, but reserves that matter until the prin- 
 ciple is settled. Neither does it declare in what pro- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 301 
 
 portion taxes and persons are to be blended. I object; participation in the conduct of affairs, and at the polls, 
 to the substitute for this reason : it is calculated to de- 1 are to stand on an equal footing with the rich ; they hes- 
 ceive, and although the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. I itate to drop the aristocratic poison into the fountain — 
 Scott) declares he will more to fill the blanks, so astoi they will not pollute the pure gushing stream of repre- 
 give half the delegates on taxes, and half on persons ; sentation at its spring — but propose to turn into it below 
 others may not agree with him, and may hope to fill the j its source, the turbid tide of taxation, which will ever 
 blanks in a different way. Suppose the first blank be I after discolor its beauty, and destroy its health-giving 
 
 filled with the word " tenth 
 
 word " ninetieth "it would be equivalent to surren- 
 dering the government to the almost unadulterated prin- 
 ciple, that power should be graduated solely by taxa- 
 tion. But accepting the declaration of the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, as conveying the intentions and purpo- 
 ses of all his friends, I come now to the question first 
 presented for our determination : Ought the substitute to 
 be adopted ? I think not, and will undertake to show 
 that it violates the great principles I have before de- 
 fended, will be unjust and oppressive in its operations, 
 and is not necessary to secure, and will not secure, what 
 gentlemen desire by its adoption. 
 
 I declare at the outset that the substitute must be sus- 
 
 and the second with the] qualities 
 
 I propose now, to consider on what grounds our op- 
 ponents rest the claim of property to be equal with per- 
 sons as an element of power. What, I ask, is it that 
 creates a representative body? It is suffrage. And 
 what is suffrage \ It is the expression of individual will 
 in delegating power to a representative. Here, as I 
 have said, gentlemen ought to begin their system of pro- 
 perty protection if they desire it to be effectual, bv dy- 
 ing A, who is worth $10,000, ten votes, and B, who is 
 worth $1000, one vote. And I will remark that in 1829, 
 this practice of double voting was in vogue in France — 
 the value of men's votes was graduated'by the length of 
 their purses — a principle which was resisted by La Fay- 
 
 tained by the arguments of its friends — that its justice! ette, with the same love of liberty and equality which 
 must be made manifest, and that its necessity must bej brought him to the side of Washington in the darkest 
 proven to our entire satisfaction, and to that of the j hour of the revolution. There are some things which 
 country ; and that the burden of showing these things | have been borrowed from aristocratic France, as well as 
 rests on those who announce that the majority ought] the ideas of proscription, infidelity, licentiousness, law- 
 
 not, in Virginia, to be entrusted with the political pow- 
 er. In 1829, in a speech which immortalized his name. 
 
 less disregard of the honor of God, and the rights of 
 man, the mockery of justice and the glittering guillo- 
 
 Mr. Upshur ^aid, " I admit as a general proposition, that j tine, which gentlemen would fain have us believe will 
 
 in free governments power ought to be given to the ma- 
 jority : and whv? The rule is founded in the idea that j 
 
 be transferred to our midst from republican France, if 
 e entrust power to the people in Virginia. Our oppo- 
 
 there is an identity, though not an equality of interests! nents borrow the principle, but reject the French mode 
 in the several members of the body politic, in which j of apply it as odious and aristocratic. But I proceed to 
 
 case the presumption naturally arise 
 number possesses the greater interest. " It will not be 
 enough then, to show that there are inequalities of in- 
 terests in Virginia — those inequalities exist everywhere, 
 and under all t^ie diversified circumstances of human 
 fortune. The minority must demonstrate in such man- 
 ner as ought to satisfy the majority, that the power to 
 
 that the greater; inquire what is representation ? It is the result — the ef- 
 fect of suffrage. It is the concentration of the general 
 will in one body — it is the organ by which the public 
 will controls and directs public affairs, and ought to be 
 apportioned with a view of fairly embodying that will. 
 Under the mixed basis, the will of one portion of the 
 community, though expressed in suffrage, is palsied in 
 
 one community, the general safety, the common good, 
 demand that the will of the smaller portion of the com- 
 munity should control its actions. And what 
 ground of this claim of power by the minority, 
 
 pass all laws affecting life, liberty and property — the ; representation by the power of money paid as taxes by 
 property of the majority as well as that of the minori- the other portion. And what are taxes? They are 
 ty — ought justly and rightfully to be given up by the : contributions to the support of government, given in 
 many to the few — because there is such a want of iden- ' consideration of the protection of property — and com- 
 tity of'" interests in the several members " of our body! mon sense declares they should be levied in proportion 
 politic, as that whilst we should continue as one body, to the amount of property to be protected, that is. to the 
 
 ability to pay. The two great duties men owe their go- 
 vernment are — first, the payment of taxes in considera- 
 5 the! tion of the protection of property; second, the discharge 
 It is ] of military duty, in return for the protection of per- 
 the protection of property. It is argued that persons sons. These are duties men are bound to discharge, 
 and property are the essential elements of society — that! And yet it is argued that the faithful performance of the 
 without property society cannot exist — that in its wel- 
 fare are involved all the rights of persons — that legisla- 
 tion is chiefly concerned in making laws to regulate pro- 
 perty and its interests — that the laws concerning per- 
 sons are few and simple — that public opinion is their 
 best sanction ; but that the laws which affect property 
 are various and almost infinitely ramified ; and the ques- 
 tion is then asked, ought not property to enjoy a pro- 
 tection above all suspicion, and free from every haz- 
 ard ? Yes, property should enjoy just such protection 
 as gentlemen ask for it — a protection as sacred and as 
 sure as the habeas corpus affords to persons. But how 
 ought it to be protected ? It might be protected effi- 
 ciently at the very fountain of political power, by pre- 
 scribing strong property qualifications of suffrage, or by 
 graduating the value of votes according to the amount 
 of property owned by the voter — so that the intelligent 
 self-interest of individuals, ever alive to assaults upon 
 the rights of property, might be armed with the ballot 
 box to protect it. But gentlemen shrink back with just 
 horror from the idea of establishing a moneyed aristoc- 
 racy of this sort. Rich and lordly Mr. A shall not be 
 allowed to thrust aside poor Mr. B from the polls, and 
 deposite ten times as many votes as he ! Oh, no — the 
 
 very thought of such inequality is revolting to their feel- ! perform military duty three days in a year. The loss of 
 ings. Gentlemen advocate enlarged and uniform suf- time and the actual outlay of money in discharging this 
 frage ; the poor men are to be admitted to a greater' duty, make a tax of at least three dollars a year on each 
 
 duty of tax paying is a ground on which power may be 
 asserted — that those who do their duty in one particular 
 shall have power over those who do their duties equal- 
 ly well in other respects. The claim to power by rea- 
 son of peculiar sanctity, leads to spiritual despotism. 
 Rigid morality becomes the foundation for pharisaical 
 domination — wealth opens the way to a monied aristoc- 
 racy — and the assumption of extraordinary talents or vir- 
 tue results in the formation of an oligarchy. God re- 
 cognizes no power in his creatures over their fellows, 
 because they do their duty to him — neither should man 
 be allowed power for discharging his duty to his govern- 
 ment. And, I ask, if the duty of tax paying gives title 
 to power, why not the duties of public defence and of 
 working on the highways? There were reported the 
 present year to the adjutant general 123,733 officers and 
 privates belonging to the militia — and he says in his re- 
 port that the rolls are deficient by many thousands. This 
 must be so, because I perceive there are in the State 
 200,958 white tithes, and I think it fair to estimate the 
 militia at 150,000. According to the ratio of white pop- 
 ulation, there would be in the west 82,688, and in the 
 east 07,312 men subject to military duty, showing an 
 excess west of 15,376. These men are compelled to 
 
302 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 officer and private. Here then is a total tax of $450,000, 
 of which the west bears the greater burden by $46,128. 
 Why not give — on the principle contended for — power 
 to the west, in consideration of this discharge of duty? 
 But no — the discharge of the money duty entitles the 
 few to prescribe laws and duties to all others. 
 
 Abandoning the idea of protecting property by con- 
 ferring the power to do so on those who own it, gentle- 
 men proceed to comunities and propose to confer this 
 power on the aggregates of individuals, which they deny 
 to individuals. I presume the scheme is founded on one 
 of two ideas, either that the poor men in the rich man's 
 neighborhood know better how to manage and protect 
 his property than himself, or that the rich man, by the 
 power of his wealth, will so control the opinions and 
 votes of his humbler neighbors as to make them think 
 with and act for him. What is the argument ? Let me 
 illustrate it : County A has five hundred voters and 
 pays $2,000 taxes — county B has five hundred voters and 
 pays $500 taxes. In county A, one hundred of the vo- 
 ters pays $1,600 and four hundred pay $400. The four 
 hundred in A, and the five hundred in B, pay each one 
 dollar ; and ought, on any just principle, to have equal 
 weight in the government. According to the mixed ba- 
 sis , in a council often delegates, county A would send 
 six and a half delegates, and county B would send three 
 and a half delegates. Legitimately, the one hundred 
 rich men in A ought to send three delegates on account 
 of their taxes and a half delegate on their own account 
 — but this is not allowed — the one hundred rich men in 
 A have no more potential voice than the four hundred 
 poor men ; but the four hundred, because they are near 
 the palaces of the rich, gazing at them perhaps with 
 envious eyes, are thereby converted into aristocrats 
 themselves ; and are exalted in power abore their equals 
 in county B. This is indeed a moneyed aristocracy on 
 the very worst principle — that of the credit system — the 
 the poor borrowing the wealth of their rich neighbors 
 to lift themselves above their equals elsewhere. 
 
 As I have before said, it is conceded as a general rule 
 that the majority should govern, and that this rule ought 
 not to be departed from, except, to use the language of 
 the eloquent gentleman from Marion, (Mr. Neeson,) 
 " to avert some great mischief, or to promote some 
 great public good. " Now, what is the good to be se- 
 cured — what the mischief to be shunned by the mixed 
 basis? The gentleman from Fauquier (Mr Scott) de- 
 clares that the mixed basis is necessary to secure good 
 government, to guard against abuses of legislative pow- 
 er, and to protect property as well as persons. The dan- 
 gers ahead then, are bad government, abuse of legisla- 
 tive power, and the destruction of property. 1 can im- 
 agine that gentleman standing on the deck of the gallant 
 ship of State as it ploughs its way through the waters, 
 guided by the chart of science and the needle that ever 
 points to the star of principle ; and as he strains his eyes 
 to gaze through the mists ahead, and fancies he hears 
 the roar of the surf upon the rocks, I can hear his clear 
 ringing voice proclaim l£ breakers ahead ! the ship is in 
 danger. " If the suffrage basis will result in bad go- 
 vernment, in abuses of legislative power, and in the de- 
 struction of property, we ought to abandon it and to give 
 heed to the warning cries of the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier. We are here to avert dangers, to secure good go- 
 vernment, to guard against public abuses, and to pro- 
 tect property ; but let us beware, lest in shunning im- 
 aginary rocks we be not swallowed in a vortex of de- 
 struction. 
 
 The gentleman from Fauquier would hardly deny that 
 a government based upon qualified voters, might manage 
 the trifling concerns of life and liberty, and the means 
 of pursuing and obtaining happiness; he would not con- 
 trovert this proposition without at the same time deny- 
 ing a doctrine I know he cherishes, the doctrine of the 
 capacity ef the people for self-government ; but I under- 
 stand him to say that property would not be safe with 
 such a basis of representation, and that in the interests 
 of property are involved all other interests. Let us con- 
 sider seriously and in order, the modes in which proper- 
 
 ty may be imperiled, and calmly determine whether 
 Virginia, like South Carolina, is in such a condition as 
 to demand the adoption of that political expedient to 
 protect property — the mixed basis. Dangers to proper- 
 ty are apprehended as the results of legislative acts ; 
 one would suppose that to guard against such dangers, 
 restraints should be imposed on legislative power. This 
 is the first suggestion of common sense — of ordinary pru- 
 dence. Desiring to extend suffrage, to make voters at 
 the polls equal, one with another, having as much con- 
 fidence in one portion of the community as in another, 
 in respect to virtue, intelligence and patriotism, one 
 would suppose that to avoid legislative acts which 
 would in any way impair the rights or value of proper- 
 ty, it would be enough to restrain and limit the legis- 
 lative power — the power of the agents of the people ; 
 and if it can be shown that whatever principle of repre- 
 sentation be adopted, some limitations and restraints 
 are necessary, and that no more are required to prevent 
 abuses under the suffrage than under the mixed basis, it 
 will follow that there is no political necessity for the 
 adoption of the latter principle, and that it ought to be 
 discarded. I think this conclusion will follow from the 
 remarks I propose to make. 
 
 I concede that property may be imperiled ; first, by 
 attacking the right to hold it ; second, by excessive tax- 
 ation so as to impair its value in the hands of all who 
 hold it ; and third, by discriminations in laying taxes so 
 as to impose the burdens of supporting government on 
 one sort of property to the relief of another sort. I wish 
 to meet the arguments fairly, and to answer them by 
 such reasons derived from principles and facts, as have 
 satisfied my mind that the fears of eastern gentlemen 
 are groundless — that their conclusions are unsound and 
 untenable. First, do gentlemen seriously fear that if 
 the suffrage basis be adopted, the right to hold proper- 
 ty of any kind will be impaired ? Do they apprehend 
 that a western majority will strike at the right of any 
 member of the community to acquire property and to 
 hold for his separate enjoyment, the fruits of his own 
 toil ? Do not the western people love property ? Are 
 they not eager to procure — are they not untiring in their 
 struggles to gather around them the goods of this life ? 
 Is not the west like a busy hive in which all are indus- 
 triously employed in laying up stores for support and 
 enjoyment in the future ? Are they not jealous of their 
 rights — are they not careful of their interests in proper- 
 ty — do they not guard those interests and defend those 
 rights in the courts of justice with as much resolute ob- 
 stinacy and firmness of purpose, as mark the conduct of 
 eastern property holders ? It is true they have not as 
 much as their more favored eastern brethren, but they 
 are equally vigilant in protecting it, equally anxious in 
 increasing it, and equally desirous that when acquired, 
 it shall continue to be protected by equal and uniform 
 laws. De Tocqueville, the distinguished author of " De- 
 mocracy in America, " says, that " in no country in 
 the world is the love of property more active and more 
 anxious than in the United States; nowhere does the 
 majority display less inclination for those principles 
 which threaten to alter, in whatever manner, the laws 
 of property. " This is a tribute paid to our entire coun- 
 try ; and will gentlemen say it is justly bestowed on all 
 parts of our Union but western Virginia? De Tocque- 
 ville says " the love of property" is " active " — it is ear- 
 nest and untiring in the pursuit ; it is also " anxious " 
 — it is jealous and vigilant in guarding the treasure in 
 possession ; and it is ever respectful and regardful of 
 the rights of others, because that spirit alone can pro- 
 tect its own rights. It is the love of freedom and the 
 love of property — the love of liberty, which can only 
 be enjoyed when subject to law, and the love of proper- 
 ty, which can only exist when protected by law, that 
 are the prominent characteristics of the anglo-saxon 
 race ; and it is the blended influence of these two prin- 
 ciples, creating as they advance an all controlling public 
 opinion, that on the one hand will brook no restraints 
 on the social, civil and political equality of man, andou 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 303 
 
 the other, will frown down all lawless licentiousness — with the white basis, was alluded to in the convention of 
 that on the one hand will tolerate no concentration of j 1829-30, by several aistinguished members of that body 
 the money power in the hands of the few and of their ! — I remember the names of Mr. Morris, of Hanover, and 
 descendants ; and on the other will crush to the earth 'of Judge Scott — a man whose genius we have all been 
 every effort to invade the sacred rights of property — it ' accustomed to admire, the memory of whose virtues we 
 is the influence of these principles, and of this public \ will ever cherish and revere. And it was then argued 
 opinion, which is destined to encircle the globe with the jthat a heavy debt for internal improvements would be 
 institutions of that race — which is destined to spread ! avoided by the mixed basis — that all other restraints 
 knowledge, civilization and Christianity over the world, jwere mere "paper guaranties, " and worthless, but that 
 Let it not be said that western Virginians are unworthy [the white basis would lead to an enormous public debt 
 to participate in this glorious work. I and a wasteful expenditure of public money. Chapman 
 
 Again : property may be imperiled by excessive tax- i Johnson and others replied, and predicted that the com- 
 ation. It is conceded that a taxing agency in the shape i pound or mixed basis would produce the very results 
 of a legislature may be organized so as to impose bur- which have flowed from the provisions of the existing 
 dens on the entire property of the State, that will im- j constitution, although it secures to the east more power 
 pair its value and endanger its existence. This legisla- [than the mixed basis. They predicted (and their pre- 
 ture, organized on the suffrage basis, would be composed dictions have become prophecies fulfilled) that the mix- 
 of agents reflecting the opinions and wishes of equal j ed basis would give to the concert of the western vote, 
 numbers of tax -payers ; and on the mixed basis, it would I more power in respect to internal improvements than 
 consist of agents representing unequal numbers of tax-! was taken from their numbers — that western members 
 
 payers, not in the exact proportion of the amount they 
 were to pay, but in a ratio approximating that princi- 
 ple — that is, in the proportion of the number of tax 
 
 would move in solid phalanx, and that, by combinations 
 with eastern interests, they would secure their own pur- 
 poses, whilst, at the same time, the public debt would 
 
 payers and the amount paid combined. And it is argued I be much more swelled and increased than if they had 
 that, without any restraints on legislative power, the re- the power to carry through the State those great schemes 
 presentatives of 'the smaller number of tax-payers are | which would connect its eastern and western interests 
 
 safely to be entrusted with the power to pass laws af- 
 fecting life and liberty, and also to tax the majority of 
 tax-payers at their pleasure, because their responsibili- 
 ties to their constituents will be such as to secure mode- 
 rate public expenditures and low rates of taxes ; where- 
 as, if the suffrage basis be adopted, those who levy the 
 
 together and make them one. Such was the prophecy. 
 What has been the fulfilment ? Why, we have witness- 
 ed, under this unnatural and unjust apportionment of 
 power, the growth and development of a system of pub- 
 lic improvement and expenditure well calculated to 
 alarm the judicious and the prudent. The condition of 
 
 taxes will not be responsible to those who pay them ; i parties has been this : Seventy-nine delegates and nine- 
 and that, whatever restraints may be imposed on the teen senators from the east, and fifty-six delegates and 
 legislative power, the majority of the tax payers will j thirteen senators from the west : the western members 
 ultimately throw off those restraints and destroy proper- representing a majority, and the eastern a minority of 
 ty by excessive taxation. And here allow me to say | the people : the western members feeling no responsi- 
 
 that I am surprised at the sneers of eastern gentlemen 
 at " paper guaranties, " as they are pleased to call all 
 limitations on legislative power. And what, I ask, is 
 your bill of rights — declared by your courts to be a part 
 of the constitution ? What is vour constitution itself, 
 
 bility resting upon them for the general course of legis- 
 lation — remembering that they were put under the ban 
 in 1829, on account of internal improvements, and see- 
 ing, for a long time, in the members from eastern Vir- 
 ginia an obstinate determination to deny the west all 
 
 with all its fences against the encroachments of power, j improvements, and to close their ears to all appeals for 
 but " paper guaranties ?" And permit me to say, that {the development of its resources. Thus situated, how 
 he who succeeds in creating the impression on the pub- ; natural was it that the fifty -six votes of the west should 
 lie mind that there is nothing sacred, nothing enduring stand ready to combine with any twelve members who 
 in the " paper guaranties " of the American republics, might desire an improvement east of the Blue Ridge, 
 will succeed in unsettling the very foundation of our How natural that the internal improvement party 
 institutions, which rests upon faith — faith in the people should understand that in union alone there was strength 
 — faith in then: respect for the rights of all, from the — that thev must combine to carry their schemes against 
 
 humblest to the highest — faith in their capacity to go- 
 vern themselves, and to secure their own safety and hap- 
 piness — to provide for the greatest good of the greatest 
 number, and for all possible good to the smallest num- 
 ber. The rock upon which the American institutions 
 rests is faith in the people. The argus-eyed guardian 
 of the people's rights is jealousy of public agents. But, 
 it is said that if the legislature be restrained from con- 
 tracting a large public debt by a constitutional limita- 
 tion upon its power, the wants of the west are such that 
 with a majority of votes it will be induced, will be tempt- 
 ed to call another convention for the purposes of remov- 
 ing the limitations — of increasing the debt — of accumu- 
 lating burdens upon property and rendering it valueless 
 by excessive taxation. The evil to be avoided is exces- 
 sive taxation ; and reasonable limitations on the power 
 to create a debt, and to oppress by heavy taxes, are to 
 be discarded, not because the public interest would be 
 unsafe whilst the limitations exist, but because the peo- 
 ple may hereafter be so eager to swell their public debt 
 as to throw off the restraints imposed on their agents 
 and expose themselves to be borne down by the intolera- 
 ble weight of taxation ! And to what do gentlemen in- 
 vite us to look as in itself a perfect safeguard against 
 a public debt and excessive taxes ? The gentleman from 
 Fauquier says, to the mixed basis : It will secure pro- 
 perty, good government, and will save the people from 
 heavy taxes. The danger of a public debt in connection 
 
 the unyielding and united vote of a large majority from 
 eastern Virginia. The eastern internal improvement 
 party took its origin in the Piedmont district, and in 
 those cities at the head of tide water that derive their 
 trade from the Piedmont and western districts. They 
 were led on by such gallant leaders as the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) whose clarion voice has 
 always been heard in the front of the battle. Often 
 have I heard him rallying, with cheering cries, the 
 sometimes broken and scattered forces of the internal 
 improvement party in the house of delegates — acting 
 then as the bold leader of the ''plunderers,*' and now 
 as the gallant defender of the saving, treasury protect- 
 ing, mixed basis faith ! This region of the common- 
 wealth, therefore, occupied the vantage ground. With 
 a united anti-internal improvement vote in the tide wa- 
 ter district, the Piedmont vote could defeat any Wes- 
 tern scheme ; and no bill could pass without its co-ope- 
 ration. Occupying this position then, it could dictate 
 its own terms to the west and secure such improve- 
 ments as would best promote its own interests. And 
 what has been the result of this condition of things ? 
 Look abroad over the face of Virginia, and you will 
 find the east intersected with railroads and other im- 
 provements, most of them tending towards the west, 
 but " dragging their slow length along" with tedious 
 tardiness, whilst beyond the Blue Ridge there are but 
 thirty-two miles of railroad, and not yet has a fixed 
 
304 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 policy of improvement marked the legislation of the I 
 State. No great thoroughfares heve been forced 
 through to the Ohio river and the Tennessee line. Such 
 I conscientiously believe would have been the case had 
 power been yielded to principle in 1829-30. The im- 
 provements of the State are impulsive and short-sighted 
 and lead to no grand results. From Richmond four 
 railroads and a canal diverge; from Petersburg three 
 railroads and a river improvement ; from Alexandria 
 two railroads and a canal ; and what are they all ? 
 Mere sickly shoots, starting from insufficient trunks. 
 The public mind of the State, east and west, is now 
 becoming fixed in the opinion that the improvements 
 must be carried through the State before they cease to 
 be burdens on the public treasury. And I ask eastern 
 gentlemen whether it would not have been better for 
 them, as tax payers and as Virginians, that this had 
 been done long ago ? The income of these grand works 
 would now have been filling our treasury, and our 
 noble old State, with renewed energy and vigor, would 
 have been running the race of successful competion 
 for the immense and wealth-giving trade of the great 
 west with her bold and intrepid rivals north and south. 
 Virginia feels the despondency of the racer who is 
 thrown behind ; but still realizes the absolute necessity 
 of stimulating her exhausted energies to reach the goal. 
 But, I return to the question, has the mixed basis 
 saved the State from a public debt, and from in- 
 creased taxes ? And has the principle that they who 
 lay should be responsible to those who pay the taxes 
 availed to protect tide water Virginia, or been carried 
 into practice by Piedmont Virginia? By the report of 
 the finance committee at the present session of the 
 general assembly, it appears that the aggregate debt 
 of the State is $10,516,658, that the productive stocks 
 and funds owned by the State are $6,70§,100, leaving 
 an apparent debt of $3,808,557 ; to which must be add- 
 ed $4,632,868 of certain liabilities, and $4,791,894 of 
 contingent liabilities in the shape of guarantees, &c, 
 which may or may not be made chargeable on the trea- 
 sury. A convulsion in the money affairs of the Union 
 might throw upon the treasury the burden of a debt of 
 $19,097,420. And all men agree that the taxes must 
 be raised. This state of things has grown up under 
 the system of combination, or log-rolling, spoken of 
 before. A distinguished member of the house of dele- 
 gates, (Mr. Bur well from Bedford,) described this system 
 thus : Log rolling is a necessity in the legislation of 
 Virginia. At each session some great scheme of im- 
 provement is started, and around it congregate many 
 smaller projects, all of which are to go through or to 
 fail together. He likened the system to the progress 
 of a whale through a narrow frith, followed and pushed 
 ahead by a hundred fishes of the smaller tribes ; if the 
 the whale be stopped, the way becomes blocked up, 
 and the small followers of his mightiness are stopped 
 with him. I now proceed to show that " the whales " 
 have generally been found in the Piedmont and 
 upper tide water districts, and that the principle 
 that those who lay ought to be responsible to those 
 who pay the taxes has been repudiated in practice by 
 those who now contend for it as the only safeguard 
 against oppression and the plundering of property. The 
 following table shows the amounts expended by the 
 State in the four grand divisions : 1st. $795,723.78 ; 
 2d. $7,449,185.77 ; n 3d. $2,119,363.85, and 4th. $1,504,- 
 098.60, making a total of $11,864,371, of which the first 
 district has received 6 7-10 per cent, whilst it is now 
 paying at the rate of 33 6-10 per cent, of the public rev- 
 enue ; 2d district has received 62 7-10 per cent, and is 
 paying 31 3-10 per cent ; 3d district has received 17 6-10 
 per cent., and is paying 17 3-10 per cent, and the 4th dis- 
 trict has received 12 6-10 per cent, and is paying 17 7-10 
 per cent. In addition to the above amounts $480,000 
 have been appropriated to the South Side Railroad, and 
 $480,000 to the Manassa Gap Railroad, at the present 
 session of the General Assembly — the one terminating 
 in Petersburg, and the other in Alexandria. (The Cen- 
 
 tral Railroad bill, though advocated by my friend from 
 Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) has failed. The waters beyond 
 the Alleghany are too shallow to float such a whale.) 
 Alexandria, Heaven bless her ! she is indeed a favored 
 daughter of the old mother — she was lost and has been 
 found — she had wandered to a strange jurisdiction and 
 has returned to the bosom of her mother — most cordial- 
 ly has see been welcomed — most gorgeously has she 
 been clothed with costly apparel ! I do not object to her 
 prosperity and to the favoring smiles she has received. 
 I rejoice, indeed, that she is so near the vantage ground 
 of the Piedmont district. It is a little remarkable that 
 the balance on the above exhibit is $1,000,000 at least, 
 in favor of the west — that the valley has been kept to 
 the ratio of her contributions, whilst the trans-Allegha- 
 ny district, filled as it has been said with " out-side bar- 
 barians, " and always crying " give ! give ! " has not by 
 a great deal, received of the fund of internal improve- 
 ment, a sum equal to what she will have to pay. I have 
 made this calculation upon the basis of the present rate 
 of contribution. I consider this fair, because the inter- 
 nal improvements have not been paid for out of the pub- 
 lic treasury, but by the creation of a public debt which 
 is yet to be paid, and the youthful energies of the grow- 
 ing west are to be taxed to pay for her education and 
 development ; and also to relieve her mother from her 
 own burdens in a ratio greater than the benefits the west 
 has received. Is it not obvious too that the practice of 
 the Piedmont members in the halls of legislation has 
 differed much from the theories of some of them here ? 
 A heavy amount of taxes has been levied by their votes 
 on tidewater against the consent and remonstrances of 
 the delegates from that district, who declared they did 
 not desire the accomplishment of these schemes of im- 
 provement, and who protested against being taxed for 
 purposes in which they had no interest — that they were 
 plundered of their property, and that the Piedmont and 
 the west were clutching at their purse strings. The an- 
 swer was, the majority must govern — it is true you have 
 no identity in interest with us in respect to internal im- 
 provements — but why clamor in our ears ? You are pro- 
 tected by the mixed basis, be content. Every time a 
 Piedmont delegate has voted a tax for a Piedmont im- 
 provement, he has imposed a tax of one dollar on his 
 own constituents for his own benefit, and one dollar and 
 ten cents on the tidewater district, still for his own ben- 
 efit, and against the protestations of the delegates from 
 the tidewater. I say that if there be any soundness in 
 the rule, that where there are peculiar interests in the 
 community not identified with the general interests, re- 
 presentation should be so arranged as to give those in- 
 terests the power of self-protection, in defiance of the 
 rule that the majority should govern, then the tidewater 
 district ought still to control the power of the State. I 
 hold to no such doctrine. I am a firm friend of internal 
 improvements, and believe they ought to be directed by 
 the will and sustained by the purse of the community ; 
 and I argue that in all fairness and justice, it is just as 
 safe and right in respect to this vital question, that the 
 will of the majority, even if it should be confined to the 
 valley and the trans-AUeghany, should be heard 
 as against the Piedmont and the tidewater districts, as 
 that the will of the Piedmont and of the west combined, 
 should be enforced against the tidewater district — that 
 it is just as fair and right that the representatives of a 
 majority of the people should assess and expend the 
 taxes for the general benefit, in which Piedmont, from 
 her peculiar and advantageous position, must partici- 
 pate, as that taxes should be levied and distributed by 
 agents elected on the mixed basis principle, for purpo- 
 ses in which the tide water district can feel no interest 
 and can never participate so long as power remains 
 where it is. I think it is apparent that the mixed basis 
 is itself no guard against a public debt, or high taxes, 
 and that it will not alone secure a judicious administra- 
 tion of public affairs. And I think the sentiment is be- 
 coming general throughout the east — that other guaran- 
 ties must be sought than that which has heretofore been 
 relied on — the guarantee of property representation. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 305 
 
 And now, if other guaranties are to be introduced, 
 which will limit legislative power, not according to the 
 whim, caprice, or fickle purpose of the delegate author- 
 ized to act at his discretion, and subject only to the 
 vague responsibility of the representative to his consti- 
 tuents, (greatly impaired often times by a temporary 
 self-interest in the constituent body,) why may not such 
 wholesome restraints be wholly relied on ? Act on the 
 principle that a majority of the people shall be repre- 
 sented by a majority of the delegates, and you throw 
 upon the majority, in and out of your legislative halls, 
 the full responsibility of public affairs. You elevate the 
 people to a sense of their responsibilities ; you make 
 them watchful of the conduct of their public agents, and 
 you will develop and carry out a public policy approved 
 by a majority, and calculated (if mankind be capable of 
 self-government,) to promote the general good. But, at 
 the same time this general will, by common consent, 
 will be subject to such wholesome limitations and re- 
 strictions as will secure order, safety, and a general 
 sense of security, which the people of this State, both 
 east and west, have not felt for the last five years. 
 
 I proceed now to show that, upon the ordinary prin- 
 ciples of human conduct, the State would be as little 
 subject t® excessive taxation — indeed, less liable to it 
 — with the suffrage basis as with the mixed basis. In 
 the first place, I argue that the responsibility of the re- 
 presentative, in voting an assessment of taxes, is pro- 
 portioned not to the amount to be paid by his constitu- 
 ents, but to the burden he is about to impose on them, 
 which burden consists chiefly in the difficulty of paying 
 the tax. And I ask gentlemen whether it be not a con- 
 ceded truth that the rich bear taxes more kindly and 
 contentedly thamthe poor communities. I refer not to 
 Great Britain, who bears her enormous public debt on 
 her shoulders with the apparent ease and light-hearted- 
 ness with which a young girl trips along with the eider 
 down upon her neck. 
 
 New York city, with a'population of 500,364, expends 
 annually $2,578,325, about three times the expenditures 
 of the entire State of Virginia — an average of about $5 
 a head. Boston, with a population of 145,150, expend- 
 ed during the years 1849-'50, about $3, 169,850, a large 
 portion of which was borrowed to supply her people 
 with water. Her annual expenditures amount to 
 $1, 266,030, Philadelphia pays into the public treasury 
 of Pennsylvania $602,944, being 30 per cent, of the 
 whole taxes of the State, besides, at least, three-fourths 
 of $441,000 raised by the State by tax on corporations, 
 auctions, &c. The population of the city of Philadel- 
 phia proper, excluding the suburbs, is 150,000; her pub- 
 lic debt is $4,311,184, and her liabilities $795,238. The 
 population of Baltimore is 167,000. Baltimore pays 
 more than 30 per cent, of the public revenue of Mary- 
 land. Out of $1,315,439 raised in 1849, $432,650 were 
 collected in Baltimore, whilst the annual expenditures 
 of the city were $819,622. The rate of taxation on the 
 $100 worth of real estate are— in New York, $1.18£ ; 
 Philadelphia, $1.56 ; Baltimore, 93 cents ; Boston, 68 
 cents. And in Virginia, Norfolk, with a white popu- 
 lation of 9,068, has incurred a debt of $270,000, Ports- 
 mouth, with a white population of four or five thousand, 
 has a debt of $180,000, Richmond, with a white popula- 
 tion of 15,307, has a debt of $1,000,000. I need not refer 
 to the heavy liabilities assumed by Wheeling, Lynchburg, 
 and other towns in the State. These liabilities have been 
 voluntarily assumed and the burden is cheerfully borne by 
 such rich communities. The rate of tax on real estate, 
 even here in the city of Richmond, imposed for city 
 purposes, would, if extended to the lands of the State, 
 produce an income of $1,373,401, or the interest on a 
 debt of $23,000,000. If entrusted with the power, it 
 may suit the purposes of the richer portions of the State 
 to increase the rate of taxes, and if the ratio be uni- 
 form throughout the State, what would be the effect? — 
 on whom would the burden fall most heavily ? — and who 
 would hold their representatives to the sternest respon- 
 sibility ? I ask, would not the burden fall least oppres- 
 sively on the rich, and with the most crushing weight 
 
 on the poor portions of the State ? Go to the cottage of 
 the poor man, and then to the counting house, the farm, 
 or the sumptuous mansion of the rich, and ask which 
 will complain most of a rateable increase of taxes ; the 
 latter, of their abundance, will cast into the treasury : 
 the former, of their penury, will cast in their all ; the 
 one will curtail his luxuries, perhaps, to meet the de- 
 mands of the State ; he does not complain of a scale of 
 public expenditure proportioned somewhat to his own 
 outlays ; but the other, stinted by penury in his person- 
 al indulgencies to the most ordinary comforts, will find 
 the tax gatherer laying his hand on those comforts ; aye ! 
 on the very necessaries of his wife and of his children, 
 to sustain the extravagances of the government. Who 
 will complain most? Who will go out from his home 
 to the polls most firmly resolved to question his public 
 servants as to the necessity, the propriety of an increase 
 of taxes ? The experience and common sense of all 
 who hear me, will respond that the poor man, the poor 
 community, will feel most heavily, and resist most 
 promptly the burden of excessive taxation. And I stand 
 here now to demand power for the moderate in circum- 
 stances, whether east or west, to protect themselves 
 from excessive taxation, to guard their humble means 
 from the oppression of wealth armed with power. I 
 stand here to protest against the assumed right of the 
 minority to judge of the ability of the majority to pay, 
 to measure that ability by the standard of their own 
 abundance, instead of by the scale of our poverty. We 
 resist the claim of eastern men who, upon the ground 
 that they must have power to protect their own proper- 
 ty, seek a power which may destroy ours ; who, to guard 
 against taxes imposed by the majority, demand the 
 right to tax that majority ; who, rather than yield their 
 contributions to be disposed of by the general will, as- 
 serts right, not only to govern the majority, but to tax 
 the majority, and afterwards to dispose of the taxes as- 
 sessed at their discretion. Such claims of power are 
 enough to make the blood of freedom boil with indig- 
 nant resistance to its assumptions ; enough to make the 
 young giant of the west struggle to snap the bonds 
 which bind him. Poverty is a hard lot ; it is a weari- 
 some toil, this struggle with adverse fortune ; and 
 whether men are regarded singly or in communities, the 
 doom of the poor is cheerless and depressed ; but for the 
 humble poor, with equal love of life, liberty, property, 
 and happiness, with an unconquerable yearing for every 
 birthright of freemen, to be oppressed, put down, de- 
 graded, and kept down by the strong, the prosperous, 
 and the wealthy ; and to be told by the strong man, 
 armed with power, as he stands over them, that all this 
 is necessary for his protection, is adding the bitterness 
 of insult to the wrong of injury. 
 
 Here Mr. Sheffey, being much exhausted, gave way 
 to a motion that the committee rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee ac- 
 cordingly rose. 
 
 STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETT. 
 
 The PRESIDENT submitted to the Convention a 
 communication from A. Robinson, Esq., on behalf of 
 the Virginia State Agricultural Society, which was 
 read, as follows : 
 
 Richmond, February 19, 1851. 
 
 Hon. Jno. Y. Mason, 
 
 President of the Virginia Convention — 
 Dear Sir : The Virginia State Agricultural Society 
 has made it my duty, in this form, to solicit the general 
 attendance of the members of the Convention at an ad- 
 journed meeting of the Society, to be held this evening, 
 at half -past 7 o'clock. 
 
 Desiring that this request may be announced, and 
 that the members of the Convention may find it agree- 
 able to attend, 
 
 I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 A. Robinson, Jr., 
 Recording Secretary of the Virginia 
 State Agricultural Society, 
 
306 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, the communication 
 was laid on the table. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 morning at 11 o'clock. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 20, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Reed, of the Presbyterian 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 PUBLIC MEETING IN HARRISON COUNTY. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. I rise to present to the Convention 
 the proceedings of a public meeting held by a portion 
 of the people represented here by my worthy colleagues 
 and myself, at the courthouse of my county, on the 5th 
 of the present month, to consider the weighty and im- 
 portant matters that this body has assembled to delib- 
 erate upon. The meeting was large, being fully attend- 
 ed by the people of the county, and from my knowl- 
 edge of those who appear to have participated in its de- 
 liberations, highly respectable, many of whom I am 
 proud to say are my friends and associates. They are 
 not only intelligent, but in every respect devoted to the 
 best interests of the commonwealth, and anxious that 
 her constitution should be of the most liberal and 
 perfect form, and that her whole internal affairs should 
 be so arranged as to advance her to that high state of 
 prosperity to which her great natural advantages entitle 
 her. 
 
 The meeting fully, and I have no doubt, maturely con- 
 sidered the most important reforms expected at our 
 hands, and adopted a series of resolutions, laying down 
 great and incontrovertible principles — principles upon 
 which true republicanism alone can exist, in which my 
 colleagues and myself fully concur, and which will aid 
 me very much in discharging the weighty duties that 
 my place here devolves upon me. 
 
 The important question of the basis of representation 
 in both houses of the general assembly, which is under 
 discussion in this body from day to day in committee of 
 the whole, occupied a prominent place in their deliber- 
 ations. It is regarded by them as of vital importance, 
 and they look to the result of our deliberations with 
 intense interest. Should our action result favorably 
 with their views, it will be hailed with the highest sat- 
 isfaction — if otherwise, with the deepest mortification 
 and sorrow. The meeting acted for itself, but truly 
 spoke the sentiments of that whole region. I assure 
 gentlemen that but one sentiment prevails among us, 
 and that is, a fixed and settled determination to be placed 
 upon an equality with the other portions of the State. 
 In case their just expectations are not realized, it would 
 seem to be the desire of those composing the meeting, 
 that the labors here of my colleagues and myself should 
 terminate. I have not permitted myself to look for- 
 ward to such a result, for I have great confidence in the 
 justice and wisdom of this body, but if it must come, 
 we are prepared to meet that crisis. What our course 
 will be, it is unnecessary at this time to state, but I 
 trust that my colleagues and myself will have the firm- 
 ness and discretion to adopt the course that becomes us 
 under the circumstances, giving to the views and 
 wishes of those who composed the meeting that consid- 
 eration which their high character and intelligence en- 
 titled them to. That my colleagues will so act, I do 
 not doubt for a moment — and aided and supported as I 
 shall be by their wise counsel and example, I will not 
 too much distrust myself. I will present the proceed- 
 ings I have referred to, and ask that they may be read 
 and laid on the table. 
 
 The proceedings were then read by the Secretary as 
 follows : 
 
 At a large and respectable meeting of the citizens of 
 Harrison county, held in the court house at Clarksburg 
 on the 6th cf February, 1851, in pursuance of a pre- 
 viously published call, to take into consideration the va- j 
 
 rious reforms which it is deemed essential should be 
 made in the organic law of the State by the Convention 
 now sitting in Richmond ; On motion of Wm. A. Har- 
 rison, Esq., Dr. Benj. Dolbeare was called to the chair, 
 and Sam'l McP. Y6st appointed secretary. The ob- 
 ject of the meeting was explained by Mr. Harrison ; 
 and, then, upon his motion, the chair appointed the fol- 
 lowing named gentlemen to constitute a committee to 
 prepare, and report to the meeting appropriate resolu- 
 tions : U. M. Turner, Wm. Johnson, E. Marsh, Dr. 
 James McCalley, Sam'l Ogden, J. B. Shinn, W. J. 
 Wilkinson, J. B. Lowe, Jesse Flowers, Caleb Boggess, 
 Sen.., W. E. Hall, Andrew Radcliff, Benj. Bassell, Sen., 
 Sam'l. Sheets, Eli Vanhorn, Alex. L. Patton, Jno. 
 Huff, H. J. Lynch, Stephen Bassel, Elmore Hart, Pe- 
 ter Randolph, Jesse Randolph, G. G. Davidson, W. A. 
 Harrison, Luther Haymond, Abiah Minor, J. J. Winter, 
 Jno. Gothrop, Jas. McCan, D. C. Coplin, N.Davisson, 
 and Benj. Radcliff. After retiring a short time, the 
 committee returned and reported through their chair- 
 man, U. M. Turner, Esq., the following resolutions, 
 which were unanimously adopted : 
 
 1. Resolved, That all governments have their proper 
 foundation in, and derive their just powers from, the 
 consent of the governed ; that their legitimate functions 
 and aim are to promote the true interest and substan- 
 tial happiness of all the members of the community ; 
 and that these can only be attained by the recognition 
 of equal political rights in, and the dispensation of, ex- 
 act and equal justice to all, without exclusive privileges, 
 and without discrimination in favor of classes, sections 
 or individuals. 
 
 2. Resolved, That, as from the constitution of human 
 nature, in the organization and the administration of 
 government, unanimity of opinion upon the many and 
 multifarious questions and subjects which necessarily 
 present themselves, is impossible upon plain principles 
 and for obvious reasons — from the necessity of the 
 case — the will of the majority must prevail and pre- 
 scribe the rule of conduct for the whole, and that of 
 the " minority, " wherever in conflict, they must be 
 yielded. 
 
 3. Resolved, That the " majority," whose will must 
 thus prevail in the government of a free people, is the 
 majority of numbers in the community, and not the 
 "majority of property interests," nor the " majority of 
 numbers and that of interest combined," and that its 
 operation and effect are not to be controlled or modi- 
 fied by the particular form or distribution of thej)rop- 
 erty interest in the State, or by any such extraneous in- 
 fluence whatever. 
 
 4. Resolved, That in every free government property 
 is the legitimate subject of" protection by all due and 
 needful legislation, and entitled to all proper safeguards 
 and defences ; but that it cannot vote, or be voted for ; 
 nor can it possess, or, without departure from plain 
 principles of equality and justice, be made to confer po- 
 litical power upon its possessors either in bodily pre- 
 sence or by representation. 
 
 5. Resolved, That the distinctive feature of demo- 
 cratic republican institutions, is the government of a 
 free people by laws of their own making, either in per- 
 son or by representation ; and that where such people 
 shall delegate to representatives the power of enacting 
 laws for their government, instead of exercising it 
 themselves directly, such representation should be fair 
 and equal with reference only to the number of mem- 
 bers composing the community who shall have the same 
 or an equal voice in the representative assembly that 
 they would be entitled to claim if personally present in 
 general convention. 
 
 6. Resolved, That the only just, true and rightful 
 principle upon which the representation of the people 
 of Virginia in the legislative councils of the State 
 should be established, is that prescribed by the white 
 population thereof numerically considered, and not 
 modified by property or any other disturbiag influence 
 whatever ; and that as such, it should be recognized by 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 307 
 
 the Convention now in session for the purpose of re- 
 modeling the organic law of the State. 
 
 7. Resolved, That our delegates in said convention be 
 and they are hereby instructed (to the extent of the 
 voice of this meeting, which, however, we are well 
 assured, expresses the sentiment of their entire consti- 
 tuency) to demand and insist that white population, and 
 it alone, be adopted as the basis of representation in 
 the legislative assembly provided for in the constitution 
 proposed to be framed ; and that upon this subject they 
 make no concession, nor consent to any compromise, 
 nor accept any substitute which shall fail to secure to 
 the western people their full share and equal weight 
 in the legislative councils of the State now and at all 
 times hereafter. 
 
 Jno. S. Duncan, Esq., then moved that the following 
 resolutions be added to the committee's report, which 
 motion was agreed to, after a spirited debate, in 
 which Messrs. Duncan, Harrison, Wilkeson, Jackson, 
 Haymond, and Kinchloe participated, and an ineffec- 
 tual attempt to amend the 14th resolution by Jas. M. 
 Jackson, Esq. 
 
 8. Resolved, That the sessions of the legislature 
 should be biennial. 
 
 9. Resolved, That the right of suffrage should be ex- 
 tended to every free white male citizen, with restric- 
 tions only as to age, residence and local disability. 
 
 10. Resolved, That all offices — legislative, executive 
 and judicial — should be conferred by the direct suf- 
 rages of the people. 
 
 11. Resolved, That the county courts as judicial tri- 
 bunals, ought to be abolished, and in some other form 
 
 12. Resolved, That the present establishment of the 
 general and circuit courts ought to be retained, and 
 that the court of appeals should be so constituted as to 
 insure the most speedy and satisfactory adjudication of 
 the business of said court. 
 
 13. Resolved, That office^ are created for the benefit 
 of the whole people, and that all offices should be abol- 
 ished which the interest of the whole do not absolutely 
 require should be retained. 
 
 14. Resolved, That the principle of representation 
 based upon white population alone, is one that cannot 
 in any wise be yielded or compromised, and that if said 
 principle is not incorporated in the constitution which 
 may be framed by the convention, in that event our re- 
 presentatives are requested to use their endeavors to 
 induce all the members favorable to said basis to with- 
 draw from the convention. 
 
 15. Resolved, That a copy of these proceedings be 
 forwarded by the chairman to our representatives in 
 the Convention, and that they be requested to lay them 
 before that body and respectfully ask that they be con- 
 sidered by it. Ordered, also, that these proceedings be 
 published in the newspapers of this town, and that oth- 
 er papers be requested to copy the same. 
 
 On motion, the meeting adjourned. 
 
 Benj. Dolbeare, Chairman. 
 J. McP. Yost, Secretary. 
 The paper was then laid on the table. 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, &c. 
 
 The Convention, on motion of Mr. BEALE, resumed 
 the consideration in committee of the whole, (Mr. Mil- 
 ler in the chair,) of the report of the committee on the 
 basis and apportionment of representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 sition of the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 
 MR. SHEFFEY. I regret very much that indisposi- 
 tion, under which I have been laboring for some days, 
 prevented me from concluding my remarks on yester- 
 day. I shall hasten to the conclusion of what I have to 
 say. 
 
 I was yesterday endeavoring to prove that the mixed 
 basis was, in itself, no safeguard against excessive taxes, 
 and that its friends, its peculiar advocates on this floor, 
 who are opposed to "paper guaranties " with the suf- 
 
 frage basis, cannot rely on the mixed basis as a sufficient 
 protection to property, without "paper guaranties ; " 
 and I argued to prove that proper restrictions upon leg- 
 islative power might be efficient in preventing abuses, 
 and would prove to be as necessary to the mixed as to 
 the suffrage basis ; and, if as necessary, then that the 
 mixed basis, as an all-sufficient protection against ex- 
 cessive taxation, was not sustained by such a political 
 necessity as, even in the eyes of our opponents, would 
 justify a departure from the fundamental principles of 
 republican equality. I then undertook to prove that 
 the suffrage basis would be as safe without any consti- 
 tutional restrictions as the mixed basis, inasmuch as the 
 responsibility of the representative in voting taxes 
 would be measured, not by the amount his constituents 
 would have to pay, but by the burden of the tax im- 
 posed — by the difficulty of paying it ; and that those 
 who possess most means impose taxes on themselves, 
 and others connected with them, more freely and with 
 fewer complaints, than those who are less abundantly 
 blessed with the means of contributing to the support 
 of government ; and I declared myself the advocate of 
 equal power, in the administration of the government, 
 for the moderate in circumstances, as a means ©f self- 
 proteotion to those who were otherwise powerless. If 
 government be designed for the protection of one class 
 above another, it is for the protection of the weak 
 against the strong — the humble against the great — the 
 poor against the rich ; and whence, then, comes this 
 claim of power on the part of the rich, the prosperous, 
 and the great ? What is wealth ? It is defined to be 
 " the power by which one man commands the labor of 
 another. " By itself it commands men — it controls 
 and directs the muscles and sinews of the world. Its 
 tendency is constantly to involve the many in the iron 
 grasp of its power ; and it is a cruel despot when it is 
 endowed with supreme authority. Shall we not only 
 protect it by law — by constitutional guards from the 
 assaults of the many — declare it to be safe, whilst we 
 acknowledge it to be strong ; but, in addition, exalting 
 it to the dignity of an idol, clothe it with the powers of 
 government, and surrender everything to its control ? 
 But gentlemen say it is not wealth they seek to have 
 represented, but " the interests and rights which spring 
 from the possession of money, " and which are impair- 
 ed by excessive taxes. I reply that if taxes be uni- 
 form, the interests of the tax-payers will be identical, 
 and the amount may be safely left to the will of the 
 majority— those who pay less having less to pay with, 
 and finding it harder to pay their rateable share than 
 the rich. I now proceed to show that the mixed basia 
 gives the majority of delegates to eastern Virginia, 
 whilst the majority of tax-payers reside west of the 
 Blue Ridge. There are very few slave owners who 
 are not landholders ; the exceptions are principally 
 women and minors. The following table shows the 
 number of persons assessed with tax on lands, slaves, 
 and other property, in the four divisions of the State : 
 Land. Slaves. Other Property. 
 
 1 35,629 19,425 28,857 
 
 2 34,195 20,513 35,197 
 
 3 22,775 5,993 24,782 
 
 4 41,874 4,169 47,281 
 
 Total 134,464 50,200 136,117 
 
 From this table it appears that, admitting every 
 slave owner to be a landholder, there are 84,364 land- 
 holders in the Commonwealth who are not slave own- 
 ers, and that the owners of land and of other property 
 east, are 133,869 ; west, 136,712— showing a majority 
 of 2,843 in favor of the west. The great principle of 
 the Revolution was, that " taxation and representation 
 were inseparable — that taxation without representation 
 was tyranny. " I ask, when a minority of tax-payers 
 govern and tax the majority of tax-payers, whether 
 this principle be not violated ? It never was dreamed 
 or thought of by our fathers, that representation should 
 be in proportion to the amount paid, but that no man, 
 however humble, should be taxed, however little, ex- 
 
308 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 cept by his own consent, or that of his representative 
 who should speak for him, and possess the same power 
 to protect him as the representative of any other tax- 
 payer. And I charge the minority with trampling 
 under foot this great principle of the Revolution — a 
 minority who, aiming at self protection, demand the 
 power to oppress the majority ; who, whilst seeking to 
 retain the control of their own property, require the 
 majority to give up to them theirs also ; who, in order 
 to shield the few who pay much, ask for all power over 
 the many, who pay as much in proportion as God has 
 blessed them with the means. 
 
 I proceed now to show that if representation be ap- 
 portioned according to the number of the qualified voters, 
 the legislative power will be in the hands of those whose 
 interests will forbid the imposition of excessive taxes 
 The basis of qualified voters would give to the east sev- 
 enty votes in a house of one hundred and fifty-six mem- 
 bers ; to the valley twenty-eight and to the trans-alle- 
 ghany fifty-eight votes ; the valley and the east com- 
 bined would cast ninety-eight votes against the fifty-eight 
 votes of the trans-alleghany district ; and could protect 
 property if the entire far west were filled with plunder- 
 ers. I lay it down as a proposition not to be controvert- 
 ed, that (even if the amount of taxes paid be the crite- 
 rion of safety,) power maybe safely lodged in the hands 
 of those who pay an average amount of the taxes levied ; 
 and if I show that the valley is identified in interest with 
 the east, measuring that interest by the amount of her 
 contributions to the treasury, and that the valley and the 
 east combined will have the power to protect property 
 from plunder or excessive taxation, I demonstrate that 
 there is no political necessity for the mixed basis and 
 that, according to Mr, Upshur's admission, the rule of 
 free governments — the rule of the majority — should be 
 adhered to. The taxes as I have stated are $534,772.82 : 
 the average to each white person is 59 cents 5 mills ; 1st 
 district 94 cents 9 mills : 2nd district 78 cents 1 mill : 
 3rd district 56 cents 6 mills : and 4th district 28 cents 6 
 mills. The white population of Richmond, Norfolk, Pe- 
 tersburg and Alexandria is 38,248, and the taxes paid 
 by them are $57,169.30. Exclude these towns and the 
 average to each white person in the State is 55 cents, 5 
 mills : 1st district, 81 cents 1 mill : 2d district, 78 cents, 
 1 mill : 3d district, 56 cents 6 mills : 4th district 28 cents 
 6 mills : and in the four towns named, the average is 149 
 cents 4 mills. There are 270,581 persons charged with 
 land and other property, (slaves excepted) the average to 
 each tax-payer is $1.97 ; 1st district $2.78 ; 2nd district 
 $2.41 ; 3rd district $1.94 and 4th district $1.06. There 
 are 134,464 persons charged with tax on lands and lots ; 
 the general average is $2.22 : 1st district $2.56 ; 2nd 
 district $2 36 ; 3rd district $2.68, and 4th district $1.56 ; 
 there are 50,100 persons charged with tax on slaves ; the 
 general average is $1.62 : 1st district $1.54 ; 2nd district 
 $1.91 ; 3rd district $1.14, and 4th district $1.03 : there 
 are 136,117 persons charged with tax on property, oth- 
 er than lands and slaves : the general average is $1.13 : 
 1st district $1.98 ; 2nd district $1.34 ; 3rd district 98 
 cents, and 4th district 53 cents. These general aver- 
 ages show that upon the entire tax the valley falls 
 short of the average only 2 cents 9 mills to each white 
 person : that excluding the four towns named before 
 the valley exceeds the general average 1 cent 1 mill ; 
 that in respect to the tax on lands and other property, 
 it falls short of the average 3 cents to each tax payer : 
 that it exceeds the average of the land tax 46 cents, 
 and stands in the front rank in this regard ; that it falls 
 short of the average in the slave tax only 48 cents to 
 each tax-payer — that the tidewater district also falls 
 below this average, there being a remarkable approxi- 
 mation to equality in the amount paid by the owners of 
 slaves. I submit the following statements further to 
 show that on the score of self-interest, power may be 
 safely apportioned according to the number of qualified 
 voters : Lot tax : general average to each white person 
 in the commonwealth is 7 cents 3 mills : 1st district 
 22 cents 2 mills ; 2nd district 3 cents 6 mills ;3rd district 
 3 cents 8 mills, and 4th district 2 cents 8 mills : Land 
 
 tax : general average 25 cents 9 mil s ; 1st nstrLt 26 
 eents 2 mills ; 2nd district 34 cents 8 mills ; 3rd distrif t 
 33 cents 8 mills, and 4th district 17 cents 1 mill : Horse 
 tax : /general average is 3 cents 5 mills : 1st district 2 
 cents 8 mills ; 2nd district 4 cents 4 mills ; 3rd district 4 
 cents, and 4th district 3 cents : Watch tax : the gene- 
 ral average is 1 cent 9 mills : 1st district 3 cents 7 mills ; 
 2nd district 2 cents 3 mills ; 3rd district 1 cent 7 mills, 
 and 4th district 7 mills : Clock tax : general average 
 is 1 cent 5 mills : 1st district 1 cent 5 mills ; 2nd distrkt 
 ] cent 4 mills ; 3rd district 1 cent 9 mills, and 4th dis- 
 trict 1 cent 3 mills. These items, including the slave 
 tax already considered, yield a revenue of $443,597. I 
 have not alluded to the taxes on coaches, pianos, harp s> 
 plate, gold, silver, interest, income, attorneys, physi- 
 cians and collateral inheritances which yield a revenue 
 of $82,569. This revenue comes principally from the 
 cities and from property not diffused over the east ; and 
 in respect to which I suggest that the west may be as 
 safely trusted as ?he county delegates from the east, 
 very few of whom feel as much interest in the gro-vs th 
 and prosperity of the cities as the people of the valley. 
 But even in regard to this tax the valley does not fall 
 very far short of the general average. To each white 
 person the average is nine cents six mills : 1st district 
 18 cents 9 mills ; 2nd district 15 cents 4 mills ; 3rd dis- 
 trict 6 cents 6 mills, and 4th district 2 cents. There is 
 one tax in respect to which the west cannot hope and 
 will not desire to rival the east — I allude to the tax on 
 free negroes — a tax which amounts to $8,606, and of 
 which $7,363 are paid in the east, and $1,243 in the 
 west — the difference in favor of the east being $6,120, 
 almost enough to furnish one tax delegate. This tax is 
 included by the terms of the substitute as well as in the 
 actual apportionments made in proposition A, and gives 
 the east one delegate, making her majority 14 instead 
 of 12 in the house of delegates. It silences the voice of 
 upwards of 17,000 white persons and confers power on 
 those who imposed the burden on the free negroes to 
 drive them from the Commonwealth. I mention this 
 particularly to show how uncertain, fluctuating, and 
 really unjust the mixed basis is, and how power may be 
 retained by it in the hands of those who owe power 
 to it. 
 
 Before I proceed further, I will say a few words con- 
 cerning the progress of wealth and population in Vir- 
 ginia. "Between 1819 and 1838 the real estate decreased 
 in value in the first district $10,792,943, and in the sec- 
 ond district $9,149,213, showing an aggregate decrease 
 in eastern Virginia of $19,942,156, whilst in the third 
 district there was an increase of $1,818,692, and in the 
 fourth district of $23,159,994, showing an aggregate in- 
 crease in the west of $24,978,686. The following table 
 will show the value of the real estate in 1850, the in- 
 crease in the districts since 1838, and the increase in 
 taxes resulting therefrom : 
 
 Districts. Value. Increase. Increase tax 
 
 1st, $77,964,574 $17,260,521 $3,195.05 
 2d, 77,786,477 8,769,771 5,541.02 
 
 3d, 59,250,746 16,258,542 12,915.37 
 
 4th, 61,527,769 22,310,224 16,995.05 
 
 Total, $299,529,566 $64,599,058 $38,646.49 
 
 It appears from this table that whilst the real estate 
 ea t has increased in value since 1838 $26,030,292, the 
 taxes of the east will be increased thereby only $8,736.17 
 and that the real estate west has increased in value 
 $38,568,765, and the taxes $29,910.42. The reason of 
 this apparent inconsistency is, that the value of real 
 estate has increased chiefly in the towns in eastern Vir- 
 ginia — the town property having been already entered 
 on the commissioners' books and charged with taxes. 
 The increase in the value of lands west over that east 
 will be seen to be $12,537j473 ; the increase in the towns 
 east over that in the towns west is $8,635,778, whilst 
 the increase out of the towns west over that east is 
 $20,274,250 I desire this fact to be remembered when 
 I come to speak of the mode in which the substitute 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 309 
 
 proposes te distribute the surplus population and taxes 
 of the towns. 
 
 I will mention some additional facts which will have 
 an important bearing on what I have to say. First, that 
 since 1830 the slave population has decreased in eastern 
 Virginia 3,580, whilst it has increased west 19,797. Be- 
 tween 1840 and 1850 the slaves increased east 17,487, 
 and west 9,497, showing a steady increase of this sort 
 of property in the west, an increase not subject to those 
 fluctuations that mark its progress in eastern Virginia. 
 Between 1830 and 1840 the white population decreased 
 cast 6,259 and increased west 52,925; between 1840 
 and 1850 it increased east 33,373 and west 123,193. 
 The following table will show the increase of revenue 
 since 1845, derived from subjects on which the taxes 
 have not been changed, and not including merchants 5 
 licenses, law process and deeds : 
 
 Taxes. Increase. Per cent, increase. 
 
 1845 
 1846 
 1847 
 1848 
 1849 
 1850 
 
 $431,845 93 
 439,444 04 
 452,850 22 
 461,967 66 
 472,516 64 
 495,626 33 
 
 $7,598 11 
 13,406 18 
 9,117 44 
 10,548 98 
 23,109 69 
 
 If 
 
 n 
 
 2 
 
 n 
 
 4f 
 
 Increase in five years, $63,780 40 14f 
 
 Thi3 table shows a steady increase in the value and 
 amount of the property of the Commonwealth: If the 
 per centage of the taxes paid respectively by the east 
 and the west be looked to, it will appear that the ratio 
 has not been materially altered since 1840 ; and if the 
 explanation of this be sought, it will be found in the 
 prosperity and increased taxes of eastern towns. I will 
 be indulged whilst I shaw the per centage of taxes 
 paid by the east and the west since 1840 In 1840 the 
 east paid 67 9-10 per cent, of all the taxes, and the 
 west 32 1-10 per cent. In 1848, east 67 8-10, west 
 32 2-10 | in 1849, east 67 7-10, west 32 3-10 ; in 1850, 
 east 68, west 32, and including the new land tax the 
 ratio would now be, east 65, west 35. It will be seen 
 that the west lost ground in 1850; that was owing to 
 the free negro tax of which I have already spoken. 
 The real estate, then, is increasing in value more rapid- 
 ly in the west than in the east, but the capital and per- 
 sonal property in the east, when compared with that in 
 the west, increases very nearly in the ratio of two to 
 one. This ratio of increase is not kept up in the east 
 by the land tax, by the tax on slaves or horses, (sub- 
 jects generally held by eastern property-holders,) but, 
 as will be seen by the tax, on a class of subjects enjoyed 
 as luxuries, or held confessedly by a few persons, and 
 in which the people generally, either east or west, are 
 not interested, 
 
 I now proceed to show that, upon any question of 
 taxes, if the burden of the tax is to be estimated by its 
 amount and not by the ability to pay, western counties 
 maybe as safely trusted as eastern counties. The ar- 
 guments urged on this floor are, that danger is to be 
 apprehended from the west. The east may be relied 
 on to resist excessive taxation. I propose to compare 
 a number of western and eastern counties. In making 
 my calculations I have used a statement recently fur- 
 nished to us bv the auditor, because it contains the new 
 land tax. This statement also includes the tax on law 
 process and notarial seals, which is not to be included 
 in making apportions under the mixed basis. But 
 these items can make no appreciable difference, as the 
 tax on them east is $18,445.03, and west $16, 718.34. 
 According to this statement the average to each white 
 person in the Commonwealth is 64 cents 6 mills : or ex- 
 cluding Richmond, Norfolk, Petersburg and Alexan- 
 dria, 59 cents 2 mills : 1st district 107 cents, including 
 the towns named, n>r excluding those towns, 85 cents 5 
 mills ; 2d district 82 cents 2 mills ; 3d district 60 cents 
 6 mills, and 4th district 31 cents 8 mills, and in the towns 
 named 160 cents 3 mills. It will be seen, the valley is 
 still above the average excluding the towns. The^er 
 
 capita contributions of the counties west and east are 
 as follows : 
 
 West. East. 
 
 Cts. ms. Cts. ms 
 
 Brooke 49 4 Accomac 64 3 
 
 Greenbrier 52 8 Matthews 44 5 
 
 Kanawha 45 0 Elizabeth City 72 8 
 
 Ohio .55 5 Gloucester 77 0 
 
 Washington 40 5 Richmond 52 7 
 
 Wythe 44 8 Westmorland 79 6 
 
 Berkeley 70 1 Stafford 61 7 
 
 Jefferson 106 5 Fluvanna 71 3 
 
 Frederick 75 4 Greene 50 2 
 
 Clarke 153 6 Rappahannock 63 5 
 
 Warren 59 3 Prince Wm 63 6 
 
 Hardy 48 2 Fairfax 70 7 
 
 Rockingham 58 5 Princess Ann 58 0 
 
 Augusta • 72 7 Norfolk 68 0 
 
 Rockbridge 54 8 Nansemond 66 1 
 
 Botetourt 46 3 Isle of Wight 68 0 
 
 Roanoke 54 0 Pittsylvania 54 1 
 
 Brunswick 67 7 
 
 Appomattox 64 6 
 
 Nelson 62 6 
 
 Patrick 24 0 
 
 Henry 42 5 
 
 Franklin 34 4 
 
 Bedford 48 2 
 
 Amherst 60 8 
 
 I ask whether these western counties, altogether, may 
 not be as safely confided in as the eastern counties I 
 have named? It is true, there are many western coun- 
 ties which fall far below the average standard, but if 
 the western counties named above are willing to base 
 representation on the qualified voters, what objection 
 on the score of safety can the eastern counties urge ? 
 Before leaving this subject I will remark, that it is a 
 striking fact that Pittsylvania, Bedford, and Brunswick, 
 which pay comparatively small per capita contributions 
 are large slave holding counties. Pittsylvania has 13,- 
 228, Bedford 9,958, and Brunswick 7,528 slaves. The 
 argument derived from the per capita contributions 
 which our opponents press upon us would strip those 
 counties of power. But another argument urged by 
 some, that where there is a peculiar property, its own- 
 ers should possess legislative power to protect it, would 
 entitle the same counties to a great increase of power. 
 I will not stop to reconcile the arguments. 
 
 I proceed now to consider the last danger to property, 
 the power in the legislative body to discriminate in im- 
 posing taxes, between one species of property and an- 
 other. If I have satisfied any gentleman that there is 
 no danger from excessive taxation, but he still dreads 
 western hostility towards slave property, his fears may 
 at once be quieted by the ad valorem principle of taxa- 
 tion. Strip the public agents of all power to discrimi- 
 nate; fix now the ratio of contribution : graduate it to 
 suit all the great interests of the State ; establish a scale 
 of taxes which may not be changed ; let the actual or 
 the annual value be the test as maybe deemed best. In 
 my opinion, the ad valorem mode of taxation is just, equal 
 and uniform ; it conforms to the principle that the obli- 
 gation to pay taxes is proportioned to the value of the 
 property to be protected — to the ability to payj All of 
 us, I trust, desire to do our whole duty. None of us 
 wish to contribute less than our proper share; none wish 
 others to pay more than what is just. Let us limit the 
 legislative power so as to secure what is right and dis- 
 pel the fears of all. But I am met again with the ob- 
 jection that this too is a "paper guarantee," which the 
 majority may at some future day throw off at pleasure. 
 What temptation, I ask, could there be to remove such 
 a restriction ? What could the west gain by discarding 
 a just, an equal, a righteous system of taxation ? Need 
 I say that the spirit of the age, which is marked by 
 strong distrust of public agents, is against any such ap- 
 prehension. But what could the west gain by annulling 
 
310 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the ad valorem guarantee ? The gentleman from Greenes- 
 ville intimated that we wanted power in order that we 
 might get the control of the slave property of the east ; 
 and it is, I suppose, feared that the ad valorem guaran- 
 tee would be set aside for the purpose of enabling the 
 west to burden slave property with the greater portion 
 of taxes. I have already shown that that speeies of pro- 
 perty is rapidly increasing in the west — increasing in a 
 ratio much greater than in the east — that we are every 
 year becoming more and more identified with the east 
 in this respect. In the convention of 1829, Mr. Joynes, 
 the distinguished member from Accomac, announced it 
 as a principle to be relied on, that where the number of 
 slaves in a county, when compared with the whole pop- 
 ulation, approximates to the ratio which the slave pro- 
 perty of the whole State bears to the whole population, 
 the slave interest in that county may be considered safe. 
 Now the ratio between the whole population in Virginia 
 (excluding free negroes) and the slave population is that 
 of one hundred to thirty- three. Those counties then in 
 which the number of slaves approximates thirty-three 
 per cent, of the entire population, are interested in pro- 
 tecting slave property. The entire east, it is said, is to 
 be relied on, but the west has, it is said, no interest in 
 slavery and is not to be trusted. Permit me to compare 
 certain counties east and west — in some of which the 
 number of slaves exceeds, and in others it falls a little 
 short of thirty-three per cent, of the whole population. 
 I submit the following table : 
 
 West. Excess. 
 
 Deficit. 
 
 East. Excess. 
 
 Deficit. 
 88 
 
 Alleghany 
 
 477 
 
 Franklin 
 
 
 Augusta 
 
 3148 
 
 Loudoun 
 
 
 1685 
 
 Bath 
 
 196 
 
 Patrick 
 
 
 876 
 
 Berkeley 
 
 1968 
 
 Henry 
 
 370 
 
 
 Kanawha 
 
 1974 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 
 1950 
 
 Botetourt 
 
 1232 
 
 Accomac 
 
 
 966 
 
 Clarke 1136 
 
 
 Fairfax 
 
 
 110 
 
 Frederick 
 
 3030 
 
 Henrico 
 
 989 
 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 778 
 
 Isle of Wight 278 
 
 
 Roanoke 
 
 312 
 
 Matthews 
 
 690 
 
 
 Wythe 
 
 1813 
 
 Nansemond 
 
 
 147 
 
 Rockbridge 
 
 1150 
 
 Prince William 
 
 212 
 
 Pulaski 
 
 334 
 
 Norfolk City 
 
 
 478 
 
 Warren 
 
 454 
 
 
 
 Montgomery 
 
 1314 
 
 
 
 
 I beg gentlemen to consider this list and then ask 
 themselves whether these western counties, which on 
 the basis of qualified voters would cast 22 votes, enough 
 when added to the 71 votes east, to resist all assaults 
 on the peculiar institutions of Virginia — and which are 
 so eagerly seeking to acquire slare property, may not be 
 trusted to resist either a discriminating tax or the repeal 
 of the ad valorem guarantee ? A discriminating tax or 
 the repeal of the ad valorem guarantee, with a view to a 
 discriminating tax on slaves, would, in the first place, be 
 an act of gross injustice, and I respectfully suggest that 
 western men have some moral sense, and can appreciate 
 to some extent the distinction between right and wrong; 
 hut if they did not, they have intelligence enough to see 
 and understand that such a mode of taxation would de- 
 stroy the very property which they show such eagerness 
 to acquire. There are 917 slave-owners in Augusta, 
 611 in Rockbridge — most of them voters — and a large 
 portion of the voting population in each of the counties 
 named, directly interested in protecting slave property. 
 And for what purpose would the slave owners of the 
 west consent to tax oppressively the slaves they are 
 buying to work their lands ? The answer is, to relieve 
 from taxes the lands to be worked by them. Search the 
 aunals of civilized man and no such instance of stupid 
 wickedness can be found. And it is the fear of such folly 
 and senseless viciousness that deters eastern men from 
 trusting their western brethren ! 
 
 I now desire to show what hereafter may be the atti- 
 tude of parties in the house of delegates, if either the 
 substitute or proposition A be adopted. There will be 
 sixty-eight delegates representing 494,763 white per- 
 
 sons, paying according to the last statement of the au- 
 ditor $204,256 taxes ; and eighty-two delegates repre- 
 senting 402,771, paying $366,236 taxes. The votes of 
 Loudoun and Richmond city added, upon any question, 
 to the sixty-eight western votes, would produce a tie — 
 seventy -five to seventy-five ; deduct the population and 
 taxes of Loudoun and Richmond from the east and add 
 them to the west, and this result will follow, that sev- 
 enty-five delegates will represent 525,136 white persons 
 and $248,093 taxes, aud seventy-five delegates will rep- 
 resent 372.398 white persons and $322,349 taxes ; the 
 majority of white persons on the one hand being 152,- 
 738, and of taxes on the other being $68,975 ; that is to 
 say 372,398 white persons will have equal political pow- 
 er with 525,136, because they pay an average tax of 18 
 cents 5 mills each more than the 525,136, or rather be- 
 cause a few rich men amongst the 372,398 pay a heavy 
 amount of taxes to which the poor amongst them be- 
 come entitled by the legerdemain of the mixed basis. 
 In this profound political problem the ratio between the 
 surplus of men and the surplus of taxes, is that of one 
 to forty-five one hundredths, that is, one man is counted 
 against forty -five cents — a high price indeed does the 
 mixed basis set upon the heads of freemen. 
 
 View the subject in another aspect and the property 
 feature in the mixed basis will appear equally offensive. 
 The argument of gentlemen is that if the east and the 
 west were equal in population and taxes they ought to 
 be equal in representation, but that the minority east 
 paying the majority of taxes should have the greater 
 power. The population east is 402,771, and the taxes 
 west $204,256. Now if the population west were only 
 402,771, and the taxes east only $204,256, then the two 
 sections would be equal and entitled to an equal number 
 of delegates, say sixty eight each ; but it is found that 
 whilst 402,771 exhausts the white population east, that 
 number deducted from the white population west leaves 
 a surplus of 91,992 ; and that $204,256, which exhausts 
 the taxes west, deducted from $366,236, the taxes paid 
 by the east, leaves a surplus of $161,980. The east and 
 the west then present themselves as equals, with sixty- 
 eight delegates — the west, however, with a surplus of 
 white population amounting to 91,992, and the east with 
 a surplus of taxes amounting to $161,980. And how is 
 this surplus on each side disposed of by the mixed basis ? 
 Why, it is said to be just and right that the west should 
 remain content with her sixty- eight delegates, and lose 
 her surplus of population. Nay, more, that the east 
 should have fourteen additional delegates. Thus, $161,- 
 9S0 in taxes, annuls the representative power of 91,992 
 free white persons; and after accomplishing this whole 
 sale destruction, confers fourteen additional delegates on 
 the east. Such a process of " clipping the sovereigns " 
 would well justify a prosecution for petty treason against 
 the offending parties ! 
 
 I will now bring to your notice, a provision in the sub- 
 stitute, which, in my opinion is calculated to work a 
 three-fold wrong. 1 allude to that clause which declares 
 that "The representation in no town or city shall at any 
 
 time exceed delegates and Senators ; 
 
 but the surplus fractions thereof, whether of population 
 or taxation, shall be estimated in assigning representa- 
 tion to the sections of the State in which they are re- 
 spectively situated." In the first place, here is a viola- 
 tion of the principle on which alone the mixed basis 
 can be justified, that, the community possessing wealth 
 or property, which may be injured by legislative , acts, 
 ought to have representative power to protect its inter- 
 ests. This proviso of the substitute declares that when 
 the wealth shall have increased, the property shall have 
 accumulated, so as to be in truth a temptation to plun- 
 derers, the power of protection shall be cut short, and 
 the overgrown mass of glittering pelf shall lie open ^ to 
 the assaults of all who may have the "itching palm"— 
 may feel a propensity to seize their neighbors' purse- 
 strings. But, in the 'second place, this proviso not only 
 declares that the inhabitants, by whose energy _ aud en- 
 terprise, the population and wealth of the cities have 
 
VIRGINIA REB'ORM CONVENTION. 
 
 been increased, shall cease to have the power which the 
 payment of large revenues would afford for self protec- 
 tion, but that at a certain point in their progress, they 
 themselves shall cease to be counted in assigning repre- 
 sentation. However great may be the population, the 
 surplus beyond a given number shall be silenced, and 
 the freemen of the cities placed upon a worse footing 
 of degradation than those even of the west. How plea- 
 sant to the people of Richmond will it not be, at some 
 future day, when suddenly arrested by the very pros- 
 perity they once sought to protect, they find the increase 
 of population or of wealth of no avail to give them 
 power. How pleasant then to reflect that they aided 
 to secure the adoption of the mixed basis — that but for 
 their own votes they might have stood upon an equal 
 footing with their fellow-citizens throughout the State ! 
 But in the third place, this proviso not only disfranchises 
 the population, and strips the property of the cities of 
 the power of self-protection, but with an unheard-of 
 generosity gives the surplus fractions to the sections in 
 which the cities are respectively situated. The reser- 
 voir of city power shall have a certain capacity and no 
 more, and the bright waters that flow into it, shall rise 
 sparkling to the brim, and then fall in cool refreshing 
 currents on the parched and exhausted regions around 
 it ! The picture is beautiful — the idea is poetical • but 
 is the principle sound — is the thing itself just and right ? 
 What attracts population — what brings capital to your 
 cities ? It is their trade — it is their commerce — it is 
 their back country ! Without the last, no city can grow 
 with it, and with ways opened to it, any city will pros 
 per. And what is the effect of the proviso ? Not to 
 give the back country of a city — that country from 
 which it derives its strength and support — the benefit of 
 its surplus population and wealth, but to give it to the 
 lowlands beyond her — who are her enemies oftimes 
 hostile to her interests, and incapable of sympathising 
 with her purposes. Richmond, whose interests and sym- 
 pathies all bind her to the Piedmont and the west, is to 
 furnish strength to tide-water, which trades with Balti- 
 more, to crush all those schemes of improvement in 
 which she is interested! There is a meaning in this 
 proposition which I call on you and the country to mark. 
 It is put forth by the far-seeing and sagacious champion 
 of the mixed basis, (Mr. Scott, of Fauquier,) and dis- 
 closes two facts : First, that the mixed basis will not 
 work as a principle — its friends are afraid to trust it — 
 they see the results of following its lead — and they are 
 right. The mixed basis would concentrate immense 
 power in the cities. Did I not tell you yesterday that 
 Baltimore and Philadelphia paid forty per cent, of the 
 revenues of their respective States ? It will not do to 
 surrender ourselves altogether to the money power. 
 The second fact disclosed, is, that although the cities 
 are to be deprived of their surplus wealth and popula- 
 tion, that surplus is still necessary to sustain the ascen- 
 dancy of eastern power, and must be so used. And how 
 used ? To give representation to people and money, 
 (by a pleasant fiction,) as belonging to Charles City, New 
 Kent, Matthews, Middlesex, <fec, when, in fact, they be- 
 long to Richmond, — to give these counties not only the 
 full benefit of their own population and wealth, but, to 
 make assurance doubly sure, lest the west might over- 
 take and beat them on their own principles, the declining 
 energies of eastern counties are* to be propped up and 
 sustained by the power of the cities — which power the 
 cities have acquired by trading with the west. Oh ! 
 humiliating picture ! Sad decline of eastern pride — of 
 eastern independence ! Stop the influence on power of 
 the growth of the cities, and the scale of western rep- 
 resentation would rise rapidly, even on the mixed basis ; 
 but retain that influence, and I almost despair, when I 
 look forward to the future ! I have already shown how 
 rapidly the value of real estate is increasing in the cit- 
 ies. I will now show how they have grown in taxable 
 property. In 1840, the land and property tax of Rich- 
 mond, Petersburg and Norfolk, was $28,374.22 ; in 1848, 
 
 it was §45,124.93 ; and in 1850,it was $53,802.17. Add 
 Alexandria to the list, and the aggregate for 1848, is 
 §50,789.24 ; and for 1850, $61,341.24. The increase in 
 these four towns, in two years, has been upwards of 
 $10,000. And what is the prospect before us ? These 
 very towns are stretching out their arms for western 
 trade— opening their markets for western products — 
 straining every nerve to secure the wealth-giving traffic 
 of their back country ! And what will be the effect 
 of the system of internal improvements Virginia is now 
 executing \ Suppose the central railroad and canal, or 
 either of them, extended to the Ohio river, and the 
 south-western road extended to the Tennessee line, and 
 there connecting with lines of improvement reaching 
 to Memphis, where will the fertilizing and enriching 
 streams of trade and travel, which will flow through 
 these channels, be chiefly felt ? I ask gentlemen to con- 
 sider this matter. Internal improvements can produce 
 no other effect on agriculture within the State, than to 
 enhance the value of its products in proportion as the 
 cost of transportation is diminished. And hence, with 
 equal fertility of soil, eastern agriculture must always 
 be more profitable than that of the west, because the 
 tax on transportion must be less. It is true that these 
 improvements will develop the resources and increase 
 the wealth of the west • but every increase of western 
 production will proportionally increase eastern trade, 
 manufactures and commerce. This would be the case 
 if the lines of internal improvement should give vent 
 only to the productions of our own west ; but when 
 those lines are extended into the great valleys of the 
 Ohio and the Mississippi, the two broad and deep currents 
 of trade which will flow through Virginia, will make 
 their golden deposits on the shores of the east. Com- 
 merce, based not only upon the trade of western Vir- 
 ginia, but of a western world, will be found in the east, 
 — a commerce which will be engaged in exporting the 
 vast products of two great valleys, watered by the Ohio 
 and the Mississippi, and likewise in importing for the 
 millions of the west the products and manufactures of 
 other climes. And what is commerce \ She is the re- 
 ceiver of heavy tolls on the products of labor ; and the 
 experience of the world has shown that these tolls are 
 greater than the profits of labor. Look at New York 
 and Boston. How have the population and wealth of 
 those cities risen or fallen according as they have felt or 
 lost the magic power of western trade? In 1816, the 
 real estate of New York was valued at eighty -two mil- 
 lions; in 1825, at one hundred millions ; (in 1825 the 
 Erie canal was opened ;) between 1825 and 1835, her 
 population was doubled, and her real estate rose in val- 
 ue to two hundred and eighteen millions; from 1835 to 
 1841, her population and wealth increased 9|- per cent, 
 annually, in despite of the great fire of 1837, and the 
 financial derangements of 1836, '37 and '38. In 1841, the 
 great western railway was opened to Boston. Between 
 1841 and 1846, New York population increased only 1£ 
 per cent., and her wealth decreased \\ per cent. Du- 
 ring the same period Boston increased in population from 
 93,000 to 115,000, and in the value of her real estate, 
 from ninety-eight millions to one hundred and thirty- 
 five millions. Similar will be the developments in east- 
 ern Virginia, if she ever taps the great reservoirs of 
 western trade. Manufactures will also spring up in her 
 midst to supply the great consuming west. Capital will 
 be centred here to give life and energy to commerce and 
 manufactures. The agriculture of the east will be im- 
 proved — her worn out soils will be revived and made 
 productive. Her white population is already increasing, 
 and the future will disclose a new, a brighter era in 
 eastern prosperity. Such is the prospect which opens 
 upon the fond vision of every Virginian. Our hearts 
 leap up with gladness when we contemplate the rising 
 glories of eastern prosperity. It is our earnest desire 
 that the vision shall become a reality. We are identified 
 with the east in sympathy and feeling — we take pride 
 in her glorious memories — we, love her high-toned, hon- 
 
312 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 orable character — we cling with instinctive affection and 
 veneration to Virginia, the beneficent and noble mother 
 of us all ! And now, I ask, I appeal to eastern gentle- 
 men to consider, to pause, before they inflict this great 
 wrong on the west. They covet our trade, and become 
 strong on the food that grows in our mountains. Will 
 they use that strength to bind us with cords ? They 
 beckon us to come to them — to deal with them — to ad- 
 vance their prosperity. Will they make this very pros- 
 perity the means of oppressing us — of destroying our 
 political equality — of degrading us so that our freemen 
 shall be stripped of political power by the hand of wealth 
 we ourselves have fostered ? Shall the eagle of the 
 west be wounded, and see upon the arrow that inflicted 
 the deadly wound, the feathers plucked from its own 
 wing ? Will gentlemen make our very affections fetters 
 to bind us faster ? It may be that if you smite us, we 
 will kiss the rod and submit — that if you do us this 
 great wrong we will love you still, but I implore you do 
 not strain the bond too much, lest you snap 
 
 " -the golden link, the silken tie, 
 That heart to heart and mind to mind, 
 In body and in soul doth bind." 
 
 In the name of Augusta, the daughter of the east — a 
 a loyal and devoted daughter, yearning with unuttera- 
 ble affection towards her mother — 1 speak to you this 
 day on behalf of the great west, the daughter of Au- 
 gusta ! For the sake of the harmony and concord of a 
 common people, throw not this apple of discord into 
 their midst. Bitter will be the fruits of your acts, if you 
 alienate our affections from you, — if you make us curse 
 the necessity of coming to your markets, — if you kindle 
 in our midst a spirit of hostility to eastern wealth and 
 eastern prosperity. Let us, oh ! let us rather stand to- 
 gether — be one people in heart as well as name — let us 
 trust and love one another, and build now upon solid 
 principles, and with mutual confidence, the fabric of a 
 government which shall be founded on equality, sus- 
 tained by justice, and guarded — yes, against a world in 
 arms — by patriotism! 
 
 Here let us " raise on liberty's broad base, 
 
 The structure of a wise government, and show, 
 
 In this, our State, a glorious spectacle 
 
 Of social order. Freemen ! Equals all ! 
 
 Swayed by reason — self- governed— self-improved ! 
 
 And the electric chain of public good 
 
 Twined round the private happiness of each, 
 
 And every heart thrilled with the patriot chord 
 
 That sounds the glory of Virginia ! 
 
 A free Republic ! where, beneath the sway 
 
 Of mild and equal laws, framed by themselves, 
 
 One people dwell, and own no Lord but God !" 
 
 Mr. BEALE. I cannot offer to the committee, as an 
 apology for the embarrassment under which I labor, the 
 fact that now, for the first time, I am in the exercise of 
 a high public trust ; yet, though it be true, I cannot 
 plead that maidenly modesty which we have seen in 
 younger members, so gracefully bending under the first 
 display of official robes ; it is true that, never in my 
 life have I attempted to address any public body 
 without a feeling of nervous excitement — constitution- 
 al perhaps — which, to some extent, retards the free 
 operation of my mind. Nor should I now depart from 
 the characteristic silence which has marked my life, 
 during the brief period of my public service, or venture 
 to wield a lance in this foray of debate in presence of 
 the able swordsmen by whom I am surrounded, were it 
 not that duty seems to demand the expression of some 
 of those reasons which influence the opinions of the 
 constituency I here in part represent, and which must 
 control my course upon this great question. 
 
 I feel deeply impressed with the responsibility which 
 rests upon every member of this body, in approaching 
 a subject of such high, such momentous importance. Its 
 very magnitude is calculated to awe me, whilst the 
 presence of this body — the unenviable contrast which 
 I must bear, following, as I do, the gentleman from 
 Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) who has exhibited such abil- 
 
 ity, such clearness, such eloquence ; and the fact of that 
 wane of preparation and reflection necessary to enable 
 me to present my own views properly to this commit- 
 tee — all concur to increase the embarrassment which, 
 under circumstances the most favorable, I should sen- 
 sibly feel. 
 
 In this, our great family council, I hold that it is pre- 
 eminently proper that we should have the fullest, freest 
 interchange of opinion, and, while I come to the discus- 
 sion of this question of the basis with feelings of unaf- 
 fected and sincere kindness towards every member upon 
 this floor, and, I trust, with feelings of enlarged liberal- 
 ity towards every section of this commonwealth, yet I 
 wish to speak plainly and boldly, nor shall I, with af- 
 fected nicety fail, in the remarks which I am about ta 
 submit, to designate things by their true names, as they 
 may present themselves to my mind. I regret that 1 
 cannot, on behalf of either of the propositions sub- 
 mitted for the consideration of this committee by the 
 chairman of the basis committee, emulate the fervor of 
 the gentleman from Augusta, in his advocacy of the 
 one contained in proposition B. Neither embody my 
 own views. But candor requires me to say, that if I 
 cannot sustain, with a becoming devotion, with a zeal 
 which knows no bound, the proposition A, it is because 
 of the conviction that even it does not secure, to a suf- 
 ficient extent, the great principle for which I am here 
 to contend — adequate protection to our rights in proper- 
 ty. I am one of those, unfortunately it may be, not 
 wholly submerged by this wave of innovation which is ; 
 rolling over our country. While I regard this grand 
 experiment of republican government as in its infancy, 
 and am prepared to admit progress, great and benefi- 
 cial progress may be made ; yet I cannot acknowl- 
 edge the wisdom of that policy which would require 
 me to close my eyes upon the past, and exclude or ex- 
 tinguish from my pathway the " dim religious ray " 
 from the lamp of experience. I believe there is much of 
 great value in the history of the government of our 
 own commonwealth ; I believe there is much of great 
 value in the constitution, which came from the hands of 
 the convention of | 1829-30 ; I believe of the distin- 
 guished men who participated in its counsels, none re- 
 main to us their equals in intellectual endowment, in 
 chastened purity, in lofty wisdom. Thus believing, I 
 listened with wrapt attention, with great pleasure, to 
 the eulogy upon Marshall, Madison, Monroe, Upshur, 
 and others, which fell from the lips of the gentleman 
 from Greenbrier. (Mr. Smith.) But what was that eu- 
 logy ? The rainbow which spans the cataract, bright — 
 aye, beautifully bright — with the refracted rays of the 
 setting sun, but placed there to attract the eye, and chain 
 the attention, that he might more securely consign to 
 the dark abyss of waters, which roll below, the memo- 
 ries of those illustrious men. What followed his eulo- 
 gy ? The declaration that the public sentiment of this 
 great people had risen like a mighty wave, to wash 
 out those principles incorporated, by these very men, 
 into the existing constitution. Their action was charac- 
 terised as having perpetuated an odious aristocracy — as 
 having retained somewhat of that jus divino regum, 
 against which every element of republican institutions 
 was warring. 
 
 I regretted the next remark which fell from my friend 
 from Greenbrier. He informed us, and informed us, 
 seemingly, with the view to give his opinions more 
 weight with the Eastern delegation, that he was born 
 within cannon shot of this, our hall of assembly. Aye, 
 the rosy morn of his boyhood had been spent in and 
 about the temple of rights, in which our fathers learned 
 their faith. He had gone from us ; his fortunes had 
 grown with — to us on this question — a stranger people, 
 and he comes back, in the strength of his manhood, to 
 lead their embattled cohorts in the onset, with torch in 
 hand already lighted, to consume this temple of his 
 fathers, 
 
 I have here a word for the gentleman from Augusta, 
 (Mr. Sheffey.) It is to thank him, in the name of the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 313 
 
 constituency I represent, in the name of the " out-side 
 row," for the high compliment which he has paid to our 
 intelligence, and our integrity ! And what was this 
 compliment ? In the gentleman's opening remarks, he 
 spoke, with a feeling and eloquence peculiar to himself, 
 of a great ground swell of indignation which would be 
 heaved up from the hearts of the people of Augusta, 
 against any attempt to appeal, through their interests 
 to their principles. Yet, what did the gentleman do ? 
 On the first occasion when he occupied the floor, at the 
 close of his remarks he told us he wished to submit 
 some remarks relative to Tidewater and Piedmont ; 
 and he gravely, on the second day, proceeded to ap- 
 peal, through her interests, to the principles of Tide- 
 water. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Not so ; no such thing. 
 
 Mr. BEALE. I am glad I did not understand the 
 gentleman correctly — glad to find my friend from Au- 
 gusta would be unwilling to address to tidewater, con- 
 siderations which he thought should not — could not — - 
 be addressed to the constituency which he himself re- 
 presented. I do not propose to follow, through all this 
 wide range, the gentleman who preceded me. It was 
 my purpose to address the committee, in reply to the 
 argument submitted by the member from Greenbrier, 
 but, in so doing, I find it necessary to notice some of 
 the positions assumed by the gentleman from Augusta. 
 Each has directed the attention of the committee to our 
 bill of rights. The two great principles first submit- 
 ted, for our consideration, by the member from Green- 
 brier, were those contained in the second article of that 
 declaration of rights, which declares that all power is 
 vested in, and consequently derived from, the people ; 
 and secondly, that magistrates are their trustees and 
 servants, and at all times amenable to them. None here 
 question the force, the truth, or the practical appli- 
 cability of these great principles ; but, so far as the 
 merits of the issue, now pending between us, are con- 
 cerned, the expressive commentary, the high praises ac- 
 corded to them, by the member were, 1 conceive, be- 
 side the question. They do not affect that issue. The 
 third principle in the series of my friend from Green- 
 brier, was drawn from the second member of the third 
 article of the bill of rights, which declares " that when 
 any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary 
 to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an 
 indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to re- 
 form, alter or abolish it in such manner as shall be 
 judged most conducive to the public weal." This, too, 
 consti" utes the second great principle which the mem- 
 ber from Augusta would lay down as a corner-stone 
 in that edifice which we are about to construet. That 
 principle — the jus mojoris — which had the sanction of 
 ti e universalis consensus hominum ominum. To this 
 the member from Augusta added another sacred princi- 
 ple contained in the first member of the first article, in 
 which it is asserted that " all men are by nature equally 
 free and independent," and this, in his opinion, forms 
 the corner-stone. 
 
 From these two principles, each of the gentlemen 
 have argued. Upon these they rely to sustain the doc- 
 trine that for the basis of representation, white popula- 
 tion, and white population only, should be regarded. 
 This doctrine of mere numbers constituting the only 
 proper basis of representation, originally assumed for 
 the protection of property, or the rights in property ; 
 the truth of the dogma maintained by writers upon po- 
 litical science, that population, or numbers, furnished 
 the true index of wealth ; that a given number of peo- 
 ple in any section of the same country, would as a gen- 
 eral rule, represent an equality of interests in property ; 
 but since governments have undertaken to collect sta- 
 tistics upon this subject, that dogma has proved to be 
 unfounded, and now the doctrine is placed upon other 
 principles. The declaration of the natural equality and 
 independence of men, and that other declaration of the 
 right of the majority to control, are declared to be 
 great principles — fundamental, practical — and to be ac- 
 
 knowledged and applied in the structure of every gov- 
 ernment properly organized. This done, it is maintain- 
 ed that the proposition results, that to each member of 
 the community must be assigned a perfect equality of 
 political weight, and this is the noble end for which 
 gentlemen are contending. But it seems this reasoning 
 will even carry them too far. The very advocates of 
 this natural equality of men — of this great majority 
 rule — shrink back from the legitimate results of their 
 own principle. 
 
 All men are equally free and independent, and the 
 majority of the community has the unalienable, indubi- 
 table right to control, and each member of the commu- 
 nity, being all free, must have equal political weight ; 
 the doctrine was too broad. If this equality be a natu- 
 ral right — indefeasible and unalienable — the communi- 
 ty could have no power to deprive any single member 
 of this his natural right, and this, absurdity necessarily 
 resulted — the incompetency of the society or commu- 
 nity to fix any standard of suffrage which should ex- 
 clude women, infants, paupers, or felons. How is this 
 avoided or met ? .By a change of front; and now the 
 advocates of these great natural rights place before us, 
 as the true basis of representation, qualified voters. 
 Voters qualified ! How qualified ? Are these qualifi- 
 cations, too, like the rights of man, prescribed hy nature ? 
 Have gentlemen, in all their abstract reasoning, been 
 able to deduce from nature the qualifications of a suf- 
 fragan ? Is there some secret law of nature which 
 points to the conclusion, that an institution adopted by 
 men, in their social organization, and which must ex neces- 
 sitate rei have been posterior to the formation of that 
 society, when established, is to be governed by natural 
 law ? A principle which admits the right of society to 
 prescribe and fix the qualifications of the voter, but 
 when so prescribed and fixed, asserts the natural inde- 
 pendence and equality of all voters, assigning to each 
 equal weight. This right of suffrage, I maintain, is 
 purely conventional. I hazard nothing in the assertion 
 that there is no member upon this floor, howsoever pro- 
 found may be his devotion to the natural rights of men, 
 who will deny the right of the community to say in its 
 organic law who shall and who shall not, exercise the 
 elective franchise. Then what becomes of the argument 
 based upon the great principle of the bill of rights, de- 
 duced from natural equality, and the rule of a majority 
 as fundamental principles, which secures to every one 
 equality in suffrage ? I submit it has, in statement B, 
 been abandoned, and the inalienable rights of man, by 
 their own admission, confided to the discretion — no, I 
 would say to the gentleman from Augusta — confided to 
 that, to him, most execrable principle of expediency. 
 The discretion of the community prescribes the right of 
 suffrage, and that discretion acts upon considerations of 
 expediency. 
 
 But " the elective franchise is a necessary part of 
 representative administration, and that franchise is two- 
 fold — suffrage, and representation ; the one regarded 
 as the cause, and the other the effect." Upon this sub- 
 ject the member from Augusta thinks the eastern dele- 
 gation involve themselves in singular absurdity. All 
 admit, he alleges, that suffrage shall be equal. None 
 are so hardy as to infuse the fountain with this poison 
 of an odious aristocracy ; but the advocates of proposi- 
 tion A propose to infuse that poison in the stream low- 
 er down. To illustrate, he says, all admit the injustice 
 of allowing the man worth ten thousand dollars to cast 
 ten votes, while his neighbor, worth but one thousand 
 dollars, shall cast but one. But the effect of the mix- 
 ed or compound basis, is, to give to one hundred men, 
 worth one million of dollars, more political power in 
 the' shape of representation, than to two hundred men 
 worth five hundred thousand dollars. Further, to place 
 this absurdity in a stronger light, the gentleman went 
 on to show that fifty men, worth the million, with fifty 
 poor neighbors, worth nothing, would have this prepon- 
 derance of political power, over one hundred worth the 
 five hundred thousand with one hundred worth nothing ; 
 
314 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 thus not only giving to the property of eastern Virginia 
 undue ascendancy, but actually so elevating the poor 
 man in that section as to make him equal to two equal- 
 ly rich as himself in the west ; the very droppings from 
 the houses of the wealthy effecting such result. And 
 these illustrations prove the monstrous absurdity. The 
 gentleman sterns to conclude that the admission that 
 the suffrage shall be equal, necessarily carries with it 
 the further admission that the effect of that sum-age — 
 representation — shall also be equal. It might have oc- 
 curred to that gentleman — continuing the metaphor so 
 well selected by himself — that while the pure stream 
 issuing from the fountain, might trace its course through 
 the lands of the farmer living near the source, without 
 any detriment whatever, yet, when by continual contri- 
 butions, from many fountains, or from heavy falls of 
 rain it becomes swollen, the farmer, lower down, might 
 find it essential to construct levees to dam up the flood 
 of waters. What is suffrage but political power in the 
 concrete ? "What is representation but political power in 
 the aggregate ? Inequality in, or restrictions upon, suf- 
 frage may be properly resorted to for the purpose of 
 protecting property, to nomine, against the indigence 
 and want of" individual men. And the necessity for 
 such protection should be the measure or extent to 
 which such restrictions should go. Inequality in rep- 
 resentation finds its justification in the necessity of pro- 
 tecting masses of a community from the plundering 
 propensities of other masses. Let me illustrate by sup- 
 posing we have a society composed of ten thousand fam- 
 ilies ; five thousand of which own every species of pro- 
 perty within the community ; the other five thousand 
 own not a dollar, but are mendicants upon the charity 
 of the others. Now, in such a condition of things as 
 this, it would be proper that your suffrage should bere- 
 stricted l lest by placing the political power of the State 
 in the hands ot men owning no interest in property, you 
 enable them to use that power, when acquired, to the 
 oppression of the five thousand who own the entire pro- 
 perty. 
 
 Again, suppose we find this same community consist- 
 ing of ten thousand families, four thousand of whom, 
 while they own two-thirds of all the property common 
 to the whole, lands, stocks, commercial capital, (fee, own 
 in addition to this two-thirds of the property common 
 to themselves, and the remaining six thousand, a dis- 
 tinct species of property — a species of property'in which 
 the six thousand families have no interest — a species of 
 property, from its character, such as might be made to 
 bear most of the burthens of government. Then arises 
 the necessity for an inequality in your representation ; 
 then occurs the duty of protecting in the organization of 
 your government this ' four thousand owning this pecu- 
 liar property from the aggressive action of the six thou- 
 sand owning no interest in that property. Restrictions 
 upon suffrage are designed to protect capital from labor, 
 inequality of representation to balance and harmonize 
 the conflicting interests in property itself. But just in 
 this connection it occurs to me, that it has been said 
 that the ad valorem principle of taxation would afford 
 this perfect protection to that peculiar kind of property 
 which may be owned in the case I have supposed by the 
 four thousand ; and what is this ad valorem principle ? 
 What is it but an item in the proposition insisted upon 
 by ^gentlemen from the valley region, the system of 
 parchment guarantees — aye, parchment guarantees — 
 for whenever you place the political power in the hands 
 of the six thousand men, whose interests will teach 
 them to plunder through the action of their government 
 the four thousand, you place in their hands at the same 
 time the power to alter this organic law, whenever the 
 object to be accomplished shall be sufficiently tempting 
 to induce them to desire it. 
 
 But I wish to call the attention of the committee for 
 a moment to the practical operation of this great prin- 
 ciple of political equality, which the gentlemen profess 
 to embody in their organization of the legislative de- 
 
 partment of this government. Let us see what progress 
 in the accomplishment of the great end of their princi- 
 ple, practical equality in political weight of each suffra- 
 gan, they have achieved by the scheme submitted for 
 our consideration. The report (statement B) before us, 
 declares " that the qualification necessary to confer the 
 right of suffrage shall be uniform throughout the com- 
 monwealth, so that in all elections of senators and dele- 
 gates, the same qualification shall confer the same right 
 of suffrage ; and the suffrage of one qualified voter shall 
 avail as much as that of another qualified voter, what- 
 ever may be the difference in value of the property 
 owned by them respectively." This idea of perfect poli- 
 tical equality is the one great principle for which gen- 
 tlemen from the west are contending. And what is the 
 result of this their own principle when applied to 
 to the existing state of things in this common- 
 wealth ? We shall find that it actually disfranchises 
 nearly two hundred thousands of her citizens. I trust, 
 I may be allowed to say, without a violation of 
 the rules of order, it was my fortune to be part - 
 and parcel of that sub committee, whose peculiar duty 
 it was to apply this great principle of white population 
 as a basis of representation practically to the State. 
 I was an eye witness to the entire operation, from the 
 first electoral district which was selected, to the last. 
 I believe it is not competent for any man, or set of men, 
 to apply this basis to the counties of the State, without 
 producing results equally as objectionable as those dis- 
 closed in this table of apportionment which accompa- 
 nies statement B. And what are they ? How near to 
 equality of voters in political power has the principle 
 brought its advocates ? Norfolk city, with a population 
 of 9,Q68 white inhabitants, with a taxation of §12,426, 
 has one vote in the house of delegates, while Morgan 
 county with a population of 3,431, and a taxation of 
 1912, has equally with Norfolk one vote in that same 
 house. Is this not a fine exemplification of your equal - 
 ty of weight in suffrage ? By what legerdemain can you 
 prove to me, to your constituency, that upon your prin- 
 ciple these 3,431 white inhabitants shall have one dele- 
 gate, while 9,068 equally white with themselves, shall 
 be entitled to no more than one ? There are other in- 
 stances scattered over the entire State, where similar 
 inequalities exist. Chesterfield county with 8,684 white 
 inhabitants has one delegate, while Clark county with 
 3,600 has one also ; Hardy county with 8,020 white in- 
 habitants has one delegate, Northampton with 3,104 
 has one. Nor is this all — add upon the face of these 
 tables of apportionment, which are presented with this 
 statement B, the excess and deficiency columns for the 
 house of delegates and the senate, and we find 190,182 
 of the free white inhabitants of the commonwealth of 
 Virginia, totally, effectually, absolutely disfranchised 
 by the principle which we are told is to elevate every 
 voter to an exact level! Yet in the face of these facts, 
 which must stand prominently forth in the very thresh- 
 hold of every effort to reduce their principles to prac- 
 tice in a republican government, gentlemen continue 
 to cry hosannas to this doctrine of natural equality. 
 
 These are unavoidable results of a representative 
 government, I suppose I shall be informed. I deny that 
 such consequences are either the necessary or the un- 
 avoidable results of such a form of government as the 
 one which my friend here from Accomac, and other 
 members with him, advocate. What is the idea they en- 
 tertain of what this government should be ? A pure 
 representative democracy in which every man within 
 the commonwealth of Virginia shall have one vote ; a 
 representative democracy in which every vote which is 
 polled shall be entitled to an equal amount of represen- 
 tation. This I conceive to be the idea. Then strike 
 from your constitution every electoral district in the 
 State ; blot out the county lines, and require every 
 man who occupies a seat upon the floor of the house of 
 delegates or senate to be returned there by this pure 
 majority of mere numbers, for which you are contend- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 315 
 
 ing. There is not one man here who will venture to 
 propose to this body a scheme like this. There is not 
 one man here who will venture to propose to the peo- 
 ple of Virginia, that this, their great principle, shall be 
 carried out to its practical results. No, not one; and, 
 yet, it is nothing but a great principle for which gentle- 
 men are contending. I am not very skeptical ; my con- 
 fidence is easily won ; perhaps it is a weakness of my na- 
 ture that that confidence is too easily won ; but do not, 
 though this be the disposition of the man before you, 
 ask his credence to the tale which you tell, that this is 
 a great principle for which you are contending, while 
 your acts show that you shrink from its application. 
 I need not repeat the assurance, I hope, that no consid- 
 eration could induce me knowingly to give utterance up- 
 on this floor to a syllable which would fall unkindly up- 
 on the ears of a single brother member from the west ; 
 but I must say that political power is the great object 
 for which gentlemen contend. Aye, the age of meta- 
 physics is gone. The clarion voice of my friend from 
 Accomac has been heard ringing through the mountain 
 recesses of the west, and swelling over the broad plains 
 of eastern Virginia, proclaiming in its shrill and clear 
 tones the doctrine that the " buzzard roosts of abstrac- 
 tion" are to be swept from the walls of this temple ; that 
 this constitutional matron, aye ! this mother of states 
 and statesmen, with all her robes of dignity about her, 
 is to be transformed by the magic power of physics into 
 a smiling and beautiful young damsel ; that her feeble 
 limbs are no longer to be dwarfed in this the circle of 
 her censorship, but that she is to spring up from the 
 ashes which metaphysics have accumulated upon her, 
 Phceuix-like, and startle nations by the rapidity of her 
 march in the onward progress to empire. There was 
 an annunciation of another fact, by my friend from Au- 
 gusta, which cast some discredit, I thought, upon the 
 assertion that the west was moving — had been moving 
 for thirty -five years — for this principle. He referred us 
 to the great convention which assembled at Staunton 
 sometime preceding the meeting of the convention of 
 1829- 30 ; and stated that that great Staunton conven- 
 tion spread throughout Virginia, the great principle 
 of the white population as the basis of representation. 
 But, at the same time, that that declaration was made, 
 it was asserted in terms equally strong, that the 
 policy of Virginia was, that of internal improvement, 
 and to use again the expressive language which I 
 heard fall from the lips of the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac, " to revivify this old commonwealth, it was 
 necessary that the political power should exist where 
 the necessity for the improvement was found to exist ;" 
 that the political power of Virginia should be transfer- 
 red to the hands of men, who wanted their own country 
 intersected by railroads even as the rivers, God has placed 
 upon earth, instersect more favored regions. But to 
 accomplish that object, they should have unlimited con- 
 trol of the purse strings. 
 
 Unfortunate, indeed, is the condition of that people 
 whom I in part here represent, while as a part of one 
 of the members of this great confederacy, the strong 
 arm of the colossal power which presides at "Washington 
 rests heavily upon us, while under the operation of the 
 ower of that vast machine, our life blood has for years 
 een extracted to build up the fortune of other sisters 
 of this confederacy ; at the same time we have an addi- 
 tional burden to bear in our own State, as was proved by 
 the gentleman from Augusta. We contribute our full share 
 to the improvements of Piedmont, in which improve- 
 ments we have no direct interest. Now, we are call- 
 ed upon, after having built up the improvements which 
 Piedmont wanted, to give the power to the Valley and 
 to trans-Alleghany, to bring upon us a fresh swarm — I 
 will not repeat the fable of iEsop — a fresh swarm who 
 ajre to consume the little of our substance which the 
 vampire appetites of others have left us. I know the 
 splendid scheme which flashes like an oriential vision 
 upon the fancy of the gentleman from Accomac. I 
 have heard him in his own peculiar eloquence, wand- 
 
 ering far away, amid the recesses of the Sierra Ne- 
 vada. 
 
 1 know that railroads are either now contemplated , 
 or in process of construction, which shall connect Rich- 
 mond with the extreme western border of Missouri. I 
 know that the mighty energies of this nation, backed 
 by the tremendous power of the general government, 
 are fast settling upon the construction of that other 
 great national high-way which is to lead us to San 
 r rancisco. I know that Richmond and San Francisco 
 stand upon the same degree of latitude, and that it is an 
 air line which connects them. Gazing from San Fran- 
 cisco across the Pacific, the untold wealth of Asia falls 
 upon our view. That great trade — whose track like a 
 constellation of light — has left its impression in every 
 age upon the page of history. Gorgeous indeed is the 
 view before me. The imagination almost palls in the 
 contemplation of this stupendous scheme. Aye, deep 
 in those recesses of the distant Nevada under the drip- 
 pings of such a commerce as Asia would give, stupen- 
 dous palaces would rise up, before the wild native who 
 wanders through its wildernesses, could have become fa- 
 miliar with the steam-horse of civilization. The sandy 
 deserts of the great valley would be studded with 
 cases ; aye, it is to invite thus to us the flow of this 
 mighty traffic, that has fired my friend with a zeal 
 which I fear has given him a distaste for metaphysics. 
 Under its influence the spoil of nations would become the 
 dowry of our daughters, the spoil of nations not wrung 
 by the red right arm of war, but led a smiling captive 
 in the civic triumphs of commerce and of peace. Rapid 
 doubtless would be the strides, great would be the 
 impulse imparted to Virginia, and her march to em- 
 pire might probably excel the march of the empire 
 State of the north. I feel, too sensibly feel, that this 
 mighty idea is stealing its way to the hearts of my 
 countrymen ; I feel that already the envious glance is 
 cast upon those States of our Union that have excelled 
 us in population and in all the external evidences of 
 wealth, and that their contemplation has been with- 
 drawn from Virginia. A gentleman in my eye seems 
 to think, that already her dignity and pride have prey- 
 ed upon her resources, until soon they can prey no long- 
 er. They seem willing to discard forever that moral 
 amulet, aye, that amulet of sublime morality, this doc- 
 trine of metaphysics, embodying the fundamental and 
 eternal truths to which in every storm that has rocked 
 this vast confederacy, the political mariner has turned 
 his eye as to the star of hope and harbinger of safety. 
 I fear that, they will in this age of physics, make Vir- 
 ginia what New York is ; and if ever a child breathed 
 a prayer for the safety of his mother, I would say, in 
 mercy, God forbid it. Yes, I would not have the peo- 
 ple of this State to bow down to the idol of mammon. 
 I would not have the population of this State divided 
 by extremes of wealth and poverty such as exist in New 
 York. I would not have that commerce here, the ope- 
 ration of which is every day accumulating in the hands 
 of the few, the whole wealth of the community, and year 
 by year widening the circle of the poor and enlarging 
 the list of the starving. No, I would not have Virginia 
 equal New York in all the splendor of her exter- 
 nal greatness, if with that splendor we must' have the 
 profligacy of her politicians, the moral leprosy of her 
 people, as the fruits which fastest grow in that state of 
 prosperity. 
 
 I have wandered from the subject unintentionally, 
 and I will endeavor now, with the permission of the 
 committee, to return to the important question before 
 us, and conclude as speedily as possible the desultory 
 remarks which I feel I am inflicting upon this body ; 
 and in that return, I come to the opening remarks of the 
 gentleman from Augusta. He went back into the dark 
 dim recesses of the past, to ascertain whether property 
 constituted — I might almost say — anoigani3 element in 
 the formation of society; and he seemed to come to the 
 conclusion, that while man was instinctively endowed 
 by the great Creator from whom he came, with an inti- 
 
316 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 mate and intuitive knowledge of his rights to life, lib- 
 erty and to limb, the idea of property was something 
 which the God of nature had not implanted there. 
 That grew up after society was formed. That is a re- 
 markable proposition, remarkable because who does not 
 p«rceive that without property imbecility, weakness 
 and infancy would have nothing to fear from the ag- 
 gression of the strong ; no, nearly all the deliberate acts 
 of crime which ever yet sprung from the heart of man. 
 were eouceived and executed in the pursuit of proper- 
 ty. And if, by remoulding the inhabitants of the 
 earth, you could by some process, strike from his in- 
 tellectual nature, all ideas of property, by the same 
 stroke you would free him forever from the shackles of 
 all government. Property is the great tie of social 
 life. It is to protect property that government was 
 first organized ; nor is there at this day, or has there ev- 
 er existed, for any length of time, a government, which 
 did not afford adequate protection to property. Prop- 
 erty does not incite, nor is calculated to incite those 
 who own it, to acts of aggression. It is conservative in 
 its influence. I recognize no fundamental principle of 
 universal application, in the organization of all govern- 
 ments. My idea is, that the great doctrine has been 
 truly set forth by the fathers of the constitutions in 
 Virginia. "That government is, or ought to be, institu- 
 ted for the common benefit, protection and security of 
 the people, nation or community, and of all the various 
 modes and forms of government that is best, which is 
 capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness 
 and safety, and is most effectually secured against the 
 danger of mal administration." 
 
 All admit the necessity for the protection of proper- 
 ty ; but our western friends contend that that protec- 
 tion is not to be found in assigning to the rights in pro- 
 perty, any influence in the organization of the govern- 
 ment ; they seem to rely upon a perfectibility in man, 
 which, of itself, would be sufficient to restrain a govern- 
 ment of numbers from infringing upon the rights of 
 property. 
 
 I cannot consent thus to believe, without discarding from 
 my mind all those attributes which every page of human 
 history has assigned to our species. Nor can I conceive 
 any mode by which the rights in property could be ade- 
 quately protected, unless they do enter as constituents 
 into the basis for the organization of your legislature. 
 
 If I could believe that the principle implanted in the 
 breast of man, which, in the state of nature, or in a sav- 
 age state, induces him to commit depredations upon his 
 neighbor — if I could believe that the principle which 
 gives strength to physical power, unrestrained by gov- 
 ernment, was extinguished in his bosom, when govern- 
 mental shackles were imposed upon him, then I might 
 be prepared to concede that property might safely be 
 entrusted to a government of mere numbers. Protec- 
 tion, to be worth anything, must be adequate and effec- 
 tual. Now, if we concede that guarantees, engrafted 
 upon your constitution, restricting the power of your 
 legislature in respect to taxation, might be competent, 
 while the constitution existed, to protect property, what 
 guarantee, I ask you, can gentlemen give me, that these 
 limitations shall be respected when the temptation to 
 commit a trespass upon the rights of property, shall be 
 sufficient to induce them to call another convention ? 
 
 What is our experience upon the subject of constitu- 
 tional guarantees ? Look to that most celebrated of all 
 constitutions — look to the great work of the purest, 
 most intellectual and noblest men who ever adorned the 
 history of any people ; look to the constitution drafted 
 by the compeers of Jefferson and hallowed by the appro- 
 bation of a "Washington ; reflect upon the mighty influ- 
 ence which those names still exert upon the peo- 
 ple of this confederacy, and tell me, when you have 
 contemplated, when you have finished the examination 
 of our history for the last fifty years, if guarantees thus 
 solemnly given — paper guarantees, thus enacted, with 
 influences which guarantees never before possessed to 
 sustain them, have been kept inviolate ? 
 
 Tell me not of constitutional guarantees. I hold that 
 the only guarantee, the only protection, is so to organ- 
 ize your government as to blend the strictly personal 
 rights with the rights in property in the majority of 
 your electors. And, in connection with the history of 
 our State, under all its constitutions, you will find that 
 the government has been organized — the acting and ex- 
 isting government has always had for its basis a propo- 
 sition like that. And has it not been a safe govern- 
 ment? What injuries to the western people have ever 
 flowed from its operation ? Aye, though the ingenious 
 gentleman from Augusta had searched the musty re- 
 cords of the past, though he seems to have traveled 
 over every act of the legislature for the last fifty years, 
 what, I ask you, was the sum and substance of the 
 wrong which this government, thus organized, had in- 
 flicted upon the people of the west ? They required 
 the militia to be mustered three times a year, and this 
 was the only solitary wrong which that ingenious gen- 
 tleman could charge upon us. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. The gentleman did not apprehend 
 the argument. I did not consider it as a wrong. I ad- 
 mitted it was the duty of citizens to perform military 
 duty ; but another duty of citizens was to pay taxes, 
 and that the discharge of the military duty had as much 
 right to representation as the discharge of the tax pay- 
 ing duty. 
 
 Mr. BEALE. I am glad to find that not even one 
 wrong can be charged upon us. 
 
 I must here look at Virginia as she is, notwithstand- 
 ing the extended statistical information which was 
 given us by the gentleman from Augusta. I see the 
 broad fact before me, that, while eastern Virginia owns 
 more than half of the landed estate of the whole com- 
 monwealth in value ; that while she pays more than 
 two-thirds of the taxes of the government"; that while, 
 in regard to every article and species of property which 
 can be enumerated, with four exceptions, I believe, she 
 has the larger share, at the same time, out of $142,791,- 
 600 value in slaves, eastern Virginia owns $123,821,000 
 while western Virginia has but $18,970,200. Nor can 
 I forget that the largest portion, even of eastern Vir- 
 ginia, under a protection at least as strong as this mix- 
 ed basis will give us, has heretofore suffered both in 
 the imposition of taxes, and in their distribution ; that 
 she has been made to contribute of her resources to 
 the construction of works inuring wholly to the benefit 
 of others. In reference to that subject of slavery — I 
 know that we have been told we tread upon a burning 
 plowshare, and we are warned inferentially, take care, 
 take care, lest by your actions you lose your grasp upon 
 this institution — and lose it forever. We have been 
 told that our brethren of the west are true upon this 
 subject ; and I take great pleasure in saying that it was 
 my happiness to vindicate gentlemen of the west whom 
 I had known, in my canvass for the seat upon this floor, 
 from the imputation of any unsoundness in reference to 
 the question of slavery. When the storm from the 
 north shall come, if come it must, doubtless they will 
 be with us. Aye, in the time of excitement between 
 the two sections of the confederacy, the yeomanry of 
 the mountains would, I have no doubt, cheerfully enlist 
 and come to our rescue. But while I entertain these 
 opinions in reference to what would be the course of 
 western men in a contest with a government foreign to 
 us,;it is asking too much that I shall trust you entirely 
 with this interest in our own State government. The 
 gentleman from Greenbrier asks us, why fear, why 
 distrust? The gentleman from Augusta has not only 
 asked the question but argued to show that with west- 
 ern men the institution was perfectly safe. The gentle- 
 man from Greenbrier called for proof of hostility on 
 the part of the west, to this institution, he called for 
 proof of the danger of entrusting its guardianship to 
 her care. I will give him proof. Go to the journals 
 of your own house of delegates and tell me what was 
 the action of western Virginia in 1881-32? Tell me if 
 this power which you now claim, had then been placed 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 317 
 
 in your hands, where would have been the desti- 
 ny of eastern Virginia ; and not alone of eastern Vir- 
 ginia, where would have been the destiny of the entire 
 State ? This is an impressive fact, and it seems to me it 
 should fall with its warning voice upon the ears ©f wes- 
 tern gentlemen themselves. No. I know not in the fu- 
 ture, what may be the destiny of this institution ; I 
 know not what are the dangers which it may encounter, 
 
 but I do know, that it is ever safest when placed under 
 the protection of that great polar star which governs 
 man in all his actions — self interest. I thank the com- 
 mittee for their attention to my desultory remarks. I 
 have done. 
 
 And then, on motion of Mr. BROWN, the committee 
 rose. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned until to-morrow morn- 
 ing, at 11 o'clock. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 21, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Kepler. 
 The Journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 Washington's birth day. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. I beg leave to offer for 
 the adoption of the Convention the following resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 Resolved, That when this Convention adjourri to-day, 
 it will adjourn to meet again at 11 o'clock on Monday 
 next. 
 
 To-morrow is the anniversary of the birth day of 
 George Washington, and I propose that we shall at 
 least not be engaged in our labors on that day. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 PUBLICATION OF THE DEBATES. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Richmond. For the purpose of as- 
 certaining whether it is practicable to hasten the publi- 
 cation of the debates of the Convention, my attention 
 has been turned to the subject for a day or two past. It 
 is a thing to be very much desired, I presume, by us all, 
 for, as we get the debates now, (without designing to re- 
 proach any body for that delay, for I believe all con- 
 cerned in the undertaking are free from any blame,) they 
 are of no use for immediate reference. It appears to 
 me that it is possible to hasten them, and with a view of 
 instituting an inquiry upon the subject, I offer to the 
 Convention the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to 
 inquire whether it is practicable to hasten the publica- 
 tion of the debates of the Convention. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 The PRESIDENT named the following gentlemen to 
 compose the committee, under the resolution just adopt- 
 ed : Messrs. Scott of Richmond, Sheffey, Taylor of 
 Norfolk, Snodgrass, and Brown of Preston. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, &c. 
 
 The Convention then, in Committee of the Whole, 
 (Mr. Miller in the Chair,) resumed the consideration of 
 the report of the committee on the basis and appor- 
 tionment of representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Scott, of Fauquier. 
 
 Mr.. BROWN. In the few remarks I design making 
 to the committee, I will endeavor to confine myself to 
 the subject under debate and in aaswer to the remarks 
 of gentlemen who have preceded me in the debate, but 
 more particularly the remarks of the gentleman 
 from Westmoreland, who occupied the floor on yester- 
 day. I will first, however, call the attention of the 
 committee to the proposition reported from the commit- 
 tee of twenty-four, marked A, and the substitute of- 
 fered by the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 Proposition A, reported from the committee, proposes 
 to organize a legislative department, with a house of 
 
 one hundred and fifty members, and a senate of fifty- 
 one members, one half the delegation of both branches 
 to be based on white population, and the other half on 
 taxation, or in other words, seventy-five delegates in 
 the J.ower house to be raised on 899,134 free white 
 persons, and the other seventy-five on $514,510, the 
 revenue or taxes of the Commonwealth as paid'in 1850, 
 (excluding the amount paid on licenses and law process,) 
 adding them to the increase arising from the recent as- 
 sessment on lands and lots and to be apportioned among 
 the different counties, towns, and election districts in 
 that proportion, and in like manner in the senate. The 
 substitute, offered by the gentleman from Fauquier, af- 
 firms the same principle, anc should the blanks be filled 
 with the numbers indicated by that gentleman on Mon- 
 day last, the two propositions will be in principle pre- 
 cisely the same, and in all probability produce the same 
 results. I will have occasion to refer more particularly 
 to the results in the progress of my remarks. For the 
 present, I desire to call the attention of the committee 
 to what I deem a monstrous feature in the proposition 
 itself ; by its provisions, if the white population should 
 be two millions, still but one half the delegates would 
 be raised from that element, and should the taxes be 
 reduced to half their present amount, still the revenue 
 would be entitled to half the delegation or political 
 power in the law making department of the State. Can 
 it be possible that gentlemen would be willing to see 
 such a principle incorporated into the constitution ? I 
 was pleased to hear my friend from Fauquier say, when 
 he introduced his substitute, that he incorporated in it 
 one provision especially for the benefit of west. I 
 am always glad to find among my eastern brethren, per- 
 sons kindly disposed towards that section of the State 
 from which I hail, and particularly to find a friend in 
 an advocate so talented and influential as my friend 
 from Fauquier ; but I must confess when I learned that 
 he alluded to that provision which directs the legisla- 
 ture in making the re-apportionment in 1862,' and in 
 every ten years thereafter, to calculate the taxes at the 
 average amount paid the preceding ten years, I thought 
 however much he desired to serve us in that particular, 
 he had greatly missed his aim. That sagacious gentle- 
 man hardly can be ignorant of the fact that the west- 
 ern division of the State has increased, is increasing 
 and must continue to increase much faster in both wealth 
 and population than the eastern section, why then de- 
 prive the growing west in each re-apportionment of the 
 benefit of ten years of its increase — for this is the effect 
 of it. But the gentleman from Fauquier told us that it 
 was introduced for fear the eastern majority in the 
 legislature might the year next preceding each appor- 
 tionment, lay the taxes with a view of inc -easing their 
 political power for the next ten years, and thereby in- 
 flict a wrong on the west. I have no doubt of the 
 gentleman's kind feelings for the west, but it would 
 seem in this instance, that he looked upon wronging the 
 west as such a luxury, that he could not suffer it to be 
 enjoyed by the legislature, but would commit the deed 
 himself. But did it not strike the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier that it might be possible that the legislature in 
 1862 would be honest, particularly as he and his friends 
 have been for some days past assuring us that the east- 
 ern majority in all time past, have never used their 
 power to the prejudice of the west. But if the gen- 
 tleman is really a friend to the west, and desirous of 
 serving them, could he not effect hit? object better, by in- 
 structing the legislature in each apportionment, to ap- 
 portion representation among the counties, towns and 
 election districts as near as may be, having regard to 
 the relative increase of population and taxation? I 
 could appreciate a provision of this kind ; it would in 
 effect be to give them the benefit of their superior in- 
 crease for the ten years to come next after each appor- 
 tionment. Will it be said that the legislature will not 
 obey such instructions ? Are they not sworn to support 
 the constitution, and carry out its provisions ? This is 
 no new provision, it is to be found in the constitutions 
 
318 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 of other States of the Union ; Maine has an express 
 provision of the kind, and it is the only just rule to be 
 observed between communities differing widely in their 
 growth and prosperity. But it may be objected that it 
 would be difficult to ascertain the average increase for 
 the next ten years succeeding an apportionment. I im- 
 agine that there would be but little difficulty in arriving 
 at a near proximity to accurate results, by calculating 
 the average increase forvthe ten years next preceding — 
 making proper deductions for any temporary causes, and 
 you would have substantially the correct result for the 
 next succeeding ten years. But is it true that the west 
 is out-growing the east, in both wealth and population ? 
 It is said that the increase of the west for the last ten 
 years, is unprecedented, and not likely to occur in the 
 same ratio again ; well then, let us go back to 1820, 
 embracing a period of thirty years, and let us see how 
 the account stands. In 1820, the trans- Alleghany 
 counties had a free white population of 133,474 ; in 
 1850— 331,586— an increase of 198,474. The Valley 
 in 1820 had a like a population of 121,096 ; in 1850— 
 163,117 — an increase of 42,081, making an aggregate in- 
 crease of 240,555 in the white population of the west 
 in thirty years. The Piedmont counties had a white pop- 
 ulation in 1820, of 187,448 ; in 1850—213,449. The 
 counties below Tide water in 1820, had a like popula- 
 tion of 161,687 ; in 1850 (deducting Alexandria, which 
 was an annexation and not an increase,) 180,470 — ma- 
 king in the entire east, an aggregate increase in the 
 last 30 years, of only 44,746. Again look to the taxes. 
 The trans- Alleghany counties in 1820, paid $38,606 ; 
 in 1850, $77,898. The Valley paid in 1820, $75,899 ; 
 in 1850, $79,476 — making an aggregate increase of $40,- 
 870. The Piedmont counties paid in 1820, $206,855 ; 
 in 1850 $162,201. The Tide water counties paid in 
 1820, $187,382 ; in 1550, ( deducting Alexandria, ) 
 $169,968 — making an aggregate decline in the revenue 
 of the east of $62,068. Here it will be seen that while 
 the west overcame all reduction in the per cent, of tax- 
 ation, and actually increased in her revenue $40,870, 
 the east diminished $62,068. But again, look at the 
 increase of taxes that will be added — at the same per 
 cent, as that paid in the tax bill of last year, on the 
 lands and lots under the new assessment ; the west 
 will pay the addition of $27,941, whilst the increase in 
 the east will be only $9,597. From the above calcula- 
 tion can there be any doubt about the steady and uni- 
 form increase of the west over the east, both in wealth 
 and population ? Will not the most skeptical give up 
 the fact ? and yet whilst we are increasing in all the 
 elements of political power, as proposed by the east 
 era men themselves, in a greatly increased ratio over the 
 eastern part of the State, yet that majority on this 
 floor representing the stand still minority, instead of 
 proposing to calculate for the benefit of the growing 
 counties, at each apportionment, the average increase 
 for the ten succeeding years ; actually propose to cal- 
 culate the average of the ten preceding years, thereby 
 keeping the growing west ten years behind the times. 
 I beg of gentlemen if they will carry this proposition, 
 not to do it in the name of friendship ! But I wholly 
 repudiate the doctrine of wealth being an element of 
 political power. I know that money has power in a 
 pecuniary point of view ; power in the markets of the 
 world, but not in the halls of legislation. I understand 
 it to be the duty of society to guard carefully the rights 
 of property both by constitutional provisions and legal 
 enactments, but never give money the power to rule 
 men. I now desire to advert to some of the remarks 
 of my honorable friend from Westmoreland, (Mr. 
 Beale,) I thought the remarks of that gentleman as 
 applied to the gentleman from Greenbrier, ( Mr- 
 Smith,) were rather harsh and uncalled for, when he 
 spoke of that talented and highly patriotic member as 
 the leader of the cohorts of the west, bearing aloft the 
 lighted torch to fire the temples in which his fathers 
 worshipped. I could find no excuse for such a charge, 
 but in the heated and disordered imagination of my 
 honorable friend. When have western men manifest- 
 
 ed any disposition to burn down eastern temples, or dis- 
 turb eastern society ? Never, sir — never. It is empty 
 declamation without one particle of foundation to sup- 
 port it. The people of the west from the days that 
 that section of the State was known by the name of 
 West Augusta until the present hour, have never failed 
 to respond with the highest impulses of patriots, to any 
 and every call made upon them by their country, in de- 
 fence either of the east or west. But we are told that 
 the people of the west are in search of political pow- 
 er ; true we are trying to regain that power of which 
 we have been despoiled ; is there anything wrong in as- 
 serting our rights and contending for our equality as 
 men ? The doctrine of representation on the white ba- 
 sis is no new doctrine in west Virginia. It will be re- 
 collected by the committee that under the old constitu- 
 tion, representation was apportioned among the coun- 
 ties of the State, each having two delegates without ref- 
 erence to their population, the noble old county of Lou- 
 doun then loudly complained of this inequality, so did 
 the populous counties of the Valley ; we then heard 
 nothing of the inequality of taxation but of population. 
 The small counties of the trans- Alleghany believed in 
 the justice of the complaint, and were willing to sur- 
 render their undue power to the demands of justice. 1 
 wel] recollect the little county of Preston, as early as 
 1825, then numbering about four thousand inhabitants, 
 sending a delegate to the Staunton Convention, (Wil- 
 liam Sigler, Esq.,) a highly respectable and valuable 
 citizen yet living in that county, was the delegate. 
 The object of that convention was to memoralize the 
 legislature to take the sense of the people on the sub- 
 ject of a call of a convention. I have no doubt but 
 Greenbrier was also repr esented in the Staunton con- 
 vention, as well as nearly all the western counties. 
 Our voices were then raised in favor of equalizing rep- 
 resentation on the whit,e basis, and can we of the far 
 west, who willingly surrendered power to the princi- 
 ple of the white basis, be now justly charged with 
 seeking power not our own, when we only ask for 
 the application of the same rule for the sake of which 
 we surrendered power? It gives me, and the people 
 that I have the honor in part to represent, the highest 
 satisfaction to kn >w that the honest and generous sons 
 of the Valley of Virginia, together with the good peo- 
 ple of old Loudoun and other noble sons of the east, 
 who might possibly gain political power by th.3 adop- 
 tion of the mixed basis, have arrayed themselves on 
 the side of principle, and are nobly fighting for the 
 rights and equality of men. But my friend from West- 
 moreland paid a beautiful tribute to the memory of 
 the great men who were in the convention of 1830. I 
 yield to no man in respect and devotion to the great 
 and good men who composed that convention, but most 
 of them belonged to another age ; they were designed 
 by God for the great worx of freeing the colonies from 
 a foreign despotism, and for planting the tree of liberty 
 in the new world ; their great mission on earth was com- 
 pleted before they made and published the constitution of 
 1830. When the honest and unsophisticated people of the 
 small counties of the west petitioned for the last Conven- 
 tion, they had no idea that they were the objects of jeal- 
 ousy and suspicion. They never dreamed that they were 
 to be robbed of the principle by which their influence and 
 power in the State were to keep pace with their future 
 growth and prosperity, but the deed was done, not 
 by adopting the mixed basis, but by an arbitrary basis 
 without any principle ; the men of 1830 had not the 
 nerve to do what is now proposed and seriously threat- 
 ened to be done. They argued the question of the 
 mixed basis, but they did not venture to incorporate it 
 into the constitution. And as to the monstrous propo- 
 sition contained in the substitute of appropriating a por- 
 tion of the political power of the cities to the poor coun- 
 ties of then- vicinities, to raise them in the scale of po- 
 litical importance, and give them by means of a borrow- 
 ed capital, an equality with remote counties possessing 
 far greater wealth and population ; it was never thought 
 of in 1830 ; but it is the offspring of modern political 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 319 
 
 science invented to hold together eastern men and east- j 
 ern communities in their common effort to withhold from j 
 the west her just power and rightful influence in the 
 councils of the State. And because the western del- 
 egation in this body resist with zeal such combinations 
 and encroachments of their rights they are charged 
 with ambition and an undue design to grasp power. 
 The gentleman from Westmoreland may well look 
 with great kindness on the work of the convention of 
 1830 j but he should be among the last to speak of the 
 undue exercise of political power. The noble little 
 county of Westmoreland, with a population of 3,355 and 
 paying a rev. nue of §2,544 has been enjoying by the 
 arbitrary provisions of the constitution of 1830 as much 
 power in the general assembly as the county of Ohio, 
 with a population of 17,514 and paying a revenue of $8- 
 608, leaving an excess unrepresented in Ohb of 14,225 
 persons and $ ,064 of revenue ; and if the gentleman's 
 county can borrow enough of the super-abundance of 
 revenue paid by the city of Richmond, he may again 
 be placed in a like enviable position. I known there is 
 such a thing as eating the crumbs that fall from rich 
 men's tables, and the city of Richmond can furnish 
 a good many for poor neighbors. And here, I will 
 take occasion to return my sincere thanks to the gentle- 
 man from Greenesville, who addressed the committee on 
 Tuesday last. He told us the east had never abused 
 their power — that they had always been kind and had 
 actually, from their super-abundance, ministered to the 
 necessities of the west. Charity loses much of its vir- 
 tue when the benefactor is always reminding the re- 
 cipient of his heavy obligations. But you will recol- 
 lect that Greenesville is one of those favored counties to 
 which a separate delegate was assigned by the present 
 constitution ; she now enjoys as much political power 
 as Greenbrier or Washington.- I will not compare 
 her with Ohio, for things may be so vastly dispropor- 
 tioned as not to bear comparison. But, she has a dele- 
 gate now in the capitol exercising as much political 
 power as Washington with apopulation of 12,349, pay- 
 ing a revenue of $4,673 ; while Greenesville has only a 
 population of 1,725 paying a revenue of $1 856. [Here a 
 voice inquired how many slaves in Greenesville ? ] 
 I do not know. I have not looked to the subject ; 
 we will try one issue at a time ; I am now looking to 
 population and revenue ; if a proposition should be 
 submitted to give representation to slaves, I will then 
 look t3 that subject. I was endeavoring to show the 
 great inequality of representation, as it now exists, and as 
 my honorable friends from both Westmoreland and 
 Greenesville had both addressed the committee and taken 
 strong ground against the surrender of eastern power, 
 I have alluded to their respective counties to show that 
 they are in the enjoyment of undue political power, and 
 that they might not be the most disinterested judges of 
 the propriety of equalizing representation among the 
 people of the State. But they are both noble little 
 counties. I wish I could change the adjective and term 
 them noble big counties. They then would be entitled to 
 the political power they claim and enjoy, and our dif- 
 ferences would be at an end. Nor has this inequality 
 been brought about by any decrease in the population of 
 Westmoreland or Greenesville, since 1830, when a sep- 
 arate delegate was assigned to each. I do not complain 
 of any practical abuse of the power in the hands of the 
 east ; I complain of the inequality among the different 
 voters in the different sections of the Slate. Greenes- 
 ville is a noble little county ; I doubt not her generosity, 
 but her revenue is rather small for her to indulge large- 
 ly in her charitable designs. She is certainly a good 
 democratic county. I have often met her talented and 
 spirited delegates in the councils of the State ; I have 
 their acquaintance and acted with them with a great 
 deal of pleasure. But I desire to inquire if the large 
 revenue paid by the city of Richmond, and which is pro- 
 posed to be distributed in certain localities in her im- 
 mediate section of the State, is her own, or is the result 
 of the expenditure of the revenue of nearly the whole 
 
 j State within her limits. Is she not indebted to the* whole 
 I State for a large amount of her revenue and population ? 
 Yv'ithdraw from her the public business done at the seat of 
 government, take from her the capital of the State, and 
 you at once would diminish both her population and tax- 
 ation. Why then give to the tide water counties that 
 which belongs to us all ? I have now shown a few of 
 the many startling inequalities existing in the State 
 by the constitution of 1830, in which gentlemen find so 
 much to admire. I will now call the attention of the 
 committee to the proposed apportionment under the 
 mixed basis as shown by exhibit A. I admit that if we 
 are bound to observe county lines, no apportionment can 
 be made on any basis that will give the exact ratio in 
 every county ; but I think I can show that the appor- 
 tionment made in letter A, is the worst gerrymander 
 ever proposed in Virginia. But before proceeding further 
 I desire to reply to the attack on the white basis appor- 
 tionment made by the gentleman from Westmoreland ; 
 that gentleman told us that he was on the committee of 
 twenty four, and hence I infer he was well prepared to 
 make the assault. The gentleman pointed to the city 
 of Norfolk, which I admit is the strongest case he can 
 find. Norfolk has a population largely above what 
 would give her one delegate, but not sufficient to give 
 her two ; but her excess is only 3,328, and if the gentle- 
 man had looked to the county of Norfolk, he would have 
 seen that the county had been assigned two delegates 
 with a deficiency ; also, Princess Ann, Nansemond, and 
 Isle of Wight, in the immediate neighborhood, had been 
 assigned one delegate each, with deficiencies in each of 
 them ; also the senatorial apportionment on the white 
 basis gives Norfolk city and county, with Princess Ann, 
 a senator, with a deficiency again in favor of Norfolk; 
 so that she, with the county of Norfolk and the imme- 
 diate section connected with her, in the aggregate, is 
 well provided for in the way of representation. Having 
 examined the particular case of hardship adverted to by 
 my friend from Westmoreland, I desire to examine slight- 
 ly the apportionment which he advocates. I do not pre- 
 tend to know much about it, but from the very slight 
 examination I have bestowed upon the subject, I find 
 the following results and inequalities. I again take oc- 
 casion to repudiate the whole doctrine of the mixed ba- 
 sis, but as gentlemen seem disposed to force it upon us, 
 I desire to show the committee and the couniry the 
 monstrous results that are to follow from its adoption. 
 I have selected the following western counties, all cf 
 which have more population and pay into the treasury 
 a greater amount of revenue than the eastern counties 
 with which they are compared, and still it was proposed 
 to give them no more political power in making the laws 
 and in electing such officers as may be confided to the 
 legislature, than the small eastern counties not contain- 
 ing half their population. I will take Marshall with a 
 free white population of 10,054, paying a revenue ex- 
 clusive of licences and law process, of 82,719.11 ; and 
 compare her with Appomattox, with a population of 
 4,208, paying a like revenue of $2,575.81. The county 
 of Wythe, with a population of 9,634, revenue $3,443. 39 ; 
 compared with Powhatan with a population of 2,513, 
 revenue $3,382.62. Greenbrier, with a population of 
 8,942, revenue $4,392.42 ; compared with Nottoway, pop- 
 ulation 2,217, revenue 83,158.61. Preston, population 
 11,639, revenue $1,984.76, compared with Patrick, popu- 
 lation 7.176, revenue $1,589.27. Marion, population 10,- 
 474, revenue $2,727.89, compared with Stafford, popula- 
 tion 4,414, revenue 82.593.84. Wood, population 9,910 r 
 revenue $2,758.32. King George, population 2,302, reve- 
 nue $2,480.31. Monroe, population 9,065, revenue $3,- 
 371.78. King William, population 2,712, revenue $>2,305.- 
 60. Ohio is given two delegates, with a population of 17,- 
 614, and revenue $8,608; Southampton and Greenesville, 
 with an aggregate population of 7,665, and a revenue of 
 •$6,621, are given two delegates. The above western coun- 
 ties pay more revenue than the eastern ones with which 
 they are compared by $4,878.89, and have an excess of 
 
320 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 populafion, entirely unrepresented, of 57,509. Can my 
 friend from Westmoreland, who says he was on the basis 
 and apportionment committee, explain how such mon- 
 strous results have been brought about, in his favorite 
 scheme ? But I have looked slightly into the senatorial 
 apportionment, on the mixed basis plan, and find it no 
 less unfortunate in its unseemly proportions ; I have 
 looked to Halifax, with a population of 10,900, and a 
 revenue of $9,108, assigned one senator; and the noble 
 counties of Patrick, Henry and Franklin, with a popu- 
 lation of 24,139, paying a revenue of $7,428, assigned 
 one senator. Here we see 13,239 persons ballanced by 
 Si, 680 of revenue. One would suppose they had been 
 bought cheap enough in all conscience. The counties of 
 Brooke, Hancock and Ohio, with a population of 26,589, 
 paying a revenue of $12,074, are assigned one senator, 
 and the counties of Dinwiddie, Brunswick and Greenes- 
 ville, with a population ©f 12,422, paying a revenueof 
 $9,201, assigned one senator ; so that the Brooke district 
 pays $2,865 the most revenue, and has 12,167 of unrep- 
 resented population. I think I have demonstrated to the 
 committee one of two things, either that the mixed basis 
 is a monstrous rule of apportionment, or its friends have 
 greatly abused it in its application. 
 
 In the remarks of my honorable friend from Green- 
 brier, on Tuesday last, he stated that the whole number 
 of slave owners in the Commonwealth was some forty 
 thousand, and that he, the gentleman from Greenbrier, 
 did not think that the great principles of republican 
 liberty and equality should be violated, to subserve the 
 peculiar notions of a mere battalion of the people. These 
 remarks called out the honorable gentleman from 
 Greenesville, who, with some warmth, avowed that he 
 was one of the gentlemen on this floor that in part rep- 
 resented that battalion, and that they could not permit 
 the powers of legislation to pass into the hands of a 
 majority of the voters of the whole State, who held no 
 interest in common in the peculiar property in which 
 the east felt so deep an interest. It is perfectly natu- 
 ral and right for every delegate in the Convention to 
 look to the immediate interests of his constituents. I 
 came to this body to help protect and defend my people ; 
 to look to all their interests, both of person and prop- 
 erty. I feel myself instructed to look to their interests, 
 and to all the great interests of the Commonwealth. I 
 feel that I cau subserve the interests of my people best 
 by looking to the interest of all portions of the Com- 
 monwealth ; to help devise ways and means to protect 
 every interest, whether east or west. I am prepared to 
 pledge, in the sacred instrument we are about to make, 
 the lives and fortunes of my people ; to help defend and 
 protect every member or section of the State, in the en- 
 joyment of their property, of every kind and descrip- 
 tion, and all they ask in return is a perfect reciprocity. 
 Although my constituents are poor, they are prosperous 
 — their hopes and prospects present a bright future, and 
 all they ask is to be placed on a perfect equality with 
 their brethren of the east; and this common platform 
 they will obtain before they give up the struggle. 
 "When we tell gentlemen that we will iterate and re- 
 iterate our complaints, until they " tingle in their ears," 
 they need not affect to construe such expressions into a 
 threat ; they must hear the demands of freemen from 
 the west for their equal rights, so long as they are un 
 justly withheld. My friend from Westmoreland has 
 pronounced the bill of rights a mere abstraction, that 
 to carry out its provisions literally, it would confer the 
 right of suffrage or political power on women and chil- 
 dren. Not so ; it is no abstraction, but a great State pa- 
 per, embodied by clear heads and soun 1 hearts, contain- 
 ing the true, and only true principles of republican 
 freedom. It is true, many of the doctrines contained in 
 the bill of rights had been pointed to by the writers on 
 political law before the days of the revolution ; but it 
 was reserved for the immortal spirits of 1776 to reduce 
 them to the form ©f a great State paper, and give them 
 to the world in that useful form, as a beacon light to 
 conduct the nations of the earth to ultimate freedom. 
 
 That paper has now been exerting its influence on man- 
 kind for about seventy years ; it has shook to their centre 
 thrones and despotisms in the old world, and built up a 
 sisterhood of free and sovereign States in the new, un- 
 exampled in prosperity and happiness in any period of 
 the history of our race. I understand the " people " 
 named in that instrument, in whom all political power 
 resides, and from whose hands it is derived, and to 
 whom all magistrates are or should be amenable, to be 
 those who exercise the right of suffrage ; those persons 
 who can give evidence of their permanent interest in, 
 and attachment to, the community ; no better descrip- 
 tion can be given of them than that given in the bill 
 of rights, and these voters must be equal in power, 
 wheresoever within the broad limits of the Common- 
 wealth they may reside — whether on the north or south 
 side of James river, or east or west of the Blue Ridge 
 of mountains. This is the doctrine contended for by 
 the people of the west, and laid down in the white basis 
 report B, from the committee of twenty-four. The bill 
 of rights never could mean that magistrates were amena- 
 ble to women and children, nor to slaves or property, 
 animate or inanimate, because none of these appear at 
 the ballot-box to confer power. That majority" of the 
 community in whom rests the "indubitable, unaliena- 
 ble and indefeasible right of altering or abolishing the 
 organic law of a State," must mean free persons, per- 
 sons having the right to contract as sovereigns, to 
 form alliances, offensive and defensive, with their neigh- 
 bors ; consequently, when we attempt to disturbe old 
 or make pew constitutions, we must refer to first prin- 
 ciples. Conventions to form new or amend old or- 
 ganic laws are not designed to carry out existing com- 
 pacts, but to lay the foundation on which the super- 
 structure of government rests. Let us then examine 
 and see who are the original contracting parties to soci- 
 ety. Our race never did exist as isolated beings ; God 
 created man, male and female — the wife leaned upon 
 her husband for support, and helpless infancy looked to 
 the strong arm of a father for protection and defence — 
 this little community would, as a matter of course, be 
 subject to the control of the husband and father, and he 
 alone capable of exercising his own free and sovereign 
 will. To illustrate my position, let us suppose five men 
 to be cast away on some desolate coast, three of them 
 had families, and two were wholly unencumbered with 
 domestic relations. I conceive that in the language of 
 the bill of rights, these men would be by nature, and in 
 fact , " equally free and independent, " but it would not 
 follow that the women and children would be free and 
 independent, for they were subject by the laws of nature 
 ito the will and control of him who was charged with 
 their protection and support. The first thing these 
 strangers would do — prompted by the instincts of nature 
 — would be to appropriate to themselves lands for their 
 habitations and pursuits of life : they would construct 
 for themselves, with the means within their reach, cas- 
 tles of defence. The ruias of these family fortifications 
 are to be found in many of the countries of the old 
 world and in our own western border, and in most of the 
 new States can yet be found the rudely constructed 
 buildings of defence, erected by the first settlers of the 
 country. My new settlers having secured themselves 
 and families against the storms and assaults of stran- 
 gers, they would naturally go in search of property, and 
 in the chase, one would capture the wild goat, another 
 the sheep, another the cow, another the horse, and an- 
 other the wild man, on whose sable brow rested the 
 mark of Cain and the curse of Ham ; they would reduce 
 their respective acquisitions to obedience, and make 
 them and their future increase, property. This little 
 community would soon find it necessary, for the mutual 
 protection of their persons and property, to organize a 
 little republic ; and, a convention being called, the con- 
 tracting sovereigns all appeared in person — it was then 
 a pure democracy, no representatives were necessary — 
 who would be the contracting parties ? Would the de- 
 pendents, the women and children, appear J Would 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 321 
 
 the live stock with the slaves appear ? Certainly 
 not. It would be the free and responsible persons hav- 
 ing property and families to protect. Suppose this pure 
 democracy, under the influence of wholesome laws, grew 
 in wealth and population, and, like the fruitful boughs 
 of Joseph, that ran over the wall, spread over sixty 
 thousand square miles, and contained one hundred and 
 fifty thousand free persons, having personal rights and 
 rights of property to protect and defend, some with 
 families, others with none, all having different amounts 
 and kinds of property. At this period of their history, 
 they found it necessary to amend their old or make a 
 new constitution ; the number of the original sovereigns 
 had now become so large that they could not meet in 
 mass, but found it necessary to change their pure de- 
 mocracy to a representative democracy. They would 
 proceed to elect their deputies and to assemble in gen- 
 eral convention ; would this change the principles of the 
 government or only the forms of carrying out the same 
 principle ? Would not the deputies be sent in place of 
 the electors, and to speak in their stead ? Is the repre- 
 sentative anything more than the medium through 
 which the original sovereigns speak ? The deputies 
 would not represent the will of persons and things that 
 had no will of their own, but the will of their sovereigns 
 who had commissioned them at the polls. Suppose in 
 such a convention, the delegates from the west were to 
 insist that their voters should have more power than 
 their mere numbers would entitle them, because of the 
 great quantity of wool they possessed ; on the other 
 hand, the delegates from the east should argue that 
 their voters should be a " head and shoulders " taller in 
 the management of the government than their western 
 brethren, not in consequence of the great quantity of 
 their wool, but because of its peculiar character. If we 
 could be disinterested spectators, looking upon such a 
 convention and hearing such arguments, the smile of de- 
 rision would be found on every face. And yet, we, an 
 assemblage of Virginia statesmen, a convention called 
 in the middle of the nineteenth century, in the Old Do- 
 minion, are gravely arguing the silly questions I have 
 supposed. 
 
 It seems to me that gentlemen do not look to the great 
 object to be obtained in the organization of political com- 
 pacts. Men, both in a state of nature and in society, 
 have a right to defend their persons and their property • 
 but owing to individual weakness they are insecure. 
 Government is designed to strengthen individuals by 
 bringing to the aid of each, the strength of all. And so 
 with communities — you of the east have the right to 
 protect yourselves and your property, but would you 
 not like to have the aid of the west to help you ? Would 
 not this make you more secure? We of the west 
 have the right to protect ourselves, but we desire to add 
 to our own strength that power that lies east of the 
 mountains. I suppose this can be best done by organ- 
 izing a government in which all will be recognised as 
 equals, in which each will engage to help the other, pro- 
 viding all safeguards for the protection of each section 
 of the State, and for each individual in the State. But 
 gentlemen say that paper guarantees are worth nothing ; 
 then, we are engaged in a very unnecessary task, mak- 
 ing that which is worth nothing ; if this be true, we had 
 better adjourn and go home. I do not understand gen- 
 tlemen when they denounce constitutional guarantees. 
 They admit that such guarantees will secure life, liber- 
 ty, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and all kinds 
 of property, except negroes, and the only reason that I 
 have heard for this exception, is, that they are a pecu- 
 liar property. Every property has its peculiarities ; but 
 this is no argument against its capability of being safely 
 guarded by constitutional checks and guarantees. 
 
 Gentlemen tell us that they have full confidence in 
 our honesty, and that we would carry out in good faith 
 our constitutional stipulations, but they are afraid of 
 those that are to come after us — our children may be dis- 
 honest. ^ This is a very remote idea, but if gentlemen are 
 sincere in their fears, can we not even embarrass that 
 29 
 
 | movement? Can we not prevent the legislature from 
 i passing laws facilitating or inviting the call of a conven- 
 tion, unless done by a two-thirds vote. But what can 
 j gentlemen see in the character of the western people, 
 jthat makes them the objects of dread and suspicion. If 
 | we were a set of freebooters, or robbers, we would be 
 opposed to the formation of any constitution; we could 
 accomplish our marauding purposes better untrammeled 
 by compacts. But we are no robbers, we are a law-lov- 
 ing, and a law-abiding people ; we have ever been, and 
 we now are, loyal to Virginia and to all her institutions. 
 You have had our affections and our support in the his- 
 tory of the past, you can have them and will have them 
 in the future, unless you drive us from you by your jeal- 
 ousy and injustice. But let me tell gentlemen if we 
 harmonize we must all ba equals. No community of 
 men can ever unite in perfect harmony and cordial af- 
 fection, unless they are recognized as equals. But gen- 
 tlemen tell us that we do not understand them, that they 
 design no idignity to the west, that we are their equals ; 
 but your acts do not correspond with your professions. 
 You admit that we hav3 upwards of ninety thousand of 
 a majority of free white population ; with our restricted 
 right of suffrage in Virginia, we usually give about ten 
 votes to the hundred persons ; this will give to the west 
 nearly ten thousand more voters than can be found in 
 the east, still, you want to have the control in the gen- 
 eral assembly by a majority of twenty members. How 
 can you produce this result without depreciating the vo- 
 ters of the west ? But gentlemen say this result is ne- 
 cessary in consequence of the great dissimilarity of the 
 pursuits and interests of the people, east and west of 
 the mountains. This argument only goes to prove that 
 I we ought not to be united in consequence of our conflict- 
 ing interests, but not that we should be united on terms 
 of inequality. There can be no peace in Virginia until 
 Virginia makes peace with herself, until east and west 
 Virginia cease to be known in the fundamental law as 
 separate divisions of state, until all odious political dis- 
 criminations are forever abolished among her people. 
 I have endeavored to show that the mixed basis report 
 in your hands, as well as the substitute offered by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier ; contain principles anti-repub- 
 lican and prejudicial to the best interests of Virginia, 
 j and also that the details, so far as they have been car- 
 ried out, are most unjust and revolting. I have endea- 
 vored to vindicate the principles of the basis of qualifi- 
 ed voters, as contained in exhibit B. My arguments do 
 not rest alone on abstract reasoning, nor my interpreta- 
 tion of the bill of rights on my own opinion only. I have 
 looked into the constitution of the thirty-one States of 
 this Union and find twenty-three of them have adopted 
 the white basis in some form or other ; of those, Ken- 
 tucky, Tennessee and Louisiana, have adopted the basis 
 of qualified voters, and the other twenty have taken 
 either the white population or ratable polls. Four of 
 the States yet retain the old county basis. North Car- 
 olina and Florida adhere to federal numbers, South Car- 
 olina the mixed basis, and old Virginia based on grand di- 
 visions ; now, is there nothing due to the opinions and ex- 
 perience of other States, particularly when they have 
 shown such unexampled prosperity ? But even if the ex- 
 perience of others were against me, so confident do I 
 feel of the correctness of the position for which we con- 
 tend, that I would not surrender it. I have now detain- 
 ed the committee longer than I designed when I took the 
 floor, and thanking you and the committee for your kind in- 
 dulgence, I will commit the further discussion of the 
 subject to abler hands. 
 
 Mr. PU RKINS. I shall offer no apology for addressing 
 the committee upon a question of such vast importance 
 to the people of Virginia, as the one now under discus- 
 sion. I am here in the discharge of a high and important 
 duty, a duty entrusted to me by a generous constituen- 
 cy, to whom I may truly say, I am almost a stranger. 
 For the compliment thus conferred upon me, I trust I 
 feel sufficient gratitude ; and I know that the responsi- 
 bility of my situation is deeply felt by me. If I offer no 
 
322 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 apology for an attempt faithfully to discharge that re- 
 sponsibility, I hope I may be at least permitted to follow 
 the example of almost all the gentlemen who have pre- 
 ceded me in discussion, by expressing to the committee 
 that it is with great diffidence and embarrassment 
 I take part, for the first time in my life, in the dis- 
 cussion of an important subject before a deliberative 
 body. 
 
 I regret much that there is not a greater concurrence 
 of opinion as to what are the great fundamental princi- 
 ples of government, in an enlightened assembly like the 
 one here convened. I regret, too, to see that there is an 
 impression pervading this assembly that the calling of a 
 Convention by a political community " to alter, amend, or 
 to abolish the existing constitution, and substitute a new 
 one therefor, necessarily resolves that community into 
 the original elements which compose society, and that it 
 consequently follows that in considering and deciding 
 upon propositions proposed to be engrafted upon the or- 
 ganic law, the body upon whom that duty devolves, 
 must be guided in their investigations and decisions, by 
 the principles of natural law, rather than by those true 
 governmental principles which ought to prevail in the 
 formation of a social compact. We are not in a state of 
 nature. The ratification by the people, of the act 
 by which this Convention was called to amend the or- 
 ganic law of the State, did not abolish the existing state 
 of things, for the government under which we have 
 lived for twenty years, both in its primary organic 
 law and the secondary and ordinary laws of the legisla- 
 ture, is just as obligatory upon the people of Virginia at 
 this day as though we had not assembled in this hall. 
 Then, I assert, we are to be governed in the decision of 
 this question, and in the decision of all other questions 
 that may come before us, more by those true principles 
 of governmental policy which ought to dictate to us 
 the true basis upon which to found the constitution of 
 this State, than by any speculative theories as to 
 what are the laws of nature. I had supposed, and not- 
 withstanding all I have heard to the contrary, my mind 
 is unchanged in that particular, that, when a communi- 
 ty has assembled or appointed representatives, to per- 
 form the duty of organising a social compact or form of 
 government, no individual interest in that commu- 
 nity should obtain all the influence of the government in 
 its behalf — that no individual interest should claim the 
 entire control of the power of that government, but that 
 the government should be so formed as that it would 
 seek to advance all the varied interests over which its 
 influence would be felt ; and that in pursuance of that 
 principle in the bill of rights, to which allusion has so 
 often been made, that government should be so framed 
 as that every one of those interests would be amply se- 
 cured and protected under its administration. 
 
 Let us briefly examine this bill of rights. In the 
 first section of that instrument, and I will read the 
 whole section, in order to a correct understanding 
 of its merits, it is declared that all men by nature 
 are equal and have certain inherent rights which, 
 when they enter into a state of society they cannot 
 be deprived, nor can these rights be divested from 
 their posterity. What are those inherent rights ? 
 Why, the gentleman from Greenbrier, (Mr. Smith,) 
 the gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffet,) the : 
 gentleman from Preston, (Mr. Brown,) unite in say- > 
 ing that they are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness and safety. But are these the only, the exclusive i 
 purposes ? Look at the latter clause of the section and : 
 you will find it says the enjoyment of life and liberty 1 
 with the means of acquiring and possessing property, i 
 and obtaining happiness and safety. < 
 
 "1. That all men are by nature equally free and inde- i 
 pendent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, 1 
 when they enter society, they cannot, by any compact, 1 
 deprive or divest their posterity ; namely, the enjoyment ] 
 of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and pos- < 
 Bessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness 1 
 and safety." i 
 
 Here, then, we have it laid down in the very chart 
 - that is to direct us in our political voyage, and it is in- 
 ■ scribed on the mast-head of our ship of State — that to 
 i give security in the acquisition and possession of prop- 
 i erty is one of the chief, the principal objects of a social 
 • government ; that it is one of those inherent rights of 
 which, when we enter into a state of society, we can 
 neither divest ourselves nor our posterity. But it does 
 not stop there. It goes further, as if vigilant lest it be 
 misconstrued, or misunderstood, — as if fearful that the 
 principle would not be sufficiently explicit or rightly 
 comprehended. In the third section of the article, it is 
 declared that governments are and ought to be insti- 
 tuted for the common benefit, protection and security of 
 the people, nation or community, and for the exercise 
 of all those influences which are calculated to produce 
 the greatest happiness and security of the people for 
 whom it is instituted : " That government is, or ought 
 to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and 
 security of the people, nation or community : of all the 
 various modes and forms of government, that is best, 
 which is capable of producing the greatest degree of hap- 
 piness and safety, and is most effectually secured against 
 the danger of mal-administration ; and that, when any 
 government shall be found inadequate or contrary to 
 these purposes, a majority of the community hath an in- 
 dubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, 
 alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most 
 conducive to the public weal." 
 
 And that they should guard most effectually against 
 any mal-administration in carrying out its purposes. 
 What purposes ? The security of life and liber uy % Are 
 these the only purposes of government ? — the only in- 
 terests it was framed to protect \ Certainly not. One 
 of its purposes is the protection of the community — of 
 a majority of the community, (not a majority of the in- 
 habitants composing it) — but of a majority of a political 
 community, in the right to acquire and possess property. 
 The word community, as used in the first section of this 
 bill of rights, is used in an apposite sense, with the words 
 nation and people, as they are generally understood. 
 Who are the people, by which this community is con- 
 stituted ? A political people ; and that is the commu- 
 nity of which this bill speaks ; and consequently 1 will 
 prove — if my strength does not fail me before I yield 
 the floor — that the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) stultifies itself, and in effect 
 gives up the whole question — and that when a majority 
 is spoken of as having the power to influence the action 
 of government, it is a majority of a political com- 
 munity and not of the whole people, which possesses 
 an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to re- 
 form, alter or abolish, any laws affecting the public 
 weal. Let us look lurther into the terms of this instru- 
 ment. Still wary of the great interests about to be com- 
 mitted into the hands of government, it proceeds to spe- 
 cify who are to have the control of these interests. The 
 sixth section provides that all men who have a permanent 
 common interest in, and an attachment to, the community, 
 shall have the right of suffrage, &c. Not, a mere perma- 
 nent interest, but a common interest, in the community. 
 But it does not stop even here. It goes further still. The 
 eleventh section of this bill of rights makes particular re- 
 ference to the protection of the interests of property, for it 
 says that in any controversy respecting the rights of pro- 
 perty, or affecting the interests existing between man and 
 man, the ancient system of trial by jury is preferable to 
 any other mode of settlement, and should therefore be 
 held sacred. Here, then, we find pervading this entire 
 instrument, the one idea — the fixed, unchangeable prin- 
 ciple, that social government is not, as in the language 
 of the gentleman from Augusta, instituted solely for 
 the purpose of protecting persons and personal interests, 
 but for other important purposes. If the protection of 
 life and personal liberty were the only objects of gov- 
 ernment, then those two interests should have the en- 
 tire control of government. No other interest should 
 influence the action of government, if this principle is 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 323 
 
 correct and carried out ; but as soon as you assume this 
 position, you abandon the only just basis upon -which all 
 government should be founded. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY, (in his seat.) No, sir ; we do not. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. The gentleman from Augusta says 
 no. "Property," says the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. 
 Wise,) must "have adequate, ample, conservative and 
 radical protection. Now, how are we to arrive at this 
 result ? " Oh," says the gentleman from Preston, (Mr. 
 Brown,) ' ' we are not contending for power without prin- 
 ciple ; we are in favor of regulating the action of indi- 
 viduals and of the community by giving the majority 
 the right to rule, but you do not want paper guarantees ; 
 you say paper guarantees will not afford you gentlemen 
 of the "east adequate protection. I'll tell you what we 
 will give you, for mind you, we are not contending for 
 power without principle ; we will yield the principle 
 that the majority shall govern, and engraft a provision 
 in the constitution which shall authorize the majority to 
 give power into the hands of a small minority by the 
 two-thirds rule, whereby they may be authorized to say 
 when the governmeut shall be changed." Now, this is 
 power with principle, with a vengeance ; this is a major- 
 ity principle of a most uncommon species. We do not 
 choose to abandon our position by reason of such soph- 
 istry. 
 
 I will notice in this connection another remark of the 
 gentleman from Preston. He says that we have scouted 
 the idea of paper guarantees, and have said that we had 
 no security that would last ; that western Virginia might 
 call a convention at any time and remove these guaran- 
 tees from the constitution ; and the gentleman, in a tri- 
 umphant tone, as if he had settled the question, proceeds 
 to ask what we have now but paper guarantees. I'll 
 tell you what we have. We have the guarantees con- 
 tained in the bill of rights, in the present constitution, 
 and we have the power, by a majority of representation, 
 to maintain them. We have the legislative power of 
 government given to us, and if gentlemen of the west 
 will give us these guarantees and permit us to retain this 
 power, we will settle the question at once ; for, however 
 gentlemen may disguise the issue, intentionally or un- 
 intentionally, the fact is, the struggle here, on the part 
 of the west, is for power — naked power. The whole 
 tenor of debate thus far has proved that when they come 
 to talk about principle, if that principle leads to the ac- 
 quisition of power, it is good ; but if power does not ac- 
 company the principle, it is a bad one, and must be dis- 
 carded and abandoned. And for what purpose do they 
 assume the position they occupy ? In order that they 
 may obtain the power which will enable them in the 
 future to destroy this very principle. 
 
 It does seem to me a little strange* that gentlemen 
 should deny that contributions given to the support of 
 government are nothing more than the fulfilment of a 
 duty imposed upon the people, and that where you find 
 one interest which contributes more than all other inter- 
 ests to the support and maintenance of government, 
 they allege that no influence should be accorded to 
 that interest on account of such contribution ; that no 
 power should be given it because of its faithful discharge 
 of so important a duty, a duty which we as subjects (say 
 they) owe to the government, and not as free citizens 
 voluntarily give it. It is said that, when we have dis- 
 charged that duty, there the matter ends, and that 
 no influencs or power should be granted to the particu- 
 par interest which contributed most largely to the sup- 
 sort of government. Sir, I have not been taught in that 
 school of political ethics. The gentleman from Augus- 
 ta, in speaking upon this topic, referred to a higher law 
 principle, and said that when we had discharged our 
 whole duty on earth even to our Maker, and went knock- 
 ing at the gate of Heaven for admission, we could not 
 claim entrance on the score of discharged duty. Now, 
 I am aware that we must attribute all the glory to the 
 Almighty ; but I know also that one of His inspired 
 writers has told us, that if we appear before Him, hav- 
 
 ing discharged our duty, He will say unto us — " WelL 
 done thou good and faithful servant," and give us our 
 reward. Here, however, it is said, when contributing so 
 largely from our particular interest in eastern Virginia, 
 that we ought to pay, it is nothing more than a discharge 
 of obligation. Gentlemen from the west tell us we must 
 pay as long as we are able, and yet receive no reward in 
 the way of power for that discharge of duty ; and doubt- 
 less when they get the power they will say to us we 
 mean to tax you as long as you will bear it. I shall not 
 say any thing discourteous/ I do not desire to deal in 
 harsh epithets, and if they have escaped me, certainly I 
 have not so intended ; but I was simply about to remark 
 that they will tax us and we will pay until the burden 
 becomes too intolerable to be borne; that is the plain 
 truth of the matter. The eastern part of Virginia will 
 thus be injuriously controlled and oppressed by this 
 transfer of power. Now, the bill of rights declares that 
 to give safety is one of the great objects of government, 
 and in truth it is its primary object. But we are met by 
 gentlemen who tell us that this safety refers to the se- 
 curity of people in their lives and personal liberty. Is 
 this correct ? Is this the true meaning of this instrument ? 
 Do gentlemen really believe that it has not a more com- 
 prehensive signification ? Does it not include with life 
 and personal liberty, property, with all its incidents and 
 enjoyments? How are you to possess happiness and 
 safety without property ? How are you to acquire hap- 
 piness and safety without the means which property af- 
 fords ? 
 
 Digressing for a moment, allow me to turn your at- 
 tention to this higher lawprinciple for which gentlemen 
 contend. Grant that we are reduced to the original ele- 
 ments of society — that nature and natural laws are to 
 prevail in the construction of the social compact, and 
 gentlemen will find that the highest authority to which 
 they can appeal, is in favor of the principle which we 
 of the east advocate — protection to property. They will 
 find that property is not the creature of government. It 
 is not a thing which government makes ; it is a thing 
 which government distributes, protects and regulates. 
 It will be found that the Creator of all that is valuable 
 — of life and liberty, and every earthly enjoyment — 
 when about to finish hi3 great work of creation, said 
 unto our first parent, " I give you dominion over the 
 fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, and every living 
 thing that creepeth on the face of the earth." Here then 
 we see that property was a special gift, not a gift of na- 
 ture — but a gift from a higher source — from nature's 
 God. Revert then, gentlemen, to your own principles. 
 Go back to the very origin of things — to the original 
 elements of society — and you will find there, that man, 
 when first created, possessed and sought to acquire prop- 
 erty. The very first gift to man, after life, and before 
 liberty, was the control and enjoyment of property. 
 Life and liberty are the gifts of God, but property is 
 one of the creations of man, says the gentleman from 
 Augusta, although originally its possession and enjoyment 
 came from the hands of God. If I chose so to do, I might 
 argue at length, to show that life and liberty are not worth 
 having, unless combined with the right to acquire, pos- 
 sess and enjoy property ; and I might show, that from 
 the time this world was brought into existence, that it 
 has primarily been considered entitled to the protection 
 of government, and that, in point of fact, government 
 could not exist without it. I shall not, however, pursue 
 that train of argument any further. 
 
 I have not heard that it was considered presump- 
 tuous on the part of my friend from Westmoreland, 
 (Mr. Beale,) and I trust it will not be so considered 
 with regard to myself, to express a partial dissatis- 
 faction with reference to the substitute offered by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, for I think that property 
 should not only be entitled to the protection of govern- 
 ment, but should influence representation, and, if it be 
 necessary to its protection, should be entitled to con- 
 trol, absolutely control all other interests. Odious as this 
 
324 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 thought may appear to the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, I understood him aud the gentleman from Lou- 
 doun (Mr. Janney) to repeat, iu substance, the same 
 sentiment, that this might be absolutely necessary, 
 in order to the full protection of property. Abhorrent 
 as the doctrine may be to gentlemen, I declare it as 
 my solemn and deliberate conviction, that not only that 
 interest, but every other interest — life, personal liber- 
 ty — all that may be imagined, or of which we can 
 speak, demands that if the entire representation and 
 power of government is necessary to protect the inter- 
 ests of property, it is entitled to it. The same may be 
 said of any other interest. I am in the habit of speak- 
 ing plainly. I never learned the art of concealing ideas 
 by language. I learned language to express ideas ; and 
 if I entertain an opinion, there is not that power upon 
 earth, I care not from what source it may emanate, that 
 could prevent me, underprudent circumstances, from ex- 
 pressing it. Now, I do not say that it is necessary or 
 proper to give property the entire representation of the 
 State of Virginia, in order to ensure its protection ; and 
 here I would reply to the inquiry of the gentleman 
 from Augusta "why do you not commence at the foun- 
 tain instead of down stream ? " I answer, because it is 
 not necessary as regards our particular interest ; we 
 can take the stream after it has flowed from the foun- 
 tain ; if it were necessary to trace it to its first gush from 
 the earth, we might go even back to its origin and there 
 settle the principle. I would repeat again, that unless 
 we can ensure its full, ample, adequate, providential, 
 conservative and radical protection (to use the language 
 of the gentleman from Accomac) by beginning lower 
 down the stream, we ought to begin at the fountain. 
 
 The gentleman from Greenbrier (Mr. Smith) made a 
 very unfortunate reference to a period in the history of 
 this confederation of States, in support of the principle 
 of the white basis. I allude to the period when the 
 struggle between this country and the mother country 
 took place. If I have read the history of that struggle 
 with any sort of profit to myself, it grew out of this very 
 principle of protection — protection against enormous and 
 oppressive taxation, based upon the fact that the taxes 
 were imposed by those who did not represent them, upon 
 those who did not consent. The duty upon tea and 
 stamps was but a mere trifle. Our pilgrim fathers did not 
 stake their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors 
 upon the mere payment of so trifling a tax, but entered 
 into the revolutionary struggle because their interests 
 and their property did not receive the requisite and 
 necessary protection at the hands of the British govern- 
 ment. This was the cause that gave rise to the struggle 
 between the United colonies and the kingdom of Great 
 Britain, and which resulted in the freedom of America. 
 I regretted very much that the gentleman from Green- 
 brier should have repeated what has been so often and 
 incessantly repeated in the ears of eastern Virginia, in 
 regard to the patriotism and gallantry which, upon one 
 single occasion, western Virginia manifested in defence 
 of eastern rights. Are we never to hear the last of this ? 
 Do western gentlemen remember that eastern blood has 
 flowed, in Indian warfare, from the veins of eastern men. 
 for their protection ? Do they remember that, at the 
 very time to which we allude, when their soldiers were 
 encamped at Norfolk, and were suffering from the in- 
 clemencies of the season, that the aid they received 
 came from eastern men ? Is this the extent of west- 
 ern patriotism ? Was that patriotism exhausted in one 
 single struggle ? I love and admire western Virginia 
 and her people, and I do not believe they designed 
 to so restrict their patriotism. They did not act 
 there merely in defence of Norfolk and its contiguous 
 territory, but they were linked, in one common destiny, 
 with eastern Virginia, and had that struggle resulted in 
 our defeat, western Virginia would have fallen with us. 
 
 But, to return to the issue ; absolute, individual, politi- 
 cal equality, in a political community, is a perfect absurd- 
 ity. You cannot effect equality ; inequality must exist ; it 
 always has existed and always will exist. It exists 
 in every community — in every nation in the world. 
 
 You have in society the rich and the poor, the weak and 
 the powerful, and these different grades, of necessity, 
 must continue to be. 1 am sure that no gentleman on 
 this floor would advocate a system that would destroy 
 this inequality. I am sure the time has not arrived 
 when, in Virginia, infinitely radical as some of her 
 sons maybe, agrarianism, socialism, aud Fourierism are 
 to prevail. There is a mutual dependence of one class 
 in society upon the other. The poor man contributes, 
 by daily toil and hard labor, to the comforts of the rich, 
 and the rich man, of his substance, remunerates that poor 
 man for his labor. This political and social inequality is 
 a matter of necessity. You cannot organize a good gov- 
 ernment without this inequality existing. You must have 
 this inequality as well political, natural and social. 
 
 For what purpose, I would inquire, does western 
 Virginia desire the supremacy of power in our State 
 government? I think I have shown (and the gentleman 
 from Preston admitted) that they did not want it merely 
 because it was principle for which they contended. 
 He admitted that he did not want power without 
 principle ; and that that principle consisted in giving 
 the eastern part of Virginia a paper guarantee that no 
 change should be made in the Constitution so as to af- 
 fect its interests, without a vote of two-thirds of the 
 members of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. My position was, that the power of 
 government should be exerted in giving to the east full 
 and sufficient protection to its rights of property. Of 
 course such an obligation should be sacred and binding. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. The gentleman's explanation does 
 not affect the issue at all. I understand him not to ask 
 for power without principle. And he further said , that 
 we were unwilling to accept paper guarantees, because 
 we said they could be erased from the constitution at 
 will ; but this defect, if it was a defect, he said could 
 be remedied by incorporating into the constitution a pro- 
 vision which would prevent the calling of another Con- 
 vention, unless with the concurrence of two-thirds of 
 the members of the legislature. It is not then for the 
 preservation of principle that the gentleman from Pres- 
 ton wants the power, for he is willing to yield the prin- 
 ciple that the majority should rule, because political in- 
 equality must exist, in order to the attainment of pow- 
 er. What does he want with this power then? Unless 
 it is wanted for the purpose of oppressing us by taxa- 
 tion and plundering us at pleasure, this desire for pow- 
 er must surely originate in a mere lust for its exercise. 
 Whenever power has been exercised from a mere love 
 of it, all historical experience proves that it has been 
 abused. I do not charge western gentlemen with having 
 any such object in view, but I do say it is hard for men 
 to know themselves. I do not charge it upon you that 
 you are seeking to wrest this power from us, in order 
 to oppress us, but I tell you plainly gentlemen, that you 
 do not understand yourselves. You have not examined 
 your own feelings as you should. You do notknow what 
 position you may occupy. If you desire to attain pow- 
 er, of course you must have some object in view by its 
 attainment ;and that object in too many instances, leads 
 to abuse in the exercise of that power. I tell you gen- 
 tlemen we had rather remove temptation from you by 
 not entrusting this power in your hands. We do not 
 wish to give you even the opportunity of abusing the 
 exercise of power. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. Inasmuch as there has been between 
 two and three hours speaking, and as the gentleman who 
 has occupied the floor for the last hour appears obvious- 
 ly to be greatly fatigued, I move that the committee do 
 now rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 The Convention adjourned until to-morrow morning 
 at 11 o'clock. 
 
 MONDAY, February 24, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Joiner of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 325 
 
 PROJECT OF A CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON. I have received a communication, 
 having endorsed upon it " Reform Constitution Sugges- 
 tions. " It comes from a gentleman who is a foreigner 
 by birth, and who has been a citizen of three distinct re- 
 publics. He is a respectable and intelligent gentleman, 
 and was the friend of the late Albert Gallatin, and asso- 
 ciated in business with him. It is couched in respectful 
 terms, and may contain some useful suggestions. It is 
 written, however, in very bad English, and mav give 
 the Secretary some trouble in reading it. I move, there- 
 fore, that it be laid on the table, and printed. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I dislike exceedingly to oppose 
 the printing of anything offered by any gentleman, but 
 it does seem to me that we should be setting a very bad 
 precedent, at least, for the printing of every suggestion 
 any individual gentleman may choose to send in here. 
 It is with great reluctance that I oppose the printing, 
 but really I should think a paper must be entitled to 
 very great weight to warrant the printing of any sketch 
 or constitutional suggestions which any gentleman may 
 choose to send in here. I cannot see the propriety of it. 
 This printing bill has already run up most enormously, 
 and I earnestly suggest to the gentleman to with- 
 draw his motion to print. It will cost less to read it 
 than to print it. Let us have it read. 
 
 The Secretary commenced reading it. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I withdraw my motion to read. 
 I have heard enough. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I do not understand what the pa- 
 per is. [Laughter.] 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is a paper offered by the gen- 
 tleman from Harrison, who explained it as containing 
 constitutional suggestions, from a respectable and intel- 
 teligent gentleman. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON. As there seems to be a disposition 
 manifested by some to object to printing it, I am not 
 tenacious about it. It will come out in seme shape, and 
 thf* gentleman may have the advantage of it, without 
 ordering the printing. I will withdraw the motion to 
 print. 
 
 ALLOWANCE OF AN ACCOUNT. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. I have an account in favor of Ritchie 
 & Dunnavant, an account amounting to $ 63.57, for print- 
 ing done for the Convention before the appointment of 
 a printer. I am informed by the Secretary that it is all 
 correct. I offer this resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary certify for payment an 
 account of Ritchie & Dunnavant, for $63.57, for print- 
 ing done for the Convention, before the appointment of 
 a printer. 
 
 Mr. TREDWAY. I would inquire if there is a 
 standing committee, to whom all accounts are referred, 
 and I suggest to the gentleman, whether it would not 
 be better to refer this account to that committee ? 
 
 Mr. CHILTON. The Secretary had the work done, 
 and certifies to its correctness. I think it will not be 
 necessary to refer it to the committee. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It will be the more regular course 
 t o refer it. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON, I would ask a vote upon my resolu- 
 tion. 
 
 The question being taken, the resolution was adopted. 
 
 SUBSTITUTE FOR REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. It will be recollected that upon 
 the coming in of the report of the Committee on Educa- 
 cation, that I presented a paper, which I intended to of- 
 fer at a proper time, as a substitute to that report, and 
 asked that it might be printed. I ask now that it may 
 be referred to the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 It was agreed to. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, &c. 
 On motion of Mr. PENDLETON, the committee re- 
 
 sumed the consideration in Committee of the Whole 
 (Mr. Miller in the chair) of the report of the Commit- 
 tee on the Basis and Apportionment of Representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the proposi- 
 tion of the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 Mr. PURK1NS being entitled to the floor- 
 Mr. BROWN. Will my friend from Halifax permit 
 me to make a remark in explanation ? 
 Mr. PURKINS. Certainly sir. 
 Mr. BROWN. On Friday last the gentleman put 
 some interrogatories to me, which, in the confusion of 
 the moment, I did not apprehend, and my answer was 
 not to the point. I desire this morning to answer the 
 gentleman, that he may, before he proceeds, have the 
 advantage of making any commentary upon them that 
 he may desire. In my reply to the rematksof the gen- 
 tleman from Westmoreland, (Mr. Beale,) that consti- 
 tutional guarantees were worth nothing, I endeavored to 
 show that all our rights, of persons and of property, 
 were now secured, resting alone upon guarantees of that 
 kind. And in answer to the objection which that gen- 
 tleman raised, that although guarantees might now be 
 given in good faith, and observed by those giving thern, 
 yet another race of people, another generation might 
 call a convention and repeal them. I observed that 
 that was a very far-fetched idea, but that even it proba- 
 bly might be guarded against, to some extent. I said, 
 that while the right in the majority of the community 
 to alter or abolish their fundamental laws was ii dubi- 
 table, unalienable and indefeasible, yet it is competent 
 for this Convention to lay restraints upon the legisla- 
 ture, in passing laws facilitating such call, or inviting 
 such calls. While we could not take from the majori- 
 ty of the community their unalienable, indefeasible 
 rights, we could lay prohibitions upon the legislature to 
 pass laws inviting a call for the purpose of changing the 
 fundamental law. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. When the committee rose upon 
 Friday last, I was addressing myself to the particular 
 point upon which my friend from Preston (Mr. Brown) 
 now tenders an explanation, and in all candor I must 
 say to that gentleman, that his explanation, in my hum- 
 ble opinion, does not place him in any better position 
 than he occupied when he first stated his proposition. 
 The point which I was endeavoring to impress upon the 
 mind of the committee was this : that the west came 
 upon this floor, insisting that a majority of the people 
 had a right to govern, and that the east should sub- 
 scribe to this proposition. But the question arises just 
 here who are the people ? I insisted that they formed 
 a political community, created by, constitutional pro- 
 vision and governmental arrangement, and that the ma- 
 jority of that political community was of right to be re- 
 garded the majority of all the inhabitants of the 
 State, and that in that majority the political power 
 should be vested, and that a tender of guarantees on the 
 part of the west, in whatever form they might be pre- 
 sented, were designed to transfer political power from 
 a majority to two-thirds or three-fourths of the commu- 
 nity, if it is to be effectual, and if they choose to regard 
 that community as consisting of all the inhabitants of 
 the State, it was a total abandonment of the principle 
 upon which they had declared they designed fixing their 
 basis of representation. The gentleman from Preston 
 is not alone in this tender of guarantees. Distinguished 
 gentlemen in this body, advocating the same principle 
 he contends for, have, upon more than one occasion in 
 discussions that have taken place heretofore, here and 
 elsewhere, proffered such guarantees and limitations of 
 legislative power as would secure and were absolutely 
 necessary to secure in all governmental institutions, 
 the protection to property. If they admit that proper- 
 ty requires protection from government, and they gen- 
 erally do admit this fact, for the gentleman from Au- 
 gusta, as well as the gentleman from Preston, more 
 than once have admitted the principle that property is 
 entitled to protection — I wish to inquire of them what 
 those means of protection are, and what are those guar- 
 antees of which they speak ? Unless they can show 
 
326 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 that they can tender us such protection as will be ade- 
 quate to, and fully commensurate with, the attainment 
 of the end we have in view, and that these guarantees 
 are not the only means, it is clear that these guarantees 
 which are tendered us by the gentleman from Preston 
 and others, being the only security they can give us for 
 the protection of our property, every gentleman on this 
 floor who advocates the white basis, must come up and 
 back the gentleman from Preston, in the tender of those 
 guarantees, and in support of his proposition to require 
 a vote of two-thirds to change the government. 
 
 I desire, before proceeding further upon this point, 
 to say, that, upon reflecting on what I said to the 
 committee on Friday last, it has occurred to me, that, 
 probably in the heat of discussion, 1 may have uttered 
 some expression that has sounded harshly in the ears of 
 my western brethren ; if so, I entirely disclaim any de- 
 sign of saying anything offensive. I do not mean to call 
 you plunderers, but I mean simply this : that, in fram- 
 ing a government and in creating institutions under 
 which we are to live — (and I would here remark that 
 the gentleman from Augusta admits that security must 
 be given against the abuse of power) — it is a cor- 
 rect principle, and wise counsels will suggest that we 
 should have an eye to the security of the government 
 against all abuse of power, and I shall show that, unless 
 we do adopt some such principle, there must be 
 an abuse of power, of a kind that will practically tend 
 to plunder us of our rights. This is what I mean when 
 I use the word plunder, and I design, without meaning 
 any offence, throughout this discussion, to continue to 
 call things by their right names, and deal with them as 
 I think proper. 
 
 But the gentleman from Preston went further than 
 merely to tender to his eastern brethren guarantees in 
 the constitution. He says that the west must also have 
 guarantees for the protection of their property as well as 
 ourselves. Now, if they distrust their own exercise of 
 power, I hope they will not complain that we do not fee] 
 fully satisfied to place ourselves under their power. If 
 you are not satisfied with the guarantees in the present 
 constitution you must not fall out with us who are, for 
 not being dissatisfied with them. But we will not take 
 those guarantees alone, and we trust we may be permit- 
 ted the privilege of suggesting to you such guarantees 
 as will secure us against any abuse of the power you 
 desire to have. Your proposition now is, to base the 
 representation of the State upon all the qualified electors 
 or inhabitants of the State. Let us look upon this pro- 
 position, and consider it practically. In the first place, 
 I would ask, how will you be able to apportion represen- 
 tation upon the qualified electors of the State? It may 
 be by this plan approximated to, but it cannot, without 
 difficulty, be ascertained accurately. Take the popular 
 vote of the qualified electors of this commonwealth in 
 1848 — the vote at a county election would not be a fair 
 criterion, because it is often the case that there are no 
 opposition candidates in the field, and reasons operate 
 to keep the voters from the polls, besides the number 
 of double votes given — the Presidential election, how- 
 ever, affords a good guide, as to the number of qualified 
 voters, at the election in 1848, 91,710 votes were east 
 in this State. This was the united vote for Taylor and 
 Cass. The entire white population of the State of Vir- 
 ginia numbered 899,134. I would here state that the 
 increase of votes under the constitution we are about 
 to adopt — if we extend the right of suffrage — will, ma- 
 king a liberal estimate, amount to about 60,000 — an over- 
 estimate rather than an under one. If the proposed 
 extension of suffrage, then, had been made in 1848, the 
 entire popular vote would have amounted to 151,710. 
 Deduct that vote from the entire number of the white 
 population, and you have remaining 747,424. Now, by 
 your principle laid down in proposition B, representa- 
 tion mu?t be based upon the white population. The 
 gentleman from Augusta, whom I sorry to see is not 
 now in his seat,, denounced proposition A with great 
 force, declaring that it disfranchised 200,000 of the free 
 people of Virginia, at the same time forgetting that 
 
 proposition B, which he advocated with so much zeal, 
 disfranchised nearly 800,000 of the white population of 
 the State. Here then, is another total abandonment of 
 your principles. 
 
 But these are not the only instances in which you 
 abandon your principles. Your proposition, as it af- 
 fects representation, does not base it, in regard to the 
 legislature, upon the qualified electors of the State nu- 
 merically considered. Else why restrict it to county 
 limits ? If your intention is to carry your principle prac- 
 tically into operation, why do you not take the whole 
 qualified electors in the State and divide it by the number 
 of representatives of which you propose to compose the 
 legislative department of government, and thus, without 
 regard to county boundaries, give representatives to all 
 the qualified electors of the State? 
 
 A MEMBER, (in his seat.) That would be the true 
 way. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. That would be the true way, if you 
 do not design abandoning principle for power, in this in- 
 stance. And, in view of this abandonment when there 
 is no necessity for it, can you blame us for insisting upon 
 the adoption of a principle which will work good results ? 
 This is the dilemma into which this abandonment of their 
 principle will throw them, and arguments, though 
 strong and powerful, and appeals, though warm 
 and generous, cannot extricate them from it. It is, 
 that when they thus attempt to evade the necessa- 
 ry result of the position they have assumed, they 
 will carry the fraction of excess in voters from one coun- 
 try to another, and thus increase the representation of 
 the smaller counties, while the larger counties will be 
 curtailed of their just proportion of representation. 
 Here, then, are several instances of the utter abandon- 
 ment, on the part of western Virginia, of their own sa- 
 cred and revered principles, for which they have clam- 
 ored so loudly, from the year 1815 up to the present 
 time. Can the west — ought it — to take any exception, 
 if I tell them that this is a struggle upon one side for 
 power — naked power — while upon the other it is a con- 
 test for self-preservation, a contest in which we desire 
 to show that, in order to self-preservation, we must have 
 power. Sir. the principle for which they contend can- 
 not be carried out ; it is practically impossible for every 
 man, in a political community, to have equal political 
 power . There never has been a government established 
 upon the face of the globe, nor can there be one estab- 
 lished — I care not what its form may be — where equal 
 political power can be vested in every political individ- 
 ual, and practically carried out. This has never been 
 the case in Virginia, or in any other State in this con- 
 federation. It has been the result heretofore, mainly of 
 party conflict, where the successful party — the one hav- 
 ing the majority — has had in its possession all political 
 power, from the exercise of which the minority has been 
 excluded. Take, for instance, this State. Unfortunate- 
 ly, it may be, since I have had my residence in the 
 county which I in part represent on this floor, I have 
 belonged to a party which has been in the minority — 
 always deprived of political power in the halls of legis- 
 lation ; that has had no equality whatever with the ma- 
 jority power ; while my friend (Mr. Edmunds) from 
 the same county, has, owing to his being connected with 
 the majority party, been in the exercise of power all the 
 time. And you cannot produce such a state of things, 
 do w r hat you may, as will give to each voter in this 
 State equal political power. This State, in the last 
 three or four presidential elections, has shown nearly 
 an equilibrium in the number of votes cast by each par- 
 ty ; the average majority of the successful party has n ot 
 exceeded two or three thousand votes during the last 
 twelve years. Yet, during that time, the democratic 
 party have almost invariably had, in the legislature of 
 Virginia, a majority of some thirty or forty members. 
 Under this state of affairs, was the whig party repre- 
 sented, or did it have equal political power m the legis- 
 lature with the democratic party? Still, they had equal 
 rights and freedom. You cannot show it j and, there- 
 fore, gentlemen of the west, you do right in abandoning 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 327 
 
 a principle which cannot be carried out, and serve the 
 purposes you desire. 
 
 But gentlemen argue that the right of sum-age being 
 the groundwork of representation, every individual who 
 is entitled to exercise that right, ought to have equal 
 political weight in the affairs of government. I never 
 so understood the exercise of the right of suffrage. This 
 right, if I understand it, is a practical incident of citizen- 
 ship, and the exercise of it is only one of the elements 
 of representation of which power is a part. The right 
 of suffrage alone, does not give power. It is the exer- 
 cise of a political right incident to citizenship ; but it is 
 not the only means by which political power is created ; 
 it may be called an active agent in giving effect to pow- 
 er. There are other means through which it is created, 
 as I shall show before I conclude my remarks. 
 
 The gentleman from Augusta (Mr Sheffet) stated on 
 Wednesday, I think, that the east was entitled to pro- 
 tection, and that if we transferred the political power to 
 western Virginia by the adoption of proposition B, that 
 there was a possibility that that power would be abused 
 and our interests imperiled. Then, I say, we ought to 
 adopt the system of a mixed basis if that will alone se- 
 cure us in our rights. But will no danger result to our 
 interests by adopting the principle contained in propo 
 sition B ? May we not be oppressively taxed ? Is there 
 no danger of a discrimination being made against the in- 
 terests of eastern Virginia and in favor of the interests 
 of western Virginia if this plan (proposition B) be 
 adopted ? But he says there is no great peril — 
 
 " These are mere phantasies — 
 There is no peril • * 
 
 and then, like Sardanapalus, he goes on to prepare the 
 funeral pile and collect the faggots with which our in- 
 terests and his own are to be consumed. 
 
 I will endeavor briefly to show how our interests may 
 be imperiled. Of the ordinary interests from which the 
 revenues of this State are derived, eastern Virginia has 
 the largest share, and consequently pays a greater 
 amount of taxes upon them, than western Virginia, with 
 the exception of four only. And the entire amount of 
 taxation upon those four items will not make more than 
 one-sixth, about, in truth, one-eighth of the revenue of 
 the State. The four are horses, metalic clocks, stages, 
 and houses of private entertainment. They beat us in 
 keeping time with brass metal ; we beat them, I think, 
 on gold watches. And in regard to the number of mu- 
 sical instruments we are a long way ahead of them. In 
 the whole of western Virginia there are but two harps : 
 and I would here take the liberty of giving that section 
 a little advice and that is that they 
 
 " Hang thos8 harps upon the willows." 
 
 A MEMBER. How many have you in eastern Vir- 
 ginia ? 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. In eastern Virginia there some thir- 
 ty harps, the exact number I do not recollect. 
 
 A MEMBER (in his seat.) You had better hang those 
 up too. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. That would make the air too musical. 
 [A laugh.] Well, of all the sources from which revenue 
 is derived, western Virginia exceeds us in the payment 
 of taxes upon but four, while in every other class of tax- 
 able property we are ahead of them. Are not these 
 taxable interests of ours imperiled then by entrusting 
 the highest power in government, the taxing power, in- 
 to the hands of those who have no similar interests to 
 tax ? Self-interest in government is the motive princi- 
 ple with men, as is often the case in private life. I do 
 not know that to act from self-interest is a moral prin- 
 ciple. Io may be wrong and even detestable so to act 
 in private life ; but for one, I believe that it is the very 
 safest and most prudent principle that we can adopt in 
 political government. Not that narrow •self-interest 
 that confines itself to the advancement of certain indi- 
 viduals, but which stretches its arms wide to embrace 
 the entire community whose protection from injury 
 
 ought to be the object of its peculiar care. And if this 
 be the principle which is governing the west, as 1 think 
 I have shown it to be in this contest for power, and 
 when her interests and their advancement demand that 
 our interests should be oppressed and destroyed, it be- 
 comes us. while we have the power, so to guard as, that in 
 entering into a social compact with them we will make 
 such arrangements as will afford us beyond all doubt 
 adequate security. 
 
 1 said, and I repeat it, that western Virginia may im- 
 peril our interests first by oppressive taxation, and sec- 
 ondly by discriminating upon the various subjects of 
 taxation in her own favor. Give her the power and she 
 might divert taxation from her own taxable interests, 
 and increase it upon ours. She might not do it, but the 
 gentleman from Augusta, whom I am happy to see now 
 in his seat, has quoted to us from a very celebrated au- 
 thor, De Tocqueville, to the effect, that the love of pro- 
 perty is the predominant feeling in the American 
 bosom 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I said that respect for the rights of 
 property was the predominant feeling. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. Precisely; and your quotation went 
 on to say the love of property itself. If this, then, be the 
 predominant feeling in the bosom of the people of Vir- 
 ginia, I take it that it is as powerful in the bosoms of 
 western men as of eastern men ; and if it is, then there 
 is a struggle on the part of eastern gentlemen to retain 
 the control of their own property, and on the part of 
 western gentlemen to wrest that control from our hands, 
 and I am aware of no worse despotism than might fol- 
 low. They act upon the presumption that we are in- 
 capable of attending to our own concerns, and regard 
 us as not only in the minority, but as minors, utterly 
 unqualified to take care of our own property. 
 
 There is another ground upon which they are wholly 
 unable to prevent our interests from being imperiled. 
 I assert that some of our interests are different from the 
 interests of western Virginia, and that the west is inca- 
 pable of attending to them in the manner which alone 
 can prevent them from being injured and oppressed. 
 Give the power into the hands of the west, and when- 
 ever a supposed necessity arises, we will be made to 
 feel that there is no community of interests between us 
 in this particular, in consequence of the increased 
 weight of the burdens imposed upon our interests. An- 
 other reason why this will be the case, arises from the 
 extent of our public debt. The public debt of Virginia, 
 including the appropriations by the present legisla- 
 ture — and all the liabilities of the State — amounts to be- 
 tween twenty and thirty millions of dollars. The inter- 
 est on that debt has to be paid annually, and where is it 
 to be raised? The effort of the west may be, if the 
 power is given in her hands, to make eastern Virginia 
 pay it and relieve, to as great an extent as practicable, 
 western Virginia from the burden of the debt. We 
 are willing to pay our proportion of the tax ; but we de- 
 sire to have the right of saying how it shall be paid, 
 and in what manner the taxes shall be imposed upon 
 the subjects of taxation. The public debt — in process 
 of time — must be redeemed, and how is it to be? Sup- 
 pose such a state of things should arise as that its re- 
 demption should be demanded immediately upon its 
 coming due. I ask if this self-interest might not force 
 you to impose the burden of its payment upon the east, 
 to the entire relief of yourselves ? In view of these 
 things, I ask my friend from Augusta, if there is not 
 good reason why this abuse may arise, and if therefore 
 an abuse of power ought not to be guarded against? It 
 may be replied that the east may pursue the same 
 course in regard to western Virginia ; but I assert that 
 from the state of facts to which I have already directed 
 the attention of the committee, this cannot possibly take 
 place. The history of the political action of Virginia 
 during the last seventy years, plainly shows that hither- 
 to they have not done it. You have security in the fu- 
 ture, from the fact that eastern Virginia has a majority 
 of the interests which are subject to taxation, and she 
 cannot adopt a system of taxation, even if she desired 
 
328 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 so to do, without oppressing her own interests. Thus, 
 our feelings would be directly opposed to any system of 
 oppressive taxation. 
 
 Suppose, gentlemen of the west, that you obtain the 
 ascendancy in political power. You are great sticklers 
 for the bill of rights, and the jus majoris. That is your 
 magna charta as well as palladium of political liberty ; 
 yet you will, by pursuing the course you propose, strike 
 at the very foundation of the temple of liberty in which 
 you say you desire to worship, for you design destroy- 
 ing one of the great principles of republicanism, viz : 
 the enjoyment of property involving the pursuit of hap- 
 piness. But to this point I simply direct the attention 
 of the gentleman from Augusta, as I do not think it ne- 
 cessary to pursue it further. 
 
 I was struck with the declaration of the gentleman 
 from Augusta, which was made in a different form by 
 my venerable friend from Greenbrier, (Mr. Smith,) that 
 if eastern Virginia did not yield to the west the princi- 
 ple she was contending for, there would arise a clamor 
 from ninety thousand western freemen which would 
 continue to tingle in eastern ears until it was appeased 
 by their yielding up the principle and the power. If a 
 clamor of this kind is to be raised in favor of a princi- 
 ple which would, if adopted, destroy the equilibrium of 
 government, I tell gentlemen of the west that the voices 
 of more than one hundred thousand freemen would 
 come up in opposition from the beautiful tide-water re- 
 gion of the State, and uniting with thousands of similar 
 voices from Piedmont, travel on towards the Valley, 
 and the sound would swell in volume even to the sum- 
 mit of the Alleghanies, and it would echo and reverbe- 
 rate over mountain and through valley until your ears 
 would not only practically tingle with the sound, but 
 every habitation of the west would quake and tremble 
 at the voices of the east falling upon the ear as if the 
 thunders of heaven itself were roaring. Do gentlemen, 
 by their declarations, mean to intimidate us ? And 
 yet their language will bear that construction, and it 
 should be borne in mind also that within the last 
 few days resolutions have been received from the west- • 
 ern counties declaring that unless the east yield the 
 power asked for by western delegates in this body, that i 
 those delegates must leave this body and return home 
 to their people. Well, I have only to say, that I do 1 
 not question the integrity of my western brethren here ; 1 
 we think you are a very elever and intelligent body of i 
 men ; but if you will not stay with us and partake of < 
 our hospitalities, when you are ready to depart give us ' 
 notice and we will bid you an affectionate and respect- ' 
 f al farewell. We cannot, we will not, yield you our 1 
 rights, and if you will not remain with us — though I 1 
 believe you will— let us part as friends. I dislike dis- < 
 union in any shape or form, and I would dislike to see 1 
 it as much in regard to the State of Virginia as in re- i 
 gard to the federal government. I should most deeply i 
 lament it, as I deprecate its results. And I assert that 1 
 the principle we are advocating, if engrafted upon the 5 
 new constitution, is a principle which will tend more to ] 
 allay and destroy feelings of sectional bitterness than 1 
 any principle that can be brought forward, for if it does 1 
 not now give entire satisfaction to the entire people of £ 
 western Virginia, it will at least, when they come to i 
 their sober second thought, give them an assurance that 1 
 they will have their property as well protected as our r 
 own, and I know that the east will be unanimously in t 
 favor of it. The gentleman from Preston tells us that t 
 the entire west desire that property shall be fully pro- t 
 tected. This is a common ground upon which we all j 
 meet. We are all in favor of the protection of property, t 
 the only thing we have to do is to agree upon the t 
 means of protection. But, suppose we were to abandon s 
 this principle, I ask if western gentlemen are prepared t 
 to abandon the principle of protection to property to its { 
 fullest extent ? Are they prepared to carry out their j 
 proposition hasing representation upon white population > 
 alone, or qualified electors not holding property to any 1 
 extent ? If it be a correct principle it has as just an ap t 
 
 , plication to your federal as to your State government, 
 f It is no reply to say that we are now forming a consti- 
 tution for the State, and that no illustration taken from 
 > the operation of the federal, can effect it. And I would 
 3 inquire whether gentlemen are ready to apply their 
 r principle to their connection with the federal govern- 
 ; ment ? Have you reflected upon the consequences which 
 ; would result if the entire political community of the 
 1 south were to adopt this principle as the principle up- 
 . on which representation should be based in the federal 
 : government ? Adopt it in that connection, and the re- 
 - presentation of the south would be cut down to a mere 
 1 corporal's guard in congress. In this State there would 
 
 ■ be a loss of several representatives in congress, and the 
 loss in the entire south would amount to some twenty 
 
 [ representatives. Are you prepared to do this ? If you 
 
 ■ reply that you are willing to carry your principle to 
 ; that extent, then we say to you that that is another 
 . strong and sufficient reason why we should not transfer 
 
 ■ the political power of Virginia into your hands. I do 
 not distrust you upon this question, but whenever you 
 admit that you wish to carry your principle as well in- 
 to the federal government as the State government, 
 you shake my confidence in you to a very great ex- 
 
 ' tent. 
 
 A MEMBER (in his seat.) None of the western del- 
 egates have said that they wished to extend this princi- 
 ple to the federal government. 
 
 Mr. PURK1NS. I was simply inquiring whether this 
 was the design of western gentlemen — whether they do 
 occupy this position — if they do not my question is an- 
 swered, and we have another proof that ic is power not 
 principle for which they contend. I think I have thus 
 clearly shewn on the part of western Virginia, an utter 
 abandonment of the principle (when attempted to be 
 carried into practice,) for which they have clamored so 
 loudly in theory ; and I think proven that this is not a 
 struggle on the part of the west for principle but for 
 power — naked power. But the gentleman from Green- 
 brier (Mr. Smith) said that he would not take issue with 
 gentlemen from the east ; " that justice and liberality 
 had been exercised by the east towards the west in the 
 administration of the power of government. " It is easy 
 to be shown that not only justice but liberality has been 
 exercised by the east ; and I was in hope s that the gen- 
 tleman from Augusta would have avoided that issue in 
 regard to the character of the power that has been ex- 
 ercised by the east during the last seventy years, and 
 would not have charged it as tyrannous. But he says 
 the continuance of this principle which has been in exis- 
 tence since the first commencement of our State govern- 
 ment, is an unjust exercise of power, and that the prin- 
 ciple itself is theoretically and practically tyrannous. I 
 have looked at the recent definition of this word " tyran- 
 nous, " as given by Webster, and I call the gentleman's 
 attention to it. I find that Mr. Webster defines it to 
 be an unjust and arbitrary exercise of power over the 
 subject in a manner not authorized by law for the just 
 purpose of government ; hence tyranny is often synony- 
 mous with cruelty and oppression. Now I ask has there 
 been even a single instance on the part of eastern Vir- 
 ginia of an exercise of this power in a manner not in 
 accordance with the constitution of the State or in con- 
 formity with the law and with a strict sense of justice ? 
 The gentleman from Greenbrier says that he does not 
 and will not take issue upon the question of the charac- 
 ter of the exercise of power by eastern Virginia, but 
 that he will adimit that that section has not only been 
 just but generous and liberal in such exercise. 1 leave 
 the issue between those two gentlemen to settle it as 
 they may. For fear the gentleman from Augusta is not 
 satisfied that we have been liberal and just, permit me 
 to call his attention to the amount of taxes which are 
 paid under the assessment of 1849. Whole amount 
 paid by trans- Alleghany on lots, lands, slaves, horses, 
 watches, clocks, coaches, stages, carryalls, gigs, pianos, 
 harps, plate, interest, lees over $400, attorneys, doc- 
 tors, dentists, bridges, ferries, free negroes, and collat- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 329 
 
 eral inheritances is $77,897.90. In the Valley districts, 
 on same subjects, $79,475.97. Making the whole amount 
 on these subjects paid by western Virginia, $157,373.87. 
 The Piedmont district, which gentlemen say is so much 
 more likely to plunder Tidewater, paid on these same 
 subjects, $162,201.66 ; and this Tidewater district, 
 which complains that she has been so unjustifiably 
 plundered by all the rest of the commonwealth, pays 
 $176,549.57. This make$ the whole amount paid on 
 these subjects in eastern Virginia, $338,751.23 : exceed- 
 ing the amount paid by western Virginia by $181,377.36, 
 or more than double. And yet we have been unjust 
 and illiberal when we have absolutely paid into the 
 treasury upon these subjects of taxation, a tax more 
 than double the amount that you have paid. But let 
 us go on a little further, and take the aggregate of these 
 subjects and connect them with the tax on law process, 
 <fec. The trans-Alleghany district in this connection of 
 subjects paid $121,038.53 ; the Valley district paid 
 $108,862.41 ; making the amount paid by the two wes- 
 tern districts $229,900.94. Tidewater paid $289,780.- 
 75, and Piedmont $214,640.37; making an excess paid 
 by the east of $503,421.12, or more than double again. 
 Now, is this injustice? Is this a tyrannical exercise of 
 power on the part of eastern Virginia ? Is it not more 
 than justice to you ? Is it not more than liberal ? We, 
 a minority of the people of Virginia, take upon our- 
 selves the burthens of the government to an extent 
 more than two-fold that which we impose upon you. 
 But to resume : The land tax of the State under this as- 
 sessment was $195,225.54, exclusive of improved lots. 
 Of this the trans-Alleghany district paid $38,316.95, 
 and the Valley district $42,106.54, making the total 
 amount paid by western Virginia $80,923.49. The Pied- 
 mont district paid upon the same item $67,721.19, and 
 Tidewater $46,580.86; making the total eastern tax 
 on land exclusive of improved lots, $114,302.05 ; an ex- 
 cess paid by the east of" $33,378.56. On lots the excess 
 in the proportion is much greater, it being on the whole 
 sum of $65,295.80, an amount of $33,673.98. The whole 
 excess in favor of the last, that is, on real estate, is 
 therefore $67,405.25. 
 
 Now let me refer to another subject just here. The 
 tax on slaves is $81,444.48. Of this the trans-Allegha- 
 ny district pays $4,304.44, and the Valley $6,866.24, 
 making the whole tax paid by western Virginia on 
 slaves $11,170.88. The Piedmont district pays $39,- 
 309.12, or nearly four times as much as both the west- 
 ern sections together. The Tidewater district pays 
 $30,964.48, making the whole amount paid by the east 
 on slaves $70,273.60, or excess of $59,102.72. Thus the 
 whole excess upon these three subjects of taxation is 
 $126,155.26, equal to one-quarter of the whole of the 
 revenue of the State on the property tax, and more 
 than one-sixth of the revenue from all sources. Yet it 
 is said we of the east have been tyrannical in this gov- 
 ernment. We have given from our pockets most libe- 
 rally and most generously without a murmur or even 
 the first whisper of complaint. We have paid upon 
 three subjects of taxation alone, more than one-fourth 
 of the whole of the property tax of the State, of which 
 you have got your equal, your proportionate share in 
 the distribution. And they charge us with a tyrannical 
 exercise of the power of taxation, and of all the other 
 powers which we have exercised. 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. Will the gentleman allow me to 
 call his attention to one example of this immense libe- 
 rality of which he speaks ? Since 1776 Virginia has 
 had thirty-three governors, out of which number west- 
 ern Virginia has had five. We have had also twenty- 
 four United States senators, out of which number west- 
 ern Virginia has had but three. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. Really that was not our fault. If 
 we had better material for the offices than the western 
 men had, why, in the name of heaven, do not quarrel 
 with us about it. [Laughter.] In the federal govern- 
 ment, Virginia has had almost all the presidents. She 
 30 
 
 has had almost a majority of the senators, and in every 
 session of the house of representatives she has had a long 
 ways more than double her share of her own sons there. 
 And will you abuse Virginia for this ? 
 
 Mr. FULKERSON. If the gentleman will permit 
 me, then I am to understand from his remarks that we 
 of the west are not Virginians ? [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. I will recur to that. Will you com- 
 plain of eastern Virginia because she has well reared 
 her sons ? Will there be complaint because nature has 
 been more liberal in the distribution of mental powers 
 to the sons of eastern Virginia % Will you complain of 
 that which you yourselves have aided in bringing about % 
 There has not been within my own recollection, a govern- 
 or or a senator, not one, who has not been elected as 
 well by western as by eastern votes, and for heaven's sake, 
 when you buckle the honors upon our backs, do not 
 grumble with us if we wear them. Let us wear them in 
 peace when you impose them upon us. I hope the 
 gentleman is answered. He asks me, however, if I do 
 not regard the west as a portion of Virginia. I do, and 
 as one of the very best portions of Virginia ; as a por- 
 tion of Virginia whose people deserve all credit and 
 commendation for their enterprize, for their prosperity 
 and for their intelligence. But the gentleman spoke of 
 United States senators and complained that eastern 
 Virginia had had a majority of the senators and a ma- 
 jority of the governors, and my reply to him is, that 
 Virginia, either eastern or western — I am not prepared 
 with the data to prove which section has the majority 
 — has had most of the presidents, many of the senators, 
 and many of the members of the house of representa- 
 tives, and why ? Because they emigrated from Virginia 
 to other States and have been honored in other States. 
 Many of them have gone from western Virginia, and 
 you have an equal proportion of western Virginia 
 represented in the congress of the United States. 
 
 A MEMBER. They had to go out of the State to get 
 there. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. Not that. You have not staid with 
 us to see whether you would get there. [Laughter.] 
 You have left us in your youth, before you were worthy 
 to receive the honor, and now you quarrel with us be- 
 cause, while you were in the greenness of youth, we 
 would not confer those honors upon you. 
 
 The gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) referred 
 most unwisely I thought, to a period in the history of 
 Virginia, from which he derives a precedent for the es- 
 tablishment of the principle for which western gentle- 
 men on this floor are contending. He refers to that 
 period in the colonial history of our State, commencing 
 in'1621, and running down to 1660. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. There are a great many remarks 
 made by the gentleman which are not a correct repre- 
 sentation of my views. If he is going on with an argu- 
 ment on this point, I may save him some trouble in this 
 respect. I referred to the apportionment of power under 
 the colonial government, in answer somewhat to the re- 
 mark of the gentleman from Fauquier, that the mixed 
 basis was the existing state of things, and that there- 
 fore he called upon us for reasons why a change should 
 be made. I stated that under the colonial government 
 and down to 18 29-' 30, county representation existed, 
 which representation was not based upon the mixed ba- 
 sis of representation. I did not allude to it as an argu- 
 ment in favor of the white basis. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. Still I understood the gentleman to 
 refer to it as a precedent, to show that white inhabi- 
 tants were taken as a basis of political power. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I did not refer to it for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. Very well, then it will save me the 
 necessity of referring to that part of the gentleman's 
 arguments. I could not help feeling my sympathies 
 considerably aroused by the gentleman from Augusta, 
 when he stood before this committee rather in the hum- 
 
330 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ble attitude of a suppliant than in that commanding 
 tone in which he addressed us in the larger portion of 
 his remarks. Said the gentleman : " I do not feel that 
 I am equal here to eastern gentlemen ; I feel that I 
 am an inferior, and in an inferior position • deprived 
 of an equal degree of political power, and utterly cut 
 off in the exercise of my political rights." Why, I 
 thought the gentleman was here more than an equal to 
 many of us, and I think, from the ability and ingenuity 
 which he displayed in his argument, that however much, 
 just at that moment, he might have felt his spirits de- 
 pressed, he, on more than one occasion, did feel that he 
 stood upon a higher and more elevated position, even 
 above a great many of us. Why is he not equal ? He 
 stands upon this floor with all the rights, privileges and 
 immunities which attach to any eastern gentleman here. 
 He stands here to exercise every conventional right 
 which the free government of Virginia can confer upon 
 a free citizen. He comes here to aid, and with an equal 
 voice in the prosecution of that work, as any here, in 
 forming a social compact for the people of Virginia. 
 But he comes representing a people who, connected 
 with the section of the country to which they belong, 
 do not contribute to the support of government in such 
 proportions as is contributed by other sections, whose 
 interests are not a majority of the interests of the peo- 
 ple of the State ; and he, therefore, cannot, with all the 
 potency of his voice, control the action of this body ; and 
 he complains, that he cannot. 
 
 There was a great many subjects touched upon by the 
 gentleman from Augusta to which I had intended to di- 
 rect the attention of the committee ; but I feel that I 
 have already consumed, probably, much more than my 
 share of the time of this body on this subject. There 
 are one or two things, however, to which I must call 
 your attention. The gentleman says that the expenses 
 of government are caused by property, and he mentions 
 courts of justice as one instance of the fact. And he 
 complains of the loss of time, and the expenditure of 
 money incurred when in performance of military duty 
 by the militia, as a portion of the oppression to which 
 the people of western Virginia are subjected. Now, I 
 do not mean to refer to this subject in any improper 
 spirit, but I would say to the gentleman, that if that is 
 the doctrine that is to be carried out, and if the people 
 should not be called out at public places, and expend 
 their money at taverns, and lose their time, we ought, 
 also, to abolish all elections. It will be the most judi- 
 cious and wisest course which this body can adopt, if 
 the view of the gentleman is correct, for us to decrease 
 the number of popular elections, if not to abolish the 
 whole. 
 
 But our courts of justice, he says, are established 
 alone for the protection of property, or rather that the 
 expenses of courts of justice are alone created by pro- 
 perty, and litigation in regard to property. Most sure- 
 ly not. I take it that a large portion of the time of 
 the courts of justice, in the section of country from 
 which this gentleman comes, is consumed in trials of 
 persons, in trials affecting the lives and the liberties of 
 men, and not alone of property, and the rights of pro- 
 perty. It is not properly chargeable that the expense 
 of the judicial system of the commonwealth of Vir- 
 ginia, or of any other government, is increased in a 
 greater degree by the efforts to impair the rights of pro- 
 perty, or to secure its enjoyment, than by litigation ap- 
 pertaining to rights of persons. 
 
 But the gentleman does complain that the west, when 
 it comes into the government, surrenders a large por- 
 tion of its rights, and yet does not receive equal politi- 
 cal power. Now, I believe I have already stated to the 
 committee, but if I have, I hope it will do no harm to 
 repeat it, that every man who enters into a state of so- 
 ciety, has to give up some of his natural rights. He 
 has, necessarily, to make that surrender, and he gets in 
 return, benefits and advantages arising from the protec- 
 tion which the government affords to all and to every 
 
 right which is retained and exists. Western Virginia 
 has no right to complain of the immense surrender 
 which she has made, because gentlemen must reflect 
 that in entering into the social compact, eastern Vir- 
 ginia, in the nature of things, having a much larger 
 amount of interest, has to make a much larger surren- 
 der of those interests, and that when she does make 
 this surrender, there must be a proportionate return of 
 benefits and advantages corresponding, to a great extent, 
 with the surrender which she makes. The doctrine 
 which the gentleman contends for, will lead us to this : 
 that we must surrender all our rights and all our inter- 
 ests into the hands of those who surrender but a little, 
 and receive in return no advantage whatever, from a 
 controlling influence in government, but that it is to be 
 taken entirely from us. 'Now, we do not mean to do 
 that, let the consequences be what they may. 
 
 But while I had much more to say upon this subject, 
 I feel that my own strength is failing, and that it is 
 quite time that I should have yielded the floor to some 
 other person, who will, perhaps, present this subject to 
 the committee much more ably than it is in my power 
 to do. I cannot, however, take my seat, without refer- 
 ring to some few of the statistics which I have collected, 
 to show that the gentleman from Preston (Mr. Brown) 
 has not discovered in the statistics which he presented 
 to us the other day, any very great blunder which has 
 been made even by the apportionment under proposition 
 A, as submitted by the eastern portion of the basis 
 committee. He referred particularly to the counties of 
 Wythe and Powhatan, and he attempted to show that 
 it was unjust to give them an equal representation, in- 
 asmuch as the population of Wythe was near three-fold 
 as great as the population of Powhatan, and the county 
 of Wythe paid into the public treasury a much larger 
 amount of revenue than the county of Powhatan. But 
 he forgot to say that, while the county of Wythe, with 
 a white population of 9,634, paid $3,643 of taxes, that 
 the tax per capita on the white population of that coun- 
 ty amounted only to about thirty-seven and a half cents, 
 while the county of Powhatan, with a white population 
 of 2,513, paid a tax of $3,382, being a per capita tax of 
 $1.30-^. Now, does the gentleman see any great error 
 in an apportionment which will give for the protection 
 of an interest of such magnitude, the county of Powha- 
 tan an equal influence with the county of Wythe ? 
 There were some other views of the gentleman which 
 struck me as equally strange. The proposition B, gives 
 to the county of Carroll one representative, upon a pop- 
 ulation of 5,730, it paying the enormous amount of $744 
 in taxes ; and if the committee will go into a minute 
 calculation, they will find that while Carroll is given 
 one representative upon the floor of the house of dele- 
 gates, that the amount of taxes imposed on Carroll, will 
 not pay the expenses of that representative. And yet 
 the very same apportionment which gives to Carroll one 
 delegate in the house of delegates, and, united with 
 the other counties, gives her a senator, requires the lit- 
 tle county of Essex, whose name I always pronounce 
 with some reverence, for it was there that I breathed 
 the first breath of life, and to which I feel more indebted 
 than to any other in the State, with all my obligations 
 to some others in another section — that pays, with a 
 white population of 3,072, the sum of $4,118 of taxes, 
 to be connected with the county of Middlesex, in order 
 to get a representative in the house of delegates. Why, 
 you might take the taxes of Essex and Middlesex, and 
 pay off the delegate from Carroll, and have sufficient 
 left to pay off a half dozen more delegates from western 
 Virginia. And they will be required to do it, in order 
 to make up the deficiencies in the amount of taxes 
 which are paid by some of those counties, who are in- 
 vested with a full representation on the floor of the 
 house of delegates. There are the counties of Boone 
 and Logan, which also are given a delegate, with a white 
 population double that of Essex, and both of them com- 
 bined, not paying one quarter of the amount of taxes. _ 
 Now, is this so very unequal, is it so very unjust, is 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 331 
 
 it an exercise of tyranny on our part towards them ? I 
 should deprecate any necessity which might cause gen- 
 tlemen to pursue extreme measures. Whatever may 
 be the result of their vote upon the pending question, I 
 should deeply regret, if they obeyed the instructions 
 which have been received from the different meetings 
 which have been held in western Virginia ; but if we 
 must come to that, why, gentlemen, when you return to 
 your people, tell them that we showed you that we had 
 treated you with liberality, and with great generosity ; 
 tell them that we showed you that, for more than sev- 
 enty years we had exercised the political power of this 
 government, and without, in any one instance, oppress- 
 ing you; tell them that, under this administration of the 
 government, by eastern power, your interests have been 
 fostered, and your lives, liberty and property, protected ; 
 and tell them that, from a little colony, west of the 
 Blue Ridge, under our kind guardianship, so to speak, 
 you have grown from infancy to mature age, and are 
 now in all the fullness and the vigor of manhood. Tell 
 them also, that we refuse you the power now, only be- 
 cause your interests are not sufficiently in common with 
 ours ; tell them that we cannot yield this principle which 
 we find sanctioned in the bill of rights and in the prac- 
 tical operation of the constitutions of all the thirteen 
 original States except three, and which we find at the 
 bottom of the organization of all social governments ; 
 and tell them that, we fear that if we yield it now, this 
 proud and magnificent fabric of government of ours, 
 this most glorious of political temples in the world — 
 the temple in which Virginia freemen prostrate them- 
 selves to worship — will be undermined, shaken and de- 
 stroyed, and that we may have to cry out in the lan- 
 guage of the poet — 
 
 " Farewell, a long farewell, to all my greatness." 
 Mr. WILLEY. I feel that some apology is due to 
 this committee for the eagerness with which I have 
 sought the floor. I assure you that it was not with the 
 vain hope of being able to entertain this committee, or to 
 enlighten it, nor indeed to influence the opinion of a soli- 
 tary member of the committee. I entertain no such 
 vain hope as that ; I stand here, coming from the still, 
 small, quiet circle of private life, and find myself, for 
 the first time in my life — not very extended indeed — in 
 the presence of a deliberative assembly, in the attitude 
 of a member of that assembly, without experience, with- 
 out ability, without anything to recommend me to the 
 consideration of the committee. I, therefore, entirely 
 most respectfully cast myself upon the charitable indul- 
 gence of the committee, while 1 attempt to address it for 
 a few moments. I have found since I came here that it 
 has been necessary, at least common, to define one's 
 position, even one's political position. I feel that my 
 position is too humble to need definition. But if it were 
 not, in that respect, I would still decline to do it. I 
 shall address myself to the subject to-day without refer- 
 ence to political questions ; and I hope that while I shall 
 have the honor to be a member of this body, no action 
 of mine will indicate to which of the two great political 
 parties I belong. I shall address myself to the ques- 
 tion to-day without reference to sector section. I shall 
 not address you as an east or west Virginian, but as a 
 Virginian ; and I hope it will not be presumption in me 
 to assume still higher ground . Standing upon the broad 
 platform of American republican equality, I shall ad- 
 dress myself to the question in the light of this great 
 fundamental principle. We are engaged in no new con- 
 troversy. This controversy commenced long prior to 
 the agitation of public sentiment which convened 
 this body. This controversy commenced long prior to 
 the convention of 1829 and 1830. It is as old as the 
 lust of power. It is the old contest between the few 
 and the many. It is the same struggling effort continued 
 through centuries past, to centralize power in the hands 
 of the few against the antagonistic struggle of the many 
 to have it diffused abroad in the community. It is the 
 same old contest that has been convulsing the world ever 
 since the world was populated — the struggle between 
 
 the money power and the many power. For awhile, 
 and indeed most generally, since the history of the world 
 commenced, the contest has been adverse to" liberty, 
 our own birth as a nation is an exception — or an ap- 
 proximation to it — to the general rule. We came into 
 existence as a people upon different principles from the 
 money principle — from the principle that would concen- 
 trate the government in the hards of the few. We 
 came into existence under the auspices of the great 
 dootrine of popular supremacy. Under the operation 
 of that principle we have flourished for three-fourths of 
 a century, in a manner which, it seems to me, ought 
 to have vindicated it ?.nd silenced all opposition to it. 
 But it seems that even here in the good old common- 
 wealth of Virginia, the same battle is to be fought again; 
 at least the proclamation of war has been issued. I invite 
 the attention of the committee to it for a moment. The 
 same old contest between the power of wealth and the 
 power of the people is started here, and it is insisted 
 that we shall establish the legislative power of our go- 
 vernment upon the following principles : 
 
 "Representation in both legislative bodies shall be 
 apportioned among the counties, cities and towns, ac- 
 cording to the number of white inhabitants contained 
 and the amount of all taxes paid in each ; deducting 
 from such taxes all taxes paid on licenses and law pro- 
 cess. " 
 
 This is a part of the proclamation of war against the 
 friends of popular government. This is the proposition 
 now before the committee. It has frequently be%n re- 
 marked during these discussions in this body— it was even 
 remarked by the distinguished gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, (Mr. Scott, )prior to our adjournment — that our 
 forefathers had repudiated the doctrine of democratic 
 government in its purity, and had discovered a new 
 principle of government, which, I believe, was de- 
 nominated the true principle of republican govern- 
 ment, namely: a majority of interests, as the le- 
 gitimate source of the legislative power of government • 
 and the same assertion has been renewed since the re- 
 assembling of the Convention. During the progress of 
 the discussion before this committee on the present 
 amendment of the gentleman from Fauquier, the prin- 
 ciple on which the western portion of the committee on 
 the basis of representation propose to predicate the le- 
 gislative power, has been denounced as an innovation. 
 It has been stigmatized as an innovation upon the true 
 principles of government, as recognized in this country. 
 May I not be allowed to ask the attention of the com- 
 mittee for a very few moments to see whether that is 
 the fact ? What is the predominating principle in re- 
 gard to the basis of government recognized throughout 
 the United States ? The principle of the amendment is 
 just as much of an innovation upon the existing consti- 
 tutional law of Virginia, as the principle of the suf- 
 frage basis can be, for representation in Virginia is now 
 based neither upon the one nor the other, but solely 
 upon an arbitrary arrangement. What, then, is the 
 American doctrine on this subject? I have taken the 
 trouble to examine the seyeral constitutions of the States 
 in this respect, and the result of this examination will 
 show that the suffrage basis is by no means obnoxious 
 to the charge of novelty. I have not had access to the 
 constitution of California. This State is still so far out 
 of the Union that it may be doubted whether it is 
 fairly in it at all. I will not then adduce that as 
 authority, but begin at the last of the other States 
 and travel backwards. 
 
 In Wisconsin the basis of representation is white in- 
 habitants ; in Iowa white inhabitants ; in Texas free 
 population ; in Arkansas free white male inhabitants ; 
 in Michigan white inhabitants ; in Florida federal popu- 
 lation ; in Missouri free white males ; in Alabama 
 white inhabitants ; in Illinois white inhabitants ; in 
 Mississippi free white inhabitants ; in Louisiana quali- 
 fied voters ; in Indiana white male inhabitants ; in Ohio 
 white male inhabitants ; in Tennessee qualified voters ; 
 in Kentucky qualified voters ; in Georgia, senators by 
 
332 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 districts, lower house free white inhabitants ; in North 
 Carolina, senate taxation, house of representatives fed- 
 eral population. We have come now to a sprinkling of 
 the mixed basis principle. In Virginia we have arbi- 
 trary districts, without reference to any principle, based 
 upon the mere caprice of an arbitrary will. Maryland 
 is in a state of abeyance. The basis of representation 
 is indefinite. It is, however, not the mixed basis. 
 Pennsylvania, taxable inhabitants ; New Jersey, senate 
 by counties, and house of representatives upon " inhab- 
 itants ;" New York population ; Connecticut by towns, 
 &c. ; Rhode Island population and towns ; Vermont 
 taxable inhabitants ; New Hampshire, senate on taxes, 
 and house of representatives on ratable polls ; Massa- 
 chusetts the same ; Maine on inhabitants. 
 
 Now, I suppose that all the preceding instances are 
 to have no effect. The principle, it seems, upon which 
 we are to arrive at a conclusion that the suffrage basis 
 is an innovation upon the constitutional policy of the 
 United States, is, because it does not accord with the 
 constitution of South Carolina, for within the broad 
 limits of this confederacy that is the only State that re- 
 cognizes the very identical principle that is set forth in 
 the amendment to this proposition. Well, this would 
 probably be enough for me to say on this subject. I 
 have shown that it is no innovation, and I have shown 
 from fact that the well recognized constitutional prin- 
 ciple — American constitutional principle at least — is 
 that of population in some form or other ; and conse- 
 quent]!? it would throw the burden of proof and argu- 
 ment upon the gentleman from Fauquier and upon 
 those who think with him, to show the propriety of 
 their scheme, which I may more properly call an inno- 
 vation upon the constitutional policy of this country. 
 But the doctrine of the basis of representation on suf- 
 frage has been made obnoxious to another malediction 
 by the gentleman from Buckingham, (Mr. Fuqua,) who 
 pronounces it an " arrant abstraction." Let us look at 
 that " arrant abstraction " for a moment. Suppose it 
 were an abstraction. I will admit that the principle up- 
 on which suffrage is based is an abstract principle. But 
 does it follow that because it is abstract in its character 
 that it is to be totally excluded from all consideration 
 in framing a constitution? Every truth is in some 
 sort an abstract idea. Therefore, to exclude a principle 
 in the establishment of government, because it is abstract 
 in its character, would be to exclude all truth. Nor do 
 I perceive that these principles are so abstract as to be 
 incapable of being reduced to practical application in the 
 structure and administration of government. What are 
 these principles which gentlemen would deny and exclude 
 from all practical effect in the establishment of our 
 constitution ? I remark in regard to them in the first 
 place, that they are not new ; they are indeed no novel- 
 ty ; they are as old as society itself ; they are as old as 
 man, for when God made man he endowed him with 
 these principles and has stamped upon them the seal 
 that they are natural and unalienable and indefeasible. 
 And our forefathers have laid them at the foundation 
 of our government ; they have laid them at its very 
 threshold and we must trample them under our feet 
 and disregard them, before we can found a government 
 upon the principles of the mixed basis. But although 
 they have ever been the natural birth-right of mankind, 
 it was reserved for the earlier history of the country — 
 for those who participated largely in the earlier events 
 of our history — to give them a definition and reduce 
 them to a. practical form. There is still another name 
 that has been given to this principle which more ap- 
 propriately attaches to those who advocate popular 
 sovereignty. We have been called "radicals," and I do 
 not know that this is peculiar to our location at the 
 west ; for I understand that you have some radicalism 
 in the east as well as in the west. I believe my friend 
 from Accomac (Mr. Wise) claims to be an "infinite 
 radical." But let us look at this matter. Gentlemen 
 warn us against the revolutionary tendencies of the 
 times. We are admonished to adhere to the principles 
 
 of our forefathers ; we are warned against destroying 
 the old land-marRS that they laid down. Now, I take 
 upon myself to say, that we are not desiring to depart 
 from those great American doctrines, from the princi- 
 ples of our forefathers ; but we are desiring to build up 
 a government upon those very principles; we are not 
 seeking to cut loose from the shore and drift away up- 
 on the uncertain current of speculative experiment. 
 Fortunately for us, those principles have been recorded 
 in solemn form, and in language so explicit as to admit 
 of neither misconception nor prevarication. One of 
 them is as follows : "All power is vested in and de- 
 rived from the people." If adherence to this, maxim en- 
 titles me to the cognomen of " radical " or "revolution- 
 ist," I cordially accept the name. But, my radicalism 
 — my retrogradation, stop there. I will not go further 
 back. I am no great admirer of speculative theories. 
 I am not particularly given to abstractions. But I am 
 willing to go back to this principle ; but I am determined 
 to stop there. I will not consent to go behind the rev- 
 olution which established this great political truth, and 
 exhume the discarded principles of English aristocracy, 
 and fill our halls of legislation with the representatives 
 ©f wealth. I will never consent to revive odious dis- 
 tinctions and privileged classes, founding claims to 
 superior political power upon the possession of proper- 
 ty; but 1 will stop where I find the principle declared 
 that " all men are by nature equally free and indepen- 
 dent." I will adhere to the rule that "no men, or set 
 of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emolu- 
 ments or privileges from the community, but in consid- 
 eration of public services." And I call upon gentle- 
 men distinctly to say whether they will subscribe to 
 these doctrines of our fathers, whose wisdom and vir- 
 tues we are v so often and so vehemently admonished to 
 revere and to cherish, or whether they will repudiate 
 and reject them. I fear that the admiration of our 
 eastern brethren for the principles and wisdom of our 
 fathers, is rather an "abstraction" — I will not say 
 an "arrant abstraction." I call upon gentlemen to 
 give practical evidence of their own veneration for the 
 wisdom of our ancestors by giving practical existence 
 and effect to the principles that " all power belongs to 
 the people." 
 
 There is another doctrine or maxim of popular gov- 
 ernment to which I wish to advert for a moment. I 
 mean the jus majoris, or right of the majority. This 
 right has been denounced by the gentleman from Hali- 
 fax, (Mr. Purkins,) as an " absurdity." He has argued 
 to show that the idea intended to be" conveyed by the 
 framers of the bill of rights, by the terms "majority of 
 the community," meant a political majority ; and that 
 a political majority is a majority of interests, embracing 
 therein- every imaginable species of interest, both of 
 property and persons. I do not know that I distinctly 
 understood what that gentleman meant by denom- 
 inating the right of the majority, as understood by west- 
 ern gentlemen, as an absurdity. But it seems to me 
 that if his interpretation of the purport of our bill of 
 rights be a correct one, it will involve himself in some- 
 thing of a dilemma, for he distinctly admitted in the 
 course of his remarks, that the maxim was true that 
 the people were the source of all political power. Let 
 us test his position. "All power" — not a part, but "all 
 pow'er is vested in the people" — not in property, but in 
 " people." If, therefore, those interests of property 
 which he declares are constituent elements of the " po- 
 litical community, or majority," have no power in them, 
 and all power resides in, and is in fact inherent in the 
 people, how can it be true that the majority he speaks 
 of is a majority of interests ? I think that the gentle- 
 man's position is an absurdity, that it presents as com- 
 plete a reductio ad absurdum as can be found in Play- 
 fair's Euclid. 
 
 When considered with reference to himself, alone, 
 every man would be entitled to the unrestricted en- 
 joyment of his own opinions, and to conform his 
 conduct to the dictates of hi3 own judgment. But 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 333 
 
 men think differently, act differently, and are influ- 
 enced by different motives. They are not, indeed, al- 
 ways guided by their judgment, fallible and fluctuating 
 as it is, but are too often influenced by corrupt consid- 
 erations. Now, man is a social being ; and in a state of 
 society, differences and difficulties would necessarily 
 ensue. Conflicts and collisions, moral, physical and po- 
 litical, would necessarily result in the community. To 
 preserve society, therefore, and by preserving society 
 preserve mankind, we must look for authority some- 
 where to adjust these difficulties and harmonize these 
 differences. Where shall it be found ? In the unthink- 
 ing horse ? — in the stupid mule ? — in lowing herds ? — 
 in bleating folds ? — in the vaults of the banker ? — or the 
 fields of the farmer ? No, sir, no. Such things would 
 fail you in the hour of need. Like the gods described 
 by the ancient prophet, they have " eyes, but they see 
 not ; ears, but they hear not ; hands, but they handle 
 not ; feet they have, but they walk not." I do not in- 
 tend to continue the reference, and say, that they who 
 put their trust in them, are like unto them ; but I do 
 mean to say, that such things cannot properly be con- 
 sidered the true and legitimate source of true and le- 
 gitimate political power. 
 
 I will repeat the maxim, " all power is vested in 
 the people." Now, what portion of the people, who are 
 by " nature equally free and independent, " shall be 
 clothed' with the proud prerogative ot determining and 
 administering the rights of the community ? Consti- 
 tuted as society is, and must continue to be, differ- 
 ences will arise among the members of the society 
 of varied and vital importance. Who shall settle 
 them ? Where all cannot, or will not, agree, whose 
 opinions ought to prevail ? Common sense answers — 
 the majority. Necessity answers — the majority. The 
 bill of rights declares that this power rightfully 
 belongs to the majority —inalienably and indefeasi- 
 bly belongs to the majority. If not in the majority, 
 in how many less ? I propound that question ; 
 and I respectfully ask the attention of the com- 
 mittee to it. If the majority have not this right, in 
 how many less than a majority does this right exist? 
 And, moreover, of whom shall this favored minority 
 consist? Answer me that question. Who, in the first 
 place, shall have the right to select this minority? I 
 demand to know that. Is it a divine right, a self-ex- 
 isting, self-demonstrating right? Will gentlemen in- 
 form me on this point ? I repeat the question again : 
 In a community of men who, by nature, are equally free 
 and independent, who do constitute the minority who 
 is to govern the majority? 
 
 We have been living under the existing constitution 
 for some twenty years. How was that constitution es- 
 tablished ? What gave it being and authority ? Was 
 it your lands, your slaves, your property ? No. It 
 was the voice and the will of the majority of the com- 
 munity — at least of the qualified voters. Now, I hope 
 we shall succeed in our labors here, and before long pre- 
 pare an amended constitution. What will be done 
 with it ? You will present it to the people, irrespective 
 too, of their property, or the taxes paid by them. What 
 for ? To ascertain whether it is the will of the majori- 
 ty that it should be adopted. If it should, unfortunate- 
 ly, contain the mixed basis of representation, and should 
 therefore, fail to receive a majority of the votes of the 
 qualified electors, it will be rejected ; even though it 
 should receive the votes of persons who paid two-thirds 
 of the taxes of the commonwealth. And yet this jus 
 majoris — this right of the majority, is denounced as a 
 "political absurdity." Why, gentlemen cannot get 
 their mixed basis without it. 
 
 If some process could be adopted by which the intel- 
 ligence and integrity of the community could be cer- 
 tainly ascertained and graduated, so as to bring these 
 qualities and qualifications to bear on political action, 
 there might be some propriety in confining political 
 power to less than a majority of the people, provided 
 
 such minority possessed the greater amount of virtue 
 and capacity. Bub I do not understand eastern gentle- 
 men to predicate their claims for superior legislative 
 power, on any such premises. They do not arrogate to 
 themselves such superiority. They say that they pos- 
 sess more property and pay more taxes, and are, there- 
 fore, entitled to greater political power. 
 
 I propose to consider, briefly, this assumption. I 
 wish to know how it is that wealth confers any such 
 authority. Does it, necessarily, improve the mind or 
 the heart? Does the mere fact that a man possesses 
 a great amount of goods and chattels necessarily quali- 
 fy hinveither mentally or morally, for the faithful and 
 efficient discharge of the duties of a good citizen ? Is 
 property the source of patriotism ? Is love of country 
 no higher principle than love of money ? I understand 
 the characteristics of the good citizen to be of a Very 
 different nature. But, aside from the fact, that the pos- 
 session of property has no inherent efficiency to impart 
 virtue and wisdom to its possessor so as to enhance his 
 qualifications for the discharge of his civil or political 
 duties, it might not be unavailing to inquire what its 
 usual incidental effects are upon the public morals and 
 integrity. And here, I think I may appeal to univer- 
 sal history to attest the truth, that the due administra- 
 tion of justice, and the civil liberties of mankind, have 
 suffered less from the rapacity of the poor than from the 
 encroachments and corrupting tendencies of wealth. 
 Wealth itself is power, and its possession by masses, 
 like its possession by individuals, has been often made 
 the instrumentality of oppression. Whether we may not 
 find an apt illustration of the verity of thi$ assertion in 
 the history of our own commonwealth, I shall not now 
 stop to inquire. It is said that " power is always steal- 
 ing from the many to the few," and I feel assured 
 that the reason of this, to a great extent, has been, that 
 this favored few were the proprietaries of wealth. A 
 reference to the oligarchies and aristocracies of all time 
 will confirm this position. Wheresoever there have ex- 
 isted privileged orders or classes, from' the patrician, at 
 Rome, down to the nobleman in England, there it will 
 be found that they have controlled the wealth of the 
 country to a predominating extent. Now, of all kinds 
 of aristocracy, that is the meanest, and, usually, the 
 most despotic, which derives its authority from proper- 
 ty. Birth and lineage, rendered illustrious by a long 
 succession < 'of honorable ancestors and noble deeds, 
 challenge our homage with some color of apology ; but 
 that upstart pretension to superior political authority, 
 founded upon the simple possession of lands and tene- 
 ments, goods and chatties, is abhorent, not only to the 
 spirit of liberty, but also to the spirit of a man. It is 
 downright presumption, wrong in principle, disastrous 
 in its practical effects, and anti-republican in its nature. 
 
 And thus an examination of the actual consequences 
 of a departure from the true theory of a free govern- 
 ment admonishes us of the impropriety of discarding all 
 abstract principles as "arrant abstractions;" and justi- 
 fies us, I think, in regulating the important matter 
 occupying the attention of this committee, in insisting 
 upon giving practical effect, in our organic law, to the 
 great political maxim, that the majority of the people 
 is the only fountain of political power. 
 
 But it may be alleged, perhaps, that although in or- 
 ganizing the government in the first place the will of a 
 majority may be necessary and proper, yet the majority 
 may will, in order to protect the rights of the mi- 
 nority, to place the legislative power of the government 
 in the hands of the minority. I shall not stop to dis- 
 cuss this proposition. Gratia argumenti — suppose it 
 were so ? I ask what is the will of the majority rep- 
 resenting the present question ? Is the majority of the 
 community in favor of the mixed basis, or of the suf- 
 frage basis ? I propound that question to gentlemen. 
 You know — this committee knows — there is a ma- 
 jority of at least one hundred and fifty thousand of the 
 people of Virginia — a majority of at least fifteen thou- 
 
334 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 sand of the qualified electors of Virginia in favor of dis- 
 tributing the legislative power according to suffrage. 
 I will repeat the fact. I wish it to be thought of by 
 the people. I want the world to understand it. More 
 than one-half of the people of Virginia, by at least one 
 hundred and fifty thousand — more than one-half of the 
 Toters of Virginia, by at least fifteen thousand — are 
 standing this day knocking at the doors of this hall, 
 after long years of delay, after mature deliberation and 
 a quarter of a century's discussion, and patient endur- 
 ance of their grievances, they are now, to-day, at this 
 moment, knocking at the doors of this hall, demanding 
 their proper political power, and an apportionment of 
 representation upon the principles of the declaration 
 of rights. Shall we resist their suit ? You know that 
 such is the fact. We all know it. And yet the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) in the presence of this 
 popular array, and in answer to this solemn appeal, ex- 
 claims : " How long shall our patience be abused by the 
 eternal clamoring of the west to get its hands upon 
 eastern purse strings 1 " I have long admired that dis- 
 tinguished gentleman. I heard that expression with 
 profound regret. Does the gentleman from Fauquier 
 mean to say that the western people are corruptly 
 influenced by the spirit of plunder ? Does he mean 
 to say that their delegates on this floor are actuated — 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. I expressed no such senti- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I understood the gentleman from 
 Fauquier to say distinctly, the other day, in response 
 to some remarks of the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. 
 Summers,) and in a manner most emphatic, " how long 
 shall our patience be abused by the eternal clamor- 
 ing of the west to get its hands on the eastern purse- 
 strings ? " 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. Yes sir. 
 
 Mr. WILLEY. I am glad, however, to understand 
 that the gentleman did not mean any impeachment of 
 Our motives ; and glad that I have afforded him an op- 
 portunity of making the disavowal. 
 
 In regard to this question of western majority, allow 
 me to submit a few statistics. In 1 790 the eastern ma- 
 jority of white population, was 185,932. In 1800, it 
 was 159,903. In 1810, it was 126,114. In 1820. it was 
 94,964. In 1830, it was 57,012. In 1840, the scale was 
 turned, and there was a western majority of 2,172. In 
 1850 the western majority was _ 90,392. At the 
 same rate of progression what will it be in 1860 ? 
 in 1870, it will no doubt be 300,000. Our taxation 
 will increase in equal ratio ; so that it will be but a few 
 years, until we will be entitled to a majority of repre- 
 sentation even upon the mixed basis. And yet the gen- 
 tleman froja Halifax (Mr. Purkins) speaks of the 
 mighty voice of 100,000, which is to begin to swell on 
 the ocean shore and roll up to the Piedmont country, 
 and there be increased in its volume by the voice of an- 
 other 100,000 ; and then this voice is to rush over the 
 Blue Ridge, sweep across the Valley, and over the Al- 
 leghanie3, and then it is to begin to thunder and lighten, 
 and shake the earth unless the mixed basis prevail. 
 Let me tell that gentleman that he will find a spirit 
 there which will set our hills and mountains on fire ; 
 and we will meet his voice with earthquakes and volca- 
 noes. He had better look out. [Laughter.] 
 
 One of the principal objections relied on by eastern 
 gentlemen, against trusting the west with the political 
 power which we claim, is the selfishness of human na- 
 ture. But I would inquire whether the minority are 
 not just as selfish as the majority ? — whether power in 
 the hands of the many is not as safe as power in the 
 hands of the few ? It must be lodged somewhere, and 
 expediency, as well as principle, requires that it should 
 be vested where it rightfully belongs — in the majority 
 of the community. The best exponent of expediency is 
 truth. Whatsoever is abstractly right, is usually prac- 
 tically expedient. 
 
 I have listened with no small degree of amazement to 
 the utterance of certain opinions on this floor. It may 
 
 be owing to my _ inexperience. Having mingled little 
 with the world, it may be worse than I suppose. But 
 I think I know something of the people of west Vir- 
 ginia. They are not cut-throats — they are not robbers.. 
 They are not actuated by a " spirit of plunder, " as the 
 gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) seems to sup- 
 pose. They are not corruptly " clamoring to get their 
 hands on eastern purse-strings." I cast back the impu- 
 tation. The western people are at least as virtuous 
 and patriotic, and trust-worthy, as the people of east 
 Virginia. 
 
 I entertain no Utopian ideas of human perfectibility. 
 But I had supposed that the anglo-American race was 
 capable of self government. I had supposed that this 
 fact was here admitted. If so, men must be trusted 
 with the administration of the powers of government. 
 If political power is only vested in, and only derivable 
 from the people, it is equally vested there, and equally 
 derivable therefrom. Men must be trusted, and they 
 must be trusted alike, or there is an end to republican 
 equality. 
 
 Our own glorious history triumphantly confutes this 
 plea of distrust against the popular integrity. It am- 
 ply vindicates the patriotism of the masses. It shows 
 that reliance may be placed upon the non-property hold- 
 er, as well as upon the wealthy. Without any foolish 
 desire to embellish a period, or to appeal to the pas- 
 sions, I may yet be allowed to refer to the proud annals 
 of our past history — prouder and brighter and more il- 
 lustrious on account of the practical agency which they 1 
 exhibit of the popular fidelity. I ask gentlemen who it 
 was who shed their blood most freely in our revolution- 
 ary struggle for independence ? Whom did the " fath- 
 er of his country " lead to victory ? Upon whom did he 
 rely in the dark " days which tried the souls of men ? " 
 Was it upon the slave owner, the land owner, the man 
 of merchandize, the wealthy ? I will venture the as- 
 sertion that seven-tenths of those noble men had no ti- 
 tle to a foot of the soil -which they enriched by their 
 blood, shed in defence of it. And when they shoulder- 
 ed their knap-sacks they carried on their backs their en- 
 tire stock of goods and chattels. Yet we confided in 
 them. We placed in their keeping " our lives, our for- 
 tunes, and our sacred honor ; " and we were not betray- 
 ed. And this day, the star-spangled banner floating 
 yonder from the flag-staff on the capitol, is the immor- 
 tal memorial of their integrity. Why, the shouts of 
 the victories of Chapultepec and Buena Vista, are still 
 echoing in our mountains, and floating across your low 
 lands. Who fought those brilliant ^achievements ? Who 
 successfully carried our arms through the Mexican war 
 and planted the standard of our country upon the pal- 
 aces of the Montezumas ? Was it our landlords, our 
 slave owners, or the wealthy proprietaries of the country ? 
 No, sir, no. I hazard nothing in saying that few, very 
 few, of the common soldiers were property holders of 
 any kind to any considerable extent. And yet they 
 were true to the death. 
 
 Now, I demand to know, why men, similarly situated, 
 and similarly interested in the welfare of the commu- 
 nity, may not securely be entrusted with an equal par- 
 ticipation with the whole community, in the adminis- 
 tration and exercise of the ordinary powers and du- 
 ties of government. We have more to fear from with- 
 holding from the people their just and equal privi- 
 leges and political authority, than from granting to 
 them the full enjoyment of all their natural rights. 
 
 But I am given to understand that gentlemen predi- 
 cate their claim to representation upon the basis of pro- 
 perty and taxation not merely upon the ground of expe- 
 diency, but as a matter of political right. It is alleged 
 that he who contributes most to the support of the gov- 
 ernment, should enjoy mostauthority in the government 
 — that taxation and representation, are correlative terms 
 and should exist in equal ratio. I will avail myself of 
 the present occasion to declare that I understand, and 
 unequivocally admit, that one of the first and great duties 
 of government is to secure the citizen in the perfect en- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 335 
 
 joyment of his property. I wish this to be explicitly 
 understood. But I cannot conceive how it is necessa- 
 ry, or proper that in order to secure the rights of pro- 
 perty in one portion of the community, it is also neces- 
 sary and proper to invade the personal rights of the other 
 portion of the community. In other words, I deny that 
 property can be the proper and legitimate source of le- 
 gislative power, or that taxation can be the legitimate 
 rule by which to apportion the legislative power ; be- 
 cause, to grant this, would in the matter now the subject 
 of discussion necessarily infringe the indefeasible, un- 
 alienable rights of a majority of the community. 
 
 1 repeat that the west does not oppose just and equal 
 protection to property. I repel the insinuation that the 
 western people are actuated by any sinister purposes. 
 It is true we are seeking for power, but it is because it 
 belongs to us; it is because it is right that we 
 should have it. Let me tell eastern gentlemen that such 
 inuendoes come from them with a bad grace, whilst 
 they claim for themselves, in open violation of the 
 principles of popular sovereignty, the very same power 
 which they are unwilling to entrust to us. Do not gen- 
 tlemen perceive, that they, a mere, a decided minority 
 of the people, are assuming to themselves the right to 
 control, as far as legislation can, the property of the 
 majority of the people? You say the case is different. 
 You say that the minority possesses the most property, 
 pays the greater amount of taxes, and, therefore, an ar- 
 bitrary exercise of power by the majority would affect 
 you more than an arbitrary exercise of power by the 
 minority could affect us. Allow such to be the fact. 
 The effect is the same in principle and character, differ- 
 ing only in extent. So that you are denouncing as 
 wrong, the exercise of a power by us, whilst you are 
 claiming the right, even though in the minority, to exer- 
 cise the very same power yourselves. I would be au- 
 thorized to refer here, I think, to the farmer and the 
 judge, and the ox that was gored. 
 
 The protection afforded to property by means of al- 
 lowing it representation in the legislative department 
 of government is wrong, because the principles by which 
 it is regulated must necessarily operate unequally and 
 partially. The mixed basis does not and cannot operate 
 alike on all sections, and more especially it cannot ope- 
 rate with equality on individuals. The principle is, there- 
 fore, radically wrong, and practically anti-republican; 
 because it inevitably produces inequality. I think I can 
 demonstrate such to be the fact. 
 
 What is the object of constitutional law ? I acknowl- 
 edge that it is, in part, to protect the minority. Its 
 great object, however, is to protect individual rights. 
 How shall this protection be secured? Hot by giving 
 each individual the control of legislation. That would 
 be an absurdity. But is it almost as absurd to give any 
 number of individuals less than the majority such con- 
 trol ? If in any number less than a majority, why not 
 ten, five or one? But individual rights cannot be se- 
 cured by any legislative majority whose will is unre- 
 strained by positive law and fixed limitations of power. 
 The will of legislative bodies like the will of individu- 
 als is changeful, variable and fluctuating. Hence the 
 propriety of written constitutional law, by whiGh the 
 people in their original sovereign capacity, restrict and 
 regulate the action of their legislative agents and all 
 others, by definite principles and rules which cannot be 
 transgressed without their consent. This is the reason 
 of written constitutions, and when these organic rules 
 are well defined, the interest of individuals as well as 
 of sections must be secure. If gentlemen fear to entrust 
 the taxing power in the hands of a western majority, 
 let them provide a constitutional limitation. Will it be 
 said that having the power, we will disregard any such 
 limitation ? Let me ask what becomes of western in- 
 terests in the hands of an eastern majority ? You will 
 say that the undue exercise of arbitrary power over our 
 property, lives and liberties, will be prevented by the 
 unchanging and unchangeable rules of constitutional 
 law. I hope so. But if constitutional limitations are po- 
 
 tent enough to protect the west from the east, why 
 should they not be strong enough to protect the east 
 from the west ? It is said that it is a "bad rule which 
 don't work both ways. " Do gentlemen seek to estab- 
 lish the principle that the irresponsible, fluctuating will 
 of a legislative majority, representing a minority of the 
 people, will secure either the east or the west, either the 
 welfare of the majority or the minority ? Surely not. 
 Therefore, if constitutional limitations of power are 
 necessary and adequate to the protection of western 
 rights, so I think they will be adequate to protect east- 
 ern rights. And hence, a legislative majority is not only 
 unjust but unnecessary. 
 
 Before I proceed to show more minutely the partial 
 and unequal operation of the mixed basis of represen- 
 tation, allow me to refer to the principle of taxation 
 discussed the other day by the gentleman from Augusta, 
 (Mr. Sheffey,) and to express to him my obligations for 
 the able, elegant and eloquent argument with which he 
 entertained the committee. I allude to ad valorem tax- 
 ation. Now, I do not now mean to commit myself ir- 
 revocably to that principle. I will wait for further 
 discussion. At present I can see nothing objectionable 
 in it. What better security against discriminating and 
 oppressive taxation could gentlemen desire ? Let every 
 species of property be taxed according to its value — let 
 no one species of property be taxed higher than any 
 other species of equal value — and what ground can there 
 be for complaint or alarm ? And what pretext can gen- 
 tlemen urge for property represeEd e ,tion, in order to 
 protect it from undue taxation ? 'v^ad valorem prin- 
 ciple now seems to me to be just, ay- a ^ t t easy and equal 
 application. With such a just and p&jfy limitation of 
 the taxing power, why, how is the ^ich man entitled to 
 more legislative power than his neighbor, who, though 
 less wealthy, is entirely equal in virtue and intelligence, 
 and every other characteristic of a good citizen. It is 
 true, he pays more taxes. He contributes more to the 
 support of the government. But ought he not to do so ? 
 One of the great objects of the government, is the protec- 
 tion of property. Well, the citizen's property is pro- 
 tected, and he is, secured in the enjoyment of it. What 
 more is he entitled to? Being more wealthy than his 
 neighbor, he derives more advantage from the govern- 
 ment, and ought in justice to contribute more to its sup- 
 port. 
 
 Allow me to illustrate the equal operation of equal 
 or ad valorem taxation. A citizen east of the Blue Kidge 
 is worth ten thousand dollars. A citizen west of the 
 Blue Ridge is worth one thousand dollars. According to 
 existing rates of taxation, which are ten cents on every 
 hundred dollars, the eastern man would pay ten dollars, 
 and the western man would pay one dollar. The former 
 would, therefore, pay ten times the amount of the lat- 
 ter. But he is ten times as able to pay, and is ten 
 times as much interested in paying it, for he derives 
 ten times as much advantage from paying it. There^B 
 therefore, no injustice or hardship in the operai^B 
 the principle. Thus, citizens are equally burdflH 
 equally benefitted. 
 
 How, contrast this mode of taxation, with t9^H 
 cal effects of the mixed basis plan of distributing tflRB 
 gislative power of the government according ^|^^^H 
 tion, by which it is proposed to secure the proj^H 
 the minority, by conferring the legislative powe^^B 
 minority. Do this fairly, and it will be seen that tbis^JM 
 edbasis'system is partial and unequal in its operation^] 
 effects, both sectionallv and personally. Why there^H 
 thousands of the citizens living in the trans-Allegban^jl 
 district, who possess more property and ^iy more taxes 
 than thousands of the citizens living in the cis-montane 
 districts ; and yet because your aggregate wealth is 
 greater than ours, these same eastern citizens are to be 
 "vested with more political power, than western citizens 
 who pay twice the amount of taxes. I will venture to 
 say that there may be found west of the Blue Ridge at 
 least twenty-five thousand tax payers, who pay a great- 
 er amount of taxes than twenty-five thousand eastern 
 
336 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 tax payers, who might be selected, and yet these latter 
 have more weight and are to be clothed with more power 
 than the former. Is this justice ? Js this consonant 
 with the spirit and requirements of republican equality? 
 How does it happen that a man paying one dollar of 
 public revenue, by living in the vicinity of wealthy 
 neighbors, is entitled to more weight in the government 
 than the man paying twenty dollars, who resides in 
 the midst of a community that is not wealthy? If pro- 
 perty be really and rightfully the source of representa- 
 tion, should it not be everywhere equally represented ? 
 Should not those who actually possess the property and 
 pay the taxes, enjoy the benefit of the political authority 
 connected therewith ? Gertaiuly no principle can be 
 sound which operates so partially. I will further illus- 
 trate this idea. Monongalia county has a population of 
 something above twelve thousand ; and at the late elec- 
 tion for delegates to this body, cast above twelve hun- 
 dred votes. That county, under the present distribution 
 of the legislative power sends one member to the house 
 delegates — under the proposed apportionment it would 
 send two members. Now, John Jacob Astor when liv- 
 ing was worth thrice the assessed value of all the taxa- 
 ble property of Monongalia county. Apply the mixed 
 basis impartiality, and Mr. Astor, if he were living and 
 a citizen of this commonwealth, would be entitled to one 
 or two representatives in the general assembly. But 
 apply the principle as it is proposed in the report of 
 the committee on the basis to apply it, and if John 
 Jacob Astor we^ej ow living in Monongalia county, 
 he would be enti,. d to no more political power than 
 the poorest qua] 1 ! 8 -J voter in it, and not so much 
 as any head of a^nily in Richmond or Norfolk, who 
 had paid twelve anc^ahalf cents tax on a Yankee clock ! 
 How can such inconsistency be defended? And if the 
 principle be wrong when applied to individuals, how can 
 it be right when applied to communities of individuals ? 
 
 With the leave of the committee I will briefly advert 
 to one or two other considerations in this connection. It 
 is urged, that if the legislative power be transferred to 
 the west, the revenue of the east would be liable to 
 be absorbed in western improvements. Do gentlemen 
 forget, that whilst^ the same power remains on this side 
 of the mountains, the revenue of the west are liable to 
 be absorbed in eastern improvements ? May I not ask, 
 has not sueh been the case ? It may be answered, that 
 the burden of taxation falling more heavily upon the 
 eastern tax payer, because he has more taxable proper- 
 ty, there is, on that account, no danger of such an abuse 
 of power. Let us see. If I wish to improve my es- 
 tate, there is no hardship in levying a contribution on 
 that estate, which I am to receive back again in the form 
 of improvements on that estate. So that if I am taxed 
 two dollars and my neighbor only one dollar, I am at 
 last a gainer, if the whole three dollars be expended for 
 my benefit. The fallacy, therefore, of such an argument 
 is obvious, since an eastern majority can control the ap- 
 plication of the entire revenues. But we are told that 
 the legislative power has been in eastern hands ever 
 since the organization of the commonwealth, and has 
 never been abused. When gentlemen are driven to such 
 a dilemma, they seem to forget another proposition or 
 principle much insisted on by some of them — I mean 
 th^ selfishness of mankind justifying constant guaranties 
 and distrust. But I would simply inquire are not the 
 western people as virtuous and patriotic as the eastern 
 people? Do gentlemen pretend to say they are not? 
 Then why not give us the power ? You have enjoyed 
 it a reasonable length of time. You ought to be 
 satisfied, and not complain, if we are willing to re- 
 lieve you of its responsibilities and its burdens. 
 
 Still referring to the lust of power and the plea of 
 selfishness, allow me to suppose a case. Suppose the 
 east retain the legislative power in the hands of the mi- 
 nority; and suppose that in the course of time, western 
 population and wealth should so increase, as by the 
 principles of apportionment on the mixed basis, the west 
 should be entitled to a majority of representation, might 
 
 not a selfish minority, prompted by the love of power, 
 refuse to make that apportionment ? Would it exceed 
 the eastern idea of the selfishness of mankind to imagine 
 it possible that this minority, under such circumstances, 
 might be induced so to modify and multiply taxation on 
 eastern property, as to keep the mixed basis always 
 above the popular standard, so as to retain the power, 
 especially since this minority would always have it in 
 its power to appropriate this increased revenue to its 
 own benefit ? But the great source of apprehension is 
 your slave property. 
 
 I take it upon myself to say that there is no ground 
 for any alarm, that any western majority would or could 
 oppress the eastern slaveholder by exhorbitant taxa- 
 tion, or by any enactment affecting slave property. 
 Look at the condition of the valley. To say nothing of 
 the counties of Wythe and Kanawha in the trans-alle- 
 ghany district, let me invite the attention of the com- 
 mittee to the following facts : The county of Augusta 
 pays tax on 2,801 slaves ; the county of Berkeley on 1,099 ; 
 the county of Botetourt on 2,019 ; the county of Clarke 
 on 1,034 ; the county of Frederick on 1,401 ; Jefferson on 
 2,419; Roanoke on 1,346; Rockbridge on 2,428 ; Rock- 
 ingham on 1,288. These nine counties would be entitled 
 to eighteen delegates, on the basis of suffrage in a house 
 of one hundred and fifty-six members. Cannot any body 
 see that in all questions affecting slavery or slave pro- 
 perty, all these counties would unite with the east ? In 
 such a case the whole valley would unite with the east. 
 
 Let me ask, where all this time are the lives and the 
 liberties, the souls and the bodies of the western peo- 
 ple ? I desire to repeat this interrogation. Where all 
 this time are western life and personal rights ? Are 
 they not to be considered in organizing the government ? 
 How is it ? Constituting as we do a majority of near 
 one hundred thousand souls, we are asked, modestly 
 asked, to surrender our lives, liberties and persons, so 
 far as they can be affected by the legislative power of 
 the government, to a minority. Disguise it as you may, 
 you are regarding your goods and chattels with higher 
 distinction, than you are the life and liberty of the west- 
 ern citizen. Are you not? Are you not demanding 
 that your property shall, virtually, have place and pow- 
 er in the legislative department of the government to 
 the exclusion of the freemen of the west? Is this right ? 
 Is it tolerable? Is there a man below the Blue Ridge, 
 who, if transferred beyond the Alleghanies, would sub- 
 mit to it ? Not one ! Not one ! 
 
 I beg leave to say that a considerable portion of the 
 little personal estate which I possess, consists of a fam- 
 ily of slaves. I am a slave holder, and I regard the ti- 
 tle to this property, as to all other property, as sacred, 
 equally sacred. But, I cannot allow my interest, in 
 this respect, to override the natural rights and liberties 
 of one hundred thousand of my fellow-citizens. No I 
 You, a mere minority of the people, claim authority to 
 legislate for the majority — to control their interests, civil, 
 religious, political, even life itself. You have no right 
 to such control. I speak with all due deference to the 
 opinions of others, and with the diffidence which my 
 humble position on this floor ought to inspire me. I im- 
 pute none but the purest motives to any gentleman, but 
 I speak the sentiments of my heart, and when I remem- 
 ber that 1 speak the sentiments of my constituency too, 
 I am emboldened to declare, here in my place, that such 
 assumptions, if carried into effect and made a part of 
 the organic law, would be monstrous oppression, utterly 
 subversive of the dearest principles of political liberty 
 and republican equality. 
 
 I am weary of this cry of selfishness — this inferential 
 impeachment of western integrity. It has been ringing 
 in our ears for the last quarter of a century — the stereo- 
 typed decree against every petition we have preferred 
 for political equality. When we ask for our natural 
 liberties, we are told that we are clamoring for abstrac- 
 tions — arrant abstractions. When we sue for an equal 
 and just participation in the administration of the gov- 
 ernment, we are answered that men are selfish. The 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 337 
 
 distinguished gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) cries 
 out — " How long- shall our patience be abused by this 
 eternal clamoring of the west to get their hands on our 
 purse-strings ?" The fears of eastern gentlemen are 
 idle. What is there to justify them in the history of 
 the past ? Upon what facts do gentlemen predicate 
 their apprehensions of our integrity? There are no 
 facts to justify them. These apprehensions are the 
 mere bug-bears of an excited imagination — mere specu- 
 lative assumptions, having their origin in their theories 
 of human selfishness. 
 
 I appeal to the record. The gentleman from Halifax 
 (Mr. Purkixs) has made it necessary. I do so with re- 
 luctance. Self-commendation is hardly ever in good 
 taste, but the gentleman's remarks in reply to the re- 
 marks of the venerable gentleman from Greenbrier, (Mr. 
 Smith,) require some notice. Besides, I feel myself in 
 some sense compelled to refer to those events of which 
 gentlemen have spoken, to offset the constant reference 
 of eastern members, to the moderation and justice with 
 which they have exercised the power in their hands, and 
 to repel the imputations against western fidelity and pa- 
 triotism. I confess I feel some pride withal, in making 
 this reference. I appeal then to the record. How was 
 it some forty years ago when the invader was enticing 
 away your negroes, burning your villages, pillaging 
 your property, and driving your families into the inte- 
 rior ? How was it then, with an enemy in your midst, 
 who, when you sought to repel the invader from before 
 you, might recall you by the midnight glare of your 
 own dwellings in flames ? You called for help. And 
 the echo of your call had hardly returned from our 
 mountains till the roll of the western drum was heard 
 on your capitol square. Where were your ideas of self- 
 ishness then ? Where was your distrust, when you 
 were arming us for your defence ? We came at your 
 call. The district which I, in part, have the honor to 
 represent, sent down her men, her Haymonds, her Mor- 
 gans, her Tennants, her Hurrys, her Staffords, and oth- 
 ers equally worthy. But they did not all come back. 
 "No. Many a desolated western fireside — many a be- 
 reaved family attested the fidelity of the western heart 
 that day. And now the gentleman from Halifax (Mr. 
 PuitKixs) tells us that we received our wages — we were 
 duly paid off—" we had our reward, and ought to be 
 content." Yes, the bones of some of these brave men 
 now lie bleaching on your pine hills and pine barrens 
 along your sea coast, to reproach you for your ungener- 
 ous distrust ; and the gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Pur- 
 kins) cries out from the midst of these affecting memen- 
 toes of western fidelity — " I am tired of hearing of these 
 things — you have had your reward — be content." 
 
 I must pause here to pay a tribute to the memory of 
 a great, good man. Under whose banner did those true 
 hearted western soldiers rally ? It was that of a man 
 as true hearted as they, or any man that ever lived — the 
 noble General Robert B. Taylor. There and then it 
 was he learned our character, our fidelity, our devotion 
 to the State, without regard to section or locality. It 
 was fitting, that afterwards, in the hour of our extremi- 
 ty, he should be the first to unfurl the flag of the suf- 
 frage basis in the convention of 1829-30. But the same 
 unmitigated, unrelaxing spirit of the money power which 
 is here now, was here then, and drove him from the 
 councils of the convention. His voice ceased to be 
 heard in our defence. His name ceased to be recorded 
 with the Mends of republican liberty. But his name 
 lives for all that. It has found a more enduring record 
 in the hearts of western freemen ; and it shall continue 
 to live, and to be cherished whilst a freeman remains on 
 our mountains. I acknowledge the weakness of the mo- 
 ment. The unbidden tear has revealed (wiping one from 
 his cheek,) the homage of a grateful heart, and in that 
 tear, here in the presence of the Convention, I baptize 
 the memory of that great man. 
 
 But I am not done with the record. I claim to say a 
 word respecting your " peculiar rights," in connection 
 
 with the question now under consideration. I have ever 
 regarded the present as a most unpropitious time for a 
 calm and judicious adjustment of the Constitution. As 
 in time of an epidemic, so now, all questions, of what- 
 soever character, become involved in the prevalent ex- 
 citement on the subject of slavery. Alarmed, and, I 
 may say, justly alarmed, at the encroachments and me- 
 naces of northern fanaticism, the slaveholder of the 
 east seems to suspect all whose, circumstances and 
 interests are not identical with his own ; and hence, 
 however faithful the west has been, and is, in its princi- 
 ples and in its conduct, respecting the rights to proper- 
 ty, it is looked on with distrust, simply because it not 
 so extensively interested in slave property. I will not 
 say that such apprehensions are entirely unnatural; but 
 I do say, that they are not justifiable in fact. Look to 
 the record. Look to the journals of the legislature. 
 There are some "abstractions" besides those in the bill 
 of rights. I think you may find a few on the journals 
 of our assembly. And if the distinguished gentleman 
 from Accomac (Mr. Wise) will allow me, I would sug- 
 gest that it is here, where that grand " roost " of abstrac- 
 tions of which he spake some time since, may be found. 
 Every year is our political horizon darkened with chat- 
 tering broods from this prolific rookery. [Laughter.] 
 
 It has been deemed necessary to forewarn fanatics of 
 the determination of Virginia to defend her " peculiar 
 institutions." We have defined, and re-defined our po- 
 sition. We have declared and re-declared our rights in 
 this behalf, — published and re-published them, session 
 after session, till the archives of state are groaning be- 
 neath the accumulating mass of preambles, resolutions 
 and laws on the subject of slavery. How are western 
 votes recorded here ? We have sometimes thought there 
 was no necessity for so much ado. We have doubted 
 the expediency of such legislation. We have sometimes 
 thought these proceedings were better calculated to ex- 
 cite and feed the flames of fanaticism, than to allay and 
 quench them. I believe the gentleman from Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott) has some reason to remember that he thought 
 so too, on one occasion. [Laughter.] But we were will- 
 ing that the east should direct in a matter so interesting 
 and peculiar to that section of the State. Our votes 
 are generally found recorded with eastern votes on such 
 occasions. If there be exceptions, it was not because 
 we were not with you in sentiment, and principle. The 
 legislative proceedings growing out of the Southampton 
 insurrection, forms no just exception to this assertion : 
 for, although western members of the legislature favored 
 emancipation measures, so, likewise, did the two leading 
 public journals in the city of Richmond, and so did 
 eastern gentlemen. Indeed, those measures themselves, 
 were* I believe, principally introduced into the legisla- 
 ture by eastern members. It was not a strictly section- 
 al question. 
 
 Time after time, have we united with you in your 
 pledges and declarations. We have tendered you our 
 hands. You have always had^ our hearts — you have 
 them still. You know this. You cannot contradict 
 the record. But now — now when we only ask to be ele- 
 vated from our political degradation, and placed by your 
 side, on the great platform of republican equality, we 
 are met with the miserable repulse that mankind is sel- 
 fish, and bidden to cease our " eternal clamoring to get 
 our hands on your purse-strings." 
 
 I will not say that anything can destroy western fidel- 
 ity and allegiance. But referring to those principles of 
 selfishness, on which gentlemen base their resistance to 
 our claim for popular power, how can it be reasonably 
 expected that western fealty should, not be diminished, 
 while that very slave property which we have hereto- 
 fore done all that was ever required at our hands, to pro- 
 tect, is made, in the shape of taxation, the instrumen- 
 tality of our political degradation, virtually giving 
 goods and chattels power in the government, whence we 
 are excluded ? 
 
 Do gentlemen suppose that the west is so craven, 
 
338 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 that it will always, like the dog, lick the lash with which 
 it is beaten ? 
 
 But I will not allow myself to speculate upon a con- 
 tingency so seriously impugning the moral sense of my 
 eastern brethren. Standing in the midst of scenes, hal- 
 lowed by the lives and labors of the mighty men who 
 first defined, and afterwards achieved, our American in- 
 dependence, many of whom consecrated with their blood 
 the glorious principles of man's political equality, I 
 will not anticipate here, in "Old Virginia," that 
 those great principles can be sacrificed on the altar 
 of a miserable sectional jealousy. Surely, the descend- 
 ants of sires who pledged their "lives, their for- 
 tunes and their sacred honor," in resisting foreign ty- 
 ranny, will not persist in fastening the fetters of a 
 galling and degrading bondage on their own brethren at 
 home. 
 
 The west desires no advantage — she asks only to be 
 recognized as entitled to political equality. Can there 
 be any danger in granting this ? No ! we may well 
 'dread to do wrong, but never to do right. Give us 
 this. Give us our natural rights — ours by the laws of 
 nature and of nature's God. Do this, and you secure our 
 fidelity forever. You will bind us to your interests 
 and your fortunes, by ties temfold stronger than any 
 which a legislative majority can devise. Do this — and 
 then should ever the dark demon of insurrection show 
 it3 hideous head in your midst — should ever the fie- 
 ry fiend of northern fanaticism plant its robber feet 
 on southern soil, or lay its leprous hand on a single 
 slave within your borders, I feel in my heart authorized 
 to pledge you, that the hardy sons of our western 
 mountains will come to your rescue, — they will come 
 not by units, but by thousands. They will all come, 
 not by constraint, reluctantly, but promptly and cor- 
 dially, with hands as strong and hearts as true, as ever 
 defied the tyrant, and died in defence of liberty and 
 honor. 
 
 Before I resume my seat, I would make a further re- 
 mark. I do so with some hesitation, for I have observ- 
 ed a sensitiveness on the part of gentlemen, to construe 
 mere expressions of opinion, respecting the probable re- 
 sults of our actions here, into threats or menaces. I 
 trust I have too much self-respect — too much respect for 
 this body — and too high a regard for the Virginia char- 
 acter, to be guilty of such an indignity or of such an in- 
 discretion. Nevertheless, I believe it to be within the 
 scope of legitimate debate, and quite within the de- 
 mands of wisdom and prudence, to consider the results 
 of any measure in contemplation. Nay, the propriety 
 of a principle is best tested by observing its practical 
 results. And now. should we present an amended con- 
 stitution to the people, containing the mixed basis, 
 would it be adopted? This is at the least very ques- 
 tionable. But if adopted, what follows ? Agitation ! 
 agitation ! Still further tumult and alienation of fraternal 
 feelings. That peace and concord so essential to the 
 prosperity c f the commonwealth would be destroyed, by 
 constant criminations and recriminations. Can a prin- 
 ciple be correct which would produce so great popular 
 dissatisfaction? 
 
 Heretofore the agitation of this subject has principally 
 been political in its aspects and relations. Hereafter, if 
 the mixed basis be thrust upon us, it will assume a mere 
 personal character. For the operation of that basis will 
 be personal degradation as well as political. The weal- 
 thy will have privileges and power that poor men can- 
 not possess, simply because they are poor. Western 
 men will be over-ridden by eastern goods and chatties. 
 The odium of the principle will naturally transfer itself 
 to the person of him who vindicates and applies it. 
 I should regret such a state of affairs exceedingly. No 
 man deprecates these evils more than I. I dislike even 
 now to allude to them. But we ought not to shut our 
 eyes upon the consequences of our action here. But the 
 question will arise, when you make your slaves, as the 
 subjects of taxation, the instrumentality of political and 
 personal inequality in the government, can it be expected 
 
 that men will ardently and cordially support negro slave- 
 ry, when by so doing they are virtually cherishing the 
 property which is making slaves of themselves ? What 
 will be the result ? It is impossible that the morbid, pseu- 
 do-philanthropic spirit of northern abolitionism should 
 ever find a resting place in Virginia. But will not a hos- 
 tility to slavery be engendered by the incorporation of 
 such a principle into the constitution? Your slaves, by 
 this principle, drive us from the common platform of equal 
 rights, and usurp our place. Will the spirit of freemen 
 endure it? Never! Either the principle must be abol- 
 ished, or you will excite a species of political abolition 
 against property itself. You will compel us to as- 
 sume an attitude of antagonism towards you, or towards 
 the slave, and like the man driven to the wall, we shall 
 be forced to destroy our assailants, to save our own 
 liberty. 
 
 I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by referring 
 the committee to a fact — a great fact — attested on eve- 
 ry page of man's political history. It is this: When- 
 soever the personal liberties of any people have been 
 most securely protected, then has property to the same 
 extent been secure. And it is equally true, that where 
 the rights of person have been insecure, the rights to 
 property have, in like manner, been insecure. That is 
 the verdict of universal history. Reasoning therefore, 
 from effect to cause, we arrive at this result : that if we 
 desire to fortify property against the undue encroach- 
 ments of power, by the wisest, safest, strongest guaran- 
 tees ever devised, we must extend and secure to every 
 citizen, his just, true and full political equality. Will 
 the government, community, or man that denies to the 
 citizen his personal rights, have any very scrupulous re- 
 gard to his property ? I tell you, that he who refuses to 
 recognize and cherish my superior rights and interests,, 
 ever challenges my distrust against his fidelity to my in- 
 ferior and secondary rights and interests. 
 
 For the honor of the ''Old Dominion," I pray that 
 this mixed basis shall never darken her annals. Liberty, 
 if not born on her soil, at least escaped from her bondage 
 here, and first stood forth in all the graceful attitude 
 of her mature proportions. Shall she be stabbed on 
 the very arena of her original triumph ? Shall she be 
 wounded in the house of her friends ? v> Why, what an 
 unenviable position gentlemen are striving to place this 
 proud old State in ! clinging to the relics of an ex- 
 ploded aristocracy, under the blazing splendor of Ameri- 
 can liberty. Star after star has been added to the glo- 
 rious galaxy of American States, to increase the lustre 
 of the great doctrine of popular sovereignty, undimmed 
 by the faintest shadow of the dark dogma of property 
 representation. One after another of the "old thir- 
 teen," have thrown off the livery of colonial vassalage, 
 from which there was not an entire escape in the revo- 
 lutionary struggle, till there is hardly a vestige of the 
 mixed basis remaining in the Union. All over North 
 America, where our banner is unfurled, it floats, with 
 exceptions hardly worthy of being named, over a peo- 
 ple not only by "nature equally free and independent," 
 but so in fact. Nor is this all. The moral influences of 
 the great American doctrine of political equality, and 
 of its practical development in the civil, social, moral, 
 political and religious condition of the American citi- 
 zen, have crossed the seas. They have reached Asia. 
 They are recognized in Africa. They are felt and feared 
 in Europe. Ancient dynasties and hoary thrones are 
 crumbling away tanaught, under the spreading and po- 
 tent influences of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. 
 The pampered minions of monied aristocracy — the pro- 
 scriptive children of a haughty oligarchy, are trembling 
 for the tenure of their privileges and their power, under 
 the influence of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. 
 The great mighty popular heart of the world has received 
 an impulse. The masses are moving. The divine right 
 of kings has been exploded, and the millions groping in 
 the dark labyrinths of despotism are being quickened and 
 enlightened by the great doctrine of popular sovereignty . 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 339 
 
 And yet, in the midst of all this, in the middle of the 
 nineteenth century, beneath the noontide effulgence of 
 this great principle of popular supremacy, a voice is 
 heard in old Virginia, rising from almost the spot where 
 the clarion voice of Henry awoke a nation to freedom, 
 when he exclaimed, " give me liberty or give me death" — 
 even here, where we should take off our shoes, for the 
 earth on which we walk is holy — bearing in its conse- 
 crated bosom the remains of George Mason and Thomas 
 Jefferson, the one the author of the declaration of inde- 
 pendence, the other of the Virginia bill of rights — even 
 here, a demand is made by honorable gentlemen to give 
 superior political power to the property -holder, and vir- 
 tually invest goods and chattels, with the prerogative of 
 legislating upon the rights and liberties of a vast majo- 
 rity of the people of this Commonwealth. I trust this 
 can never take place. 
 
 I cannot take my seat without tendering to the com- 
 mittee my most grateful acknowledgments, for its long, 
 late and most flattering attention to the very poor re- 
 marks which I have been able to submit. I will trouble 
 you but seldom hereafter, t 
 
 On motion of Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier, the committee 
 then rose. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 morning, at 11 o'clock. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 25, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Manly of the Baptist church. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 The Convention resumed the consideration in commit- 
 tee of the whole, (Mr. Miller in the Chair,) of the report 
 of the committee on the basis and apportionment of 
 representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the proposi- 
 tion of VIr. Scott, of Fauquier. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Fauquier. When I offered the sub- 
 stitute under consideration, I regretted my inability to 
 gratify the gentlemen on the other side by explaining 
 at that time the reasons which I intended to adduce in 
 support of it. Their desire that I should do so was, no 
 doubt, very natural, and it is probable, since they so in- 
 sisted', that it would hav-e been becoming in me to have 
 taken the lead in the discussion. But I felt a strong re- 
 pugnance to the task of opening the argument. Upon a 
 question so much vexed, the most far-sighted cuuldnot 
 anticipate all the arguments on the opposite side, that 
 might be deemed worthy of an answer, and in the at- 
 tempt to do so, I should have incurred the danger of rais- 
 ing up men of straw, and combatting upon the floor the 
 mere creations of my own fancy. There was another 
 danger to which the position was exposed, probably 
 already exemplified in this debate ; from the want of 
 a due appreciation of what may be thought to belong 
 to certain suggestions, we are liable to pass them unno- 
 ticed, as propositions too monstrous to find a place in a 
 regulated mind, and suffer the mortification afterwards 
 of^seeing them gravely put forward by others, as con- 
 taining the essence of whatever is reasonable and just in 
 morals, and the quintessence of what is republican in 
 politics. It was to avoid these disadvantages, that I de- 
 clined the other day to lead the discussion, and this I 
 trust will be received as some apology for what doubt- 
 less appeared my obstinacy on that occasion. Besides, I 
 thought my friend from Kanawha, (Mr. Summers,) as 
 chairman of the committee, might properly have taken 
 the position which he manifested so much desire to as- 
 sign to me. 
 
 But these things aside, as the mover of the substitute, 
 I have deemed it due to the committee to claim their at- 
 tention at this early day, whilst I attempt to recom- 
 mend it to favor. 
 
 The debate has taken a wide range, and many topics 
 
 have been introduced, having no just relevancy to the 
 subject under consideration, and calculated to embarrass 
 rather than aid the mind in coming to a right conclusion. 
 To divest the subject of useless topics, and direct the 
 debate to the practical questions at issue, will be my 
 chief aim in what I am about to submit. But I must be 
 permitted to say that I indulge no hope that any thing 
 which can be said will change the vote of any gentle- 
 man from the west, for upon this question, unfortunate- 
 ly, they have all come here with minds pre-occupied, 
 judgments forestalled, and arguments already fashioned. 
 But I do not despair of exposing to their own senses, cer- 
 tain errors into which they have fallen, and thereby dis- 
 abusing the minds of the more candid, of some of the 
 objections put forward in the discussion. 
 
 Gentlemen have argued from the beginning, that the 
 eastern sections of the State had by some contrivance, 
 got possession of the reins of government, and were 
 seeking now to use their usurped power for sectional ag- 
 grandizement, and they point to the organization of this 
 Convention as pregnant with that truth. They say that 
 these sections contain only a minority of the white in- 
 habitants, and they denounce this rule as odious, oppres- 
 sive and tyrannical. With the bill of 'rights in their 
 hands, they appeal to the article which declares the jus 
 majoris, and clamorously demand the instant surrender 
 of the obnoxious authority. The bill of rights is part 
 of the present constitution, and was never before sup- 
 posed to be in conflict with its provisions. The constitu- 
 tion was fairly submitted to the people of the State, 
 and in solemn form received their ratification. Until rati- 
 fied it had no force, and its entire effect is, therefore, due 
 to the deliberate act of that very majority, for whose 
 sovereign will such absolute respect is professed upon 
 this floor. Gentlemen ought to spare their denuncia- 
 tion ; if the control be in the hands of the minority it 
 was the will of the majority that it should be so. No one 
 objected to the bill of rights — no one contested any of 
 its great truths ; I myself, subscribe implicitly to every 
 principle it proclaims. As a memorial of the virtues 
 and courage of our fathers, as a monument of their wis- 
 dom, and imperishable testimony of their appreciation 
 of the true principles of rational liberty, I would pre- 
 serve it most sacredly. Perfect as it stands, addition or 
 subtraction will but deform its proportions. Compressed 
 into a small compass, we behold in a single view all the 
 fundamental principles of a free representative republic 
 — distinguished broadly from the despotisms of monar- 
 chies, oligarchies and aristocracies, and the dangerous 
 turbulence of democracy. 
 
 We will depart, I doubt not, from many of its wise 
 lessons, and in the work we are about to accomplish in- 
 fuse more and more of the spirit of democracy. Those 
 who come after us, will hold on in the same course until, 
 it may be, every principle of the great instrument will 
 be obliterated from the constitution. But still I would 
 preserve it, not as a memorial only of the past, but as a 
 beacon light, that in the dark peril of the tempestuous 
 night may guide the distressed crew into port, and ena- 
 ble the good ship once more to ride safely at her moor- 
 ings. 
 
 The third article defines the purposes for which gov- 
 ernment is instituted, and declares that "when any gov- 
 ernment shall be found inadequate or contrary to these 
 purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubi- 
 table, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter 
 or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most 
 conducive to the public weal." Of what majority this 
 great right is predicated gentlemen do not seem agreed 
 among themselves. There is a numerical majority re- 
 sulting from a computation of all the individuals who 
 compose the community; there is also a physical majori- 
 ty composed of those who possess the greatest force ; 
 both of these existed anterior to and independent of 
 government. There is a governmental majority consist- 
 ing of those to whose hands, under the special compact, 
 administration is entrusted. Under our system this last 
 
340 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 majority consists of all that class of persons who exer- 
 cise the right of suffrage, and it is to this class that the 
 bill of rights refers the power to reform the existing 
 government. The legislature is their agent, and the 
 members who compose it their trustees and servants. 
 It was in obedience to the supposed wishes of this majori- 
 ty that the last legislature passed the act for the assem- 
 bling of this Convention. By one of its provisions the 
 question of Convention and the plan of its organization 
 was submitted, without distinction, to all the voters at 
 the polls, and by a majority unexampled in popular ac- 
 tion, it was approved and adopted. In answer, then, 
 to the denunciations against the alleged inequality of 
 representation in this body, I say it was the will of the 
 majority. And I again remind those who profess so 
 much devotion to their rights, and rely so implicitly 
 upon their reason and justice, how grossly they depart 
 from the principles they profess. It was certainly pro- 
 per that the Convention should be organized upon the 
 basis of the government. If a change is to be made, 
 and further concessions granted, they ought to proceed 
 from the deliberate and unconstrained will of those 
 who, by the compact under which we live, exercise 
 supreme authority. Had the question been submitted 
 to the voters by grand divisions, and each division been 
 allowed a voice in proportion to its authority in* the 
 State, no valid objection could have been maintained 
 against it. But a more liberal policy was pursued, and 
 an equal suffrage extended throughout. Yes, this much 
 abused eastern minority, having the government in their 
 hands — dispensing at will all of its powers and emolu- 
 ments, voluntarily referred it to the majority of the 
 west to assemble this body, submitting thereby to the 
 certain loss of the patronage heretofore enjoyed, and 
 the possible transfer to others of the command of their 
 purses. If gentlemen will look dispassionately at the 
 subject, they will cease their accusations, and disabuse 
 their minds of the impression that injustice has been 
 done in the manner of forming this body. There is no 
 inequality between us, each one stands here upon the 
 same platform of rights, at liberty to pursue his own 
 judgment to whatever result it may lead. "We are .all 
 to consult for the general good, and according to our 
 best judgment, form a constitution which will best se- 
 cure the common benefit, protection, and security of the 
 people. 
 
 If the members elected by a minority of the people 
 hold the sway in our deliberations, no detriment can 
 arise from it, because what we do will have no force 
 whatever, until it shall be ratified by the majority, by 
 that majority to which the other side appeals — the ma- 
 jority of the qualified voters. And if, as I doubt not 
 will be the case, the amended constitution shall extend 
 the right of suffrage, and introduce new parties to the 
 compact, I shall be ready to extend to them the privi- 
 lege of passing upon its ratification or rejection. 
 
 The question then, is not, as has been stated on the 
 other side, whether the majority have the right to gov- 
 ern, but conceding their right, the question is, how they 
 ought to govern, whether any, and what limitations 
 ought to be imposed upon their power? That some 
 limitation is necessary, all experience attests. No one 
 here will propose to organize a government with abso- 
 lute power. Adopt what basis you may — the white if 
 ycu choose, or the free suffrage if you prefer, the most 
 ardent advocate of the "jus tnajoris" will assent to 
 the propriety of setting some limit to popular authority. 
 And what is this limit but a restriction upon the right 
 of the majority? In free governments restrictions are 
 self-imposed. The majority reserves to itself the exer- 
 cise of such power as is capable of producing the great- 
 est degree of happiness and safety, and submits to such 
 restrictions as promise most effectually to secure it 
 against the danger of mal-administration. The extent 
 to which power shall be reserved, and the limit of the 
 restrictions are questions to be determined in the settle- 
 ment of every government. We are to determine them 
 in amending this constitution. The three departments 
 
 are but agencies of the majority, and the persons who 
 fill them their trustees and servants. Every limitation, 
 therefore, upon a department, is a limitation on the 
 power of the majority — and, in effect, is the same as if 
 the majority were to say, we will not trust ourselves 
 with this or that power, because in its administration 
 we are liable to abuse it. Of the three departments, 
 the legislative is that in which by far the largest class 
 of powers will be reposed, and over these a very broad 
 discretion must necessarily be confided. Where the 
 powers are large and discretion broad, the danger of 
 abuse is imminent, and too much care cannot be bestowed 
 in guarding against the peril. We are now to settle the 
 construction of this important department, and three 
 competing schemes are before us for consideration. 
 One proposes a house of one hundred and fifty, and a 
 senate of fifty-one members ; another proposes a house of 
 one hundred and fifty-six, and a senate of thirty-six mem- 
 bers. Both contemplate biennial sessions of the gene- 
 ral assembly, and both provide for re-apportionments 
 at intervals of ten years, one counting from 1862, 
 the other from 1855. Both propose an actual present 
 distribution of the members of both branches amongst 
 the counties, cities and towns of the commonwealth. 
 To proceed no further with the comparison, it must be 
 obvious that in the adjustment of these matters, in a 
 body like this, much diversity of opinion is likely to pre- 
 vail, a diversity having no relation whatever to the 
 great principle of the basis upon which the schemes 
 proceed, and in the settlement of which individuals may 
 become so dissatisfied as to vote against the adoption of 
 that' which embodies the principle to which his judg- 
 ment assents. 
 
 It is desirable to obtain the judgment of the commit- 
 tee upon the great question of the basis, its free, calm, 
 unbiased judgment, and to that end the question ought 
 to be presented in a form clear of the disturbing influ- 
 ence of matters of detail. 
 
 But to proceed with the comparison. By the one 
 scheme the delegates and senators are distributed ac- 
 cording to a mixed basis of white population and taxa- 
 tion ; by the other, according to a basis of white popu- 
 lation, leaving subsequent apportionments to be accord- 
 ing to qualified voters — and for a purpose quite obvious, 
 this latter scheme contains the announcement of certain 
 wise saws about the uniformity of the right of suffrage 
 and the equality of voters. 
 
 Of the one hundred and fifty members of the house of 
 delegates, one proposes to give to the east a majority of 
 fourteen, and of the fifty-one senators a majority of six ; 
 whilst, of the one hundred and fifty-six members pro- 
 posed by the second, the west is to have eighty-five, and 
 the east seventy -one, thus exactly turning the tables 
 and so of the senate. In this posture of affairs, the sub- 
 stitute was offered, not designed to change from the 
 basis proposed by the first, but simply to disembarrass 
 the question of unnecessary details. Accordingly, whilst 
 blanks are left in the previous section, where the details 
 may be hereafter supplied, the fourth section declares 
 " that representation in both legislative bodies shall be 
 apportioned amongst the counties, cities and towns ac- 
 cording to the number of white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes paid in each, deducting from 
 such taxes all taxes paid on licenses and law process." 
 The rule for making the apportionment is contemplated, 
 but a blank is left to be filled hereafter, according to 
 whatever adjustment of the fraction the committee may 
 determine. A limitation is also contemplated upon the 
 representation of cities, but the precise limit not defined, 
 and so too a rule is prescribed for the estimation of the 
 taxes in future apportionments. But great fault has 
 been found with these. I mean not to prolong this dis- 
 cussion by defending these features now, but with the 
 permission of the committee, will strike them from the 
 scheme. My purpose is to get a free, certain, unembar- 
 rassed vote of this body upon the principle of constitu- 
 ting the legislative department with reference to taxes 
 as well as persons. In what proportions these elements 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 341 
 
 shall be combined, the substitute does not declare ; that 
 will remain to be determined hereafter ; but I may be 
 permitted to say in advance, that I can see no reason, if 
 the mixed basis be adopted, why it should not be com- 
 pounded equally of the elements that compose it. Drop- 
 ping, for the present, the first scheme designated in the 
 report as letter A, and premising that I stand in no 
 wise responsible for the apportionment presented by it, 
 nor in any manner committed to yield it my support, in 
 the pursuit of the argument, I beg leave to make a brief 
 contrast between the plan of the substitute and that of 
 the second scheme, designated as letter B. 
 
 This scheme, as has been already stated, discards al- 
 together the element of taxation, and presents an ap- 
 portionment according to the white inhabitants or, what 
 is the same in effect, the qualified voters. Its operation 
 will be to transfer, at once, the legislative control of the 
 State to the western division, it being ascertained that a 
 majority of our white inhabitants reside in those sections. 
 The operation of the substitute will be to retain the 
 control in the eastern divisions where it now is, it being 
 known that these divisions pay towards the support of 
 government a proportion so much beyond what is paid 
 by the western. The first will surrender into the hands 
 of a numerical majority of the white inhabitants, with- 
 out respect to what they pay, the control of the purse ; 
 the substitute will retain the control with the minority, 
 so long as that minority shall continue to be loaded, as 
 at present, with such enormous disproportion of the 
 common burdens. But when the disproportion dimin- 
 ishes, when the majority comes to participate more largely 
 in the burthens of the State, long before they reach 
 equality, by the terms of the substitute the power will 
 shift Is there anything monstrous in this arrangement ? 
 Is there any just ground for the denunciations with which 
 it has been assailed ? The entire population of the State 
 is set down at 1,429,463, of this 863,065, being a majo- 
 rity of 297,267 of the whole, are contained in the two 
 eastern divisions, and this majority pays more than two- 
 thirds of the entire revenue of the State. Why should 
 it not have a majority of the representatives? Part of 
 them, it is said, are slaves ; but if slaves are be dis- 
 carded in the apportionment of representation let them 
 be discarded also in the apportionment of taxes — leave 
 them out altogether. Will this suit gentlemen on the 
 other side ? Oh, no, answers the gentleman from Au- 
 gusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) such an arrangement would 
 heighten the tax on lands, and the western lands are now 
 taxed to the extremity of what they can bear. Slaves 
 are wanted for taxes ; as a source of revenue they are 
 far too fruitful to be surrendered. But see how un- 
 equally they are distributed. Out of 464,693 only 63,230 
 are held in the west, leaving the large number of 
 401,371 for the share of the east. Does this striking 
 inequality in the distribution of this species of property 
 explain the reason for the tenacity with which gentle- 
 men on the other side insist upon retaining their taxa- 
 ble quality? If you will have representation appor- 
 tioned according to white population, distribute taxes 
 according to that same ratio. We will be content. If 
 you will vote more, pay more — follow out your own 
 principles to their legitimate results ; follow them not 
 only so far as they confer advantages, but follow them 
 also when they impose burthens. Be just and reason- 
 able — let equity govern your councils, and we will 
 make no complaint. We are not waging an unprinci- 
 pled struggle for power, but we are willing to surren- 
 der it ; when you will submit to bear its burthens we 
 will be content to see you enjoy its privileges. But this 
 will not suit you. You want the privileges and enjoy- 
 ments without the burthens; you want others to sow 
 that you may reap, or rather you want others both to 
 sow and reap, and permit you to take the fruits of their 
 toil. And this is claimed in the name of justice and 
 equality,, and in the name of democracy; and we who 
 venture an opposition to the extravagant demand, are 
 roundly denounced as aristocrats and monarchists. We 
 
 are charged with departing from ,those principles of 
 liberty and free government which our fathers of the 
 revolution held sacred, and of despoiling their rich le- 
 gacy of that which imparted its choicest blessing. Not 
 satisfied with the appeal to our revolutionary history, 
 the advocates of the white basis have searched back 
 into those rights which they say belonged to man by 
 nature, and by a strange system of argumentation, they 
 derive from nature a right to exercise dominion over 
 interests that spring from the relations of society. Gov- 
 ernment is surely a creature of society ; it did not and 
 could not exist antecedent to it. The rights that spring 
 from it are purely conventional. Such, undoubtedly, 
 are the right of representation and power of legisla- 
 tion; and yet, if I understand the argument, it is insisted 
 that there is, in some way, to be discovered in the laws 
 of man's nature, an inherent right in the majority — that 
 is to say, a natural right — to exercise the conventional 
 right of representation , and possess the control of legis- 
 lation. If there be anything short of absurdity in all 
 this, I confess my inability to discover it. It may be 
 that it is too sublimated and refined for my plain under- 
 standing, but until some power shall illumine my dark- 
 ness, and give me to see with other's wit, I must keep to 
 the beaten track, and believe that we are not to. deal 
 with man in a state of nature, or settle what rights per- 
 tain to him in that state, but to adjust a government 
 which in our judgments will best suit his present condi- 
 tion, and in time to come best advance his happiness and 
 prosperity. 
 
 This code of nature proves too much ; if it authorizes 
 the majority to usurp dominion over one conventional 
 right it will allow the same dominion over another. 
 Governmental rights are not more conventional than 
 proprietary rights, and the reasoning that will subject the 
 first to the usurpation of numbers will expose the second 
 defenceless to their rapacity. The natural right to 
 seize my property can be as easily justified by the 
 code of nature as the natural right to command my 
 person. Neither, in truth, has any existence in fact; 
 but it is vain to discuss these things ; it is for a practical 
 purpose we have met here, and we should address our- 
 selves to its accomplishment in a practical way. 
 
 We have been referred repeatedly during the debate 
 to what has been done on this subject by other States, 
 and their constitutions have been held up to us as ex- 
 amples to be followed. Much information, undoubtedly, 
 may be derived from that source ; the experience of 
 others may supply wisdom to us, but in studying the 
 constitutions of other States, and drawing instruction 
 from the experience of their workings, we should be 
 careful not to be led astray by f.dse analogies. In no 
 other quarter of the globe, it is admitted, have greater 
 advances been made in the science of government, and 
 no where can this most difficult of all studies be more 
 profitably prosecuted than in the contemplation of the 
 various systems established in the different States. But 
 this science differs essentially from all other sciences — 
 a perfect model any where is not a perfect model every 
 where, for although the principles of free government 
 are the same everywhere, the form must be adjusted to 
 the circumstances of the people for whom it is to be es- 
 tablished, and consequently be made to vary as circum- 
 stances vary, and in every case be modified to suit the 
 peculiar conditions of society. The States of this Union 
 spread over the greater part of an entire continent, and 
 contain within their limits an endless variety of climate, 
 soil and production. The separate communities that 
 compose them devote themselves often to different pur- 
 suits, and experience interests as diversified as the coun- 
 try they inhabit. We may, therefore, expect to find in 
 their numerous constitutions endless varieties in the 
 construction of their corresponding parts. Certain pro- 
 visions are common to all. Three great departments 
 are established, and a separation declared of the powers 
 respectively to be exercised by each ; the representa- 
 tive and elective features secured; these are the great 
 
342 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 principles that lie at the foundation of all free govern- 
 ment. But the manner in which they are carried out in 
 detail varies with the peculiar conditions of the sepa- 
 rate communities, and to some extent with the accident- 
 al habits of thought of the chief agents employed in 
 their structure, and this observation is especially true 
 of the apportionment of representation. The methods 
 of apportionment are nearly as varying as the constitu- 
 tions are numerous, yet in all these will be discovered 
 a uniform obedience to that controlling law which re- 
 quires the constitutions of government to conform to 
 the existing conditions and exigencies of the people over 
 whom it is to operate. The legislative department, un- 
 der any form of government, must always exercise a 
 large class of power, and be necessarily entrusted with 
 a liberal discretion. Its action may affect important in- 
 terests, and no limitations upon its power can absolute- 
 ly secure it from abuse. In free governments the most 
 available security is found to .be in the representative 
 system, the discovery of comparatively modern times, 
 whereby through the means of frequent elections those 
 who exercise the great powers of legislation are taken 
 periodically from the body of the people, and made 
 to harmonize in interests and opinions with the masses 
 for whom they act. By the apportionment of represen- 
 tation the power of legislation is distributed amongst 
 the individuals, or communities that compose the State, 
 and it may be readily perceived to what a great extent 
 the varying provisions on this head, found in the con- 
 stitutions of the several States, are affected by the pe- 
 culiar conditions of the people themselves. When 
 homogeneous interests pervade the State, and similar 
 pursuits occupy its people, the matter of apportionment 
 can rarely present a difficulty; any ratio would give a 
 fair exponent of its interests, and no conflict would arise 
 and no injustice be hazarded in whatever manner the 
 thing should be settled. The difficulty arises when dis- 
 tinct communities compose the State, and peculiarity, 
 diversity, and antagonism mark their interests. Here 
 we are to remember that great principle of political 
 science which requires every form of government to be 
 adapted to the condition of the people, and which re- 
 quires man to be considered, not only in his general na- 
 ture, but as modified by the society in which he lives 
 and the diversified influenees which surround him. 
 
 With the lights of history before us, and the teach- 
 ings of the great minds that have impressed themselves 
 on the ages in which they lived, however humiliating it 
 may prove to our self-love, we are forced to acknowl- 
 edge that "reason, justice and equity never had weight 
 enough on the face of the earth to govern the councils 
 of men. It is interest alone which does it, and it is in- 
 terest alone which can be trusted." In all the affairs 
 of life we are governed by this consideration; we re- 
 quire all judicial and executive officers to be either lift- 
 ed above influences calculated to affect their action, 
 or, by special arrangement, provide security for their 
 faithfulness. In private and in public affairs, we secure, 
 if possible, the services of agents whose interests in- 
 cline them to be faithful, and shun all such as are inter- 
 ested to be otherwise. Interest is the main spring of 
 human action ; it brings man into society and subjects 
 him to government ; it is a great moral law that per- 
 vades the universe ; christian and heathen, civilized and 
 savage life are equally subject to it ; in it all things hu - 
 man have their origin, and by it are fashioned for the 
 purposes of life ; and if, in the organization of govern- 
 ment, we discard all consideration of this great influ- 
 ence, we lose sight of the very principle itself out of 
 which the system springs. It demands no great force 
 of intellect to determine what quantity of power is ne- 
 cessary to be called into action for the purposes of gov- 
 ernment ; the difficulty lies in guarding those powers 
 from abuse, and the task of devising effectual guards, 
 may well tax the ingenuity and exhaust the resources 
 of the most fertile mind. When we have separated the 
 three great departments and imposed limitations upon 
 their powers, we have taken but eo many steps in out- 
 
 progress, and made but a small advancement towards 
 the accomplishment of the end. Separate them as you 
 will, limit them as you may, still large powers must be 
 called into action and extensive discretion entrusted to 
 the agents. Abandoned to this discretion, there is no 
 safety against abuse but in the character of the agents 
 and the influences to which they are subject. It will 
 be at once perceived how important is the mode of their 
 selection. In respect of executive and judicial agents, 
 much diversity of opinion prevails, but all are agreed 
 as to the manner of selecting those who are to fill the 
 halls of legislation. They are to be taken from the 
 masses, to be chosen by their fellows, and hold office 
 for a limited time, at the end of which they are to re- 
 turn to their former condition, and the vacancies to be 
 supplied by other elections. In this way the law ma- 
 kers are made subject to the laws which they enact, and 
 to feel and participate in the burthens they impose, and 
 thus are restrained from oppression and abuse. This is 
 the very language of the bill of rights where it announ- 
 ces the cardinal principle in the arrangement of the law- 
 making department. Analyze it, and what is it but the 
 recognition of the great moral truth which has already 
 been stated? What is it, but the affirmation that rea- - 
 son, justice and equity have not force enough to govern 
 the councils of men ; that it is interest alone whicn does 
 it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted. Expe- 
 rience of this truth led to the discovery of the repre- 
 sentative system, and it is the foundation on which it 
 rests. Election districts are defined, representatives 
 are chosen separately by the people of the districts, and 
 it is expected they will partake of their interests, re- 
 flect their opinions, and in their official acts conform to 
 their wishes. Together they represent all the varied 
 interests of the State, and in their proceedings recog- 
 nize the rule of the majority. It is part of the repre- 
 sentative principle that a majority of the elected are 
 entitled to govern, but this proceeds upon the idea that 
 the majority of members represent the majority of in- 
 terests, and may be, therefore, safely entrusted with 
 the control. It is the majority of interests, therefore, 
 which is chiefly respected in the representative system, 
 and it follows that when you give the governing power 
 to the majority of members, you must so order their 
 election as to secure in their persons a proportional rep- 
 resentation of the great interests of the State. That 
 condition of sooiety is most conducive to good govern- 
 ment in which no one interest in the State is irresisti- 
 ble. The moment that any particular interest gets the 
 ascendancy and becomes dominant, all others are liable 
 to encroachments from it, and the substantial blessings 
 of freedom are in danger of being lost. In such a condi- 
 tion of things, public confidence will withdraw itself 
 from the constituted authorities, and opposition, distrust 
 and hatred paralyze the administration of affairs. Ap- 
 prehension of such a state of things interposed the 
 greatest obstacle to the formation of the federal consti- 
 tution, and the establishment of the government which 
 converted the inhabitants of the several States of the 
 confederacy into one people. Under the articles of 
 confederation, the States possessing peculiar and oppo- 
 sing interests, experienced all the evils that spring from 
 mistrust and jealousy, and that plan was soon felt to be 
 insufficient for the purposes of good government. To 
 supply what was wanting, the States came together in 
 convention, but in that body they stood as separate 
 States, affected by all the jealousies and mistrusts which 
 they had experienced in the confederacy. As each State 
 furnished its own quota for the common benefit, it is 
 easy to see that the question most interesting to the 
 parties and most difficult of satisfactory adjustment re- 
 lated to the proportion of money which each was to fur- 
 nish, and the manner of voting in congress. The de- 
 bates in the congress of 1716, on the declaration of in- 
 dependence and the articles of confederation, preserved 
 by Mr. Jefferson, furnish the only history now extant, 
 of the opinions of the early actors in the great drama 
 of the revolution upon these interesting topics, and they 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 343 
 
 disclose the full force of all those sectional influences 
 that belonged to our condition. It was in the debate 
 on the eleventh article which fixed the rate of pecuni- 
 ary contribution that Southern members started the 
 idea, that in determining the ratio of contribution, a 
 part only of the slave inhabitants of the Southern 
 States should be computed. The purpose was to save 
 these States from undue contribution. It was conceded 
 that the contributions ought to be in proportion to the 
 wealth of each, and that ordinarily the number of in- 
 habitants was a fair criterion of wealth, but it was in- 
 sisted that slave labor was not as productive as free la- 
 bor, and as a large portion of the population of the 
 Southern States were slaves, it would not be just to 
 count all of that population in fixing the ratio of con- 
 tribution. The article was first adopted as originally 
 reported, whereby all charges of the war, and all other 
 expenses incurred for the common defence and general 
 welfare were agreed to be supplied by the States in 
 proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, 
 sex and quality, except Indians not paying taxes ; and 
 it was afterwards settled by the seventeenth article, 
 that in determining questions, each State should have 
 one vote. It was strenuously insisted that the rule of 
 voting should be the same as the rule of taxing, and it 
 was at last given up as a concession to the smaller 
 States which the urgency of the times made necessary. 
 In the debate on the eleventh article, John Adams advo- 
 cated the counting of all the inhabitants, slave as well 
 as free, insisting that the entire number of the people 
 was the fairest index to the wealth of every State ; 
 and when the seventeenth article came up for consid- 
 eration, along with Mr. Chase, Dr. Franklin, Dr. Rush 
 and Mr. Wilson, he supported the proposition to con- 
 form the rule of voting to the rule of taxing. After 
 stating in the words already quoted, the liability of 
 men to be swayed by their interests, he used these 
 striking expressions, "that therefore the interests with- 
 in doors should be the mathematical representative of 
 the interest without doors." And Dr. Franklin said, 
 " he thought it very extraordinary language to be held 
 by any State, that they would not confederate with 
 us, unless we would let them dispose of our money. 
 Certainly, if we vote equally, we ought to pay equally." 
 
 In the discussions with the mother country, preceding 
 the revolution, no topics were more thoroughly treated 
 than taxation and representation, and the proper rela- 
 tion which the one bore to the other was considered and 
 explained by the greatest minds which that eventful pe- 
 riod called into action. The history of that period 
 proves that the men of the revolution, the fathers of 
 the republic, regarded it as a fundamental principle of 
 free government, that taxation and representation should 
 go together, and upon that founded the great American 
 system which they established. It was this that dis- 
 tinguished their system from all others. States there- 
 tofore had been oppressed by oligarchies and monarch- 
 ies, and torn by democracies, then, for the first time in 
 the history of the world, experiment was to be made of 
 a free representative republican form of government. 
 The experience of more than sixty years attests the 
 wisdom of their work, for never in the history of man, 
 has any government secured to a people in equal de- 
 gree, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means 
 of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and 
 obtaining happiness and safety ; and never before or 
 since has any form of government been devised which 
 is so effectually secured against the danger of mal-ad- 
 minstration. A system thus commended to us, and 
 which for so many years, has been productive of these 
 great blessings, surely ought to be sacredly cherished, 
 and transmitted, unimpaired, to posterity. Whilst we 
 may modify details and change such features of the 
 structure as experience may recommend to be changed, 
 and the progress of the age demand, we ought to hold 
 sacred the great principle upon which the system rests ; 
 for once surrender that and we abandon ourselves to 
 
 the sport of exploded experiments, lose the rich legacy 
 of our fathers, and entail upon posterity the woes un- 
 numbered, that in every age have inflicted those who 
 have essayed the experiment of fierce,; unchecked de- 
 mocracy. 
 
 Subsequently to the adoption of the articles of con- 
 federation, by an act of congress, agreed to by eleven 
 States, three-fifths only of the slave population were 
 computed in apportioning the quotas of revenue amongst 
 the States. This was done at a time when each State 
 had an equal representation in the congress, audit re- 
 sulted much to the benefit of the southern States. It 
 is useless now to inquire into the soundness of the opin- 
 ions that led to this adjustment ; it was adopted at the 
 instance of the southern members. Politically regard- 
 ed, it proved to be a blunder, since in the end it was 
 the means of depriving us of a considerable representa- 
 tion that we should otherwise have got in the popular 
 branch of the congress of the United States, and a pro- 
 portionate influence in the choice of our chief executive 
 magistrate, without in the least degree lessening the 
 amount of our contributions to the public treasury. It 
 was everywhere conceded that taxation should be ap- 
 portioned amongst the States according to the wealth 
 of each, and this computation of inhabitants being set- 
 tled as a just exponent of wealth, it was adopted of 
 course, as a proper ratio of taxation. When, therefore, 
 the federal convention assembled, they found this im- 
 portant question, in a manner, already adjusted, and 
 that adjustment controlled the apportionment of repre- 
 sentation, for the principle was conceded that taxation 
 and representation should go together, and be appor- 
 tioned according to one uniform ratio ; and it was de- 
 clared accordingly, in the constitution, that " represen- 
 tatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the 
 several States which may be included within this Union, 
 according to their respective numbers, which shall be 
 determined by adding to the whole number of free per- 
 sons, including those bound to service for a term of 
 years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of 
 all other persons." 
 
 In the constitutions of the several States we find a 
 general conformity to this principle ; when numbers 
 have been taken as the basis of representation, numbers 
 have been considered as a fair exponent of wealth, but 
 when owing to the peculiar condition of the community, 
 numbers are not a fair exponent, some other basis has 
 been resorted to. In determining for ourselves, there- 
 fore, a proper apportionment of representation, we ought 
 first to ascertain in what manner the wealth of the 
 community is distributed over its several parts, fix up- 
 on some fair exponent of its value, and derive from that 
 the ratio of adjustment. Of all the powers of govern- 
 ment, the money power is most liable to abuse ; the ex- 
 perience of every day attests it ; laws relating to per- 
 sonal rights must necessarily affect all alike, and under 
 no plan of apportionment would these rights be endan- 
 gered ; it is the imposition of pecuniary burthens, and 
 the disposition of them afterwards, that tends to ine- 
 quality and invites to oppression, and to avoid this 
 danger it is necessary that the interest within doors 
 should be the representative of the interest without 
 doors. 
 
 Had the national revenue been supplied by direct 
 taxes, representation in congress would have been ap- 
 portioned amongst the States in exact proportion to 
 the contributions of each, but looking for supplies main- 
 ly to duties upon importations, the Convention was un- 
 der the necessity of assuming some exponent of the 
 wealth of each, and making that the basis of represen- 
 tation. We are not involved in the same difficulty; our 
 revenue can only be supplied by direct taxes, and the 
 amounts supplied by the several divisions of the State 
 can be safely taken as the measure of the wealth of 
 each. If we were to insist, therefore, that representa- 
 tion should be apportioned throughout the State accord- 
 ing to the ratio of taxation, we should be strictly with- 
 
344 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 in the principle of the federal constitution, and we make 
 a concession when we agree to a ratio combined of white 
 population and taxes together. If white population 
 be insisted on as the only basis of representation, make 
 white population the only basis of taxation; if slaves be 
 disregarded in one, let them be disregarded in both. I 
 say again, if you will have more votes, pay more money. 
 But whilst slaves are retained as subjects of taxation, 
 and the eastern part of the State is thereby made to 
 pay more than two-thirds of the public revenue, we will 
 never consent to a division of power, which is to sub- 
 ject us to the domination of the western part which 
 pays less than one-third. With an apportionment of 
 representation as provided by the substitute, there will 
 be no danger of abuse of power. Embracing a large 
 extent of country, stretching from the mountains to the 
 sea-board, eastern Virginia partakes largely of all the 
 great interests which make up the State— agricultural, 
 commercial and manufacturing — and these are so distri- 
 buted that no one can be said to be irresistible by itself, 
 or likely to practice oppression upon the others. The 
 inhabitants of this part of the State to a very conside- 
 rable extent, are interested in internal improvements, 
 and there is no danger that, under any arrangement 
 by which the power of legislation will be left where it 
 is, this great system will be neglected ; past experience 
 shows that the tendency in this direction is rather to 
 excess. If we look to the works to which State contri- 
 butions have been made, we shall find that the western 
 divisions have no cause to complain of partiality or in- 
 justice ; a liberal share has been contributed to supply 
 their necessities. A macadamized road and a railroad 
 piercing the same country, develop the resources of the 
 south-west, the entire cost of one, and three-fifths of 
 the' cost of the other, are borne by the State. A rail- 
 road is under construction by which the banks of the 
 Ohio are to be connected with the shores of the ocean, 
 the western section of which, with the costly tunnel at 
 the Blue Ridge, will be made by the State. To say 
 nothing, therefore, of the enormous expenditure on the 
 James river canal, which is really a western improve- 
 ment, and the countless appropriations to roads in the 
 valley and the north-west, these may confidently be 
 relied upon to defend the present allotment of power 
 against any well founded cause of complaint. It is in 
 vain to pretend that, with the power in the east, the 
 western people will be in danger of oppression ; so far 
 as the rights of persons are concerned, either 3ide may 
 trust the other, for these interests are identical, and 
 self-interest, that controlling law of our nature, affords 
 its protection. But it is otherwise as to the rights of 
 property — they are unequally distributed between the 
 two sections, and at the same time marked by striking 
 diversities. If, under these circumstances, we give to 
 the minority of these great interests dominion over the 
 majority, must we not encounter the hazard of injustice 
 and oppression ? The danger lies in the too lavish ex- 
 penditure of the public money, and the onerous assess- 
 ments consequent upon its indulgence, and the source 
 of the danger is in the boundless wants of the west for 
 internal improvements, and the^ enormous cost necessa- 
 ry for their construction. 
 
 The State's contributions to these works, has, in lat- 
 ter years, been raised from two-fifths, the former rate, 
 to three-fifths ; but not satisfied with this, the west de- 
 mands all improvements in that section to be made on 
 State account, insisting that the absence of accumula- 
 ted capital in that section, and the agricultural nature 
 of the population, make it impossible for them to sup- 
 ply the individual subscriptions necessary to carry on 
 the works upon the three and two--fifths principle. Give 
 , to the west control over the public purse, and what but 
 their wants will measure their exactions ? I attribute 
 no qualities to the people of the west, calculated, in 
 any way, to distinguish them injuriously from their 
 brothers of thp east. For intelligence, manliness, and 
 virtue, I accord to them all that their warmest friends 
 £an claim in their behalf. In the vast increase of their 
 
 population, the rapid growth of their agriculture, and 
 general advancement of their prosperity, I experience 
 the satisfaction of a brother and the just pride of a Vir- 
 ginian. It is to that quarter I most look for those ac- 
 cessions which are to lift the State from its sunken 
 condition, and speed her forward until she shall be 
 made to emulate the most successful in her contributions 
 to the great cause of human improvement. Indeed, 
 when I contemplate the dangers that threaten the glo- 
 rious Union of which she is a member, and detect the 
 proclivity to disunion sentiments that manifests itself 
 in portions of the east, it is with a heart full of thank- 
 fulness to a beneficent Providence, that I recognize in 
 the great and increasing west, a patriotic devotion to 
 this institution of our fathers, that forbids us to doubt, 
 that in whatever peril it may stand, Virginia will prove 
 true to the great cause of civil and religious liberty in- 
 volved is its integrity. 
 
 Sincerely entertaining these feelings towards the 
 west, I nevertheless think, in our present condition, 
 the people of that section would be an unsafe deposito- 
 ry of the power of legislation. When pressed the oth- 
 er day, under very extraordinary circumstances, by the 
 gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Summers,) to state a 
 reason for claiming a consideration for property in the 
 apportionment of representation, I answered in short 
 that it was to secure good government, and guard our 
 proprietary interests, which would be in danger of be- 
 ing plundered, if left at the mercy of an unchecked, 
 dominant, numerical majority- A more civil phrase 
 might certainly have been employed, but it was intend- 
 ed in no offensive sense ; all that I meant was, to con- 
 vey a clear sense of the danger that I apprehended from 
 the success of an experiment by which the tax -laying 
 and tax-appropriating powers were to be confided to 
 one section, whilst the tax-paying duty was to be chief- 
 ly confined to the other. In such a condition, no intel- 
 ligence, no probity, no virtue would be safe against the 
 ever-existing temptation to abuse. When necessities 
 are urgent, reasons will never be wanting to satisfy the 
 judgment of masses, and the wishes of the constituent 
 must inevitably come to be expressed in the represen- 
 tative body. This is the law of the representative sys- 
 tem, and it would indeed *be strange, if, in the impor- 
 tant matter of taxation, the system should falsify the 
 first great law of its own creation. We have been ear- 
 nestly entreated to allay these fears, and confidently 
 assured of the reason, justice and equity of the west, 
 but when have these ever had force enough to govern 
 the councils of men ; undisturbed by interest, they 
 would at best prove but frail securities \ but when ex- 
 posed to that influence, how long would the scales hang 
 equal? In the ardent pursuit of a favorite object, our 
 friends on the other side lose sight of considerations 
 that otherwise they could not fail to perceive; they 
 greatly overrate their own self-denying virtues, or un- 
 derrate our sagacity ; and in either ease commit a blun- 
 der, for they are not lifted so high as to be exempt from 
 the common frailties incident to their nature, nor are 
 we so blind as not to see the danger which threatens. 
 Discard property altogether as an element of represen- 
 tation, and make the apportionment upon population as 
 proposed, and with this, continue the present unequal 
 contribution of taxes, and he is blind who does not see 
 that throughout the extreme west, the public treasury 
 will come to be regarded as a vast fund for purposes of 
 electioneering, and he will be most popular at home 
 who shall thrust the representative arm deepest into 
 the public fisc. How else are we to understand the gen- 
 tleman from Greenbrier, (Mr. Smith,) who opened this 
 debate ? We all remember the fervid eloquence with 
 which he pictured to our minds the vast capacities and 
 illimitable resources of his cherished west, its fertile 
 lands, its rich minerals, wanting only the hand ©f man 
 to develop their wealth. We remember the warmth 
 with which he exclaimed — as in imagination he already 
 clutched the rich prize — that it wanted only the success 
 of his favorite basis to cause all these to spring into in- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 345 
 
 stant life. What is there in this white basis that is to 
 accomplish so much ? Is there a magic in it. which is to 
 level mountains, make roads, dig cana's, and disembowel 
 from the earth its mineral treasures ? By what enchant- 
 ment is the wonderful change to be effected, and this 
 glowing picture to start before the sight \ The gentle- 
 man, I am sure, was lookiug to no supernatural agency, 
 but contemplating the accomplishment of results by 
 human means, and the great agent in his mind was the 
 money of the State, — it is too much to say the money 
 •of the east ? If we state an account of the public ex- 
 penditures — such as belong properly to the civil list — 
 and charge to the trans-Alleghany counties their fair 
 proportion, we will exhaust their contribution to the 
 public treasure, upon any rate of taxation yet adapted, 
 and leave the entire burden of the works of improve- 
 ment upon the other portions of the State. In such a 
 condition of things, can it be a wise adjustment of the 
 constitution to entrust the control of the purse to that 
 section ? The gentleman from Augssta, ( Mr. Sheffev,) 
 said the present apportionment had not secured the 
 power from abuse, and in support of his assertion, re- 
 ferred to the large sums expended in the Piedmont 
 counties upon works of internal improvement. If there 
 had been any plundering of the public treasury, he said, 
 it was chargeable uoon the representatives from those 
 counties, and in that work, he added, I had been chief- 
 est of them all. It is true, that from the first time when 
 I took my seat as a member of the general assembly, I 
 became an ardent supporter of the system of internal 
 improvement, and representing one of the largest tax- 
 paying counties of the State, year after year continued j 
 to furnish my contribution to the great cause, when 
 not a cent was asked for in behalf of my immediate consti- 
 tuents, and when they were not expected to derive the 
 least local advantage from the outlay. I stopped not to 
 inquire what locality was to be benefitted, or what pe- 
 culiar interest to be advanced, but looking to the State 
 as a whole, and myself as exercising a commission in 
 behalf of all, I endeavored to govern myself by those 
 liberal and enlarged considerations that belong to the 
 statesman. In later days, my immediate constituents 
 have partaken of the benefits of this system, and under 
 the blessing of a public liberality, are about to emerge 
 froni the difficulties that have so long oppressed them, 
 to see their agriculture spring into new life, and the 
 generous earth yield to industrious husbandry, the 
 fruits with which it is God's will on ear J h that patient 
 toil should ever be rewarded. Charge to that division 
 all the expenditures for the works constructed therein, 
 then turn to your tax lists, not of to-day only, or of 
 yesterday, but of years gone by, and see how the ac- 
 count will stand. 
 
 If large expenditures have been made in the Pied 
 mont, that division has contributed largely towards the 
 common burdens. But is it fair to charge all these 
 works to the counties through which they pass ? Is 
 the James river canal exclusively a Piedmont improve- 
 ment ? Is the central railroad exnjcsively a Piedmont 
 improvement ? Does not every gentleman know to the 
 contrary { Could the Piedmont counties have alone 
 forced through the bills required for their construction ? 
 Are they not in part tide water improvements, and as 
 such have they not been pushed forward by tide water 
 votes, and are they not in part western improvements, 
 and is not their success due to the constant, untiring- 
 united support from that section of the State ? The 
 gentleman from Augusta well knows how bills for works 
 of improvements are carried through the general as- 
 sembly ; and he knows that it is always by western 
 votes ; and -if extravagant and improper appropriations 
 are got through to satisfy eastern sections, it is because 
 western applications are expected thereby, to be 
 crowned with success. What is it to a member repre- 
 senting a western county, the sum total of whose taxes 
 fall short of paying county charges, that an appropria 
 tion is made for an expenditure elsewhere of §500,000, 
 
 provided he gets $500 for some road in his county ? -T 
 agree that much abuse has crept into the system. The 
 difficulties with which its friends have had to contend ; 
 the diversified and antagonistic interest of the various 
 sections, and the bigoted opposition of gentlemen from 
 those quarters in which improvements are not needed, 
 have compelled the friends of the system to push it 
 forward by a practice of legislative log-rolling, for they 
 have had to choose between this practice, with all its 
 objections, and the total abandonment of the system it- 
 self. For myse f, I desire to see the errors of the past 
 corrected ; I desire to see our statesmeu addressing 
 themselves practically to the condition in which the 
 State is found, leaving to federal agents the manage- 
 ment of federal affairs, and leni : ng 'their best efforts to 
 the developement of her domestic resources. This can 
 only be done by works of in ern?i improvement, and 
 these can only be successfully prosecuted by liberal 
 contributions from the State, and upon this eonviction 
 I have held on my course. If, as the gentleman from 
 Augusta says, I have been the Marmion of the system, 
 [ never wanted a Chester or a Stanley to charge at my 
 bidding, when Augusta filled two seats in the halls of 
 legislation. 
 
 But if from this source abuses have crept into the 
 State, and even under the present apportionment, one 
 section has prosecuted successfully, as the gentleman 
 charges, a course of plunder upon another, does it not 
 show how difficult is the task of repressing legislative 
 licentiousness, and how fatal are the cousequences of 
 departing from the rule which prescribes that the in- 
 terest within doors should be the mathematical repre- 
 sentative of the interest without doors ? Had the ad- 
 justment of representation been made to conform to 
 this rule, the abuse complained of could never have 
 been committed. But what remedy for the evil does 
 the gentleman propose ? To adjust the balance evenly 
 and secure an equilibrium ? No ! but to disturb it still 
 more : to diminish the influence of property, and in- 
 crease that of numbers who will burthen it ; to take 
 from Piedmont which pays so largely, and has received 
 so much, and give to trans-Alleghany, which pays so 
 little and wants so much. That is the remedy which 
 the new friends of the tide water propose for their 
 grievances. The people of that section will be apt to 
 answer in the language of the entangled fox when the 
 officious swallow proffered to drive off the flies that 
 had settled about his head. By no means, said the fox, 
 these are already gorged, and by driving the in away 
 you will but make way for a more hungry swarm which 
 will suck the last drop of blood from my veins. I re- 
 gret that duties elsewhere prevented me from hearing 
 all of the remarks of the gentleman from Augusta, but 
 I had the pleasure of hearing a part of what he said on 
 this branch of his subject. I witnessed the attack upon 
 Piedmont, and the overture to Tidewater, and remark- 
 ed the manifestations of satisfaction elicited from the 
 gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Wise.) If I mistake 
 not. that gentleman, in an address to his constituents, 
 put forth sentiments similar to those just uttered by 
 the gentleman from Augusta, and advisd the Tide water 
 district to break up its ancient alliance with Piedmont, 
 and form a new one with the trans-Alleghany ; not, if I 
 recollect rightly, to put down the practice of log-roll- 
 ing, but by means of the new combination, to prosecute 
 it on a larger scale To make improvements connect- 
 ing the far west with the near east, and thus build up 
 cities on the sea board. Now I will answer. that gen- 
 tleman as I answered the gentleman from Augusta, 
 with a fable, from the moral of which he may learn a 
 useful lesssou, " A woodman came into a forest to 
 ask the trees to give him a handle foi; his axe. It 
 seemed so modest a request that the principal trees at 
 once agreed to it, and it was settled among them that 
 the plain, homely ash should furnish what was wanted. 
 No sooner had the woodman fitted the staff to his pur- 
 pose than he began laying about him on all sides, fel- 
 
346 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ling the noblest trees in the wood. The oak now seeing 
 the whole matter, too late, whispered to the cedar, the 
 first concession has lost all ; if we had not sacrificed our 
 humble neighbor we might have yet stood for years our- 
 selves." 
 
 I have trespassed already very far upon the patience 
 of the committee, but, at the hazard of being thought 
 unreasonable, I must beg their indulgence yet further. 
 The gentleman from Greenbrier, (Mr. Smith,) asserted 
 that the principle impressed upon the present constitu- 
 tion by the statement of 1829 and 188U, was eminently 
 aristocratic and anti republican, and he drew an injuri- 
 ous contrast between the liberty which we enjoy under 
 it, and that liberty which the patriots of the revolution 
 transmitted to us as the priceless inheritance of that 
 great struggle. I know not from what source the gen- 
 tleman derives his information, but I do know, that in 
 the articles of confederation, to which they assented, in 
 the constitution which they established, and in the au- 
 thentic reports of their debates, no justification can be 
 found for the contrast. The right of a mere numerical 
 majority of persons, without regard to their state in 
 the community, to usurp the administration of affairs, 
 had no place amongst the principles of that republican 
 system which the patriots of 1776 established upon this 
 continent. That is a feature of democracy, a broad and 
 intelligible feature, which distinguishes that form of 
 government from all others, to be seen in full luxuri- 
 ance in those democracies which, in former times, stud- 
 ded the shores of the Mediterranean. Divided into sep- 
 arate States, ancient Greece, in all its parts, was sub- 
 ject to democratic rule. Collected together, in cities 
 or inhabiting territories of small extent, each commu- 
 nity administered its affairs according to the unchecked 
 will of a numerical majority ; assembled in the market 
 places they made laws, adjudged cases, and ordered ex- 
 ecutions ; the masses ruled everything, and their sover- 
 eign will was the supreme law. If we would study the 
 requite of democratic government, and the tendency of 
 the democratic spirit, we should read the history of the 
 age, progress, and fall of those ancient States; their ag- 
 gressions without, their turbulence within ; their wars 
 of classes, and cruel oppressions; their confiscations of 
 property, and the countless evils springing from the li- 
 centious dominion which supplied the rank soil that 
 nourished their passions ; and finally, we should read it 
 in the arbitrary sway of the tyrants who established 
 dynasties upon their ruins, under whose despotic rule 
 the masses themselves sought protection from their 
 own intolerable excesses. If we would pursue the sub- 
 ject and prosecute researches into more modern times, 
 we may draw a fruitful lesson upon democracy from 
 the blood-stained records of revolutionary France. 
 
 No set of men on earth were ever more deeply im- 
 pressed with the dangerous tendency of the democratic 
 spirit, than the founders of our American system, or ever 
 more sedulously guarded against the evil which it 
 threatened. The debates in the federal convention 
 show that the members most friendly to a liberal plan 
 of government were as loud as any in their denunciations 
 of the vices of democracy, and the constitution shows, 
 throughout its provisions, numerous and stringent checks 
 upon that unlicensed popular will, out of which all these 
 vices spring. The manner of electing the president and 
 his tenure of office, the manner of appointing senators 
 and the tenure of their office, the manner of electing 
 members of the house of representatives and their tenure 
 of office, and the manner of constituting the judiciary, 
 are all so many limitations upon the popular power and 
 checks upon the will of the numerical majority. If, 
 therefore, the government of this State be anti-repubii- 
 can and aristocratic, that of the United States is emi- 
 nently so, and instead of appealing to the principles of 
 our fathers, the gentleman ought to hurl his loudest de- 
 nunciations against their works. To carry out the doc- 
 trine of gentlemen on the other side, we would be un- 
 der the necessity of reforming our entire system. They 
 
 claim supreme control in the administration of the gov- 
 ernment for the numerical majority, and to set up this 
 control, we must not only give them the election by 
 general ticket of every official agent, but make each 
 one hold his office at their pleasure. For the moment 
 we prescribe a fixed tenure of office, the agent who fills 
 it, within the scope of his power; is independent of the 
 majoirty, and not subject to their will ; and this so with- 
 out reference to the manner of election. But when we 
 divide the State into counties and districts and provide 
 for separate elections in each, we impose another re- 
 straint upon the numerical majority, because local in- 
 fluences will affect elections, and separate interests come 
 to be represented in the conflict of which, when the re- 
 presentatives are assembled, the will of the numerical 
 majority must often be defeated. To carry out their 
 doctrine and be consistent with their professions, gen- 
 tlemen must advocate these changes and recommend to 
 the people a constitution fashioned after the most ap- 
 proved model of ancient Greece, when all elections 
 shall proceed by general ticket, and the halls of legis- 
 lation be filled by the supple agents of the dominant, 
 numerical, moneyless majority. No one here will desire 
 this change, certainly no one will be hardy enough to 
 avow the desire, yet I say it is a consequence which 
 flows directly from the doctrine maintained. 
 
 Election by districts is a cardinal principle of repub- 
 lican government, and it is founded upon the policy of 
 giving representation to separate interests. Another 
 principle is, that in deliberative assemblies the majori- 
 ty is to govern, and this is founded on the idea that a 
 majority of members will represent the majority of in- 
 terests, and may therefore be safely entrusted with the 
 power of control. Hence the necessity arises of arrang- 
 ing the election districts so that a majority of the per- 
 sons elected will represent the majority of interests, for 
 if this be neglected, the security against abuse will be 
 defeated, which this system of government is intended 
 to provide, and its most important principle violated. 
 With a legislature constituted so that a majority of its 
 members will represent the majority of interests, we 
 may safely confide our affairs to its discretion ; but if 
 constituted so that the majority of members will repre- 
 sent only a minority of interests, we must seek for safe- 
 ty in restraint and limitations upon its powers. The 
 advocates of the white basis say that' they are willing 
 to submit to restraint, but of what nature they do not 
 inform us ; I apprehend they will never consent to such 
 restraints as will furnish security against the danger 
 which is anticipated ; restraints which will debar th& 
 the legislature from appropriating, according to the 
 pleasure of a majority, the money of the east, to works 
 of internal improvement in the west. That restraints 
 effectual for this purpose may be devised, I will not de- 
 ny, but to have any effect they must be such as to re- 
 strain the powers of legislation in such a manner as to 
 paralyze it for many useful purposes, and strangle in its 
 unfinished condition the entire system of improvement 
 within us. If they succeed in their purpose, gentlemen 
 may find too late that their favorite basis has been 
 purchased at a price above its value, a price that will 
 dash to earth their own eager anticipations and prove 
 the destruction of the best interests of those in whose 
 behalf they are conducting this struggle. Wo one who 
 knows the opinions of this body and the influences un- 
 der which we act, but must know that if the legisla- 
 tive power shifts to the west in the present condition of 
 the State, it will be tied up by all manner of restraints 
 and be wholly unproductive of benefit. The people of 
 the west will exclaim with Macbeth — 
 
 " Upon my head they placed a fruitless .crown, 
 And put a barren sceptre in my gripe." 
 
 We shall not be satisfied, I think, with the guarantees 
 proposed by the gentleman from Berkeley, (Mr. Faulk- 
 ner.) It struck me as an odd sort of protection against 
 the abuses which are apprehended, to subject us, upen 
 the appropriations of money for works of internal im- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION 
 
 347 
 
 provement, to the absolute will of the numerical major- 
 ity, depriving us entirely of that chance for protection 
 which, even under the white basis, we might obtain 
 from the diversified interests represented in the legisla- 
 ture. It struck me further as an odd sort of protec- 
 tion, that we are to be made, not only to provide the 
 means for constructing these improvements in our gen- 
 eration, but actually to pay the principal costs before 
 the works can develop the taxable resources of the re- 
 gions in whicli they are made, and whilst the present un- 
 equal rate of taxation prevails. I mean not, however, 
 to go into any argument upon these guarantees, but when 
 they come up for consideration, I will listen with great 
 pleasure to the gentleman when he explains them. 
 
 Every view in which I look at this subject, satisfies 
 me that the plan of the substitute is best. It will give 
 the control of legislation to the majority of interests ; 
 it will leave to that majority a liberal discretion, and 
 enable us to resuscitate the dormant energies of the 
 State, and push her forward in the race for supremacy ; 
 it will insure the stability of our internal improvements ; 
 it strikes down the present arbitrary allotment of pow- 
 er, abolishes all divisions, and establishes a rule of ap- 
 portionment which works with perfect equality, and 
 which, at do distant day, will transfer the power to the 
 west. In the arrangements of other parts of the con- 
 stitution, we shall give to the people the election of all 
 of the principal officers of government, and remove that 
 fruitful source of complaint. Senators of the United 
 States must continue to be appointed by the legislature 
 but in these, party divisions in all time, will secure to 
 the west a fair participation. I can perceive no reason, 
 therefore, why a constitution upon the mixed basis 
 should not satisfy the west. I believe it will satisfy 
 the State, and fairly presented, will unite in support of 
 it, a large majority of those who are regarded by the 
 other side, as alone possessing the sovereign power. I 
 express this opinion from my own observation, and I 
 derive confidence from it from the conduct of gentlemen 
 on the other side in the course of this debate. If they 
 believe we are outraging the wishes of the majority, 
 they must be satisfied that our work will be rejected, 
 because they know it will have no force unless the ma- 
 jority adopt it. Then what just occasion is there for 
 all this excitement and loud denunciation ? What occa- 
 sion is there for threats of withdrawal, if this question 
 is ruled against them ? Gentlemen may state here 
 what they will about the opinion of the people ; I have 
 an abiding confidence in their moderation, good sense, 
 and patriotism, and, therefore, shall adhere to the be- 
 lief that a constitution on the principle of the substi- 
 tute will be acceptable to them, and am willing to try 
 the issue at the polls. 
 On motion of Mr. LUCAS, the committee then rose. 
 
 CHANGE OF THE HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I move, that when the Convention ad 
 journ, it adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock to-morrow morn 
 ing, and every succeeding day hereafter, until other- 
 wise ordered. On that motion I ask for the yeaa and 
 nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 The question being taken, there were — yeas 52, nays 
 35 — as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Arthur, Banks 
 Barbour, Bland, Blue, Bocock, Burges, Caperton, Car 
 ter, of Russell, Carter, of Loudoun, Chambers, Con 
 way, Edmunds, Faulkner, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz 
 Gaily, M. Garnett, Hall ,Hunter, Jacob, Kinney, Leake 
 Lionberger, Lynch, McCamant, McCandlish, Martin of 
 Marshall, Martin of Henry, Moncure, Morris, Neeson, 
 Price, Rives, Shell, Sloan Smith of Kanawha, Stephen- 
 son, Stewart of Morgan, Straughan, Summers, Tate, 
 Trigg, Van Winkle, Wallace, Watts of Roanoke, Wil- 
 ley, Wingfield" and Wise — 52. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Mason, (Pres't.), Bird of Shenandoah, 
 Braxton, Byrd of Frederick, Camden, Chambliss, Chil- 
 
 ton, Cocke, Cox, Davis, Edwards, Finney, Fisher, Gar- 
 land, M. R. H. Garnett, Goode, Janney, Jones, Letcher, 
 Lucas, Lyons, McComas, Moore, Petty, Saunders, 
 Scott of Fauquier, Scott of Richmond city, Smith, 
 of Norfolk county, Smith of Jackson, Suodgrass, South- 
 all, Strother, White, Whittle, and Worsham— 35. 
 So the motion prevailed. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until to-morrow 
 morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 26, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Earley, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap-. 
 proved. 
 
 GRANT OF THE USE OF THE HALL. 
 
 Mr. FUQUA. I have been requested by the Presi- 
 dent of the Southern Rights Association to ask of the 
 Convention the use of this hail on Friday evening 
 next. I therefore respectfully submit the request. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. If the gentleman desires the 
 use of this building, I think the better plan would be to 
 apply to the owners of it. All that is requisite for him to 
 do here is, to ask the concurrence of the Convention in 
 granting the use of the hall. 
 
 Mr. FUQUA. The gentleman is, perhaps, correct'. 
 I will then get the concurrence of the Convention, which 
 is all that I ask. I will then modify my request, and 
 ask that this Convention yield their assent to the use 
 of this hail on Friday evening next, to the Southern 
 Rights Association. 
 
 The request was granted. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. ^ 
 
 The Convention then resumed the consideration, in 
 committee of the whole, (Mr. Miller in the Chair,) of 
 the report of the committee on the basis of representa- 
 tion. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Scott, of Fauquier. 
 Mr. LUCAS having the floor- 
 Mr. FAULKNER. My colleague, at my request, has 
 very kindly yielded the floor for a few moments, for the 
 purpose of enabling me to correct a manifest misappre- 
 hension of the effect of some propositions submitted by 
 me to this body a few days ago, under "which the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) judging from the 
 character of his remarks upon yesterday, appears to be 
 laboring. 
 
 The propositions I submitted related to the subject 
 of limiting the power of the legislative department to 
 contract of debts in future ; and an unwillingness to in- 
 terrupt the gentleman from Fauquier during the contin- 
 uance of his very able and fervid argument, and the 
 late hour at which he closed them, prevented me from 
 making the explanation on yesterday which I now pro- 
 pose to make. I had supposed, judging from the opin- 
 ions that gentleman is known to entertain upon the 
 subject of a liberal, I will not say, an extravagant sys 
 tern of internal improvements — that if he had had any 
 objection to the scheme I offered, it would have been to 
 the number and stringency of the safeguards I pro- 
 posed to throw around the exercise of the power just 
 alluded to. But in his remarks upon yesterday, he 
 treated these propositions as calculated to throw wider 
 open the floodgates of expenditure, so that I am sure 
 that he could not have examined my scheme with his 
 usual care and accuracy. I stated distinctly, when I 
 submitted those propositions, that I designed pressing 
 them upon the consideration of the Convention without 
 the slightest reference to the question, whether the east 
 or the west should succeed in the contest now going on 
 upon this floor. I said that our experience in the le- 
 gislation of the State during the last twenty-years had 
 sufficiently proved in my opinion, that the possession of 
 
348 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 4 
 
 the control of the legislature by an eastern majority 
 had been no safeguard against the abuse of that power 
 of reckless and injudicious appropriation, and that I 
 had no reason to suppose that if that power were 
 transferred to the west, without proper limitation, it 
 might not be equally liable to abuse ; and, therefore, in 
 presenting these propositions, I distinctly stated that 
 I designed pressing them upon the consideration of the 
 Contention without the slightest, regard to the fact as 
 to which party should succeed in the pending contro- 
 versy. 
 
 The second error which the gentleman committed in 
 treating of these propositions was, in representing them 
 as yielding the power of appropriation to the uncheck- 
 ed and uncontrolled action of the popular majority of 
 voters at the polls. 
 
 Now I claim no merit for introducing this plan ; I 
 claim not the credit of its paternity ; and I desire in a 
 few words to explain it to the Convention so that if 
 gentlemen choose to make reference to it they may do 
 it understandingly. The plan proposes that the legis- 
 lature shall have no power to contract debts beyond 
 the fixed sum of one million of dollars, unless for the 
 purpose of repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, 
 or defending the State in case of war. This refers to 
 debts hereafter to be contracted. It then proposes, in 
 reference to debts that exceed that amount, that before 
 the legislature shall have power to contract such debts 
 that the law shall in the first place explicitly ' authorize 
 the creation of that debt for some specific object or 
 work: secondly, that that law shall provide at the 
 same time, for the imposition and collection of ara an- 
 nual tax, sufficient to pay the interest on the debt thus 
 created, and discharge the principal within a period of 
 eighteen years ; and thirdly, that this law shall not re- 
 ceive the sanction of the legislative department until it 
 revives the vote of a majority of all the members 
 elected both branches of the general assembly, a major- 
 ity that will practically amount to at least a two-third 
 vote, and that the yeas and nays shall be recorded on 
 the passage of the law. These are very important safe- 
 guards so far; but the scheme proceeds a step further, 
 and declares that this law, thus creating a debt binding 
 upon the commonwealth shall not go into effect until 
 submitted to the people at the polls, and there sanc- 
 tioned by them ; and it expressly provides that no two 
 laws shall be submitted to the people at one general 
 election. Without meaning to enter further into an ex- 
 planation of the merits of this scheme, for I would not 
 trespass so far upon the courtesy of my colleague as to 
 do so now, I will simply state that at least three results 
 will follow its adoption ; whether the results be desira- 
 ble or not it is for this Convention to determine in the 
 first place, and afterwards for the people. They would 
 be these : The first result would be to cut up by the 
 roots all those petty and local appropriations of which 
 our statute book furnishes so many and striking illustra- 
 tions. It is idle to suppose for a moment that appro- 
 priations of that character could pass through the ordeal 
 prescribed by these propositions. The next result that 
 would follow would be the eradication from the halls of 
 legislation of the whole practice of log-rolling and the 
 entire system of lobby membership. The third result 
 that would follow would be the concentration of the 
 energies and resources of this State upon those great 
 works of internal improvement, which are alone worthy, 
 in my judgment, of the patronage of the State, and [ 
 which certainly alone could receive the sanction of the 
 voice of the people at the polls. 1 do not know how 
 some gentlemen may regard the idea of submitting 
 questions of this kind to the direct vote of the people, 
 but it has always been viewed with favor by me. I be- 
 lieve that salutary influences would result from bringing 
 the minds of the people directly to the comprehension 
 and study of these questions of internal concern and do- 
 mestic policy, and that they would be found upon all 
 occasions to possess intelligence and liberality enough 
 to decide upon any scheme worthy of their considera- 1 
 
 tion at all, with judgment and fairness, and of giving to 
 it precisely that s pport 'to which it would fee entitled 
 and no more. I have deemed it proper to make this 
 brief explanation in order that gentlemen may under- 
 stand the scheme properly and consider it upon its 
 merits ; and I would state that I hold myself prepared 
 to abandon it at any moment, if another scheme look- 
 iug to the same results, and which, in my judgment, 
 will better accomplish the objects designed, shall be 
 presented. All I desire is, that the evil which I pro- 
 pose to remedy, shall receive the consideration of this 
 Convention and be acted upon in some form by it. 
 
 Mr. LUCAS. I certainly should not ask indulgence 
 of the committee, if I could reconcile it to my sense of 
 duty to give a silent vote upon the important subject 
 under consideration. I feel very sensibly my individual 
 humility in this body ; and I am aware I cannot hope to 
 requite for the time I may consume in expressing my 
 views. 1 did not aspire or expect to preseut myself in 
 the position circumstances have placed me, in having 
 to succeed the able and distinguished gentleman from 
 .Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) But it was not for me to forego 
 my intention to speak, after my effort, on the day be- 
 fore he rose, to obtain the floor, and fall back from the 
 attitude I had assumed. It is not my purpose to at- 
 tempt to follow that gentleman through his long and 
 very able speech. Yet, I do propose to change, to some 
 considerable extent, the course of remark I had intend- 
 ed to pursue and to notice some of the principal argu- 
 ments which he submitted. 
 
 I come from the low err end of the valley, where na- 
 ture has been so kind and bountiful — where " the rich 
 woods," so called, attracted in his youth the Father of 
 his Country, before he had earned that name or any part 
 of his renown. Where are the homes that were, of ma- 
 ny of the most illustrious heroes of the revolution — the 
 brave old General Morgan, and Gates, and Lee, and Ste- 
 phens, and Dark, and others little less distinguished, all 
 had their homes within the district which I have the 
 honor in part to represent. And there the mortal re • 
 mains of the most of them now repose in peace beneath 
 the green turf of their own favored valley, their memo- 
 ries not forgotten nor their achievements • these still 
 live ; nor has the genius of their immortal spirits fled. 
 That too is still with us, sitting in eternal wake, we 
 fondly trust, keeping ceaseless vigils to inspire our bo- 
 soms with a love of liberty and equality. This is the 
 district from which I have the honor to come ; one I 
 say rich in soil and renown, and in all the beauties and 
 bounties of nature which a man could desire for a heri- 
 tage and a home upon this earth. 
 
 I deem it neither bad taste nor inappropriate to bring 
 up these reminiscences, in alluding to the peculiar situ- 
 ation and various advantages of my district. Indeed, 
 what 1 heard yesterday and the day before in this house 
 recalled them, and they now naturally arise and connect 
 themselves with my view of the very nature of the sub- 
 ject and the great principle involved in the question 
 under discussion, which 1 hold to be what is the true 
 republican basis of representation for the represe ntative 
 government of a free State, and which I verily believe 
 involves the very same principle for which our fore- 
 fathers fought and bled. I hope, in that spirit of con- 
 ciliation which should prevail in this committee, I shall 
 be pardoned for this unreserved annunciation. It is no- 
 hasty opinion I advance, but one long entertained — one 
 that has grown up with me and strengthened with my 
 age. And although others, not too humble like myself, 
 to indulge the hope of preferment, might be more pru- 
 dent, I feel no such restraint, for I have nothing to ask 
 for, nothing to hope for, nothing to expect, politically, 
 and no motive to shrink from the freest avowal of my 
 sentiments. 
 
 I am here without effort, solicitation or desire — with- 
 out a single aspiration that would have led me from my 
 home, where centre all my earthly hopes and affections, 
 here it is my pleasure to hear almost unceasingly, not 
 the discord that salutes me here, but the social sound 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 349 
 
 of the mingling flood, of the wedded waters of old Po- : equally, by a geographical line marked by a mountain, 
 tomac and Shenandoah, allow me to say, not more con- as though, as was aptly remarked by the distinguished 
 genial or happy in their union, nor identical in their , gentleman from Henrico, at an early stage of our pro- 
 destiny, when lost in the deep bosom of the ocean, than jceedings, e " principles run with mountains/' I entertain 
 
 should be, I can say with as ardent a love as glow; 
 the breast of her proudest son, east and west. 
 Virginia forever! 
 
 I but use this figure to illustrate and enforce the sen 
 timent, and I will, if indulged, extend it to say, that as 
 
 decided opinion, that if no question of power was in- 
 and all'volved in this contest and no question of principle, we 
 could settle it very soon. Is there any doubt of this ? 
 | None in the world on my mind ; none. 
 
 Well, in regard to this matter, mv constituents, if 
 
 these meandering streams of different source and seem- governed by interest?, which the honorable gentleman 
 ingly once estranged, and brought together by some 
 
 who addressed you on yesterday, told you governs all 
 men and all things, and lies at the foundation of gov- 
 ernment, would occupy precisely the opposite side to 
 that upon w* ich they have instructed me to stand here, 
 and so may claim to be an exception to this rule. With 
 those great natural and local advantages — with every 
 great work of improvement nearly already made, we 
 desire, which you know you were so emphatically told 
 yesterday by the honorable gentleman, is not the case 
 with the east, and is far from being true as to the west. 
 
 great convulsion, as our ancestors were by oppression 
 united in the revolution, now consummate their union 
 at that romantic spot so much admired, will henceforth, 
 according to all human calculation, at least, mangle their 
 continuous flow through all time, so, it is the first wish 
 of my heart, that we, as a people who have one origin, 
 one ancestry, one language, one renown, and one coun- 
 try, with common interests to unite us in one great and 
 glorious Commonwealth, shall continue for many ages 
 and generations yet to come, to live in unity and har- j With our markets beyond the limits of the State, and 
 mony together under a common government and a com- I yet almost at our door, while we are to be taxed to 
 mon name, aud that name, I am sure all concur, Vir- imake these improvements east and west, without direct 
 ginia and none other, and not only for ages and genera j benefit from either ; in this situation, it is manifest, we 
 tions, but forever ! And I will hope and hope onto the have more to fear, in that respect, from power in the 
 last, that this is to be our destiny, notwithstanding what 'hands of the west than in those of the east, for we have 
 I have heard without and within those consecrated j nearly as large a slave population as the east, and a far 
 walls, and within and without this ancient, this time- ! larger proportion than the west, while our lands are 
 honored capitol of our common country, around whose I richer and higher assessed than those of either, and 
 altars we are gathered together, from every portion of (much more so than those of the west; and we all know 
 this old commonwealth, to consult, to deliberate, and I [that it is upon these two great proprietory interests — 
 trust in G-od, to act for the common good, not sectional slaves and lands — upon which the taxing power presses 
 interests! And why not hope it, -why not, when I can I most onerously, and so must fall with a heavier 
 say for myself and my respected colleagues and those 'hand upon us than either the east or the west, who- 
 whom I have the proud honor to represent in this assemblv, lever wields the power. It is most clearly demonstra- 
 that it is no part of our nature or of our purpose to in- |ble, then, if we were to be governed by interest, or if we 
 dulge even in embryo for one moment, the thought of were to be influenced by the fear of taxation, which 
 separation and division. Never, never, no. never, so i seems to be the main ground assumed by our eastern 
 long as there shall remain to us a single ray of hope of brethren for holding on to power, that we should go 
 obtaining our just and equal rights. No, as for us, how- j with them upon the basis question, instead of with the 
 ever it may be with others, we would rather sae the west. To be still more explicit, if. in our opinion, this 
 hills and mountains that surround us, attached as we | was simply a question of power, as asserted by the 
 are to them, as nature formed them, and as we have (honorable gentleman from Halifax, (Mr. Pub.ki.vs,) if 
 been accustomed to look upon them even from our child- j there was no principle iuvolved in it, or if we believed 
 hood, endeared to us by all their holy associations in | principle was on the side of the east, aud that a " ma- 
 our recollections of the past and by nativity, melted in- Ijority of interests," as the honorable gentleman from 
 to one vast heap of ruins, covering in the mass our j Fauquier so powerfully contended, in one section of the 
 homes, our all, even the graves of our fathers and our State, and n it numbers over the whole commonwealth 
 forefathers, leaving tomb nor stone to tell the sacred as one community, was the true republican basis, then 
 spot of their repose, than we would rise up to sever the the valley, or at least my end of it, would, from inter- 
 bond that binds this people in unity, as the children of | est and principle, be found on this question on the side 
 
 a common moth< 
 
 of the east instead of with the west. These two pow- 
 erful motives would impel us. But we are not able to 
 concur in the view that there is no principle involved — 
 that it is simply a contest for power, when, so far as we 
 are concerned, we know that it is not so. We cannot 
 concede that a minority located in one section of the 
 State, which happen^, for the time being, to own the most 
 wealth, should therefore govern the State and the ma- 
 
 Occupying this enviable position, favored with every 
 natura' aud artificial advantage," we only ask to be per- 
 mitted to remain part and parcel of Virginia, under a 
 free and equal form of government, truly republican, to 
 secure U3 in the full enjoyment of what we have, and 
 under such a government, and under no other, may hope 
 for in future. Well, the question meets us here, have 
 we such a government? For what have we assem- jority of the people. This is contrary to our feelings 
 bled? For what purposes have we been chosen and aud al1 our notions of right. It would violate first prin- 
 delegatedto this old capital, by a large majority of [ciples and the right of self-government. We were born 
 the electors of the whole State, a class I hope to | and inspired with different feelings and sentiments, and 
 see enlarged. We have been sent here, charged with we have been taught dieffrently— we have learned oth- 
 the sacred duty to amend and reform our existing erwise from the highest sources and the highest author- 
 constitution and government, in various and important ^J- 
 
 particulars, and especially its basis of representation, | Our bill of rights expressly declares, that "all power 
 because deemed ineffectual for the great ends of its in- is vested in and consequently derived from the people- 
 
 stitution. And I apprehend, we should have very lit 
 tie in the way to prevent our arriving and speedily at 
 the end of our labors, and at harmonious results, but for 
 one difficulty, and that is this question of the basis 
 which lies at the threshold. We cannot take a step — 
 we cannot move an inch, it appears, until we settle it, 
 and fix the foundation upon which the whole govern 
 ment is to rest, and most unfortunately upon this ques 
 
 that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at 
 all times amenable to them ; and that a majority of the 
 community hath an indubitable, unalienable and inde- 
 feasible right to reform, alter or abolish their govern- 
 ment in such a manner as shall be judged most condu- 
 cive to the public weal ; that elections of members to 
 serve as representatives of the people ought to be free ; 
 and that all men, having sufficient evidence of perma- 
 
 tion we stand here divided into two parties, and nearly jnsnt common interest in and attachment to the conirnu- 
 
350 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 nity, have the right of suffrage." And the declaration 
 of rights made by the thirty other States of this Union — 
 and when I name them, I certainly need not tell you 
 that there are, strictly speaking, no other free States on 
 earth — all set forth and affirm these great fundamental 
 principles and eternal truths as self-evident, and with 
 three or four exceptions, have actually made them the 
 basis of their governments. Yes, the whole thirty, with 
 these few exceptions, have based representation upon 
 numbers — people — and adopted general suffrage, and 
 many of them have now actually had more than half a 
 century's experience of the practical wisdom of equal 
 representation and extended suffrage, and others more 
 than a quarter of a century's like experience, while all 
 the rest — the new States — have followed principle, and 
 trod in the light of their example, and are now in the 
 full tide of successful experiment. Yes, all launched 
 from this same free port, and under full sail, on the 
 same glorious voyage upon the onward, endless stream 
 of time, fully equipped for their common destination, 
 fearing not, under the smiles of heaven, storm or tem- 
 pest, shoal or quicksand, but all sure of the glittering 
 prize. Old Virginia, the eldest sister, "the flag ship," 
 and the most sea-worthy of all, lagging back solitary and 
 alone, still afraid to venture upon a calm and tranquil 
 sea, and upon such a voyage — still at anchor upon her 
 old colonial ground — unequal representation and limi- 
 ted suffrage — as if given up to idle fear or worse idola- 
 try; still lingering on an unsafe and uncertain shore, as 
 if afraid of losing her freight or some part of it, and 
 afraid, as my friend from Accomac (Mr. Wise) says, of 
 the majority of her own noble crew, who would, every 
 one of them, shed their last drop of blood in her de- 
 fence — standing, as I hope to show, on her own shad- 
 ow in her own light,' and frightened at that shadow ; 
 in opposition, I repeat it, to her own declaration of rights 
 and those of her thirty sister States — against principle, 
 example, experience, and that prosperity and glory 
 which would attend an onward course in the plain re- 
 publican path of duty, upon this most glorious voyage. 
 
 After the course of remark submitted by the honora- 
 ble gentleman from Fauquier, I am led out of my way, 
 as prescribed for myself. He has made it important to 
 inquire, how Virginia came into the position just descri- 
 bed, and why she has so long continued in it. In this 
 investigation I beg the committee to follow me. Like 
 the honorable gentleman just referred to, I fear nothing 
 in search of truth. The story is a plain one and soon 
 told, and presents another instance with which the his- 
 tory of the world is replete, of power holding on to 
 power, once obtained, no matter how, and not unfre- 
 quently against both right and reason leaving the many 
 no alternative but submission or revolt, which, when 
 sucess attends, and their cause is just, we all call glo- 
 rious revolution, not rebellion. 
 
 The means by which the few have ever contrived, in 
 all ages and countries, to rule the many, are numerous 
 and various, and the modes of self-perpetuating power 
 and force and fraud, and a combination of wealth and 
 interests, the chief. With us, while we have had noth- 
 ing of this sort, and I take pleasure in disclaiming the 
 imputation, the process has been a simple one. Yet the 
 fact is so. The few have ruled the many in Virginia 
 from the beginning, and still do ; not indeed tyrannical- 
 ' ly, nor oppressively, but still it is true — as certain as 
 there is a God in Heaven. 
 
 I agree that the origin of this minority rule in Vir- 
 ginia, is not without apology. I do not deny, at least, 
 that there are many things to extenuate and even to ex- 
 cuse in the circumstances out of which it emerged. 
 Yet I can see nothing to sanction the long continuance 
 of it, and I do see much to condemn the existing, une- 
 qual representation, restricted suffrage, and other anti- 
 republican relics. 
 
 Our constitution and government, as you are aware, 
 except as amended and changed in some few particulars 
 in 1829-30, had its birth in the revolution. Those 
 
 times of trouble "that tried men's souls." Our early 
 ancestors, who fled to this western world from the per- 
 secutions and oppressions of the old, in settling here irj 
 a wilderness, brought with them only such laws as were 
 adapted to their new and strange situation. And few 
 in number, at first, and with little to care for but them- 
 selves, they indeed needed but little government and 
 law. But they gradually increased, grew , and flourished,, 
 though but slowly, and improving but little as they ad- 
 vanced in their civil and political institutions, dependent 
 as they were ly^on the crown to which they acknow- 
 ledged allegiance still, until their prosperity attracted 
 the rapacity of the mother country, ruled by a selfish ty- 
 rant and a coldblooded ministry. Then soon the substance 
 of that prosperity began to be abstracted under color of 
 one pretence after another, against their consent, and ex- 
 actions to increase and multiply until longer submission 
 became intolerable. Then, we know, they resisted, and 
 lose with their confederates, and threw off the yoke, 
 casting it in the wide ocean that separated them. The 
 contest was one of fearful odds, one of doubtful issue, 
 and full of hazards, and while it was raging, the old 
 government dissolved and abrogated, amidst the heat 
 and carnage of this life-struggle, a convention was called 
 under a law passed by the last house of burgesses, 
 " whose power," to use the language of Mr. Doddridge, 
 "had actually ceased with the colonial government^ 
 and by the same act that dissolved it." And that body, 
 calling itself a convention, and assuming the authority, 
 and to their honor be it said, made our first constitu- 
 tion. Our old constitution was thus gotten up in haste 
 and danger, to meet the pending crisis, as a temporary 
 expedient, intended only to ride out the storm, not to- 
 last ; and being thus gotten up and designed, as was said 
 by my friend from Greenbrier, (Mr. Smith,) in opening 
 this debate, it is no reflection upon its authors to say, 
 what is the truth, that it was defective and imperfect. 
 Indeed, as he truly remarked, " the wonder is, that it 
 was not more so, under the circumstances, especially as 
 they had no model to guide them." 
 
 In fact, it changed but little the old colonial govern- 
 ment which had sprung up, under their connection with 
 the crown, their dependence and allegiance. And the 
 delegates who made it were elected by freeholders hold- 
 ing fifty acres of cultivated or one hundred acres of un- 
 cultivated land. But the country submitted to their 
 authority and tacitly adopted their work, although the 
 constitution was never submitted to a formal vote, as in 
 truth they were obliged to, under the circumstances, if 
 they had been otherwise disposed. 
 
 But who were these first constitution makers? I say 
 they were confessedly but the representatives of this 
 one particular class of freeholders, a portion only— and 
 but a comparatively small portion only — of the people. 
 
 And what did they do? I repeat but little more, be- 
 sides repudiating the crown and their allegiance, than 
 continue the same state of things before existing — the 
 same old freehold government of the few, without the 
 crown — under another name, it is true — but scarcely 
 changed in form, substance, or power. 
 
 They substituted a house of delegates for the old 
 house of burgesses, and a senate for the old legislative 
 coumil, confiding to each precisely the same powers and 
 privileges as possessed by their predecessors, and prescri- 
 bing for members the same qualifications respectively, 
 and to be elected by the same class of freeholders, and a 
 governor for the Crown? And the same old colonial ba- 
 sis of representation and limited freehold suffrage, they 
 expressly declared, should remain the same as -under the 
 old colonial government, under Which, from 1620, when 
 the first house of burgesses assembled at Jamestown, 
 the burgesses were elected by the different plantations 
 or settlements in the colony, paying nc regard to the 
 size, population, or extent of territory, or wealth of the 
 plantation, each being allowed a representation ; and un- 
 til 1645, as many members as they chose to send, no 
 matter what its population, or wealth, or extent of ter- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 351 
 
 ritory. In 1634, for the first time, the colony was divi- ed, and such as are incidental 
 ded into shires or counties, eisrht in number, for military and proper to ca-ry them into 
 
 thereto, and necessary 
 euect — that the State 
 
 and judicial purposes only, which remained very differ- governments hare all power not denied. They elected 
 ent as before, in extent of territorv and iu their popula- our United States senators, our 
 
 tion, and the same 
 
 popula- jour United States senators, our governors and council, 
 representation remaining to each Judges, generals, and other officers, and passed all laws 
 county; and, as different settlements, from time to time ! affecting life and liberty as well as property. Its pow- 
 spruug up, new counties were erected and a like repre- er, in the emphatic and expressive words of the distin- 
 
 sentation allowed to them ; and, in like manner as ap- 
 plications continued to be made, the old counties, or some 
 of them, were divided, with a like representation, but 
 none of the counties, old or new. were restricted as to 
 the number of members until 16i5, a? before said, when 
 they were limited to four each, and finally, in 1660, to 
 two members each. The right of suffrage, in the mean- 
 time, which had at first been enjoyed by all the inhab- 
 itants, undergoing various changes at iutervals, until 
 1677, when the king sent his private order to his obse- 
 quious governor — to use the language of the distin- 
 guished John R. Cook, in the last contention — backed 
 by two regiments of British soldiers, and caused it to 
 be restricted to a certain class of freeholders, from 
 which it was afterwards changed, at intervals until lim- 
 ited to those first stated. 
 
 Such is the origin, and such the circumstances prece- 
 ding and accompanying the birth of our old constitu- 
 tion, and such the state of thing? with which its fra- 
 mers had to deal; and after expelling the presence of 
 king and parliament, they only r ^-established matters 
 nearly as before existing, under our connexion with the 
 crown, giving, in like manner, to the new legislature, as 
 before possessed by the old house of burgesses, the same 
 power to form new counties, and to divide old ones, with 
 a like representation of two members to each, but none 
 as before existing, to take away any representation from 
 any county. 
 
 This want of power in the new legislature, to take 
 from a county, after divided and reduced in size, any 
 part of its representation, not only continued, but ag- 
 gravated the old colonial plantation county-converted 
 bas'13 of representation, by increasing the inequality 
 still more under it, while it was being still farther in- 
 creased by natural causes, so that when the old consti- 
 tution of 1776, which we hear so much lauded, was 
 amended in 1829-30, the least county in the State had 
 as large a representation a3 the very largest county, 
 each having two delegates ; and the representation in 
 the senate remained even more unequal, until there-or- 
 ganization and favorable change in that body in 1813. 
 While the old freehold suffrage remained the same a? 
 under the old colonial government, and continued to be 
 exercised and enjoyed by a portion — not to say even j 
 minority — of the freeholding class, which was itself a mi 
 nority of the freemen of the State, so that the whole 
 government, under the old constitution, until amended 
 in 1829-30, from the first, was in the hands of this por- 
 tion only— not to sjv minority of the minority — of the 
 freeholders, with all its powers, which were very great. 
 The legislature possessed the right to do almost any 
 and every thing within State jurisdiction, under the gen- 
 eral government of the Union, not expressly denied, 
 such as they should not suspend the writ of habeas cor- 
 pus, pass any bill of attainder, or any exposte facto law, 
 or any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the 
 press, &c, and with all the power, all elections aud offi- 
 ces were retained in the hands of the legislature, and 
 withdrawn and taken away from even this limited num- 
 ber of the people, these few freeholders (themselves but 
 a portion of the freeholding class) who elected legisla- 
 tures, and whose government it was — a government, I 
 do not hesitate to say, with all my respect and rever- 
 ence for the memory of its illustrious authors, and I 
 yield to no one in my veneration for them — constituting 
 beyond ail question and denial, an aristocracy. Even 
 the power of life and death, in addition to that of un- 
 limited taxation, was held bv this old government oli- 
 garchy, it being well settled that while the federal gov- 
 ernment possesses no powers but those expressly grant- 
 
 guished John R. Cook, quoted in'the last convention, 
 " was over every thing, coming home to the bosom and 
 business of men." It was an omnipotent, almost, as the 
 British Parliament, without even the check of kingly 
 negative, and which, we all know, is all powerful, for 
 it has even changed the descent of the crown, more than 
 once ; and under the king, engaged in war after war, 
 and has entailed a national debt upon the people amount- 
 ing now, although diminished to some eight hundred 
 millions of pounds sterling, and which it is, I verily 
 believe, that holds that great consolidated empire 
 together. 
 
 Against this old constitution, and the state of things 
 existing under it, even before the revolution had fairly 
 closed, and the sunshine of peace, after a seven years' 
 eclipse of darkness and blood, had fully opened upon 
 the land, which so many had spilt their blood to re- 
 deem from a foreign thraldom, the voice of complaint, 
 opposition and remonstrance went up, from various parts 
 of the commonwealth. As early as 1731, we find the 
 great "apostle of liberty," the author of the Declara- 
 tion of American Independence, and our own, and our 
 act of religious freedom — he who laid the axe to the 
 root of the odious rule of primogeniture and entails, to 
 which some of our distinguished statesmen long clung ; 
 the philosopher, sage and statesman, whose love of lib- 
 erty and equality was as ardent as it was sincere, and 
 confined to no country or clime, but extended every- 
 where where man had a home, and which abated not, 
 even with the ebbing pulse of life — as evidenced by his 
 letter of 1816, to Mr. Kerchival — the influence of which 
 has been spoken of in a tone of complaint within these 
 walls, as still operating, and which I trust in God, will 
 continue to be felt until Virginia is reformed, and never 
 cease till the world is redeemed from vassalage wherev- 
 er enslaved. Te3, at this early period we find Thos. Jef- 
 ferson declaring this constitution " to be but our first essay 
 at free government," and urging upon his countrvmeu 
 the duty " of reducing those principles to practice so 
 soon as leisure should be afforded them for entrenching, 
 with good -forms, the rights for which they had bled." 
 And the people, and especially of the west, have never 
 ceased, from that day forward, to appeal to their breth- 
 ren in power for reform. Then "this eternal clamor," 
 which the honorable gentleman from Fauquier, and oth- 
 ers, have denounced, commenced, and it has never ceas- 
 ed, and I can tell gentlemen, never will, until justice is 
 done. 
 
 As far back as 1790, we find petitions from 
 counties pouring in upon the legislature, from 
 year, almost. In 1806, a resolution passed the house of 
 delegates to submit the call of a convention to the vote 
 of the freeholders, but failed in the senate. Again, in 
 1814, another bill for the same purpose, only failed by 
 a small majority, the minority, we are assured, represent- 
 ing a majority of the people, and among other matters 
 of reform then demanded, was an extension of the right 
 of suffrage, and an equalization of representation. 
 
 Again, in 1S15, another bill was gotten up for the 
 same end, and rejected as before, by a vote repre- 
 senting a minority of the people. 
 
 These repeated rejections of bills by the legislature, 
 by majorities representing minorities of the people, as 
 was stated by the honorable gentleman from Augusta, 
 (Mr. Sheffev,) led to numerous public meetings, and 
 to one of an exciting character held in Winchester, 
 which was soon followed by a convention of the people 
 of the west generally, and from other portions of the 
 State, called in 1816, at Staunton, very numerously at- 
 tended, which passed many resolves, and sent up a warm 
 
 various 
 year to 
 
352 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 and able memorial to the legislature, calling for a State 
 convention, and among O'her things again, for the ex- 
 tension of the right of suffrage and an equalization of 
 representation, among the free white population of the 
 commonwealth, and that failed in the same way. But, 
 it led to the re- organization of the senatorial districts of 
 the State, under which the west, which had but four 
 senators to twenty east, got nine members in that body, 
 and representation upon the white basis in that body, 
 which appeased the spirit of reform for a time. After 
 all this, however, a second convention convened at 
 Staunton, in 1825, setting forth still the same objects, 
 and this resulted in the second or third year alter, in the 
 call of the State convention of 1829. 
 
 From this brief sketch, which I have gathered from 
 the debates in the former convention and other sources, 
 and given as accurately as I could from memory, and 
 since hearing the speech of the honorable gentleman 
 who addressed us yesterday, arranged in my mind as 
 well as I could, of the continued appeals and move- 
 ments of the west and other portions of the State for 
 redress, and especially for the extension of the right of 
 suffrage and equal representation, almost from the pe- 
 riod of the revolution down to the call of the conven- 
 tion of 1828, we see how constant and ardent was the 
 desire for these great reforms. Yes, how loud and long has 
 been this " clamor" — as eastern gentlemen are pleased to 
 characterize the just complaint of the people against a 
 minority rule. During all this time, more than half 
 century, the government was in the hands of a class of 
 freeholders, composing but a small portion of the free- 
 men of the State, holding on to power, the offices and all, 
 and refusing redress, and even a convention all this 
 time — more than half a century — and at last granted it 
 upon equal terms. 
 
 "Well, the convention of 1829, for I have come to this 
 point of the history of power holding on to power, 
 which it had taken almost from "76 to 1829, of such con- 
 tinuous appt als to obtain from this small minority in 
 power upon unequal terms, met in this house, I was about 
 to say — I mean in the capitol, and found itself nearly 
 equally divided on both these great questions, suffrage 
 and representation by this geographical line, the blue 
 ridge mountains ; all suffrage men, for the most part, 
 and white basis men I believe, without exception, west, 
 and nearly all anti-suffrage and mixed basis men, of 
 some description, with a few exceptions east, and this 
 basis que tion divides us now, with some few exceptions 
 east, in our favor, and by the same line. But I am hap- 
 py to be assured, that we nearly all, are now at last, 
 in favor of of giving the election of all officers from 
 governor down, direct to the people, and of extending 
 the right of suffrage and of limiting and restricting the 
 hitherto almost unlimited powers of the minority gov- 
 ernment — thus proving that truth, right and justice 
 have so far triumphed and are prevailing, and wili final- 
 ly completely triumph, that the grasp of power is re- 
 laxing. Well, the convention of 1829, after a hard 
 struggle, characterized by the most brilliant displays of 
 arguments and eloquence ever witnessed, perhaps, in 
 any assembly, in any age or country, was finally obliged 
 to compromise upon this basis question to reach results. 
 And what did they do? Although the right of suffrage 
 was considerably extended and a few other reforms 
 made, yet,instead of deciding this basis question, they set- 
 teld and fixed no rule at all They divided the State in 
 reference to the house of delegates, into four great dis 
 tticts, and gave to each so many members, thirty -six to 
 tida-water, forty-two to Piedmont, twenty-five to the 
 valley, and thirty -one to the trans-Alleghany ; and then 
 laid off the S^ate in reference to the senate, into two 
 grand districts, east and west of the blue ridge, retain 
 ing nineteen members in that body east, and givng thir 
 teen west. 
 
 Under this arrangement was secured to the east a 
 majority of twenty-two members in the house of dele- 
 gates, and of six in the senate, and twenty-eight on joint 
 
 ballot, while there were but some forty-three thousand 
 a few hundreds of a majority of white population east 
 of the blue ridge— and this of course, oontinued and se- 
 cured the governmentand all its power, patronage and 
 offices in their hands, if not as strongly, as surely as be- 
 fore. For it was further provided, in regard to future 
 apportionments, that the number of members should 
 never exceed one hundred and fifty in the house of dele- 
 gates and thirty-six in the senate ; so that in any event 
 the east was always to have at the ultimate limit of 
 apportionment, a majority in both branches of the legis- 
 lature; and of at least twelve on joint ballot, however 
 great and overwhelming the excess of population and 
 wealth too, might become in time to the west, unless 
 two-thirds of each house should, after the year 1841, 
 concur in a general re-apportionment throughout the 
 commonwealth; a thing never to be expected at the 
 hands of the east. This arrangement, although equali- 
 zing to some extent, representation among the several 
 counties within each of the lour great districts, and 
 two grand divisions, is but tantalizing. It is an equali- 
 zation of no avail in giving equal political power to the 
 west, in not extending over the whole State. Its effect 
 is limited by these districts and divisions, and the limi- 
 tation of the ultimate number of members assigned to 
 the two branches of the legislature. It is worse in fact, 
 than the simple mixed basis would be, in the end, and 
 even worse than under the old constitution, in the par- 
 ticular of taking away the white basis in the senate, 
 under which already we would have gained a majori- 
 ty in that branch ; and infinitely worse in the end, in 
 securing the majority of the power to a sectional 
 minority east of the blue ridge, which no increase of 
 population and wealth in the west, however great, can 
 ever overcome without a change in the organic law. 
 
 And as there is no hope of two-thirds of the legisla- 
 ture agreeingto a general re-apportionment under our 
 existing constitution, resting upon this arbitary basis, 
 with these districts and divisions and ultimate limit of 
 the number of members in both branches of the legisla- 
 ture, the west must therefore forever remain in a mi- 
 nority in the government without a change — she must 
 remain forever powerless under all circumstances, and 
 in all probable events in a state of political inferiority, 
 not to say vassalage, for the great purposes of self-gov- 
 ernment, and hopelessly so, for all time. And yet we 
 have now a majority of ninety-three thousand of the 
 white population. I use strong language, but I think 
 not too strong; for our present constitution and govern- 
 ment, like its predecessor, the old one, is so framed and 
 contrived in all its departments of power, under this 
 unequal mixed basis in disguise, (for the effect is equiva- 
 lent,) that this sectional minority east, which has thus 
 secured to it this permanent sectional majority in both 
 branches of the legislature — besides having the appoint- 
 meut of our United States senators under the constitu- 
 tion of the Union— holds in the hands of its majority 
 legislature, the election of governor, the executive 
 council, militia generals and our judges; and even 
 through the commissioning power of its executive, 
 that of justices of the peace, or county magistrates, 
 constituting our county courts which decide, manage 
 and control everything belonging and appertaining to 
 county police and levies, and so even our purse strings. 
 
 Our members of assembly we select, and our inferior 
 militia officers under a brigadier general, the companies 
 and battalions may, I believe elect, but besides these, 
 of all elections and officers, that of our overseers of the 
 poor is the poor privilege allowed us. Thus, the ma- 
 jority of the free white people of the State— a majori- 
 ty rapidly increasing— hold life, liberty and property, 
 all subject to the will of this sectional minority east of 
 the blue ridge, ^and I repeat, the powers of this gov- 
 ernment are scarcely Fruited by any restrictions) as 
 limited only in power, for good or evil, weal or woe, by 
 the organic law < f this constitution. Limitations, we 
 are told, if we held the power, would be mere " paper 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 353 
 
 guaranties," not worth the paper they are written upon, 
 fas a security to the property of the east. And all this 
 while we are tauntingly warned, by both the gentlemen 
 who proceded me on the other side, and others, to re- 
 member '• that we are living and deliberating under an 
 existing constitution and laws." Yet what is that but 
 a paper constitution ? This is the pretence under which 
 the minority in the east have hitherto ruled, and still in- 
 sist on retaining the power. 
 
 Power and property, we are gravely told, cannot be 
 safely divorced in the east, but may exist very happily, 
 separate and apart in the west, in single blessedness, 
 and under " paper guarantees," too, in the hands of our 
 political guardians m the east. Is this because proper- 
 ty "is not the creature of government," in the language 
 of the gentleman from Halifax, "but the gift ofhea-j 
 ven" in the east and not in the west? Am I to infer, 
 as that gentleman seemed sagely to iusinuate, that 
 power and property, on this side of the mountain, were 
 wedded in heaven ? Did they derive their slave proper- 
 ty by the erift of God ? Did deity give man to man, or 
 property in man ? And yet this is the great peculiar 
 interest that claims all power and all protection. What 
 unjust dread this — that the west would overtax or im- 
 pair the right to this peculiar property, held by some 
 forty or fifty thousand people only out of the nine hun 
 dred thousand in the State, and of that number some 
 ten thousand of these slaveholders, living in the valley 
 and the west. Are these few slaveholders to rule the 
 State forever, and the vast majority of the whole peo- 
 ple ? Is this the issue ? Surely it is the difficulty. 
 Life and liberty are the gift of God, and property is 
 not ; that is the creature of labor, and entitled to pro- 
 tection, and we are willing to give it that. I speak of 
 the power possessed by the existing minority govern- 
 ment, not as to the mode and manner in which it has 
 been exercised. 1 enter not now into that inquiry. I 
 meant mainly to discuss the great principle of the right 
 of the majority to govern, upon which rests the right of 
 self government. But, when it had been so boldly 
 thrown up to us, that a large majority had adopted our 
 present constitution, and that a majority had called this 
 con/ention and had 'voluntarily come forward and ten- 
 dered it,' I felt called upon, contrary to my intended 
 course, tore»iew the past, and show what was the origin 
 of this minority rule in Virginia, and how power had held 
 on to power, and struggled to retain it. And I affirm 
 that I have exhibited fairly the miserable, unequal state 
 of things, and political vassalage of the majority of the 
 people, and especially in the west, under the old free- 
 hold constitution; and the present still more miserable 
 and unequal state of things, and political vassalage, un- 
 der our existing constitution and sectional minority rule. 
 With respect to the adoption of our present constitution 
 as no constitution, based upon white population was 
 presented or allowed to be presented to the voters at 
 the same time, it is unjust to say a majority have will- 
 ingly sanctioned it. The only issue was a choice be- 
 tween the old and the new ; and if true, as gentlemen 
 insist and I admit, there can be no convention called 
 under the present government, without the consent of 
 those who h >ld the power — no alternative is left, and 
 do remedy for the evil, but a resort to those great, eter- 
 nal, inherent rights in the majority of the people out 
 side of, and independent of, this constitution. And the 
 hardship is, that the inequality and injustice of the 
 present constitutional arrangement is still increasing, is 
 growing worse, and becoming still more aggravated the 
 longer we live under it, as shown by the results of the 
 census and assessment recently laid before us ; and the 
 dissatisfaction of the west has increased, and is increas- 
 ing, and must continue to increase in the same ratio, 
 without a civ nge, if continued to be indured forever. 
 Yes. this ' eternal clamor' for right, not for plunder for 
 the sake of the profit, to get hold of the treasury, is in- 
 creasing. I remember the honorable gentleman from 
 Fauquier explained away the supposed use of these 
 
 terms, and certainly to my satisfaction. But the hon- 
 orable gentleman from Halifax certainly insisted that, 
 on the part of the west, this was but "a naked ques- 
 tion of power, for the lust of power and for the abuse 
 of it." I scout the imputation, and I tell gentlemen 
 that we will not give up in despair. We have resour- 
 ces from which to draw both courage and consolation ; 
 we know, as the giant feels his strength come, as he 
 grows impatient under restraint, that this great and 
 growing west must now, or very soon, and I thank God, 
 peaceably too, draw power to itself upon any basis. 
 Those 'Briarean arms,' aliuded toby my friend from Au- 
 gusta, which the east has aided in extending, at an enor- 
 mous cost, for the benefit of this old city and the east 
 generally, will aid us in rising into power. 
 
 We think this change should come now. Appealing 
 to our own bosoms ; to our consciences ; to our sense of 
 right and wrong; to our notions of natural right and the 
 great principles of justice planted in our breasts by the 
 hand that made us ; to the teachings of those immortal 
 British patriots who wrote and bled in defence of the 
 same upon British soil, which served to inspire our fore- 
 fathers, who fought and bled for the-same rights in the 
 revolution ; to our bill of rights ; to the declarations of 
 rights in the thirty constitutions of the thirty free and 
 sovereign States of this trlorious ; Union and to their con- 
 stitutions based upon them, and to their practical experi- 
 ence under them. By all these considerations and prin- 
 ciples, we feel constrained to insist upon this change now. 
 I know we have been told, with an air of pleasure, that 
 the east called the last convention, and have, called this. 
 They prescribed their own terms and conditions, as the 
 honorable gentleman who addressed us yesterday ad- 
 mitted. Upon the unequal terms of unequal represen- 
 tation was the last convened, and they called this upon 
 the same, which gives them a majority in this body, al- 
 though the west has now a majority of some ninety- 
 three thousand white population, thus securing to them 
 the minority and a sectional minority, and therefore 
 the less tolerable, still the power to retain the power — 
 the numbers to vote us down here, in this reform con- 
 vention, and still to defeat equal representation, the ex- 
 tension of the right of suffrage, and all reforms they 
 choose to deny, and so to perpetuate their minority gov- 
 ernment over the majority ; and this is the character of 
 the report B, and of the proposed amendment of the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, offered as a substitute. In 
 this body numbers count — here numbers give power. 
 Here numbers rule — here the majority principle is 
 correct and right, and is recognized as the only correct 
 principle, flowing from the jus majoris. that the majority 
 have the right to rule, because it enables the majority 
 here representing a minority of the people possessed of 
 the government to hold on to power, while denying this 
 power to numbers to be the true principle to give power 
 at the polls to the majority, when the play would come 
 to us. The'majority of the people of the State, of the 
 free white population, are powerless here — the minority 
 all powerful here — because this rule, this fundamental 
 principle, lying at the root of the right of self-govern- 
 ment, is denied in the basis of representation, upon 
 which this government rests and has its power. And 
 yet this rule works, and is the only one that will work, 
 or does work in every other case, save and excepting this 
 single one, of taking away power from this sectional mi- 
 nority in the east, and giving it to the majority, not in 
 the west, but over the whole State. 
 
 This is still disregarding and rejecting the appeal, the 
 long-continued appeal, of the majority of the freemen of 
 the Commonwealth for equal rights — one that will con- 
 t inue to increase in earnestness, strength and power as the 
 majority in the west increases, and that will grow louder 
 and louder the longer it is disregarded and justice de- 
 nied. #For it is swelling beyond the mountains, and 
 echoing in the valley, coming up from old Accomac, and 
 heard reverberating at the base o f the blue ridge, upon 
 
354 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 old Loudoun; and, as it speaks the mighty trumpet 
 voice of truth, it must at last prevail. 
 
 My constituents, occupying the position they do, as I 
 have described, lacking nothing, wantir.g nothing, and 
 desiring nothing, but a free and equal form of govern- 
 ment, based upon the people and equal rigats, and not 
 people and fluctuating, perishable, soulless wealth, 
 which are like the stream that is always running in and 
 out with various volumes to secure us in the enjoy- 
 ment of our personal rights, our lives and liberties, as 
 well as property, which though less, as our all, is as dear 
 to us as yours to you, have looked abroad over this 
 whole Commonwealth, surveyed and contrasted all its 
 great interests, narrowly inspected and deliberately con- 
 sidered our present constitution and form of govern- 
 ment from its base up, and have condemned the founda- 
 tion upon which it rests, as well as many of its parts, 
 and have instructed me so to declare and to obtain if 
 practicable the desired reforms, and they have in effect 
 charged me to proclaim, that in coming to the conclu- 
 sion, that the white basis is the only true republican 
 basis, they brought to the consideration of the subject, 
 minds free from all bias, arising from sectional interest, 
 or influence, or feeling, regarding their brethren east 
 and west alike, allowing neither the Blue Ridge on the 
 one side, nor the Alleghanies on the other, to interpose 
 any barrier to the free and equal flow of their affec 
 tions, but feeling towards all and regarding all as breth- 
 ren, "bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh," part 
 and parcel, all of one and the same great family and 
 body politic. The sun rising in the east and setting, al- 
 ways leaving them as it found them, alienated from 
 none, but bound up in the same bond of life with all, 
 sealed with the common ties of common kindred and 
 common blood, and so they feel towards each and every 
 portion of this great Commonwealth alike. They have 
 charged me, in effect, to declare these sentiments ; and 
 in their name, and this spirit of kindness, remonstrance 
 and complaint, but not with reproach or threat in my 
 breast, or upon my lips, to ask this Convention how 
 much longer are our equal rights to be denied us? How 
 long yet are we to wait ? How much longer is the time, 
 or is there no time to come ? Then, it is never, no never, 
 never, which involves minority power forever. Is pa- 
 tience then to grow weary and faint, while hope, already 
 so " long deferred," should be gathering, daily and hour- 
 ly, strength from increasing numbers, and, instead of be- 
 coming sick of delay, be swelling stronger and stronger, 
 chasing those fleeing shadows — for like fleeing shadows 
 are those objections which I hear, that gentlemen would 
 interpose in the pathway of superior power to its rights, 
 its just rights, that power that petitions, and has so long 
 petitioned and remonstrated in vain, although able, or 
 will be, ere long, physically able, to command their rights ; 
 but which, I pray God, may never be attempted. 
 
 Tell us not that those thirty orbs of living light, of 
 which the gentleman from Fauquier so beautifully spoke, 
 whose vestal fires are fanned by the breath of Him who 
 spake all things into being, and hulds them in his palm, 
 may burn in vain for us, that we shall remain in political 
 darkness, even in their midst. That the gloom of de- 
 spair must gather and thicken upon our alters as we grow 
 stronger aud stronger in power ; and our love of liberty, 
 with this mighty constellation blazing around us ; ah ! 
 our vestal fires even grow dim, or go out in the sun-light 
 and glory of these eternal temples of liberty, irradiating 
 land, ocean, continent, universe. 
 
 Tell us not, tell us not that this cloud of our discontent 
 is to grow darker and darker, the longer we live togeth- 
 er, till it becomes even as the frowning heavens when the 
 warring elements are raging ; while a voice, breathing 
 ethereal light from an eternal source, the God who made 
 us is coming up from near one hundred thousand majority 
 proclaiming success, success, already within their ^rasp, 
 if they would but stretch forth their hands in the spirit 
 that sets a people free that will it, as their fathers did. 
 who, goaded by wrongs 'too long endured, when that 
 
 voice of which the gentleman from Halifax spoke' 
 thundered before the storm, drew the sleeping sword'i 
 and threw away the scabbard, and periled all for lib- 
 erty. 
 
 Tell us not, tell us not that this storm of our discontent 
 must and shall yet continue to howl, and like the low- 
 ering tempest at last begin to beat, when that cloud 
 should have passed away, when the skies should be bright 
 and brightening, leaving a smiling heaven above ; and 
 those thirty glowing altars burning below without a 
 shadow to obscure, or a breath to disturb the calmness 
 of their glory while blazing in all the fulness of perfect 
 and equal liberty. 
 
 Tell us not, I thrice repeat, that after so long a delay, 
 and trying of the reins, and stretching of the heart- 
 strings of a devoted people clinging to the pillars of lib- 
 erty which the God of nature planted in our midst and 
 bound us to. them by the enduring cordage of a lave that 
 knows no ebb, and will know no abatement, shall break 
 asunder when the cause of truth and justice should be 
 and must be on the eve of a peaceful triumph in the bo- 
 soms of our brethren. No, no ; rather tell us, that the 
 kindred blood which flows in kindred veins, is finding its 
 way back into our aged mother's breast, and will be 
 warm enough in that bosom to cherish all her children 
 alike, now and forever, within her encircling arms in 
 love, and unity and peace. Why may I not hold this 
 similie true, when the east is at last yielding everything 
 but this basis principle ; and the west tending every 
 guarantee in lieu of it to give satisfaction, safety and 
 repose. My trust is in that hope which survives de- 
 spair, and rises above every discouragement ; that looks 
 beyond the present to the approaching future, and while 
 I see " the bread of life afloat upon the troubled waters "' 
 with full confidence, I will venture across that narrow 
 dissolving isthmus to meet around the altars of a com- 
 mon country, and claim for those I represent, an equal 
 right to worship in the temple of liberty; that lib- 
 erty which is only secured to all by equality, and can 
 only be equally enjoyed by being equally secured to all. 
 With these sentiments in my breast, though mountains 
 interpose and flowing rivers intervene, I will claim for 
 the valley, equally with the east and trans-alleghany, 
 old Virginia, not as a sectional but as a common, united 
 inheritance, not only now, but forever ; not as now di- 
 vided into districts and divisions, but as " one and in- 
 divisible," in all time, but I must claim this upon the 
 broad platform of equal rights, and equal justice. Par- 
 don my animation ; it was that word " never," which 
 was like the sad farewell, that started these thoughts. I 
 will stand firm between the hills and the mountains with 
 my constituents, and standing by the integrity of old 
 Virginia, I will reach one arm, at least, to stay that ar- 
 my which the gentleman from Halifax warned us might 
 come up from the sea-shore, pass the Blue Ridge, and 
 penetrating the Valley reach the high Alleghany, ' and 
 make our very habitations quake.' I will leave to other 
 hands to sever the ties that bind me to my native, my 
 mother land ; and to others still to tear asunder the cord 
 and all the fibres that bind me to my brethren, and all 
 to the bosom of that common mother ; that mother who, 
 living is our idol, but whom we could never look upon in 
 dissolution ; but from whom we would all turn disconso- 
 late, and leave the tears of pity and remorse to tell the 
 tale of misery and of woe — of a wailing desolation. Shud- 
 der who may, recoil who shall, this is but the faintest 
 picture of a Country undone. 
 
 When I look at the results of the census and assess- 
 ment, now before us, I am brought irresistibly to the 
 conclusion that the time has arrived to settle this ques- 
 tion forever. 
 
 As the sand-bar, separating a common stream, washed 
 by the floods, and blown by the winds, must, in time, 
 cease to divide it, so I look upon the ground of contro- 
 versy between east and west Virginia as narrowing 
 down to nothing, as fast dissolving, and soon to disap- 
 pear. The smiles of Providence, and the flow of time, 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 355 
 
 natural causes and human means, are co-operating, and 
 must ere long, accomplish all that remains to be done. 
 Then, united in love, affection, and interest, our moun- 
 tains shall become as plains, and our rivers flow on for- 
 ever in the diffusion of common blessings. Then we 
 mav remain a united, a free and happy people. 
 
 To drop the figure and come to the simple facts. We 
 all must see that the west, which has now some ninety- 
 three thousand majority of free white population, will, 
 even upon the mixed basis, have the power before the 
 lapse of many years. This st ems to me inevitable. It 
 must surely happen in some fifteen or twenty years at 
 most. Why then keep the issue open? Why not close 
 it now at once and forever? Is it wise, is it prudent, if 
 it were just, to postpone? What will be gained ? Time, 
 the great? reformer and arbitrator, has already settled 
 and decided, in advance, nearly or quite every other 
 question of controversy, division and discontent, and is 
 fast closing this. Why not then, now end it, and heal 
 this only source of heart-burning in the bosom of the 
 body politic ? Why not ? Does any one think when the 
 time arrives when it must be amicably adjusted, or set- 
 tle itself, somehow, there will be more hope of arrang- 
 ing as satisfactorily to all parties and sections as at pre- 
 sent, those matters deemed so essential for the peace of 
 all, and especially for my end of the valley, and the east 
 generally. 
 
 The west will now agree to give every guarantee and 
 security you can reasonably ask against taxation and all 
 danger "to that peculiar species of property not so gener- 
 ally held, in common, by them ; and when they tender 
 this, why should they not be allowed to come at once 
 into the immediate enjoyment of equal rights — their 
 common inheritance ? What do gentlemen tell us ? They 
 use language which, m terms or by necessary implica- 
 tion, carries disparagement, degradation and despair. 
 They insist if the east is not to hold the power in their 
 own hands over the majority, and forever, all guarantees 
 will be worthless — mere paper guarantees. That no sort 
 of guarantees without power in their own hands will an- 
 swer or last. They will not be respected, will be bro- 
 ken. In other words, too plain to be misunderstood, 
 that the west, including the valley, cannot be trusted, 
 and yet they admit the valley should be with the east ; 
 that her interests are identical, and uniting in action 
 would give the east the majority in numbers, and the 
 power of self-protection forever. When we ask this, 
 we are met, and told we cannot trust you. The west is 
 seeking power for the profits of plunder and we are 
 afraid of the call of another convention ; and yet the east 
 has been holding us out of our equal rights, so long 
 forcing its minority government upon us, all which time 
 we have trusted them with our personal rights, our lives 
 and liberties, as well as property. And gentlemen, 
 themselves, as it suits the purposes in hand, significantly 
 ask : Have we abused power ? have we oppressed the 
 west ? what grounds have you for complaint ? what 
 grievances are you suffering? why then yonr ''clamor?" 
 Yes, the west now agrees to give every guarantee and 
 protection, and leave the east to prepare them ; and 
 will even agree that another convention shall not be call- 
 ed for an indefinite period ; and that all may be insert- 
 ed in the constitution as part and parcel, and yet tbe 
 east refuses them, rejects them, scouts them, denounces 
 them as worthless paper guarantees. And, pray, if these 
 provisions made part and parcel of the constitution 
 are worthless, what is the constitution itself worth? 
 If the "whole is made up of the parts, and they equal 
 to the whole, is not one part as binding and valid as an- 
 other, and all equally so ? Is not this a truism as well as 
 a syllogism ? 
 
 This manner of treating and speaking of solemn con- 
 stitutional guarantees and express limitation — this deni- 
 al , and scouting of the virtue and validity of constitu- 
 tional protection of the rights of the governed, of mi- 
 norities and majorities shock me, my every sense and 
 and every hope, and it muat cease if we mean to live to- 
 
 gether at all, under any constitution. Whence comes 
 this denunciation ? What people are we ? Is it old 
 Virginia I hear scouting the validity of constitutional 
 protection ? The mother of State and of State rights, and 
 from eastern Virginia too. It was from that source I 
 first learned their value. I learned it in their school. 
 It has been my boast and my pride to stand upon the 
 doctrines of the resolutions of '98-99. I have ever gone 
 with the democratic statesmen of eastern Virginia, for 
 the sanctity of constitutions and for strict construction. 
 With whom must I stand now, when the fathers of the 
 faith scout this creed, and deny the doctrines of their own 
 srchool ? I had thought we all professed to feel strong 
 attachment to what we sometimes proudly call our free 
 institutions, and to boast of them and of our civil and 
 political liberties, rights and privileges. But, if con- 
 stitutions and constitutional guarantees, are as waste 
 paper and worthless, what a delusion — what idle gas- 
 conade. The people are, indeed, if these things be so 
 confessedly, everywhere, unfit and incapable of self- 
 government ; and it is idle, and worse than idle, to talk 
 about it ; for no people on earth are fit and capable, if 
 we are not — for we are as virtuous, as intelligent and 
 moral as any people under the sun. What use is there 
 in talking in this way ? What sense ? Do we really 
 mean to stultify ourselves ? What sense, do I ask, when 
 the very object of our assembling here, is to make or 
 amend a constitution ? If such are the views and senti- 
 ments really entertained ; if we are really skeptics upon 
 the subject of politicel rights and constitutional guar- 
 antees for their protection, and even as to free and self- 
 government, we had as well, and better adjourn sine die, 
 and go home and tell our constituents they have no 
 rights, and that it is not worth while to have any consti- 
 tution ; that it was a great folly, and worse to send us 
 here. What would they think and say of us whom they 
 had sent here and had selected for our wisdom, talents 
 and experience, and what of themselves, for making such 
 a selection? For they would not believe us, that consti- 
 tutions were vain and worthless things, and civil and 
 political liberty, their own included, a name and nothing 
 more. And what would the people of all the thirty free 
 and independent States of this Union think and say, 
 living one and all of them under written constitutions, 
 full of guarantees and limitations of power, and in the 
 full enjoyment of civil and political liberty ; all their ci- 
 tizens enjoving equal rights and perfectly safe, happy 
 and free with ail their governments (with few excep- 
 tions) based upon equal rights and numbers — what 
 would the whole world think and say — kings and sub- 
 jects all ? 
 
 But I forbear to press this course of argument, The 
 truth is, there is not one of us who can belive himself, 
 when indulging in such objections ; not one who must not 
 feel and know that this scouting of the validity and 
 sufficiency of constitutional guar antees, arising under ex- 
 press and positive provisions, is worse than idle — it is 
 dangerous, discouraging. I affirm, and in this, take is- 
 sue with the gentleman from Fauquier and others on his 
 side, that, if instead of relying upon the almost unlimi- 
 ted power in our present constitution, and this implied 
 guarantee, so long and tenaciously held on to, of a union 
 of power and interest, in the hands of the east, which 
 has provided for us and posterity, the State blessing of 
 eighteen millions of debt and liability, and to be in- 
 creased, the present session of our legislature, several 
 millions more. If, instead of this unlimited power and 
 present mixed basis guarantee, for such it is in effect, 
 this giving, as we are told, the power to the hands whose 
 interests would restrain its abuse and improper exercise 
 without other sanction, and under which, it is said, the 
 east would take care of itself, the west, and the valley 
 all, the majority had been under its own government 
 and care, and under express and positive guarantess* 
 arising under express and positive limitations and 
 restrictions, we would not now have this debt upon us. 
 and be infinitely better off. And I tell the east and the 
 
356 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 west also, that my constituents, rich slave-holding, land- 
 holding, tax- paying people, and unyielding in their sup 
 port of the white basis, favor these express, positive re 
 strictions and prohibitions of legislative power upon 
 every subject, slavery, debt, State credit, loans, taxa- 
 tion and all, and will insist upon them whatever basis 
 we adopt. We are sick and tired of protection under 
 the minority unlimited power and implied mixed basis 
 guarantee, as our existing basis is in effect, and of that 
 system of lo.i, -rolling under it, practiced in the legisla- 
 ture, and of its corrupting demoralizing influences and 
 grinding taxation, sinking the character as well as the 
 credit and resources of the State. We believe and feel 
 that we have had enough of this sort of protection and too 
 much of it. We desire to profit by dear-bought experi- 
 ence, by a change, not by the continuance of the same 
 order of things, which would be the effect, as it is the ve- 
 ry design of the proposed amendment under considera 
 tion. A miscalled republican government with almost 
 unlimited power in the hands of a sectional minority up- 
 on a slave basis, in part, in disguise, so degrading to 
 freemen, whom it excludes from the enjoyment of 
 their rights, and which has worked so badly, is not 
 what we desire. Such a government, in our estima- 
 tion, is little better than a monarchial one of limited 
 powers, if any better at all. I will not say ittle bet- 
 ter than an aristocracy, for then I should only compare 
 it with itself. 
 
 We know the power in this government, in whosoev- 
 er hands, east or west, is to be exercised by and through 
 legislative agents, and I repeat, we have learned 
 from' all history as well as from the past experience of 
 our government, with power in the hands of the east 
 has been abused, and we we fear would be again, unless 
 sufficiently guarded and restrained ; and we therefore 
 would restrict and withhold all power from the govern- 
 ment, except so much as may be necessary and proper 
 for a wise and prudent administration of our affairs, be- 
 lieving in the doctrine of our bill of rights, " that of all 
 the modes and forms of government, that is best which 
 is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness 
 and safety, and is most effectually secured against mal- 
 administration ; and that when any government shall be 
 found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a major 
 « ity of the people hath an indubitable, unalienable and 
 indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it in such 
 a manner as shall be judged most conducive to the pub- 
 lic weal " and our fixed, unchangeable conviction is, that 
 of all modes and forms, a republican government is the 
 only one that comes up to the standard, and that none is 
 truly republicanthat is not based upon the people — num- 
 bers — that one based upon numbers and wealth com- 
 bined is not republican, and as it places the power in the 
 hands of a wealthy minority and a sectional one to boot, 
 is an aristocracy, and we believe our present govern 
 ment is such, and we know certainly to our sorrow that 
 it is not effectually secured against mal administration. 
 We understand all this now. We but know too well, 
 that if the power exists under the constitution, and an 
 act pass the legislature, however great an abuse of that 
 power and of the confidence of the people, that still 
 the law will be valid and binding, however great the 
 evils growing out of it. In such a case rights rest, and 
 the courts, can afford no relief as the power existed, al 
 though the legislature abused its trust ever so unwisely. 
 This has been our misfortune to a great extent in the 
 past, we must all know and lament. But impose posi- 
 tive limitations and restrictions upon the power, and 
 that cannot be abused which does not exist, and if that 
 shall be done which is prohibited, the violation can do no 
 harm. Declare that the legislature shall have no pow- 
 er to do the thing, and if, in violation of their sacred 
 trust, the constitution and their oaths, they do it, we, 
 the people, will be safe, for the act will not then be 
 valid and binding, but void, and so the courts and judges 
 under the constitution, and their oaths would decide, 
 and save the State and the people from the consequen- 
 
 ces. This is the distinction, and the difference is vital 
 and important in the last degree. Hence the propriety, 
 necessity, and s fhciency of express limitations and re- 
 strictions. These guarantees will be certain and lasting. 
 These will afford complete and adequate constitutional 
 security, guard your treasury, save it from bankruptcy, 
 preserve the credit and character of the State, prevent 
 burthensome taxes, protect the slave property and all 
 other property from harm, make safe and perfect- 
 ly secure, life, liberty and property, and everything 
 we hold dear. No power on earth can break through 
 hese guarantees. They will be parts, and the vi- 
 al parts of your constitution, and must last while it 
 lasts, and perish only when it shall peridi. Our judi- 
 ciary shall be our shield. My interests, feelings, and 
 sympathies, and my people are T#ith the east.# As I 
 have before said, I am, myself, a State rights man, and 
 if you please, an eastern State rights man, and upon all 
 the subjects of our federal relations 1 stand, I repeat 
 upon the resolutions of '98-99. But my people and my- 
 self are for the white basis and the jus majoris, and we 
 shall not surrender this mother principle which lies at 
 the foundation of self-government. 
 
 I have said the west claims political equality, and de- 
 mands it as a right. At the same time we tender the 
 most ample guarantees for the protection of the peculiar 
 rights and interests of the east. This tender is volun- 
 tarily made : and we even go further, and agree that 
 another convention shall not be called for an indefinite 
 time. But, gentlemen of the east spurn the offer with 
 contempt — sneer at a tender of paper guarantees, as 
 they are pleased to characterize constitutional restric- 
 tions, They say the power is in their hands, and will 
 ^e retained because its retention, they insist, is ne- 
 cessary. And they tell us that any attempt at any time 
 to right ourselves and secure this political ^quality, 
 would be treason against the existing constitution and 
 laws. But I warn gentlemen it may be better to settle 
 this vexed question now, and not anticipate the time that 
 may come when they may not be able to hold on to the 
 power and get safe guarantees. Justice — simple justice — 
 we ask no more, and we ask this as a majority of the 
 people, in a spiiit of concession, without threat or taunt. 
 Have gentlemen considered, if now is not the time, when 
 the time is to come to settle the question, so as to end 
 it forever ? If, I say, a time must come to close it, when 
 is it best that it should come ? Will it be when the 
 great west has become strong and powerful with teem- 
 ing wealth and overwhelming numbers, and comes to 
 take the power ? Will that be a better time for the east 
 to secure these guarantees and safeguards ? I have 
 looked to that time when the west may cease to bear, 
 and rise in her majesty and power to assert her rights 
 which God gave, and but God could give or take away — 
 and I have looked around to see where we at the mouth 
 of the valley would be. Would we stand to our princi- 
 ples? This view gives ne no pleasure. When should 
 the time come to settle this controversy forever, and for 
 securing ample constitutional provisions to protect us 
 all alike, as a law loving and law-abiding people, in the 
 enjoyment of all we have. Think you a more propitious 
 time will ever come than the present? Is there any gen- 
 tleman who believes there will? Why, even now the 
 east distrusts the west upon the subject of slavery. It 
 is this very distrust that lies at the bot tom of this desire 
 to protect themselves by inserting this mixed basis of 
 representation in the constitution. But is that distrust 
 likely to cease when the west should have grown more 
 strong and powerful ? Can the east rely on its power to 
 retain the power or her safety in the slave interes* ? It 
 may be that you can in times of peace and quietude at 
 home. But how shall you calculate on this, while this 
 issue, this cancer, grows worse? You rnav now feel 
 easy when the mad attacks of fanaticism from without 
 are forcing us to union. It may do now to feel content- 
 ed. But will it not suggest itself to gentlemen, that 
 they should have something better than this union of 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 357 
 
 power and interest in their own hands, and the present 
 strong sympathy of feeling in the west, and which they 
 are every moment alienaiiug by injustice, to rely on in 
 the more gloomy future. I say gloomy, for the thirst- 
 ing spirit of mad fanaticism is not yet quenched. Have 
 gentlemen seriously considered this, and how necessary 
 restrictiot s might become when they could not be had ; 
 but now they may be secured. Why not, then, concili- 
 ate and make sure of this positive, certain and bet- 
 ter protection. I speak where I know nearly all ar 
 
 if I am to be persuaded that written constitutions, with 
 ample guarantees, are no protection to property in Vir- 
 ginia, on this side the mountain, should a majority rule 
 under that constitution, but are so, should the minority 
 govern, and that minority will never yield to the majori- 
 ty their equal rights, because it will give them the right- 
 ful control. What must I think ? Where must I think 
 things are tending? What issue coming at last ? What 
 crisis approaching ? What din to soon tingle in my 
 ears ? Does not the mind of every Virginian start back 
 
 1 w > «-i> and better lawyers than myself; but I appeal j to think that this is the fearful issue coming to a head 
 to all, confidently, if it is not true that positive consti- between east and west Virginia? I mean the old 
 tutional provisions are the best and safest guarantees? State rights — Virginia; the pioneer of the Union — the 
 
 Are not these at last the only safeguards to protect us 
 all ? I hold my life, liberty and property, as all do, under 
 our present constitution, imperfect as it is — md I am 
 told it has not been violated by the east — and yet, when 
 I appeal to this example, vouched by themselves and to 
 the thirty other free States of this Union, and cite them 
 in proof of the virtue and validity and safety of writ- 
 ten constitutions, paper guarantees, what is the answer ? 
 Why, the west is not to be trusted! Away with your 
 paper guarantees! We will have none of them! You 
 are lusting for power to plunder our pockets ! What if 
 you put your hand and seal to the compact now and 
 make every pledge our fathers did in the revolution to 
 stand together and meet the worst? You know your 
 lands can bear no higher taxes ; and you want internal 
 improvement, and you will break through constitution, 
 oaths and everything sacred to tax our negroes and oth- 
 er property, to make these improvements. And yet, we 
 live and move and have our being, under a paper consti- 
 tution with scarcely any guards, and all-has been as safe 
 as we desire, according to the views of the gentlemen 
 from the east, at least as to the west, with the power 
 in the hands of this sectional minority in the east. The 
 minority in the east can be trusted, but the majority in 
 the west cannot. The west may be trusted as individu- 
 als — nay, the gentleman from Fauquier eulogizes the 
 west — but we cannot be trusted with power. And to 
 whom is this language used ? To the majority of the peo- 
 ple by the minority. Do gentlemen think, by such 
 treatment as this, to retain the confidence of the west? 
 Do they expect to conciliate us, and to draw tighter the 
 bonds of sympathy and brotherhood, to bring us into 
 greater harmony here, and to cement a lasting union be- 
 tween east and west Virginia ? Is this the way to pre- 
 serve the peace and promote the dignity and glory of this 
 time-honored commonwealth ? 
 
 Humble as I am, I venture to appeal to this assembly 
 and seriously ask, what is to be the end of this ? Is it 
 to have a stopping place or not? As the increase of 
 population and wealth progresses in the west, while 
 white population is comparatively stationary in the east, 
 is there no time to come wren there must be a change — 
 and still we are met when this view is pressed, and truly 
 so, that the west has no other resort to obtain redress, 
 but those great inherent rights that belong to us outside 
 of the constitution, that is, to revolution and force, which 
 involves treason. Are we to be driven to that resort ? 
 That is the solemn question at last that is behind and 
 must come home to all. It can be no longer avoided. 
 The west is now in the majority — a large majority — and 
 have reached a point from which we cannot recede. We 
 must look this question in the face, or it will look us in the 
 face ; and it does even now look us in the face. I have 
 made no threats and I mean to make none ; but if I am to 
 say when is the time to settle this question, whether the 
 minority er majority shall rule, if that be the legitimate 
 result of giving to the west equal rights, I must answer 
 now. Yes, the best time is now, or no man can answer 
 for the consequences. 
 
 While I mean to stand as long as any man in defence 
 of State rights — whi'e 1 regard representative govern- 
 ments under written constitutions astheereatest achieve- 
 ment and boast of modern times, a blessing the ancient 
 republics had not, and hence their anarchy and fall — yet 
 
 flag-ship, who stood in '98-99, and saved the constitu- 
 tion of the Union at its last gasp, in defence of guaran- 
 tees, whose protection she demanded and has ever since 
 enjoyed. 
 
 But, I have wearied myself and the patience of this 
 committee, no doubt, and 1 feel that it is time to be draw- 
 ing my remarks to a close But I have a few words to 
 say upon the subject of slavery in Virginia, and I am hap- 
 py to declare that I b.lieve the sentiment generally in 
 western Virginia, and I know it is that of the valley as 
 well as of eastern Virginia, is this : that the government 
 of the State has no power to destroy or disturb the right 
 of property in slaves. Yet an attempt Was made as we 
 all know, in 1831-32, to impair these rights or totally 
 destroy them by legislative action. In another place, in 
 committee, I have sought to have an expre s and posi- 
 tive declaration upon that subject. I mean a clause in 
 our constitution expressly denying and prohibiting the 
 power of this government to abolish slavery, or to call 
 the right in question. This I deem prudent to guard 
 even against agitation' of the question. 
 
 But I hold, with or without constitutional guarantees, 
 slavery cannot be abolished by the legislature. And that 
 that property .ny more than other property of the citi- 
 zen, cannot be touched or taken away without full com- 
 pensation to the owmr. Not only does the State con- 
 stitution give no power to do this, but the federal con- 
 stitution expressly forbids the taking of private proper- 
 ty, even for public use without just compensation. In 
 reference to what has been thrown out here relative to 
 the action ©f the congress of the United States, j 
 maintain that if there had been express and positive 
 provision against action on the part of the federal gov- 
 ernment on this subject at all, and in regard to the ter- 
 ritory of the Union, instead of imi lied prohibitions on- 
 ly, that we would have been spared much agitation and 
 threatened danger to the Union, and would be now in- 
 finitely more safe against action or agitation upon the 
 subject. This is a defect in the federal constitution, and 
 I desire to guard our State constitution in this particu- 
 lar. Under the panic of 1831-32, the first petition 
 praying action came from the east ; and leading eastern 
 men, and not a few in all, yiel led to the alarm and were 
 ready to do violence to the sacred rights of property, 
 which rights are held by a title above and beyond the 
 constitution as it now stands. The lessons of 1831-32 
 should satisfy eastern as well as western men, that posi- 
 tive prohibitions are safer guarantees than those upon 
 which they now rest. They should see that this union 
 of power and interest is not even to be trusted upon this 
 subject — they come in conflict when passion, fear or folly 
 rules the hour "which rules men. And I do insist that 
 this proves there is no solid ground for the east to stand 
 on but constitutional guarantees ; and hence, that these 
 guarantees are better than the mixed basis, which con 
 elusion sweeps the foundation of their claims for power 
 from beneath their feet. 
 
 I have a consolation in closing, to know, although I 
 have left much unsaid which deserves to he urged, that 
 there are others here, representing a common constitu- 
 ency, to whose talents I defer, yet to epeak upon these 
 guarantees, and who are able to vindicate their policy 
 and sufficiency, and intend to do it. 
 
 I feel assured, too, that however much I have fallen 
 
358 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 short in any part of my duty, that that generous confi- 
 dence reposed in me by my constituents, unsolicited, 
 will not fail to overlook or forgive. They know my 
 zeal in this cause. To them I shall return, and as far as 
 capable, I will tell them that all has been done; and I 
 trust I shall be able to tell them that all has been done 
 which they desired, and especially, and above all, that 
 this government has been at last based upon equal rights, 
 the only sure foundation upon which it can ever rest in 
 peace and safety. 
 
 If not thus based, I fear for one, it will not be moored 
 as the gentleman from Fauquier supposes, for all time ; 
 nor very long, indeed, when those storms of passion, 
 which sometimes, with tempest force, sweep and upturn 
 thrones and empires, and I am bound to add, equally, 
 in their mad career, all ill-based, unequal governments, 
 and will be stayed never by any power of self-control 
 until they drench a land in blood. It is the task of all 
 wise and prudent statesmen to lay the foundation of 
 government firm in the affections of the whole people, 
 above the reach of faction, and above the dangers of 
 opular commotions ; and I say, finally, that there is 
 ut one base upon which to lay it permanently safe, and 
 that is, equality, whose pillars are truth and justice, 
 upon which rests the temple of liberty. Thus reposed 
 the waves of- commotion may roll in vain. Like hope 
 anchored upon the "rock of ages," your government 
 may survive every danger, and endure through all time. 
 May it not then be said of us law-makers of Virginia, 
 to whom the sacred task has been now assigned by a 
 great and confiding people, that we have failed in our 
 duty. If it shall, I fear for the consequences. On the 
 other hand, if we shall discharge our duty well, well 
 will it be, and glorious may be our reward. The com- 
 mendation of a grateful and happy people may be 
 ours ! 
 
 We shall leave behind us a free government and a free 
 country, the common inheritance of a free people. Then 
 the voice of time shall pronounce no higher eulogy 
 upon any land beneath the sun ; and when all shall end, 
 the mother of States, of heroes, and statesmen, shall 
 need nor claim any higher honor than her own name 
 upon her epitaph. I submit the question then, whether 
 this shall be upon her mausoleum, or whether more than 
 half her children, doomed to despair of their equal 
 , rights, shall be driven in their extremity to destroy more 
 than half the pillars of her temple, and leave the whole 
 to totter and crumble into ruins. It is for us to decide, 
 and upon us and our country the consequences — nor up- 
 on our country only, I fear. No, that wave of revolu- 
 tion to which allusion has been made, whether it comes 
 from beyond the high Alleghanies or from the east, 
 come when it may, if ever, that shall rend asunder this 
 our mother-land, the home of Washington, and of all 
 those heroes and statesmen so much eulogized upon this 
 floor, whose names, like that of the father of his coun- 
 try, must live in eternal fame. I fear, will not stop with 
 our division and ruin, but roll on and roll on, until it 
 divides this entire land, and our glorious Union, with 
 its desolating flood ; extinguishing not the light of our 
 altars only, but of all that glorious constellation which 
 around it burn, leaving to human liberty no other abode, 
 do temple or home, or anywhere a spot t® rest upon. 
 
 These reflections have been induced by thoughts 
 stirred up within me by the remarks of the gentleman 
 who preceded me on yesterday (Mr. Scott.) I will not 
 detain the committee, but to add, that I am not con- 
 scious of having said anything, or uttered one senti- 
 ment, that a large majority of those who sent me here 
 do not approve. 
 
 On motion of Mr. BARBOUR, the committee rose. 
 
 THE HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 Mr. STEWART. I move that when the Convention 
 adjourns it adjourn to meet hereafter at 11 o'cock in 
 stead of 10 o'clock A. M. We have no quorum at 10 
 o'clock, and gentlemen who were most active in fixing 
 that hour of meeting were among those absent. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I was here the very moment after the 
 President took his seat, and I believe he did not take it 
 until half past ten. I have been told that perhaps our 
 reporter suffers more tnan any body else, and I wish to 
 keep him fresh. I wish his reports I o be precisely ac- 
 curate, therefore I am with the gentleman for reversing 
 my motion of yesterday. We will go back to eleven 
 o'clock, because we slumber late in the morning. But 
 I give gentlemen notice that, do our best, this debate is 
 likely to last for a month to come. An hour added to 
 our time each day of the week gives us an additional 
 six hours in the week, and in that time one, at least, if 
 not two speeches may be ground out. If we meet at 
 eleven I shall resist any motion to adjourn before four. 
 I shall vote, however, with the gentleman to go back to 
 eleven o'clock. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I regret extremely that this mo- 
 tion has been made to reverse the order which the house 
 made on yesterday. I think it is true that this Con- 
 vention should act, and I am satisfied that our constitu- 
 ents expect us to work, here a little more than we can 
 do when we remain in session for only three hours. We 
 have nothing now to do in the committee rooms, and I 
 think that members can, with little or no inconvenience to 
 themselves, make their arrangements to meet here at 
 ten o'clock in the morning. There are some gentlemen 
 here who have other interests to attend to, and who 
 cannot think of remaining here for six months to which 
 period I verily believe our session will be protracted if 
 we do not meet earlier than eleven o'clock. I hope 
 gentlemen who are disposed to do the business of the 
 people here will resist this attempt to extend the ses- 
 sion, and vote against this motion to reconsider. I go 
 with the gentleman from Accomac, and shall resist here- 
 after any motion to adjourn, at least, before three o'clock. 
 I have heretofore resisted all attempts to adjourn be- 
 fore that time. I hope the Convention will sustain the 
 order which it has made, and I ask for the yeas and 
 nays on the motion. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I have no idea that the people 
 are giving themselves much uneasiness about what we 
 are doing here. I think that the acts of deliberative 
 bodies in Virginia, for the last ten years, have rather 
 weakened the affections of the people for their public 
 servants, and that they are pitting themselves to very 
 little trouble as to what we are doing here. [Laughter.*] 
 I agree with the gentleman from Accomac, that it ia 
 better that this Convention should meet at 10 o'clock, 
 but I do not agree with him that we should sit until 4 
 o'clock. And, if I am required to meet here at 10 
 o'clock, and remain in session until 4 o'clock, I shall ask 
 this Convention to form two committees, one .to form 
 some regulation by which gentlemen will be required 
 to retire at 9 o'clock in the evening, and another to as- 
 certain at what time dinner is to be prepared at the 
 boarding houses and hotels of the city. [Laughter.] I 
 belong to that class of people in Virginia who are known 
 as "outsiders," and it is customary for us to dine at 
 half-past 12. [Laughter.] It is true that since I have 
 been in Richmond I have associated with what gentle- 
 men are pleased to term the aristocracy of the State. I 
 have fell back as far as half-past 2 o'clock, and I am not 
 willing to fast longer than that. [Laughter.] When- 
 ever the governor, by proclamation, shall deem it his 
 duty to call upon the good people to fast for a day, 
 then, as a man obedient to the laws of his country, and 
 to those in authority, then I shall try and fast all the 
 time. But I deny that this Convention has any power 
 to pass laws regulating my appetite. If they attempt 
 it, I shall appeal from the Convention to the people of 
 my district, and I know they will sustain me. [Laugh- 
 ter.] I hope that the Convention will meet at 10 o'clock, 
 however, so that the labors of the day may be disposed 
 of the earlier. It will secure what is very desirable in 
 the discussion and disposition of these important ques- 
 tions, a full Convention, for I have no idea that such a 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 359 
 
 result can be attained if we are to sit six or eight hours 
 a clay. For myself, I am the worst listener in the world, 
 for 1 never could listen to a man speak or preach for 
 more than twenty minutes at a time. I will conclude by 
 making a motion which I believe is always in order. I 
 move that the Convention now adj ourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to — a count being had — ayes 
 49, noes 43. 
 
 And then the Convention adjourned until 10 o'clock 
 to-murrow morning. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 21, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Lee, of the Methodist church. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 THE HOUR OF MEETING. 
 
 The PRESIDENT stated the first business in order 
 to be the question on the resolution of Mr. Stewart, 
 of Morgan, ^hanging the hour of meeting from 10 to 
 11 o'clock, pending when the Convention adjourned yes- 
 terday. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I move to lay the resolution on 
 the table; and on that motion I ask the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 The call had been concluded, and before the result 
 was announced — 
 
 Mr. CONWAY moved that the absentees be called 
 and allowed to vote. 
 
 The question being taken on Mr. Conway's motion, it 
 was rejected ; and so the absentees were not allowed to 
 vote. 
 
 The result being announced, there were yeas 16, nays 
 44, (no quorum) as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Carter of Russell, Cook, 
 Fulkerson, Fuqua, M. Garnett, Hall, Ke.iney, Kilgore, 
 Martin of Marshall, Moncure, Pendleton, Sloan, Smith 
 of Jackson, Straughan, Trigg — 16. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. John Y. Mason, (Pres't,) Armstrong, 
 Barbour, Beale, Caperton, Carlile, Chambers, Chambliss, 
 Chilton, Conway, Edmuuds, Edwards, Fisher, M. R. H. 
 Garnett, Goode, Hoge, Hunter, Janney, Leake, Letcher, 
 Lucas, McCamanfc, McCandlish, McComas, Martin of 
 Henry, Meredith, Miller, Neeson, Ridley, Scott of Caro- 
 line, Scott cf Fauquier, Seymour, Smith of Norfolk 
 county, Snodgrass, South all, Stewart of Morgan, Stew- 
 art of Patrick, Tredway, Van Winkle, Wallace, White, 
 Whittle, Willey, Wise— 44. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. There appears to be a quorum 
 present. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. The Convention is decidedly 
 against laying the resolution on the table, and I will 
 withdraw my motion. 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolution of Mr. 
 Stewart, and it was agreed to — a count being had — 
 yeas 45, nays 28. 
 
 So the Convention agreed to meet hereafter at 10 
 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 GUARANTIES AGAINST EXCESSIVE TAXATION. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. I ask leave to present to the Con 
 vention the following resolution, and after it lias been 
 read, to make a few observations in explanation thereof; 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by 
 the Chair, whose duty it shall be to consider and report, 
 at as early a day as practicable, what limitations upon 
 the powers of the several departments of the govern- 
 ment, or guaranties in other form, it may be expedient 
 to insert in the new or amended constitution, with spe- 
 cial reference to the objects of providing ample and 
 effectual protection and security to the slave interests, 
 and of guarding against the abuse or unjust exercise of 
 the tax-laying and revenue appropriating powers of the 
 government. 
 
 I owe an apology to the . Convention for offering, at 
 this late day, the resolution which has just been read, 
 
 and certainly an explanation of th i reasons that have 
 prompted me to submit it now. I say at this late day, 
 for undoubtedly it is late in reference to the length of 
 time that we have been in session. Whether it is late 
 or early in reference to the period when we shall be able 
 to bring our labors to a close is another question. The 
 reasons, then, that have prompted me to offer the reso- 
 lution are these : if I am not mistaken, in the course of 
 the discussion upon some of the various miscellaneous 
 matters which occupied our attention in the month of 
 October last, the idea was thrown out, and, according to 
 the best of my recollection, acquiesced in generally by 
 the Conventiou, that there were certain limitations 
 upon the powers of the government, or guaranties, 
 as they have been called, in their character, immediate- 
 ly, (at least in the view taken of this subject by some 
 gentlemen,) connected with the question of basis. The 
 idea was acquiesced in, if I am not mistaken, that it 
 would be proper for the committee charged with the 
 subject of the basis and apportionment of representa- 
 tion, to have committed to its charge the consideration 
 of this question. 
 
 Accordingly, a series of resolutions which I had the 
 honor to present early in the month of January, were 
 referred to this committee. No action has been had 
 by the committee upon this subject. It is true that 
 most of the resolutions of a similar character submit 
 ted to the Convention were referred to the Committee 
 on the Legisjative Department, and have been reported 
 upon. The resolutions submitted by myself, and which, 
 alone were referred to the Committee on the Basis, have 
 not been acted upon or considered by any committee — 
 other gentlemen having taken a different view of the 
 subject — nor were they even printed, it being suggested 
 to me at the time I offered the resolutions that they would 
 appear on the journal, and that that would accomplish 
 the purpose of calling the attention of the Convention 
 to them. Now, from the course which the debate has 
 taken on this subject, it strikes me, shows manifestly 
 the importance of doing what this resolution proposes 
 to be done, and in the best form in which it can be 
 done. I was gratified to find, from the course of argu- 
 ment of the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) 
 that he had adopted, what seemed to me to be {he true 
 mode of arguing the question now before the Conven- 
 tion in regard to the basis and the apportionment of 
 representation. I was gratified when I heard that 
 gentleman give to the debate a turn of a more useful 
 and profitable character in my judgment, than these 
 arguments about the jus majoris, and to this a priori 
 reasoning about the formation of government, and the 
 condition of men before government was formed, all 
 of which, to my poor apprehension, is mere fancy. 
 1 understand nothing about it. I believe no such thing 
 as mankind's ever having existed without government. 
 And here permit me to say that I am not a conservative, 
 nor can I agree precisely to be classed as an infinite rad- 
 ical, with my friend from Accomac, (Mr. Wise.) 
 I am a utilitarian, and if I stand alone, as the leader 
 and rank and file of that party, that is my position. 
 I go for the practical, and against the theoretic 
 and abstract and speculative. As to the condition 
 of man before government was formed, I know 
 nothing of it. But, as I was remarking, the debate 
 had taken a practical turn, since the period when 
 the gentleman from Fauquier addressed the committee. 
 I was extremely gratified to hear him announce, if I 
 understood him aright, that he was satisfied that limita- 
 tions or guaranties, as they are called, could be framed 
 and incorporated in the constitution whieh would re- 
 move the apprehensions that are entertained by so many 
 of our eastern brethren, especially in regard to this tax- 
 laying and appropriating power. V4 > hen I heard him 
 announce that proposition, I thought I began to see day- 
 break, and that there was some hope, that we would 
 not only soon reach the end of our labors, but that we 
 should be enabled to settle these questions amicably and 
 satisfactorily. But my hopes very soon vanished, when 
 
360 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 I heard the gentleman announce the proposition, that 
 he was also satisfied that the guar mties necessary in 
 order to affect that purpose, would destroy the grand 
 system of internal improvement, of which he announced 
 himself to be so ardent and zealous an advocate. Now, 
 I take ssue with him upon that subject. I came here 
 as earnest and as fast a friend of a judicious (if I may 
 be allowed to use a term which has been greatly per- 
 verted in reference to another subject) system of inter- 
 nal improvement, as the gentleman from Fauquier, or 
 any other gentleman upon this floor. But if there is any 
 one thing which 1 propose to aid in accomplishing and 
 to exert all my humble faculties in this Convention to 
 accomplish, it is that of cutting up by the roots and put- 
 ting an end to the corrupt system, for it can be termed 
 nothing else, that has been carried on in reference to 
 this subject of internal improvement in our legislative 
 halls for th» last few years. [ dare not because I can- 
 not do it without violating the courtesy which is due to 
 another body, express the depth of feeling, which I en- 
 tertain on that subject, and I fear that we shall be too 
 late in our action in regard to it. There is a race going 
 on between this body and the one sitting in the capitol 
 yonder, and I am afraid they will get the victory — that 
 we shall be too late — and that we shall be very much in 
 the position, if I may use a homely phrase, of locking- 
 up the stable after the horse is stolen. As 1 remarked 
 just now, I am perfectly persuaded tl at there can be 
 such limitations and guaranties inserted in the new or 
 amended constitution as will afford to our eastern breth- 
 ren, and also to us of the Valley, whose interests are iden- 
 tical in that respect — all such guards against the abuse 
 of this tax-paying and revenue appropriating power, as 
 we have a right to demand, or at all need. It may be 
 done in such a way too, as at the same time to place 
 the interests of internal improvement upon an infinitely 
 more stable basis, and lead to the adoption of a just sys- 
 tem of development of the resources of the State more 
 safely, more rapidly, and infinitely more wisely than is 
 now going on in our legislative halls. That is the pro- 
 position which, at the proper time, if it shall fall to my 
 lot to address the committee, I shall endeavor to main- 
 tain. 
 
 The gentleman from Fauquier remarked in regard to 
 this slave question, that he had no dificulty or appre- 
 hension on that subject. I do not concur with him in 
 this opinion. I am perfectly willing to confide in our 
 brethren in every part of the State upon this subject at 
 present. I have no distrust of our western brethren 
 now. But I trust that the work of our hands will last 
 at least ten or twenty years, and by that time a new 
 generation will have sprung up, and we know not, as we 
 are told in scripture, what a day may bring forth, much 
 less what a decade of ten years will produce in refer- 
 ence to this delicate and important subject. And per- 
 mit me to remark, as a reason for my offering and press- 
 ing this resolution upon the Convention, that there is no 
 community in this commonwealth more deeply interest- 
 ed in both of these subjects than hat which I have the 
 honor in part to represent on this floor. I have exam- 
 ined a little into this matter, and strange as it may seem, 
 in two of the counties which I represent, Jefferson and 
 Clarke, we have the densest slave population in the com- 
 monwealth. It is a curious fact, but it is true, that for the 
 extent of territory, the slave population is thicker there 
 than in any other portion of the commonwealth. We 
 are a frontier district, and if the dangers apprehended 
 shall ever befal this southern country — if I may be per- 
 mitted reluctantly to use one of those bold figures that 
 are so fashionable now — if the angry and portentous 
 cloud that hangs above our horizon should ever burst in 
 its wrath upon us, gentlemen must perceive that the lower 
 valley, the granary of Virginia, with fields as beautifully 
 laid out for battle as ever Bridgewater and Chippewa pre- 
 sented, and that important work at Harper's Ferry to fight 
 for — will be the Flanders, the battle ground in the contest. 
 I say, then, that this is an important and delicate subject, 
 and that whatever our friends on the other side may 
 maintain, and say in reference to it, we are not content 
 
 that it shall not be fenced round and guarded in every 
 manner that our skill and judgement shall direct as pro- 
 per and right. This is a very easy task. There is no 
 difficulty in the way against putting in the organic law, 
 a provision forbidding the legislature in all time here- 
 after to pass any law in any manner interfering with 
 the relation of master and slave. And what next? Put 
 a provision in the amended constitution, that the leg- 
 islature shall not have power to call a Convention here- 
 after, at any time, to alter or to change this provision at 
 all — and there is an end of the matter. It is a simple 
 task and we have examples of the kind. In regard to 
 the senatorial representation, in Congress, the federal 
 constitution expressly provides that it shall not be sub- 
 ject to amendment at any time hereafter, and so in re- 
 gard to several other of its provisions. Such is my re- 
 collection of the character of these provisions in the 
 federal constitution. But be that as it may, it is imma- 
 terial to this question. 1 am merely devising a plan by 
 which this question may be carefully considered and 
 reported upon to the. Convention, not upon individual 
 responsibility, but as being the result of the, solemn de- 
 liberations of a committee of th- body, who will sit 
 down and consult with each other, undisturbed by the 
 formalities of set speeches, with all this beautiful lan- 
 guage and eloquent declamation that is very entertain- 
 ng, but«sometimes very unprofitable. 
 
 In regard to the other power — the tax laying and rev- 
 enue appropriating power, as an apology for pressing 
 this resolution upon the Convention, at this time it may 
 be proper to remark as has already been shown by my 
 colleague, that upon this subject there is no district in 
 the commonwealth more deeply interested than that 
 which I have the honor, in part, to represent. We, as 
 has been told you, upon this subject lately, have nothing 
 to ask and nothing to desire. We pay every year into 
 the treasury thousands of dollars over and above any- 
 thing that can comeback to us, and the commonwealth 
 is perfectly welcome to it. But at the same time, I 
 come here instructed upon this subject — for it was fully 
 canvassed in our district and while the people there are 
 not opposed to a just and even a liberal system of inter- 
 na] improvement, and while they are perfectly willing 
 to bear an equal share of the burthens of the common- 
 wealth, if burthens there must be, to carry out such a 
 system, they have charged us to look to it, that they are 
 not made the victims of a wild and reckless system of 
 internal improvement. A device that is, in fact, noth- 
 ing less than taking money from the pockets of one 
 part of (he people, and putting it into the pocket of an- 
 other part. 
 
 I attempted before that people to show, and I am 
 prepared at a proper time in this body to show, that 
 this thing can be done. That while the great arterial 
 works of internal improvement, ought to be fostered, 
 if not carried forward upon State account alone, yet in 
 regard to these local works, these purely neighborhood 
 improvement, upon which there h ve been so large an 
 expenditure, of late years, the system, if system it may 
 be called, ought to be, and can be suppressed. Now I 
 submit to the convention the propriety, not of commit-, 
 ting to a special committee consisting of a small num- 
 ber, the work that has been already prepared by the 
 legislative committee, but of referring to it now, in the 
 midst of this debate, to be reported on promptly, these 
 two particular subjects. One of them undoubtedly does 
 run somewhat into the labors of the legislative commit- 
 tee, and the special committee will avail itself, doubt- 
 less, of their labors. The issue is now made up in the 
 course of this debate, whether there can or cannot be 
 such gnaranties, or limitations upon the powers of the 
 government, incorporated in the constitution, as will re- 
 move the difficulties of our eastern friends npon these 
 subjects, and particularly upon this latter subject. 
 
 I am glad to see the debate taking that turn, for in 
 my humble judgement, it is the true question. And 
 while we, who Come from the lower end of the valley, 
 are as determined as any gentlemen on this floor to stand 
 up for the great principle involved in the suffrage basis; 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 361 
 
 while we believe, upon as careful and thorough exami- 
 nation of the subject as we are able to give it, that the 
 principle involved in the report of the mixed basis party 
 is one which carries with it insult and degradation to a 
 large portion of the people of the commonwealth — and 
 shall maintain it, and I trust successfully, against all 
 odds — yet we are utterly disinterested in the result, so 
 far as the question of political power is concerned. In 
 iact, it will make no change in our position in regard to 
 our share Gf political poorer, no matter which scheme 
 shall prevail. Leaving this question out of view, we 
 are identified closely upon other subjects with our east- 
 ern brethren. It is our mission and duty here, and we 
 must perform 't, to look to this subject. And I ask of 
 this Convention the means of doing it through this com- 
 mittee, and as the best form, in my judgment, in which 
 it can possibly be brought to our notice. 
 
 Permit me to add this additional remark. The re 
 solutions which have been offered on this subject, by 
 gentleman, are vaiious. The resolutions which I have 
 the honor to offer, and perhaps various others, ha^e 
 all Jeenmere resolutions of inquiry. I take it for granted 
 that no gentleman has expected to see the very phraseolo- 
 gy of his resolutions incorporated into the new constitu- 
 tion, and that they have been written with that degree 
 of looseness, if I may so express it — I speak certainly 
 in regard to my own — which perhaps would be charac- 
 teristic of any mere resolution of inquiry. 
 
 When gentlemen now come to notice the question, and 
 meet the proposition that guaranties, ample and sufficient 
 .guaranties on the subject niay be framed, we are met with 
 •sneers at what they term mere paoer guaranties. All 
 that I have to say on that subject is, that gentlemen 
 will have to come down to their work on this subject. It 
 is not a subject to be sneered at. Far fro*n it. But the 
 resolutions proposing guaranties come before us now, 
 in the form that I have just described, and when in the 
 course of the debate we are called upon to advocate 
 these proposition, we are asked what are your particular 
 provisions? One gentleman takes up a single provision, 
 as the gentleman from Fauquier did the resolution of 
 my colleague, and submits it to a fierce criticism, and 
 passes on without paying any particular attention to 
 any other provision. Thus they stand in the debate as 
 propositions presented by individual members of the 
 Convention, and we are not able here to determine 
 which of tkem are intended to be put forward. I have 
 here offered a proposition which is calculated to ef- 
 fect that end. The object, therefore of this resolution 
 is to charge this special committee with the duty of se- 
 lecting the particular limitations, so far as connected j 
 with this subject; and to prepare such a scheme as will 
 ■secure the very ends and objects announced by our east- 
 ern brethren in this debate, as being the objects which 
 they desire to accomplish. 
 
 What then is the result ? We go for this suffrage basis, 
 and come to you with a bond and security m our hand. 
 The issue is made up and according to the forms of 
 pleading is brought down to the narrow ground that we 
 ought to occupy. We, in the lower part of the Valley con- 
 cur witu you in each of the objects to be accomplished, 
 but we differ as to the modus operandi. We desire the 
 appointment of this committee, so that we may offer you 
 in a tangible and intelligible form, the security that we 
 suppose, according to our best judgment, to be not only 
 effective but infinitely better than that of merely repo- 
 sing the 'predominancy of political power in your hands. 
 The debate then will take its true direction, and in my 
 judgment the issue will be properly made up and we can 
 fairly try our strength upon it. The time for sneering at 
 paper guaranties will have passed by, and we can argue 
 here as brethren the great question, whether the verv 1 
 objects which you propose to accomplish by this grasp- 
 ing and holding on with a death-like grip to the 
 predominancy of political power, may not be accom- 
 plished, and at the same time full justice be done to our 
 western Mends. There has been much said in the 
 
 course of this debate in regard to this being a mere strug- 
 gle for political power. Now, as I have before remark- 
 ed, the district which I have the honor in part here to re- 
 present, has nothing to do with any such struggle. Any 
 one who will take the trouble to examine into the sub- 
 ject will be satisfied, that by the adoption of either 
 scheme, we shall be left just where we are. We cannot 
 be affected by it. We are obnoxious to no imputation 
 of the kind, nor I am sure that either party here is. — 
 But there has been much said upon the subject of this 
 being a mere struggle of political power, the amount 
 of which is an imputation or charge that gentlemen are 
 not candid or sincere in battieing for this great princi- 
 ple. The west are told that what they propose, is not 
 the assertion and establishment of this great prin- 
 ciple of republican government, but that their object is 
 to run their arms up to the elbow into the public trea- 
 sury. 1 believe that to be an unjust as well as an un- 
 generous imputation. On the other hand, our eastern 
 friends have been told that they have been vested with 
 this power by chance, at least, if net by some means 
 worse than chance, and that their desire is to hold on to 
 it that they may elect their governors, and their sena- 
 tors, and exercise all those powers so grateful to the 
 human mind. I do not believe it, but the course I pro- 
 pose will test the sincerity of gentlemen. While we come 
 here, occupying disinterested ground, as we of the Val- 
 ley do on this subject, we will offer to our eastern 
 friends these guaranties, and we ask that some of them, 
 representatives the most intelligent, most astute, most 
 sagacious, and at the same time most liberal in their 
 sentiments, may be placed- upon the committee, to join 
 in counsel with us, and gentlemen from the west, as to 
 the best mode of procuring the protection to property, 
 so desired. I am aware that my friend from 'Fauquier 
 as indeed I have been so told, did not express the 
 sentiments of all the east in regard to this subject. I am 
 well aware of that, as also of the fact that it has been 
 said that there are gentlemen here who have been, very 
 improperly, I admit, but very generally called "copper- 
 heads" on this subject, and who go for the mixed basis 
 per se, without reference to the ends to be accomplished 
 by it, except that of holding on to the power. I do not 
 say that there are such gentlemen here, but I ask that 
 gentlemen from the east, of liberality of feeling on this 
 subject, may be placed on this committee. Now, when 
 we offer you these guaranties, let gentlemen try their 
 strength. Let them show that they are insufficient, or 
 otherwise they subject themselves to the suspicion, at 
 least, that it is the lusi, of power that induces them to 
 cling so tenaciously to the power which they now hold. 
 On the other hand, we present these guaranties to our 
 western friends, those so deeply interested in this sub- 
 ject of internal improvements, and we ask that repre- 
 sentatives of their interests may be on the committee, 
 to show us wherein any particularjimitation or propo- 
 sition will affect the subject of internal improvement, 
 and to avert any such evil. Then, when the work of 
 this committee is before the Convention, we will test 
 their sincerity, and ascertain whether they are alone con- 
 tending for a great principle, or whether it is true, 
 as hai been imputed to them, that it is a desire to get 
 at the public treasury alone, which prompts this clamor 
 for suffrage basis. 
 
 I will not detain the committee longer. I trust the 
 Convention will receive my apology for my occupying 
 thus much of the time of the Convention. The resolu- 
 tion^ presented at this late day, when the necessity 
 for it has arisen, and I trust, therefore, it will be the 
 pleasure of the Convention to award us this committee. 
 I have no doubt that before another week closes, they 
 will make their report, and the debate will be directed 
 in its proper channel, and that the result may be that 
 we shall bring our labors to some safe, proper and har- 
 monious conclusion. 
 
 Mr. M. GARKETT. I do not rise to make a speech 
 or to discuss the proposition of the gentleman from Jef- 
 
352 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 fersqn, but as one coming from a section which I have 
 heretofore believed to be doomed on this subject of tax- 
 ation, I rise to tender him my thanks for the prospect 
 of relief that he has just held out to u?. That proposition 
 will raise the hope among my constituents that day is 
 at last breaking, and that better days are in store for 
 them. I have become perfectly satisfied of one thing, 
 and that is, that so far as tbe region of country from 
 which I come is concerned, it is scarcely worth the toss 
 of a button what sort of a basis we have, unless we have 
 something also in the shape of guaranties. I have 
 rather more faith in paper guaranties than some gen- 
 tlemen, though I wouid not bargain the basis for the 
 guaranties, i shall go for retaining the mixed basis, 
 but I will very gladly take with it all the guaranties 
 whieh may' be offered. I want all the guaranties 1 can 
 get. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. JANNEY. I shall make no opposition to the 
 adoption of this resolution, i am decidedly in favor of 
 its adoption, and I will say that I have listened to some 
 of the remarks of my friend (Mr. Hunter) with a great 
 deal of pleasure, although I am not so sanguine as my 
 friend from Essex. Now. if I mistake not, this precise 
 duty oi proposing guaranties was devolved, by a resolu- 
 tion adopted in the month of October last, upon the 
 Basis Committee. I rise now to ask my friend from Ka- 
 nawha, the chairman of that committee, if it is reasona- 
 ble for us to hope for any report from that committee 
 on this subject? 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. In reply to the inquiry of my 
 friend from Loudoun, (Mr. Janney,) I will say that it is 
 very difficult for me to state what may or may not be 
 hoped for, especially in relation to the committee over 
 which I have the honor to preside. It will be remem- 
 bered that the resolution adopted in October, proposed 
 by the gentleman from Fauquier, I believe, or perhaps 
 it was a suggestion of the gentleman from Berkeley, 
 adopted by the gentleman from Fauquier, imposed it 
 oa the Basis Committee as a duty, to inquire into and 
 report whether any, and if any, what limitations upon 
 legislative power would be proper in connection with 
 the basis of representation. The Committee on the Ba- 
 sis, as you will remember, have made a report in part, 
 which states that they have considered the subjects re- 
 ferred to them in part, and have reported on the basis 
 of representation. Whether it be the intention of the 
 committee to examine the subject of limitations upon 
 legislative power, I have no means of stating. The 
 committee is still a standing committee of the Conven- 
 tion, although it has reported upon one branch of the 
 duties referred to them, and it will be competent for it 
 to go back and consider any other subject which has 
 been or which may hereafter be referred to it. 
 
 I am prepared to say now, however, in answer to the 
 gentleman from Loudoun, that although I am ready to 
 consider all and any just limitations of legislative pow- 
 er as a matter of general interest and as part and par- 
 cel of the legislative branch of the government, yet I do 
 not consider it expedient to engraft them as part and 
 parcel of the basis of representation. I am not willing 
 to consider the matter of guaranties and limitations up- 
 on legislative power as a condition precedent to an equal 
 division and apportionment of legislative power among 
 the people of this commonwealth. While 1 am willing 
 to unite with those who propose guaranties and limita- 
 tions on legislative authority, new and at all times, I 
 am willing to unite with- them in the form of general 
 clauses and provisions of the constitution, and not as 
 connected with and made part and parcel of the basis 
 of representation. Now there is, I presume, no mem- 
 ber of the committee, certainly none with whom I have' 
 the pleasure to act, so far as 1 know their opinions, who 
 are unwilling to yield to gentlemen representing the 
 eastern portion of this commonwealth, any and every 
 provision which they may deem essential and necessary 
 for the security of property, be it of whatever kind it 
 may. We all admit that the protection of property is 
 one" of the great objects of government here ana every/; 
 
 where. We are ready to unite with you in the protec- 
 tion of property, whether it be of that particular species 
 of property of which you have a much larger amount 
 east of the mountains, or any other species of property, 
 j We come here ready to unite in any slavery measure 
 which you may devise and ask as proper and reasonable 
 for the protection of this property and every species of 
 property. But you tell us when we offer our guaranties 
 and limitations upon legislative power, t at they are 
 not worth a groat. What have we seen in this Conven- 
 tion' My friend from Fauquier was the gentleman who 
 imposed it as a duty upon this Basis Committee to con- 
 sider and report upon any and all limitations of legisla- 
 tive power that we might deem expedient as a basis of 
 representation, and yet what do we see coming from 
 that gentleman ? The very moment that the gentleman 
 from Berkeley (Mr. Faulkner) proposed a series of 
 limitations on legislative power, and a guarantee for the 
 protection of property, how was if met by my friend 
 fro in Fauquier? By, as the gentleman from Jefferson 
 ( v r. Hunter) has just said, with a sneer. He tells 
 you that he wants no guaranties and that he scorns your 
 proposition. What will your paper guaranties amount 
 to, said he, I will not give a groat for them. Gentle- 
 men who are thus seeking to get at the consideration of 
 this matter of guaranties and limitations, the very 
 moment that propositions are made for the purpose of 
 effecting the end which they themselves avow they have 
 in view, turn upon those who propose them with a 
 sneer, and denounce them as utterly worthless. Now 
 in this state of things, I take this for granted. We here 
 from the west propose to you a basis of representation 
 which shall impart to every man in this commonwealth 
 qualified to vote at all, equal political power. We main- 
 tain that property as well as personal rights are safer in 
 the hands of a majority than in the hands of a minority. 
 We say that the majority have the right to rule, you 
 maintain that the minority ought to have the power to 
 rule. You maintain on your part that property must 
 have protection that there must be limitations upon le- 
 gislative authority over taxation and appropriation, and 
 you say further that this end can only be secured by 
 seizing in ydur own hands, the hands of a minority, the 
 reins of government, and that you alone must hold and 
 drive. Now the difference between us is this, and here 
 is the issue. We guarantee to you, we accord to you 
 fully that the protection of property is one of tbe great 
 fundamental objects of government, and we say that 
 that protection, is to be obtained by all essential guar- 
 anties and proper limitations on legislative power. You 
 say that in that shape the protection is worthless, and 
 that it is only useful in the form which you devise, and 
 that is by holding the power yourselves, and by retain- 
 ing the authority of the legislature in the hands of a 
 minority. That is the distinction between us. Now 
 the gentleman from Fauquier the other day, with that 
 candor for which he is distinguished, placed this ques- 
 tion upon this single proposition. The gentleman from 
 Fauquier has said that the only single ground of appre- 
 hension which he has under Heaven, is in reference to 
 the levying of taxes and the appropriation of the public 
 revenue, and that in reference to all other subjects of 
 alarm, he does not participate in that alarm, bu. regards 
 them as chimerical and as mere matters of the imagina- 
 tion. It is in reference to the power of taxation and ap- 
 propriation only that he entertains any apprehension ; 
 and the gentleman himself has said, that in reference to 
 this, it can, in his opinion, be regulated and limited by 
 restrictions and by guaranties. He has himself thus far 
 taken the ground upon which western men stand here. 
 We come here asking you for an equal proportion and 
 distribution of political power among the people of this 
 commonwealth, and we connect with it the proffer to 
 unite with you in ail just limitations and guaranties. 
 And the gent.eman from Fauquier, the head and front 
 of those who maintain this mixed basis proposition, 
 their flag-bearer in this great controversy, has himself 
 admitted in the presence of this Convention and of the 
 people of the commonwealth, that this is the only 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 ground of fear and apprehension which he has, and he, sumed the consideration in committee of the whole. 
 
 says that it may be provided against. Now he has 
 coupled with the other assertion the declaration of opin- 
 ion, on his part that it cannot be provided against ex 
 
 (Mr. Miller in the chair,) of the report of the a mmit- 
 tee on the basis and apportionment of representation. 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 
 cept by limitations that may restrict in the future fur-! sition of Mr. Scott, of Fauquier 
 
 ther than he is willing to go, the power of internal im 
 provement. That may be a point deserving of examina- 
 tion hereafter ; it is not my purpose of going into any 
 discussion of it now. But the ground upon which I ap- 
 prehend western gentlemen will be found to stand is 
 this: We ask as a matter of right an equal distribu- 
 tion of political power among the people of this com- 
 monwealth, and at the same time we are ready to unite 
 with you when you shall devise and present to us for 
 our action all judicious and proper limitation and guar- 
 anties upon the powers of the majority. That is what 
 we understand a minority has a right to ask, but that a 
 minority has a right to ask that they shall themselves 
 hold the power of the government, and that the legis- 
 lative authority shall be confided to their hands, we ut- 
 terly deny and repudiate. We admit of the right of the 
 minority to ask of the majority sueh constitutional pro- 
 visions or assurances, call them what you please, limi- 
 tations, guaranties, or anything else, as shall secure 
 them from aggression and the abuse of the power of the 
 majority. Such provisions for instance as shall secure 
 uniformity of taxation, and against injustice in the ap- 
 propriating power. That we admit, I say, a minority 
 have the right to ask of the majority, and that this ma- 
 jority here stand ready to concede and give them. Let 
 it be understood by the people of this commonwealth 
 
 Mr. nAixiiouii. ivir. uuutriuan : I think that my 
 course, since I have been a member of this 1 ody, gives 
 a stronger assurance of the diffidence and reluctance 
 vvith which I obtrude myself upon the attention of 
 ■ he Convention, than any form of words which 1 could 
 employ. As one of the youngest — perhaps the young- 
 est— member upon this floor, I have felt that it was due 
 to the Convention, and due to myself, that I should not 
 press myself upon its notice, except when impelled to 
 do so by a sense of duty. But, like other gentlemen 
 upon this floor, I have duties to discharge ; and, if those 
 who sent me here had apprehended that I would per- 
 mit considerations of personal delicacy and diffidence 
 to embarrass me in the discharge of those duties, that 
 full-measured confidence by authority of which I am 
 here, would have been withheld, and rroperly withheld, 
 from me. I cannot, therefore, shrink from the task that 
 is before me. I must, however, in the outset, invoke 
 the indulgence of the committee. I am, for the first 
 time in my life, addressing a deliberative assembly, and 
 am very well aware that I may not be able to adapt my 
 style to the proprieties of this new position. The com- 
 mittee, must, therefore, pardon me if I use, upon this 
 occasion, the same unreserve of manner, the same free- 
 dom of speech, that I would do were I addressing my 
 
 and of the world, that whiie you here are twitting us ^ends and neignbors from the galleries of my own 
 about guaranties and limitations, and sneering at paper! court llouse ' or u P on . the J m T bench in my own county, 
 guaranties and assurances of this kind, you, a minority 1 add > ^ 1 deslre to sa y nothing that is offensive 
 of the people of the commonwealth are claiming here} to any gentleman, or any collection of gentlemen here 
 
 that the only mode in which you can be secured in your 
 property is by allowing you, a minority of the people, 
 to hold the whole power of government yourselves. 
 That is the true condition of things at this moment, that 
 too in connection with the declaration of the gentleman 
 from Fauquier that there is but one subject in regard 
 to which any apprehension need be entertained at all, 
 and that subject he confesses may be so disposed of as 
 to prevent any injustice or any improper exercise of 
 power. 
 
 I had no idea of being called upon to say a word in 
 reference to these matters. My desire was simply to 
 respond to the inquiry of the gentleman from Loudoun 
 in reference to the duties of the basis committee. It is 
 well known that that committee was equally divided. 
 In reference to this question of limitations and guaran- 
 ties, so far as I know the opinions of the western mem- 
 bers of that committee, it. was that whatever guaran- 
 ties and limitations should be deemed necessary and 
 proper ought to come from the legislative committee, 
 and ought to be provided for by the operation of gen- 
 eral provisions in the constitution, and ought not to be 
 made part and parcel of the basis of representation, 
 and that representation ought not to be based upon them 
 a3 a condition to its apportionment. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. It will be perceived by the Conven- 
 tion that if speeches which are made in committee may 
 be replied to in the Convention, that gentlemen will 
 avail themselves of the opportunity to make their 
 speeches upon this question in the Convention. I move 
 that we now resolve ourselves into a committee of the 
 whole, and I do so because a gentleman has the floor, 
 and is prepared to proceed. 
 
 Mr. HUNTER. Is such a motion in order while a 
 question is pending? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is in order. 
 
 Mr. CONWAY. If it is understood that there is to 
 be no further discussion in the Convention on the ques- 
 tion, I will withdraw my motion. 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolution of Mr. 
 Hunter, and it was adopted. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 The Convention then, on motion of Mr. Cox way, re- 
 
 And if any remark shall fall from me, that may seem to 
 bear such a construction, I ask that it may be attributed 
 rather to inadvertance, arising out of the excitement of 
 the moment, than to any purpose to wound the sensibil- 
 ities of gentlemen. 
 
 In discussing this subject, I shall endeavor to view it 
 fairly in each of the two aspects in which it has been 
 considered by most of the gentlemen who have prece- 
 ded me in the debate — first as an abstract question, and 
 next as one involving the gravest considerations of pub- 
 lic liberty and public safety. One party upon this floor 
 contends that what they denominate the suffrage basis 
 of representation is the only basis consistent with pop- 
 ular rights, and the fundamental principles of liberty, 
 as they are asserted in our own bill of rights. If their 
 position is a sound one, then there i& an end to the dis- 
 cussion. I acknowledge that there would then be no 
 occasion for further argument, and we should be bound 
 to go along with them. If, however, this question of 
 abstract right is not with them, and the fundamental 
 principles of free government do not require us to adopt 
 the basis for which they contend, then we must give 
 ourselves over to the guidance of those considerations 
 of public policy and safety that apply to the actual con- 
 dition of the country for which we are organizing a gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Before I enter upon the main part of this argument, 
 I shall invite the attention of the committee to one or 
 two points that have already been involved in the dis- 
 cussion by other gentlemen, and have a more or less di- 
 rect connection with it. I have been surprised and 
 amused at the superior purity of motive, and devotion 
 to principle, which gentlemen on the other side seem 
 disposed to assume for themselves. We are informed 
 that with them it is a contest for principle, and lor prin- 
 ciple alone. They profess to prosecute this contest for ^ 
 principle with a white-handed, pure-hearted faith that 
 would contemn any association with views of interest. 
 The gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Sheffey) even tells 
 us that when, on one occasion, in the discussion of this 
 subject before his constituents, arguments were ad- 
 dressed to them founded on considerations of their own 
 interests, a ground-swell of indignation rebuked the 
 
364 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 seemly assault upon their virtuous devotion to princi- 
 ple. That gentleman permitted his fancy to range in 
 delighted vision throughout western Virginia, every 
 ■where beholding nothiug but this disinterested and ar- 
 dent enthusiasm in behalf of the great principles of 
 which he is the champion. But the moment that he 
 crosses the mountain that interposes between the Val- 
 ley and the Piedmont, this appearance changes, and the 
 gentleman's sensibilities are shocked at the odious coin- 
 cidence which he thinks he perceives between the prin- 
 ciples and the interests of the people in that quarter 
 of the State. And, by way of chastising this reprehen- 
 sible dereliction, the Piedmont is to be made the sub- 
 ject and the victim of the prejudices of this Convention. 
 Other gentlemen have equally indulged in a strain of 
 applause at the peculiar and exclusive enthusiasm for 
 principle which inspires them and their constituents in 
 this contest. I understood the gentleman from Preston 
 (Mr. Brown) to go so far as to intimate that he would 
 still adhere to his principle, even did the experience of 
 the other States in this cenfederacy demonstrate its im- 
 policy. But the gentleman who occupied the attention 
 of the committee on yesterday (Mr. Lucas) went fur- 
 ther on this point than any one has yet gone ; for I un- 
 derstood him to congratulate himself that the ardor of 
 this attachment to their principles had placed him and 
 his constituents in a position actually in conflict with 
 their interests. This fact he seemed to think ought to 
 give peculiar force and influence to the views and ad- 
 vice which his constituents might address to the practi- 
 cal and intelligent people who live on this side of the 
 mountain. This gentleman entertained us at length 
 with a beautiful eulogy upon the happy condition of 
 public sentiment in his county. I was delighted with 
 the eloquence of the gentleman, and permitted myself 
 for a time to be lost in admiration of the holy ardor and 
 enthusiasm for principle that prevailed in that end of 
 the Valley. The gentleman's voice was occasionally 
 inaudible where I sat, and it was in the midst of one of 
 those bursts of eulogy, that I lost the connection; and 
 when he again, in a few moments, became audible to me, 
 I was astonished to find him now dilating with the same 
 fervor upon the policy and equity of getting some of 
 the loaves and fishes upon his side of the Blue Ridge. 
 I must confess that I was entirely at a loss to perceive 
 any particular connection of the fundamental principles 
 of free government, and the natural rights of men, with 
 the idea of getting some of the loaves and fishes over 
 the mountain. This transition from principle to interest 
 was accomplished with a grace and rapidity which the 
 gentleman from Augusta even would hardly expect 
 to see surpassed in the Piedmont. If the subject of the 
 loaves and fishes had been introduced into this discus- 
 sion by one of the representatives from Piedmont, it 
 might have seemed to some to be only in accordance 
 with the general character which it has pleased certain 
 gentlemen to attribute to that section. But, coming from 
 the quarter that it did, and in the connection in which 
 it was introduced, I must again repeat the expression 
 of my profound amazement. 
 
 " The thing itself was neither rich nor rare, • 
 The only wonder is, how thed-— 1 it got there " 
 
 In reply to all this assumed disregard of interest, I 
 might simply ask gentlemen if they do not think that 
 the interests of their constituents will be promoted by 
 the suffrage basis? If such is your own view of your 
 own interests, do you not yourselves present that very 
 coincidence between your interests and your principles, 
 $ as you regard them, which is imputed as an offence to 
 the Piedmont people ? But I propose to prosecute, a 
 little further, the investigation which such assumption 
 justifies and invites. 
 
 The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Lucas) and the gen- 
 tleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffet,) have both pre- 
 sented somewhat at length, the history of parties on this 
 basis question. I propose very briefly to follow these 
 gentlemen through a portion of that history, and correct 
 
 some of their facts. I wish to inquiie whether the par- 
 ty to which these gentlemen are attached has always 
 been centroiled by that exclusive and disinterested de- 
 votion to principle which is claimed for them. I think 
 that by the time I have gone through with this portion 
 of my subject, it will be found that there are other sec- 
 tions besides the Piedmont which sometimes consult 
 their own interests. 
 
 The gentlemen inform us, that in the arrangement of 
 senatorial districts in 1816, the white basis party ob- 
 tained such a recognition of their principles as was sat- 
 isfactory to them. They* derive this assertion, I know, 
 from the speech of Mr. Doddridge in the last convention. 
 But they have entirely overlooked the correction of Mr. 
 Doddridge's statement, that was made shortly after- 
 wards, in the same body, by Mr. Tazewell. I hold in my 
 hand the debates of that Convention. A t the close of 
 his speech on the basis question, Mr. Tazewell refers to> 
 the history of that senatorial re-apportionment in 1816. 
 He says that he was a member of the committee that 
 brought in that re-apportionment bill, and was, of course, 
 cognizant of all its proceedings. He informs us that 
 those districts were arranged, not on the white popula- 
 tion basis- — certainly not on the suffrage basis- — but upon 
 a compound basis of taxation, federal numbers, and white 
 population. In connection with the fact which I have 
 just presented, I ask attention to another fact, also sta- 
 ted by Mr. Tazewell. He says that the west was satis- 
 fied with the apportionment then made. Mr. Doddridge 
 likewise- states, that after this senatorial apportionment,, 
 the western people took a breathing spell, and agitation 
 was suspended until 1824. That re-apportionment gave 
 the west nine senators. Previously they had but four. 
 It will be observed that this re-apportionment gave to 
 this party of devotees to principle, a large accession of 
 power, but no recognition of their principle. They hug- 
 ged the power to their bosoms, and smiled over its pos- 
 session, out they forgot to shed one tear, or utter one 
 word in melancholy commemoration of their abandoned 
 principle. The gentleman from Augusta told us with 
 an air of triumph that the mixed basis was not heard of 
 in 1818. I have shown that it was the very basis that- 
 then prevailed. I -ftish to call the attention of the com- 
 mittee to a principle of basis that really was not heard 
 of in the re-apportionment of 1816. The suffrage basis- 
 was not then demanded. It was the whole white pop- 
 ulation that was then urged as the basis by the ardent 
 and enthusiastic devotees of the rights of man and the 
 fundamental principles of libertv asserted in the bill of 
 rights. Such, likewise was the basis demand by this 
 party in the Staunton Convention in 1816, and in 1825. 
 So far, if my information be correct, this party planted 
 itself upon the white population basis, and not the suf- 
 frage basis. We come now to the Convention of 1829 y 
 where the entire sentiment of this party in the State 
 was organized and represented. In that Convention 
 this suffrage basis, now presented as the only basis 
 consistent with the rights of men and the principles of 
 liberty, had but two advocates ! One of those was R. 
 B. Taylor, whose powers were revoked at an early 
 period of the session. The other was Chapman John- 
 son, and the fact that he stood alone on that question is 
 strikingly significant of the feeling with which this suf- 
 frage basis was then regarded. The gentleman from 
 Augusta, the other day, described Philip Doddridge, in 
 1829, as standing, like an eagle-eyed sentinel on the 
 crest of the Alleghany, to guard the western interest 
 from the approach of open and secret foe. The eagle- 
 eyed sentinel did not hesitate to challenge even Chap- 
 man Johnson, and when he gave the suffrage basis as 
 the countersign, Philip Doddridge would rot admit 
 him into the camp. Yes, in the convention of 1829, in 
 the presence of the whole white-basis party, Mr, Dod- 
 dridge told Chapman Johnson that he was the only one 
 of that party who was in favor of the suffrage basis. I 
 trust the committee will give their attention to two 
 short extracts, which I will venture to read from the 
 debates of the last Convention : 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 365 
 
 ii Mr. Doddridge rose to notice a remark of Mr, Scott 
 on what had fallen from Mr. Johnson, He understood 
 Mr. Johnsoii to have stated it as his understanding of 
 the first proposition in the report of the legislative 
 committee, that representation was to be apportioned 
 on the basis of qualified voters ; and he had added that 
 he supposed this to have been the intention of the mover 
 of that resolution in the legislative committee. Now, 
 Mr. Doddridge said that he had himself been the mover 
 of it, and such an interpretation was certainly very far 
 from his purpose. He had never intended any such 
 thing ; nor, "so far as he knew, had such an interpreta- 
 tion entered into the minds of the legislative committee. 
 His doctrine and his desire was, that representation was 
 to be apportioned according to the entire white popula- 
 tion."— Debates, p. 342. 
 
 At a later period of the session he again repudiates 
 the suffrage basis in behalf of all his associates in the 
 Convention. 
 
 "Mr. Doddridge, in explanation to Mr. Stanard, 
 disclaimed any opinion on the part of his friends, 
 that representation was to be based on votes alone ; 
 none of them hold it but Mr. Johnson.' 5 [Debates, p. 
 501.1 
 
 There is what Mr. Doddridge said uncontradicted 
 from any quarter. Am I not then fully authorized to 
 say that the suffrage basis was rejected by the able 
 men who represented western interests in the Conven- 
 tion of 1829? That the principle involved in this suf- 
 frage basis was not regarded by those men as one con- 
 sistent with the principles upon which they then plant- 
 ed their party ? A change is now brought about, and 
 that which was rejected of the builders in 1829, i? 
 made the corner stone ol the edifice .Here we find this 
 party changing position in 1851. Let us direct our at- 
 tention back again for a few moments, and inquire 
 whether there has been any change of interest coinci- 
 dent with this change of principle. The committee 
 will remember that in 1816 the free-hold suffrage was in 
 force. In 1829 it was understood that the right of suf- 
 frage would be extended to hGuse-keepers who were tax 
 payers. Mr. Johnson, in the Convention of 1829, sub- 
 mitted estimates of the results of the Avhite population 
 basis, and of the suffrage basis, as the suffrage qualifi- 
 cations then stood, and also as it was proposed to ex- 
 tend it. White population basis gave the west fifty-six 
 members in a house of one hundred and twenty. The 
 ■suffrage basis, if the right of suffrage was not extended, 
 would give the west forty-seven members ; and if the 
 right suffrage should be extended ?,s was then expected 
 to tax paying house-keepers, the suffrage basis would 
 give the west fifty members. [Debates, p. 270.] Thus 
 the white population basis gave the west nine members 
 more than the suffrage basis, as the right (if suffrage 
 then was and had been in 1816 ; and it gave six more 
 than the suffrage basis after the contemplated extension 
 of the right of suffrage. In that condition of affairs, 
 western gentlemen, with almost unbroken unanimity, 
 came to the conclusion that the white population basis 
 was the only basis consistent with the rights of man 
 and democratic principles. How is it now? Why it 
 is generally anticipated that the right of suffrage will 
 be extended to nearly all the adult males in the State. 
 It is well known that in an immigrating community the 
 number of adult males is larger in proportion to the 
 whole population than it is in an emigrating communi- 
 ty. Eastern Virginia is an emigrating country, Western 
 Virginia is an immigrating country, so that after the 
 contemplated extension of the right of suffrage, the 
 suffrage basis will probably give Western Virginia more 
 power than white population basis. Under these cir- 
 cumstances we find gentlemen repudiating the white 
 population basis with the same unanimity with which 
 they formerly repudiated the suffrage basis, and now 
 vehemently contending that the latter basis is the one 
 whose principle meets the full requirements of the bill 
 of rights! Here, then, I point to a change of position 
 and of principle, and coincident with it a change of in- 
 terest. 1 find that it is an easy thing for these gentle- 
 
 Imen to reason themselves into the adoption of the par- 
 ticular principle that gives them the most power. Let 
 my western friends not misunderstand me. I do not 
 charge them with seeking power for improper purposes. 
 You no doubt think that when you have obtained pow- 
 er you will use it wisely and well. But I think that I 
 have detected tiie unnoticed and pervading influence of 
 the desire for power that has shaped and fashioned 
 their principles. In view of the facts which 1 have re- 
 cited, I feel authorized to deny their assumption of su- 
 perior and disinterested devotion to principle, and to 
 tell them freely and boldly that on their side the love of 
 power, mingles with the love of principle. 
 
 But 1 have not contented myself with an investigation 
 of the past ; I have extended my inquiries to the course of 
 of gentlemen in this Convention, upon this subject. I ask 
 you to go along with me and review the course of gentle- 
 men who represent western views upon this floor, and 
 see if there is not that same coincidence even here be- 
 tween their interest and their practical operation of 
 their own principle ? I particularly invite the attention 
 of all my western friends to what I am now going to 
 present to the committee. We are persuaded that the 
 fires of indignation are always ready to kindle in the 
 bosom of the gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) 
 as well as in the bosoms of his virtuous constituents, at 
 the bare thought of sacrificing principle to interest. 
 Let that gentleman prepare one of his genuine ground- 
 swells of indignation now — for he has himself been an 
 active participant in what I am about to expose. In 
 order lhat there may be no misapprehension on my part 
 of the position of western gentlemen, I will state it as 
 I understand it. If I state it inaccurately, I ask as a 
 favor that some gentleman on that side will correct me. 
 They contend that a majority of the voters in the State 
 ought to control the legislation of the State. They 
 take for the present the number of white population, 
 as the measure of the number of voters, and profess 
 that in arranging and distributing representation among 
 the counties and election districts, those counties and 
 election districts which contain a majority of the white 
 population shall always be enabled to elect a majority 
 of the members of the legislature. Have I stated your 
 doctrine correctly? Now let us see what is the practi- 
 cal operation of this principle, as it is exhibited in the 
 report of the western portion of the basis committee? 
 Twelve of the most distinguished gentlemen from West- 
 ern Virginia, constitute one half of the basis commit- 
 tee. Without interference or hindrance from our side, 
 these gentlemen have leisurely and deliberately matur- 
 ed their own application of their own principle. The 
 result of their labor is presented as the scheme of rep- 
 resentation which gives practical operation to the prin- 
 ciples for which they contend, and which therefore 
 they wish to incorporate as a part of the new constitu- 
 tion. This report was presented some weeks ago, has 
 been printed and placed in the hands of every member 
 of the Convention. No proposition to amend — no com- 
 plaint of its imperfection has yet come from a single 
 member on the other side. I take it therefore, that 
 this proposition meets the general approval of western 
 gentlemen, and fully* accomplishes their views and pur- 
 poses. 
 
 I hold in'my hand a tabular statement — I do not in- 
 tend to trouble the committee by reading it, but as soon 
 as I am done referring to it any gentleman will be at 
 liberty to take it and examine it at his leisure — shewing 
 that sixty-two counties and election districts embracing 
 395,618 white population will be authorized upon this 
 plan to elect seventy-nine out of one hundred and fifty- 
 six membersjj'of the House of Delegates, while the rest 
 of the counties embracing about 500,000 inhabitants are 
 authorized to elect but seventy-seven members. Yet 
 worse, by adding five other counties to the list we have 
 sixty-seven counties containing 437,000 population 
 electing eighty-six delegates, while the other counties 
 containing 458,000 population sent buf seventy dele- 
 gates. Thus a minority by some twenty thousand have 
 a majority of sixteen in the house of delegates, by a 
 
 4 
 
366 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 plan whose professed purpose is to give the control of 
 the legislature exclusively to the numerical majority. 
 The same remarkabie consistencies are observed in 
 their senatorial apportionment. I have not gone to the 
 trouble of preparing a tabular statement in reference 
 to the senate. But I have marked here on the face of 
 the printed report nineteen districts embracing in round 
 numbers about 437,000 population which are authori- 
 zed upon the plan, to elect nineteen senators out of 
 thirty-six. The other districts including about 458,000 
 p-jpulation elect but seventeen senators. A minority 
 by twenty thousand thu3 control the senate on the ma- 
 jority plan ! Here is devotion to principle for you with 
 a vengeance. The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. 
 Lucas) told us that it was not merely a sectional ma- 
 jority east or west, but a majority scattered all over 
 the State into whose hands he would pass the govern- 
 ment. Yet upon the very plan that he advocates as 
 the embodiment of his own principles, here will be a 
 minority of more than one hundred thousand people 
 scattered all over the State, from Accomacto Brooke, 
 and from Accomacto Russell, that will elect a majori- 
 ty of the House of Delegates. Yet in the face of this 
 strange exhibition of their own application of their 
 own principles, I think 1 can hear the mild-toned, mu- 
 sical accents of the distinguished gentleman from Pres- 
 ton (Mr. Brown-) still singing in my ears that in sup- 
 porting this report he was only following his principles. 
 Gentlemen have followed their vaunted principles, un- 
 til they have transported the sceptre over Rocktish gap, 
 and, while embracing the power that is brought to 
 them, they cease to pay any further regard to the prin- j 
 ciple. The only majority to which this report is sedu-| 
 lous to secure the control of the legislature, is the sec- 
 tional majority lying west of the Blue Ridge mountain. 
 Professing to be content with nothing but a government 
 of the numerical majority, gentlemen are here pres- 
 sing the adoption of a system that gives the control of 
 the House of Delegates to a minority of more than one 
 hundred thousand. Yet the gentleman from Preston 
 assures us that they are on'y following their principles. 
 Well, I always thought, for reasons which I will ex- 
 plain before I resume my seat, that in attempting to 
 follow the principles professed by these gentlemen, they 
 were following a very unpractical, unsafe and unrelia- 
 ble guide. 1 thought that they were following a will o' 
 the wisp. But 1 hardly expected that they would be 
 entic?d into such a quagmire as that in which they are 
 now floundering. The gentleman must excuse me. 
 He does not find his principles in this reported plan. 
 If he wants to follow them he must begin his travels 
 anew. I am sorry 1 cannot tell him how and where he 
 will overtake them. Perhaps they have taken refuge 
 among the virtuous and enthusiastic constituents of the 
 gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) and are now 
 preparing that ground-swell of indignation which sure 
 iy must overwhelm the gentleman when he returns to 
 those constituents after having been a chief agent in 
 preparing a plan of constitutional organization by which 
 power was secured to them, while their beloved prin- 
 ciples were prostrated and abandoned. .Or, perhaps 
 they have crossed over to Monongalia, and are now 
 kindling the fires of that volcano, which the gentleman 
 from that county (Mr. Willey) informed us would 
 burst in destructive eruption upon the heads of all 
 those who support any scheme by which the hands of a 
 minority control the government. I am very fearful 
 that the gentleman will fall the first victim of his own 
 volcano. For he has made an eloquent speech in favor 
 of this report. 
 
 The great outcry that has been raised here against 
 the mixed ba«is report, is alleged to have been occa- 
 sioned by its giving a minority of ninety-one thousand 
 the control of the legislative department, and putting 
 money in the s^ale against men. Gentleman have ex- 
 hausted language of invective in denouncing a proposi- 
 tion (and such they declare ours to be) which weighs 
 
 to express the abhorrence with which gentlemen regard 
 this proposition. The gentlemen from Augusta and 
 Accomac (Mr. Sheffey and Mr. Wise) have re-infor- 
 ced language with the most significant gesture in the 
 effort to give full expression to their emotions on the 
 subject. It was not until I had witnessed those displays 
 of the gentlemen that I fully appreciate Shakespeare's 
 description of Harnlet in the play as bearing the ap- 
 pearance of one 
 
 " Just let loose from hell to speak of horrors." 
 When gentlemen come to study their own plan, I must 
 look for them to go off in hysterical convulsions. For 
 that gives the control of a majority of the delegates to 
 a minority of more than one hundred thousand. That 
 does not even put money in the scale, but with uncere- 
 monious hand sweeps off a hundred thousand or so of 
 peonle as the worthless dust that encumbers the balance. 
 The gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) seemed to 
 think that the substitute oi the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier (iVir. Scott) proposed a sort of auction of white 
 men, and intimated that his indignation might be some- 
 what relieved, or at least its agony rendered less in- 
 tense, if that substitute would value men at one dollar 
 apiece, instead of forty-two cents, the price at which 
 they are estimated in the mixed basis report according 
 to the gentleman from Augusta. Here in your own 
 scheme are one hundred thousand men valued not at one 
 dollar, or forty-two cents, or even one cent apiece, but 
 just at nothing at all — knocked off for want of a bidder. 
 Your action seems to be doing more of a wholesale bu- 
 siness than ours. 
 
 Here then is the proposition of these devoted advo- 
 cates of the majority rule. Let no gentleman plead 
 haste or inadvertence as an excuse for this startling de- 
 parture from principle. This report was cautiously 
 and deliberately matured by twelve of the ablest and 
 most zealous western men on this floor. Yes, twelve 
 learned doctors sent out to exercise and drive out of 
 the constitution this devil of a spirit that a minority 
 should rule. If this western proposition becomes part 
 of our constitution, I fear that gentlemen will find that 
 the old spirit has not only returned to his swept and 
 garnished house, but has brought along with him others 
 more wicked than himself and made its latter condition 
 even worse than the former. But I forbear to press 
 gentlemen further on this subject. They are in a dif- 
 ficulty from which they will find it hard to extricate 
 themselves. They seem to me at the very first move 
 to have put their king in check. I put it home to gen- 
 tlemen who are devoted to the principle that the ma- 
 jority ought to govern, at all times, and under all cir- 
 cumstances, if they can bring themselves to support 
 the plan of the western report. 
 
 I will now invite the attention of the committee to 
 the main question under discussion, as I stated it in my 
 opening remarks. I assert that there is no principle 
 announced in our bill of rights that requires us to adopt 
 the suffrage basis or to reject the mixed basis in the ap- 
 portionment of representation. I propose briefly to ex- 
 amine the clauses to the bill of rights which have been 
 relied upon in this debate by gentlemen on the other 
 side. I shall do so as briefly as possible, contenting 
 myself where I can <io so with justice to the subject, 
 with a simple statement of my views, without argu- 
 ment. For before the attention of the committee is 
 wearied, I wish to address myself to the more practical 
 branch of the subject, and submit some considerations 
 of public liberty and safety, which it seems to me ought 
 to control our action. For convenience of arrangement, 
 I shall comment on the clauses in the order in which 
 they stand in the bill of rights. There are three clauses 
 upon which gentlemen rely. It is somewhat remarka- 
 ble that ail three of these referto the existence of men 
 prior to constitutional organization, while a clause 
 which really does referto the subject under discussion 
 has been entirely overlooked. I shall refer to them all 
 before [ close. Here is the first clause : " All men are 
 
 dollars against men — money against moral and sentient by nature equally free and independent, and have cer- 
 Ijeingn. The Errgliefe language has not Been Adequate! tain inherent rights of which, when tfoey enter a state 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 367 
 
 of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or di" 
 vest their posterity." Now this in its very terms ap" 
 plies to the natural condition of men before they enter 
 inte a state of society. But admitting that all men are 
 or ought to be equally free after they have entered so- 
 ciety, is there any justice in the inferences which these 
 gentlemen draw from that declaration? Because all 
 men are equally free, all men ought to exercise equal 
 political power, according to the reasoning of these gen- 
 tlemen. Power is not liberty, and the exercise of pow- 
 er is not the enjoyment of liberty. You confound the 
 means with the end. Power is the means by which 
 liberty is preserved. And if you so organize power in 
 the govern nient as to preserve liberty, you accomplish 
 all the purpose of a free government. Gentlemen as- 
 sociate with the idea of freedom, the idea of power; 
 and in order to make men free you must give them 
 power. Were we in that happy, angelic condition in 
 which each of his own free will would respect all the 
 rights of others, we might dissolve governments, and 
 locate power nowhere. Will gentlemen tell us that 
 men in such circumstances would not be free because 
 they were not exercising power? Yet here their rights 
 would be protected, their liberties preserved without 
 any agency of theirs. But why do gentlemen content 
 themselves with claiming upon this principle an equal- 
 ity of political power? I find no special limitation of 
 the term in the bill of rights. Why not claim too an 
 equality of social power? Wealth is power — social 
 power. Physical strength, intellectual endowments 
 constitute power. Upon the interpretation which gen- 
 tlemen give to the bill of rights all men are by nature 
 entitled to equality in all these respects. For we are 
 told that without equality of power, there is no equali- 
 ty of freedom. Gentlemen impressed with this view 
 should not stopata re-organization of our political sys- 
 tem; they should re-organize the social system; they 
 should lift their view still higher, and address their 
 morning and evening supplications to high heaven that 
 the system of nature itself should be organized on a 
 principle different from that applied to it by infinite 
 wisdom. But if men who do not have ao equality of 
 power, have not an equality of freedom, then it seems 
 necessarily to follow that those who exercise no power 
 have no freedom ; so that upon this theory, freedom is 
 confined to the qualified voters, and that equality of 
 freedom asserted in the bill of rights and its concomitant 
 equality of power is the exclusive right of qualified vo- 
 ters! If this party should prevail in this Convention, 1 
 shall look for a proposition from them to amend the bill 
 of rights so as to express their views more precisely. 
 They ought upon this theory to make it read " all qua!-* 
 ified voters are by nature equally free and independent." 
 If the free-hold qualification of suffrage should prevail, 
 then your bill of l ights might assert that all men who 
 own twenty-five dollars worth of land are naturally free 
 and equal. It is well known that there is a party up- 
 on this floor, embracing gentlemen from both sides of 
 the mountain who will endeavor to make the payment 
 of State and county taxes a qualification of suffrage. 
 Your bill of rights, if the interpretation I am now com- 
 bating be correct, would then declare that all men are 
 by nature equally free ; provided, always, that they had 
 paid the county levy. Upon this theory if to-day I 
 chance not to have settled my tax bills, I am not a free- 
 man entitled to enjoy all the natural rights of men. No, 
 the sheriff has my liberties in his saddle-bags in the un- 
 gainly shape of a tax bill. To-morrow I settle the ac- 
 count, and immediately am invested with all the rights 
 and privileges of a freeman, and by a fiction, like those 
 of the common law, these rights relate back, I must 
 suppose, to the day of my birth, for I am now become 
 by nature equally free. The receipt which the sheriff 
 endorses upon the tax bill thus constitutes the great 
 charter of the liberties of the citizen. If such be the 
 case, provision ought to be made by law for preserving 
 in public custody and at public expense, those interest- 
 ing documents, those invaluable muniments Of title to 
 ©qua! freedom and the rights of mbn. 
 
 Well now let us follow these gentlemen through an- 
 other stage of their singular mode of argument and de- 
 duction. They first infer from the bill of rights im- 
 properly as I think that 1 have shown, that every man 
 is entitled to exercise an equal share of political pow- 
 er, and from that, by some curious art of logical leger- 
 demain, jump to the conclusion that the majority have 
 the natural right to exercise all power and the minori- 
 ty have no right to exercise any power at all. A trifle 
 more than one half of the community are thus invested 
 with absolute power, and a trifle les"s than one haif to 
 be stripped of every semblance of power! This too is 
 accomplished by the advocates of the theory that no 
 man is free unless he exercises just as much political 
 power as any other man in the community. The only 
 political organization that I have ever heard of m 
 which this principle, of equality, in the exercise of pow- 
 er, was practically admitted was the old Polish constitu- 
 tion, under which not a majority but unanimity was re- 
 quired in the passage of laws. There, under the pres- 
 sure of necessity, the sword overruled the liberum veto 
 and the life of the citizen was sacrificed while his right 
 to equal political power was respected. Suppose we 
 examine now the practical application which gentle- 
 men propose to give to this principle and see whether 
 even their own purposes are in any degree accomplish- 
 ed. Iain not now going to make any further criticism 
 upon their report. I am going to suppose for the mo- 
 ment that they have made a theoretically perfect ap- 
 plication of their principle, and that they have divided 
 the State into election districts, each one of which em- 
 brace precisely the same number of votes. I concede 
 this for the sake of argument, though 1 know that in 
 practice it can never be accomplished. If you could 
 so arrange districts this morning, the equality of the 
 distribution would be disturbed before the sun would 
 go down to-morrow evening. But even in that imagin- 
 ry condition will you then have this desired equality of 
 political power. Will not the location of the suffragan 
 in many instances determine the degree cf influence 
 which his will may exercise upon the action of the le- 
 gislative department. Most assuredly it will. Let 
 me give an illustration that will mere clearly express 
 at the same time that it enforces my view. 1 will take 
 three of your election districts and suppose that each 
 includes a thousand voters, and each elects one dele- 
 gate to the legislature. A proposition is to come be- 
 fore the legislature and elections are made with refer- 
 ence to that subject. One of these election districts is 
 unanimous against the proposed measure. A trifling 
 majority in each of the other two districts are in favor 
 of it. How does the account stand. In the three dis- 
 tricts there are nearly two thousand voters against the 
 measure, and but little more than one thousand in fa- 
 vor of it. Yet the two thousand, in consequence of 
 this local situation, elect one delegate, and the one 
 thousand elect two delegates? A few more than one 
 thousand voters thus exercising twice as much legisla- 
 tive power as but a few less than two thousand voters. 
 That is your patent-right plan for securing to each 
 voter precise equality of power ! I perceive that the 
 committee now comprehend the view that I am 
 presenting. Allow me to enforce it. with another illus- 
 tration. I trust that I do nothing improper in referring 
 for illustration to the present division of parties in the 
 State, it is well known that members of the legisla- 
 ture are now elected with reference to parties, and will 
 probably continue to be so for years to come. The 
 county of Shenandoah and the county of Fauquier are 
 each entitled to two delegates by the suffrage basis re- 
 port. In Fauquier parties are closely divided. Irk 
 Shenandoah they are nearly unanimous. Eight hun- 
 dred whigs in Fauquier send two delegates to the legis- 
 lature, while fifteen hundred democrats in Shenandoah 
 send but two. Thus eight hundred whigs in Fauquier 
 have as much weight is the legislature as the fifteen 
 hundred democrats in Shenandoah, and the seven hun- 
 dred democratic minority m Fauquier combined, 
 Eight hundred thus balance turenty-twQ hundred. 
 
363 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 May I be excused for yet another illustration? I shall (pact by the conditions of the compact, and ceases tc 
 refer to an existing state of things in two counties of (exist the moment that the social compact accomplishes 
 my own district, Culpeper and Madison. _T_ cannot | its object, and is merged into a constitutional compact. 
 
 name those counties here without emotion. The gen- 
 man from Jefferson (Mr. Lucas) yesterday eulogized 
 the historic recollections of his own county. I too, if 
 I choose to decorate my position here by such allusions, 
 Could refer to the historic glories that cluster about 
 the reminiscences connected with my own county in- 
 cluding as she once did that county of Madison, But 
 I forbear and proceed 1o the illustration that 1 have in 
 view. The county of Culpeper is nearly equally divi- 
 ded in politics, a few votes either way determining its 
 political character. The county of Madison is nearly 
 unanimous. Near the line dividing- these counties 
 live a number of gentlemen whose farms extend in 
 both counties, but whose residences are in Madi- 
 son. Suppose after this Convention has confined the 
 right of suffrage to residents of counties, that some 
 dozen of those gentlemen have their dwellings remov- 
 ed from the Madison to the Culpeper side of their farms. 
 Probably they fix the political complexion of Culpeper 
 while they do not at all change that of Madison. They 
 thus secure for their views two votes in the legislature, 
 which, otherwise, would exactly balance and nullify 
 each other. Do you ask me to believe that the suffrage 
 of these voters avails as much in the one county as it 
 does in the other? I shall not multiply arguments upon 
 this point. Gentlemen must themselves perceive in 
 what inconsistencies they are involved when they at- 
 tempt to organize a representative system upon the prin- 
 ciples which they contend to be the principles exclu- 
 sively appropriate to it. 
 
 I pass to the next clause referred to by the other 
 side : 
 
 "All power is vested in, and consequently derived 
 from, the people." This has little or no application to 
 the subject. I might admit all that is contended for, 
 that power is derived from a majority of the people and, 
 yet the question, in what form shall that power be or- 
 ganized, in whose hands entrusted, would still remain 
 unsettled. But I choose to state my own view of this 
 principle in the bill of rights ; gentlemen can take it 
 for what it is worth. Whence is power really derived ? 
 Is it not derived from the parties to the social compact ? 
 And who are those parties ? The individuals who con- 
 stitute the community as people, and it is in this sense 
 that all power is derived from the people. On entering 
 the social compact, each individual surrenders a portion 
 of his natural rights and privileges, and from these in- 
 dividual sources is derived a fuud of power, to be em- 
 ployed for the good of the whole. It is only these de- 
 rived powers that any human agency has any just right 
 to exereise. I deny that there are any prerogative pow- 
 ers here. I do not use the word prerogative in the nar- 
 row sense of tue English common law, but in the more 
 enlarged meaning ascribed to it by public writers. It is 
 not derived from compacts, constitutions, or laws, but 
 is above them, and is claimed as inherent in the party 
 exercising it. It is power having its foundation, not in 
 the gift of men, but in Divine right. I understand gen- 
 tlemen to contend that there are such prerogative powers 
 here, and that they belong to the majority of the com- 
 munity. I deny that any man, or set of men, have the 
 right to exercise any power over an individual, which is 
 not derived from the grant of that individual directly 
 or indirectly. By entering into the social compact he 
 confers upon the community thus formed the powers 
 necessary to accomplish the purpose of the social com- 
 pact, the formation of the government, the establish- 
 ment of a constitutional compact that supersedes the 
 social compact. While the community are engaged in 
 accomplishing the great object of the social compact, 
 the establishment of a government, the community act 
 as an assembly, and of course are subject to the rule 
 of necessity applying to all assemb ies, that the will of 
 the majority shall represent the will of the whole. This 
 is a power derived from the parties to the social corn- 
 
 After that, nr portion of them have a right to any power 
 not granted and delegated in the constitution. So long 
 as the constitution has a valid obligatory existence, the 
 majority have a right to just what powers the consti- 
 tution gives them, and no more. This view brings us to 
 the last clause in the bill of rights, which gentlemen 
 have recited in support of their position : 
 
 "Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the 
 common benefit, protection and security of the people, 
 nation, or community ; of all the various modes and 
 forms of government, that is best which is capable of 
 producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, 
 and is most effectually secured against the danger of 
 mal-administration, and that when any government shall 
 be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a 
 majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalien- 
 able, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish 
 it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to 
 the public weal. " 
 
 This clause states the proper objects of government, 
 the conditions bn which the constitutional compact is 
 entered into, and asserts that when these conditions are 
 violated, the constitution is no longer valid obligation, 
 and the community are released from obedience to it, 
 and reverted back to their rights under the social com- 
 pact^ prior to the institution of government. It asserts 
 no power of the majority over the constitution so long 
 as it accomplishes the objects for which it was estab- 
 lished, and upon the continued performance of which 
 the obligation of the people to support it depends. 
 The power of the majority does not exist under the 
 constitution, but springs up only when the valid ex- 
 istence of the constitutional compact has ceased, in con- 
 sequence of the violations of the conditions upon which 
 it was entered into. The community, I repeat, are then, 
 and not until then, restored to the condition of the so- 
 cial compact, and must act as one assembly to accom- 
 plish anew the object of the social compact — the insti- 
 tution of government. The majority here have that au- 
 thority which the general rule of all assemblies gives to 
 the majority. Even after this the minority are not 
 bound in allegiance to the new government unless they 
 express their submission to it by continuing within its 
 jurisdiction. I hope I may be allowed to remark here 
 that the authority of the majority of an assembly to 
 represent the whole is not peculiar to democratic as- 
 semblies. It is the rule of necessity which the general 
 consent of mankind applies to assemblies generally. 
 It was as much the rule of the Grecian councils as of 
 their popular assemblies, as much the rule of the Patri- 
 cian senate at Rome as of their popular comitia, as 
 much the rule of the English House of Lords as of the 
 House of Commons. It is only of more frequent opera- 
 tion in democracies, because such are essentially govern- 
 ments by assemblies. The authority of the numerical 
 majority of the whole community only comes into exis- 
 tence when the community acts as one assembly. I re- 
 spectfully submit that the right of the majority to rep- 
 resent the community upon such occasions was not the 
 leading principle intended to be solemnly asserted in 
 this clause of the bill of rights. The right intended to 
 be preserved and consecrated there was the right of the 
 community to withdraw its allegiance from the govern- 
 ment that had violated its trusts, and to substitute a 
 new government for it. It was the right which our an- 
 cestors had exercised in the days of the Commonwealth, 
 and again in 1688, and which the people of Virginia 
 were exercising at the very time that the bill of rights 
 was framed. I have looked at the declarations of 
 rights prefixed about that time to their constitutions by 
 other States, and find that none use the precise expres- 
 sion of the Virginia bill of rights, but all assert this 
 right to belong in general terms to the " people, " "so- 
 ciety, " "community." 
 
 I ask gentlemen whether a cotemporaneous exposi- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION 
 
 369 
 
 tion is not the best exposition in law. I ask you if those 
 man who formed this bill of rights, who inserted this 
 assertion of a great fundamental principle in it, did not 
 understand what they meant quite as well as you un- 
 derstand what they meant? Did not George Mason, 
 the author of the bill of rights, understand it as well as 
 you? Did not the men who lived in his day under- 
 stand that doctrine as well as you who lire at this 
 day ? Was not public attention at the time peculiarly 
 attracted to this particular doctrine, the right of the 
 community to reform the government ? Why, that was 
 the very right which they had just exercised in each 
 one of the thirteen States of the confederacy. It was 
 a right for which they had been willing to sacrifice life, 
 fortune, and the establishment of which, after passing 
 through many scenes of trial and bloodshed, they finally 
 accomplished. There may be other principles which 
 were not understood at that day, but I repeat that this 
 great fundamental doctrine had been asserted and exer- 
 cised in England at a period not very long anterior to 
 that, and was well understood at that day by all Ameri- 
 can politicians and statesmen. I ask you to look at 
 the constitutions throughout the country, formed by the 
 men of that day, and I assert that you will not find one 
 solitary American constitution that attempts to carry 
 into practical operation this doctrine, that a majority 
 of the legislature should be elected by counties con- 
 taining a majority of the people. Here is the book, 
 name one cons' titutiom which does this, and I will dis- 
 pute it with the record. There is not one in which 
 this great principle for which gentlemen are now ready 
 io convulse society, is to be found practically enforced. 
 
 Well, did the Virginia constitution carry it out — and 
 it was formed by the very men who formed this bill of 
 rights? Why, they gave Warwick, with a population 
 of some five hundred, the same representation, the same 
 control over the legislature, that they gave to Culpeper, 
 to Berkeley, and to Loudoun counties, each containing 
 from fifteen to twenty thousand population. Will gen- 
 tlemen tell me that that constitution was but a tempo- 
 rary expedient? If they will, I say that the declara- 
 tion is at war with the character of the constitution it- 
 self; it contains a provision looking to the indefinite fu- 
 ture operation of that very principle of representation. 
 Why, they provide in that constitution that if at any 
 future time, any city shall so decrease in population as 
 not to contain an amount of population equal to that of 
 one-half the smallest county in the State, it shall have 
 its representative. Thus, here was a provision under 
 the hands of these great men who asserted asd fully 
 understood the principles of the bill of rights, authori- 
 zing a city to send half as many representatives as Cul- 
 peper, even when the population of that city should 
 have decreased as low as two hundred and fifty, and yet 
 I am told that these men asserted and advocated the 
 very principles now asserted and advocated by the 
 friends of the suffrage basis ! The gentleman from Jef- 
 ferson (Mr. Lucas) yesterday endeavored to prove that 
 they themselves had departed from their own princi- 
 ples, and that this great fundamental principle, to carry 
 out which he tells us the west may in a certain state of 
 things be willing to revolutionize the State and society 
 itself, was prostrated and broken down by the very men 
 who had toiled and suffered in the cause of liberty and 
 free principles. It was an awkward compliment to those 
 men to say that they had not only violated the princi- 
 ples of liberty and popular rights, but had recorded 
 their own shame by prefixing the most solemn and au- 
 thentic declaration of those principles to the very con- 
 stitution which violated and annulled them. George 
 Mason was the author of the bill of rights. Did he un- 
 derstand what he was writing ? And yet when a mem- 
 ber of the Convention that framed the federal constitu- 
 tion, lid he not support, as his first choice the federal 
 basis, which was essentially a property basis ? Certain- 
 ly one would suppose that the very authors of the bill 
 of rights ought to be presumed to understand what they j i 
 
 meant as well as any person at this day. Mr. Mason 
 supported the federal basis of representation, and thus 
 repudiated this white or suffrage basis. I think, there- 
 fore, that gentlemen must fail in the attempt to draw 
 any aid from these clauses of the bill of rights in sup- 
 port of their view of a proper organization of the leg- 
 islative department. 
 
 I have no particular desire to go in search of abstract 
 principles, or to explore this bill of rights for one, 
 Such principles must yield to practical limitations when 
 you come to apply them. But there is one clause in the 
 bill of rights which does refer to this subject of legisla- 
 tive power, and hew and by whom it is to be exercised, 
 which gentlemen have thought proper entirely to over- 
 look in their arguments: < 6 All men, " says the bill of 
 rights, " having sufficient evidence of permanent com- 
 mon interest with and attachment to the community, 
 have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or de- 
 prived of their property for public use, without their 
 own consent, or that or their representatives (freely) 
 elected. " No man, none of us, can be taxed without 
 our own consent, It is not a right which spreads over 
 the majority as a majority, but it is one which attaches 
 to each man as an individual. No one, by the bill of 
 rights, can be taxed without own consent, or by that of 
 the representative whom he has elected, "nor bound by 
 any law to which they have not in like manner assented, 
 for the public good. " There is a clause which does not 
 relate to any state of things outside of the constitution 
 prior to the constitution, or posterior to the constitution' 
 but it relates to things as they exist under the constitu- 
 tion. In the abstract theory of the constitution, not a 
 part, but the whole legislature enacts the laws. How 
 do the laws of the Commonwealth run ? Not be it en- 
 acted by a majority of the general assembly, but be it 
 enacted by the general assembly. In the abstract the- 
 ory of the constitution, not a mere majority of the peo- 
 ple are regarded as assenting and giving authority to the 
 laws, but every man in the community is regarded as 
 having assented to them through his representative. He 
 agrees to give that assent in the constitutional compact, 
 when he delegates the legislative power to an assembly, 
 of which his own representative is a member, and agrees' 
 that a part, less than the whole, shall control the will 
 and the action of the whole. We have the right to pre- 
 scribe in our constitution what part of the legislative 
 assembly shall stand for the whole, and control the 
 whole. If we merely constitute the assembly, and are 
 silent as to the rest, we of course subject it to the com- 
 mon rule applied to assemblies generally, that a major- 
 ity of the assembly is to represent and control the will 
 of the whole. If we chose, we could require the con- 
 currence of two-thirds to control the will and action of 
 the whole. So we could make a smaller number neces- 
 sary. In the organization now existing, less than a ma- 
 jority may represent and act for the whole assembly. 
 A majority of a quorum can act. We have the right to 
 settle this question now, what part of the legislative as- 
 sembly shall we authorize to stand for and control the 
 will of the whose assembly. Gentlemen on the other 
 side say that part, that represents the counties contain- 
 ing a majority of all the voters in the State. We say 
 that part, that represents constituencies who are most 
 interested in a wise and safe exercise of legislative pow- 
 er. Here, then, we come back to the practical question 
 to be settled by this Convention, 
 
 At this point, I repeat the question put a few days 
 ago by my friend from Westmoreland, (Mr. Beale,) is 
 there any one here who is prepared to prosecute to its 
 legitimate consequences this doctrine, that the numeri- 
 cal majority should elect and control the legislative de- 
 partment ? Is any one here prepared to have the legis- 
 lature elected by the numerical majority and responsi- 
 ble to it? If you desire that the numerical majority 
 shall control the representative body, you should make 
 that majority the constituent of the representative bo- 
 dy Gentlemen who adhere to this majority principle 
 can only secure their object by electing the legislature 
 
370 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 by general ticket. It is not the object of the system of Igress which modern society has made in the fcience of 
 representation of counties and districts, to take the sense government. If there is any one thing, as the gentle- 
 of the numerical majority. I say it without fear of sue- man from Fauquier says, which experience i'uily de- 
 cessful controversy, that the wit of man cannot make monstrates, it is that when all power is trusted in one 
 such a system of representation of counties and districts, hand, or under the control of one body, whether it be 
 as will constitute the representative body a faithful ex- ten > olle hundred or a hundred thousand, despotism, ty- 
 ponent of the will of the majority of the community, ranny and usurpation will be the natural result. The 
 
 If it really is the great paramount controlling purpose 
 of the organization of the legislative department to make 
 it the true experiment of the will of the numerical ma- 
 jority, then the representative system is one of the most 
 absurd, ridiculous and bungling pieces of machinery ever 
 put in operation by sane men. It is a purpose which 
 our system of representation cann t accomplish. I will 
 illustrate this by imagining a state of things which I 
 trust may never occur. Suppose that the views of west- 
 ern gentleman prevail, this basis is adopted, and power 
 is transferred west of the mountain. Let me imagine 
 that some measure of sectional injustice is meditated 
 against the ea-t. The people on this side of the mount- 
 ains will, of course, be unanimous against it. One-third 
 of these on the other side, restrained by a sense of jus- 
 tice, may also oppose it, and yet be so dispersed through- 
 out the~Vest as not to be able to elect a single delegate. 
 A minority of the whole people will thus control the le- 
 gislature, and a measure of gross outrage perpetrated in 
 defiance of the will of the majority. I might multiply 
 instances, but it must be admitted by every candid man, 
 that the sense of the majo ity of the separate constitu- 
 encies will often differ from the sense of the majority 
 of the whole. In such cases, which is to control? Will 
 the advocates of the majority principle answer me that 
 question ? In case of conflict between the will of his 
 own constituents and that of the majority of the people 
 of the State* to which is the representative to conform 
 his action? If it is our incumbent duty in arranging the 
 organic law, to provide that the numerical majority 
 shall control the legislature, surely it will be no less 
 the duty of those who are chosen to execute this organic 
 law, to co-operate in this design. If the whole object 
 and intention of this part of the constitution is to place 
 the legislature under the control of the numerical ma- 
 jority, will it not be treason to that constitution for any 
 member of this legislature to act otherwise than in strict 
 subjection to the will of that majority. To be consis- 
 tent with themselves gentlemen must assume that the 
 representative ought to disregard the will of his imme- 
 diate constituents, where it is in conflict with that of the 
 majority of the whole. They must here range them- 
 selves along side of the opponents of liberal principles 
 both in this country and England. The generally re- 
 ceived view of the friends of popular government is 
 that each representative is elected by and for his own 
 constituents, and is bound by their will ; he is no more 
 t\t liberty to consult the will of the majority of the peo- 
 ple of the whole State, when in conflict with that of his 
 own constituents, than he is at liberty to consult the will 
 of a foreign despot. That is the doctrine of the right 
 of instructions long since settled in this country, at 
 least definitely, and unanimously settled by the demo- 
 cratic party of the country. The opposite opinion — 
 that of the tory party in England — is that the represen- 
 tative is elected for the whole State or Kingdom, and 
 bound by no peculiar responsibility to his own imme- 
 diate constituency. If I take a position alongside of 
 gentlemen who contend thit a majority of the communi- 
 ty must control the legislature, I have to abandon the 
 faith in which I was reared, which teaches me that the 
 representative ought to be the mere reflection of the 
 will of his constituents, and must accede to doctrines 
 that have been cherished by the tory party in England. 
 I must stand by the old alter, and worship in the old 
 temple. If then the representative is the mere agent of 
 the constituency, when you distribute representation 
 among the counties and election districts, you, in ef- 
 fect, entrust the legislative power of the government 
 to those counties and election districts. There is the 
 theory of our goreniment ; ay®* there is the great pro-' 
 
 concentration — the great apostle of liberty has told us — 
 of all power in the same hands is exactly the definition 
 of tyranny. What, I ask, is the great improvement in 
 modern political science ? It is the diffusion of power ; 
 the distribution of power and the breaking up of the 
 consolidation of power. The great principle asserted in 
 our bill of rights is that power in the first place shall 
 be distributed among the various governmental depart- 
 ments, and that all power shall not be in one or the oth- 
 er. The executive power shall be in the hands of ( ne ; 
 the legislative power in another, and the judicial power 
 in the hands of a third. This is one step in the pro- 
 gress of political improvement, but the great step, the 
 greatest achievement of modern politicafscience is this 
 representative system, by which the consolidation of 
 power is broken up, and the control of government is 
 taken from the hands of one individual unit, and dis- 
 tributed through a variety of communities. Now, upon 
 what principle will you distribute power among those 
 communities ? That is the question. You say in pro- 
 portion to the number of voters. We say that is an 
 unsafe principle, because we desire to have power lodged 
 in hands not interested in abusing it. We say that in 
 this distribution of power you must put most power 
 where there is most interest to use that power wisely ; 
 where there are the most subjects of legislation. Give 
 it to those communities who have the most subjects of 
 legislation, and are, therefore, the most directly inter- 
 ested in a wise use of legislative power. Governments 
 do not confine themselves to the protection of the rights 
 and liberties of the citizen. Whether they are right or 
 wrong in overstepping that line of duty I do not now 
 inquire. I content myself for the present with the fact 
 that government is a vast agency for collection and ex- 
 penditure ; a tax collecting and a tax disbursing instru- 
 ment. ^ Shall we entrust the power in the hands of those 
 whose interests will be most prompted by the heaviest 
 expenditures in the hands of those who are interested to 
 increase the burthens of the community ? What secu- 
 rity have we that these burthens will not be rendered 
 intolerable? But you say that when you increase the 
 taxation you will increase in the same proportion the 
 burthens on each? Why, what security is that? I 
 will illustrate my view, so that I may be more clearly 
 understood. Here is one of the counties I represent, 
 Orange county, with a population of 3,660 paying a tax 
 of $5,550, and here is the county of Braxton with a pop- 
 ulation of 4,125, paying a tax of $150. 
 
 Now, suppose these two counties were forming a com- 
 pact of government, would it be just to put the power 
 to distribute the taxes which Orange pays, in the hands 
 of Braxton, merely because the last county had the most 
 voters ? When Braxton felt the necessity for money, 
 she could very easily double the taxes, and raise $11,000 
 in Orange, and $1,500 in her own limits, and then apply 
 the whole for her own benefit. And would it be any 
 justification to Orange, for Braxton to say you are rich 
 and we are poor, and no injury can be done you, if, when 
 the tax is doubled on you it is doubled cn us ? The answer 
 of Orange would bs that you can very easily afford to 
 take $1,500 out of your own pockets, when you bring 
 back to yourself more that $12,000, and expend the 
 whole amount as you please. Would it be any security f 
 I ask you, in constituting a government here, to place 
 this tax-collecting and distributing power in the hands 
 of those who are interested in increasing the burthens 
 of government, and with whom the necessity for im- 
 provement and the power of improvement that junctio 
 juris et seisinae, according to the views that we have 
 heard here, vests a complete right to other people's mo- 
 ney. But the experience of the pant has been referred, to 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 371 
 
 in contravention of this view, and we are told that the 
 mixed basis has not proved a security to us heretofore; 
 that theburthensof the community have been increased, 
 and increased by the agency, in fact, of that Piedmont 
 country, which advocates the mixed basis. Gentlemen 
 forget that the mixed basis has not heretofore been the 
 actual basis of representation. But I pass that' by. 
 The Piedmont country, heavily as she contributes to the 
 treasury, has not, you say, declined to accumulate upon 
 herself and the rest of the State, the heavy burthens of 
 taxation, when it became her interest to increase the 
 burthens, because the disbursements were made in that 
 quarter. When it became the interest of that section 
 to increase the burthens of taxation, we are informed 
 that they have not hesitated to aid in increasing them. 
 Piedmont was in a minority, however, and it was by the 
 aid of others equally interested, that this increase of 
 taxation and disbursement was effected. But because 
 taxation has been increased by the agency in part of a 
 country interested in such increase, we are told we must 
 feel perfectly safe in putting the taxing power in hands 
 interested to procure a still larger increase of taxation. 
 At the very moment that they point us to the abuse of 
 power in the hands of those interested to abuse it, they 
 invite us to entrust still larger powers to hands yet 
 more interested to abuse. Piedmont and the west to- 
 gether, have been heretofore interested in increasing cis- 
 bursoments, and having the power, have increased them ; 
 theiefore, you must place controlling power in the hands 
 of the west, which is interested to procure still heavier 
 disbursements ! I do not perceive the force of that lo- 
 gic. The Piedmont country, with the aid of the west, 
 we are told, has imposed upon tidewater; therefore, 
 tide-water must strip herself of power, and increase the 
 preponderance over her of Piedmont and the west both ! 
 The tide-water section must not trust herself with pow- 
 er, for fear that the sagicious Piedmont will make dupes 
 and victims of them, and use the power of tide-water 
 for their own exclusive benefit ! The mixed basis gives 
 Piedmont forty-two members, and tide-water forty, I 
 believe. In order to weaken Piedmont, you must re- 
 duce her by the suffrage basis to thirty-seven, and by 
 the same act reduce yourselves to thirty-three — increa- 
 sing considerably the relative preponderance of Pied- 
 mont over tide-water. The power thus stript from both, 
 is to be transferred to the west — that very section most 
 deeply interested in that course of legislation, of which 
 the tide-water people complain so much. In addressing 
 such appeals as those to the tide-water people, gentle- 
 men may accompany them with what compliments they 
 choose to the simplicity of heart of those people. I 
 must be excused for saying, that this course of argument 
 implies for them, at least ^equal simplicity of heart. It 
 is the interest of the tide-water people, gentlemen, say to 
 co-operate hereafter with the west in the legislature. 
 On this ground, the tide-water delegates are invoked to 
 strengthen the legislative power of the west, by strip- 
 ping themselves of it. I, for one, cannot, for the life of 
 me, discern this new-found identity of interest between 
 these two sections. But if it does exist, surely the peo- 
 ple of the tide-water will be as quick to discern it as 
 their delegates upon this floor, and when they do discern 
 it, they will unite whatever powers we give to them, 
 with the western powers in the halls of legislation. I 
 must be allowed to believe that no power will be so 
 well employed for the benefit of tide- water interests, as 
 the power which tide water herself will control. 
 
 But the Piedmont is denominated a dangerous power 
 in the community, and she must be depressed. The 
 mixed basis does not depress her enough. You must 
 organize your government on a principle of contest and 
 of war with the Piedmont — a contest in which Pied- 
 mont men and Piedmont interests are to be arranged on 
 one side, and all the rest of Virginia on the other. The 
 mixed basis is to be rejected, because it gives danger- 
 ous strength to the Piedmont. Well, the mixed basis 
 gives the Piedmont only forty-two members in a house 
 
 of one hundred and fifty, and leaves her in a minority of 
 sixty-six on the floor of the House of Delegates. When- 
 ever Piedmont attempts a course of action adverse to 
 the general interests, the mixed basis enables you to 
 rally a legislative force of nearly three to one against 
 her. In the name of Heaven, if three to one be not 
 odds enough against Piedmont, what odds will gentle- 
 men ask before they venture in the contest? If a ma- 
 jority of sixty-six is not enough, how much will you 
 have the face to demand ? It has always been the boast 
 of English pride, that one British soldier was equal to 
 two of any other country, and I must confess my grati- 
 tude for the compliment which gentlemen are paying to 
 the Piedmont country in intimating that in legislative 
 contests involving the prowess of statesmen, any one 
 man from Piedmont is equal to any three men from the 
 other parts of the State. You aie afraid to trust your- 
 selves in a contest with Piedmont, unless you are three 
 to one against her. You are organizing the government 
 on the principle of war upen the Piedmont, and is your 
 spirit of chivalry such that you will not let us ge 'into 
 the contest — stript of our pristine strength as we shall 
 be even with the mixed basis — unless you first have us 
 bound and fettered? I appeal to my tide-water friends 
 if they desire to go into a contest with us, if indeed one 
 is to go on, with such odds on their side as these. 
 
 But we are told that guaranties will afford the pro- 
 tection that we require. Now, 1 happen to be one of 
 those who do not believe in these guaranties, or in their 
 I efficacy, and I will tell you why. I fear power. I 
 have been taught to dread power, and I do not think 
 power is less dangerous even when restrained upon one 
 jside while it has free scope everywhere else. Provide 
 guaranties again«t power ! Will gentlemen tell me that, 
 'standing here and forming a constitution which looks, 
 or ought to look, to the indefinite future, they can, at 
 jthis moment of time, foresee what various forms of 
 aggression power will assume and provide against 
 them? Power is always shifting its aggressions, its 
 forms of attack, and it is not in the power of man to 
 guard against its abuse in all instances in the future. 
 But the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Lucas) told us 
 that the paper guaranties were very valuable, and that 
 they have afforded us ample protection heretofore, and 
 that we would have suffered no injustice at the hands of 
 the general government, had we had guaranties in ex- 
 press forms on the subject in which we have suffered 
 injustice. This reference affords a happy illustration of 
 the views which I have just presented to the committee. 
 Could the federal Convention that formed the constitu- 
 tion of the United States have foreseen the acts of ag- 
 gression which took place but a few months ago, and 
 could they have provided against them, does any gentle- 
 man believe that they would not at once have done so. 
 Does any man in this hall believe that they could have 
 foreseen that we were to have acquired territory from 
 Mexico, and that there would be a disposition on the 
 part of the people of the north to deprive us of our just 
 rights, in relation to that territory ? It is but an in= 
 stance of one of the multiform aspects in which unre- 
 strained power will present itself, and it is but addi- 
 tional evidence of the total inability of man to provide 
 against these abuses of power. But, says the gentle- 
 man, if we had had express guaranties on these sub- 
 jects, they would have been observed, and it was but 
 from the fact of the absence of such guaranties that 
 aggressions have been committed upon us. Let me ask 
 his attention to one guaranty in the federal constitution, 
 and let me ask him also if it is not as explicit a guaran- 
 ty as any of his colleagues can make ? 
 
 " Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom 
 of speech or of the press. " 
 
 That was one of the amendments adopted in 1791. 
 There is a guaranty against the abuse of power. Y r et 
 ten years had scarcely elapsed before that guaranty was 
 violated, and the federal statue book was disgraced with 
 the sedition law. Can you form any guaranty more 
 explicit than that ? That is the example to which gen- 
 
372 
 
 tlemen appeal as evidence in support of the value of ex- 
 press guaranties ! 
 
 I have another reason to mistrust the efficacies of 
 guaranties. The moment that these restraints become 
 onerous restrictions upon the powers of the majority, 
 that majority will get rid of them. They will continue 
 to be restraints just so long as the majority choose to 
 be restrained by them, and then they would be snapped 
 like pack-thread. The same power that puts them in 
 the constitution could very easily put them out of the 
 constitution. The same majority that would control 
 the government in all its departments, would control 
 the constitution itself. They would very soon amend 
 your constitution, and purge it of guaranties whenever 
 these guaranties might become objectionable to them. 
 And then my friends of the guaranties would have to 
 swallow the white basis in its unsophisticated purity. 
 The pill would then have no sugar upon it. But here 
 are these gentlemen from the Jefferson district with 
 another guarantee to secure their guaranties. They 
 say that they will require a vote of two-thirds of the 
 legislature before another Convention shall be called. 
 'I do not understand that that proposition commands the 
 general support of western gentlemen. The chairman 
 of the .basis committee, (Mr. Summers,) in his remarks 
 about guaranties this morning, gave no intimation of his 
 assent to it. And I must confess my surprise that such 
 a proposition should be presented in the quarter from 
 which it comes. Are gentlemen who are contending 
 for the great fundamental principle of the right of the 
 majority to rule, going to beat down and lay prostrate 
 that principle as applied to the organization of the gov- 
 ernment ? You who are so much afraid of the rule of 
 the minority that you will not trust it to the powers of 
 ordinary municipal legislation, will yet authorize that 
 minority to enforce upon you an organic law — a form 
 of government that is objectionable to you ! Let me 
 enquire where is the difference in principle between 
 the original establishment of a law by a minority, and 
 the continuance of that law by a minority after a change 
 of circumstances has rendered it objectionable to the 
 majority ? Does not the law derive its valid existence 
 from the will of the minority by whom it is kept in 
 force ? Gentlemen are willing to abandon their princi- 
 ple here, provided they get the power of legislation. 
 Yet they do not want power — only principle ! 1 will 
 pass that by, and inquire what security such a guarantee 
 would afford? Does any man here seriously believe 
 that such a provision as that would prevent a majority 
 in full possession of the government from affecting such 
 amendments to the constitution as they might determine 
 to introduce ? Why, even now, when they have not that 
 complete mastery over the government which they seek, 
 they tell us boldly that the majority of the community 
 are entitled to obtain the organic reforms which they 
 demand, and unless we will give them in the form which 
 they desire, very distinct intimations are given to us 
 that ulterior measures will be adopted in order to en- 
 force the will of the majority. Suppose they now had 
 control over the government, does any one suppose that 
 a provision requiring a two-thirds vote to procure an 
 amended constitution would stand in their way? We 
 should hear very able and ingenious arguments, based 
 upon the bill of rights — arguments perfectly satisfactory 
 to those seeking the change, proving that such a pro- 
 vision is an insufferable violation of the rights of man, 
 and of no valid obligation. The gentleman from Jeffer- 
 son, (Mr. Hunter,) says that the majority could only 
 avoid such a provision by a revolution. If the occasion 
 ever arises, I predict that he will find the majority desi- 
 ring the reforms will entertain a different opinion, and 
 will demand the reforms as a legal right. But even if 
 they have to resort to revolution, what a safe and easy 
 thing will be a revolution when the government is on 
 the side of the revolters. It cannot be difficult'to upset 
 a government that wants to be upset. It will be very 
 easy to overrun the forms of the organic law when the 
 law-making and law-executing power are in the hands 
 of those seeking the change. 
 
 Upon such considerations as these, I shall support the 
 mixed basis proposition. Like the gentleman from 
 Westmoreland, (Mr. Beale,) who addressed the com- 
 mittee some days ago, I cannot support it as a first 
 choice proposition. When I look around me and con- 
 template the peculiar condition of a great interest in 
 this State, for which we ought to provide, I want some- 
 thing accomplished in the organization of government 
 which the mixed basis will not accomplish to my satis- 
 faction. Gentlemen will of course understand me as 
 having reference to that great and sensitive property 
 interest to which the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. 
 Scott,) referred the other day. Congregated in one 
 quarter of the State are 400,000 slaves, worth near 
 $150,000,000. Between the owners of this property and 
 that portion of the State containing a majority of the 
 white population, mountains interpose, and no peculiar 
 tie of business or of social intercourse binds them in in- 
 separable identity of feeling and interest. I tremble 
 when I anticipate the day when the unrestricted con- 
 trol over the powers of this government shall pass into 
 hands not interested in the preservation of that proper- 
 ty, for the history of the world shows that whenever 
 this property has been subject to power in the hands of 
 those not interested in it, it has been made the subject 
 of oppression. I am solicitous for protection for this 
 property — yes, liberty for the property holder — the best 
 definition of liberty that I have ever read is that given 
 by Sir James Mcintosh, when he said it is security from 
 wrong. I have all proper confidence, I trust, in the 
 people of the west, but it is a principle of human na- 
 ture that when it becomes the interest of a community 
 to act in a particular direction, it will so act. What 
 did we hear the other day from the gentleman from 
 Monongalia ? (Mr. Willey.) Why, if they did not get 
 this white basis — a very distinct intimation I thought 
 it was — if this slave property stood in the way of the 
 progress of the west to power, they would resort to 
 measures for the destruction of that which thus stood in 
 their way. 
 
 Well, this is the state of feeling now. If they 
 are persuaded that this slave property stands in the way 
 of their rights now, how do we know in what other as- 
 pects it may be presented as standing in the way of 
 these rights in the future ? It is the very argument upon 
 which the free soil party of the north bases itself. They 
 declare that slave labor is an interference with the 
 rights of freemen, and it is because this people believe 
 that it is an interference with their rights and interests 
 that they have sought to perpetrate those acts of injus- 
 tice upon the south. Those people, too, have all these 
 moral feelings of which gentlemen talk. They have 
 sound hearts— they have fought for their country, and 
 their bones lie bleaching on the battle-fields too. Yet, 
 in pursuance of what they called a great principle, when 
 it became their interest to perpetrate wrong, they hesi- 
 tated not to perpetrate it. There were not wanting 
 men among them to persuade them that in so doing they 
 were acting in the prosecution and assertion of these 
 rights. I do not know, I cannot foresee what particu- 
 lar view of human rights may be taken in the different 
 sections of the State in all future time. I do not know 
 what will be their interests, and therefore I am not 
 willing to subject this immense interest to the control 
 of those who may take such a view of their rights and 
 interests as to require this property to be destroyed. I 
 feel especial occasion for caution — when I am already 
 told by their delegates here that they will take that 
 view of the subject if we do not give them this white 
 basis, if, I understand, that, if this great property in- 
 terest enters as an element into the mixed basis, and 
 stands as a barrier between them and the accomplish- 
 ment of their wishes much longer, as the intimation is 
 most distinctly made to us, they will remove that bar- 
 rier. I am not willing to, trust my interests and their 
 safety and protection in the hands of those who take 
 such views of their rights and interests as may require 
 the sacrifice of my interest and my rights. These very 
 northern people to whom I have referred, have supposed 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVEOTION. 
 
 373 
 
 that in sacrificing the rights of the so.uth, they were act- 
 ing in accordance with a course of justice and proprie- 
 ty. I do not ask that the government shall be placed in 
 the hands of those interested in this property. I should 
 be content if they were empowered to check and pre- 
 .vent unjust and oppressive action when attempted. I 
 . utterly despair, however, of obtaining such an organi- 
 zation of this government as will secure for this inter- 
 est the permanent protection which I seek for it. If I 
 cannot get that, I must take the best that I can get — re- 
 serving to myself the privilege, should an opportunity 
 occur, of successfully accomplishing my views, of avail- 
 ing myself of it. 
 
 I have already detained the committee longer than I 
 ought to have done. I must tender to the committee 
 my unaffected thanks for the very kind attention with 
 which they have honored me. It may be some compen- 
 sation to assure them that their kindness has enabled 
 ine to present my views in a much briefer space than I 
 could have done had I been compelled to labor to at- 
 tract their attention. 
 
 Mr. C ARLILE. The deep interest, which in common 
 with my constituents, I feel in connexion with the sub 
 ject now under consideration, must be my apology to the 
 committee for trespassing upon its patience at this time. 
 
 I. am fully sensible that I have occupied already upon 
 the subjects which have been before the Convention too 
 much of its time. I am aware that for one of my years 
 and inexperience in the presence of a body like this, pos- 
 sessing its talent, its learning, it would perhaps have 
 been better if i had refrained f :om troubling the Con 
 vention with many of the remarks which I have had the 
 honor of addressing to it, but I trust that what I have 
 said and what I may say, will not be attributed to a 
 want of a proper estimate of the body, and of all that is 
 due to it ; but to the true reason which is the all absorb- 
 ing interest I feel in the questions presented to us, and 
 the consciousness that the people I have the honor in 
 part to represent, are watching with almost breathless 
 anxiety the result of your deliberations. For the future 
 I sh til endeavor to occupy less of your time than I have 
 in the past. When this amendment was introduced by 
 the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) it will be re- 
 membered, that so soon as I could get the floor, I did so 
 for the purpose of expressing the hope that that gentle 
 man would have assigned to the committee the reasons 
 which influenced him, and which he must suppose would 
 have influenced it, to prefer his amendment to the pro- 
 positions reported from the committee on the basis and 
 apportionment. I conceived it to be in conformity with 
 all parliamentary usage ; nay, I believed it but respect- 
 ful to the body itself, that when a member submits a 
 proposition for consideration to members here, and asks, 
 as he has a right to do, that they shall vote upon it, that 
 lie should state the reasons why the committee or the 
 Convention should adopt it, particularly when it is an 
 amendment to the report of a committee appointed b; 
 the body itself, ordered to consider of as well as to re- 
 port upon the subjects to it referred, and which in the 
 proper discharge of its duties, it is to be presumed it has 
 done ; but, in this instance, we have had a reversal of 
 this rule, and gentlemen have led off in opposition to the 
 amendment as well as gentlemen in favor of the amend- 
 ment, without the benefit of such an argument until day 
 before yesterday, as the gentleman from Fauquier is ca- 
 pable of making ; and what has been the result ? Why, 
 that the gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Pubkins) and oth- 
 •er gentlemen who have advocated before the committee 
 this amendment, have advocated it upon the ground, as 
 they assert, that it is necessary to secure their constitu- 
 ents, the minority of the people in this Commonwealth, 
 from excessive taxation and from a wasteful expenditure 
 of the public money ; in other words, for the purpose of 
 enabling them to fetter the very system which the gen 
 tleman from Fauquier, the mover of the amendment, says 
 • It is his intention, and was so designed by him in propo 
 sing the amendment, and in the advocacy of the princi- 
 
 ple contained in it, to assist and not to fetter. ISTow we 
 have an argument to meet of the gentleman from Hali- 
 fax and those think him in favor of the amendment, be- 
 cause the mixed basis, as they contend, will cripple and 
 to some extent arrest the system of internal improve- 
 ment, as well as the argument of the mover of the a- 
 mendment in support of the proposition, because it will 
 not cripple or fetter this system of internal improvement. 
 In other words, the gentleman from Halifax and those 
 who think with him, advocate the mixed basis, because 
 they say the suffrage basis would transfer the power of 
 the State to the friends of internal improvement; the 
 gentleman from Fauquier advocates the mixed basis be- 
 cause he says he is, and has ever been a friend to the 
 system of internal improvement, and opposes the suffrage 
 basis because he says its adoption would arrest; if in- 
 deed it did not destroy altogether, the system of intern- 
 al improvement, for he contends the suffrage basis will 
 be accompanied with such restrictions upon the taxing 
 and appropriating power as will prevent the legislative 
 department of the government from making extravagant 
 appropriations to works of internal improvement. 
 
 I design, in the course of my remarks, to refer to tb e- 
 history of the constitution of which George Mason was 
 the author, and I shall show that the exposition which 
 the gentleman from Culpeper (Mr. Barbour) has sought 
 to give to the bill of rights, by contrasting it with the 
 constitution of 1776, is not sustained by the authority 
 to which he has referred. But before 1 do this, and be- 
 fore I enter particularly upon that course of remark 
 which I design to do, and state the objections which I 
 have to the amendment as well as to the mixed basis 
 part of the committee's report, I desire to notice so much 
 of the bill of rights as declares that the majority of the 
 community hath the indubitable, inalienable and inde- 
 feasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government 
 in such a manner as shall be judged most conducive to 
 the public weal," Ail parties here now, seem to agree 
 not only to the bill of rights as it is written, but the 
 gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) announced in bis 
 argument that he would not add to, or subtract from it; 
 and of course he concedes that if the preposition which 
 he has submitted as an amendment, and which is now 
 under consideration, be opposed to the principles con- 
 tained in the bill of rights, it would not receive his ap- 
 probation. But to reconcile the proposition which he 
 has submitted with the bill of rights, he assumes that 
 the phrase, ''majority of the community," as used in the 
 bill of rights, means a governmental majority ; not a ma- 
 jority of the people, but a majority — as stated by some 
 gentlemen — of interest : a majority of those who, for the 
 time being, have possession of the government. It is 
 my purpose to ascertain what the phrase, "majority of 
 the community," means, as is used in the bill of rights, 
 and who and what is included within the meaning of 
 these words. I answer, without hesitation, that it means 
 nothing more and nothing less than a majority of the 
 people; in other words, a majority of the men of sane 
 minds and mature age in the community. The number 
 of persons included within its broad signification, is not, 
 and cannot be limited by any conventional or govern 
 mental restrictions, for the bill of rights speaks as be- 
 hind all constitutions, as behind all organized govern- 
 ments. It speaks of man in his primary and natural ca- 
 pacity ; it speaks of him as in the exercise of primary 
 or natural rights. All the rights spoken of in that in- 
 strument, appertain to, and belong to man in his unor- 
 ganized state, and behind all forms or obligations of go- 
 vernment. And, so thoroughly is this idea embodied in 
 the bill of rights, that it is declared, no matter what 
 may be the form of government, it cannot deprive man 
 of these rights. If, therefore, these rights exist, inde- 
 pendent of, and prior to government, as my friend from 
 Culpeper admitted, and cannot be taken away or modi- 
 fied by government, it follows that the phrase, "majori- 
 ty of the community," cannot mean a conventional or 
 governmental majority; and if it could — as gentlemen 
 
374 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 would like to have it — mean a governmental majority' 
 the practical operation of the doctrine would be to de 
 feat the very object had in view; for it would recognize 
 in a majority of the existing 1 government, power to per- 
 petuate itself ; in other words, whether the governmen- 
 tal majoiity be composed of a majority of the communi- 
 ty, or of a miuority, if the phrase, '-majority of the com- 
 munity," means a governmental majority, it would, of 
 necessity, give to that governmental majority the abso- 
 lute power, of perpetuating itself, and would forever 
 preclude the majority of the people from the exercise of 
 that right which the bill of rights declares is inherent in 
 them, and a natural right, to wit : the power to alter, 
 reform or abolish the government; and if this construc- 
 tion, which is sought to be put upon this phrase, be cor- 
 rect, the inevitable result must be to defeat the very ob- 
 ject had in view by the framers of the bill of rights it- 
 self. And what would be its effect ? If this phrase means 
 a governmental majority, by what authorty could a Con- 
 vention of the people to change, alter or reform their go- 
 vernment, be re-assembled, unless it should be the au- 
 thoiity of the governmental majority; and, instead of a 
 majority of the people having the right inherent in them 
 to change, reform, or alter their government, no matter 
 how oppressive, no matter how injurious, unless they 
 first obtain the consent of the governmental majority, 
 which, in this instance, is a minority of the people, they 
 could never exercise that right which it was the inten- 
 tion of the bill of rights to secure to them. 
 
 Now, it does seem to me the bare statement of the prop- 
 osition will at once sustain the position which I assume 
 here, that the phrase, 15 majority of the commuity," means 
 nothing more or less than the majority of the people ; and 
 that if any other construction is given to it, that the very 
 right sought to be secured in the bill of rights itself, is 
 defeated. But in order further to sustain that exposi 
 tioii of that phrase, I beg leave to call the attention of 
 the committee to the exposition which has been given 
 to it by every organized State in this confederacy, hav- 
 ing a bill of rights prefixed to its constitution ; and fur- 
 ther, I desire to call the attention of the committee to 
 that cotemporaneous exposition of which my friend from 
 Culpeper has spoken, which is to be found in the Decla- 
 ration of Independence made by the thirteen colonies a 
 fhw days after this bill of rights itself was adopted, and 
 written by one of Virginia's most illustrious sons ; one 
 who, it is to be presumed, was fully acquainted with the 
 meaning designed to b<. given to that phrase in the bill 
 of rights adopted in his own State; and that exposition 
 which he gave to it, that exposition which the thirteen 
 colonies, in Convention or Congress assembled, (call it by 
 what name you will,) gave to it, is the exposition that I 
 have given to it, and that every candid maa must give 
 to it. 
 
 Permit me to read from that portion of the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, which refers to the right to change, 
 alter, or reform the government : 
 
 45 We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men 
 are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Cre- 
 ator with certain alienable rights ; that among these are 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happine ; s ; that to secure 
 these rights, governments are instituted among men, de 
 riving their just powers frem the consent of the govern 
 ed ; that, whenever any form of government becomes 
 destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to 
 alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, 
 laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing 
 its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most like 
 ly to effect their safety and happiness." 
 
 There the word people is used instead cf the word 
 commu iity. We must of necessity declare that this right 
 belongs to the people, to be exercised by them ; and in 
 any conflict as to the manner of its exercise, the minority 
 should yield to the majority. Of the thirteen original 
 States, eight of them have prefixed to their constitutions 
 a bill of rights. I shall not detain the committee by 
 reading extracts frora all ; but I will go to the little State 
 
 of Rhode Island ; and I fina" there, that her declaration 
 of rights alludes to. what were the opinions upon this 
 subject, of the father of hia country, and the very first 
 section reads in this way : 
 
 "In the words of the father of his country, we declare, 
 that the basis of our political system, is the right of the 
 people to make and to alter their constitutions of govern- 
 ment." 
 
 The constitutions of seven others of the original States, 
 will be found to contain the very same exposition, and 
 in almost the very same language, that is contained in 
 the Declaration of Independence. It is further to be 
 found, that this amendment offered by the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, and the principle which it contains, has 
 not been adopted in the constitution of any of the thir- 
 ty-one States, save the single State of South Carolina; 
 and I desire to read the 4th and 5th sections of the a- 
 mendment, and then to read the sections corresponding 
 with it, in the Constitution of South Carolina ; and I 
 trust that our reporter will have them published in par- 
 rallel columns, so that they may the more readily be 
 contrasted, when they go forth to the country. 
 
 MK, SCOTT S SUBSTITUTE. 
 
 The 4th section of the gen- 
 tleman's amendment reads : 
 
 " Representation in both 
 legislative bodies shall be 
 apportioned amongst the 
 counties, cities and towns, 
 according to the number of 
 white inhabitants contain- 
 ed, and the amount of all 
 taxes paid in each; deduct- 
 ing from such taxes, all tax- 
 es paid on licenses and law 
 process. In making such 
 apportionment, there shall 
 be allowed one delegate for 
 every part of the 
 
 said inhabitants, and one 
 delegate for every 
 part of said taxes ; and in 
 like manner, there shall 
 be allowed one senator for 
 every part of the 
 
 same; Provided, that the 
 representation of no city or 
 town, shall, at any lime, ex- 
 ceed delegates and 
 senators ; but the 
 surplus fractions thereof, 
 whether of population or 
 taxation, or of both combin- 
 ed, shall be estimated in 
 assigning representation to 
 the sections of the State in 
 which they are respectively 
 situated." 
 
 Fifth section: 
 
 'The general assembly, 
 after the year , and 
 
 at intervals thereafter of 
 not less than ten years, shall 
 re apportion representaiion 
 in both legislative bodies, 
 according to the principle 
 and in the manner herein 
 declared- but in every re- 
 apportionment, the amount 
 of taxes shall be estimated 
 from the average of the ten 
 precedii g years." 
 
 S CAROLINA CONSTITUTION. 
 
 " The house of represen- 
 tatives shall consist of one 
 hundred and twenty-four 
 members, to be apportioned 
 among the several election 
 districts of the State, ac- 
 cording to the number of 
 white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes 
 raised by the legislature, 
 whethf r direct or indirect, 
 or of whatever species, paid 
 in each, deducting therefrom 
 all taxes paid on account of 
 property held in any other 
 district, and adding thereto 
 all taxes elsewhere paid on 
 account of property held in 
 such district. An enumera- 
 tion of the white inhabi- 
 tants, for this purpose, shall 
 be made in the year 1809, 
 and in the course of every 
 tenth year thereafter, in 
 such manner as shall be by 
 law directed ; and represen- 
 tatives shall be assigned to 
 the different districts in the 
 above mentioned propor- 
 tion, by the act of the legis- 
 lature at the session immedi- 
 ately succeeding the above 
 enumeration." 
 
 " In assigning representa- 
 tives to the several districts 
 of the State, t' e legislature 
 shall allow one representa 
 tive for every sixty-second 
 part of the whole taxes rais- 
 ed by the legislature of the 
 State." 
 
 " In every apportionment 
 of representation under 
 these amendments, which 
 shall take place after the 
 first apportionment, the 
 amount of taxes shall be 
 estimated from the average 
 of the ten preceding years.'' 
 
 Here in the South Carolina constitution we have the 
 blanks filled up, and I presume it is the intention of 
 the gentleman from Fauquier, should his amendment be 
 adopted by the Convention, to fill up his blanks in the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 375 
 
 same proportion that they are filled up in the South 
 Caiolina constitution. 
 
 Thus it will be seen, ths amendment proposed by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, is strikingly like the South 
 Carolina constitution, so much as to warrant the belief 
 that it has been copied from that instrument. Even 
 the re-apportionment requiring the General Assembly 
 to take the average of the ten preceding years, it is 
 found, follows almost word for word, this provision in 
 the constitution of the State of South Carolina. Now, 
 I presume, if it shall be determined by the Convention 
 to engraft upon our orgauic law this South Carolina 
 article, that it will be necessary for the gentleman from 
 Fauquier in order to preserve'that harmony that should 
 exist in the provisions of that instrument, to propose to 
 incorporate also, the sixth section of the constitution of 
 South Carolina, which I take it for granted was incor- 
 porated in the constitution of the State, for the very same 
 reason that gentlemen desire to incorporate this principle 
 of the mixed basis into our constitution, which is assigned 
 to be the necessity for the minority to have the majority 
 in the legislative department of the government, because 
 of its peculiar property. And to give additional secu- 
 rity, the people of South Carolina have adopted the 
 sixth section, which 1 shall read, and which I expect 
 will be proposed to this Convention, should the amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Fauquier be adopted. 
 
 The sixth section of the constitution of South Caro- 
 lina, is as follows : 
 
 "No person shall be eligible to a seat in the house of 
 representatives unless he is a free white man, of the age 
 of twenty -one years, and hath been a citizen and resident 
 in this State three years previous to his election. _ If a 
 resident in the election district, he shall not be eligible 
 to a seat in the house of representatives, unless he be 
 legally seized and possessed, in his own right, of a set- 
 tled freehold estate of five hundred acres of land, and 
 ten negroes." 
 
 Now, these people have been consistent. They have 
 evidently organized their government for the protection 
 and the protection alone, of that portion of the people 
 that may be possessed of this property, of which we 
 have heard so much during our session here; and they 
 have not only required that it shall have representation 
 in the General Assembly, but they have gone further 
 and required that he who aspires to become a repi esen- 
 tative must be possessed of five hundred acres of land 
 and ten negroes, thus confining the exercise of the pow- 
 ers of the government to the owners of this peculiar 
 property. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. With the permission of the gentle- 
 man, I niu'-fc that the committee now rise. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. Oh, no; it is only 2 o'clock. ' 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. 
 Neeson, and there were — a count being had — ayes 43, 
 noes 19 — no quorum. 
 
 The committee then rose, and the Chair reported the 
 fact to the Convention that there was no quorum pre- 
 sent, when 
 
 On motion of Mr. LETCHER, the Convention ad- 
 journed until to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. WISE. 1 moved 10 o'clock the other da_y as tho 
 hour for our meeting, but it did not answer, because it 
 was too early to g«t a quorum. Wo changed the hour 
 to 11 o'clock again, in order that we might have a quo- 
 rum present, but on the very first meeting of the Con- 
 vention at that hour, we find that no quorum id present. 
 L move a call of the roll. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the roll was called by 
 the Secretary, when the following gentlemen were found 
 to be absent, as follows: 
 
 Messrs. Anderson, Arthur, Bird of Shenandoah, Botts, 
 Bowden, Brown, Burges, Byrd of Fredeiick, Caperton, 
 Carter of Russell, Chambers, Chapman, Chilton, Cocke, 
 Davis, Deneale, Edwards, Faulkner, Ferguson, liuney, 
 i lood, Fulkerson, Fuqua, Garland, M. R. H. Gainett, 
 Goode, Hays, Hoge, Hopkins, Jacob, Jones, Knote, Lion- 
 berger, Lynch, Lyons, McCamant.McCandlish, McComas, 
 Meredith, Newman, Petty, Randolph, Ridley, Saunders, 
 Scoggin, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Fauquier, Scott of 
 Richmond city, Shell, Sheffey, Smith of Kanawha, 
 Smith of King & Queen, Suowden, Stanard, Straughan, 
 Strother, Tate, Taylor, Tredway, Watts of Norfolk 
 county, Watts of Roanoke, White, Whittle, Williams 
 of Fairfax, Williams of Shenandoah, Woolfolk, and 
 Wysor— 68. 
 
 Mr. WISE. A quorum beinar present, I have no de- 
 sire to proceed further with the call. 
 
 Further proceedings, under the call, were then sus- 
 pended. 
 
 WESTERN LAND TITLES. 
 
 Mr. WISE. When the report of the committee on 
 western land titles shall be tuken up for consideration, 
 I shall move to amend the second section of the report 
 by inserting after the words "October next," the words 
 '"on warrants issued before the first day of March, 
 1851," so that the section, as amended, will read : 
 
 Skc. 2. No grant or patent shall hereafter issue to any 
 person for forfeited, or waste, and unappropriated land's 
 lying west of the Alleghany mountains, except upon 
 surveys made as now prescribed by law, and which 
 shall be returned to the land office before the first day 
 of October next, on warrants issued before the first day 
 of March 1851. But such land may be proceeded 
 against and sold under decrees of the circuit or superior 
 court of the county in which the same, or the greater 
 part thereof, may lie, in such manner as shall be pre- 
 scribed by law. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 The Convention th n resumed, in committee ©f the 
 whole, (Mr. Miller in the chair ) the consideration of 
 the report of the committee on the basis of representa- 
 tion. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Scott of Fauquier. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. On yesterday I alluded to the fact 
 that the substitute proposed by the member from Fau- 
 quier,. (Mr. Scott,) had been advocated by gentlemen 
 upon ground that it was necessary for their protection 
 against excessive taxation in const quence of appropri- 
 ations to works of internal improvement, that the 
 mixed bans principle should be engrafted into our con- 
 stitution. I alio called attention to the fact that the 
 gentleman from Fauquier advoc 'ted the amendment 
 upon the opposite ground, that the white basis as he 
 contended would check this system of internal improve- 
 ments, and thereby check the necessity for taxation ; 
 and it was because it would have this effect that he 
 preferred the mixed basis of representation. I desire 
 
 FRIDAY, February 28, 1851. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Man ley. 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 committee on legislative guaranties, «fec. 
 
 The PRESIDENT announced the following gentlemen to call the attention of the committee to this additional 
 as the committee, under the resolution of Mr. Hunt r, | difference between the advocates of that proposition, 
 adopted yesterday : Messrs. Hunter, Letcher, S^ith of! This substitute as well as the principle contained m the 
 Greenbrier. Carter, and Moncure. I mixed basis part of the committee b report is advocated 
 
 Mr. PENDLETON. I move that the Convention now here by gentlemen who denounce tne principles con- 
 resolve itself into committee of the whole. | tained in the bill of rights, as a string of abstractions. 
 
 A count, beine had on the motion, there were-ayes j It is also advocated by gentlemen who profess toad- 
 42, noes 9 — no quorum voting". 
 
 ' her* to these principles, and who seek to reconcile tlm 
 
376 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 principle of the mixed basis with the principles con- 
 tained in that sacred instrument. Now, what is the 
 natural inference to be drawn from these opposite opin- 
 ions, assigned as reasons by gentlemen who support the 
 same proposition ? That it is the intention of eastern 
 gentlemen to hold on to the power whi?,h they now 
 have, in the language of the gentleman from Greenes- 
 vilie, (Mr. Chambliss,) at all hazards, and to the last 
 extremity — aye, even at the sacrifice of every principle 
 which has heretofore been held sacred by a republican 
 people. I alluded to the argument of the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, and particularly to that part of it where 
 he contended that the phrase " majority of the comma 
 nity,'' as tfsed in the bill of rights, meant a government- 
 al majerity. I endeavored to show, and I think I did 
 show beyond all cavil or doubt, that it meant no such 
 thing, but means nothing more nor less than the majori- 
 ty of the people; because the idea of a governmental 
 majority pre-suppose a prior existing government, and 
 that the rights of that majority are derived from the 
 government through some conventional or constitution- 
 al regulation, which cannot be the meaning of the 
 phrase as used in the bill of rights, because, as was cor 
 rectly stated by my friend from Culpeper, (Mr. Bar- 
 bour,) on yesterday, the bill of rights speaks as prior to 
 all government, behind all government, and is nothing 
 but a declaration of those rights which belong to man 
 in his unorganized state, and of which he cannot be de- 
 prived, in the language of that instrument, when he 
 enters into a state of society, nor can he deprive or 
 divest his posterity of them, because the practical op- 
 eration of the doctrine that the phrase means a govern- 
 mental majority would defeat the very right sought to 
 be secured, and recognise the right in the governmental 
 majority, although composed of a small minority of 
 the people, to perpetuate itself. But I desire to assign 
 another reason, and call the attention of the committee 
 to the language of the bill of rights, and to the words 
 immediately succeeding the phrase to which I have 
 alluded. It is to be found in the tl ird section, and 
 after providing that when any government shall be 
 found inadequate or contrary to its purposes "the ma- 
 jority of the community hath the inalienable, indubita- 
 ble and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, 
 provides that this right shall fee exercised in such man 
 ner as shall be judged most conducive to the public 
 weal. 
 
 Now,, I wish to know, if any other majority than 
 that of a majority of the people is alluded to in thi 
 phrase, what is that majority? Surely it cannot be 
 property, for it has no judgment to exercise. Property 
 has not the faculty of reason. The very language of 
 the instrument itself carries with it the conviction that 
 the exercise of the judgment was in the contemplation 
 of the framers of that bill of rights, and that that judg- 
 ment should be exercised in order for that majority to 
 determine whether they would reform, alter or abolish 
 their government. But I was not content with this; I 
 called the attention of the committee to the language 
 contained in the declaration of independence, adopted 
 by the thirteen original colonies but twenty-two days 
 after the bill of rights of Virginia was adopted, written 
 by one of the most distinguished statesmen Virginia 
 «ver produced — by one who, it is presumed, understood 
 the meaning of the bill of rights adopted by his own 
 State as well as gentlemen of the present day. But I 
 further referred, as a cotemporaneous exposition of this 
 phrase, to every declaration «of rights made by the 
 States of this Union, and we find that "community" 
 and people are used as precisely synonymous terms. 
 Then I referred to the fact that of all the States of this 
 Union, but one solitary State had engrafted upon its 
 organic law the principle sought to be engrafted upon 
 ours, by the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
 Fauquier. And I contrasted the provision in this re 
 spect with that in the constitution of South Carolina, 
 and I again call the attention of the committee to the 
 
 propriety and absolute necessity, if they will carry out 
 this principle of basing representation upon persons 
 and property, of also requiring, in order to afford that 
 security which they demand at our hands, thau exercise 
 of governmental powers in the legislative department 
 of the government shall only be confided to tho&e who 
 possess a fair proportion of this property which it is 
 said is to be protected, and not only protected, but for 
 which gentlemen claim in addition representation in the 
 legislative department. But it is argued by my friend 
 from Culpeper, that as the constitution and the bill of 
 rights adopted in 1776 were both the workmanship of 
 George Mason, and as that constitution did no appor- 
 tion representation throughout the Commonwealth upon 
 the white population of each given distn ct, and give 
 to the same number of voters the same representation 
 in the legislative department, that therefore the mean- 
 ing contended for here by the friends of the suffrage 
 basis cannot be correct. Now, no one knows better 
 than my friend from Culpeper that that constitution 
 was framed under circumstances that would not have 
 permitted the principles laid down in the bill of rights 
 to be carried out to their fullest extent. He knows that 
 it is part of the history of that time that Mr. Jefferson, 
 then in Philadelphia, forwarded to that Convention a' 
 constitution, which in many respects was preferred by 
 that Convention, and by George Mason himself, to the 
 constitution which they had adopted, but was not adopt- 
 ed for want of time and for other reasons which are 
 known to gentlemen; but they contented themselves 
 with the constitution which they had already adopted, 
 and prefixed to it the preamble of Mr. Jefferson's con- 
 stitution. ISTow, justice to the memory of that man re- 
 quires that he should not be charged with a violation of 
 his own principles, because circumstances that the sur- 
 rounded him did not admit the carrying them out to 
 their fullest extent ; and having laid down in the bill 
 of rights these principles which are declared in that 
 instrument to belong to man in his primary capacity, 
 and of which he cannot be deprived, he knew full well 
 that it was in the power of those who were to come 
 after him to complete the work which he had begun. 
 
 But, my friend from Culpeper objects to the suffrages 
 basis, and to the report of the committee made by the 
 white basis part of it, because that committee, in work- 
 ing out the principle contained in that report, have not 
 done it correctly. Now, I submit to him, if it be a fair 
 argument to object to a principle because its details have 
 not been properly carried out, and because those to 
 whom the duty was assigned of working out that prin- 
 ciple in tjke apportionment of representation have failed 
 to discharge that duty., and have departed from the 
 principle. If the principle be right, it is the duty of 
 my friend from Culpeper to assist in correcting this re- 
 port, and to carry out the principle by making a proper 
 apportionment; and it will not justify him to disregard 
 the principle because of the manner, I repeat, in which 
 that principle has been worked out. I conceive that to 
 be a sufficient argument to all that part of his speech 
 alluding to this subject; and I have no doubt, if he will 
 examine with the same care, and scrutinize the report 
 of the mixed basis portion of the committee, he will 
 find as great, if not greater, inequality in working out 
 his principle, than he can find in that part of the report 
 under the letter B. But, he asks, if in going for the 
 suffrage basis, we are going for a measure we believe to 
 be adverse to the interests of our constituents ? I an- 
 swer by saying that we believe the suffrage basis to be 
 necessary to the promotion of the interests, not only of 
 our constituents, but of his ; we believe the adoption of 
 the suffrage basis necessary to the interests of the con- 
 stituents of every ge'ntleman upon this floor, for I think 
 the highest interest a freeman can have is to secure to 
 himself and his posterity a free government, and to 
 preserve those liberties which have been obtained for 
 him. There can be no interest that would justify a de- 
 parture from those principles which lie at the very 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 457 
 
 sentation and taxation go hand in hand ; that if they 
 bear more of the burthens of the government they will 
 exert a greater influence and control in the administra- 
 tion of the government^; that if those burthens shall 
 amount to exactions they will be arrested, because 
 those very burthens will increase representation. The 
 evil thus cures itself. This is all the protection the East 
 asks. 
 
 I have thus taken two interests peculiar to Eastern 
 Virginia for the purpose of showing that this taxing 
 power, vested in a legislature organized on the white 
 basis, may be so used as to destroy those interests, be- 
 cause that power is placed in the hands of those who 
 are not responsible to those paying the tax. I might 
 take other interests peculiar to the East, but the two I 
 have taken are of vast magnitude and strikingly illus- 
 trate the argument. And 1 have thus shown that this 
 plan of the white basis effectually destroys the great 
 check which frequent elections were designed to exert 
 on the legislative department. 
 
 There is another objection to the organization of the 
 legislative department on the white basis. Not only 
 does it surrender this taxing power without retaining 
 due responsibility over the body in which it is placed, 
 but it surrenders all those other checks and restraints 
 which a wise republican government ever imposes on 
 those entrusted with power. One of the most impor- 
 tant checks on the representative is, that he and his 
 friends shall feel and share in the measures of his legis- 
 lation. Mr. Madison mentions this as one of the most 
 effectual means of restraining representatives from op- 
 pressive measures. He says : " That they can make 
 no law which will not have its full operation on them- 
 selves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of 
 society. This has always been deemed one of the 
 strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the 
 rulers and the people together. It creates between 
 them that communion of interest and sympathy of sen- 
 timent of which few governments have furnished exam- 
 ples, but without which every government degenerates 
 into tyranny." So essential is this principle to the 
 maintenance of a republican government, to prevent it 
 from " degenerating into tyranny," that it is embodied 
 in the bill of rights itself. It is thus expressed in that in- 
 strument : " That the legislative and executive powers 
 of the State should be separate from the judiciary, and 
 that the members of the two first may be restrained 
 from oppression by feeling and participating the bur- 
 thens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be 
 reduced to a private station ; return into the body from 
 which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be 
 supplied by frequent, certain and regular elections." 
 This is the great check to prevent representatives from 
 oppressing the people by unjust taxes, that they and 
 their friends should " feel and participate " in those 
 burthens. Now, I ask if a legislature organized on the 
 plan of the white basis furnishes this check? May not 
 such representatives impose taxes on property, which 
 they and their friends would not " feel and participate 
 in?" Take slaves, merchants' licences and the whole 
 list of taxable property on which the East pays five and 
 six times as much as the West, and may they not im- 
 pose burthens on us which they and their friends will 
 not participate in, because they do not possess the pro- 
 perty on which those burthens are levied ? Or if they 
 do possess it, it is to so small an extent as to furnish no re- 
 straint in preventing them from fastening on us a system 
 of excessive taxation. There is no communion of in- 
 terest, no sympathy of sentiment, between the rulers 
 such a plan would give and those who would have to 
 bear their oppressive measures, and so long as we cherish 
 the principles of republican government we can never 
 surrender this check on our rulers; a check, without 
 which, it has been said, every government " degen- 
 erates into tyranny." There is another objection to 
 this white basis plan. It not only takes the taxing power 
 from those who pay the taxes, but it also deprives 
 them of the power of appropriating those taxes when 
 raised. Now, if a tax be, as I have stated, a contribu- 
 tion paid by the consent of the people, or their repre- 
 43 
 
 sentatives, does it not follow as a legitimate deduction 
 from that definition, that the right to appropriate that 
 tax should be entrusted to those who pay it ? That a 
 tax must be raised by consent recognizes the right of 
 appropriation to be in those by whose consent it is 
 raised. If this be not so why may not any other gov- 
 ernment assume to itself the right of appropriating the 
 tax that we raise ? Nor can it be denied, that the power 
 of appropriation is as much liable to abuse as the 
 power of taxation itself, and should therefore be as 
 strictly guarded. And yet, a legislature organized on 
 the white basis, and thus controlling the appropriating 
 power, may divert the taxes from the interests of those 
 who pay them, to build up the interests of those who do 
 not pay them. That such has been the case in this 
 State gentlemen who have preceded me in the debate 
 have demonstrated beyond all doubt. The appropria- 
 tions to internal improvements will illustrate this abuse. 
 Our statistics show that one section of the State, whose 
 annual taxes exceed $200,000, has received only a few 
 hundred thousand dollars in appropriations to works of 
 internal improvements, whilst other sections, whose an- 
 nual taxes are less, have received millions in the way 
 of appropriations for that purpose. Nay, a legislature 
 thus constituted might use this appropriating power for 
 the destruction of our slave property. It might levy a 
 tax upon slaves and then appropriate the amount thus 
 raised to the manumission of those slaves. Where, I 
 ask, is the security, if we surrender the power over ap- 
 propriation, as well as that over taxation? Gentlemen 
 have intimated very plainly, that if it became the inter- 
 est of the West to strike down this institution, she might 
 do it. And would not this power of appropriation be a 
 means by which that end might be accomplished? Then 
 as this appropriating power is as liable to as much abuse 
 as the taxing power, it should be as strietly guarded, 
 and the agents entrusted with it should be as directly 
 responsible to those who pay the tax. And yet by this 
 white basis plan the right to appropriate the taxes when 
 raised will be vested in a legislative body, a majority 
 of whose members will come from that section of the 
 State which pays but a small proportion of the taxes. 
 
 Another objection to this plan of the white basis is, 
 that it is wholly impracticable, and cannot be carried 
 out without destroying the essential feature of repre- 
 sentative government; that of representing separate 
 and distinct interests in separate localities, as counties 
 and cities. The principle upon which this white basis 
 professes to act is, that the suffrage of one qualified vo- 
 ler shall avail as much as that of another qualified vo- 
 ter, and that an equal number of qualified voters shall 
 be entitled to equal representation. This is its avowed 
 principle, and yet when its advocates come to apply the 
 principle and to work it out at their leisure and in their 
 own way, they utterly discard the principle, and make 
 almost as marked inequalities between the voters in the 
 different counties, and in the different sections of the 
 State, as they charge to be the result of the mixed ba- 
 sis plan. Take an example. Norfolk city, with a white 
 population of 9068 has one delegate only, whilst Mor- 
 gan with a population of 3431 has one delegate ; the 
 same amount of representation. Like inequalities pre- 
 vail between other counties, and also between the sena- 
 torial districts and the different quarters of the State. — 
 This is the practical working of the white basis. Then 
 one vote does not avail as much as another, nor does an 
 equal number of such voters in one part of the State re- 
 ceive an equal representation with a like number in a 
 different part of the State. But we are told by its 
 friends, that this departure from the principle in prac- 
 tice is necessary for county interests. This is what the 
 advocates of the mixed basis say in its defence, that it* 
 is necessary for the protection of property, which ex- 
 ists in unequal quantities in different sections of the 
 State. You claim the right to discard your principle in 
 practice when you think it necessary to adhere to county 
 interests, and we desire the same privilege when we 
 think it necessary to protect our interests. Now the ob- 
 ject of county representation is that the representative 
 chosen by these small localities, as counties and cities, 
 
458 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 may understand the wants and interests of those by 
 whom he is chosen, and immediately represent them. 
 You cannot, then, carry this principle of the white ba- 
 sis into practice and make every vote avail as much as 
 every other vote, unless you obliterate these county and 
 district lines, and make the State a consolidated mass 
 of votes, electing by general ticket the whole number 
 of members of both houses of the legislature ; for there 
 is not a single instance in the choice of the one hundred 
 and fifty delegates in the lower house, in which the 
 votes of one county avail as much as the votes of any 
 other county in electing its representative. Why then, 
 I ask, do you contend for a principle which you do not 
 adhere to in practice, and which can only be observed 
 by destroying that essential feature of representative 
 government, which gives to local interests separate rep- 
 resentation. 
 
 I have endeavored to show to the committee that the 
 legislative department, organized on the plan of the 
 white basis, does not furnish that ample and adequate 
 protection to property, which it is admitted on all hands 
 that it should receive. In discussing the abuses to which 
 the taxing power, under the control of the legislature 
 thus constituted would be liable, I have not said that 
 western gentlemen, or the western people, if they get 
 the control of this department, will abuse the exercise 
 of the taxing power, or that they will desire to abuse it, 
 but I do say that they may abuse it. And it is enough 
 for me to know that it may be abused, to make me de- 
 mand all the restrictions and all the safeguards that I 
 can have thrown around it. The question simply is 
 this : western gentlemen come here and demand to 
 exercise the power of this legislative department, we 
 say you must give us security that it will not be unjust- 
 ly exercised, and you decline doing so. You call for 
 power, and we demand checks and safeguards before we 
 will give it. You cannot give them and we withhold 
 the power. That is the only question and the only 
 shape and form in which I desire to present it. 
 
 With the indulgence of the committee I will proceed 
 to examine the other scheme, which proposes to base 
 representation on population and taxation combined, 
 and it is known as the mixed basis. I shall confine my 
 remarks to the principles it involves, and shall endeavor 
 to show the committee that this basis furnishes the 
 necessary protection to property, and it does it by intro- 
 ducing into this legislative department of government a 
 system of checks and balances. Now the plan of the 
 committee proposes to organize this department so as to 
 consist of two houses, the senate and house of rep- 
 resentatives. These two houses are designed to act as 
 checks upon each other, and in order to make that check 
 effectual there must be a different origin of the two 
 houses, or a representation of different interests in one 
 or both of them. The plan of the committee proposes 
 no such representation of different interests, or if it does, 
 it is in a very modified form. The plan of the commit- 
 tee proposes that the two houses shall be elected at the 
 same time, by the same qualified electors, representing 
 the same interests, feelings and sentiments ; the only 
 difference between the two houses being that one repre- 
 sents larger districts and for longer terms. This, if it 
 amounts to any check is the feeblest that can be devised; 
 for it is manifest that a senator by this plan will repre- 
 sent the same feelings, wishes and interests that the 
 delegates coming from the several counties composing 
 his district will represent. If then we wish to organize 
 this department on true republican principles, and in 
 accordance with the spirit and genius of our institutions, 
 we must introduce there some other check to carry out 
 the design which the two houses were intended to fulfil. 
 This system of checks and balances is a leading and es- 
 sential feature in every republican government, and is 
 the true distinguishing feature of our own. Where to 
 find these checks and how to create them, is a question 
 which has engaged the profound attention of the most 
 enlightened statesmen of the country. And the reason 
 of these checks upon legislative power is, because that 
 is the leading and overshadowing department in every 
 
 republican form of government, and because there is a 
 constant tendency in that department to encroach upon 
 the other departments, for the legislative department 
 feels a strong confidence in its own strength, arising 
 from the fact that it is the most numerous, and is the 
 immediate representative of the people. So forcibly 
 was Mr. Madison impressed with the necessity of checks 
 upon this legislative department, that he said. "It is 
 against the enterprising ambition of this department 
 that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy, and 
 exhaust all their precautions." This is the reason for 
 checks upon the legislative department in every repub- 
 lican government. But there are additional and weigh- 
 ty reasons peculiar to our own, arising from the organi- 
 zation of the co-ordinate branches of the government 
 and from the necessity of protecting sectional interests. 
 The executive department organized by the plan of the 
 committee is to consist of an executive without a veto. 
 He will possess no means of defending his department 
 against encroachments from the legislative, and he can 
 exert no other than his mere personal influence to de- 
 fend his department against any such encroachment. 
 So with the judiciary department, which is the feeblest 
 in every government, and least calculated to resist en- 
 croachments — it is particularly so by our plan ; for we 
 propose to appoint our highest judicial tribunal by the 
 legislature, which it is designed to restrain by pronounc- 
 ing its acts unconstitutional. 
 
 Now, this judiciary department may sympathize in 
 feeling or interests with the legislative body to which it 
 owes its original appointment ; and even i*f this should 
 not be the case, we know that there are numerous ways 
 and devices by which legislative ingenuity can evade 
 the restraints of judicial construction. Seeing, then, 
 that the plan proposed for the organization of the two 
 houses of the legislature, and that for the co-ordinate 
 departments, furnishes the slightest if any check on the 
 overshadowing power of the legislative department, the 
 question then arises, where are those checks to be found, 
 and when found, where shall they be placed? I answer, 
 that this mixed basis plan furnishes the checks ana pro- 
 vides that they shall be placed in the organization of 
 the legislative department itself. There is the danger, 
 and there should be placed the safeguards. By basing 
 representation upon the mixed basis, of population and 
 taxation, you introduce into this legislative department 
 a multiplicity of opposite, rival, local, conflicting., and 
 sectional interests, and in this multiplicity of interests 
 consists the security of each. For it is only when the 
 majority is united by a common interest that the rights 
 of the minority are insecure. Take a legislative body 
 thus constituted, and there is no one interest so over- 
 shadowing and diffused through the State as to com- 
 mand a majority of that body. Nor will there be any 
 danger on the other hand from a combination of those 
 interests, for each will feel that its own security consists 
 in the preservation of every other interest ; and each 
 will feel that if it combines to destroy any one interest, 
 a like combination may be formed, and result in its own 
 destruction. A representation, then, of these local, con- 
 flicting, sectional, and rival interests, will serve to 
 modify, check and partially control each other. And 
 the action of a legislature thus constituted, whilst it 
 will prevent any undue influence being exerted by any 
 one interest, will furnish ample security to all interests. 
 Upon this subject I beg leave to quote again a passage 
 from Mr. Madison. Speaking of the protection afford- 
 ed by a government based upon a union of interests, he 
 says : 
 
 " In a free government the security for civil rights 
 must be the same as that for religious rights. It con- 
 sists, in the one case, in the multiplicity of interests, and 
 in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree 
 of security in both cases will depend on the number of 
 interests and sects." 
 
 Now, it is evident that this does not mean that the 
 mere presence, or the mere existence of these interests 
 in society is to furnish that security, particularly if you 
 take any one interest, as numbers, and clothe it with the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 459 
 
 whole powers of the government, legal and political. 
 It may exert this power to destroy any one interest, 
 and that interest, unarmed with like power, must fall hi 
 the conflict ; but the security which a multiplicity of 
 interests affords, consists in basing the government on 
 all, giving to each a like power and influence, somewhat 
 proportioned to its magnitude and extent, and then no 
 one interest will be clothed with extraordinary power 
 to crush the rest, but each will possess a means of de- 
 fence commensurate to the danger of attack. This I 
 understand to be the theory and practical working of 
 the mixed basis. From this very brief sketch, as I have 
 endeavored to present it, it must be apparent that this 
 plan of the mixed basis will furnish ample protection 
 to every interest in the commonwealth ; because it or- 
 ganizes the legislative department, not on one interest, 
 as numbers, but on all interests — not on one species of 
 property, but on the taxation on every species of pro- 
 perty : and these numerous interests, clothed with like 
 power, will check, restrain, partially control and modify 
 each other, and their joint action thus modified will re- 
 sult in a system ot governmental measures which will 
 be oppressive to no one interest, but conducive to the 
 welfare of each, and affording ample protection to all. 
 And this is the answer to the question of the gentleman 
 from Accomac. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I ask the gentleman if he has ever serv- 
 ed in the legislature of Virginia, or in Congress, when 
 an appropriation bill was up for consideration, wherein 
 A had an interest which B and C objected to, and B had 
 an interest which A and C objected to, and C had an 
 interest which A and B objected to, but all three, A, B, 
 and C, from similar motives, unite in passing the bill to 
 the injury of the public good and the useless expendi- 
 ture of the public money? 
 
 Mr. MEREDITH. The power has been abused be- 
 yond all doubt, but does this system compare at all with 
 the system of the white basis which proposes to take 
 one interest, as numbers, and clothe it with the whole 
 power of the government ? If it is abused when all are 
 clothed with like power, what in the name of God must 
 be the abuse if all the power is placed in the hands of 
 men interested to abuse it ? Why, there would be no 
 treasury left. [Laughter.] 
 
 I have endeavored to show to this committee that all 
 interests in every section of this commonwealth will be 
 protected alike. This mixed basis does not propose to 
 represent negroes merely, or the taxation on negroes, 
 or that on any one species of property alone. Gentle- 
 men from the West have argued this question as though 
 we considered negroes the only property in the State. 
 Now, 1 say distinctly, that warmly as I am attached to 
 that interest, and God knows I am the last man in the 
 commonwealth that would destroy it, yet I would ad- 
 vocate this principle if there was not a negro to be found 
 among us. There are other interests which may be 
 abused by this taxing power, and I have endeavored to 
 enumerate some of them. Gentlemen beg the question, 
 and I think I see the object, when they assume that we 
 intend to protect negroes alone. I have argued it on no 
 such ground. I would protect every species of property, 
 especially when there is a marked diversity of interests 
 in the different sections of the State. This mixed basis 
 protects property in every section of the commonwealth, 
 and if western gentlemen can show me any species of 
 property they own, which is likely to be abused by this 
 legislative department, I should like to hear it, for 1 
 have not heard of it yet. 1 do not think that the st itis- 
 tics before us can show that there is any such property 
 in the West able to bear the whole burdens of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Having endeavored to show that this principle will 
 give protection to all the interests of this common- 
 wealth, by basing representation upon them, and giving 
 them the same powers of self-protection to the extent 
 of those interests as indicated by the amount of taxa- 
 tion each contributes, I beg leave to carry the inquiry a 
 little further and see if it endangers the personal rights 
 and liberties of this people. Gentlemen have said here 
 
 I that we might make the western people do menial ser- 
 vice. I think the gentleman who preceded me thi» 
 morning, spoke of commoners in the West and lords in 
 the east ; I should like to know what law the legisla- 
 ture could pass affecting the personal liberty of any 
 man in the commonwealth, that would not operate uni- 
 formly throughout the whole commonwealth. Does 
 not the whole criminal code operate generally, and is 
 it not obliged to be so, affecting persons uniformly 
 throughout the commonwealth? And the members of 
 the legislature and their friends, whether from the East 
 or West, who pass laws affecting personal rights, will 
 feel and participate in the operation of such laws alike 
 with all the other citizens of the commonwealth. This 
 is the security against the abuse of this power, so far as 
 personal rights and liberty are concerned. It is the 
 check which the gentleman from Fauquier spoke of, 
 the check of self interest. Not so with laws affecting 
 property, they do not operate uniformly throughout the 
 commonwealth. They operate in some and affect the 
 thing wherever it is to be found, and that is the dis- 
 tinction between laws affecting the rights of persons 
 and those affecting the rights of property. Gentlemen 
 do not seem to take this distinction. 
 
 The mixed basis then, which gives the control of the 
 legislative power to the East, so constitutes that body as 
 to render it impossible that it can pass any law which 
 will in any manner affect the personal rights and liber- 
 ties of the western people, that will not affect them in 
 like manner. But I maintain that a government orga- 
 nized on this mixed basis will afford better protection 
 against foreign danger, than if it be organized on the 
 white basis. If the white basis prevail, and oppres- 
 sions fall on the property holders of the country, think 
 you if foreign danger threatens, that they will hasten 
 with zeal and alacrity to the defence of that govern- 
 ment, which instead of being a kind protector has been 
 an oppressive tyrant? which has burthened their pro- 
 perty with taxation and disregarded its rights? No, sir, 
 such is not human nature. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the government be organized on 
 the mixed basis, it reposes on a foundat.on broad and 
 deep, resting upon all the great interests of the State, 
 and whenever danger approaches, come from what quar- 
 ter it may, you enlist in defence of this government all 
 the interests of the people, as well as their affections 
 and duties. You make the interest of the man unite 
 with the duty of the patriot, and that is the strongest 
 bulwark e ny government can rear in defence of its lib- 
 erties against foreign danger. 
 
 I have already detained the committee longer than I 
 designed, but there are some one or two objections 
 which have been made in a general way, which I desire 
 to notice. I shall not attempt to meet the objections 
 urged to the details of the scheme as worked out by the 
 committee, because it will be time enough to consider 
 them when they are before us. It has been urged as an 
 objection to the mixed basis, that it makes money rule 
 men, that it makes wealth rule the people. That is not 
 my understanding of it. I do not understand that by 
 basing this government in part upon the property of the 
 country, as indicated by the tax list, that you make 
 money rule men. What is the object of introducing 
 this i epresentation of different interests into the legis- 
 lative department ? What is it but that they shall check, 
 control and restrain each other? Well, is not that ob- 
 ject intended by having the legislature to consist of two 
 houses, the one set of agents checking and balancing 
 another set of agents ? Even the white basis proposes 
 this check in the legislature. Well, what does the 
 mixed basis do but carry out this principle of checks 
 and restraints one step further, thereby giving greater 
 security, by carrying the checks into both houses in- 
 stead of confining them to one? Is it not one set of 
 agents watching and controlling another set of agents? 
 And who put them in that position ? The people ; they 
 are the agents of the people ; chosen by the people. 
 One set of agents are selected by the people to watch 
 and guard the interest of their people against another 
 
460 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 set who are guarding and watching the interests of their 
 people. That is the whole system. Money in no man- 
 ner rules the people, or overbalances the people, but it 
 is nothing more nor less than one set of agents differ- 
 ently created to control another set of agents, but all 
 and every description of these agents being directly an- 
 swerable to the people whom they represent. 
 
 There was another objection, that acquired its import- 
 ance rather from the manner in which it was presented 
 than from any intrinsic weight in the objection itself. 
 It was said that this scheme favors the rich man and op- 
 presses the poor man. This distinction ought never to 
 be talked of, I think. I shall endeavor however to show 
 that this mixed basis protects the poor man more than 
 the rich man. What protection does it design to give? 
 By it we mean to protect the property and labor of the 
 people of this commonwealth against this taxing power 
 of your government. We are not now speaking of giv- 
 ing the people the right to select their agents for the 
 administration of the government, but of restraining this 
 legislative department, which acts directly on the prop- 
 erty and labor of the people, this department which 
 puts its hands into the pockets of the people and feeds 
 on their very substance. Now, I say that the tax on 
 the poor man, which this taxing power can increase or 
 lessen at will under the white basis system, is more dif- 
 ficult for him to pay than the hundreds paid by the 
 wealthy man ; and consequently these checks and re- 
 straints, which we propose to place on this legislative 
 department, in order to prevent an abuse of the taxing 
 power, will enure more to the benefit of the poor than 
 the rich man . 
 
 Gentlemen have argued this question as if we designed 
 alone to protect property in the hands of the rich 
 man. This is not the object of the system, nor does it 
 so operate. It protects the property and the labor of 
 the poor man also, and this scheme, whilst it furnishes 
 some additional protection to the aggregate wealth in 
 the different sections of the State, furnishes no power to 
 wealth in the hands of individuals. The poor man has 
 as much voice in the selection of these representatives 
 as the man who owns his hundreds of thousands. They 
 cast the same vote. They come to the polls side by side, 
 and one exerts not a particle more of power than the 
 other does ; nor is there any danger in giving this influ- 
 ence to property in a republic like ours, for our laws of 
 descents and distributions, and the power cf aliention, 
 prevents the accumulation of property, and consequently 
 individual wealth acquires no power. We were told 
 by the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. Summers,) the 
 other day, that this scheme of the mixed basis was im- 
 ported from South Carolina. This was intended to ex- 
 cite prejudice I suppose. I confess T heard the remark 
 with a good deal of surprise, that this principle of taxa- 
 tion and representation was imported from South Caro- 
 lina. Does not the gentleman know, familiar as he is 
 with the history of this government, that this principle 
 is older than the government we live under? Was it 
 not this principle which first aroused the spirit of liberty 
 in the American colonies? Did it not bring our fore 
 fathers from the bosom of their families to the tented 
 field, there to endure, for seven long years of privatioas, 
 peiils and sufferings which have no parallel in history ? 
 Did it not finally lead them to the achievement of 
 American independence ? And the patriot sages, whose 
 counsels guided us through that eventful struggle, 
 when then came t« form a constitution for a people 
 who had so nobly won their freedom, engrafted this 
 principle upon the constitution itself; and there it 
 stands in letters so plain that he who runs may read. 
 Is not representation and taxation in the constitution 
 of the United States proportioned to each other, and 
 are not both proportioned to federal numbers ? And I 
 ask gentlemen to look into the debates that arose upon 
 that subject in forming that constitution, and they 
 will find that the federal numbers was adopted, not 
 as an exponent of persons, but as the standard and 
 
 measure of the wealth of the country. And the rep- 
 resentation to this day in the federal Congress is a 
 representation not upon numbers alone, but upon 
 numbers as the exponent of the wealth of the country. 
 
 Any gentleman who will turn back to those debates 
 will perceive, that in the discussion there, representa- 
 tion was first based upon wealth — I use the very term— 
 and population ; and that nine out of the eleven states 
 voted, to apportion representation upon wealth and popu- 
 lation. During the progress of the debates, however, 
 representation became apportioned to direct taxation, 
 and they both were apportioned to federal numbers 
 upon the admitted ground, in the debate, that the fede- 
 ral numbers were the measure of the wealth of the 
 country. Now, in the face of that historical fact, gen- 
 tlemen get up here and assert that the principle we 
 contend for was imported from South Carolina ; and 
 let me tell the gentleman from Greenbrier, who opened 
 the debate on the other side, and talked so much about 
 George Mason's bill of rights, that that gentleman voted 
 to place representation upon wealth co nomine. Yes, 
 the very George Mason, so much eulogized by the gen- 
 tleman, voted this eleven years after he had written 
 the bill of rights. That is this great man's construc- 
 tion of his own meaning of this word majority in that 
 instrument. The very scheme which we are seeking 
 to carry out in this constitution, in form and principle, 
 was before the members of the federal congress, and if 
 gentlemen will look at the Madison papers they will 
 perceive a scheme worked out by Mr. Brearly from 
 New Jersey, by which he apportioned representation 
 in the sevsral States upon population and taxation as 
 ascertained by the last report to congress. And the 
 reason why this plan could not be carried out in the 
 federal constitution, was because the system of taxa- 
 tion in the federal government is an indirect one, a tax- 
 ation of imposts and duties. But they took the precau- 
 tion to provide that if ever there was laid a system of 
 direct taxation in the Union, that representation and 
 taxation should be apportioned to each other in order to 
 prevent the abuse of that power. There is another fea- 
 ture in this federal constitution which presents identi- 
 cally the same principle, and I have alluded to it before. 
 It is the equal representation of the states in the sen- 
 ate of the United States ; and the ground on which 
 they apportioned that representation, was that there was 
 a diversity of interests between the grerter and the les- 
 ser states, and that, therefore, there was a necessity for 
 the protection of those interests. And in that debate 
 no man denied that the only adequate protection was 
 protection by representation. It was denied that any 
 such diversity of interest existed, but the mode of pro- 
 tection was never controverted at all. And the system 
 of legislative restrictions and guarantees is, therefore, a 
 matter of modern invention. 
 
 I have already detained the committee longer than I 
 had intended, and I shall, therefore, bring my remarks 
 to a close. In what 1 have submitted, I have endeavored 
 to show that in the organization of the legislative de- 
 partment, a department which acts directly upon the 
 property of the people, we should not so base repre- 
 sentation as to place it under the exclusive control of 
 any one of the objects of government, to the neglect of 
 the other ; that whilst on the one hand we should not be- 
 stow exclusive favor on property, we should not on the 
 other hand give exclusive power to persons only, and 
 withhold protection from property and the hard earn- 
 ings of honest industry, which furnish so much gratifi- 
 cation to its possessors, and so many blessings to so- 
 ciety, but should endeavor to unite these objects in due 
 proportion, and enlist them in the support of the gov- 
 ernment, which we should render the equal guardian of 
 them all. 
 
 Mr. Meredith having concluded his remarks. 
 On motion of Mr. NEESON, the committee rose, 
 And, then, on motion, the Convention adjourned un- 
 til to-morrow at 10 o'clock, A. M. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 461 
 
 THURSDAY, March 6, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Early, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT DEBT. 
 
 Mr. STUART, of Morgan. The other day I offered 
 a resolution, calling upon the auditor to know why cer- 
 tain information in relation to the internal improvement 
 debt of the State, required by a resolution of the Con- 
 vention adopted some time ago, was not forthcoming. I 
 called this morning on the auditor, and I found that he 
 had been very industriously engaged in preparing the 
 necessary information for the Convention ; and I beg 
 leave to say in justice to him, that the labor has been a 
 very onerous and troublesome one. It would have been 
 completed at an earlier day but for circumstances over 
 which the auditor has no control. The table will be a 
 most comprehensive one, exhibiting the pecuniary state 
 of the internal improvements of the State from the 
 commencement down to the first of March, exclusive 
 of the recent appropriations of the general assembly. 
 I have made these remarks because I have deemed them 
 to be due, as a matter of justice, to the auditor. 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 The Convention then resumed the consideration in 
 committee of the whole, Mr. Miller in the Chair, of 
 the report of the committee on the basis and apportion- 
 ment of representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo- 
 sition of the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I owe an expression of my sincere 
 gratitude to the committee for having, on yesterday 
 afternoon, extended to me the extreme courtesy to 
 which 1 was so poorly entitled. I come to-day to par- 
 ticipate in this discussion with no little diffidence, con- 
 scious that the advocacy I shall bestow in favor of the 
 cause I have espoused^ will be inadequate to the great 
 interest my constituents have in the rightful determina- 
 tion of this question ; and conscious that the advocate 
 sinks into utter insignificance before the magnitude of 
 the subject now under consideration. But I come to 
 the discussion of the question in the spirit of a man who 
 feels a conviction that he is right, and with that convic- 
 tion, however humble he may know his ability to be, 
 fears not defeat, and experiences no despair. We have 
 now arrived at the stags of our proceedings, when we 
 are called upon solemnly to settle the most important 
 branch of government, the legislative department; that 
 which really, however you may organize it, has neces- 
 sarily and inevitably the preponderance over the other 
 departments. We are called upon now to give to it a 
 substruction, a foundation upon which it shall rest. We 
 call this foundation the basis of representation ; and it 
 is to this basis of representation that I shall address my- 
 self exclusively, and if I shall at any time deviate from 
 the true question at issue, it will be rather for the pur- 
 pose of elucidation, than lor the purpose of discussing 
 collateral questions. The form and structure of the 
 legislative department will impress upon the government 
 its true characteristic features. As you organize this 
 legislative department, so will our government be either 
 democratic and republican, or aristocratic and oligarchic, 
 and this results necessarily from the division of the 
 government into three co-ordinate departments. The 
 executive department cannot -impress its characteristic 
 upon the government, because its peculiar and exclusive 
 function is the enforcement of the laws. The judicial 
 department cannot impress a characteristic form upon the 
 government, because its proper function is to expound 
 and administer the laws. It is therefore to the legisla- 
 tive department we must look to determine the true 
 characteristic of government. 
 
 At the threshold of this discussion, we are met by 
 gentlemen on the other side of the question, who main- 
 tain that the right of the majority to preponderate in a 
 government, is an abstract and impracticable idea ; and 
 one gentleman has characterized it as an arrant abstrac- 
 
 tion. We are then challenged to present some reasons 
 why a majority should rule in this republican govern- 
 ment, or rather why a minority should not rule. It 
 must be conceded that some power, either the minority 
 or the majority, must predominate in the government, 
 and I maintain that since this is inevitable, the majority 
 rather than the minority should predominate, not only 
 in the original structure of government, but in its sub- 
 sequent administration. And we are challenged to ad- 
 duce reasons for the support of this doctrine of the ma- 
 jority. I will, with the indulgence of this committee, 
 j briefly and rapidly as possible, adduce certain reasons 
 which to my mind are conclusive in favor of a majority, 
 j What is government? Is it not a civil compact between 
 : all the members of society on the one part, and each 
 i individual of society on the other, stipulating that the 
 j aggregate of society shall sustain and support eachindi- 
 j vidual in the enjoyment and exercise of his rights, and 
 j that in return for the protection afforded, each individ- 
 I ual shall yield his obedience and his support to gov- 
 ernment thus constituted. Now, I will insist that it is 
 I unnecessary, in order to understand this question cor- 
 rectly, in order to arrive at a right determination in 
 our judgment, wholly unnecessary that we should go 
 back to the fabulous ages of antiquity, or speculate on a 
 supposed primeval state, for the purpose, if possible, of 
 ascertaining when man existed in what is called a state 
 j of nature. I believe man never was in such a state ; if 
 ! he was in what I understand that state to be, he was in 
 J a most unnatural condition. God has impressed upon 
 I man a certain nature, composed of various faculties, ca~ 
 I pacities, and wants, and this nature and these faculties 
 j cannot possibly be developed and attain their proper 
 j fruition except in a state of society; society therefore, 
 j is the natural state of man, it is the state which the 
 j great Creator designed him to occupy for the very pur- 
 I pose of developing these faculties, and raising him to 
 i that exalted station where his Author wills him to stand 
 j ennobled and dignified. Then whatever may be neces-' 
 I aary in the construction, or the rightful administration of 
 government, as conducive to that high destiny, must be 
 naturally right. Yet gentlemen have here denied the 
 natural right of majorities to govern. Hence I maintain 
 I that whatever is essential for society to possess, wnat- 
 j ever power and authority is necessary for government 
 : to possess and enjoy, these powers and these authorities 
 j are derived from the law ol nature, and not merely from 
 j the compact. They are pre-existent rights, recognized, 
 | it is true, by the law of the compact, but not created by 
 it. They may be more vague and undefined in the na- 
 tural law, but their existence is nevertheless certain; 
 their recognition and more accurate definition may be 
 found in conventional stipulations and compacts. Well, 
 | government is thus instituted for the purpose of pro- 
 ; moting the happiness of society and of mankind. Now 
 I the question immediately arises in the structure ef gov- 
 j eminent, which form of government is best adapted to 
 the promotion of this happiness? Which form of gov- 
 ernment is best adapted to subserve the great purposes 
 for which society is instituted? One would naturally 
 declare that form of government best which would meet 
 with universal approbation; but since unanimity is un- 
 attainable from the infinite diversity of individual 
 opinions, another standard must be adopted, or govern- 
 ment be abandoned. It is certain that unanimity can- 
 not be had, and it is vain to expect it in the decision of 
 this question. The next rule, therefore, is to ascertain 
 the majority, as the nearest attainable approximation to 
 unanimity. 
 
 This would be a very natural, if not the instantaneous 
 conclusion, to any one who would calmly and dispas- 
 sionately consider this subject. Government is estab- 
 lished for the purpose of satisfying our mutual wants, 
 and thus effectually promote the happiness of the so- 
 ciety over whom this government shall prevail. Now, 
 the question is, who shall determine upon the adapta- 
 tion of this government to promote these ends, who 
 
462 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 shall decide upon the adaptation or mal-adaptation of 
 government for the promotion of these great objects of 
 its institution? Certainly the persons most directlj in- 
 terested, the majority. But there are other reasons for 
 a majority. After you have constructed your govern- 
 ment, it is next your duty, as it is your necessity, to ad- 
 minister that government. And what do you mean by 
 the administration of a government? Do you not mean 
 the enforcement of that government and the compel- 
 ling obedience to it? You require that every member 
 of the society shall render obedience to that govern- 
 ment, shall conform to its mandates, and shall obey in- 
 junctions. But suppose that a portion of this society 
 should resist, a portion should become contumacious, 
 refractory and rebellious, can you enforce that govern- 
 ment? How can you enforce it? By calling to your aid 
 the physical power of the majority. You cannot do it 
 by invoking to your assistance the power of the mino- 
 rity because it is or may be inadequate. The adminis- 
 tration of the government essentially requires that you 
 should have the greater power to aid and support it, 
 and that power is confined to the persons representing 
 or constituting the majority of the community. It thus 
 appears that physical necessity, physical superiority 
 being required for the support of the government and 
 its administration, it can be found alone in a majority, 
 and the propriety of the majority principle is thus de- 
 monstrated from that necessity. The necessity proves 
 the right. Is this an extravagant idea? That the gov- 
 ernment must rest upon the physical power of the peo- 
 ple? Government is erected upon that idea exclusively. 
 Befer to your definition of government and what is it? 
 It is the stipulation of the whole people to support and 
 defend every individual comprising the community, in 
 the possession and exercise of his rights. Why do they 
 thus league and combine together? Is it not for the 
 purpose of concentrating the power necessary and ade- 
 quate for the protection of those rights? Does it not 
 arise from the incompetency of a smaller number to do 
 it? 
 
 But there is another argument to sustain this idea. 
 It is this, that in this country, as in all other countries, 
 but particularly in this republican government, we have 
 one department of government organized exclusively 
 upon this idea, the concentration and consolidation of 
 the physical power of the majority; that is the execu- 
 tive department. What is the executive in this country 
 but the representative of the superior power of the com- 
 munity? It is his duty to enforce the laws if need be, and 
 if need be, to embody the whole power of the nation to 
 their enforcement. You may descend from the chief 
 executive, for the purpose of illustrating this idea that 
 the government depends upon the physical majority, or 
 the physical power, to your marshals who represent physi- 
 cal power, and exercise physical superiority, to your 
 sheriffs, and indeed to every subordinate ministerial offi- 
 cer known to the law. It does not follow from this ar- 
 gument that physical power is to rule by violence or 
 physical exertion. On the contrary it is a peculiar excel- 
 lence of a republican government that the superiority 
 of physical power being indicated by superiority of 
 wills, or the superiority of opinions, renders resort to 
 physical power unnecessary. When you ascertain the 
 majority of wills or of opinions, you have the exact 
 exponent of the majority of physical powers, and fac 
 tious violence seeing the physical superiority thus prac- 
 tically evinced, is repressed. The superiority of wills 
 thus indicates the superiority of physical power, and 
 hence the great truth in republican governments that 
 there is less violence to be feared, and less practically 
 exhibited than in any other form of government, be- 
 cause in that government the superiority of physical 
 power is evinced by the superiority of voices or wills 
 so that however turbulent or factious a spirit might 
 exist, however remorseless or relentless it might be, that 
 violence and resistance is seen to be fraught with fatal 
 consequences to that faction and will restrain it from 
 
 any tumultuary manifestation. But the right of the 
 majority to rule may be evinced by other considerations, 
 independent of these which I have already submitted. 
 
 Now it is essential in all governments rightly adminis- 
 tered, that there should be the greatest attainable amount 
 of virtue, the greatest attainable quantity of knowledge, 
 and the greatest attainable amount of wisdom. You 
 need the greatest amount of knowledge to ascertain tke 
 wants of the people, as government is instituted to com- 
 ply with those wants. You need the greatest amount 
 of virtue to devise proper and appropriate means to 
 supply those wants, the peculiarly apportionate means 
 as distinguished from the vicious means. You need 
 wisdom for comprehending an extended view of all these 
 subjects, and a combination of appropriate means to the 
 comprehensive purposes to be accomplished. 
 
 There is another consideration, to my mind worthy of 
 some weight in the discussion. Every government must 
 have its laws, characterized either by its mildness and 
 moderation or rigor. You will find, in one country the 
 laws rigorous, in another lenient and mild. In a coun- 
 try where the execution of the laws depends upon the 
 assent and approval of the people, where the sanction 
 of the laws depends upon the people, you must infuse 
 into your laws the spirit that the people approve, whether 
 rigorous or mild, if you expect them to render you their 
 sanction of these laws. The faithful execution of your 
 laws depends upon the support of the public mind, the 
 conformance of the popular will to the spirit of those 
 laws. Can you expect the people to come forward with 
 alacrity and execute those laws, if they are so repug- 
 nant and so hostile to their sense of propriety that they 
 originally would not have enacted them? No. It is, then, 
 the true policy of government to infuse into its laws, of 
 whatever description they may be, the spirit which is 
 possessed by the people ; and this can be done in no other 
 manner than that of allowing the majority of voices to 
 prevail in your legislative councils. 
 
 But this right of the majority to prevail is not only 
 evidenced by the physical necessity which I have already 
 mentioned, but by a moral necessity. The right mani- 
 festly exists either in a minority or a majority. It must 
 exist in some number short of the total number, that is 
 obvious ; it therefore exists either in the minority or the 
 majority. Now, if it does not exist in the majority, in 
 what minority does it subsist ? What number shall pre- 
 vail if the majority shall not? Shall it be a minority ? 
 But what relation shall that minority bear to the total 
 number ? If you can suggest any number, say one-third, 
 one-fourth, or one-fifth of the total number, then I 
 ask what tribunal shall definitely establish this number? 
 Shall the number itself decide it? If in one-third, why 
 not in one-tenth , one-hundredth, or but one ? If this right 
 to prevail exists in the minority, I desire to know what 
 proportion that minority shall bear to the whole num- 
 ber, and when that is suggested, I wish to know who 
 shall define and establish it as a rule. There is no person 
 to do it. Another argument in support of this majority 
 may be deduced from the total absence of the right in 
 the minority. The total absence of right in the minority 
 to rule is an argument convincive of the right of the 
 majority, since the right exists somewhere. If the right 
 exists in the minority whence is it derived ? It cannot be 
 derived from the majority, because that is discarded in 
 the very supposition. If it is derived irom the minority 
 it must be by virtue of some excellence possessed by that 
 minority ; but according to the argument which 1 have 
 already employed, this minority is destitute of the grand 
 essentials necessary for the establishment and subse- 
 quent administration of the government. They are des- 
 titute of the physical power to enforce it, they are des- 
 titute of the proper judgment to adapt its form and struc- 
 ture to the ends for which it is created. They possess, 
 in an inferior degree, that essential virtue to which I have 
 alluded. They possess in an inferior degree that essential 
 knowledge and wisdom to which I have alluded. Now, 
 with a minority thus defined, and undefined, with the 
 minority thus characterized as destitute of the great es- 
 sentials of the original structure and subsequent man- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 463 
 
 agement of government, but which pertain to and inhere 
 to the majority, with an absence of these essential quali- 
 ties, how can it be maintained by any reasonable man 
 that the minority is superior or even equal in rights with 
 the majority to rule ? 
 
 Thus far 1 have argued from the reasons I have sub- 
 mitted in favor of the right of a majority to rule, deriv- 
 ing the considerations 1 have advanced from the inter- 
 nal or domestic nature of governments. But there are 
 other considerations, derived from external or interna- 
 tional relations, which greatly corroborate and fortify 
 this right of the majority. We know that according to 
 the law of nations, from time immemorial, government 
 has been understood to be the exponent of the views of 
 the community ; that the act of every government binds 
 and is obligatory on every individual under that govern- 
 ment. In the contemplation of the laws of nations every 
 individual, however humble, is a party to the acts of his 
 government. Now, let us suppose for an instant that 
 our government should be so organized and constituted 
 that the minority shall be the organ of the government, 
 with reference to foreign nations ; we will then have 
 this state of things, a minority in power, and a majority 
 out of power. This minority will then be the exponent 
 and soie organ of the government in regard to other 
 nations, as well as in regard to the domestic con- 
 cerns. Suppose the government so constituted should 
 give some otience or umbrage to other nations, do you 
 not see that we might be involved in war, with the avowed 
 and known hostility to it of the majority of the people 
 who are deprived of power. And thus the minority 
 might involve the whole State in a war, including of 
 course the great majority when that majority may have 
 been hostile to the very act which involved them in this 
 war, with all its dreadful consequences. A government 
 thus constituted in the hands of a minority, might not 
 only involve us in direful and calamitous wars with for- 
 eign governments, but also incur civil obligations in the 
 form of treaties, and in other forms common between 
 governments, which would be binding oppressively on 
 the majority of their own community ; and this would 
 be just as solemn and obligatory upon the people and the 
 majority as if they were provisions inserted in your or- 
 ganic law, because we are compelled to observe the ob- 
 ligation of treaties. If the majority should undertake 
 to absolve themselves from obligations thus imposed by 
 treaty, they would necessarily involve themselves in a 
 bloody war, because a violation of treaty would be a just 
 cause of war. Now, I believe that all of these conside- 
 rations which I have drawn from the domestic and for- 
 eign relations, may exist and do exist with multiplied 
 force in a federal form of government. 1 assert that in 
 a federal form of government, all these arguments which I 
 have submitted apply with redoubled force. If the power 
 of your government is in the hands of a minority that 
 minority may bind you neck and heels in your federal 
 relations, that is if their acts are in accordance with the 
 form and structure of federal government. In one form 
 of government the legislative power of the State, thus 
 in the hands of a minority, may do almost any act, but 
 in our federal government, this minority cannot do every 
 act, though they may do some seriously detrimental to 
 the majority out of power within the State. I shall take 
 occasion, in the subsequent part of my remarks, to carry 
 out this argument derived from our federal relations. 
 For the present I desire to proceed with some other ar- 
 guments. 
 
 I have endeavored thus far to submit an argument in 
 favor of the right of a majority to rule. These argu- 
 ments are of ubiquitary excellence, and would demon- 
 strate that in all countries and climes they should receive 
 the sanction and approval of the government and the 
 people, to be applied in a practical sense . These reasons, 
 which I have adduced, have been practically recognized 
 in our American form of government. They have been 
 emphatically consecrated as the American doctrines of 
 government ; and this assertion is evidenced by the most 
 solemn records of our history. I beg leave very briefly 
 to refer to some of the documentary repositories of this 
 
 great doctrine. Look at the declaration of independence, 
 and we find it there asserted, that it is the right of the 
 people to alter and reform their government whenever, 
 in their judgment, it becomes defective and fails to ac- 
 complish the purposes for which it was instituted. 1 beg 
 leave also to refer to the bills of rights, which have been 
 prefixed to, or incorporated in the constitutions of our 
 various sister States. In all those bills of rights this 
 doctrine is explicitly announced, that power is derived 
 from the people, and that a majority of the people, have 
 the right to predominate in government. I will refer to 
 another instructive circumstance, and that is, that there 
 has not been, from the foundation of this republic 
 to the present hour, a single constitution ratified upon 
 the western hemisphere, except by the majority of the 
 community ; such community being defined in the bill 
 itself. No man in this country pretends that there can 
 be any validity in a constitution, or that it is in anywise 
 obligatory upon any one, except it derives its force from 
 the ratification of the majority of the voters of a com- 
 munity. We have, in the federal government of the 
 United States, a distinct and solemn recognition of this 
 doctrine, placed in the most imposing form in the con- 
 stitution ; a provision which guarantees and assures, to 
 every member of this confederacy a republican form of 
 government. This republican form of government was 
 held in such high estimation by the patriots assembled 
 from various portions of this confederacy to form our 
 federal constitution in 1787, that I believe, by a unani- 
 mous vote, they incorporated into that constitution a 
 guarantee assuring to each State of this Union a repub- 
 lican form of government. And now, the question arises, 
 what is that republican form of government? We 
 have heard republicanism defined in a most astonishing 
 manner in this Convention, during the progress of this 
 discussion. For my definition, I will adopt the one given 
 by Mr. Madison, who has justly received the highest 
 encomium on this floor, from members enlisted both for 
 and against the position I advocate. It will be found in 
 the Federalist, that Mr. Madison defines a republic to be 
 a form of government with the scheme of representation 
 introduced. I refer to the tenth number of the Feder- 
 alist. 
 
 " A republic, by which I mean a government in 
 which the scheme of representation takes place, opens 
 a different prospect, and promises the cure for which 
 we were seeking. Let us examine the points in which 
 it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend 
 both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it 
 must derive from the Union. 
 
 "The two great points of difference between a demo- 
 cracy and a republic, are. first, the delegation of the 
 government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens, 
 elected by the rest ; secondly, the greater number of 
 citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the 
 latter may be extended." 
 
 I cite Mr. Madison not bee use I think there can ex- 
 ist a reasonable doubt as to the true definition of repub 
 lican government, but because gentlemen on the other 
 side of this question have invoked his authority, as they 
 supposed, upon some collateral points raised in this dis- 
 cussion. The gentleman whom I had the honor to suc- 
 ceed, and who occupied the floor on yesterday, asserted 
 as I believe, with the utmost sincerity, that he loved to 
 cite the opinions of Mr. Madison, whenever he could. 
 He must permit me to assist in the citation. I read from 
 Mr. Madison's views in the Federalist, in order to give 
 his definition of a republic. In No. 39, page 392, Mr. 
 Madison speaks of the republic with especial reference 
 to this proper definition. He says : 
 
 " It is essential to such a government that it be derived 
 from the great body of the society, not from an incon- 
 siderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise 
 a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppres- 
 sions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to 
 the rank of republicans, and claim for their government 
 the honorable title of republic." 
 
 I may with propriety cite Mr. Madison's opinion for 
 
464 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 the benefit of the gentleman who addressed us yester- 
 day, in order to show that in Mr. Madison's opinion a 
 majority of the community had the power to govern; 
 and while I cite that passage to show Mr. Madison's 
 opinion in favor of the proposition, it will also, I hope, 
 enable the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Meredith,) to 
 perceive x.he dissimilarity and utter absence of analogy 
 between the structure of the federal government, and 
 the structure of the State government. His argument, it 
 will appear, is inconsistent with his venerated authority. 
 It was Mr. Madison's opinion that the structure of 
 the State government was very unlike the structure of 
 the federal government, believing as he did that the 
 general government was rather a combination of nation- 
 ality and federation. In the 39th No. of the Federalist, 
 page 100 and 101, Mr. Madison in discriminating between 
 the forms of the federal and the State government, 
 says : 
 
 " "Were the people regarded in this transaction as 
 forming one nation, the will of the majority of the 
 whole people of the United States would bind the mi- 
 nority, in the same manner as the majority in each 
 State must bind the minority. 
 
 " If we try the constitution by its last relation, to the 
 authority by which amendments are to be made, we 
 find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were 
 it wholly national the supreme and ultimate authority 
 would reside in the majority of the people of the Union, 
 and this authority would be competent at all times, 
 like that of a majority of every national society, to al- 
 ter or abolish its established government. Were it 
 wholly federal on the other hand, the concurrence of 
 each state in the Union would be essential to every al- 
 teration that would be binding on all. The mode pro- 
 vided by the plan of the Convention is not founded on 
 either of these principles. In requiring more than a 
 majority, and particularly in computing the proportion 
 by states, not by citizens, it departs from the national 
 and advances towards the federal character. In render- 
 ing the concurrence of less that the whole number of 
 states sufficient, it loses again the federal and partakes 
 of the national character." 
 
 I have thus far endeavored very briefly and imper- 
 fectly, to present the argument in favor of a majority 
 having the rule in government. I have sought to show 
 this from its universal propriety, that the doctrine was 
 one of universal application, and not of a specific or lo- 
 cal character, and to demonstrate that it has been spe- 
 cifically recognized, and deliberately consecrated as the 
 American doctrine of government. In support of my 
 position, I have referred to various general documents, 
 containing, as I conceive, very specific recognitions of 
 this truth. I will now advance a little further in this 
 particular enumeration, and evdoavor to show that this 
 doctrine is not only recognized, but embodied in the con- 
 stitutions adopted for the government of a large ma- 
 jority of the states of this Union. They all rest upon this 
 fundamental truth, that the majority have a right to 
 rule, and that to secure to them the enjoyment of this 
 right in a representative government, they have a righ r , 
 to a majority of the representatives in proportion to the 
 majority of voters. That is, that the will of the ma- 
 jority shall prevail in that department of government 
 which is organized for the purpose of representing the 
 will of the community, and that it shall be so constitu- 
 ted as to give solemn utterance to that will. I will 
 take the twenty -nine states of this confederated Union, 
 after excluding California, of which I have very little 
 knowledge, and Virginia, whose example will hereafter 
 be considered. I have so classified the several states 
 of the Union as to show, at a glance, the real basis upon 
 which their governments are founded. I have assumed, 
 or deduced for the purpose of the argument which I 
 shall now advance, that twenty-four out of the twenty- 
 nine states to which I have referred, recoguize and sol- 
 emnly establish the popular basis of representation ; but I 
 would remark that that basis in some of their constitutions 
 
 is expressed with some little variety of language, without 
 there being any difference whatever of sense or sub- 
 stance. The basis of representations in the most popu- 
 lar branch of the legislature in these states, will ba 
 found as follows : According to the number of qualified 
 voters, three states, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louis- 
 iana ; according to the number of free white inhabitants, 
 five States, iiissouri, Illinois, Alabama, Mississippi and 
 Iowa ; according to the number of free white male 
 inhabitants, four states, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas and 
 Indiana; according to the number of the free popula- 
 tion, excluding negroes and Indians not taxed, one state, 
 Texas : according to the number of taxables, four states, 
 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Pennsyl- 
 vania ; according to the number of inhabitants, five 
 states, Maine, (excluding foreigners not naturalized, and 
 Indians not taxed,) Rhode Island, New York, (excluding 
 Indians not taxed, soldiers, &c.) This makes a total of 
 twenty-two states, to which others should be added as 
 substantially confining to the same basis, to wit: Accor- 
 ding to counties seven to each, one state, Delaware ; ac- 
 cording to towns by the pre-existing practice, before the 
 adoption of their present constitution, one state, Con- 
 necticut. Thus we have an aggregage of twenty-four' 
 States. Now there are five states whose basis of repre- 
 sentation in the popular branch is somewhat variant 
 from the popular basis. There are four states whose 
 basis is upon federal numbers, viz: North Carolina, 
 Georgia, Florida and Maryland. 
 
 According to a mixed basis of white inhabitants and 
 taxation raised by the legislature of one state, South 
 Carolina. The whole number of states I have thus 
 enumerated is twenty-nine, and for the most part the 
 basis of representation in the senate of these states 
 conforms to the basis in the house of representatives, or 
 the most popular branch. I have thus shown by this 
 analysis of the constitutions of the several states of the 
 Union, that this doctrine of a popular basis of represen- 
 tation is solemnly ratified as the American doctrine of 
 representation. I believe also, that I can appeal to the 
 history of the commonwealth of Virginia to show not 
 only her high appreciation of this basis, but to demon- 
 strate that upon every appropriate occasion when she 
 has been called upon solemnly to declare what is the 
 basis of representation, that even in Virginia this basis 
 has been sanctified. I believe I can redeem Virginia 
 from the reproach and the stigma which has been 
 thrown upon her and affixed to her, by charging her with 
 a love and devotion to this abhorrent mixed basis prin- 
 ciple. I will endeavor to show, from the history of 
 Virginia, that she has recognized, and so far as the oc- 
 casion has enabled her to do it, has consecrated this 
 popular basis herself. In doing so I shall have recourse 
 to historical information. I will attempt to do this, and 
 in doing it I shall find it necessary to allude to the bill 
 of rights of Virginia, very briefly, and when I say briefly, 
 I intend if possible to conform to that expression. 
 
 Early in the war of the revolution, when the tyranny 
 of Great Britain had dissolved the government which 
 then subsisted in Virginia of a regal character, it was 
 found necessary, in order to avoid the terrible conse- 
 quences of anarchy, that some form of government should 
 be instituted for the people of Virginia. A form of gov- 
 ernment was adopted in haste, I say without proper de- 
 liberation, and when I make this remark I know the re- 
 sponsibility which it may meet. I know it will be said 
 that they deliberated, that they arduously discussed the 
 provisions of the instrument they were forming, that 
 they fatigued themselves in the discussion, nevertheless 
 their labor was performed speedily and hastily and in a 
 manner unsatisfactory to themselves. But although they 
 were not able, from the pressure of circumstances which 
 surrounded them, to adopt a form of government which 
 did conform to their ideas, yet they did declare what in 
 their opinion were the true principles of government, 
 and they embodied these great fundamental principles 
 in the bill of rights, not for the purpose of declaring 
 what were the rights of man antecedent or anterior to 
 government, but for the purpose of declaring, what were 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 465 
 
 the eternal rights of man and not the conventional and 
 post-conventional rights. The introduction to this bill 
 of rights declares very emphatically and explicitly what 
 was the purpose of its authors. It is declared to be "a 
 declaration of rights made by the representatives of the 
 good people of Virginia assembled in full and free con- 
 vention, which rights do pertain to them and their pos- 
 terity as the basis and foundation of government, unani- 
 mously adopted June 12th, 1772."^- Would they declare 
 those rights to pertain to their posterity in a- siate of 
 society, and which constitute the very foundation of 
 government, to be those and those only which existed 
 anterior to the institutions of society. Certainly not, 
 for the very first section declares that when they pro- 
 mulgated this bill of rights they contemplated it as a 
 guarantee, as a solemn recognition of rights which 
 should subsist in society. The first section declares 
 that all men are by nature equally free and independent 
 and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they 
 «nter into a state of society, they cannot by any com- 
 pact deprive or divest their posterity : namely, the en- 
 joyment of life and liberty with the means of acquiring 
 and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining 
 happiness and safety 
 
 The second section declares, "that all power is vested 
 in, and consequently derived from the people ; that 
 magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all 
 times amenable to them." The third section, the one 
 upon which most criticism has been expended in this 
 discussion, is as follows : 
 
 "That government is or ought to be instituted for the 
 common benefit, protection and security of the people, 
 nation or community ; of all the various modes and 
 forms of government that is best which is capable of 
 producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, 
 and is most efFuctually secured against the danger of 
 mal-administration ; and that when any government 
 shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, 
 a majority of the community hath an indubitable, in- 
 alienable and indefeasible right to alter, refoim or abol- 
 ish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive 
 to the public weal." 
 
 Upon the right construction of that section turns 
 much of the arguments already submitted to this con- 
 vention. A majority of the community in the year 
 1776, when this declaration of rights was written and 
 proinulged, was understood by no one to signify a ma 
 jority of the proprietary rights of citizens. A majority 
 of the community is now interpreted to import not 
 majority of the community of citizens but a majority of 
 proprietary rights. If language can be explicit — if lan- 
 guage can be unambiguous, it is this language of the 
 third section of the bill of rights — and its clearness con- 
 sists in asserting that a majority of the community, a ma- 
 jority of the citizens, have the right to alter and reform 
 a government whenever it is deemed best. But I am 
 told here that a contemporaneous exposition of this 
 phrase gives to it another signification, one more consist 
 enl with the views of gentlemen who favored the mixed 
 basis. What are the evidences of these contemporane- 
 ous expositions ? They are to be found, I am told, in 
 that frame-work of government, in that constitution 
 which the same body of men established in 1776. That 
 I understand to be the strong evidences in favor of the 
 interpretation placed upon this section by those men 
 themselves. Let us consider the point. They certainly 
 would not have conceived an absurdity, but let us see if 
 they have not. "A majority of the community,"' it is 
 called, "have the right to alter and reform," but it is 
 said on the other side that a majority of the community 
 may exist with the minority of the people and is found 
 in the majority of interests, another name for superior 
 wealth. Would it not follow from that, that a minority 
 of the community or a minority of the pdople have the 
 right to alter and abolish. If they have, how then 
 would you read thi3 clause ? Why, that " a minority of 
 this community have a right to alter and abolish," and. 
 therefore, the majority of the community have not the 
 44 
 
 right to alter and abolish. Gentlemen who maintain 
 the propriety of the mixed basis in the Convention de- 
 clare their great veneration for this bill of rights, that 
 they approach it as if it were almost sacred, perhaps 
 quite so, certainly as very precious; that they believe it 
 contains fundamental truths, and that they subscribe to 
 those truths with the utmost cordiality. They go a step 
 further and they maintain that this mixed basis is not 
 only consistent with this declaration of rights but con- 
 sistent with all the other reforms which eastern gentle- 
 men are understood to favor. I take it that the gentle- 
 men who believe in the rectitude of the principles enun- 
 ciated in the bill of rights, will not, when they come to 
 carry out certain great reforms, admit that those reforms 
 are incompatible and inconsistent with the principles of 
 the bill of rights ; yet need I say that they will be ut- 
 terly inconsistent with the constitution of 1776. And 
 if inconsistent with each other, how can they both be 
 consistent with the common standard. Your own argu- 
 ment asserts, by the radical changes you advocate, that 
 the constitution of '76 was fundamentally wrong, and if 
 fundamentally wrong it cannot be consistent with the 
 bill of rights, as to which your reforms are consistent. 
 Canit? It seems to me not. The constitution of 1776 
 was, therefore, not an exposition of the principles of the 
 bill of rights. But I find in that old constitution of '76, 
 which is said to give an interpretation that is inconsist- 
 ent wiih the basis of popular representation, inherent 
 and unmistakeable evidence that the framers of that 
 constitution had never in their contemplation any such 
 doctrine as that of a mixed or known as such basis. That 
 constitution provided that the legislature should, when- 
 ever the exigency required it, form new counties. 
 
 A MEMBER. There was no constitutional provision 
 on the subject. 
 
 Mr. N^EESOK But the legislature did form new 
 counties, and whenever they formed new counties they 
 gave to each county two delegates, and they did it, as I 
 understand, in consistency with the constitution of 1776. 
 No man ever pretended to deny the constitutionality of 
 such an act. You know, from the state of the country, 
 and the condition of things which has existed from 1776 
 down to this time, that it has be^n absolutely necessary, 
 in the western country, that counties should be formed, 
 having considerable population, although making but 
 very insignificant contributions to the public treasury. 
 And yet these very counties, under that old constitution, 
 were allowed, by law, a representation in the legislature 
 equal to the most populous counties — equal to those 
 counties most ample in territory and affluent in their 
 circumstances, and the largest contributors to the public 
 treasury. How can those things be reconciled with the 
 principle now advocated, and which is said to be in ac- 
 cordance with the principle of the constitution of 1776, 
 which constitution, it is said, recognized the propriety 
 of a mixed basis ? 
 
 But 'tis argued, by way of commenting upon the third 
 section, that whatever be this majority of the communi- 
 ty which had the right to alter and reform a government 
 whenever that government ceases to be promotive of 
 the interests, they never can exercise this right until the 
 contingency specified in that election for its exercise 
 shall arise. That I understood to be the position here. 
 Well, agreeing that it is the correct position, and that a 
 majority of the community cannot exercise that right 
 until the happening of the contingency specified here, 
 what follows ? Does it follow that the minority of the 
 government shall rise up and say that this contingency 
 has not arrived when the majority believe that it has 
 arrived? Why, in what a dilemma — in what a ridicu- 
 lous position the framers of this bill of rights would be 
 placed by such a doctrine ? The majority have a certain 
 right, and yet the exercise of that right is dependant 
 upon the caprice of a minority. Why, it would prove 
 it to be no right at all. The right to alter and reform 
 belongs to the majority whenever, in the opinion of that 
 majority, the occasion arises to justify its exercise. But 
 
4C6 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION* 
 
 it is said, a contemporaneous exposition denies the con- 
 struction, but no proof accompanies any of these asser- 
 tions. I will refer gentlemen to Monroe, as contempo- 
 raneous with Mr. Mason and others, who formed the 
 bill of rights. Monroe was one of the bright contempo- 
 raries of the illustrious authors of this bill of rights, and 
 his opinion was, that the popular basis of representation 
 is consistent with, and is founded upon, that bill of 
 rights. I have asserted that the history of Virginia 
 would demonstrate the exalted estimate she has pkiced 
 heretofore on this popular basis of representation. I 
 have now passed in review that bill of rights, one of the 
 most solemn instruments ever proclaimed in this State, 
 in whicjh that doctrine is explicitly declared; and would 
 it not be very remarkable to believe, while Virginia suf- 
 fered this venerated bill of rights to remain prefixed to 
 her constitution, and most cherished in the hearts of the 
 people, that she should apostatize from the faith therein 
 expressed ? It would be strange, passing strange. Vir- 
 ginia has never renounced that faith. The constitution 
 of 1776 became generally and justly odious. It produced 
 universal dissatisfaction throughout the commonwealth, 
 and the people demand reform. 
 
 Accordingly, in the year 1816, when the house of dele- 
 gates consisted of 202 members, chiefly from the east, 
 a bill was introduced into that body for calling a con- 
 vention expressly to equalize representation upon the 
 basis of the white population, or popular basis, and that 
 bill passed the house by a large majority. It passed that 
 house thus constituted, after a discussion involving all 
 the principles of government now involved in this dis- 
 cussion. During that discussion in 1816, a proposition 
 was submitted as amendatory to the one I have named, 
 providing for representation upon slaves — that species 
 of property now thought to be so peculiarly entitled to 
 representation. And the same body of 202 members 
 absolutely condemned and repudiated that proposition. 
 There could be found in that large body but 26 votes in 
 its favor, a signal proof of the appreciation of sound 
 principles at that day. 
 
 In the same year, (1816,) an act was passed by the 
 legislature establishing representation in the senate, on 
 the basis of the white population; on the census of 1810 
 the West then having nearly her full representations or, 
 that basis in the house of delegates. Now these were 
 recognitions, and very distinct recognitions, of the rec- 
 titude of this principle or basis of representation, solemnly 
 made after all the discussion to which I have alluded. 
 
 Again, in the year 1828 or 1829, the bill for calling a 
 convention was proposed in the legislature upon the 
 coogressional districts, by means of which, not only the 
 white population, but three-fifths of the slave popula- 
 tions, would have been presented in the convention. We 
 are informed that this proposition was sustained by 
 brilliant and able argument in right of the slave repre- 
 sentation. But after protracted discussion, it was aban- 
 doned as untenable, and then the bill was defended on 
 the alleged ground that it was substantially the mixed 
 basis of population and taxation combined. On either 
 ground, however, it was a deviation from true principle, 
 irreconcilable with republican ideas then prevailing, aud 
 was, therefore, rejected and condemned. Eventually 
 the legislature, having repudiated the mixed basis, and 
 tne slave b-isi% settled upon the org nization of a con- 
 vention in which representation should correspond with 
 that in the senate of the State, namely : the white popu 
 lation of the year 1810. This gave the West 36 deie 
 gates in that convention ; whereas, by the white popu- 
 lation of 1820, she was entitled to 40 delegates. 
 
 Mr. CAMDEN. I will state to the gentleman that 
 the bill to organize the last convention passed the house 
 of delegates upon the white basis, according to the cen- 
 sus of 1820, but was amended in the senate by adopting 
 the census of 1810, I was then a member of that bodj\ 
 
 Mr. NEESON. It then received the ratification of 
 the popular branch of the legislature and faiied to be 
 adopted by reason of the modification of the senate. 1 
 
 will pause here merely to explain the distinction which 
 really does exist between the white and suffrage basis, 
 for we have been charged in this debate not only with 
 inconsistency in abandoning the white basis, but with 
 improper motives in doing so. The gentleman from 
 Cuipeper, (Mr. Barbour,) asserted that in former times 
 the western portion of the state assumed the white basis 
 as the true one, but that at the present time, 1851, the 
 delegation from the West assumed the suffrage basis as 
 the true basis — arguing in the first place that it was a 
 departure from our original position, and in the second 
 place thatitwas a departure influenced by motives of sec- 
 tional aggrandizement. If the gentleman will take the 
 trouble to refer to certain documents which I can put 
 into his hands, he will find, that while Western Virginia 
 had in the Convention of 1829 but thirty-six delegates, 
 she was entitled according to the white basis, to forty 
 delegates, yet at the same time according to the suffrage 
 basis Western Virginia, having thirty-six delegates, had 
 her full share, so that at the time there was a difference 
 between the white basis and the suffrage basis, and you 
 can see, that the difference was in favor of Western Vir- 
 ginia. But the gentleman, in order to show that we 
 were actuated by improper motives, gave the reason 
 which induced him to believe that the suffrage basis 
 gave Western Virginia a greater representation than the 
 white basis. Now, if we suppose for a moment that 
 there be a uniform qualification of suffrage and a homo- 
 geneous free population throughout the State, any given 
 number of citizens or white population will have the 
 same relative number of qualified voters. Is it not a 
 matter of indifference which basis you adopt when you 
 are in pursuit of an advantage, if that be your purpose ? 
 Suppose the ratio between the number of qualified 
 voters and the number of white inhabitants to be one to 
 eight, which is now nearly the case, if you adopt the 
 white basis and say that 8,000 free white persons shall 
 send a delegate, is it not exactly the same, to say when 
 you adopt the suffrage basis 1000 voters shall send a 
 delegate, provided, as I have surmised, that the relation 
 between the voters and the white population is the same 
 throughout the State; and such would be the relation if 
 you adopt a uniform qualification of suffrage through- 
 out the State. The gentleman will perceive, therefore 
 that he is mistaken and that this basis gives us no ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 But I will go a step further and prove to him, and I 
 think I can prove it to his satisfaction, at any rate I 
 trust I can to the satisfaction of the committee, that 
 Western Virginia will absolutely lose by this suffrage 
 basis what we might gain by the white basis. The white 
 population in Eastern Virginia is nearly stationary and 
 making but little progress. Your people are all fixed 
 and do not change their location, while in Western Vir- 
 ginia population is changing and increasing both from 
 natural causes and by. reason of immigration. Just in 
 proportion as we increase by immigration or by acces* 
 sion from foreign countries or other States, in that very 
 proportion do we lose upon the suffrage basis, and for 
 this reason : According to the report of the committee 5 
 on the subject, and according to the rule which will be 
 adopted whether we adopt the report of the committee 
 or not, all foreigners are excluded from the enumera- 
 tion, under the suffrage basis, although they would 
 swell the white population they would not be voters, 
 And ail citizens of the United States belonging to the 
 other States, coming here, must have a residence 
 of two years, according to the report, before they can 
 vote. We would lose them of course by the suffrage 
 basis, because those two classes to which I have alluded 
 would not be qualified voters, whereas we would gaiu 
 upon the white, population basis, because that would be 
 upon the entire white population, jf gentlemen wiil 
 reflect on these two obvious differences existing in the 
 two sections of country, the^ will see how ungenerous 
 { and how unjust it was in the gentleman from Cuipeper 
 I to charge that we had not only changed our ground* 
 but in so doing had been actuated by the dictates of 
 1 selfishness. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 46? 
 
 I come back now to the point where I should perhaps 
 hare remained instead of indulging in this digression to 
 discriminate between the white and suffrage basis. I 
 have endeavored to show that in 177 6, in the bill of 
 rights, the popular basis was established in Virginia, 
 aud was again affirmed by the solemn declaration of 
 the legislature, of 1816, and by the reiterated decla- 
 ration of the legislature of 1828. I now come down 
 to the Convention of '29, and in the first place I will 
 show that this mixed basis was solemnly repudiated by 
 that Convention. Yes, mixed basis or something similar, 
 if not exactly identical with it, for gentlemen are mis- 
 taken in saying that this same basis was up before. 
 This basis was proposed in 1829, debated in the Conven- 
 tion, and, by a vote of forty-seven for it to forty-nine 
 against it, was repudiated. There was another basis 
 proposed in the Convention qf 1829, and that was your 
 slave basis, commonly called the federal number, com- 
 posed of the white population of the State and three- 
 fifths of the slave population, and it was condemned 
 and rejected by the same vote of forty-seven to forty- 
 nine — a full vote. 
 
 I trust this exhibition of facts will show that Virginia 
 has never departed from the true faith of a popular 
 basis, and that she has never suffered such a heresy to 
 be interpolated into her creed. But what did that Con- 
 vention of 1829-30 ultimately establish as the basis of 
 representation ? It appears to me, with all due respect 
 to gentlemen who have preceded me in this discussion, 
 that the minds of debators heretofore have labored 
 under a misconception in regard to that principle of 
 representation. Some have assumed that it was a rep- 
 resentation established without regard to any principle 
 on the subject, and some have said it was founded on a 
 mixed basis, essentially like the basis now proposed by 
 eastern gentlemen. The truth is, the Convention of 
 1829- 30 incorporated into the existing constitution of 
 the State, the white population of Virginia, as the basis 
 of representation, antedating it ten years. Yes, it not 
 only repudiated the mixed and the black basis, but it 
 ratified the white basis. Their apportionment of rep- 
 resentation corresponds with that basis as it existed in 
 the year 1820, as figures will easily prove. I will read 
 from very high authority to establish the fact. I read 
 from the remarks of the illustrious late chief justice of 
 the United States, Marshall, as a member of that body, 
 delivered just three days before the Convention adjourn- 
 ed. " The apportionment at present agreed on was the 
 white basis as it stood in 1820." [Debates of the Vir- 
 ginia Convention, '29-30, page 851.] 
 
 The Convention of 1829-30 ratified this white basis 
 by antedating the population ten years, and the great 
 and crying injustice of the act was, that it defined the 
 limits within which the white population was found, and 
 rendered difficult and practically impossible, a re-ap- 
 portionment corresponding with it. I have now, I think, 
 redeemed the pledge that I would vindicate Virginia 
 from the aspersion, that she had apostatized from the 
 true faith, and that she had ever adopted any other than 
 that of the popular basis of representation. Suppose 
 this Convention were to be as liberal in the year 1851 
 as was the Convention in the year 1830. Suppose you 
 were to take the same basis which they took, how would 
 the matter stand ? How would you then organize the 
 legislative department of the government ? I have made 
 a calculation to show the result which would follow from 
 adopting the basis ratified in 1829-30 — that is to adopt 
 the white population as the basis, antedating that popu- 
 lation ten years. Let us look at the population of 1840, 
 and see the relative force of representation East and 
 "West upon the basis, which is identically the basis of the 
 present constitution. I take the population of '40 to 
 arrive at this result, and if your house of delegates con- 
 sists of 150 and your senate of 50 members upon this 
 basis, the first district, the Tidewater, would have 34 
 delegates; and the second district, Piedmont, would have 
 forty delegates — making in the East an aggregate of 74 
 
 delegates ; the third or Valley district would have 28 
 delegates, and the fourth or trans- Alleghany district 
 would have 48 delegates, making an aggregate in the 
 West of 76 delegates, giving a western majority in the 
 house of delegates of two members. In the senate 
 there would be an equal representation of 25 senators 
 from the East and 25 from the West. That would be the 
 basis of representation in our new constitution if you had 
 even the liberality of the illiberal Convention of 1829 
 and 1830. 
 
 At this point I find it necessary to pause for a mo- 
 ment in the contemplation of the existing body of which 
 I have the honor to be a member. The Convention of 
 '29- '30 having been disposed of, let me come to the or- 
 ganization of the Convention ©f '50-51. This body is 
 organized upon anti-republican principles. It is orga- 
 nized with a deliberate pre-conceived purpose of wrong- 
 ing, iniquitously wronging Western Virginia. Gentle- 
 men from the East have evinced an extreme sensibility 
 on the subject, and have entered into an elaborate vin- 
 dication of the manner in which this Convention has 
 been called and is now organized. How was this Con- 
 vention organized ? How did it originate ? 
 
 For many years indeed, from the year '40, if not ear- 
 lier, Western Virginia became clamorous for reform. 
 She demanded her just rights in the representative de- 
 partment of government, and she demanded all the 
 other great and salutary reforms which she sought in 
 common with Eastern Virginia. Her demands were not 
 regarded, her petitions were spurned, and she fatigued 
 and exhausted herself in pursuit of these reforms ; and 
 as the year '50 approached, the period when the census 
 was to be taken under the constitution of the United 
 States, which census would exhibit fully the strength in 
 population and other resources of Western Virginia, her 
 people became satisfied that it was the wisest policy to 
 forbear a demand for a Convention to alter and reform 
 the constitution until that census, exhibiting in their full 
 force and truth the real condition of Western Virginia. 
 Eastern Virginia became satisfied that Western Virginia 
 did not want a Convention, and in the legislature which 
 sat here some twelve months ago, eastern men, conscious 
 of this state of things, introduced a proposition in the 
 house of delegates to call a Convention, anticipating 
 the advantage, not the advantage but the right, that the 
 West would acquire by the census of '50, and perhaps 
 the advantage which Western Virginia would gain by an 
 earlier adjustment of this question. A bill was reported 
 providing- for the call of this Convention. It provided 
 also, that the people at the polls should decide the ques- 
 tion whether the Convention should be organized on the 
 mixed or white basis, whether the people of their own 
 free will and unrestrained judgment should adopt the 
 one or the other. To that tribunal ultimately all such 
 questions are referable, and the mode of taking their 
 opinion of the question was free from any rational ob- 
 jection. We could then perceive whether there was a 
 majority of the people for or against either of these mea- 
 sures, absolutely and not conjecturally, as the gentleman 
 from Fauquier now charges, when we assert that a ma- 
 jority of the people undoubtedly prefer the popular ba- 
 sis. That was as fair a proposition as was ever submit- 
 ted to reasonable and intelligent men, and yet eastern 
 gentlemen condemn it. They denied to the sovereign 
 people the right to be heard on the question. They had 
 the power and inclination to do so, but whether there 
 was principle in their action I will submit to their own 
 consciences. Then came up the mixed basis system of 
 representation, which was incorporated in the bill, call- 
 ing the Convention ; the western delegates representing 
 a large majority of the people of the State with almost 
 entire unanimity remonstrating and denouncing it in the 
 most unqualified manner. Nevertheless, in the face of 
 this array of public sentiment on the part of the West, 
 their rebukes and expostulations, eastern gentlemen 
 forced the bill upon them. And what was their argument 
 in that legislature ? It was that now repeated by the 
 
408 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 gentleman from Fauquier, that it was not appropriate 
 for the legislature, the governmental majority, to decide 
 the question of the basis of representation, that question 
 belonging rather to the Convention than to the legisla- 
 ture. It was so forced upon the West, and the people of 
 Eastern Virginia voted with remarkable unanimity for 
 this Convention. Why did they thus vote ? In com- 
 pliance, as the gentleman from Fauquier said, with the 
 general desire of the commonwealth. Yes, Eastern Vir- 
 ginia voted for the calling of this Convention, says the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, in mere compliance with this 
 general wish of the commonwealth for this Convention, 
 thus organized. I think, however, that many eastern 
 gentlemen voted for the Convention from very different 
 motives. A gentleman with whom I have had conver- 
 sation upon the subject stated to me his position, which 
 he said was the position of many others, who had voted 
 for the call of the Convention in order to prevent the 
 possibility of a transfer from Eastern to Western Virginia 
 of the political preponderance of the State. I dare say 
 that his views, if the truth were known, would be found 
 to be the exponent of the sentiments of nine-tenths of 
 the people in Eastern Virginia upon the subject. Some 
 of the people of Western Virginia, believing that the ar- 
 gument made in the legislature might have been sincere, 
 that the legislature was not the proper body to decide 
 the basis question, and that when this Convention as- 
 sembled of grave and able gentlemen, of just and gener- 
 ous gentleman, representing a great and magnanimous 
 constituency, that the East would hear their claims, and 
 respect their demands, and concede their nnquestionable 
 rights, voted for the Convention. But from the indica- 
 tions already manifested on this floor, so far as the ulti- 
 mate decision of Eastern Virginia is concerned, I think 
 they have been egregiously deceived. How is this Con- 
 vention now organized ? Is it organized in such a man- 
 ner as to give effect and force to the public will of this 
 State? Is it organized in such a manner as to express 
 fairly the judgment of the qualified voters of this State, 
 the very body to which gentlemen themselves must ulti- 
 mately leave the ratification of their work ? No ! It is 
 very far from it. You have stifled their voices in this 
 hall, but I trust you cannot do it longer. How is this 
 Convention organized ? The Tidewater district is much 
 inferior to the trans- Alleghany district in white popula- 
 tion. The trans- Alleghany district, that much derided 
 but glorious district from which I come, has a white 
 population exceeding that of Tidewater district by nearly 
 134,000; yet strange to say, Tidewater district has 
 thirty-eight delegates upon this floor, and trans-Alle- 
 ghany but thirty-five. But you pay more taxes, do you ? 
 You have more slaves, have you ? Yes, you have more 
 slaves, and your slaves are computed at a higher esti- 
 mate than my white constituents. What is the popula- 
 tion of Tidewater district ? You have 187,655 white 
 population, and 178,681 slaves, making a total of 366,336, 
 not computing your slaves according to federal num- 
 bers, not applying this three-fifths rule to the slave 
 population, but taking the aggregate of your population, 
 great and small, white and black. Now, the trans-Alle- 
 ghany district has 331,586 white inhabitants, being an 
 overwhelming majority of 138,000 nearly over the num- 
 ber in your district ; and then it has 24,446 slaves, ma- 
 king an aggregate population of 356,022. The two dis- 
 tricts have a grand total in population of 623,358. To- 
 gether they are entitled to 73 delegates in this body. 
 Make the delegates the division of the population, and 
 you will ascertain the ratio. According to that ratio, 
 Tidewater is entitled to thirty-seven delegates, and not 
 thirty-eight, counting every negro you have, and trans- 
 Alleghany would be entitled to thirty-six, one more 
 than she has now. Thus, by putting your negroes on a 
 par with my constituents you get thirty-seven delegates; 
 but it does not satisfy you to put them upon an equality, 
 and you must needs claim 38 delegates here. This is 
 your boasted equality in the organization of this Conven- 
 tion, for which the gentleman from Fauquier, after a 
 
 prodigious effort, found it in his heart to offer some 
 slight apology ! 
 
 It is thus I came into this Convention, representing a 
 people thus degraded, debased, and viilified, for I do 
 regard it as a viliification, aye, debased below your 
 slaves, not three-fourths of them, but the whole of them. 
 It is bme mockery to talk to me about a fair represen- 
 tation in this Convention. It is insulting to tell us we 
 have a fair and equal representation on this floor, and 
 to tell me that the people ratified this principle when 
 the j voted for this Convention. I had the glorious op- 
 portunity of a participation i?i our election on the fourth 
 Thursday of April, 1850, in a county in trans- Alleghany, 
 which knew her rights, which desired a great maay re- 
 forms in common with the rest of trans- Alleghany, but 
 which abhorred and detested this principle so much 
 that not a single solitary vote in this county was recorded 
 in favor of the Convention bill. And let me ask the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, where such a spirit prevails, 
 and under such circumstances, at a time when the West 
 is looking to the magnanimity of Eastern Virginia for 
 some satisfactory award to her of her rights here, how 
 can he expect to force a constitution containing such a 
 principle, upon such a people ? Let him not flatter him- 
 self that he will do it. However iniquitous this thing, 
 however revolting to our sense of right, lam, neverthe- 
 less, here under the great disparity, suffering this great 
 inequality as part and parcel in my representative ca- 
 pacity in the body which is now to determine this ques- 
 tion of representation. It is this question which you 
 now have under consideration. 
 
 We are now to construct that part of the government 
 whose sole object is to express the will of the people ;. 
 that department which is so organized as to give au- 
 thentic, solemn form to the will of the people, And how 
 are we to do it ? I am for so arranging the matter as 
 that a majority of the voters of the State shall have a 
 majority of the representatives in the legislature, as 
 that a minority of the voters of the State shall have a 
 minority of the representatives. The most inflexible 
 opponents of this principle are compelled to resort to 
 these very qualified voters to sanction their own basis, 
 and all our labors, well assured that without such con- 
 firmation the constitution would be utterly destitute of 
 validity. The suffrage basis should be emphatically 
 the basis in Virginia. It has been vindicated long 
 since — perhaps for the first time, by her apostle of 
 liberty. In 1783, Jefferson commended it for adoption 
 into the constitution in this perspicuous language: " The 
 number of delegates which each county may send shall 
 be in proportion to the number of its qualified electors." 
 
 I am not, as has been erroneously imputed to us, desi- 
 rous, nor willing to stifle the voice of the minority by 
 a general ticket election. The principle of the suffrage 
 basis is, at an equal the number of voters shall have 
 an equal number of representatives, and not a majority 
 shall stifle the voice of the minority. It admits no such 
 charge. 
 
 We have before us for consideration three several pro- 
 positions purporting to determine this question of the 
 basis of representation, and the mode of apportionment. 
 Proposition A is the proposition which contains the doc- 
 trine of Eastern Virginia, as understood in this house, 
 and it embodies the mixed basis with an apportionment 
 of representation worked out according to the principle. 
 Proposition B is the measure proposed by the friends 
 of the suffrage basis, and the principle of that proposi- 
 tion is that voters shall be the basis of representation, 
 not the white population of the State, not the mixed 
 population, but that the body, whom we shall admit to 
 be the political body, shall be the basis and foundation 
 of representation; so that suffrage, being equal through- 
 out the State, any equal number of voters, whosoever 
 they may be, shall be entitled to an equal number of 
 representatives in the halls of legislation. This is the 
 suffrage basis of representation, and accompanied with 
 that proposition is a detailed apportionment of repre- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 469 
 
 * en t at ion which is, or which is intended to be, in accord- 
 ance with that principle. The third plan is contained 
 in the proposition offered by the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, (Mr. Scott,) understood to be the isolated annun 
 ciation of the principle of the mixed basis, for the pur- 
 pose, as that gentleman said, of disembarrassing it of 
 the details — cumbrous and objectionable, and very er- 
 roneous, probably — annexed to provision A. This pro- 
 position of the mix ed basis proposes to found repre- 
 sentation in the legislature upon two elements — two 
 foundations, or two columns. First, the whole number 
 of the white population shall be ascertained, and you 
 will then give one-half of the representation in the legis- 
 lature to the white population, so that if your house of 
 delegates amounted to 150 members, 75 would repre 
 sent the white population of the State, distributed 
 throughout the commonwealth, in proportion to the 
 number of the white population in the several districts. 
 The other element of which this basis is composed, is 
 that of taxation. By it you allow to taxation one-half 
 of the representation in the legislature, so that you 
 would apportion 75 delegates throughout the State to 
 represent taxation in proportion as the several districts 
 have contributed that element into the common treas- 
 ury 
 
 eminent to the white population ? Tes, that wealth is 
 to be represented in this State \ Ha matter what the 
 amount of tax, your principle does not apply to the mag- 
 nitude of the tax, but to the existence of the tax. So 
 long as taxes are derived by impositions, however tri- 
 fling, the taxation of the State must be entitled to an 
 equal representation with the inhabitants of the State. 
 
 After what I have said, am I not warranted, and am I 
 not in fact, constrained to denounce this mixed basis as 
 utterly at war with the true principles of government, 
 with the American doctrine of government, and with 
 the consecrated and repeated sentiment of Virginia 
 herself on this question of representation ? Then upon 
 what does it rest ? The argument cannot sustain it. 
 There is not an example in the Union— there is not an 
 example on the western hemisphere— there is not an 
 example in the habitable world which sustains this mix- 
 ed basis. This is a bold declaration, but I do not make 
 it unadvisedly. There is not an example to support it 
 to be found anywhere. You need not tell me that 
 South Carolina is an example ; and I will come to her case 
 directly. Even South Carolina, who is rather odious, I 
 believe, with gentlemen who 
 
 propose to adopt her doc- 
 trines, has not adopted it. She went no further than to 
 The first thing that strikes me m contemplating adopt it in one of the houses of her legislature. She did 
 this subject, is this— that relatively the money basis not seek t0 adopt i fc m both branches, 
 
 equals the white population, however much intrinsical 
 ly they may differ. By way of illustration, suppose 
 white population is represented by one column, and tax- 
 ation by another column, standing side by*side. If your 
 population amounted to 800,000 white inhabitants, and 
 your annual taxes to 800,000 dollars, they would be rel- 
 atively the same size, and it may be supposed would 
 reach the same attitude exactly. But if your mixed 
 basis column should decline fifty per cent., so that your 
 taxes contributed into the treasury in the aggregate 
 amounted to only 400,000 dollars, your column then 
 would be reduced to precisely one-half of the original 
 
 dimensions; yet it would be relatively of the same mag 
 nit ude as the popular basis. Then in the latter case a 
 white man would be valued at fifty cents. But suppose 
 your element of taxation continues to diminish, and 
 your taxation should get down to $200,000, it is then 
 one quarter of its original dimensions, yet relatively it is 
 precisely of the same dimensions as the population. The 
 white man then would be valued at say twenty-five cents. 
 And if it should ever happen that the taxes contributed 
 into the common treasury should be reduced to 8100,000, 
 as it might be, as I can easily demonstrate, then your tax- 
 ation column would be one-eighth of the original dimen- 
 sions and yet relatively equal to your population column. 
 Then the white man would be valued at twelve and a 
 half cents. Might it not happen that in the course of events 
 our taxes would be reduced to 8100,000 ! Suppose that 
 in a few years the reasonable — yes, even the reasonable 
 expectations of the friends of internal improvement 
 should be realized in the completion of all these great 
 works of internal improvement. It is expected they 
 certainly will contribute largely to the public treasury, 
 and be a source of revenue to the State. They are not lo- 
 cal objects; they extend from one end of the State to the 
 other, and you cannot, therefore, localize or sectional- 
 ize the sources from whence these revenues will be de- 
 rived. If I say the revenue derived from these works 
 of internal improvement, as has been the case in several 
 of the states of the Union, becomes so large as to obviate 
 the necessity of a great degree of taxation, is it not 
 very probable that at n© very distant future the direct 
 tax of Virginia will not equal 8100,000 ? When that day 
 arrives, the population of Virginia will certainly be more 
 than 800,000 white population, and then the white men of 
 the State will not be valued at twelve and a half cents 
 a head. I have endeavored, by this method, to illus- 
 trate the principle and show its operation, and now I 
 submit to every candid man in this house — I submit it 
 to an intelligent world — whether stripped of all its or- 
 naments, disguises, and pretexts, the argument is not 
 solely and purely that wealth shal) be equal in this gov- 
 
 . and its adoption 
 
 in that house never received the ratification of the peo- 
 ple of South Carolina. The people of South Carolina 
 were never called upon — were never suffered to pass 
 their judgment upon this principle. It was adopted by 
 the legislature itself. After what we have seen the leg- 
 islature of Virginia do, in calling this Convention, and 
 infusing into this Convention bill this odious mixed basis 
 principle, how much respect are men to yield to the 
 voice of the legislature, as a proof of public sentiment and 
 public judgment. I will not yield to it one stiver's influ- 
 ence. It is true, in the various states of the Union, 
 1 1 there may be some few examples found not to support the 
 
 proposition of the gentleman from Fauquier, but which 
 show some variation from the popular basis in those 
 States, and I allude to this point for a two-fold purpose. 
 In the first place I refer to it because I consider it to 
 be the only pretext — if I may use that expression — that 
 gentlemen can employ to justify this departure from the 
 popular basis. But if they will cite the example of the 
 states in extenuation of the doctrine, they shall take 
 with them, if I can send it with them, the other princi- 
 ples contained in these constitutions. I will show that 
 that doctrine which departs from the true principles 
 of representation is founded, not on solicitude for the se- 
 curity of property, not the correct principles of govern- 
 ment, but it springs from heresies of opinion and princi- 
 ple. And I will send abroad the spirit which pervades 
 the constitution in which these doctrines are founded. 
 Let us see what doctrines are found in those other con- 
 stitutions which have discarded the true basis of rep 
 resentation. I think that the spirit which pervades 
 them is manifested by the provisions to which I shall 
 refer, and it satisfies my mind at least that they are ex- 
 amples utterly unworthy of our imitation. 
 
 Here is the first one — that of Maryland. She has 
 based her representation upon federal numbers, at least 
 I take that to be the basis of her representation, al- 
 though it is exceeding difficult to tell what her consti- 
 tution is from the manifold legislative amendments 
 which have been introduced into it. It is a constitution 
 that has never received the ratificatian of the people of 
 Maryland. The legislature there amends the constitu- 
 tion. The slave population of Maryland in 1850 was 
 but 90,000, two-fifths of that amount gives the federal 
 number, which is but 54,000. "Well, here is Florida ; she 
 has based her representation in both branches of the 
 legislature upon federal numbers, and the federal num- 
 ber of her slaves is but 13,200. Then we come to South 
 Carolina ; there they have the basis of representation 
 in the house similar to the basis principle of the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier, the basis compounded of all the 
 
470 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 white population and all the taxes raised by the legis- 
 lature ; and the senate is based upon an arbitrary ap- 
 portionment of representation according to districts. 
 How nearly that approximates to, or departs from the 
 true basis, I have no means of determining — evidently 
 it is an arbitrary basis. What other provisions do we 
 find in the constitution of South Carolina ? We find 
 the governor there is elected by the legislature ; the 
 people never have had an opportunity of electing their 
 governor. We find that the electors of President and 
 Vice-President are also elected by the legislature, and 
 the people have nothing to do with that election. We 
 find there the most singular qualifications for office ; 
 the governor must have a settled estate to the value of 
 £15,000 sterling, clear of debt. A state senator must 
 have a freehold estate to the value of £300 sterling, 
 clear of debt. A representative must have a freehold 
 estate to the value of £150 sterling, clear of debt, or 
 ten negroes and 500 acres of freehold land. When you 
 see the qualification of these representatives and the 
 other provisions which pervade their constitution, you 
 need be at no loss for reasons for the insertion of this 
 odious principle of the mixed basis in the constitution 
 of South Carolina. Here is North Carolina. Her sen- 
 ate is apportioned upon taxation exclusively; her house 
 of commons, as it is called, in imitation of the popular 
 branch of the government in Great Britain, is based 
 upon federal numbers, and she has some singular qualifi- 
 cations prescribed for her officers. A senator shall not 
 have less than 300 acres in fee, and I suppose if that 
 doctrine prevailed in Virginia, some of the counties 
 would not have a man to send, and possibly some of the 
 eastern counties. A member of the house of commons 
 shall not have less than 100 acres of land in fee ; and 
 voters for the senate must have 50 acres of freehold, 
 though it is otherwise with the house of commons. 
 North Carolina is somewhat like Virginia in having a 
 council of state which are elected by the legislature, 
 but I hope the people here will repudiate that. The 
 treasurer and secretary of state is elected by the legis- 
 lature, and justices are commissioned by the governor 
 for life. This is a good deal like Virginia, but we will 
 repudiate that too. Now we come to the state of Geor- 
 gia, the last one, and her basis was fixed in 1198. In 
 the senate, representation is by counties, one represen- 
 tee to each county, and in the house on federal num- 
 bers very nearly, all of the free white population and 
 and three-fifths of the slaves being the basis, which is 
 slightly different from the federal basis. When that 
 basis was adopted in Georgia, we find connected with 
 that doctrine this other principle in disregard of itself 
 and inconsistent with itself, which authorizes no more 
 than four delegates to any county, allows one to each 
 county in the senate, without regard to population, or 
 the prevalence of those elements upon which represen- 
 tation is based. We find that in addition to this pecu- 
 liar basis that they have also some singular qualifica- 
 tions for officers. The governor must have 500 acres 
 of land, and $4000 worth of other property ; a senator 
 must have a freehold of the value of $500, or taxable 
 property worth $1000 over all his debts ; a member of 
 the house must have a freehold of $250 in value or 
 $500 worth of other taxable property above all his 
 debts . By that constitution, legislative power elected 
 the governor, but they have since adopted the prin- 
 ciple that the governor is eligible by the people ; clerks 
 hold offices for life, and justices of the peace are commis- 
 sioned for life. These facts I have adduced are designed to 
 show the spirit which prevailed when these bases, at vari- 
 ance with the popular basis, were adopted. They are de- 
 signed to show the spirit which then prevailed, and they 
 should deter us from adopting them, and should con- 
 vince us that these variations from the true basis are 
 unworthy of imitation. Am I not right then in de- 
 claring that this mixed basis is at war with all true 
 principles and that it is unsupported by a single isola- 
 ted precedent. 
 
 I propose now to consider the practical operation of 
 the principle in general aspects. And first, sectionally, 
 as between the East and the West. I propose to refer 
 to its operation in regard to Eastern Virginia itself, and 
 also to consider its operation in another respect to 
 which I shall specially invite attention when I reach 
 that point. Now, when I speak of the practical opera- 
 tion of this doctrine of the mixed basis, I ascertain iU 
 practical operation by referring to the details accom- 
 panying that principle, taking it for granted that gen- 
 tlemen professing to entertain certain principles of gov- 
 ernment or of representation, as having avowed that 
 they have practically applied this thing, that they have 
 done it in conformity with their principles. I think I 
 may safely refer to the details to show the practical op- 
 eration of the principle. And first in regard to this 
 sectional inequality which this mixed basis will pro- 
 duce. In a house of delegates consisting of one hun- 
 dred and fifty members, there is assigned to Eastern 
 Virginia eighty-two delegates, giving the East a ma- 
 jority of fourteen. What is the effect of this ? Wes- 
 tern Virginia has a majority of 93,659 of the white 
 population of this State, and if Western Virginia had 
 an exact equality of delegates in the house with East- 
 ern Virginia, you would yet disfranchise these 94,000 
 whites in the East, giving to the East and West the 
 same number of delegates. But the inequality goes be- 
 yond that. It gives to the East fourteen majority, and 
 if you take the ratio, you will tind that these fourteen 
 delegates misrepresent or exclude 68,460 of the freemen 
 of Western Virginia, thus excluding at one swoop from 
 any representation in the halls of legislation 162,119 
 Western Virginia freeman. 
 
 Again — in a senate consisting of fifty-one members, 
 with a district apportionment in conformity with the 
 same principles, by the same mode of calculation you 
 will ascertain that in that senate Western Virginia is 
 disfranchised to the extent of 165,264 freemen! This 
 is net accidental. This is not the result of an unavoid- 
 able difficulty. 'Tis not the consequence of an inexo- 
 rable necessity, but it is a deliberate and premeditated 
 disfranchisement of 162,000 men, in one house, and 165- 
 000 men in another, because they are Western Virginians, 
 and because they do not pay as much tax as you do ; or 
 because they have not so many slaves as you — for it is 
 one or the other, choose which you will. The gentle- 
 man from Culpeper, in the very interesting and able 
 argument which he submitted to this Convention a few 
 days since, endeavored to weaken our principle of a 
 suffrage basis by demonstrating, as he supposed he did, 
 that instead of giving a majority the ascendency in the 
 legislature, it would give it to the minority. It was 
 rather an imposing presentation of facts, but upon 
 those who are acquainted with the real condition of 
 the thing it had no effect. In the first place, the gentle- 
 man could not find any means whereby to localize this 
 inequality. He could not find that it disfranchised, 
 either in the East or in the West, a large number of citi- 
 zens ; the wrong, if any existed, was diffused through- 
 out the State without reference to districts. It would 
 have been some palliation, admitting that he was correct 
 at the start, but the gentleman, however, labored under 
 a misapprehension, If he will refer to the tables again, 
 for a different purpose than that for which he before 
 sought them, namely, to discover \vrong for the sake of 
 exposing it, and uot to correct it, he will find that the 
 inequality discoverable in the senatorial apportionment 
 is about equal to that discovered in regard to the rep- 
 resentation in the house of delegates; and if he goes a 
 little further, he will find that one is a compensation 
 or equivalent for the other. For instance, three dele- 
 gates represent a constituency not exactly entitled to 
 three delegates there, but when you come to the senate, 
 on apportioning a senator to the counties sending these 
 three delegates, you require from them an excess. Thus 
 one inequality compensates another. Hence, the gentle- 
 man could not find a section or location wherein to fix 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 471 
 
 this wrong of which he complained. One is a compen- 
 sation of the other. I have resorted to white popula- 
 tion thus far for the purpose of exposing this flagitious 
 wrong proposed to be inflicted upon Western Virginia 
 in the adoption of this mixed basis. I will now revert 
 to the vote given in the presidential contest of 1848. I 
 will premise that the vote of 1848 was a remarkably 
 small vote, being some one or two thousand less according 
 to my calculation, making no pretension to accuracy — 
 than was cast in the presidential contest of '44, which 
 we all remember was much more animated. But I will 
 resort to the general vote of '48, because there was no 
 peculiar excitement at that time more operative in one 
 section of the State than it was in the other. Well, ac- 
 cording to the presidential vote of 1848, the eighty -two 
 delegates which should be assigned to Eastern Virginia 
 would each represent an average number of 550 votes, 
 whereas, in Western Virginia each delegate would rep- 
 resent an average number of 690 votes — making a differ- 
 ence between the the East and the West of 140 votes. 
 Thus you require that in Western Virginia there shall be 
 140 votes more to elect one delegate than is required in 
 Eastern Virginia — about twenty -live per cent. more. 
 Mr. RIVES. What was the vote of eastern Virginia alone? 
 
 Mr. NEESGN". The vote cast in the presidential 
 contest of 1848, West of the Blue Ridge, the gentleman 
 desires to have given him. I will give the whole vote; 
 45,101 were cast in Eastern Virginia, and 46,917 votes 
 were cast in Western Virginia. 
 
 Thus it is you discriminate between the votes of 
 Eastern and Western Virginia. The disfranchisement 
 of voters in the West by the operation of this rule would 
 be at least 17,220 ; and it can be ascertained by the 
 same process by which I ascertained the whole number 
 of white persons disfranchised. But I will go on now 
 to specify instances in which this disparity is shown 
 more clearly. I take a few western counties, which, 
 according to the present apportionment, (exhibited in the 
 mixed basis, proposition A,) are entitled to ten delegates 
 in the legislature, and I compared them with ten east- 
 ern counties entitled to the same number of delegates. 
 The white population of the ten western counties is 
 98,362, and that of the ten eastern counties is 43,600 ; 
 so that the population requisite to send ten delegates 
 from the western counties is more than double that re- 
 quired in the East to send the same number of delegates. 
 
 Here are the counties with the white population con- 
 tained : 
 
 Western counties. White population. 
 
 Tazewell 8,806 
 
 Marion 10,474 
 
 Giles and Mercer 9,877 
 
 Grayson and Carroll 11.871 
 
 Wirt and Ritchie 1205 
 
 Tyler and Wetzel 9,736 
 
 Barbour '. 9,682 
 
 Lee 9,443 
 
 Lewis 9,529 
 
 Preston 11,659 
 
 97 362 
 
 Eastern counties. White population 
 
 Princess Anne 4,285 
 
 Rappahannock 5,664 
 
 Cuipeper 5,096 
 
 Cumberland 3.166 
 
 Dinwiddie 4,277 
 
 Essex 3 >072 
 
 Fluvanna 4 >541 
 
 Henrico 8,093 
 
 King George 2,802 
 
 Northampton 3,104 
 
 43,600 
 
 I will refer to this after a while for another purpose, 
 for I have prepared it to use in a double aspect. 
 
 According to this mixed basis apportionment, one sena^ 
 
 tor is to be sent from Halifax county, containing 10,900 
 white inhabitants, and paying 89,108 of tax. In the 
 western part of the State one senator is assigned to the 
 counties of Marion, Monongalia and Taylor, and they 
 contain an aggregate white population of 27,683. And 
 in those western counties which I have the honor to rep- 
 resent on this floor, we have an excess of white popula- 
 tion over the county of Halifax of 16,783, and Halifax 
 is to compensate for this by paying an excess of taxes 
 over ours of $1,362, thus rating my constituents at less 
 than eight cents and two mills a head. That is the rate 
 at which my constituents are valued by the apportion- 
 ment. And is it not to be expected that I will condemn 
 this outrage, and that I should give distinct premonition 
 that my people never will approve and sanction it ? 
 This district which I have the honor to represent, and 
 which is now constituted, at least a portion of it, a sen ■ 
 atorial district, according to this mixed basis plan, is 
 not a poverty smitten district. She pays largely into 
 the treasury every year, and the average value of her 
 lands is almost equal to the average value of lands in 
 eastern Virginia. She has a hardy, enterprising, intel- 
 ligent and thrifty population, and are they to be de- 
 graded to the value per capita of eight cents ? Would I 
 not be recreant to every duty which I owe to the peo- 
 ple who have assigned to me the representation of their 
 interests on this floor, were I to suffer this thing to pass 
 undenounced? I have selected this instance not because 
 it is a solitary example without parallel, but for a con- 
 trary purpose, and because no man can charge my peo- 
 ple with being paupers, and dependent upon the public 
 treasury, or assert that we do not contribute fairly to 
 the treasury, or that there is a human being among 
 them indifferent, to say nothing of being hostile, to the 
 great interests of Virginia, even to her peculiar interest. 
 Why even the Patrick district, with a population of 
 20,000 and upwards, sends one senator, when indeed 
 she is not entitled to it, even according to the mixed 
 basis. The senator is given to her as a kind of boon. 
 She is to receive it as their generous, gift, and does not 
 derive this senator by virtue of her right. She has 
 24,000 population, and Halifax 10,000, yet Halifax is en- 
 titled to the same weight in the legislature of Virginia, 
 and exercises the same influence upon the councils of 
 the State, as 24,000 from the Patrick district. Is it as- 
 tonishing that the voice of Patrick is heard coming up 
 to this body in denunciation of this principle ? Here is 
 the tangible evidence of your purpose to degrade her. 
 While you are endeavoring to allure her into your sup- 
 port, you seek to impose upon her self-degradation. But 
 I will pursue this subject no further with respect to the 
 details of particular districts. 
 
 There is another aspect of inequality in which I 
 choose to consider this subject of representation, occa- 
 sioned by this mixed basis. The gentleman from the 
 county of Cuipeper is one, the gentleman from Gooch- 
 land is another, and the gentleman from Spotsylvania 
 is another, of many gentlemen who have already intro- 
 duced to some extent, to which I am now about to refer. 
 They occupy a position which, in my judgment, will jus- 
 tify me in singling them out when 1 address myself to 
 this part of the subject. There are two great parties 
 in this commonwealth, the whig and the democratic 
 party. The power of the whig party lies in Eastern 
 Viiginia, and the power of the democratic party lies in 
 Western Virginia. is it not obvious that in proportion 
 as you depress Western Virginia, in that proportion you 
 abate the influence of the democratic party ? On the 
 other hand, in Eastern Virginia, where you find the great 
 body of the whig party, is it not obvious that, in pro- 
 portion as you exalt that party, in that proportion you 
 o-ive it an ascendancy, and prostrate the democratic 
 party ? I need not say to which of these parties I be- 
 long ; my people understand very well what my senti- 
 ments are. Is it not certain from this state of the case 
 that, when, from any cause, you give a greater political 
 influence to Eastern Virginia you elevate the predomi- 
 
472 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 nant party in that section, and is it not equally certain 
 that when you depress Western Virginia politically, you 
 depress the predominant party there, as compared with 
 the predominant party in the East ? You find that 
 while the whig party prevails in the East, the demo- 
 cratic party prevails in the West, and in every hour of 
 trial the democratic party finds it necessary to lean 
 upon the West for support. Now while the whig party 
 prevails in the East, and the democratic party in the 
 West, the great excess of property and wealth is found 
 in the East, the lesser amount of these articles being 
 found in the West. Now by attaching political influence 
 to wealth in Eastern Virginia, do you not at the same 
 time, necessarily and inevitably exalt the party that 
 prevails there ? It would seem that a mere glance of 
 this thing ought to convince any man of the fact I have 
 stated. But if not satisfied, with a glance, with these 
 general reasons I have suggested, gentlemen can very 
 readily try my conclusion .for themselves, if they will 
 employ a little labor in investigating the details of the 
 apportionment under your mixed basis representation. 
 I have gone through it with. not a little labor. I have 
 examined the apportionment of every county in the 
 commonwealth as arranged in proposition A. I have 
 compared the votes of these counties with regard to 
 their party bearing, taking the Presidential vote of '48 
 as a criterion, and I find that although some labor has 
 been expended in endeavoring to give to this dominant 
 party some ascendancy, by various indications which 
 will be found by any gentleman who pursues the same 
 course of inquiry which I have pursued, yet it is evi- 
 dent that, notwithstanding this fact, you have in the 
 house of delegates, consisting of one hundred and fifty 
 members, seventy -five whigs to seventy-five democrats. 
 This is an equality, but how do you arrive at that 
 equality ? I need not multiply instances, which are 
 abundant, but confine my illustration to one county, 
 that of Campbell. It is divided, or rather Lynchburg 
 is eviscerated from Campbell, and one delegate assigned 
 to Campbell, and one to Lynchburg. By that process 
 one democratic delegate is gained ; whereas, by suffering 
 the whole county to send the delegates to which it is 
 entitled, it would send two whig delegates. That would 
 give the whigs seventy- six delegates in the house of de- 
 legates, and the democrats seveuty-four. An impartial 
 application of the principle will give the whigs a pow- 
 erful majority in the legislature. Not long since I 
 thought it proper to allude to the influence of a minority 
 government upon a people who are part and parcel 
 of a federal government. I promised to advert to this 
 consideration and to recur to this part of the subject, 
 and now I have done it. Heretofore there have been 
 certain great doctrines esteemed by the majority of the 
 people of the State, as highly essential in their federal 
 relations. These doctrines have been avowed and up- 
 held from the foundation of the government to this mo- 
 ment, and universally by the support and vindication of 
 the democratic party. Yet how did the democratic 
 party do it ? Was it not by giving to each voter in the 
 commonwealth the same political power we claim as a 
 right, and by giving effect to every vote cast. The de- 
 mocratic party cannot otherwise maintain its ascendancy 
 on its party principles. What does it avail to cast 
 a thousand party votes if, by a principle of representa- 
 tion as odious and abominable as this is, we are virtually 
 to cancel and obliterate those votes as soon as they are 
 recorded? According to my view of this _ subject, and 
 according to facts and figures, which it is said cannot lie, 
 this democratic party henceforward is to be prostrate in 
 the dust and its doctrines are to be condemned and pro- 
 scribed. The entire relations heretofore maintained be- 
 tween Virginia and the federal government, are to be 
 utterly and totally subverted. And why ? Has any 
 body discovered that that party or the principles of that 
 party are odious, unjust and indefensible ? On the con- 
 trary, the gentlemen whom I have already indicated 
 have fully avowed their love for, and devotion to, those 
 principles, and yet they are the very men who are de- 
 
 fending a principle which will result in the destruction 
 of their ascendancy. I am stating the apportionment of 
 representation according to the mixed basis, and it is 
 very well known that I do not speak of this in derision 
 of the democratic party. The gentleman from Appo- 
 mattox, (Mr. Bocock,) has not yet spoken on this question 
 — this basis. I do not know whether he sustains it or not. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. He assisted in arranging it. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. I will let the gentleman speak for 
 himself, and I hope he will do it speedily. It is but fair 
 that he should speak for himself. 
 
 Mr. BOCOCK. I refer that part of your argument 
 to the gentleman from Kanawha. 
 
 The CHAIR. Gentlemen must address the Chair. 
 
 Mr. NEESON. There is not only this discrimination 
 against the democrats of Virginia, but there will be 
 found an inequality and discrimination equally odious 
 between the whigs and democrats of Eastern Virginia. 
 Now, what is the calculation ? and I give you the facts 
 and figures derived from the same sources which I have 
 already indicated. I give the figures, and if they be 
 incorrect any gentleman is at liberty to correct them. 
 I will take the delegation from Eastern Virginia. I find 
 that the whig votes, cast in the presidential election of 
 1848, amounted to 23,638, and that under that appor- 
 tionment, there will be forty-five whig delegates in 
 the legislature from Eastern Virginia, thus showing 
 the ratio of voters to the delegate to be 325. I find 
 that the democratic party in 1848, cast at the same elec- 
 tion in Eastern Virginia, 21,463 votes, and that they are 
 to be represented in the legislature by thirty-seven del- 
 egates, thus giving a ratio of 580 votes to the delegate. 
 Now mark the difference : five hundred and twenty -five 
 whigs send a delegate, and five hundred and eighty dem- 
 ocrats send one, making a difference against the demo- 
 ocrats of fifty-five votes orbetween four and five hundred 
 in the white population assuming one-eighth to be voters. 
 
 I have thus far adverted to the house of delegates. 
 And is it not obvious that if such be the operation in 
 that body it must so operate in the senate ? I have al- 
 ready shown you that taking the population of 1840 as 
 the basis of representation, Western Virginia would be 
 entitled to two majority in the House, and yet would 
 have but an equality in the senate with Eastern Vir- 
 ginia. But I endeavored to show awhile ago the great in- 
 equality between ten eastern and ten western counties 
 or districts ; the eastern and western counties having 
 the same representation in the legislature, but the west- 
 ern counties having more than double the population of 
 the eastern counties ? What sort of politics belong now 
 to these counties ? I will read the list : 
 
 Western counties, 
 
 W. P. 1850. 
 
 D. 
 
 W. 
 
 
 8,806 
 
 548 
 
 215 
 
 
 10,474 
 
 669 
 
 324 
 
 
 .9,877 
 
 526 
 
 467 
 
 
 11,871 
 
 567 
 
 372 
 
 
 7 205 
 
 469 
 
 272 
 
 
 9,736 
 
 608 
 
 413 
 
 
 ' 8,682 
 
 484 
 
 287 
 
 
 . 9,443 
 
 521 
 
 324 
 
 
 . . .9,629 
 
 522 
 
 331 
 
 
 , ,11,659 
 
 521 
 
 439 
 
 
 97,362 
 
 5,335 
 
 
 Eastern co., with W. P. 1850. 
 
 
 
 
 
 4,285 • 
 
 291 
 
 373 
 
 
 ,5,664 
 
 239 
 
 304 
 
 
 
 318 
 
 354 
 
 
 3,166 
 
 162 
 
 235 
 
 
 4.277 
 
 228 
 
 282 
 
 
 3.072 
 
 135 
 
 186 
 
 
 
 190 
 
 271 
 
 
 8,093 
 
 393 
 
 592 
 
 
 • 2,802 
 
 112 
 
 149 
 
 
 3,104 
 
 95 
 
 170 
 
 
 .43,600 
 
 
 2,916 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 473 
 
 According to this table the western counties send ten 
 democratic delegates while the ten eastern counties, 
 with less than one half the population of the western 
 ones, and with scarcely one half the number of voters, 
 send ten delegates. Thus the same number of delegates 
 are sent to the legislature by one half the number of 
 whig votes in Eastern Virginia, as by democratic votes 
 in Western Virginia. 
 
 I will now allude to the bearing this subject has on 
 our federal relations. Now let us suppose, what is true, 
 that the democratic party of this State have a majority 
 ranging from three to five thousand, and, by a right 
 which no gentleman should controvert, ought to have, as 
 the other party should have, were they in a majority, 
 the ascendency, in the legislature. By what sort of 
 logic, and by what sort of right are you thus to stifle 
 that voice ? Adopt this mixed basis apportionment of 
 yours, and you send into the halls of the legislature a 
 majority of delegates with political sentiments adverse 
 to the popular sentiments of the majority of the people, 
 on doctrines of federal legislation, which have hereto- 
 fore prevailed in Virginia. What next ? The gentle- 
 man from Richmond city said truly that the doctrine of 
 instruction had found favor in Virginia; and that it was 
 a doctrine now clearly established, and especially as 
 between the legislature and the senators in the Congress 
 of the United States. What would be the condition of 
 your two senators? They would have instructions. 
 And how would those instructions' conform to the senti- 
 ments and opinions of gentlemen to whom I have allu- 
 ded? They would be as far asunder as the poles. Well, 
 according to this doctrine of instructions, these two 
 senators must either conform their conduct to them, or 
 resign. I think I have said enough upon this subject. 
 Let those who are interested in the subject examine it 
 for themselves. I am satisfied with having brought it 
 to their attention. Having done that I leave it for them 
 to dispose of. 
 
 I have now attempted to consider the principle in- 
 volved in the mixed basis. I have endeavored to show 
 thnt it is at war with the true principle, that it is at 
 war with American doctrine; inconsistent with the 
 doctrine of Virginia herself, and destructive of her great 
 doctrine in regard to her federal relations. By what 
 mode of argument, then, is this accumulation of wrong 
 and outrage to be justified? In the first place it is 
 maintained that Eastern Virginia, being possessed of a 
 greater amount of wealth in the ratio of two to one, and 
 paying about two-thirds of the taxes, and having a great 
 excess of slave population is therefore entitled to pre- 
 dominancy in the legislative department of the govern- 
 ment. Before I proceed to consider briefly the argu- 
 ment advanced in support of this principle let me ad- 
 vert to the real condition of Eastern and Western Vir- 
 ginia in respect to population, wealth and taxation, 
 making reference particularly to slave property. 
 
 When the existing constitution was adopted in 1830, 
 Eastern Virginia had a majority of 51,612 white inhab- 
 itants over western, but in 1840, the western white pop- 
 ulation was 371,520, and the eastern white population 
 •369 398, showing that a majority in 1840, of the white 
 population, was West of the Blue Ridge, to the extent 
 of 2,172. In the year 1850, according to the authentic 
 returns, W estern Virginia has a white population of 
 494,763, showing an increase of 176,118 since 1830, and 
 Eastern Virginia a white population of 401,104, showing, 
 including Alexandria, an increase in twenty years, of 
 but 25,447, and giving to Western Virginia at this time, 
 a majority of white inhabitants of 93,659. The compara- 
 tive increase of the two regions of country in white 
 population, .for the preceding twenty years," is 14 4-10 
 in the east, to one hundred in the west. The trans-Al-j 
 leghany district, in 1850, had attained a white popular, 
 lion of 331,586, being an increase of forty-one and two-| 
 tenths per cent, since 1840, and an increase in the ag-i 
 gregate for the last ten years of 98,812, and an aergre-j 
 gate increase for the last twenty years of 147,132; thus 
 you see that in regard to the white population. Western j 
 4* 
 
 Virginia is advancing with tremendous strides, while 
 eastern Virginia is almost stationary. 
 
 Now, how is it in regard to slave population, of which 
 so much is said, so many apprehensions entertained, and 
 so much illusion suffered to possess the eastern mind ? 
 At this time, or in 1850, there was in trans- Alleghany 
 district, 24,436 slaves, showing an increase in the last 
 ten years, of 4.396, er twenty-one and nine-tenths per 
 cent. This is in the trans-Alleghany district, which is 
 said to have no interest in common with the East on this 
 subject. In the Valley there were 38,789 slaves, making 
 an aggregate West of the Blue Ridge of 63,234. East of 
 the Blue Ridge there were 412,738 slaves, being an in- 
 crease since 1840, of 17,000 only, or something less than 
 tour per cent, within the last ten years. It is worthy of 
 remark that in the eastern portion of the State, the 
 slave population increased something less than four per 
 cent., whereas in the trans-Alleghany district, the same 
 population has increased at the ratio of at least twenty- 
 two per cent.; and yet the gentleman from Richmond 
 city, (Mr. Meredith,) on yesterday, told us that the di- 
 versity of interest, both in kind ai|d magnitude, as I un- 
 derstand him, was so very great between Eastern and 
 Western Virginia, that it never could be reconciled ; 
 that it was increasing and would continue to increase, 
 and would never even approximate an assimilation. 
 Yet according to these very items that I have read, 
 your slave population is about stationary, while ours in 
 the trans-Alleghany district is increasing at the rate of 
 twenty-two per cent. But I suppose that the gentle- 
 man entertains the same view as the gentleman from 
 Halifax, (Mr. Purkins,) who addressed the Convention 
 the other day, and a most extraordinary ground did he 
 take. His position was that so long as there was a dis- 
 similarity in any one species of property, and so long 
 as that dissimilarity might tempt, (and any dissimilarity 
 he said would tempt,) the encroachment of the section 
 not possessed of these interests, so long must that pe- 
 culiar section who did possess them, have the control in 
 the government. That was his sentiment — his language 
 was much stronger. 
 
 If this is the doctrine of Eastern Virginia, and he 
 was then speaking of the subject of slavery, give us 
 notice of it at once. Do it honestly, boldly and man- 
 fully, and let us know that there is no use of debating 
 the "question, no use of professing our faith and loyalty, 
 and no use in attempt to demonstrate that there is no 
 irreconcilable hostility of interest between us. 
 
 Why, according to the argument of the gentleman 
 from Halifax, so long as Eastern Virginia possesses any 
 considerable excess of slave property or any other 
 property over Western Virginia, she must r retain the 
 control of this government ! I trust that it is not East- 
 ern doctrine. But I wish to satisfy myself by figures 
 and calculations as to when the time ever might be that 
 we would get our just and unalienable rights in this 
 government. I took the condition of the slave property 
 of the commonwealth East and West for the purpose of 
 ascertaining when, in that great and distant future, there 
 would be an assimilation of interests, and an approxi- 
 mate identity of interest between Eastern and Western 
 Virginia. And what was the result? Why, when I 
 got down to the year 1900, I gave it up in despair. I 
 could go no further. I cannot expect to be here longer 
 than that, and I must leave it to others to calculate 
 beyond that time. I will assume in round numbers for 
 the puropose of illustration that Western Virginia now 
 has 63.000 slaves, though she has a trifle over, and 
 supposing an increase at the rate of 25 per cent, every 
 ten years, which is something beyond the fact, you will 
 find, making this calculation from the year 1850 at every 
 biennial period, when you arrive at the year 1900, that 
 Western Virginia will have 192,060 slaves; while East- 
 ern Virginia, assuming slave population to be 413,000 
 and to increase, four per cent, every ten years, which is 
 short of the mark, will have in the year 1900, 502,416 
 slaves. Thus even at that distant day we shall be in- 
 
474 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 finitely short of assimilating in interest according to the 
 -views of gentlemen here in Eastern Virginia. Why, 
 even then, we will stand in slave population west of 
 the Blue Ridge, as thirty-eight to one hundred in East 
 era Virginia. We now stand as fifteen to one hundred. 
 Is it not time for me to despair after having ascertain- 
 ed that result? I do not expect to reach that period, 
 but I do expect that before that year arrives, this doc- 
 trine will have no foot-hold in T\ estern or Eastern Vir- 
 ginia. It cannot exist thus long by right or by might. 
 In the year 1900 while you have a majority of slaves in 
 the proportion of one hundred to thirty-eight, where 
 will be the white population of the State, and where 
 will be the great wealth of the State in other things ? 
 And what are the results to be accomplished by it? 
 W r hy, nothing at all so long as this dissimilarity con- 
 tinues, so long as this unrighteous ascendency is to be 
 maintained, so long as western vassalage depends on 
 eastern slaves. 
 
 I will now refer, for the purpose of ascertaining the 
 real condition of the East and the West, to the value of 
 the lands. I shall be very brief on this point, merely 
 adverting to the figures as exhibiting that real condi- 
 tion. Now it is true that the excess in the value of 
 lands is in Eastern Virginia, perhaps some twenty mil- 
 lions «of dollars, but it is equally true that during the 
 last twenty or thirty years the only increase, that is 
 the real appreciable increase in lands, has been in West- 
 ern Virginia, and the continued regular increase must be 
 also in Western Virginia. In the first district in 1850, 
 the average value of land per acre was $8.02 ; in the 
 second $7.36 ; in the third $8.41 ; in the fourth $2 09. 
 Now, the total value of land in this trans-Alleghany 
 district in 1819 was $16,051,550 00, being an average of 
 92 cents per acre. In 1838 the total value was $39,- 
 217,544 or $1.40 per acre, being an average increase ex- 
 ceeding 52 per cent. So that between 1819 and 1838 
 the increase was over 52 per cent, in the value of lands 
 of trans- Alleghany Virginia. It is true that the ag- 
 gregate increase is not so great as in some other por- 
 tions of the commonwealth, but look at the per centage. 
 It is over 52 per cent, increase in that time. In 1850 
 the value of land in that district was $61,527,768 57, 
 being an average value per acre of $2.09 ; an increase 
 exceeding 49 per cent, from 1838, an increase too, vast- 
 ly disproportionate to that of any other section of the 
 State. I have already alluded to my district, which is 
 included in the trans-Alleghany district. In that district 
 the average value of land per acre is $6.46, and you 
 cannot call it a very poor country. The annual tax on 
 it is $6,882 25, and you cannot call that a light contri- 
 bution from land to the public treasury. And yet these 
 people are valued at 8 cents a head ! This district has 
 increased in population, I may safely assert, for 1 have 
 no means of ascertaining it exactly in consequence of 
 the formation of new counties, one hundred per cent, 
 during the last ten years. I take it for granted that 
 she is bound to continue to make that large per cent, 
 increase upon the value of lands, and consequently upon 
 her contributions to the treasury, and if you will put 8 
 cents a head valuation upon such a people, occupying 
 such a country, paying such a rate of taxation, will you 
 put any estimate on those whom you stigmatize as 
 paupers upon the public treasury? Will you value 
 them at all ? There are some counties, I understand, at 
 least it has been so asserted, in the trans-Alleghany 
 region, who receive from the public treasury a greater 
 number of dollars than they pay into it, and they are 
 denominated paupers upon the public treasury. Now, 
 if you put the valuation of 8 cents a head on my con- 
 stituents, circumstanced as I have described them, what 
 will you estimate those paupers at ? 
 
 I have already shown in one example which I have 
 presented, that if this Convention had even the small 
 iiberality which characterized the Convention of 1829,- 
 '30, when they apportioned representation ascording to 
 white population, ante-dating it about ten years, we 
 would have now a majority in the legislature. But 
 
 suppose I try our right to this majority by some other 
 standard than the one adopted in 1829- '30. Our East- 
 ern friends then contend that taxation and population 
 should go together, but they never defined the propor- 
 tion and never discriminated between one portion of 
 the tax and another. 
 
 The East in 1830 was taxed on lands and lots, slaves 
 and other property, $230,030 84, and the West $76 r 
 874 17. Seventy-five per centum was paid by the 
 East and twenty-five per cent, by the West, In 1840 
 the East was taxed $252,219 50 ? and the West $118,- 
 943 44 ; and in 1850, including the increased lax arising 
 from the enhanced value of the land, the Eastern 
 increase being $8,596 and the Western $29,790, the 
 East will be taxable $347,547 99 , and the West $187 r 
 165 71. It will be understood that this tax is derived 
 from lands and slaves and other property, dispensing 
 with the license tax. Well, in 1830, the West paid 
 twenty-five per cent, of the taxes and the East sev- 
 enty five per cent, of the taxes and the East seventy- 
 five percent. In 1850, how is it? Gentlemen have 
 told us that the East paid over two-thirds of the taxes, - 
 But it is a mistake, if you include the increased tax up- 
 on lands. In 1850 the East pays sixty-five per cent., 
 and the West thirty-five per cent, of the whole tax. 
 We have increased two-filths upon our taxes. Now, 
 let us apply this majority of increase to the represen- 
 tation. In" 1830 the East had 78 delegates, and the West 
 56, being an eastern majority of 22 in that house. 
 Now, if you give representation to our taxation in pro- 
 portion to the representation you gave on our taxation 
 in 1830, what will be your representation now ? Why 
 the West would have 78 delegates, and the East 56 in 
 a house of 135, giving a western majority of 22 dele- 
 gates. So that if you take the white population and 
 value it as you did in 1830, and if you take the taxation 
 and value it as you did in 1830, both together or sepa- 
 rately, you will give to Western Virginia her rightful 
 though not her full majority. Now, how lias this derided 
 trans-Alleghany district increased in taxation ? In 
 1830 she paid a tax of $27,498 90, and in 1840, she 
 paid a tax of $56,840,23, showing an increase in that 
 time of 106 per cent, and upwards. Can any other 
 district boast of such an increase? In 1850 it is $94,- 
 835,92, showing an increase of 66 per cent, since 1840* 
 Such is the progress of Western Virginia ; such, in no 
 speculative sense, is the progress of the future state, 
 and such is the condition of the two districts. 
 
 Now, having presented these exhibits for the coaside- 
 ration of the Convention, having shown that Western 
 Virginia is making astonishing progress in population, 
 in wealth, in her contributions to the public treasury,, 
 and in her slave population, I demand now to know why 
 it is, that notwithstanding all these things^ you persist 
 in forcing upon us this mixed basis ? Is it because you 
 pay more taxes ? That is one thing. You say that you 
 pay more taxes, and I will meet it boldly. You do pay 
 more taxes, but you do not pay your share. I say that 
 if you pay it in proportion to your ability, in propor- 
 tion to the benefit which you derive from government, 
 you should pay a larger per centage than you do now. 
 Let gentlemen not boast of paying into the treasury an 
 excess of taxation when they fall short of paying their 
 proportion. Taxation, we are told, is a voluntary con- 
 tribution on the part of the people, and is never com • 
 pulsory. I should like to know whence that definition 
 comes. I know it was used in 1829-'30, but I desire an 
 authoritative source for the definition. Will any gentle- 
 man give it me ? 
 
 Has any government ever organized, or can any gov- 
 ernment ever subsist with such a principle recognized 
 as that ? What would be the consequences ? I am 
 told that it prevails in England : it never prevailed 
 in England. 1 believe that the king there cannot get 
 any money unless parliament should appropriate it. 
 But suppose that one-fourth of the parliament should 
 refuse and the other three-fourths should agree to grant 
 it, are the persons represented by the fourth part ex- 
 empt from the payment of the tax by reason of the re- 
 
/ 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 475 
 
 fusal of their representatives to allow it ? "Where is 
 there then any voluntary contributions ? It has never 
 t»een the doctrine of America. G-o to your congress and 
 -see it there ; go to your State legislatures and see it 
 there ; go any where. Come to your own halls of legis- 
 lation, a tax bill is proposed, which has been very re- 
 cently dene, and a vote is taken upon it, and it is adopted 
 by a majority of the body with a very strong minority 
 against it. Do the constituents of this minority who 
 opposed levying the tax have to pay it or not ? If they 
 have to pay it, it is not a voluntary contribution. It is a 
 compulsory contribution. It is an exaction. It is right, 
 too, for property owes its existence to society notwith- 
 standing the avowal of a contrary doctrine here. So- 
 ciety recognizes, and defines, and protects property, al- 
 though there may be a vague, undefined and compara- 
 tively worthless state of property and right, anterior to 
 government ; it was a worthless right. What, is the 
 right of property anterior to society? According to the 
 best of lights before me I conclude that if such a state 
 ever existed, that by means of a man's actual possession 
 he has an actual right to the property within that pos- 
 session. But how much can a man actually possess out 
 of a state of society ?. How many acres cf land \ Few, 
 very few indeed. How many other articles of property 
 can he possess? They must be in the actual occupancy 
 and possession of the party. These are all nominal 
 rights, subject to the invasion of the strong arm and the 
 violent hand. And society and government are for the 
 purpose of protecting each individual, not in the rights 
 he possessed anterior to society, but for the purpose of 
 protecting and defending him in the rights which that 
 government has defined and recognized. Take the pub- 
 lic domain in a state of nature. Can any here tell the 
 extent of his territory ? 
 
 Who defines his boundary for him ? If he goes one 
 step beyond actual possession he exceeds his natural 
 rights. But in a state of society under a government 
 his rights are defined, recognized and protected. 
 
 In a state of nature what would become cf our black 
 race! Yf hence your title to that property in a state of 
 nature, to the millions of dollars that you own in living 
 merchandize ? Where is the right ? Is it a right of na- 
 ture ? Is it not rather a right derived solely from the 
 institution of government ? How could you assert that 
 claim or protect that right in a state of nature ? You 
 would have the right to ciaim him and he would have 
 the right to claim you, and that would be the extent of 
 your right. But in a state of society these rights are re- 
 cognized and you are defended and protected in them. 
 You owe that property then to society, and what is 
 the extent of your obligations to society ? Is it not to 
 the full extent of that property ? You owe the whole 
 of it to society, and it is for the protection that society 
 renders you in the enjoyment of that property that you 
 are justly bound to contribute, as a due, taxes to the 
 support of government in proportion to the protection 
 that you receive ; that is to say, in proportion to the 
 true value of the property. Why, I did in the simpli- 
 city of my heart, at a very early day in the session, 
 propose what I thought to be a mediatorial, conciliatory 
 proposition, by virtue of which, to conciliate the East 
 and the West, and to assure the East that we meditated 
 no assaults upon their property. Desirous to dispel 
 thi3 illusion, which, by some singular futuity, rests upon 
 eastern minds, I proposed that a system of ad valorem 
 taxation should be adopted, not upon all property, as the 
 gentleman from Fauquier very unseasonably suggested 
 the other day, not upon all property, but upon all 
 property subject to taxation. Let that property be de- 
 fined and not left to conjecture or legislative caprice. 
 It is not the first time that such a proposition has been 
 made in Virginia. This ad valorem system of taxation 
 is not a novelty in Virginia. Long ago, in the better 
 days of this republic, the system of ad valorem taxation 
 prevailed and included, according to my recollection, 
 every species of property. It was declared in the le- 
 gislature of Virginia in the year 11*1% and afterwards, 
 
 right, just and proper that every species of property 
 J should contribute to the common defence and protec- 
 j tion in proportion to its value. I am now speaking in 
 J regard to taxation in general, and I have asserted what 
 j i maintain, and will always maintain, that however great 
 the contributions of our brethren of the East, they are 
 I not equitably proportioned to the burthens imposed on 
 ; the West. You may reduce the taxation, but I say that 
 ■ so long as eastern taxation remains at its present per 
 jcentage, the western tax is not as it should be. In other 
 j words, we pay more in proportion to our wealth and 
 ! ability than do the people of Eastern Virginia. I repeat, 
 | this is no novel doctrine, but is an old doctrine in Vir- 
 ginia. I will refer gentlemen to the Statutes at Large, 
 vol. 9, p. 349, where they will find a tax bill of October, 
 17 77, in this language: 
 
 "An act for raising a supply of money for public exi- 
 gencies," declaring it to be done "in a mode which is 
 ijudged will be least burthensome to the people of any 
 which can be adopted," enacts " That a tax or rate of 
 j ten shillings for every hundred pounds' value of lands, 
 <&<?., slaves, (fee, horses, <fcc," shall be paid. 
 
 That is the ad valorem principle recognized by Virginia 
 herself in her first days. I find in the year 1778, an- 
 other statute proposing an increased tax upon the same 
 principle. In May, 1779, there was another increase of 
 tax, and then it was that the specific, or capitation of 
 tax was introduced, and introduced too, not for the pur- 
 pose of reducing the amount of tax, but from the greater 
 facility in imposing it. Another act, in the year 1782, 
 declared that "it is just and right that property of every 
 kind should be equally burthened for the defence and 
 protection of the State." These were the sentiments 
 of Virginia, as expressed through her general assem- 
 bly, in those days. Well, a change has come over the 
 spirit of things since then. I have demonstrated that 
 the increase of wealth, population, and taxation, is 
 greater in the West than in the East, I mean the per 
 centage. The tendency of increase is in the West, and 
 one consequence of this increase is that the tax on this 
 peculiar property, on slaves, has been diminished from 
 the earliest date to the present time, because the tax 
 then has been imposed upon other property as other 
 property has increased in proportion. I have a table 
 which exhibits rather a singular state of things. I begin 
 at 1800, and stop at every decade of years, and show the 
 total revenue of the State — that derived from slaves, and 
 its proportion of per centage to the total revenue. The 
 table is as follows: 
 
 Total revenue. Slave tax. pr.ct. No. slaves. 
 
 1800 8265,168 25 $ 30,596 12 30 344,756 
 1810 295,533 06 91,516 16 30 
 
 1820 537,270 12 163,538 20 28 
 1830 385,111 31 81,945 55 22 
 
 1840 477,010 42 72,388 20 15 
 
 1850 744,319 49 91,444 54 11 475,972 
 
 Increase from 1800 to 1850 in total number of 131,216. 
 
 Thus in the year 1800, with 344,757 slaves, you paid 
 a tax of thirty-fouf per cent, and yet when you come 
 down to the year 1850, when you have a greater num- 
 ber of slaves you pay less than eleven per cent. Now, 
 this is to be accounted for very readily by looking at 
 the increase in the trans -Alleghany country. Gentle- 
 men should be very far from complaining at this state of 
 things. 
 
 There is an argument which struck me with more 
 force than any other in this discussion, on the part of 
 eastern gentlemen, and that is, that by giving repre- 
 sentation to taxation in Eastern Virginia, you can con- 
 fine a representative to a smaller district, and by doing 
 that make him responsible to the constituents whom he 
 has to protect. There i3 force in that argument, and it 
 is one which I can appreciate, but it is totally destitute 
 of that power which should emasculate the sovereignty 
 of the people of Virginia. But let us see how it works, 
 lean designate certain counties in Eastern Virginia in 
 which the taxpayers on slaves bear to other taxpayers 
 
475 
 
 VIRGINIA KEF OEM CONVENTION. 
 
 in the community a smaller per centage than in the 
 same number of counties in the West. From this it will 
 appear that if the tax paid on slaves is to be represented 
 that responsibility in favor of the slave interest is 
 greater in some parts of Western Virginia, than it is in 
 some parts of Eastern Virginia. Our official table makes 
 the astounding disclosure, that but 50,000 persons are 
 possessed of slaves in the State; but that number taxed 
 on this property. Of this number 39,938 are in the East 
 taxed with 219,605 slaves, an average of five and a half to 
 each master; in the West 10,162 are taxed with 39,909, 
 an average of three and four-tenths to each master. 
 Thus in the West this property is more diffused than in 
 the East, the same quantity having nearly double the 
 number of persons interested in its protection to that 
 in the East. 
 
 The injury apprehended to slave property consists in 
 discriminating against it in favor of other property ; a con- 
 flict between it and other property subject to taxation. 
 To prevent this is it necessary to give the East a pre- 
 ponderance. But the means of protection will be found 
 in a superior degree in the W est in several instances. 
 Here is a table exhibiting this view : 
 Number of Taxables in Eastern Counties, on Land and on 
 Slaves. 
 
 On land. On slaves. 
 
 Culpeper 968 149 
 
 Alexandria 1,521 359 
 
 Charles city 436 96 
 
 Fairfax 1,221 497 
 
 James city 371 152 
 
 Norfolk county 1,286 631 
 
 Northumberland 521 252 
 
 Surry 637 234 
 
 Prince George 775 374 
 
 Greene 449 204 
 
 Henry 614 217 
 
 Patrick 917 256 
 
 9,616 3,421 35 per cent 
 Western Counties, 8fc. 
 
 On land. On slaves. 
 
 Winchester. 418 175 
 
 Rockbridge 1,310 611 
 
 Jefferson 827 675 
 
 Warren 414 . 269 
 
 Augusta 2 5 339 742 
 
 Staunton 220 125 
 
 Kanawha 1,312 481 
 
 Pulaski 359 137 
 
 Putnam 456 104 
 
 Washington 1,438 362 
 
 Smyth 872 172 
 
 Russell 640 149 
 
 10,605 4001 37 per cent 
 Now there are twelve counties in the East in which the 
 taxables on lands number 9,616, and the taxables for 
 slaves amounts to 3,421; the number of persons payin 
 tax on slaves bearing a ratio of 35 per cent, on the land 
 tax payers. I will then take the same number of coun- 
 ties in the W est, where the tax payers on land amount? 
 to 10,605, and the tax payers on slaves amount to 4,001, 
 bearing a ratio of 37 per cent, to the taxables on land 
 Thus, in these twelve counties of the West you find a 
 greater proportion of slave tax payers than you can 
 find in the same number of counties I have selected, in 
 Eastern Virginia. How then is this argument to operate? 
 Why it would prove that in those counties in the west- 
 ern portion of the State there is the greater interest to 
 subserve in protecting this property. And this is true, 
 not only in regard to interest but in principle and feel- 
 ing. 
 
 But the contest now pending involves the political 
 equality of our citizens, and chiefly the equality of west- 
 ern Virginia. We demand that equality. You refuse it. 
 This refusal is resolvable to one point, which is the su 
 
 perior slave population in the East. It is a fearful issue; 
 it will exasperate the pubiic mind; it will agitate the 
 country. ^ What will tranquilize popular agitation for 
 popular rights ? Nothing but success. But is Virginia, 
 at this juncture, to proclaim to the world that the exist- 
 ence or security of slave property is incompatible with 
 the political equality of her citizens •? Will she proclaim 
 that popular sentiment is inimical to this property ? 
 That her own people would destroy it? What a com- 
 mentary on your resolutions to defend it at all hazards 
 and to the last extremity ? How defend it if the people 
 are hostile to it ! The truth 0i your resolves, or the 
 sincerity of your distrust might be questioned. But is 
 Virginia, by debasing her citizens on the score of slavery, 
 to inspire with new zeal her deadliest enemies ? Will 
 she invite them to sympathize with the West, to find 
 access to minds heretofore barred against their malig- 
 nant poison, to pour their copious instilment into our 
 ears ! It will be judicial infatuation. 
 
 But are the people of Western Virginia less faithful, 
 3S trustworthy on this question of slavery than the 
 people of any section of the Union ? Cannot you con- 
 fide to the people of Western Virginia some little in- 
 fluence in the government, their appropriate influence ? 
 Why, the strongest protection you have, indeed the only 
 protection you have, is in their hearts, and in the stout 
 arms of Western Virginia. Their fidelity is not doubted, 
 and they have already displayed it in an emphatic man- 
 ner on many occasions ; yet notwithstanding those man- 
 ifestations of loyalty, notwithstanding the honorable 
 declarations made in regard to it by gentleman here, 
 they are to be told that they are not to be trusted. How 
 long is this to last ? If I had time, I would refer you 
 to several of the States where this very basis of suffrage 
 is adopted, and where no injury has ever been inflicted 
 on slave property, where nothing of injury has been ap- 
 prehended from it, and where nothing has ever resulted 
 from it to the injury of any property. The reason 
 may be found in the fact, that their fellow-citizens ad- 
 mit that they, (the non-slave-holders) are honest and ca- 
 pable of administering the government wisely and faith- 
 fully, with due regard to all interests, and without resort- 
 ing to profligacy or dishonesty through the influence of 
 mere rapacious motives. I will not advert to them, 
 however, I must hasten to a conclusion. 
 
 Let us divest ourselves of all local prejudice and let 
 us, if possible, come here with fraternal feeling, with a 
 resolve to fraternize and build upon that secure founda- 
 tion — the affections of the people — a government which 
 they ought to adopt and which may be approved by them. 
 And what must you do ? There are certain considera- 
 tions that must prevail in every good government; gov- 
 ernment to be good and stable, must rest for its founda- 
 tion upon justice, I mean that justice which is received 
 as such in the hearts of the people — -justice according to 
 the common standard of justice. If you build your gov- 
 ernment on injustice — I mean injustice according to the 
 common popular standard — can you expect it to endure ? 
 No. It must fall. But again, you must so constitute 
 the government as to win the attachment of the people, 
 you must have their affections entwined about it, and 
 you must have their hearts in love with it. Then you 
 can have a harmonious and stable and just government, 
 but never until then. Suppose you disregard all these 
 considerations, what can you expect from Western Vir- 
 ginia. You may inflict a deadly wrong upon Western 
 Virginia, or what her people will believe to be an ini- 
 quitous act. And you know that when men are enraged 
 by the infliction of that which they believe to be iniqui- 
 tous, you have very little reason to expect affection or 
 devotion from them. They have on more occasions than 
 one defended you, and they will ever defend you, unless 
 you alienate their hearts, You may do it because you 
 have got the power to do it, but the power to do it will 
 not reconcile them. It may be, then, that when the hour of 
 trial comes, and when that portentous cloud which has 
 been described to us shall burst upon us in all its fury. 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 477 
 
 Western Virginia will feel as the great Achilles felt when 
 he was wronged. Repentance deferred till that day will 
 be unavailing. Look at your population here, the slaves 
 exceeding the whites and consider all the circumstances 
 which encompass you. You need friends, brave and pow- 
 erful. The hour of your direst need may not be far dis- 
 tant. For your own security, for the sake of justice, for 
 the harmony of all, I conjure you, be wise and concilia- 
 tory towards "Western Virginia. Remember this iniqui- 
 tous act of degradation may cause thousands — all, to 
 swear in fierce indignation the oath of the injuied Greek : 
 By this I swear, when bleeding Greece again, 
 Shall call Achilles, she shall call in vain. 
 When flushed with slaughter, Hector ccme? to spread 
 The uurpied shore with mountains of the dead 
 Then shait thou mourn the affront thy madness gave, 
 Forced to deplore when impotent to save : 
 Then rage in bitterness of soul to know 
 This act has made the bravest Greek thy foe. 
 Mr. WHITTLE. I move that the committee now 
 rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 Then the Convention adjourned until 10 o'clock to- 
 morrow morning. 
 
 FRIDAY March 1th, 1851. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Eskrldge, of the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 The journal of the preceding day was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 The PRESIDENT submitted a communication from I 
 Whitmell P. Tunstall, Esq., President of the Richmond 
 and Danville Railroad Company, which was read, as 
 follows : 
 
 Richmond and Danville Railroad Office, ) 
 March" 6 th, 1851. j" 
 
 The President of the Richmond and Danville Railroad 
 Company presents his respects to the President, mem- 
 bers and officers of the Convention, and requests the 
 pleasure of their company at the depot of the Richmond 
 and Danville Railroad on Saturday next, at 3 P.M. pre- 
 cisely, for a short excursion on the road. The President 
 hopes, on their return, to be favored with their company 
 at the Exchange Hotel, at 8 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 To the President, members and officers of the Virginia 
 
 Reform Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Taylor the communication waa 
 laid on the table. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 Mr. Whittle then addressed the committee. 
 
 Mr. WHITTLE. The wide range which the debate 
 on the propositions before the committee has taken, 
 makes it necessary to a just appreciation of them, that 
 they be again brought before our view. The two com- 
 peting propositions before us, are that part of the report 
 of the committee on the basis and apportionment of rep- 
 resentation denominated "B," and the substitute for it, 
 submitted by the member from Fauquier (Mr. Scott<) 
 The essential element in proposition B, is, that repre- 
 sentation in the legislative department of the govern- 
 ment should be based on suffrage alone, and if this be 
 true, I am free to admit that the other positions taken 
 in it, are fairly deducible from it, to wit : That the 
 same qualification should confer the same right to vote 
 throughout the State, that the political weight of every 
 vote in any one portion of the commonwealth should be 
 the same with a similar vote in any other portion of it, 
 and that a collection of any number of votes in any part 
 of the State should exert the same political influence 
 with the same number of votes in any other part. The 
 substitute of my friend from Fauquier, is to the effect 
 that the proper basis of representation is a mixture of 
 taxation and population. It is designed to bring up 
 these two propositions in competition with each other, 
 cautiously and wisely framed for its object, it rejects 
 
 all details, it omits even to mention the proportions in 
 which its elements are to be mixed, and still further to 
 disembarrass it of any collateral matter which might 
 present obstacles to a consideration of the principle 
 which it asserts, the mover of it has stricken out the 
 clauses relating to the limit on city representation, and 
 taking the average of ten years of taxation, next pre- 
 ceding any new apportionment and thus presents us 
 with two abstract propositions in a shape best suited to 
 a full and fair consideration of them. 
 
 In the remarks which I propose to offer to the com- 
 mittee, I shall confine myself exclusively to the princi- 
 ples of the two schemes thus offered to us, and shall 
 avoid any reference to details, until, having settled the 
 principles, the details shall come up for consideration. 
 If the principle be correct, the details properly applica- 
 ble to them, will be as nearly correct as is to be expect- 
 ed in the application of any principle to human affairs. 
 That they must sometimes do despite to the principle 
 out of which they grow, that they will not work with 
 exact uniformity, in a commonwealth possessed of such 
 diversities of interest, pursuit and locality as are pre- 
 sented in Virginia, is to be expected. While 1 will not 
 discard the suffrage basis merely, because it does not 
 in all things carry out the principle on which it rests,, 
 neither will it present any difficulty with me in advoca- 
 ting the mixed basis, that in every part of the common- 
 wealth, it may not produce its proper and intended re- 
 sults. Upon these details, as well as upon guarantees 
 and restrictions on the legislative department of the 
 government, in the exercise of the taxing power, much 
 time has been spent in this debate by gentlemen who 
 contend for the suffrage basis ; indeed these topics have 
 constituted the chief grounds cf their arguments, but 
 as they form no part of the subject under consideration, 
 and have in fact been expressly, and often repudiated 
 by the friends of that basis, as in anywise connected 
 with it, I shall forbear to enter into the boundless field 
 of discussion on those points, in exploring which gen- 
 tlemen have applied so much time. It has been often 
 asserted in 'the course of this debate, that the plan of 
 representation asserted in the substitute of my friend 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) is based on an element of 
 power unknown in the State of Virginia, and it is 
 demanded of those who are attempting so vital a change 
 in the existing state of things, to offer a sufficient rea- 
 son for the alleged innovation. I presume to assert 
 that from about the year 1670, down to the present time, 
 a period of one hundred and eighty years except during 
 the rebellion of Bacon, when the constitution and laws 
 of the land were set at defiance, it has been a firm, 
 constant and uninterrupted principle in the government 
 of Virginia that property is to be protected by having 
 power in the government, adequate to that end. From 
 the period mentioned down to the time of the ratifica- 
 tion of the present constitution, the whole power of 
 the government was placed exclusively in the hands of 
 freeholders, excepting only the lesseholders in the 
 counties of Fincastle and West Augusta, and the house- 
 keepers in the borough of Norfolk and city of Williams- 
 burg. It is true that in the infant state of the colony,, 
 before its resources had been developed, when no con- 
 flicting interests had arisen, when the rights of persons 
 and property were uniform throughout the land, the 
 government, to invite immigration hither, placed the 
 right to vote in the hands of the residents, without re- 
 spect to property qualifications of any kind. But as 
 'early as the date which I have mentioned, when the 
 population had become strong enough to protect them- 
 selves against the incursions of the Indians who sur- 
 rounded them, when by the cultivation of the soil, the 
 pursuit of trade and the bringing of property into the 
 colony, proprietary rights had grown to a sufficient 
 magnitude to expose them to the danger of oppressive 
 legislative, it became obvious to our forefathers, that 
 those rights to be protected must have a representation 
 in that department of government in which thejj were 
 most liable to injury adequate to their protection. 
 With this view, the freehold right of suffrage, long 
 
478 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 known and highly prized in the mother country, was 
 Introduced, and to it, the people clung through every 
 vicissitude through which the country passed with only 
 the short interval which I have mentioned down to the 
 year 1830. So strongly did property enter into this 
 basis of representation, that it probably excluded two- 
 thirds of the entire people from all participation in the 
 government. 
 
 In 1829 came the Convention. The condition of 
 things in Virginia in respect to the means necessary to 
 the protection of property against legislative exactions 
 had at that time greatly changed. When the freehold 
 qualification was adopted, and for very many years 
 after, nearly all the taxes were imposed on land, and 
 such things as were used in connexion with land, and I 
 presume it was considered proper that those who de- 
 frayed the expenses, should hold the power of the gov- 
 ernment. At that time the only danger apprehended, 
 was between those who had, and those who had not 
 property, in that strife which has ever existed between 
 them, from the earliest records of human nature. The 
 danger was supposed to be between classes in whatever 
 part of the commonwealth they may be located ; it was 
 not sectional, and hence without any discrimination in 
 the weight of one over another vote when cast ; pro- 
 perty was deemed to be, and in fact was sufficiently 
 protected, by placing the power to control it, equally 
 in the hands of those who were deemed most interested 
 in its preservation. * 
 
 Sometime before the assembling of the Convention of 
 1829, a new era had arisen in the affairs of Virginia ; a 
 new element in her politics, and a new danger to pro- 
 perty. I allude to the system of internal improvements 
 which at once made the danger to property no longer 
 one merely between class and class, but between sec- 
 tion and section also. Though at that time our im- 
 provements were confined chiefly to a few of our rivers 
 and turnpikes, yet they were sufficient to indicate that 
 ihey were the forerunners of that gigantic system which 
 has since appeared, and which threatens exactions on 
 property, of a character and degree unknown until 
 recently in our history. 
 
 When the Convention of 1829 assembled, it was dis- 
 covered that three-fourths of the taxes were paid in the 
 East, that by the extension of the right of suffrage gen- 
 erally demanded by the people, and the equalization of 
 the county representation, the West would in a very 
 few years contain a majority of the voters, and that the 
 situation of her country would require vast expendi- 
 tures of money, to open to her ways to market for her 
 produce. It was plain lo be seen that the equality of 
 suffrage then prevalent, though sufficient for the protec- 
 tion of property at the time, it was instituted, would 
 not answer in the altered condition of the country ; 
 that as sectional danger had arisen, sectional security 
 ought to be demanded, and as this could not be done 
 without giving to the voters in the sections needing pro- 
 tection, a political weight beyond that of the votes in 
 the sections whose interest it was unduly to burthen 
 property with taxes ; the East insisted that taxation 
 and population should be combined in the basis of rep- 
 resentation by which means such discrimination would 
 have been made in the weight of votes cast in the 
 different portions of the State, as to afford to the sec- 
 tions exposed to undue burthren such security for pro- 
 perty as was deemed sufficient. It happened that the 
 power of the government was at that time in the hands 
 of the Eastern portion of the State, by the accident 
 that it had been longest settled and contained a larger 
 number of counties than the Western region, and all it 
 had to do for its safety was to refuse the creation of 
 such amount of new counties in the West, as would 
 deprive it of its ascendancy in the government. As 1 
 have before mentioned, there was much dissatisfaction 
 with all parties in relation to the equal political weight 
 in very unequal counties in population and taxes, and 
 the East, though willing to remedy this evil, yet firm to 
 its weft established conservative doctrine of protecting 
 property through political power, was willing to change 
 
 the county representation only on the condition that by 
 the new arrangement, the same safety which property 
 always had, should be secured to it, varying the means 
 of it, to suit the varied condition of the country, and 
 the new footing on which it was proposed to place the 
 elective franchise. 
 
 We all know the result of the contest about the basis 
 of representation in the last convention. The East and 
 West failed in carrying out their favorite schemes, and 
 though the EasUwas defeated in the means of protection 
 most agreeable to it, yet it agreed to a compromise 
 which it deemed sufficient for its purpose by which it 
 secured on joint ballot in both houses of the General 
 Asssembly a majority of twenty-six. There was there- 
 fore, no abandonment of the object of the East in 
 agreeing to this compromise, the protection of property 
 was its object and motive, and it was accomplished in 
 the very manner proposed by the substitute under con- 
 sideration, by giving to sections a political weight equal 
 to their security, the only difference being in the mode 
 by which this weight is to be secured. And here per- 
 mit me to say a word as to the charge of illiberality, 
 so often urged against the East in this debate, on the 
 subject of creating new counties in the West, under the 
 old constitution. I am not informed that any wilful 
 purpose was ever entertained or carried out by the East 
 to oppress the West, by refusing to give it such new 
 counties as its wants demanded, though I doubt not 
 but that it so exercised its power as to avoid the pos- 
 sibility of transferring a majority to the West. It was 
 right that it should have done so. There was no other 
 means within its reach by which paying three-fourths 
 of the taxes, it could have guarded itself against pay- 
 ing three to one, and then being subjected to the appro- 
 priation of the whole by the party who paid the one- 
 fourth. Especially was it to be expected that the East 
 would retain within its own hands every means of pro- 
 tection when it was discovered that a spirit of internal 
 improvement had been awakened by which the interests 
 and passions of men were to be more aroused, than 
 from any cause which had ever been in operation 
 among us, and that to supply its demands would call 
 forth exactions, mainly too for the benefit of the "West, 
 which had no parallel in our annals. When the East 
 consented to come into this Convention, it was only on 
 the terms that population and taxes should be combined 
 in the choice of its members, and though it receded 
 from the majority of twenty-three, which by the ex- 
 isting constitution it has in the House of Delegates, 
 and to which on the clearest pi inciple it had a right on 
 this floor, to a sectional majority of only seventeen, 
 that was a concession made without any surrender of 
 her long cherished doctrine, that property has a right 
 to protection through representation , and we accordingly 
 set, upon this floor on a basis composed of people and 
 taxes equally. The East, therefore, is resting on a 
 principle as old as 1670 — modified, it is true, to suit the 
 altered condition of the country — varying as the danger 
 to proprietary rights has varied, and with the view of 
 securing them more effectually; but the principle all 
 the time has been the same — defended whenever as- 
 sailed — clung to through each change of government, 
 and all the alterations of our fortunes. It is a new 
 doctrine that mere numbers are to possess the power of 
 this government. It is for those who assert it to ad- 
 duce reasons in its support, and strong, overwhelming 
 must the reasons be, which can induce considerate men 
 to disregard the teachings of a lengthened experience 
 and the wise counsels of our ancestors, who by imbed- 
 ing the principle for which 1 contend in the organic 
 law did more to secure to themselves and their posterity, 
 that order, quietness, morality at home, and honor 
 abroad, which have so much distinguished this ancient 
 Commonwealth, than by any other of its provisions. 
 Almost every gentleman who has spokeri on the other 
 side of this question, has sought to find a reason for 
 this great change in the bill of rights, and three sec- 
 tions in that almost sacred instrument have been in- 
 voked in aid of their views. I will proceed to bestovf 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 a few remarks on each one of them in its order. The 
 first clause declares "that all men are by nature equally 
 free and independant, and have certain inherent rights, 
 of which when they enter into a state of society, they 
 cannot by any compact, deprive or divest theirposterity, 
 namely : the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the 
 means of acquiring and possessing property, and pur- 
 suing and obtaining happiness and safety.' ' Before this 
 clause can be of any service to the argument, it must 
 be shown that it declares all men by nature are entitled 
 to equal political power, that is the kind of power now 
 in contest. Hut it is manifest that the natural rights of 
 man are alone the subject of that clause, for political 
 rights are the creatures of government. They suppose 
 the state of nature put off, and a state of society taken 
 on, and it would be absurd to say that a man in a state 
 of nature has rights which grow entirely out of society. 
 The rights as alluded to, as possessed in the natural 
 state, are carried into society it is true, and are de- 
 clared to be inherent rights when so carried, but this 
 may be and is the case without their assuming the char- 
 acter of political rights — in society, they are civil rights 
 merely, They are such rights as those to whom the 
 political power is delegated, ought not, and by the bill 
 of rights cannot impair, they take the governmental 
 authority upon the trust that they will not diminish or 
 weaken them, but they are still mere civil rights. In 
 the natural state, if the mind can conceive a condition 
 in which there was no government of any kind, the 
 defence of these rights depends on such uncertain and 
 precarious means as in that condition man may be sup- 
 posed to possess when they are brought into society, a 
 new sanction and protection is given them, through the 
 power of the government to shield them from the ef- 
 fect of force, or the finesse of fraud, but they are 
 still civil and not political rights. If it had been the 
 design of him who penned, and of those who sanctioned 
 that masterly compendium of civil and political rights, 
 to assert that all men are by nature entitled to equal po- 
 litical power, would they not have used terms expres- 
 sive of such purpose, so plainly designated as to defy 
 cavil or doubt? Would they have employed terms, 
 not only dubious in their import, but leading the. mind 
 to do violence to them before they could be made to 
 convey the idea attributed to them? The rights enumer- 
 ated are of the civil kind entirely, viz : the enjoyment 
 of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and pos- 
 sessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness 
 and safety. And the instrument goes on to designate 
 the means of securing them, and that is not by giving 
 to the persons entitled to them any political power, but 
 by declaring — that those to whom political power is 
 given — the free-holders of that day and the present vo- 
 ters now — shall so exercise the powers delegated, 
 as not to impair those rights. The intention of the in- 
 strument is to warn and perpetually notify the active 
 managers of the government, to wit : the voters, that 
 they are to exert their powers in such a manner as not 
 to destroy these rights. The manner in which they are 
 to be exercised, in order to protect these rights, is de- 
 signated, for it will be found that if an adherance be 
 had to the several classes in the bill of rights, after- 
 wards enumerated, all the rights mentioned in the first 
 clause, will be protected — as the provision respecting 
 the right of the party accused to demand the cause of 
 accusation — to be confronted with his accusers — to call 
 for evidence in his favor — the right of trial by his peers 
 — the prohibition of the demand of excessive bail — of 
 general warrants — the jury trials in cases of property — 
 the freedom of the press — and the freedom of religious 
 opinions — should these rights be violated, by those to 
 whom the administration of the government is confided, 
 there is no political power vested in the owners of their 
 rights, to redress the wrong, unless they are allowed 
 the right to vote, but they are thrown upon these powers 
 of vindication, whatever they may be, which man pos- 
 sesses above and beyond all government. This re- 
 dress is not under but in opposition to government, a 
 redress, which so far from being guarantied to them, by 
 
 any agency in government, supposes and demands an 
 overthrow of government. If infracted, what political 
 power does the bill of rights confer on them for a reme- 
 dy, if they have not the elective franchise? In what 
 clause may it be found? Women, children, nay idiots 
 are entitled to the enjoyment of the rights designated in 
 this clause of the bill, as fully as all others, and by the 
 argument of my opponents, they would be entitled to 
 an exercise power in the government. But why- 
 waste our time in a further investigation of this 
 clause, when the very persons who ordained it, gave a 
 practical and conclusive commentary on it, in the con- 
 stitution of '76, made at the same time, and of which 
 it was indeed a part, and by which none but free-hold- 
 ers constituting but a small fraction of the people, 
 were invested with any political power whatever. 
 What a glaring contradiction would these wise men 
 have furnished, between their precept and their prac- 
 tical application, had the meaning of the clause under 
 consideration, been such as those contend for, who ad- 
 vocate suffrage basis ? The next clause, which has been 
 resorted to in support of the suffrage basis, is the second, 
 wherein it is declared that " all power is vested in, and 
 consequently derived from the people ; that magistrates 
 are their trustees and servants and at all times amena- 
 ble to them." There is an admirable symmetry pre- 
 vading this entire instrument. In the first clause we 
 find the civil rights of the citizen enumerated, in other 
 parts the manner of respecting and guarding them ; in 
 the second, a declaration of rights, as between magis- 
 trates and the people, who bestowed their powers upon 
 them. In others will be found a recital of rights, a& 
 between the people themselves. The whole, forming a 
 collection of natural, civil and political rights. In the 
 clause which we are now considering in the apprehen- 
 sion that magistrates might consider themselves entitled 
 to power beyond or without a grant of it from the 
 people, to keep them reminded that they have no in- 
 herent authority, for the purpose of restraining them, 
 this declaration is made " all power is vested in, and 
 consequently derived from the people. " It is not thence 
 affirmed, that all men are entitled to equal political 
 power, this was not the inference intended to be drawn 
 from it — but " that magistrates are their trustees and 
 servants and at all times amenable to them." It was to 
 lay the foundation for asserting this truth, that the 
 declaration was made. The latter part of the third 
 clause is next quoted, in vindication of the suffrage 
 basis ; in it it is asserted that "a majority of the com- 
 munity hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasi- 
 ble right to reform, alter or abolish it, (the government) 
 in such a manner as shall be judged most conducive to 
 the public weal." It is assumed that a majority of the 
 people, now demand the suffrage basis and that under 
 the clause which I have quoted, it ought to be adopted 
 by this Convention. What community was intended by 
 this clause, a majority of whom has aright "to reform, 
 alter or abolish " the existing constitution ? Is it a ma- 
 jority of the entire people, as well those without, as 
 those within the present body politic ? Is it a majority 
 of all the white inhabitants of the State, as well those 
 who have, as those who have not the right to vote ? or 
 is it a majority, of the political community, as organiz- 
 ed, ascertained and qualified by the present constitution 
 — a majority of the existing voters, with the political 
 weight attached to their votes, as it has been fixed by 
 the constitution? Upon a proper solution of these ques- 
 tions, will depend the true construction of the clause 
 now under consideration. Nothing is clearer to my 
 mind than that the majority of the community intend- 
 ed by the bill of rights, is a majority of the present 
 voters with such weight attached to their votes, as the 
 constitution annexes tothese votes. So that a numerical 
 majority of the voters may not be a majority of the 
 community. The majority of the community has been 
 arranged by the constitution, its chief office is, first to 
 designate the persons who make the community, then to 
 decide what shall compose a majority of that com- 
 munity, then what that majority may do or shall for- 
 
430 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 bear to do, and lastly the means of accomplishing the 
 ends intended. The constitution has designated the 
 persons entitle to vote ; it has given to those residing 
 on the tide, no matter how small their number, thirty- 
 seven delegates in the lower house of the General As- 
 sembly — forty-two to Piedmont — twenty-five to the Val- 
 ley, and thirty-one to the trans-mountain country. The 
 census shows a majority of near ten thousand voters, 
 under the present constitution in the West and valley, 
 over the Eastern section of the State, but the two 
 former are by that constitution entitled to fifty-six, and 
 the Eastern region to seventy -nine representative in the 
 House of Delegates, the latter section with a minority 
 of voters, having a majority of delegates of twenty- 
 three. All our laws since 1830, were enacted on this 
 basis, except that until the retrocession of Alexandria 
 the majority was twenty-two. 
 
 It would be difficult to conceive how all the powers 
 of legislation could be exercised alone by an assembly 
 constituted as I have stated ours to be, how a law passed 
 by a legislature, organized on any other principle would 
 under the constitution be void, and how a legislature so 
 constituted, could alone pass any bill for the purpose of 
 ^altering, reforming, or abolishing the constitution," 
 and yet such a legislature does not represent the "com- 
 munity," and a majority of that legislature does not 
 represent a ''majority of the community." Indeed, it 
 was decided in the last convention, that a majority of 
 the community should not consist of a majority of mere 
 numbers, this was then the great matter in contest be- 
 tween the two sections, and the result of that contest 
 was, that a majority should consist of voters, estimated 
 according to the scale, which I have cited from the con- 
 stitution. What purpose would the establishment of 
 that scale have subserved if a majority of mere num- 
 bers could at any time have called a convention and re- 
 pealed the constitution, and along with it the scale of 
 influence which it had established for the votes in the 
 different sections of the State ? To what end, deny that 
 numbers alone should wield the powers of the govern- 
 ment, and yet intend that the same numbers could amend 
 and obliterate the constitution, and with it all the re- 
 straints which it had imposed upon them ? The com- 
 munity, meant by the authors of the bill of rights, is 
 the existing political community, be it composed as it 
 
 may. The community which tfiey established under it 
 was the body of the free-holders, each of whose votes 
 had the same weight throughout tho State. The com- 
 munity which has since been established, is the present 
 body of voters, but with very unequal weight attached 
 to their votes, and to alter either by increasing or di- 
 minishing the weight of these votes, is as essentially to 
 change the character of that community as to exclude 
 any having a right to vote, or to admit any not now pos- 
 sessed of that right. If these sectional discriminations 
 should be disregarded, and each vote through the State 
 be allowed the same weight with any other vote 5 then a 
 majority of voters casting such votes, would not be a 
 majority of that community which the constitution has 
 erected. The constitution, as I have already remarked, 
 designates the community, and it has done so in this 
 commonwealth, by declaring who shall vote, and the 
 effect of the vote, so arranging them in order to pro- 
 tect property, that they shall depend not merely on 
 the numbers cast, but on their weight. Can it be sup- 
 posed that the authors of the bill of rights in ascertain- 
 ing who the community was, in which existed the im- 
 portant rights which they designed to assert for them, 
 should have omitted so large a class as the non-voters, 
 and have prescribed no means by which, under the con- 
 stitution, they could act or speak but through the voters ? 
 Would not some place in the body politic have been 
 assigned them? — some facilities afforded them for as- 
 serting their rights ? — some plan of organization, with- 
 out throwing them on the boisterous and rugged and 
 bioody right of revolution? The uniform sanction of 
 the people has been extended to this view of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 The freeholders in 1776, as the recognised community 
 
 framed our first constitution, they framed the present 
 one. Their successors, the present voters, called this 
 Convention, and each one of these acts has been sanc- 
 tioned ; the first by acquiescence, and the two last by 
 direct votes of the people. Indeed, not only is the 
 community such as I have described it to be, but in 
 truth and upon principle, that community in calling this 
 Convention should have observed all the sectional dis- 
 criminations, in the weight of votes in the several parts 
 of the commonwealth, as designated in the constitu- 
 tion, and the majority of the East on this floor should 
 have been twenty-three, instead of seventeen. By what 
 process of reasoning it was that the conclusion was 
 arrived at, that the constitutional community was one 
 thing for passing all laws, but that calling a Convention 
 to change the constitution, and quite a different thing 
 for that. How, in altering this government, it is not 
 the same community as in administering that govern- 
 ment, I have never been able to discover. My friends 
 from the West, however, cannot complain that the 
 East, in the framing of the bill which called us together, 
 has abated much of the strength to which she was en- 
 titled. The East, containing a majority of the political 
 community, it is for them to "reform, alter, or abolish" 
 the " constitution," in such manner as may, in their 
 opinion, be most " conducive " to the public weal 
 though there may be a numerical majority in the West, 
 who may be dissatisfied with such alterations. 
 
 Before leaving this branch of the subject, permit me 
 to remark on a proposition somewhat tauntingly sub- 
 mitted to the Eastern members by the gentleman from 
 Loudoun, (Mr. White.) He asks why it is that we do 
 not submit two constitutions to the people well as to 
 the present voters, as to those who are to be admitted 
 alike in all things, but the basis of representation, then 
 to be on the suffrage basis, the other on the mixed basis, 
 and abide the selection of the majority. I cannot do it 
 for several reasons : one is, that I represent in part a 
 district utterly opposed to the suffrage basis, and I could 
 not, without infidelity to it, do anything which might 
 tend to promote it. Were I a representative of the 
 whole State, elected by general ticket, and thus deputed 
 to carry out the will of a majority of the people of the 
 State, and 1 believed that the majority desired such a 
 proposition, I should consider myself bound to give 
 effect to it ; another reason with me is derived from an 
 application of the views, 1 have already taken, as to the 
 political community, to the proposition of the member 
 from Loudoun. According to my ideas of that com- 
 munity, there is a majority of it on this floor in favor 
 of the substitute of my friend from Fauquier, (Mr. 
 Scott, ) myself among the rest. I have already at- 
 tempted to demonstrate that the majority on the mixed 
 which was substituted for the basis fixed by the consti- 
 tution, has the right in this Convention to make what 
 changes they please ; strictly speaking, the new consti- 
 tution should be submitted to the present voters alone 
 for then approval or rejection, whose votes on the ques- 
 tion should tell precisely as they are represented on. 
 this floor, and on its ratification by them, it would be 
 left to the new voters to accept the powers conferred on 
 them, by claiming or refusing to exercise them as they 
 might think best. This would result in the majority of 
 the community, making the change as the .bill of rights 
 intended them to do. It is proposed, however, instead 
 of adopting this cumbrous mode of ratifying the consti- 
 tution, which may result from our labors, to submit it 
 to the present voters, and such as we may admit under 
 the new government jointly. But in doing so, the pre- 
 sent voters have a right to insist on the precise weight 
 of the vote which they now possess, and this can only 
 be secured to them by offering a constitution made by 
 them while acting in a body, in which that weight is 
 fully felt, and refusing to offer any other. Their safe- 
 guard is in their right to propose, and in the necessity 
 in which the voters on the question of ratification are 
 placed, of merely receiving or rejecting what may be 
 proposed to them. It would be placing the enure ques- 
 tion of basis in the hands of those who contend for the 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 49; 
 
 They are addressed for the purpose of convincing them. 
 They are the men to be convinced in the first place, 
 and duty as well as courtesy requires that they should 
 listen to those speeches. We are presumed to be here 
 listening to them, and my opinion is, that that duty will 
 be fully performed if we continue to sit from 10 until 
 4 o'clock. Many of us live on the outskirts of the 
 city, and in bad weather.it will be extremely incon- 
 venient for us to come here at night ; while, if we meet 
 at an early hour in the morning, we can sit until we do 
 such an amount of work as the people may think we 
 are required to do. These are briefly the reasons, why 
 I am utterly opposed to these evening sessions. I do 
 riot believe that we shall get over twenty or thirty — 
 certainly not a quorum — present, if we shall hold 
 them. 1 am not one of those who believe that it is 
 enough for the chairman to be in his seat, and the sec- 
 retary to be at the desk, with no other person in attend- 
 ance, when a gentleman desires to speak. 
 
 Mr, ANDERSON. I am satisfied from experience 
 that the Convention is not willing to sit more than four 
 hours at a time. We have tried and have ascertained 
 it. We have met at 10 o'clock, and have invariably 
 adjourned about 2 o'clock. If the Convention was 
 willing to sit until three, or half past three, I should 
 not press an evening session, but I find that it is im- 
 possible to induce gentlemen to sit more than four 
 hours. Indeed, many cannot with comfort sit longer. 
 I do not wish to obtrude my opinions upon the wishes 
 of gentlemen so as to put them to any great incon- 
 venience. I am willing to sit here and listen to all 
 such speeches as I think will be of service to me. But 
 when I think a speech is not very instructive, I am not 
 bound to listen to it, and I can recreate myself by walk- 
 ing round while the speech is being delivered. I do 
 not intend to treat a gentlemen with discourtesy, if I 
 do not listen to his speech. No gentleman, especially 
 If he is making a four or six hour speech, has a right to 
 think so. I have no disposition to curtail or restrict 
 debate in any form, I am willing to give every gentle- 
 man who desires it a fair hearing. But we must re- 
 member that we have to expect at least forty more 
 speeches on this basis question, and th&t if we get no 
 more than one speech a day, it will occupy us for forty 
 days longer. If we hold an evening session, we may 
 have two speeches in a day, and thus save twenty days. 
 I am willing to sit here as long as I can hope that the 
 Convention will do any thing for the relief of the people, 
 and as long as I can hope that we shall adopt a consti- 
 tution acceptable to the people. I do not believe the 
 people expect us to sit here as long as some gentlemen 
 think. If we are to sit here for six, nine or twelve 
 months } as some gentlemen seem to suppose, we shall 
 make ourselves a reproach and a by-word throughout 
 the State. I think we ought to do the business of the 
 people and go home. We can do it in a short time as 
 well, and probably better than in a long time. If we 
 are to have this interminable debate, I trust the Con- 
 vention will agree to have evening sessions. 
 
 1 believe it would suit the convenience of a large ma- 
 jority to meet at 4 o'clock, and shall, therefore, while 
 I am not particular myself, vote for that hour on that 
 account. 
 
 M r . LYONS. I have heard many strange things du- 
 ring the session of this Convention ; but I do not think 
 I have heard any thing so strange as the very remarka- 
 ble commentary upon me, made by my friend from Ac- 
 comac. Certainly if! had heard that commentary and did 
 «ot knew what I myself had said, 1 never should have im- 
 agined that it was a commentary upon me, or any thing 
 like me ; and least of all did I expect that he would 
 have made the intimation that 1 was likely to lose in my 
 wind, who have given out so little of it in this Conven- 
 tion in comparison with him who has discharged so 
 much of it 1 know very well — no man better — that I 
 cannot compete with him in many other higher and 
 important qualities ; but certainly I have supposed that 
 if there was any thing at this stage of our proceedings 
 in which I might hope to bear with him, it was in the 
 48 
 
 relative stock of wind that ez ch possessed. One would 
 have supposed, moreover, that I had said something 
 about the wine cup or faro table. Now, I spoke not of 
 the ©ne, and certainly did not think o0the other, for I 
 never was at a faro table in my life. I am as ignorant 
 of the mysteries of that game as my friend from Acco- 
 mac, and I did not suppose that any body was coming 
 into this Convention in the afternoon in a state of in- 
 toxication. But he knows, as every body knows, that 
 the very fact of eating a hearty meal, throws the blood 
 more into the head than in the morning, and pre-dispo- 
 ses every man, more or less, to excitement ; and the 
 very reason given on yesterday by himself, in which I 
 concur, that all desire rather to speak at night than in 
 the day, was the fact, that in the evening the circum- 
 stances and the attendance which always attaches to a 
 night meeting makes it the more exciting, and there- 
 fore, one is apt to speak more to his satisfaction. 
 
 But he told us, however, that the night was favora- 
 ble for speaking, though not for working. He told us 
 himself that which his own experience in Congress had 
 taught him, and which the newspapers now tell us of 
 the last Congress, that it ended very much indeed in a fit 
 of . intoxication — that, however, the night might do for 
 speaking, it was not the time for working. I say, there- 
 fore, and I meant to say no more at first, that my opin- 
 ion on the sub!ect had been changed by the remark 
 made by my friend from Accomac, in regard to the test 
 to w r hich our physical endurance was to be subjected, 
 and that if this was to be the case, I was for husband- 
 hg the resources I possess, and I admit they are 
 small. And in connection with the speech of the gen- 
 tleman from Kanawha, I say again, however I may or 
 may not have the sympathy of the gentleman from Ac- 
 comac, and the wonder is that I do not have it — that 
 while I may not take personal offence at what was said 
 by the gentleman from Kanawha, that in my opinion it 
 is neither wise nor prudent for us to come into this 
 hall at night to listen and reply to wholesale imputations 
 and denunciations such as were passed upon us yester- 
 day. I do not know how the gentleman from Accomac 
 may T feel them, and not the least remarkable event of 
 the session is when such an assault is made upon the 
 history and the men and the motives of the East, that 
 he who has heretofore been regarded as one of the first, 
 one of the ablest, and one of the most chivalric cham- 
 pions of the East, should now be found to tell me that 
 he has no sympathy with me: but I confess I feel 
 an onslaught on Eastern Virgirna, of that discription 
 far more than I would any onslaught on myself even. 
 My views, therefore, in regard to the expediency of an 
 evening session were changed mainly by the remark of 
 the gentleman from Accomac himself, that this ques- 
 tion was to be determined, more he thought by physical 
 endurance than by mental power, and I say r if that is 
 the case, that we had better husband this capacity for 
 endurance as much as we can, and take the thing more 
 coolly. 
 
 I say it in no unkind spirit, but more in a spirit of 
 regret and pain, that if we are the men my friend from 
 Kanawha thinks us, if our course has been marked by 
 this utter and total disregard of ail right, if we have 
 been those gross oppressors and shameless violators of 
 every thing like propriety, disregarding all the claims 
 of the West and voluntarily surrendering them to be 
 plundered by the land jobbers for gain or any other 
 cause, I have little hope that there can be a govern- 
 ment established now, which will be adapted to the 
 common wants and necessities, and secure the happi- 
 ness of a people s 3 unlike. I have no feelings that are 
 unkind to the West, and 1 have heard no gentleman 
 from the East utter that sort of denunciation of the 
 West. I have come here regarding every Western man 
 as a brother, and desiring to ask nothing of the West 
 that I would not be willing to yield were I in their po- 
 sition ; I design to do nothing in respect to the West 
 that I would not have the West do to the East in the 
 same position, and I confess, therefore, that I heard the 
 speech of the gentleman from Kanawha yesterday 
 
498 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 with pain, mortification, and regret. I do hope, there- 
 fore, we shall not come here at night for the purpose 
 of making and repelling attacks of that sort. 
 
 Mr. WISE. ^Vhy not at night as well as any other 
 time? Are the^irits any higher at night than they are 
 at any other time ? Whai elevates them ? 
 
 Mr. 1 TONS. Eating for one thing. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Eating? The viands stupify and make dull. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. Then it is worse. 
 
 Mr. WISE. And drinking even stupifies me. It was 
 in reply to my friend on the right, that I repelled the 
 imputation that we, this gray headed assembly ? could 
 not sit after dinner. 
 
 Mr. SCO G GIN. Will the gentleman allow— 
 
 Mr. WISE. Certainly, because I hope you will dis- 
 claim it. 
 
 Mr. -SCOGGIW. I certainly did not intend to cast 
 any imputation on this body or any member of it. I 
 have not said any thing about drinking or gaming, and 
 I did not even have those subjects on my mind. What 
 I intended to say was, that I believed it was generally 
 understood that men were not qualified to discharge 
 their duties as well after dinner as before. It may not 
 be from drinking, and I did not say that it was, but from 
 some cause or other we know that men do not feel as 
 well qualified to discharge the duties which they may 
 be called upon to discharge after dinner as before. 1 
 disclaim all intention of casting any imputation upon 
 the body, or any member of the body. 
 
 Mr. WISE. Then we can sit soberly after dinner, 
 and the gentlemen did not mean to say that we could not. 
 J f we can sit then we ought to sit. I put it to this 
 body, that four hours out of the twenty-four is too 
 short a time to dispose of the press and quantum of 
 matter we are called upon to dispose of here. I did 
 not say to the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. Lyons,) 
 that he was ventose. I need not have said that ; I would 
 not have said it. I said that his nag lacked wind. 1 
 said nothing personal to the gentleman from Richmond ; 
 I merely intimated to that. gentleman that there seemed 
 to be something in the considerations which he pre- 
 sented himself that evinced that he had no confidence 
 that his cause, the cause of the mixed basis, could stand 
 a long and continued drag. Not the rider, not the pro- 
 prietor, very far from it. Those who know my friend 
 from Richmond, know his substance, and whether he 
 occupies a long or a short time in the debate, they know 
 the weight of his matter. They know if he does blow, 
 that he blows like old Jiolus "with distended jaws so 
 as to belly the sails." [Laughter.] Yes, whether he 
 blows with the east wind or the west wind ; whether 
 he be blowing in the Court of Appeals (and I believe 
 if he has not been blowing here of late he has been 
 blowing there) or whether he be blowing elsewhere, 
 he can drive even the vessel and cargo of a cause 
 through the vast expanse — of the briny deep. But had 
 the gentleman been here all the time, he would have 
 found, that though I have been playing some slight zeph- 
 yrs in this house, that 1 have not made a blast here yet. 
 [Laughter.] Though I have been more often on the 
 floor, I have not begun to give him yet what I consider 
 a wind. [Renewed Laughter.] Not I. I have been 
 collecting myself for what I will try to make a gust — 
 not a tornado, for I would destroy nothing — but I desire 
 it to be what the sailors call a "blue nosed north-wester," 
 that will purify the atmosphere, and that will drive 
 away the exhalations from those south-east winds. 
 They are winds that always breed malaria, and that 
 bring upon us those miserable, little, mean, sheep-steal- 
 ing diseases, that we call agues and fevers. Why, a man 
 can hardly have one of those diseases very long, before 
 he is both disposed to drink bald-faced whiskey and to 
 steal a sheep. 
 
 Wind is a very useful element. I could give my 
 friend a very surprising commentary upon wind. We 
 could treat it in various aspects and in lights, whether 
 blowing from the North, the South, the East, or the 
 West. Wind—you can turn a mill and grind corn with 
 w ind ; you can sail i hips with wind ; and would to God 
 
 that I could blow a wind (it is an ill wind that blows- 
 nobody any good,) that would sail some ships for old 
 Virginia. I see strange things here—the strangest and 
 most opposite currents of wind, I see Richmond here 
 with a windlass, trying to haul ships all the way from 
 the mouth of James rives to City Point, and here is the 
 gentleman on my right, and another behind me, from 
 the city of Richmond, at the head of tide-water, trying 
 to pull commerce up this river from Norfolk, the natu- 
 ral point of commerce. Where is the Norfolk deputa- 
 tion ? Why, I see that delegation, instead of seeking 
 to bring ships and commerce to their own doors, with 
 a parcel of tow-boats all around the ships of com- 
 merce aiding Richmond with her windlass In bring- 
 ing commerce up here to City Point. That is a 
 strange sight, and a most unnatural sight, to me. 
 Tow-boats, scows, periaugers oyster boats, all are aiding 
 the ships of commerce to come up the James river to 
 City Point. And then I see another and a stranger sight 
 still— 1 see the gentleman from Richmond, a manufac- 
 turing and commercial point, telling us that all the 
 property back of them in the western part of the State 
 is inimical to the property of commerce, that a back 
 country property is inimical to the property, business, 
 and commerce of Richmond, whilst at the same time 
 he is turning the windlass to pull commerce, what little 
 he can get, Boston ships and New York ships, up the 
 James river. Yes, he is setting a guard to keep the 
 West back from getting to market, and he tells us that 
 there is something inimical between a back country 
 and commercial property. I would, if I could, raise a 
 wind that would scatter all this artifice of the govern- 
 mental majority, all this artifice of the Piedmontese 
 policy, as it has been exhibited heretofore in rejecting 
 all the laws of commerce and trade, and in making 
 Virginians act against themselves. I want a wind to 
 scatter that fleet of tow-boats, to blow over this wind- 
 lass, and destroy with a gust and a tornado this idea that 
 there is a conflict between the property of a back coun- 
 try and the property of a commercial point, and that 
 would set up a guard between them. I would raise a 
 powerful wind, a tornado, or a hurricane, if I could, to 
 destroy that sectional, blind, destructive, and anti-self 
 interest policy. And let me tell that gentleman that 
 this is but a specimen. He wonders why I do not sym- 
 pathize with him in the wind that he would raise — the 
 counter current of the air which he would raise in op- 
 position to that which would level mountains and 
 bring a back country to Richmond, and make her what 
 she must must be, a manufacturing town, and hence, 
 a commercial town. I have no sympathy with such 
 ideas of eastern interests, and I thank any gentleman 
 of the West, who will get up and knock the scales off 
 the eyes of the people, and make Norfolk cease to- 
 be a mere resort for fishermen. Let the truth be poured 
 out. Let us be told the truth, let us stare it boldly in 
 the face ; and instead of being offended at being told 
 the truth, let us be, before we have done with this de- 
 bate, indignant and angered even with ourselves and 
 not with our brethren for telling us the truth. Let us 
 be vexed rather with ourselves that we have not seen 
 the error and corrected it long ago. Talk all men, loud, 
 loud, without fear and without blenching, Let it reach 
 down to the ocean's wave from the mountain cave. Let 
 the chorus come from old iEolus' cave, let the winds 
 tell us, for the winds are tale-bearers. And if I can 
 be an instrument of the wind, I will be very windy, more 
 so even than the gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Lyons.) 
 I hope that God will give me the strength and ability 
 not only to blow a blast of wind, but a blast of matter. 
 There can be no very great high wind without raising 
 some solid matter in its currents. And when we come 
 to the debate, if my friends from Richmond, these gen- 
 tlemen that ought to enlighten us, these metropolitan 
 gentlemen that represent the very head and sources of 
 intelligence here, as well as the head of fashion can 
 satisfy me that I am wrong, and that nothing can be 
 done for Eastern or Western Virginia, they will find 
 no more grateful heart than mine, for the favor which 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONTENTION. 
 
 499 
 
 they will do me. But under my present lights, if 1 
 can hear nothing better from Richmond, if my friend 
 on my right, and my friend on my left, can give me no 
 better reason than they have yet, I cannot sympathize 
 with them, I Repeat, in reproaching the West for setting 
 before you the errors which to my mind are more than 
 glaring. I wish an evening session. I wish eight hours 
 in the day at least, instead of three and a half or four. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. Suppose we meet at 10 and sit until 4. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I would prefer an equal division of 
 time, and I prefer an interval of relaxation. I would 
 rather meet, as the gentleman before me suggests, at 
 ten and sit three or four hours, take my dinner and then 
 come back at four or seven, just as gentlemen please. 
 But I do require this house — seeing that we will be here 
 probably until August, I see no hope of getting from 
 here before August, and my friends need not turn up 
 the whites of their eyes, for there is no help for them 
 — should meet more than four hours a day, or we will 
 bave to adjourn to eat our Christmas dinner at home. 
 We shall be here at Christmas, if we do not sit here 
 more than three and a half or four hours a day. 
 
 Mr. MILLER. Being utterly opposed to all these 
 propositions, I rise to test this question. Whenever I 
 shall hear a motion made to increase the length of the 
 sessions, by gentlemen who are in the habit of attending 
 at ten o'clock, and of rising with the committee, then I 
 shall be prepared to receive it with more deference ; 
 but I regret to say that these motions are not always 
 made and sustained by gentlemen who have taken this 
 course. Being opposed to this motion, then and wishing 
 to put myself fairly before my own constituents, to 
 whom permit me to say, I alone feel responsible on this 
 floor, I desire to say that I am in favor of meeting at 10 
 o'clock, and setting until 4, if it be necessary, but I am 
 opposed to all night sessions. From long experience I 
 am satisfied, that instead of having forty speeches, we 
 will have not only forty speeches, but a repetition of 
 the speeches which we have already heard. If we 
 come here in the evening, I am satisfied that it will not 
 cconimize time or advance the business of the Conven- 
 tion ; and, therefore, with a view of testing this ques- 
 tion, I move its indefinite postponement, and I call the 
 yeas and nays upon the motion. We have already ex- 
 pended an hour and a half upon this subject, and how 
 many hours we have previously expended in the same 
 way, I do not now remember. II I fail in this motion, 
 I shall then be able to determine whether I am in favor 
 of an afternoon or of an evening session. But with a 
 view of testing the question, whether we shall have an 
 evening session at all, I call upon all who are opposed 
 to this proceeding to sustain me in this motion, and for 
 the views I have stated. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I desire briefly to explain the vote 
 I shall give. I am distinctly in favor of this body re- 
 maining in session longer than we have done heretofore. 
 I beg leave, however, to call the attention of the Con- 
 vention to this fact. We saton Monday until 3 o'clock; 
 on Tuesday until two ; on Wednesday until two ; on 
 Thursday until two ; and the committee rose on yester- 
 day at half past one. Although we have met at ten 
 o'clock, we have lost at least four hours this week of 
 the time which, by resolution of this body, we have 
 solemnly decided to appropriate to the public service. 
 I am in favor then of longer sessions, but 1 am inclined 
 to believe, from the experience of our sessions thus far, 
 that when we have not more than half of the body here 
 from ten until two, that if we meet in the evening, we 
 shall, probably, not have twenty members present. I 
 purpose to vote for the indefinite postponement of this 
 resolution, and afterwards to endeavor to*carry a res- 
 olution through, making it the standing order of this 
 House that the committee shall not rise until 4 o'clock, 
 and in that way, I think, I shall effect the object I have 
 at heart, in common with the gentleman from Accomac, 
 better than if we should determine to hold evening ses- 
 sions. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I rise merely to state one fact, and 
 
 that is derived from the experience of the Convention 
 of 1829 and 1830. In that Convention, they had as many 
 speaking men as in this, and they met on the first day 
 at 12 o'clock ; and for several days afterwards at 2 
 o'clock, and from the 27th of October regularly until 
 the last day of the session at 11 o'clock ; yet they com- 
 pleted their labors within three months and ten days. 
 Now, 1 will add, that my own experience in the legis- 
 lature has been that, with the single exception of read- 
 ing a number of bills, the evening sessions have always 
 delayed the business of that body. And 1 believe in my 
 soul that it will delay the business of this body, if we 
 resort to them. We have already had several calls of 
 the House at 10 and 11 o'clock, and there will be more 
 of such calls, if we are to have evening sessions. But 
 there seems to prevail an idea here that members are 
 justified in leaving the hall when speeches are going on, 
 and that they are not required to be here. Yet, by the 
 spirit of our rules, when it is evident to your eyes, at 
 any time, that there is no quorum present, it is your 
 duty to arrest the proceedings and notify the Conven- 
 tion of that fact. 1 utterly deny the assumption that 
 we are not bound as much to remain here while speeches 
 are being made as at any other time. We are not pre- 
 sumed to understand every proposition which may arise. 
 I come here to get light and information from others. 
 I want to get all the information I can ; but I confess 
 that I am not willing to sit seven hours a day until, as 
 my friend from Accomac supposed, August next. I 
 do not expect to open my mouth on this basis question 
 at all. But 1 am willing to listen to the speeches of 
 others to acquire all the light I can. I believe these 
 evening sessions will produce delay, and if not delay, 
 that they will not tend to advance the character or the 
 business of the body. The legislature, it must be re- 
 membered, pass acts which can be repealed at the suc- 
 ceeding session ; but we are engaged in forming a con- 
 stitution for the present generation and those who come 
 after us. Let patience, attention, and dignity and order 
 mark our deliberations, and I am sure that the patience 
 of this body will not endure more than to sit here from 
 10 until 3 or 4. I shall, therefore, vote for this motion 
 for indefinite postponement, because, in so doing, I be- 
 lieve I shall be promoting the harmony and the dis- 
 patch of the business of this Convention. But if it be 
 voted down, then I am inclined to think I shall prefer a 
 night session to coming here at 4 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I rise simply for the purpose of 
 stating that my experience in the legislature has brought 
 my mind to an exactly opposite conclusion from that of 
 the gentleman who has just taken his seat. In my 
 opinion, evening sessions advance the business of the 
 legislative body. And I appeal to every gentleman 
 who has served in that body for the last six or seven 
 years, if this is not true. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Will the gentleman allow me to 
 correct him. I said expressly that it advanced the 
 business of the House so far as the reading of bilk is 
 concerned, but not in the way of speaking. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. It advances the business of the 
 ordinary character, and also the speaking. It is easy 
 to demonstrate that if we hold evening sessions we 
 must get through with this discussion in less time than 
 if we do not. I take it for granted that gentlemen are 
 to speak here, and will speak a certain number of hours, 
 and that whether it be morning or evening, the speech 
 will be delivered, and, therefore, if we sit seven hours 
 a day, more speeches can be made in a day than if we 
 sit four hours. I am willing, if it will suit the conve- 
 nience of the Convention, to sit from 10 until 4 o'clock ; 
 but I am satisfied— and every gentleman must concur in 
 the same view — that the Convention cannot be prevail- 
 ed upon to sit more than four or five hours at most at 
 one session, Being satisfied with that, I think we should 
 hold an evening session ; and the only question with me 
 is whether we shall meet at four or seven o'clock. For 
 the Convention there is this other question, whether we 
 shall have one or two speeches a day. As we have 
 
500 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 gone on, we have not had more than one a day on an 
 average. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT of Richmond. At some future period 
 of the session of the Convention, I hope to be indulged 
 in saying something upon the question now under debate 
 in the committee of the whole. But when I make that 
 effort, there is at least one subject which I shall not 
 undertake to correct, for the malady under which he 
 seems really to be laboring is past control. The disease 
 has seized upon him with such inveteracy as to require 
 a more skillful physician than I should prove, to eradi- 
 cate it. I think that my friend from Accomac is past a 
 stage at which the doctor can help him. And while I 
 have hopes in other respects in regard to the gentleman 
 from Kanawha (Mr. Smith,) who, by the by, is my 
 patient, and although he eschewed all mixtures on yes- 
 terday [laughter] yet 1 am not very sure that a mixture 
 is not working a most powerful change upon him, and 
 bringing him over to the mixed basis. I have hope of 
 him in that respect, for I see the cure going on from 
 day to day. I have no feelings of regret for what that 
 gentleman said on yesterday. I like his boldness, his 
 fiat-footed directness, and bye and bye, he may find 
 some talk a little like his. Not to separate us [laughter] 
 but to make the friendship an enduring one. I believe 
 that at last we can settle this great question and bring 
 this good old commonwealth together — not upon your 
 basis but upon one which I believe the West, or a great 
 portion of it, will approve. So much for that, matter. 
 The real question before us is, " how can we appropriate 
 the time, we have best to subserve the interest of the pub- 
 lic who have confided their great interests to us. I am 
 prepared to come here and remain four hours, from ten 
 until two. That length of time dedicated to the public 
 service, at one sitting, with the mind fixed upon every 
 thing which may be said or done, is long enough. I am 
 growing an old man, and I feel the effects of much labor 
 from time to time ; but at no period of my life have my 
 physical or intellectual powers been so organized that I 
 could direct them entirely to mental labor for a period 
 of more than four hours at a time. Let us then take a 
 recess from two until four. Let us make the experi- 
 ment, and after we have come here and remained until 
 twilight, let us then adjourn and go home to the reflec- 
 tion and consideration of what has past during the day, 
 and not to the gaming table or to indulge in bald-face 
 whiskey. 
 
 I am sure that the constituency which sent me here, 
 will be satisfied with that. I protest against coming 
 here at night — meeting at seven and remaining here until 
 10, 11 or 12 o'clock before retiring. My habit, general- 
 ly speaking, is to be up as soon as the sun gives the 
 light, and therefore I do not desire to be forced to re- 
 main here until 11 or 12 o'clock. I put the question to 
 every man here, young or old, if from 10 until 2, and 
 from 4 until 7 — in all making a session of 7 hours — 
 would not satisfy the expectations of everybody. I 
 hope, therefore, that the motion to postpone indefinitely 
 may not now prevail, but that we shall agree to hold 
 evening sessions. We can meet at 10 o'clock, adjourn 
 at 2 and meet again at 4. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I have got but one remark to make to 
 my friend from Richmond. He says that I have got a 
 bad disease. I do not know what it is. I am not con- 
 scious of it. But I am very glad to learn that he is not 
 to be called in. If left alone, 1 may possibly die, but 
 if I fall into the hands of that doctor, I am sure to die. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion to post- 
 pone indefinitely the resolution, and the result was — 
 yeas 33, nays 65, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. John Y. Mason, (President,) Botts, 
 Byrd of Frederick, Chapman, Chilton, Cox, Edwards, 
 Fisher, Fuqua, Garland, Goode, Hopkins, Jones, Letch- 
 er, Lyons, Meredith, Miller, Petty, Price, Rives, Scott 
 of Fauquier, Seymour, Shell, Sheffey, Smith of Kana- 
 wha, Southall, Summers, Taylor, Tredway, Van Win- 
 kle, Wallace, Watts of Norfolk county and Watts of 
 Roanoke — 33. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Banks, Barbour r 
 Bird of Shenandoah, Bland, Blue, Bocock, Bowles, 
 Brown, Burgess, Camden, Caperton, Carter of Russell, 
 Carter of Loudoun, Chambers, Claiborne, Conway, Cook, x 
 Davis, Deneale, Douglas, Edmunds, Faulkner. Flood, Ful- 
 kerson, Fultz, Gaily, M. Garnett, Hall, Kftl), Hoge, Hunt- 
 er, Jacob, Johnson, Kenney, Kilgore, Knote, Leake, 
 Ligon, Lucas, McCamant, Martin of Marshall, Martin 
 of Henry, Moore, Morris, Murphy, Neeson, Pendleton, 
 Purkins, Scoggin, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Richmond 
 city, Smith of King & Queen, Smith of Jackson, Smith 
 of Greenbrier, Snodgrass, Snowden, Stephenson, Stew- 
 art of Morgan, Stuart of Patrick, Trigg, Turnbull s 
 Wingfield and Wise— 65. 
 
 So the motion was rejected. 
 
 The question then recurred upon the motion of Mr„ 
 Scoggin, to amend the amendment offered by Mr. Clai- 
 borne, by striking out 7 o'clock and inserting 4 o'clock % 
 and a count being had there were yeas 47, and nays 46. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is proper that I should state 
 that in the condition of the hall, I am not certain that I 
 counted correctly. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I call for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 The question was then taken, and the result was— 
 yeas 46, nays 45, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Banks, Bar- 
 bour, Bird of Shenandoah, Bland, Bowles, Braxton, 
 Brown, Burgess, Camden, Carter of Loudoun, Conway, 
 Cook, Davis, Douglas, Edmunds, Fulkerson, Fultz, 
 Fuqua, M. Garnett, Hall, Kilgore, Leake, Lucas, Mar- 
 tin of Marshall, Martin of Henry, Murphy, Purkins, 
 Rives, Scoggin, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Fauquier, 
 Scott of Richmond city, Shell, Sloan, Smith of Jack- 
 son, Smith of Greenbrier, Snowden, Stewart of Mor- 
 gan, Stuart of Patrick, Taylor, Turnbull, Wallace 5, 
 Watts of Roanoke and Wingfield — 46. 
 
 Nays— Messrs. John Y. Mason, (Pres't,) Blue, Bo- 
 cock, Botts, Bowden, Byrd of Frederick, Caperton, 
 Carter of Russell, Chambers, Chapman, Chilton, Clai- 
 borne, Cox, Edwards, Faulkner, Fisher, Flood, Gally r 
 Garland, Goode, Hill, Hoge, Hopkins, Hunter, Jacob, 
 Johnson, Jones, Kenney, Knote, Letcher, Ligon, Lyons, 
 McCamant, Meredith, Miller, Moore, Morris, Neeson, 
 Pendleton, Petty, Price, Seymour, Sheffey, Smith of 
 Kanawha, Smith of King & Queen, Snodgrass, South- 
 all, Stanard, Stephenson, Summers, Tredway, Trigg, 
 Van Winkle, Watts and Wise— 45. 
 
 So the Convention refused to strike out 7 and insert 
 4 o'clock. 
 
 The question then recurred on the proposition to meet 
 at 7 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. I move as a substitute for the preseat 
 resolution that it be a standing rule with the Convention 
 to meet at 10 o'clock in the morning, and remain in 
 session until 4 o'clock in the evening. Is it in order to 
 make that motion ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is not in order at this time. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE. I accept the substitute proposed; 
 by my friend from Frederick, and will withdraw my 
 proposition to meet at seven. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON. I regret that the gentleman has 
 withdrawn his proposition, for I imagine that every 
 gentleman here must be satisfied that the Convention is 
 not going to sit for the length of time proposed, with- 
 out a recess. I should like to have the vote taken on 
 the question of having an evening session, although if 
 the Convention should prefer to sit until 4 o'clock, I 
 would acquiesce with pleasure. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. The amendment of the gentle- 
 man from Fi^tnklin having been voted upon, cannot be 
 withdrawn without the vote of the Convention. 
 
 JVlr. LETCHER. I call for the ayes and noes. 
 
 Mr ANDERSON. I hope that all in favor of even- 
 ing sessions, will vote for this amendment^ reserving to 
 themselves the privilege of voting for the substitute 
 afterwards if they desire. I should like to get one or 
 the other, and 1 hope we shall not be defeated by & 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 501 
 
 union of those who oppose evening sessions ; and those 
 who desire a longer session in the day. 
 £JMr. CLAIBORNE, I prefer the amendment of the 
 gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Byrd,) to meet here at 
 10 o'clock, and to sit until 4, rather than come here at 
 7 o'clock, and 1 shall, therefore vote against my own 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I understand the movements of the gen- 
 tlemen very well. Four o'clock has been voted down 
 by those who intend to vote down 7 o'clock. I regard 
 the vote now about to be taken, as testing the question 
 whether we are to have evening sessions or not ; whether 
 we are to have fresh divided labors, four hours in the 
 morning, and three or four in the evening, or a continu- 
 ous debate six hours to exhaust us in labor. Now I 
 voted in good faith for 7 o'clock, but am willing to take 
 4, and I hope the gentlemen who voted for 7, and against 
 4, in good faith, will stick to 7 o'clock. 
 
 The yeas and nays were then ordered. 
 
 The question being then taken, there were yeas 59, 
 nays 44, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. John T. Mason, (Pres't,) Anderson, 
 Bland, Bowles, Brown, Burgess, Camden, Caperton, 
 Carlile, Carter of Russell, Carter of Loudoun, Cham- 
 bers, Conway, Cox, Cook, Flood, Floyd, Fulkerson, 
 Fultz, Gaily, M. Garnett, Hall, Hoge, Hopkins, Hunt- 
 er, Jacob, Johnson, Kenney, Kilgore, Knote, Letcher, 
 Ligon, McCamant, Martin of Marshall, Martin of Hen- 
 ry, Moore, Morris, Murphy, Neeson, Pendleton, Price, 
 Purkins, Scott of Fauquier, Shell, Smith of Kanawha, 
 Smith of King and Queen, Snodgrass, Snowden, Steven- 
 son, Summers, Taylor, Tredway, Trigg, Turnbull, Van 
 Winkle, Wingfield and Wise — 59. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Armstrong, Banks, Barbour, Blue, 
 Bocock, Botts, Bowden, Braxton, Byrd of Frederick, 
 Chapman, Chilton, Claiborne, Cox, Davis, Douglas, 
 Edwards, Fisher, Fuqua, Garland, Goode, Hill, Jones, 
 Leake, Lucas, Lyons, Meredith, Miller, Petty, Rives, 
 Scoggin, Scott of Caroline, Scott of Richmond city, 
 Seymour, ShefFey, Sloan, Smith of Jackson, Smith of 
 Greenbrier, Southall, Stanard, Stewart of Morgan, 
 Stuart of Patrick, Wallace, Watts of Norfolk county 
 and Watts of Roanoke — 44. 
 
 So the amendment to meet at 7 o'clock was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. 1 now offer the following as a substi- 
 tute to the resolution as amended : 
 
 Resolved, That it be a standing rule of the Conven- 
 tion that from and after Monday next, the sessions of 
 the Committee of the Whole, during the pending dis- 
 cussion ; shall commence at 10 o'clock in the morning 
 of each day, and continue till 4 o'clock in the evening 
 thereof. 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. What good will that resolution do ? 
 The committee can rise at any time, if I understand the 
 rule. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. Not, if there be a standing rule of 
 the Convention to prevent them. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I am opposed to that resolution for one 
 of the best reasons in the world. It cuts off the com- 
 mittee from all power of extending any courtesy to its 
 members. It prevents them from rising after a member 
 has become exhausted from speaking, and unable to 
 proceed. By commencing at 10 o'clock in the morning 
 and sitting a sufficient number of hours, and them taking 
 a recess until 7 in the evening, we cannot only extend 
 those courtesies, which may be desirable, to members 
 of the committee, but we will be fresh and better pre- 
 pared to discharge our duties. 
 
 Mr. CARLILE. I desire to inquire if a motion that 
 the committee rise would not be in order at any time 
 before 4 o'clock, the rule proposed to be adopted to 
 the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Unquestionably ; the committee 
 finding itself without a quorum, and in a condition in 
 which it could not go on with its business, can rise at 
 any time and report to the Convention, and the Con- 
 vention can decide whether it will enforce the standing 
 order or not. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. I do not concur in the idea suggested 
 by the gentleman from Accomac, that the adoption of 
 this resolution will cut off gentlemen from the means 
 of extending the usual and necessary courtesy in debate. 
 If there should be any reason why debate should be 
 suspended, all the committee would, have to do, would 
 be to determine to pass over the pending subject for the 
 present. Then there are other subjects — one now un- 
 finished before the committee, which might be taken up 
 and considered. What would prevent — according this 
 courtesy when desired, and passing over the pending 
 subjects, and taking up some other which would not in- 
 volve the same question of debate, and the same degree 
 of exertion and fatigue. 1 think, therefore, that there 
 is nothing in his idea which affords any argument against 
 the adoption of this resolution. But 1 perceive that it 
 will have the effect, in some measure, of curtailing de- 
 bate, and that is the object most desirable in this body ? 
 situated as it is, and afflicted as it is by cacoethes loquendi* 
 There is another consideration which induces me to be- 
 lieve that it will economize time, and facilitate the 
 labors of the body, and at the same time prove to the 
 country that we are striving to arrive at some result. 
 I have had some experience in the Virginia legislature^ 
 and I have seen this experiment tried, time after time, 
 of holding evening sessions, and the consequence was to 
 shorten the morning sessions, And when the evening 
 sessions came, it was productive of nothing but confu- 
 sion whenever there was debate to take place. I agree 
 with the gentleman from Powhatan (Mr. Hopkins) ikat 
 where the purpose of holding an evening session was 
 to read bills, then time was saved and progress made„ 
 But generally when debate takes place, the evening 
 sessions, so far from saving time, resulted in a loss of 
 time. I have, therefore, offered this resolution in good 
 faith — not because I desire to diminish my own labor, 
 or the number of hours that I am employed here — not 
 that I am not anxious to promote the businsss of the 
 Convention, and economize t ; me,but because 1 have all 
 these objects in view, and think the best way to pro- 
 mote them is n sone degree to repress the spirit of this 
 idle discussion which we have here. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I suggest to the gentleman from 
 Frederick, (Mr. Byrd) that he strike out from his reso- 
 lution, the words "during the pending discussion." 
 Mr. BYRD. I accept that amendment. 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I understand the President to say,, 
 that it is competent for the committee to rise, notwith- 
 standing the rule when there is no quorum. Do I un- 
 derstand the Chair as deciding that the committee can 
 only rise when there is no quorum ? 
 
 The PRESIDENT. No sir. The Chair gave the 
 opinion in answer to the inquiry that it is competent for 
 the committee to rise and present themselyes to the 
 Convention whenever a majority of the committee 
 pleases. A member may die, or the committee may be 
 without a quorum— a thousand occurrences may arise 
 which may make it advisable for the committee to rise 
 and ask the Convention to relieve them from the neces- 
 sity of the continuance of the session. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. That is precisely what I supposed v 
 and that obviates the great objection raised by my 
 friend from Accomac. If any contingency shall arise 
 which in the judgment of the committee may make it 
 necessary as an act of courtesy, to suspend their action, 
 they can do it. The object of the resolution is,, to have 
 the - desire of the Convention deliberately expressed r 
 that this committee should sit from 10 until 4 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. WISE. This proposition of the gentleman from 
 Frederick (Mr. Byrd) stands in one category or the 
 other, and I do not care which. Take either horn of 
 the dilemma you please, it is binding, and will compel 
 the committee to sit from 10 until 4 o'clock ; and then 
 it is liable to the objection which is urged, that it will- 
 cut off the ordinary courtesies of debate ; or it is not 
 binding, and will leave us precisely where we are now. 
 That is the effect of the very appropriate decision just 
 made by the President. No standing order can pi event 
 the committee from rising, or a majority of the Con- 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 vention from adjourning whenever they please, and the 
 consequence will be that, if we adopt this resolution, 
 you leave us precisely where we are now, continuing 
 in session to from three to four hours in a day. Let us 
 now determine this question of an evening session, for 
 it is one of work or no work. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. I rise because I feel that an explana- 
 tion is due to the Convention. In using the terms idle 
 and endless discussion, I did not refer to the discussion 
 on the basis. That is an important subject which ought 
 to be fully discussed. But I referred to the disposition 
 to discuss every question, whether important or unim- 
 portant. In reply to the new ground of objection taken 
 by the gentleman from Accomac, that this proposition 
 will not be binding, I ask him whether the same major- 
 ity which could rescind the operation of this resolution, 
 will not also rescind the operation of the resolution pro- 
 viding for the holding of evening sessions ? Is not the 
 argument ^against one equally as strong against the 
 other ? 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. I move to amend the resolution by in- 
 serting at the end of it, these words: "unless they 
 should adjourn at an earlier hour." [Laughter.] lam 
 entirely opposed to evening sessions, whether at 4, or 7 
 o'clock. My impression is, that the members of this 
 body who come here at 10 o'clock, and devote 4 or 5 
 hours of the day assiduously to the labors of the Con- 
 vention, will not find their minds in a situation to justify 
 their return here just after they have eaten their meals, 
 to engage upon the same subject again. This looks to 
 me as if there was a good deal of "Runcombe"in it. I 
 am altogether opposed to tying up this Convention by any 
 fixed rule, to do that which will be found inconvenient or 
 disagreeable to the Convention. I am in favor of leav- 
 ing this Convention free to act from day to day, as in 
 their judgment at the time the question is propounded, 
 they shall think proper, and as their own convenience! 
 shall dictate. It is for that purpose I offer my amend-! 
 merit to the resolution of the gentleman from the county | 
 of Frederick (Mr. Byrd) which proposes to sit here 
 with or without business, until 4 o'clock. I am willing 
 to say we sit here until 4 o'clock, unless the Conven- 
 tion chooses to adjourn at an earlier hour. 
 
 Why, I am altogether behind the times. I came here 
 this morning with a desire and purpose of offering a 
 proposition to change the hour of meeting, from 10 to 
 II. I have no objection when you have commenced 
 the session at 10 or 11, to sit here until 3 or 4, or if cir- 
 cumstances should require it until 5 or 6. It would not 
 often happen, it might sometimes happen, that it would 
 be both agreeable and convenient to sit here until that 
 time. 
 
 But we ought cot to impose upon ourselves a fixed 
 rule from which we cannot depart. Will we not be 
 as competent on Monday, or Tuesday, Wednesday, or 
 any other day of the week, to decide, as we are now, 
 to fix the time of adjournment. I do trust that the 
 Convention, will rely somewhat upon their own discre- 
 tion from day to day, and not fix any prescribed rule by 
 which we will be forced to do what will be inconvenient, 
 disagreeable, or a useless consumption of time, not de- 
 voted to the public interest. I would prefer to lay the 
 whole upon the table, and but for the decided vote 
 given a while ago against the motion for indefinite post- 
 ponement, I would make that motion. As it is, I will 
 content myself at present with the amendment I have 
 offered. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. I call for the yeas and nays on 
 that motion. 
 
 Several MEMBERS. Oh, no! Oh, no! 
 
 Mr. LETCHER. Well, I will withdraw the call. 
 
 Mr. WISE. I will renew the call for the yeas and 
 nays, because it is really the question now whether we 
 shall or shall not have evening sessions. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 Mr. BYRD. I move to amend the amendment by 
 adding to it, "a vote of two-thirds." 
 
 Mr. BOTTS. 1 raise the question whether it is in 
 order to require a vote of two-thirds to adjourn. Is it 
 
 not a fnndamental rule of parliamentary law, that a 
 I majority can adjourn at any time they please? 
 
 The PRESID ENT. It is competent for the Conven- 
 to adopt any rule for its government which it may 
 choose. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. The day is very far advanced and 
 it will not be doing justice to the gentleman entitled to 
 the floor to-day, if this question is not decided at once. 
 
 The question was then taken on the amendment of 
 Mr. Byrd, and it was rejected. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Botts was then agreed to. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. I feel reluctant to take any course 
 that may prevent the Convention from coming to a de- 
 cision on this question at this time, but really I feel that 
 some injustice is likely to be done to my colleague who 
 is entitled to the floor to-day, unless this question shall 
 at once be disposed of, and if the vote cannot be taken 
 at once, I shall be compelled to move to lay this sub- 
 ject on the table. 
 
 Mr. BYRD, of Frederick. I merely desire to say 
 that I offered my amendment in good faith, and not with 
 any view of defeating the holding of evening sessions. 
 The effect of the amendment, however, adopted on 
 the motion of the gentleman from Henrico (Mr. Botts) 
 will, in my opinion, much impair its value, [laughter] 
 but poor as it has become in his hands, I shall vote for 
 it in preference to the proposition for which it is offered 
 as a substitute. 
 
 The question was then taken on the substitute of Mr. 
 Byrd, as amended on the motion of Mr. Botts, and 
 there were yeas 33, nays 65, as follows : 
 
 Yeas. — Messrs. Banks, Barbour, Blue, Bocock, Botts, 
 Braxton, Byrd of Frederick, Chapman, Chilton, Cox, 
 Douglas, Edwards, Fuqua, Garland, Goode, Jones, 
 Leake, Lyons, Meredith, Miller, Petty, Price, Rives, 
 Scoggin, Sheffey, Smith of Jackson, Smith of Green- 
 brier, Southall, Stanard, Stewart of Morgan, Wallace, 
 Watts of Norfolk county, Watts of Roanoke— 33. 
 
 Nays. — Messrs. John Y. Mason, (President,) Anderson, 
 Armstrong, Bland, Bowles, Brown, Camden, Caperton, 
 Carlile, Carter of Russell, Carter of Loudoun, Cham- 
 bers, Conway, Cook, Davis, Edmunds, Faulkner Flood, 
 Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz, Gaily, M. Garnett, Hall, 
 Hays, Hoge, Hopkins, Hunter, Jacob, Johnson, Ken- 
 ney, Kilgore, Knote, Letcher, Ligon, Lucas, McCa- 
 mant, Martin of Marshall, Martin of Henry, Moore, 
 Morris, Murphy, Neeson, Pendleton, PurkihS, Scott ot 
 Caroline, Scott of Fauquier, Scott of Richmond city, 
 Seymour, Shell, Sloan, Smith of Kanawha, Smith of 
 King & Queen, Snodgrass, Snowden, Stephenson, Stuart 
 of Patrick, Summers, Taylor, Tredway, Trigg, Turn- 
 bull, VanWinkle, Wingfield, Wise— 65. 
 
 So the substitute was rejected. 
 
 The question then recurred on the original resolution 
 as amended. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I ask for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered. 
 
 The question being taken, there were yeas 57, nay? 
 42, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Anderson, Bland, Bocock, Bowles, 
 Brown, Camden, Caperton, Carlile, Carter of Russell, 
 Carter of Loudoun, Chambers, Conway, Cook, Edmunds. 
 Faulkner, Flood, Floyd, Fulkerson, Fultz, Gaily, M. 
 Garnett, Hall, Hays, Hill, Hoge, Hunter, Jacob, John ■ 
 son, Kenney, Kilgore, Knote, Letcher, Ligon, Lucas, 
 McCamant, Martin of Marshall, Martin of Henry, 
 Moore, Morris, Murphy, Neeson, Pendleton, Purkins, 
 Scott of Caroline, Scott of Fauquier, Shell, Smith o' 
 King & Queen, Snodgrass, Snowden, Stephenson , 
 Stuart of Patrick, Taylor, Tredway, Trigg, TurnbuH , 
 Wingfield and Wise— 57. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. John Y. Mason, (Pres't,) Armstrong, 
 Banks, Barbour, Bird of Shenandoah, Blue, Botts, 
 Braxton, Byrd of Frederick, Chapman, Chilton, Cox, 
 Davis, Douglas, Edwards, Fuqua, Garland, Goode, 
 Hopkins, Jones, Leake, Lyons, Meredith, Miller, Petty* 
 Price, Rives, Scoggin, Scott of Richmond city, Sey- 
 mour, Sheffey, Sloan, Smith of Jackson, Smith oi 
 
VIRGINIA REFORM CONVECTION. 
 
 503 
 
 Greenbrier, Southall, Stanard, Stewart of Morgan, 
 Summers, Van Winkle, Wallace, Watts of Norfolk 
 county and Watts of Roanoke — 42. 
 
 So the Convention agreed to hold evening sessions on 
 and after Monday next, commencing at 7 o'clock. 
 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 The Convention then resumed the consideration in 
 Committee of the Whole, Mr. Miller in the Chair, of 
 the report of the committee on the Basis and Apportion- 
 ment of Representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the propo 
 sition of Mr. Scott of Fauquier. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. I owe my acknowledgements to the 
 committee for the courtesy, they extended to me yes- 
 terday. During my long practice in public speaking, I 
 believe it is the first instance in which my strength has 
 failed. Had I known the feebleness of my health, 1 
 should not have taken the floor. I was not aware of 
 the physical debility under which I was laboring, and 
 feeling to-day very little improved, I shall be constrain- 
 ed to omit much of what I had intended to say. 
 
 On yesterday, from what had transpired in this house, 
 I thought the issue had been fairly made here between 
 the East and the West, and that the issue had been 
 tendered by the East, whether they were wise rulers 
 or not. 1 attempted to meet that issue, and to meet 
 it fairly with truth, and not with declamation, and I at- 
 tempted to meet it with all proper respect to my east- 
 ern friends. I announced in the beginning that I had 
 no purpose of assailing any single individual on this 
 floor. But the principles avowed and maintained by 
 them here, I meant to meet and to assail, and when 1 
 did it, I intended to do it directly, and with the force 
 of truth. 
 
 1 feel myself bound, on this occasion, to notice the 
 remarks made by my friend from Richmond, (Mr. Ly- 
 ons) this morning. I do not know that it was designed 
 to be a lecture to me. I will not charge it as intended 
 for a lecture, but I will say candidly, I was surprised 
 to hear him make the remarks which he did, in relation 
 to what I had said on yesterday. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. It never occurred to me to offer him 
 or any other gentleman, certainly, a lecture personally. 
 What I did say, was not intended in any unkind spirit 
 to him, but I said what I really thought, that I heard 
 with great regret denunciation coming from him, the 
 very last member from whom I should have expected 
 it, and that I felt very much wounded by it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. 1 owe it to myself as well as to other 
 gentlemen, to put myself right as to what I did say. 
 That gentleman entirely misunderstood my remarks. I 
 never did declare, in the language of that gentleman, 
 that the East had wilfully adopted a system of law thai 
 was to oppress the West. That was not the issue which 
 we were trying. The question was, were they wise 
 and competent rulers ? Had they administered this gov- 
 ernment wisely? I then stated, when I spoke of the 
 system of land-law, that I did not charge it to their 
 wilfulness, but I charged it to their neglect — to their 
 incompetence. I never charged it to any wilfulness in 
 any respect. My deduction, from facts and history, is 
 legitimate, and its propriety is obvious from the course 
 which eastern gentlemen have pursued in this house. 
 Now, whi'e they put me at the foot of the platform — 
 they standing at the top of it — I wish to work my way 
 up, and stand at least on as high a platform as they do, 
 and where I think we do stand, so far as practical skill 
 in legislation is concerned. I think I may safely say I 
 have vindicated my country so far as to place them, at 
 least, on as elevated a position as the East now occupy, 
 or ever did occupy. I never sought to elevate my coun- 
 try above them ; but here I stand as the representative 
 of the West, struggling to maintain my equality with 
 them, and am I to be charged with throwing firebands 
 into this house, when I come to vindicate my equality? 
 Is my voice to be stifled here ? Is the voice of the West 
 to be stifled? And are gentlemen to be astonished, if, 
 when they make the issue, and tender the glove, that 
 
 we should pick it up ? Surely not. I see no sort of 
 ground for exception to anything that I have said, un- 
 less it is untrue. Meet the truth of my arguments, and 
 the facts to which I have referred, and do not confine 
 yourselves to rebuking the spirit with which they are 
 expressed. I am very little inclined, at any time, to 
 indulge in poetry, but there is a little scrap of a song 
 that 1 have recently learned, and learned from the fair 
 lips of a lady, which I will quote for the benefit of my 
 friend from Richmond, and one of those who stand in 
 the same category with him ; 
 
 " There is none ever feared 
 That the truth should be heard 
 But those whom the truth would indict." 
 They are the parties who feared, and if the truth 
 here has indicted them, they must bear it. We from 
 the West intend to stand to the truth, and maintain the 
 truth. If it be in bad taste — if it be rude, charge it 
 to the rudeness of our mountain character. There is as 
 strong a sense of freedom in the rude sons of the mount- 
 ain as there is in the more polished sons of the East. 
 It is as pure and holy as that to be found in any coun- 
 try, and freemen will speak whenever their freedom is 
 assailed from any quarter. Gentlemen will find no 
 violence from the West, but they will find determination 
 — they will find decision — they will find that the West 
 know their rights, and that they will dare to maintain 
 them. I offer no threat, and I hope gentlemen will not 
 take the free and independent language which I use, as 
 intended for a threat to them. We mean what we say — 
 take it for threat or what you will — it is what we in- 
 tend. 
 
 I have thought it proper to notice so much of what 
 has been said this morning, although it is rather out of 
 the order of discussion which I had proposed to pursue. 
 
 When the Convention adjourned yesterday, we were 
 engaged in discussing the question of guarantees. V' e 
 were inquiring whether there was nothing due to the 
 West on that subject. And, as I stated, although it 
 may not sound kindly upon the ears of eastern gentle- 
 men, we intend to use all that is legitimate in the dis- 
 cussion of this question, and let the consequences take 
 care of themselves. We intend to defend our rights as 
 they are. Gentlemen say we have nothing to fear — 
 that they are going to administer the government fairly 
 and properly. Now, there are some questions of inter- 
 est even in this slave question, in which we are deeply 
 ccncerned, to which no gentleman has alluded. Let 
 me call the attention of the house to the state of things 
 that exists in the country now. It is apparent that the 
 West is increasing in wealth most rapidly, and that the 
 day is not very distant when that West may be the chief 
 source of State revenue. 
 
 There is another thing apparent, and that is that you 
 are overstocked with that peculiar property which you 
 are eager to sustain and cherish. Nothing in the world 
 protects you from more rapid decay by means of that 
 property, but the fact that there is a south-western out- 
 let for it, and when that outlet ceases, that property 
 will accumulate to the destruction of the owner, and, 
 therefore, some measure must be adopted to relieve the 
 East of that property. This is not an idea of my own. 
 I can quote you the" authority of divers distinguished 
 patriarchs of Virginia, who l ave entertained the same 
 opinion. I may call your attention to George Mason, 
 Thomas Jefferson, and others, who have maintained 
 that same proposition, and the fact only has to be look- 
 ed at to see its truth. The State of Texas now, alone, 
 is to be supplied with that property. When that terri- 
 tory is filled, where is there an outlet for it? And 
 when you cease to have that outlet for this property, 
 what, I ask, is to be the consequence to this country ? 
 Indeed, it is a question that statesmen in early times 
 have looked to. It is one that statesmen now may be- 
 gin to look to, and the time will come, and it may be 
 before the lapse of twenty-five years, when there will 
 be an effort even by you, to take measures to relieve 
 yourselves from that very property that will then be- 
 
504 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION. 
 
 come a burthen to you. I look, as a citizen of Virginia, 
 to the coast of Africa as the place to drain the country 
 of this superabundance of that property. The time 
 may not be distant when measures will be compulsory 
 upon the State to remove that very property for the 
 security, safety and happiness of the white population. 
 And when that time shall come, do you propose to bear 
 that burden? May not the West be required to bear 
 her portion of that burden which may be necessary to 
 relieve you ? 
 
 Why, even at this day, I believe there is a statute now 
 existing, appropriating $30,000 for that purpose. We 
 do not complain of it ; you never heard a western man 
 complain of it. It has always been the policy of west- 
 ern men to allow the East to legislate upon this subject 
 as to her may seem best. Should the time arrive when 
 thirty, fifty, or a hundred thousand dollars per annum, 
 and more, may be required to carry off this surplus 
 population from the State of Virginia, may not we with 
 all our increasing taxes, be called upon to furnish our 
 proportion of that fund ? Do we ask guarantees against 
 such almost certain taxation? The gentleman from 
 Richmond said he did not charge it upon us as a fact, 
 that we would tax the negroes and carry the money 
 to the West, but he said the power was given us to 
 do so. We might do it, and that was sufficient for him. 
 May not that argument apply here ? May you not do it ? 
 You have done it and we have not complained ; and you 
 will do it, to an infinitely greater extent than it has 
 been done, yet we do not complain. Whatever you 
 may do and may require as essential to your safety, we 
 accord to you, and never have resisted in the slightest 
 degree, and never will resist it. Again, we say, that 
 the larger portion of the public expenditure already 
 incurred, has been applied to the improvements of the 
 East. The West, which, as I undertook to show yes- 
 terday, you are bound to improve, has been neglected 
 almos't entirely. She has not received her just propor- 
 tions of the fund paid. But has the amount expended 
 been paid ? Have you raised by taxation all the money 
 that has been expended in making these improvements ? 
 You have not. Where is it ? Do you not hear it on all 
 hands spoken of as a funded debt now existing against 
 the State. You have not paid it. It is still existing, 
 and who is to pay it, and when is it to be paid? I ask 
 you when is it to be paid? When that time arrives, I 
 think it most probable that the greater portion of that 
 fund will be paid out of western pockets. And if you 
 make the improvements you now contemplate, will you 
 raise the money directly from a tax upon the people, 
 and expend it as it is raised, in making th°m ? No, you 
 borrow the money, and you mortgage the lands of the 
 West, as well as of the East, to indemnify the lender. 
 And when is that to be paid ? Why of course we will 
 get it upon as long a time as we can, and when it comes 
 to be paid, we of the West must pay our portion of that 
 debt. These facts, and the history of our growth and 
 increase in wealth and population, justify me in say- 
 ing that we will have to pay a full proportion of the ex- 
 isting debt — yet are we complaining that you are ex- 
 pending the borrowed money of the State, in improving 
 your own country? It is true you have made us a few 
 dirt roads, equal to thrse or four miles of railroad. 
 There has always been a sort of compact between the 
 log-rollers of the two sections, and our western friends 
 were satisfied with small favors. Give me $50,000 for 
 the dirt roads of the West, and we will give you $500,C0'i 
 for railroads. That has been the sort of log-rolling 
 jou have had. You complain of it ; but I tell gentle- 
 men here that, in all these log-rollings we had the big 
 end of the log. [Laughter.] The West have generally 
 been put off with a mud turnpike. The only railroad 
 that they have ever given us, is the little one from 
 Harper's Ferry; my friend from Jefferson (Mr. Lu- 
 cas) can tell us all about that. It is a little road, I be- 
 lieve, extending through from Harper's Ferry to Win- 
 chester. We are trying to get the central road through, 
 but I believe you are determined to block up the tun- 
 nel through the Blue Ridge. All this money, I say, 
 
 that is borrowed and is so expended , may have to be paid 
 by the West. Well, we do not complain of it ; it is 
 right. But do not raise the hue and cry against the 
 West, because, perchance she may borrow a little 
 money to improve the West, and pay it too. She will 
 have to pay for you, as well as for that which is ex- 
 pended in the West. Yet, gentlemen say they pay all 
 now, and will be compelled to do so for the future, and 
 that our paper guarantees are of no value. 
 
 I intend to hasten on as rapidly as I can, for I can 
 scarcely speak ; I desire, notwithstanding the state of 
 my health and the hoarseness of my voice, if practica- 
 ble, to continue my remarks. 
 
 A MEMBER. Will the gentleman give way for a 
 motion to rise ? 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Kanawha. If I were to consult my 
 own wishes, 1 would give way, but I cannot ask such 
 indulgence from this committee. It would be asking 
 too much ; they have indulged me already as far as I 
 had a right to expect, but my voice is such that I can 
 scarcely proceed. 
 
 Mr. LYONS. I would make this suggestion to the 
 gentleman. As he is not in a condition to discuss the 
 subject, I would suggest that he give way to a resolu- 
 tion that the committee rise. It has been suggested 
 that some gentleman go on, but if we are to give him a 
 real benefit, we must indulge him so far as to let him 
 keep the floor. We can adjourn till Monday morning, 
 and he may continue on the floor. I would move, there- 
 fore, with the consent of the gentleman, that the com- 
 mittee rise. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. My colleague will be perfectly willing 
 to yield the floor to any gentleman who may be prepar- 
 ed to address the committee. If there is any gentleman 
 prepared to do so, he can now take the floor, and my 
 colleague can reserve himself the privilege of com- 
 pleting his speech on Monday, or some other day. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I hope some other gentleman is pre- 
 pared to continue the discussion, either for the East or 
 West. There is a gentleman in my eye now who will 
 go on I have no doubt. 
 
 Mr. BYRD, of Frederick. It is my purpose, and my 
 desire to address the committee briefly upon the sub- 
 ject now under consideration, but not anticipating that 
 an opportunity would have been afforded me to do so to- 
 day, inasmuch as the floor was pre-occupied by a west- 
 ern gentleman, and supposing that the regular course 
 of debate, alternating between eastern and western 
 gentlemen would continue, I have not come here with 
 the requisite documents from which I intended to cite. 
 I therefore express the hope that some eastern gentle- 
 man will take the floor. It would be far more agreeable 
 to me to follow some eastern gentleman than to follow 
 immediately in the wake of a western gentleman. I 
 feel too that not having anticipated being called upon 
 to occupy the position of addiessing this house to-day, 
 I should labor under great disadvantage. I should not 
 shrink from making the effort now, were it not for the 
 circumstances to which I have referred. I hope the 
 committee will not rise yet, for it is only a little after 
 one o'clock, and it is out of the question to adjourn day 
 after day at this early hour. 
 
 The question being taken, the motion to rise was 
 agreed to. 
 
 The committee accordingly rose and reported. 
 
 PAYMENT OF AN ACCOUNT. 
 
 Mr. M. GARNETT. I am instructed by the Com- 
 mittee on Accounts, to report the following resolution, 
 although I do not myself endorse it by any means. 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention cer- 
 tify for payment the account of H. Regnault, amount- 
 ing to the sum of $342 82, for materials furnished and 
 the work done for the use of the Convention. 
 
 There was some conversation as to the propriety of 
 the account, when, 
 
 Mr. LETCHER moved the re-commitment of the 
 matter to the committee, as he was not satisfied to pay 
 the amount. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HUGH ¥. SHEFFEY, ESQ., OF AUGUSTA, 
 
 IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 
 
 THE BASIS QUESTION, 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 TUESDA Y, FEBR UAR Y 18, WEDNESDA Y, FEBR UAR Y 19, THURSDA Y, FEBR UAR Y 20. 
 
 RICHMOND, YA. : 
 PRINTED BY R. H. GALLAHER, 
 
 1S;A. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 18, 1851. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY said:— 
 
 Mr. Chairman. I confess that, so far as I am per- 
 sonally concerned, this debate is, to some extent, forced 
 upon me. I do not deny that I have given some atten- 
 tion to the great principles involved in this question, or 
 that I have investigated the facts connected with it. 
 I acknowledge, however, that the documents on which 
 I wish to rely are not, at present, at my command. 
 "Not expecting that the debate, on the part of the gen- 
 tlemen who were to begin the discussion, would be 
 concluded to-day, I did not come armed with those 
 facts to which I wish to refer. But I can make a few 
 remarks in reply to some of those made by the 
 gentleman from Greenville, (Mr. Chambliss.) That 
 gentleman and myself differ toto ccelo, in respect to the 
 great starting point of his argument — of all argument 
 on this subject ; that is, that in this great machinery 
 of government — this science in which are involved all 
 the dearest rights and privileges of men, there are no 
 principles — there is nothing to begin an argument with ; 
 that in framing the organic law we are to look to no 
 fundamental principles of government ; that our fathers 
 were all wrong in declaring certain rights to be "the 
 basis and foundation of government."' That these are 
 mere abstractions — a succession of empty abstractions 
 I have not so learned the theory of government. 
 
 There was one .principle conceded here a few days ago, 
 though all others Avere denied, by the gentleman from 
 Fauquier, ( Mr. Chilton) — one staple left on which to 
 hang the frame-work of government. It was, that all 
 power rightfully resides in the people, and that when- 
 ever it is exercised by any other than the people, it is 
 still considered their power, and legitimately derived 
 from them. Yes, sir7 it belongs to, and comes from, 
 the people. And who are the people ? The people, 
 it is said by some-, ,are a combination of sentient, intel- 
 ligent, responsible, and immortal beings, and — money. 
 [Laughter.] I am foolish enough to believe that the 
 people are a community of men, with responsibilities 
 to themselves, to each other and to God; that a free 
 people has a high and holy mission confided to them, 
 and that their destiny will be noble and exalted if they 
 faithfully observe the laws of their intellectual and 
 moral being ! The power derived from the people is 
 to be exercised for their benefit ; but the gentleman 
 from Greensville says it is to be exercised for the ben- 
 fit of men and money, and that in the declaration of 
 independence, and in our bill of rights, the rights of 
 property stand side by side with the rights of persons. 
 He says the laws are made rather to protect property 
 than persons — that the courts of justice and the exec- 
 utive are established rather to expound and enforce 
 laws concerning property than persons. In this argu- 
 ment lies the radical error of the gentleman : it is in 
 supposing that by our laws property is regarded as a 
 being that has a right to speak, to litigate its interests 
 in our courts, and to demand for itself the execution 
 of the laws. Property is no separate subject or source 
 of government ; the right to hold it is a mere personal 
 right, just as the right to life and liberty. One great 
 cause of this assumption of power for property origin- 
 ates, perhaps, in the distinction made by Blackstone 
 and others between the rights of persons and the rights 
 of things. All rights that appertain to men, as mem- 
 bers of a community, are personal rights, and there is 
 
 the Hghts of persons. In the convention of 1829-- '30, 
 there was an eloquent man who came from the county 
 of Northampton — I refer to Mr. Upshur — who, in a 
 speech that reflected immortal honor on his intellect — 
 immortal credit on his ingenuity — spoke of this matter 
 in such a manner as to mystify the thoughts of the 
 great men who were around him. But what did he 
 say? He admitted that property was a creature of 
 society, but argued to show that "a feeling of prop- 
 erty" led to the formation of society. If we can go 
 back to those dark periods of the past, when it may 
 be supposed man was in a state of nature, I would ask 
 what probably prompted him to cease roaming over 
 the plains, or meeting his fellows, by chance, in the 
 forest, to form a social compact? It would seem rea- 
 sonable to suppose that it was to preserve rights which 
 man understood — the value of which he realized. 
 What were they? The answer is — the right to life, 
 the right to liberty— to use his limbs and body accord- 
 ing to his pleasure. These are clearly natural rights, 
 and to preserve them intact, it would seem, men were 
 led — if* they ever were in a state of nature — to form 
 the social compact. Feeling the danger to life, with 
 regard to which there is an instinctive and innate sense 
 of apprehension, the danger to liberty — an impulsive, 
 restless love of which — a love — a passion that starts in- 
 stinctively from every human heart, men would band to- 
 gether to protect themselves against the law of force, of 
 which the gentleman spoke awhile ago — from the as- 
 saults of the strong against the weak, from attempts 
 to destroy life, to curtail liberty, and to enslave 
 the bo'dy. Self-preservation was the first impulse 
 to society ; a spontaneous impulse to protect clear- 
 ly appreciated rights-, led men to combine, that 
 those who were separately weak, and a prey to vio- 
 lence, might, by union, become strong to resist the 
 ruthless and the violent. Out of such an association 
 sprung the concession that he who should expend his 
 labor on any work should have the right to claim, and 
 the privilege of using it as his own, by separate title. 
 Prior to this, all property was held in common, as na- 
 ture gave the means of sustenance to man. This right 
 to separate property was a concession of society, al- 
 ready formed, to its individual members. How, then, 
 is property — to use the idea of Mr. Upshur — the off- 
 spring, the creature of society ? And now what is the 
 argument of the gentleman from Greenville ? (Mr. 
 Chambliss.) Why, that the creature shall become the 
 ruler of the creator — that property, instead of being 
 an interest, recognized, protected, and allowed, by the 
 consent of society, shall have power to countervail 
 that consent in respect to life and liberty— to control 
 the original purposes that brought it into being. The 
 doctrine that property ought to have power to control 
 government, cannot be said to find its origin either in 
 nature or in the original institution of society. But I 
 did not design to speak on these abstract questions. I 
 may refer to them to-morrow. My chief purpose, 
 indeed, is to address to this committee arguments 
 founded on facts. Taking the principle, which gen- 
 tlemen on the other side will concede, that if we, as a 
 people be homogenous, and possess identity of inter- 
 ests, representation should be so based as to give equal 
 power to equal numbers of voters — I wish to show 
 that we may safely and properly adopt the suffrage 
 
 no such thing as a right of property independent of \ basis. I desire to prove, by the statistics that have 
 
4 
 
 been laid before us, what will be the legitimate effect 
 of the principle that representation should be appor- 
 tioned according to the number of qualified voters. I 
 wish to satisfy my friend from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) 
 that if this principle be carried out — the principle of 
 equality, not only in regard to suffrage, but represent- 
 ation — his apprehensions of danger are wholly unfound- 
 ed ; and that if there is to be any plundering — if 
 there is to be any marauding — if there is to be any 
 foray from the mountains down on the lowlands, (as in 
 former times was the case in Scotland,) the lowlanders 
 themselves must invite the foray — must open the way 
 for the incursion. And I will endeavor to show that 
 my friend from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) has, in days 
 gone by, been heard sounding the bugle charge, at the 
 head of the mountaineers, in their rush to plunder the 
 treasury. [Laughter.] I wish, also, to intimate to 
 tide water that she has, perhaps, as much to fear from 
 the Piedmont district as from the valley and the west. 
 I wish to show that, if oppressions are anticipated, 
 they have already been inflicted, and that if tide wa- 
 ter has any right to complain of burdens on its purse , 
 those complaints must be directed against the Pied- 
 montese as well as western men. 
 
 Mr. PRICE. I would ask my friend from Augusta 
 if it would not be more agreeable to him to move that 
 the committee rise. He has stated that his documents 
 are not here 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. It would, perhaps-, be better. 
 
 On motion of Mr. PRICE, the committee rose. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 19, 1851. 
 
 MivSHEFFEY. I trust I shall be pardoned if I repeat 
 to-day some things uttered my me in the desultory re- 
 marks I submitted to the committee on yesterday. And 
 now, permitme to say, that I approach again the discus- 
 sion of the question under consideration, with unaffected 
 distrust of my own ability to cope with the momentous 
 issue it presents. It is indeed a great question, profound- 
 ly interesting to all portions of the Commonwealth ; aff- 
 ecting the hearts of the people ; and stirring in their 
 lowest depths the feelings and prejudices of our consti- 
 tuents. I tremble lest I be unable to rise tcs the summit 
 of the lofty theme. I shall be sustained, however, by 
 two considerations which, I trust, will give me power 
 to discharge my duty — the first .is, that with ail my 
 heart, I believe in the virtue of the cause and in the 
 truth of the principles I advocate ; and the second, is 
 generous freemen whom I represent. It is no new- 
 born zeal for the principle of equality which animates 
 my constituents, and I will add, it is no selfish feeling 
 that prompts them to demand for themselves and their 
 brethren of the West an equal participation in the gov- 
 ernment of the Commonwealth. The district from 
 which I came contains a white population ©f 34,309 ; a 
 slave population of 9617 ; and pays annually into the 
 treasury $ 21, 898. My constituents are no seekers af- 
 ter mere power ; they are no mendicants praying for a 
 higher rank in the sisterhood of counties. Whatever be 
 the decision of this question, their political power will 
 not be diminished. May I not be justly proud of the 
 position I am permitted to occupy, as the representa- 
 tive of a people abounding in all the elements of pros- 
 perity, and contending for a great principle with no in- 
 terest to be prompted by the result ? The gentleman 
 from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) has ventured to declare 
 that if the suffrage basis be adopted, the door now 
 closed against the plunderers of property, will be 
 thrown wide open — that the people of the West are 
 struggling for the purse-strings and not for principle — 
 and that the clamors of the West for equal representa- 
 tion vex his patience. Should property be assailed, 
 " the plunderers" will never come from the Augusta 
 district. The people of that community have interests 
 too vast at stake to tolerate a threat against the in- 
 stitution of property, much less to become its plunder- 
 ers ; they have purses too capacious and well-filled to 
 be found clutching at those of their neighbors ; but in 
 respect to the principle of equal representation, their 
 
 unceasing clamors must continue to vex the gentleman 
 from Fauquier. I have said that the devotion of my 
 constituents to this principle is no new-born feeling, 
 called into active energy by appeals to their self-inter- 
 est. If the scales of the heartless calculator were to 
 be suspended and men's interests estimated by the stand- 
 ard of dollars and cents were to be coldly weighed, it 
 might be found that our interests would bear down our 
 principles. The time has been when the people of Au- 
 gusta were urged to espouse the doctrines of the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier, and were told that it was their 
 interest to do so. Could you have witnessed the man- 
 ner in which that appeal was met, and however ably 
 pressed, indignantly rejected, you would be satisfied 
 that it were vain to renew the attempt to pervert their 
 principles in order to promote their interest. They 
 believe from the heart and with the understanding, that 
 suffrage should be uniform, and that representation 
 should be equal ; and their faith in these doctrines is 
 srrengthened by the memories of the past. They re- 
 member well the events which occurred twenty-five 
 years ago — how they, in common with the people in the 
 valley and the Piedmont district, groaned, being hesfvi- 
 ly burdened by the oppression of unequal representation 
 — how cordially the trans-Alleghany district co-opera- 
 ted with them to secure political equality, though at 
 the time to its own detriment. I need not remind you 
 that the Valley and the Piedmont district gained, whilst 
 the trans-Alleghany lost political power in the Conven- 
 tion of 1829- '30 — lost it under a stern and arbitrary ap- 
 portionment — by a constitutional provision which, like 
 the laws of the Medes and Persians, changes not. Mr, 
 Doddridge, with prophetic eye, foresaw that the time 
 might come when the Valley and the Piedmont would 
 cast off their faithful associates and turn their backs up- 
 on them. Awed, as it were, by this apprehension, how 
 eloquently did he appeal to the people of those dis- 
 tricts, to cherish, to keep alive the memory of common 
 struggles for great principles, and never to desert their 
 glorious standard. The memory of that appeal, which 
 twenty-one years ago was answered by the Valley and the 
 Piedmont with a vow of fidelity, still thrills the hearts of 
 the people of my district — its echoes still linger in our 
 beautiful valley, and I am here to redeem the plighted 
 faith of days gone by — to declare now the opinions — to 
 advocate now the principles so dear to the hearts, so 
 cordially approved by the judgments of our people 
 twenty-one years ago. I do indeed take pride in their po- 
 tion — feel proud of their consistency, and honored by 
 their confidence. And Loudoun — who, if I mistake 
 not, in 1825, called her sister counties into convention 
 at Staunton — who, at least, united in the great purpo- 
 ses of that convention, which were to secure thorough 
 reform of the old constitution in respect to suffrage and 
 representation — noble old Loudoun ! have the impres- 
 sions, the principles of the past been effaced from her 
 mind by the progress of time or by a change of circum- 
 stances? No, I believe not; and I would fain h©pe 
 that her voice, always on the side of liberty and equal- 
 ity, may yet be heard on this floor without one discord- 
 ant tone. And is it — can it be, that Albemarle, Nel- 
 son, Amherst, Bedford, Campbell and other counties in 
 the East, once keenly alive to the eloquent appeal of the 
 orator of the West, are now prepared to turn a deaf ear 
 to the cry for justice once uttered by themselves, sim- 
 ply because their cry has been answered, and they are 
 content ? 
 
 The gentleman from 'Fauquier (Mr. Scott) has de- 
 nominated the proposition we advocate as new and ex- 
 traordinary, and that this eternal clamor of the people 
 of the West for the white basis vexes his patience ; and 
 has declared that the mixed basis being the foundation 
 of the existing state of things, we must give reasons for 
 a change. I beg leave to give r a rapid sketch of the 
 history of representation in this Commonwealth ; this 
 history, I think, will establish tAvo facts — first, that the 
 people of Virginia, as a people, have never had an op- 
 portunity to vote upon and determine for themselves the 
 just principle of representation ; and second, that proper- 
 ty has never been recognized as an element in representa- 
 
5 
 
 i tion, except in the case of the bill calling this convention, 
 the precedents, so far as they go, being against such a 
 doctrine. The colonial government was established in 
 July, 1621. Two burgesses were authorized to be elect- 
 ed from each town, hundred and particular plantation 
 by the inhabitants ; afterwards they were permitted to 
 send a larger number of burgesses. In 1634 counties 
 were formed ; in 1660 each county was authorized to 
 elect two delegates, and so it continued, irrespective 
 of the wealth of the counties, through the revolution 
 and under the old constitution to the year 1830. In 
 1776 the ordinance of government was adopted — it was 
 established under the authority of an ordinary legisla- 
 tive body, and was never submitted for ratification or 
 rejection to the people. The circumstances were ur- 
 gent — the war for liberty was raging — the old govern- 
 ment was just thrown off— the reasons for that act and 
 the principles on which freemen ought to erect the 
 structure of government were announced in the bill of 
 rights — a new government was to be organized, in the 
 language of Mr. Jefferson, " for purposes of resistance 
 and temporary self-protection," and therefore the free- 
 hold suffrage which had been imposed on the colony 
 by the Kifig of Great Britain at the point of the bayo- 
 net, and the county representation were permitted to 
 remain as they were. It will be seen that property 
 representation was not thought of in 1776. There were 
 twenty-four senatorial districts named in the constitu- 
 tion — twenty east and four west of the Blue Ridge ; as 
 nearly as we can judge, this was at the time, a fair 
 apportionment of representation according to white 
 population. But in 17*30 each Eastern senator repre- 
 sented 15,726, and each Western senator' 81,898 white 
 persons ; in 1800 the numbers were 16,819 East, and 
 44,369 West; in 1810 there were 16,941 East, and 53,181 
 West; and in 1815, it was estimated that the four 
 Western senators represented two-fifths of the white 
 population of the State. These developments aroused 
 the West, and they began to vex the ears of Eastern men 
 with their clamors for equal representation. They -did 
 not at that time complain so much of inequality in the 
 house of delegates, because, as population increased, 
 new counties were formed, and each new county be- 
 came entitled to two delegates. In 1815, a bill was in- 
 troduced into the house of delegates to equalize repre- 
 sentation in the senate ; the love of power is strong in 
 man's heart — so strong that his grasp of the sceptre is 
 always reluctantly relaxed. Then, as now, the demand 
 for equal representation was regarded as a selfish cla- 
 mor for power on account of its emoluments, and not as 
 the assertion of aright to the loss of which freemen cannot 
 tamely submit. To this reluctance to give up the pow- 
 er the East had been wont to "wield, and to a certain 
 opinion given by constitutional lawyers, the bill was re- 
 jected. That opinion was, that the constitution having 
 defined the limits of the senatorial districts, the general 
 assembly c juld not alter them. This repulse created 
 profound excitement in the West, and led to the great 
 convention at Staunton in 1816. That Convention pre- 
 ferred a petition to the general assembly, praying for 
 the call of a convention to equalize representation, and 
 for other purposes. A bill was reported and passed the 
 house of delegates, which provided for the call of a con : 
 vention for three purposes : first, to enlarge the right 
 of suffrage ; second, to equalize representation on the 
 basis of the white population ; and third, to equalize the 
 land tax. This bill announced three great principles of a 
 free republican government, viz : enlarged suffrage ; 
 equality of representation, and taxation in proportion to 
 the ability to pay. The combined or mixed basis was 
 still unheard of in Virginia, although as early as 1808, it 
 had been engrafted on the constitution of South Caroli- 
 na, whose example we are now invited to follow. The 
 bill thus adopted by the house of delegates, and so fa- 
 tally dangerous to Eastern power, went to the senate and 
 was about to pass that body, when the constitutional 
 lawyers were again consulted, who, after due and care- 
 ful consideration, came to the same conclusion, at which 
 Mr. Jefferson had arrived as early as 1783 — namely, 
 
 that as the constitution itself was a creature of legisla^ 
 tive power, the same power might change the senatorial 
 districts. Accordingly, to avoid the hnminent peril of a 
 convention, a bill was prepared and passed, February, 
 1817, re- apportioning representation in the senate on the 
 basis of white population and for re-assessing the lands. 
 Mne senators were given to the West, each representing 
 23,636 white persons, and fifteen to the East, each re- 
 presenting 22,589 white persons — as near an approxi- 
 mation to justice as could have been expected. It was 
 of this act that Mr. Leigh said in 1829, "to avoid the 
 call of a convention, the bill for equalizing the represen- 
 tation in the senate on the basis of the white population 
 was in an evil hour passed; I had no share in it ; I 
 thank Heaven for all its mercies, none." I beg to know 
 of the gentleman from Fauquier, whether there is any 
 authority thus far in the history of Virginia for the 
 doctrine that property is entitled to control govern- 
 ment — that representation should be made to quadrate 
 with wealth? In the Convention of 1829-'30, although 
 there was a majority of twenty-four m<aabers frofia the 
 East, the resolution of t he legislative •oaimittee, which 
 declared that "in apportioning representatioa in the 
 house of delegates, regard should be had to white pop- 
 ulation exclusively," atone time was adopted by a vote 
 of 49 to 47, and no substitute ior the resolution asserting 
 any other principle could ue carried. The difficultly of 
 agreeing to a principle of apportionment for the senate 
 finally opened the.way for Gordon's compromise, whieh 
 has settled down upon the energies of Virginia, with an 
 unyielding arbitrary power that has chafed her people 
 to the present moment. 
 
 But the gentleman from Fauquier relies upon the call 
 of the present Convention as a sufficient justification 
 of his position, that the mixed basis is the existing 
 principle of representation, and that therefore we must 
 show reasons for a change. What was the condition 
 of things which led to the passage of the act calling 
 the Convention, and to the adoption of that act by the 
 people? The cry for reform, had for years been heard 
 in the House of Delegates. Winter after winter the 
 petitions for a Convention had been either rejected or 
 coolly passed by. At length the east began to feel the 
 burden of greviances as well as the west, and then it was 
 thought expedient to grant the prayer of the people. I 
 had the honor of preparing the original bill which was 
 reported to the House of Delegates : it proposed to sub- 
 mit to a majority of the people two questions, 1st "wheth- 
 er they would have a Convention," and 2nd, "whether 
 it should be based upon the white population or upon 
 tire white population and taxation combined. I wished to 
 tender to the freemen of Virginia a choice of principles. 
 But the original bill so truly republican in its provisions 
 was defeated, and the substitute of the gentleman from 
 Halifax. (Mr. Stovall,) which submitted to the people 
 substantially this question : "will you have a Conven- 
 tion organized as this is or none ?" was adopted. And 
 in voting for a Convention thus organized, it is alleged 
 there was freedom of choice in respect to the principle 
 on which it ought to have been organized. The body 
 politic was, as it were starving for reform — we tendered 
 to the fettered and emaciated prisoner the choice be- 
 tween starvation and a parched and wretched diet, 
 winch, if the principles of the gentleman from Fauquier 
 prevail, I fear will only serve to keep alive a feverish 
 and fretful vitality. And now, we are told that a free 
 choice was made, and the diet was relished and approved, 
 and has become the staff of political life. In replying 
 affirmatively to the question, "will you have this Con- 
 vention or none V the people acted under the impulse of 
 two common incentives to human action — discontent with 
 present ills, and an eager, and oft times, a too sanguine 
 hope of blessings in the future, which will result from 
 change. The people from the West, too, looked with 
 strong hope, almost confidence, to the constituent body in 
 eastern Virginia, to send, at least, some delegates to the 
 Convention who would advocate the cause so ably and 
 eloquently defended by Monroe, Mercer, Gordon and 
 
6 
 
 Fitzhugh in 1829; and although their hopes hate not been 
 fully realized, I am gratified in being able to say they 
 have not been wholly disappointed. 
 And now, we are here assembled to perform the most sol 
 emnly important functions freeman can delegate to repre- 
 sentatives. We are here convened to re-organize every 
 department of our government — to infuse efficiency and 
 to create responsibility in all the branches of our polity 
 — to build anew the structure of our institutions, and to 
 render the results of our labors accept able to the popu- 
 lar mind, so that it may rest contented with the organ- 
 ic law. The executive, legislative and judiciary depart- 
 ments are to be remodeled, and improved by us — the 
 county court system, and county organization — the func- 
 tions of the justices of the peace — the cause of educa- 
 tion — every power of government from that which from 
 the centre of influence at the capital, pervades the 
 whole State, down to that which comes home to the 
 people in their daily walk, , and intercourse with their 
 fellows — all these subjects of reform are entrusted to our 
 hands. And who are we ? It is said we are the repre- 
 sentatives of the people — that this body is the organ by 
 which the sovereign will of the people is to be expressed 
 in respect to all these momentous concerns. Would 
 that this were such a representative body ! But it is far 
 otherwise. What is the fact? There are seventy- 
 six delegates on this floor representing 402,771 and 
 and only fifty-nine delegates representing 494,763 white 
 persons. And why is this ? Why is it that so small a 
 minority of the people has so large a majority of power ? 
 Is the minority more exalted in virtue, in character and 
 in wisdom — has God impressed upon them the stamp of 
 superiority, that they should so wield the power of the 
 State ? Suppose a stranger were to appear in our midst 
 — one who had read our bill of rights and learned to value 
 its sacred principles — suppose him to question us concern- 
 ing the theory and practice of our government — How as- 
 tonished would he not be by the contrast ? You declare he 
 would say in your bill of rights "that all men are by nature 
 equally free and independent, and have certain inherent 
 rights, of which when they enter into a state of society 
 they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their pos- 
 terity ; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the 
 means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing 
 and obtaining happiness and safety" — Why should not 
 those who are equally free and independent and who are 
 equally entitled to those inherent rights which are to be 
 guarded by this government', who are equally interested 
 in the preservation of those rights, be equally represented 
 here ?" Our answer to the inquiry would be that all 
 the people of this commonwealth are equally free and 
 independent and equally entitled to the enjoyment of 
 life and liberty — together with the means of acquiring 
 and possessing property and of pursu ng and obtaining 
 happiness — they are all equals in right and by going into 
 society they cannot destroy that equality — but it must be 
 remembered that in 1776 the provis ; onal government was 
 so organized as in the course of years to concentrate pow- 
 er in the hands of the minority — that the minority pos 
 sesses at present a greater amount of property than the 
 majority — that this property is here represented as well 
 as persons, and that is the reason for this apparent, not ac- 
 tual inequality — in a word that the interests of society are 
 equally represented. Again, the perplexed stranger in- 
 quires "what means the clause of your bill of rights 
 which declares 'that all power is vested in and conse- 
 quently derived from the people — that magistrates are 
 their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to 
 them ?" Our answer would be, "that in-that clause, the 
 phrase 'the people,' two words which foolish persons have 
 much misunderstood, does not mean the persons who hold 
 the sovereignty of the State, but an association contrived 
 in the laboratory of political metaphysics, compounded 
 of men and their interests in money; and that the re- 
 sponsibility of public servants is to this compound cor- 
 poration and not "to the people" as ordinary persons un- 
 derstand the term — and this is proven by the use of the 
 word 'trustee' in the latter clause ; because, as the gentle- 
 
 man from Greensville, (Mr. Chambliss,) has said, "why use 
 the word 'trustee' unless there was property to be man- 
 aged- — funds to be accounted for ?" 
 
 But the stranger still filled " with obstinate question- 
 ings" referring to another clause in the bill of 
 rights that " a majority of the community hath an in- 
 dubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, 
 alter, or abolish," their form of government, asks, ho 
 does it happen that a "majority of the community" are 
 not here by their representatives to perform this highest 
 work of sovereignty ? Our answer would be "that out of 
 897,534, the whole white population of the State, 402,- 
 771 do constitute a large "majority of the community," 
 so large as to entitle them to 76 out of 135 delegates on 
 this floor ; and the reason of this is that the word " com- 
 munity ' ' does not mean " people " just as " people ' ' does 
 not mean an aggregate of "persons ;"but in truth means 
 " interests," so that " a majority of the community" 
 means " a majority of the interests of society." " You 
 submitted then, I suppose," remarks the puzzled 
 stranger, "the question of the call of the Convention to 
 be decided by 5 the majority of the interests of society, 5 
 scaling the votes of men so as to make their value cor- 
 respond with the combined ratio of men and money?" 
 By no means, is the reply. That question was submit- 
 ted to the sovereign people, and if /there had been a ma- 
 jority of one against the call, although all the monied 
 interests of society had been in its favor this Con ven 
 tion would never have been organized. It is presumed, 
 however, that as " the majority of interests" is to con- 
 trol the government, and as the new Constitution is Vital- 
 ly to affect all the interests in the Commonwealth, you 
 will hardly submit to a mere majority of numbers the 
 decision of a question so momentous as the ratification 
 of the organic law ; you will scale the votes of the peo- 
 ple so that if the entire vote be regarded as 150, that of 
 the tidewater district, containing 189,314 white per- 
 sons, shall be counted as 41, that of the Piedmont dis- 
 trict, with 213,457 white persons, shall be counted as 41, 
 that of the valley, with 163,177 white persons, shall be 
 counted as 27, and that of the trans-Alleghany district, 
 with 331,586 white persons, shall be counted as 41 ; so 
 that, in any event, the Constitution may be rejected if 
 " the interests of society" require it. Is this the course 
 to be pursued ? By no means, is the reply. It is pro- 
 posed to submit this vital question also to the majority 
 of numbers, and not to "the majority of interests." 
 To such contradictions are gentlemen driven who con- 
 tend that " a majority of interests" should govern soci- 
 ety. They declare that less than a majority of those, 
 who under the present constitution are entitled to ex- 
 ercise the right of suffrage, cannot authorize any change 
 in the existing form of government, and that less than 
 a majority of those who are hereafter as voters to pos- 
 sess and exercise the sovereign power of the Common- 
 wealth, cannot accept the new Constitution, so as to 
 make it binding on the community ; and. furthermore, 
 that if accepted and ratified even by a small majority, 
 and against the voice of " the majority of interests," 
 the Constitution will at once beceme the supreme law 
 of the land, subject only to the constitution and laws of 
 he United States ; and yet they argue that " a majori- 
 y of the community" in the bill of rights means "a 
 majority of the interests of society," and that by anal- 
 ogy with this principle as interpreted and explained by 
 themselves they are, justified in providing in the legisla- 
 tive department of the government that " a majority of 
 interests" shall be clothed with the power. They de- 
 mand for the minority a majority of delegates in the 
 Convention, and also in the legislature, upon the ground 
 that "a majority of interests" should control the gov 
 ernment, deriving that doctrine from a principle in the 
 bill of rights, which principle when applied in practice 
 by themselves they admit means nothing but a majori- 
 ty of the units of sovereignty, of voters. It is this of 
 which I complain. It is the inequality of our positions 
 on this floor. It is the iron-handed tyranny that forces me 
 here as an inferior, against which my heart— my whole 
 soul— revolts. Were we equal representatives, of equal 
 constituencies— equals in virtue, in wisdom, in loyal 
 
7 
 
 devotion to our Commonwealth — equals in right, and 
 equally to be heard on every question affecting the in- 
 terests of society, I could listen calmly as a brother 
 to a brother to the reasonings of him who would per- 
 suade me that the safety and interests of society re- 
 quired a surrender of power by the majority to the 
 minority. I would weigh his reasons ; give heed to his 
 apprehensions ; and, if convinced that it were right, 
 would voluntarily resign power for the common good. 
 But such is not my position. I feel like one to whom 
 terms are to be dictated, and who is to be told that he 
 must take what the holders of power choose to surren- 
 der or nothing. The reins of government are safe in 
 the hands of the minority — they cannot be wrested from 
 it except by revolution or violence, and the long. suffer- 
 ing — patience and patriotism of western men is relied 
 on — and, it is thought, safely relied on — as a shield 
 against danger, or a threat of danger from that quarter. 
 
 But we are assembled once more in council to consult 
 for the common weal, to remodel our organic law. Let 
 us forget, if some of us can, and lay aside all sense of in- 
 feriority on the one hand, and of that natural self-compla- 
 cancy that is inherent in him who holds power on the oth- 
 er ; and let us reason together as brethren ; we are to build 
 the structure of a free government— a government 
 which shall protect life and liberty, and secure to the 
 people, equally, the means of acquiring and possessing 
 property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and 
 safety ; we all agree that these are the great purposes 
 of government. The question which first presents itself 
 is shall our government fee founded on principles or ex- 
 pediency — on the solid, rock foundation of fixed prin- 
 ciples to which wise and patriotic freemen have every 
 where assented — or on the shifting quicksands of expe- 
 diency. Expediency! how often, in religion and in pol- 
 itics has short-sighted man, abandoning the principles 
 of eternity, been led astray by the expediency of the 
 moment ? The light of expediency is that of the 
 will o' the wisp, the ignis-fatuus, that beguiles the de- 
 luded sons of men from the ways of principle, of 
 truth, and of virtue, into devious paths of error, 
 falshood and crime. Untold are the evils it has 
 entailed upon the human race ; and he who surrenders 
 himself to its guidance, who abandons the principles of 
 his faith for the expediency of the moment, will ere 
 long find the foundations of virtue, the props of safety, 
 and the pillars of happiness crumbling and giving way. 
 And the government that is founded upon the principle 
 that the people may not be trusted with power lest 
 they abuse it, will be found at last to be built on 
 a foundation of sand. The rain will descend; the 
 storm will come ; that government must fall. Let us 
 not rest our government on the unstable foundation of 
 expediency, but choose as the bright corner-stones the 
 solid principles quarried from the mines once explored 
 by Locke, Hampden and Sydney. The gentleman from 
 Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton,) said a few days ago that the 
 principles of freedom were as well understood two hun- 
 dred years ago by the great men I have named as they 
 are by us. Yes, the spirit of liberty that had given a 
 sturdy independence to the fathers of our race in the for- 
 ests of Germany, that followed the Saxon to the Island 
 of Great Britain, that inspired the bold barons to wrest 
 from the hands of the tyrant John the great charter of 
 freedom ; that, although oftentimes almost extinguished 
 beneath the pressure of arbitrary power, ever and anon 
 burst jforth with a fitful glare to startle the tyrant from 
 bis selcurity, shone forth in the writings of Locke, and 
 in the! acts of Hampden with a lustre that has never 
 growri dim ; a light which, having reached this western 
 continent, shall, at last, be diffused over the world. 
 The great men of 1716 did, indeed, in announcing the 
 rights of man, and the principles of free government do 
 little mpre than give vital energy to the speculations of 
 Locke and Hampden. They announced in the bill of 
 rights o f Virginia, the first declaration of rights pro- 
 mulged in America, those great principles which I in- 
 voke thils committee to adopt, and to act upon as the solid 
 
 basis and foundation of our government. First, that all 
 men are equally free and independent, and equally en- 
 titled to the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the 
 means of acquiring and possessing property, and of 
 pursuing and obtaining happiness. Second, that all 
 power is vested in and, consequently, derived from the 
 people ; and third, that a majority of the community 
 hath the right to control its government. I will not dis- 
 cuss these propositions at large. I trust they will be 
 elaborated by others. I will content myself with re- 
 marking that government in its essence is a compact 
 resulting from the consent of equals ; of men who, be- 
 fore the compact, were equally entitled to the natural 
 rights God had bestowed upon them, to the free air and 
 Light of Heaven, to the enjoyment of life and the bles- 
 sings of liberty, and to appropriate to their own use the 
 bounties of nature for the support of life, and the pur- 
 suit of happiness, free from the control, and indepen- 
 dent of the authority or dominion of others. And in 
 entering into the compact of government this equality 
 is not destroyed; the natural rights of all are equally 
 restrained, but to the extent to which they exist they 
 must continue equal, otherwise some of the parties to 
 the compact, who were originally equals, have surren- 
 dered more of their natural rights than others, and depriv- 
 ed and divested themselves and their posterity of a cer- 
 tain portion of those inherent rights to which the bill of 
 rsghts declares men continue, under all circumstances to 
 be equally entitled. I am to some extent a sceptic in res- 
 pect to a state of nature. It was Aristotle who declared he 
 could not imagine man disconnected from a -state, from 
 an association with others by consent, But if we may 
 argue from the postulate that man was once in a state 
 of nature, and came out of it into a state of society and 
 government, what may we suppose to have been his 
 condition ? His first apprehensions must have arisen 
 from dangers to life and liberty, from the instinct of self- 
 preservation ; separate property was not essential to 
 the support of life ; the water that gushed from the 
 fountains ; the fruits which grew upon the trees ; the 
 herbs and grain which sprung out of the ground, were 
 the common property of all, and furnished the suste- 
 nance of life. The hand of violence raised against the 
 life of man, struck the first blow at the safety of 
 the state of nature ; the dominion of the strong 
 over the weak leading to tyranny on the one hand, and 
 slavery on the other spread a second alarm through the 
 ranks of men. Association— a combination of physical 
 forces for self-preservation and personal protection was 
 at first resorted to — was formed to guard rights, natural, 
 inherent and readily understood, and the fear of losing 
 which spurng out of the very consciousness of man's na- 
 ture. I cannot but think that society was formed at 
 first to preserve men's lives from violence, their limbs 
 from torture, and their bodies from slavery. These are 
 emphatically natural rights, to guard which men com- 
 bined in society. The right of property, the right of 
 one man to claim as his own, by separate title, any spe- 
 cies of property, must have had its origin in the con- 
 sent of society. It was recognized, sanctioned and 
 guarded as a personal right founded in justice, and at- 
 taching to him who had worked for the property. Prior 
 to society the world and its fruits were the domain ^ of 
 the race ; to no one portion of which could any individ- 
 ual lay claim, and such a separate claim or title could 
 only become a right by common consent, which itself 
 pre-supposes the existence of a consenting society. I 
 can easily imagine a society to exist for many years 
 without any separate right in the individuals compos- 
 ing it to any species of property, and yet that the means 
 of subsistence and of comfort should be abundant. The 
 water, air, fishes, fowls, fruits, and flesh, given by nature 
 for mans support, would be, to such a society, a com- 
 mon stock out of which the wants of each member of it 
 would be supplied. The right to hold any of these 
 gifts of nature to the separate use of an individual 
 must have originated in the consent of those equally 
 entitled to nature's bounties. And, what I ask, 
 
would have been thought of that man who, first 
 asking the consent of society in its earlier stages 
 that he might hold property separately for his 
 own use, should have turned round and claimed 
 as a right a preponderance of power by reason of that 
 property ? The answer to such a claim would have been 
 prompt, and to this effect : that by the consent of all it 
 had been agreed that each should severally hold and 
 enjoy what he could rightfully acquire as property ; this 
 privilege had been, accorded to every member of 
 society. It was supposed at the outset that some 
 would accumulate more than others, but that each 
 would acquire something : and it was solemnly agreed 
 that the right of each to his all should be equally pro- 
 tected ; and that the expense of protection should be 
 borne in proportion to the ability of each. How then 
 would he who had, perhaps, been fortunate, and had 
 grown rich, whilst his neighbor, with equal virtue and 
 industry, had remained poor, how could he claim, not 
 only protection for his property, which all were willing 
 to give, but, in addition, the power to dispose of his 
 neighbor's property at his pleasure ? The majority of 
 such an infant society would have replied to such a bold 
 demand for power, thus : " You must rest for the safety 
 of your property upon the same pledges, the same 
 guaranties on which we all rely for our lives, our limbs, our 
 liberties, and our property ; for you must remem- 
 ber we have property as well as you. All we can say 
 is that we will bind ourselves to deal with your proper- 
 ty as with our own ; with your lives and liberties as 
 with our own; and that you shall ever enjoy equal 
 power with us in disposing of our common interests." 
 I think then it must be apparent that property in the 
 hands of individuals held by separate titles did not pre- 
 cede but sprung out of society — was not an element in 
 forming society but its creature. That the right to hold 
 it belongs to the class of mere personal rights ; a right 
 recognized and sanctioned by the common consent of 
 society after men had confederated to protect life and 
 liberty. And now it is argued that an institution which 
 originally owed its very existence to the consent of 
 persons shall control persons ; that the creature shall be 
 exalted so high as to command the submission and obe- 
 dience of the creator. 
 
 And now, what in such a society as I have referred 
 to, would be the rule of decision in matters of common 
 concern ? I answer, the will of the majority — that in 
 my opinion is the natural law of eveiy body which has 
 adopted no other : — and no other can be adopted except 
 by universal consent or by the will of a majority. It 
 would require most cogent arguments to prove that by 
 universal consent the members of society had agreed 
 that a minority should govern the majority; and if it is 
 argued that a rule differing from that of the majority 
 has been established in certain cases, by the consent of 
 the majority, the very exceptions prove the rule to be 
 as I have indicated. In our State and Federal Consti- 
 tutions it is no where said that a majority may do cer- 
 tain acts : that rule is not in the lex scripta but belongs, 
 to the unwritten, common, may I not say ? natural law 
 of associated bodies. But when less than a majority 
 may do a certain act or more than a majority must be 
 required to accomplish a certain purpose, the particular 
 limitations upon the general rule are plainly set down — 
 because having sprung out of the consent of the ma- 
 jority, they shall restrain its will only according to that 
 consent. Upon this point, I beg leave to quote a pas- 
 sage from Locke's Essay on Government — an authority 
 so eloquently and emphatically approved by the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier, (Mr. Chilton,) some days ago. 
 Locke says : " When any number of men have, by the 
 consent of every individual made a community, they 
 have thereby made that community one body, with a 
 ower to act as one body, which is only by the will and 
 etermination of the majority. For that wl ich acts in 
 a community, being only the consent of the individuals 
 of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body 
 to move one way, it is necessary the body should move 
 
 that way whither the greater force carries it, which is 
 the consent of the majority : or else it is impossible it 
 should act or continue one body, one community, which 
 the consent of every one who united in it agreed it should : 
 and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded 
 by the majority. And therefore, we see that in assemblies 
 empowered to act by positive laws, where no number is 
 set by that positive law which empowers them, the act 
 of the majority passes for the act of the whole. And 
 thus every man, by consenting with others to make one 
 body politic under one government, puts himself under 
 an obligation to every one of that society to submit to 
 the determination of the majority, and to be concluded 
 by it." This is the authority on which our fathers de- 
 clared that "a majority of the community" hath the 
 right to govern : and yet it is now contended that the 
 rule of the majority is the dominion of mere numbers — 
 is a tyranny not to be borne. It is called sneeringly 
 " king numbers " — and is regarded as an unrestrained 
 oppressor — a lawless despot — more terrible than an ab- 
 solute monarch. It is obvious too that the community of 
 which we speak must be regarded as one community, one 
 body, governed by a preponderating will : and that will, 
 the aggregate of the wishes of a majority in the communi- 
 ty. If the community cannot be regarded as one— as homo- 
 geneous — of the same kind of persons, (that is the de- 
 finition of "homogeneous") — as possessing the same 
 patriotism, intelligence, morality and virtue — the argu- 
 ment proves that the community should not be togeth- 
 er: but should form such new communities out of the 
 original whole as would be homogeneous. In respect to 
 Virginia I resist all such arguments as tend to show 
 that her people are unlike in patriotism or dissimilar in 
 interest : I resist them as at war with my own convic- 
 tions and with the true glory of the Commonwealth. 
 
 Let us then, regarding Virginia as one community, 
 proceed in detail to consider the various propositions 
 before the committee, and the arguments for and against 
 each. Proposition A, (the original proposition before 
 the committee,) contains the mixed basis after the model 
 of the South Carolina constitution, and an apportion- 
 ment in accordance with this principle. It proposes 
 that in the House of Delegates, consisting of 150 dele- 
 gates, 75 shall represent the taxes and 15 the white pop- 
 ulation of the Commonwealth, thereby making taxes an 
 equal element with persons in representation. The 
 taxes so to be estimated are all the taxes paid except 
 those on merchants' lincenses, law process, and 
 deeds. In speaking in this argument of the grand di- 
 visions of the Commonwealth, I shall begin with the 
 tide-water, as number one, and proceed from east to 
 west, to number four, the trans- Alleghany district. In- 
 cluding the increased land tax then, the white popula- 
 tion and taxation of the Commonwealth will stand as 
 
 follows : 
 
 1st district white pop. 189,314 Taxes $179,744.52 
 
 2d " " 213,451 - - 167,742.95 
 
 3d " * 163,177 - - - 92,392.05 
 
 4th " " 331,586 - - 94,893.40 
 
 Total. 897,534 $534,172.92 
 
 Upon the mixed or combined basis I have said taxes 
 will send 75 and white population 75 delegates. If the 
 whole population be divided by 75, we will have 11,967 
 as the common ratio for a population delegate : If the 
 whole taxes be divided by 75, we will have $7,130-30 as 
 the common ratio for a tax delegate ; or blending them 
 together, each delegate should represent 5,983 white 
 persons who pay $3,565.15 taxes. Apply these 'ratios 
 to the population and taxation of the four divisions and 
 the results will be as follows : 
 Taxes give 
 
 1st dis. 25 2-10 del. population 15 8-10 — 41 delegates, 
 2d " 23 5-10 " " 17 8-10—41 3-10 " 
 
 3d ' ; 13 " " 13 7-10—26 7-10 " 
 
 4th " 13 3-10 " " 27 7-10 — 41 
 
 76 75 150 / 
 
9 
 
 In the Senate it is proposed there shall he 51 mem- 
 bers : The ratio for a tax Senator will be $20,971, and 
 for a population Senator 35,196 white persons : in other 
 words, each Senator should represent 17,598 white per- 
 sons who pay $10,485.50 — apply these ratios to the east 
 and the west and the results will be as follows : 
 East : taxes give 16.57 Senators : pop. 11.43— 28 Sen. 
 West: " 14.05 " " 8.95—23 " 
 
 It will be observed, and I desire it to be remembered, 
 that in the valley, the number of delegates on taxes falls 
 short of that on population only 7-10 of one delegate. 
 
 I will follow this mixed basis scheme in some of its 
 details and effects before I proceed to consider propo- 
 sition B, and the substitute of the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, (Mr. Scott.) I will show what number of per- 
 sons each delegate from the four divisions will represent 
 and applying the smallest number as a ratio to the other 
 divisions, what effect will be produced. 
 1st dis. ratio for a delegate, 4,617 white persons 
 2d " " " 5,206 
 
 3d " " " 6,043 
 
 4th " " " 8,087 
 
 Apply the ratio in the 1st district, 4,617, (being the 
 smallest,) to the four grand' divisions : It gives : 
 1st district 41 delegates, and leaves no excess, 
 2d " 41 " and leaves an excess of 
 
 24,160 white persons 
 3d " 27 " and Heaves an excess of 
 
 38, SI'S white persons 
 4th " 41 " and leaves an excess of 
 142,299 white persons. 
 
 150 204,777 ! 
 
 So that if the white persons in the 1st district have 
 only their due weight in the government, the citizens of 
 the other districts when compared with them, fall greatly 
 short of a proper participation in the legislative power : 
 and it appears in fact, the inequality is so great that 
 there are 204,771 out of 708,220, (the whole white pop- 
 ulation, excluding that of the 1st district,) who may be 
 said to be disfranchised. 
 
 Regard it in another aspect, and it will appear equal- 
 ly astounding in its developments. Apply 5,983, the 
 average ratio for a delegate, throughout the State, to 
 the white population of each of the grand divisions, 
 and it shows that in allowing 41 delegates to the 1st 
 district, representation is given to 55,989 white persons 
 too many : in allowing 41 delegates to the 2d district, 
 representation is given to 31,846 white persons too many, 
 making an aggregate of 87,835 white persons who ought 
 to be in eastern Virginia to entitle her to 82 delegates, 
 but who are not there : and in applying the same ratio 
 to the 3d district, it will be found that in allowing it 27 
 delegates, there are 1,636 white persons not represented, 
 and that in allowing the 4th district only 41 delegates, 
 there are 86,283 white persons not represented, making an 
 aggregate of 87,919 white persons more than the number 
 which would entitle western Virginia, on principles of 
 equality, to 68 delegates. 
 
 Proposition B, offered by the gentleman from Kanawha 
 as a substitute to proposition A, declares first that " as in- 
 dividual suffrage should be equal without respect to the 
 difference of individual wealth, so an equal number of 
 qualified voters shall be entitled to an equal representa- 
 tion without regard to their aggregate wealth ; " and 
 second, " that representation shall be equal and uniform 
 in this commonwealth, and shall always be regulated and 
 ascertained by the number of the qualified voters ; " and 
 then proceeds to apportion representation as nearly in 
 accordance with this principle for the present as practi- 
 cable ; and provides that in 1855, and. every ten years 
 thereafter, there shall be an enumeration of the qualified 
 voters, and apportionments made according to their num- 
 ber: This proposition begins with suffrage, and declares 
 that " the qualifications necessary to confer the right 
 shall be uniform throughout the commonwealth." I un- 
 derstand the gentlemen on the other side to agree to this 
 2 
 
 proposition. We begin the argument at the same point 
 with our opponents, that is, that the sovereign or elective 
 power should be lodged in the hands of voters — electors 
 — who are to be qualified as we may hereafter prescribe, 
 to wield the power of the State. We go a step further 
 and say, the members of this great elective body, these 
 electors — are to be equally trusted and in equal propor- 
 tions — as individuals — as hundreds, as thousands. Our 
 opponents say they are not to be trusted in proportion 
 to their numbers ; but in proportion to their numbers and 
 taxes combined. And to test this question, the gentle- 
 man from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) has offered a substitute, 
 declaring that representation shall be apportioned ac- 
 cording to the number of the white inhabitants contained, 
 and the amount of all taxes paid in any election district, 
 deducting therefrom taxes on licenses and law process, and 
 that " in making such apportionment, there shall be al- 
 lowed one delegate for every part of said inhabi- 
 tants, and one delegate for every part of said 
 taxes. ' The gentleman's substitute does not enter into 
 the perplexing and embarrassing details of apportionment 
 but reserves that matter until the principle is settled. 
 Neither does it declare in what proportion taxes and 
 persons are to be blended. I object to the substitute for 
 this reason ; it is calculated to deceive, and although the 
 gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) declares he will 
 move to fill the blanks, so as to give half the delegates 
 on taxes and half on persons ; others may not agree with 
 him, and may hope to fill the blanks in a different way. 
 Suppose the first blank be filled with the word "tenth" 
 and the second with the word " ninetieth, "' it would be 
 equivalent to surrendering the government to the almost 
 unadulterated principle, that power should be graduated 
 solely by taxation. BxA, accepting the declaration of the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, as conveying the intentions 
 and purposes of all his friends, I come now to the ques- 
 tion first presented for our determination. Ought the 
 substitute to be adopted ? I think not, and will under- 
 take to show that it violates the great principles I have 
 before defended, will be unjust and oppressive in its op- 
 erations, and is not necessary to secure and will not se- 
 cure what gentlemen desire by its adoption. 
 
 I declare at the outset that the substitute must be sus- 
 tained by the arguments of its friends — that its justice 
 must be made manifest, and that its necessity must be 
 proven to 'our entire satisfaction and to that of the coun- 
 try, and that the burden of showing these things rests on 
 those who announce that the majority ought not in Vir- 
 ginia to be entrusted with the political power. In 1829 
 in a speech which immortalized his name, Mr. Upshur 
 said, " I admit as a general proposition, that in free gov- 
 ernments power ought to be given to the majority ; and 
 why ? The rule is founded in the idea that there is an 
 identity, though not an equality of interests in the sev- 
 eral members of the body politic, in which case the pre- 
 sumption naturally arises, that the greater number pos- 
 sesses the greater interest." It will not be enough then 
 to show that there are inequalities of interests in Vir- 
 ginia — those inequalities exist every where and under all 
 the diversified circumstances of human fortune. The 
 minority must demonstrate in such manner as ought to 
 satisfy the majority, that the power to pass all laws af- 
 fecting life, liberty and property — the property of the 
 majority as well as that of the minority — ought justly 
 and rightfully to be given up by the many to the few— 
 because there is such a want of identity of "interests in 
 the several members " of our body politic, as that whilst 
 we should continue as one body, one community, the 
 general safety, the common good demands that the will 
 of the smaller portion of the community should control its 
 actions. And what is the ground of this claim of power by 
 the minority ? It is the protection of property. It is ar- 
 gued that persons and property are the essential elements 
 of society — that without property society cannot exist — 
 that in its welfare are involved all the rights of persons 
 — that legislation is chiefly concerned in making laws to 
 regulate property and its interests — that the laws con 
 cerning persons are few and simple— that public opinion 
 
10 
 
 is their best sanction ; but that the laws which affect 
 property are various and almost infinitely ramified ; and 
 the question is then asked, ought not property to enjoy 
 a protection above all suspicion and free from every ha- 
 zard? Yes, property should eujoy just such protection 
 as gentlemen ask for it- — a protection as sacred and as 
 sure as the habeas corpus affords to persons. But how 
 ought it to be protected ? It might be protected effi- 
 ciently at the very fountain of political power, by pre- 
 scribing strong property qualifications of suffrage, or by 
 graduating the value of votes' according to the amount 
 of property owned by the voter-^so that the intelligent 
 self interest of individuals, ever alive to assaults upon 
 the rights of property, might be armed with the ballot 
 box to protect it. But gentlemen shrink back with jus 
 horror from the idea of establishing a moneyed aristoc- 
 racy of this sort. Rich and lordly Mr. A. shall not be 
 allowed to thrust aside podr Mr. B. from the polls and 
 deposite ten times as many votes as he ! Oh, no — ti e 
 very thought of such inequality is revolting to their feel- 
 ings. Gentlemen advocate enlarged and uniform suffrage : 
 the poor men are to be admitted to a greater participa- 
 tion in the conduct of affairs, and at the polls, are to stauu 
 on an equal footing with the rich ; they hesitate to drop 
 the aristocratic poison into the fountain — they will not 
 pollute the pure gushing stream of representation at its 
 spring ; but propose to turn into it below its source tLe 
 turbid tide of taxation, which will ever after discolor its 
 beauty and destroy its health-giving qualities. 
 
 I propose now to consider on what grounds our oppo- 
 nents rest the claim of property to be equal with per- 
 sons as an element of power. What, I ask, is it that 
 creates a representative body? It is suffrage. And 
 what is suffrage ? It is the Expression of individual 
 will in delegating power to a representative. Here, as 
 I have saiii, gentlemen ought to begin their system of 
 property protection if they desire it to be effectual, by 
 giving A, who is worth $10,000, ten votes, and B, 
 who is worth $1000, one vote. And I will remark 
 that in 1829, this practice of double voting was in vogue 
 in France — the value of men's votes was graduated by 
 the length of their purses— a principle Which was re- 
 sisted by La Fayette, with the same love of liberty and 
 equality which brought him to the side of Washington 
 in the darkest hour of the revolution. There are some 
 things which have been borrowed from aristocratic 
 France, as well as the ideas of proscription, infidelity, 
 licentiousness, lawless disregard of the honor of God, 
 and the rights of man, the mockery of justice, and the 
 glittering guillotine, which gentlemen. would fain have 
 us believe will be transferred to our midst from repub- 
 lican France, if we entrust power to the people in 
 Virginia. Our opponents borrow the principle but re- 
 ject the French mode of applying it as odious and aris- 
 tocratic. But I proceed to inquire what is representation ? 
 It is the result — the effect of suffrage. It is the concentra- 
 tion of the general will in one body — it is the organ by 
 which the public will controls and directs public affairs, 
 and ought to be apportioned with a view of f airly embody- 
 ing that will. Under the mixed basis, the will of one 
 portion of the community, though expressed in suffrage, 
 is palsied in representation by the power of money 
 paid as taxes by the other portion. And what 
 are taxes ? They are contributions to the support of 
 government^ given in consideration of the protection of 
 property — and common sense declares they should be 
 levied in proportion to the amount of property to be 
 protected, that is, to the ability to pay. The two 
 great duties men owe their government are — first, the 
 payment of taxes in consideration of the protection of 
 property ; second, the discharge of military duty, in return 
 for the protection of persons. These are duties men 
 are bound to discharge. And yet it is argued that the 
 faithful performance of the duty of tax paying is a 
 ground on which power may be asserted — that those 
 who do their duty in one particular shall have power over 
 those who do their duties equally well in other respects. 
 The claim to power by reason of peculiar sanctity leads 
 to spiritual despotism. Rigid morality becomes the 
 foundation for Pharisaical domination — wealth opens 
 
 the way to a monied aristocracy — and the assumption of 
 
 extraordinary talents or virtue results in the formation 
 of an oligarchy. God recognizes no power in his crea- 
 tures over their fellows, because they do their duty to 
 him — neither should man be allowed power for dis- 
 charging his duty to his government. And, I ask, if 
 the duty of tax paying gives title to power, why not 
 the duties of public defence and of working on the high- 
 ways? There were reported the present year to the 
 adjutant general 123,733 officers and privates belonging 
 to the militia — and he says in his report that the rolls 
 are deficient by many thousands. This must be so, be- 
 cause I perceive there are in the State 200,958 white 
 tithes, and I think it fair to estimate the militia at 
 150,000* According to the ratio of white population, 
 there would be in the West 82,688, and in the East 
 67,312 men subject to military duty, showing an excess 
 West of 15,376. These men are compelled to perform mil- 
 itary duty three days in a year. The loss of time and the 
 actual outlay of money in discharging this duty make 
 a tax of at least three dollars a year on each officer and 
 private. Here then is a total tax of $450,000, of which 
 the West bears the greater burden by $46,128. Why 
 not give— on the principle contended for — power to the 
 West, in consideration of this discharge of duty? But 
 no — the discharge of the money duty entitles the few 
 to prescribe laws and duties to all others. 
 
 Abandoning the idea of protecting property by con- 
 ferring the power to do so on those who own it, gentle- 
 men proceed to communities and propose to confer this 
 power on the aggregates of individuals, which they deny 
 to individuals. I presume the scheme is founded on one 
 of two ideas, either that the poor men in the rich man's 
 neighborhood know better how to manage and protect 
 his property than himself, or that the rich man, by the 
 power of his wealth, will so control the opinions and 
 voies of his humbler neighbors as to make them think 
 with and act for him. What is the argument ? Let me 
 illustrate it : County A. has five hundred voters and 
 pays $2,000 taxes — county B has five hundred voters 
 and pays $500 taxes. In county A, one hundred of the 
 voters pay $1600 and four hundred pay $400. The four 
 hundred in A, and the five hundred in B, pay each one 
 dollar ; and ought on any just principle to have equal 
 weight in the government. According to the mixed ba- 
 sis, in a council of ten delegates, county A would send 
 six and a half delegates, and county B would send three 
 and a half delegates. Legitimately th,e one hundred 
 rich men in A ought to send three delegates on account 
 of their taxes and a half delegate on their own account 
 — but this is not allowed- — the one hundred rich men in 
 A have no more potential voice than the four hundred 
 poor men ; but the four hundred, because they are near 
 the palaces of the rich, gazing at them perhaps with en-" 
 vious eyes, are thereby converted into aristocrats them- 
 selves; and are exalted in power above their equals in 
 county B. This is indeed a moneyed aristocracy on the 
 very worst principle— that of the credit system — the 
 poor borrowing the wealth of their rich neighbors to lift 
 themselves above their equals elsewhere. 
 
 As I have before said it is conceded as a general rule 
 that the majority should govern, and that this rule ought 
 not to be departed from, except, to use the language of 
 the eloquent gentleman from Marion, (Mr. Neeson,) "to 
 avert some great mischief, or to promote some great 
 public good." Now, what is the good to be secured — 
 what the mischief to be shunned by the mixed basis ? 
 The gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. Scott) declares that 
 the mixed basis is necessary to secure good government, 
 to guard against abuses of legislative power, and to pro- 
 tect property as well as persons. The dangers ahead 
 then are bad government, abuse*bf legislative power, and 
 the destruction of property. I can imagine that gentle- 
 man standing on the deck of the gallant ship of State as 
 it ploughs its way through the waters, guided by the 
 chart of science and the needle that ever points to the 
 star of principle ; and as he strains his eyes to gaze 
 through the mists ahead and fancies he hears the roar of 
 the surf upon the rocks, I can hear his clear ringing 
 
voice proclaim "breakers ahead ! the ship is in danger." 
 If the suffrage basis will result in bad government, in 
 abuses of legislative power, and in the destruction of 
 property, we ought to abandon it and to give heed to 
 the warning cries of the gentleman from Fauquier. We 
 are here to avert dangers, to secure good government, to 
 guard against public abuses, and to protect property ; 
 but let us beware, lest in shunning imaginary rocks, we 
 be not swallowed in a vortex of destruction. 
 
 The gentleman from Fauquier would hardly deny that 
 a government based upon qualified voters might manage 
 the trifling concerns of life and liberty, and the means of 
 pursuing and obtaining happiness ; he would not contro- 
 vert this proposition without at the same time denying 
 a doctrine I know he cherishes, the doctrine of the ca- 
 pacity of the people for self-government ; but I under- 
 stand him to say that property would not be safe with 
 such a basis of representation, and that in the interests 
 of property are involved all other interests. Let us con- 
 sider seriously and in order the modes in which property 
 may be imperilled, and calmly determine whether Vir- 
 ginia, like South Carolina, is in such a condition as to 
 demand the adoption of that political expedient to pro- 
 tect property — the mixed basis. Dangers to property 
 are apprehended as the results of legislative acts ; one 
 would suppose that to guard against such dangers, re- 
 straints should be imposed on legislative power. This 
 is the first suggestion of common sense — of ordinary pru- 
 dence. Desiring to extend suffrage, to make voters at the 
 polls equal, one with another, having as much confidence 
 in one portion of the community as in another, in respect 
 to virtue, intelligence and patriotism, one would sup- 
 pose thai to avoid legislative acts which would in any 
 way impair the rights or value of property, it would be 
 enough to restrain and limit the legislative power — the 
 power of the agents of the people; and if it can be shown 
 that whatever principle of representation be adopted, 
 some limitations and restraints are necessary, and that 
 no more are required to prevent abuses under the suf- 
 frage than under the mixed basis, it will follow that there 
 is no political necessity for the adoption of the latter prin- 
 ciple and that it ought to be discarded. I think this 
 conclusion will follow from the remarks I propose to 
 make. , 
 
 I concede that property may be imperilled : first, by 
 attacking the right to hold it; second, by excessive taxa- 
 \ tion so as to impair its value in the hands of all who 
 hold i- ; and third, by discriminations in laying taxes so 
 as to impose the burdens of supporting government on 
 one sort of property to the relief of another sort. I wish 
 to meet the arguments fairly and to answer them by such 
 reasons derived from principles and facts as have satis- 
 fied my mind that the fears of eastern gentlemen are 
 groundless — that their conclusions are unsound and un- 
 tenable. First, do gentlemen seriously fear that if the 
 suffrage basis be adopted the right to hold property of 
 any kind will be impaired ? Do they apprehend that a 
 western majority will strike at the right of any mem- 
 ber of the community to acquire property and to hold 
 for his separate enjoyment the fruits of his own toil \ 
 Do not the western people love property ? Are they not 
 eager to procure- — are they not untiring in their struggles 
 to gather around them the goods of this life ? Is not the 
 west like a busy hive in which all are industriously em- 
 ployed in laying up stores for support and enjoyment in 
 the future ? Are they not jealous of their rights — are 
 they not careful of their interests in property — do they 
 not guard those interests and defend those rights in 
 the courts of justice with as much resolute obstinacy and 
 firmness of purpose as mark the conduct of eastern pro- 
 perty holders ? It is true they have not as much as their 
 more favored eastern brethren, but they are equally vigi- 
 lant in protecting it, equally anxious in increasing it, and 
 equally desirous that when acquired it shall continue to 
 be protected by equal and uniform laws. De Tocqueville, 
 the distinguished author of " Democracy in America," 
 says that " in no country in the world is the love of pro 
 
 States ; nowhere does the majority display less inclina- 
 tion for those principles which threaten to alter, in what- 
 ever manner, the laws of property." This is a tribute 
 paid to our entire country ; and will gentlemen say it is 
 justly bestowed on all parts of our Union but westen 
 Virginia? De Tocqueville says "the love of property' 
 is "active"— -it is earnest and untiring in the pursuit ; it 
 is also "anxious" — it is jealous and vigilant in guarding 
 the treasure in possession ; and it is ever respectful and 
 regardful of the rights of others, because that .spirit alone 
 can protect its own rights. It is the love of freedom and 
 the love of property— the love of liberty, which can only 
 be enjoyed when subject to law, and the love of property 
 which can only exist when protected by law, that are 
 the prominent characteristics of the anglo-saxon race ; 
 and it is the blended influence of these two principles,' 
 creating as they advance an all controling public opinion, 
 that on the one hand will brook no restraints on the so- 
 cial, civil and political equality of man, and on the other 
 will frown down all lawless licentiousness — that on the 
 one hand will tolerate no concentration of the money 
 power in the hands of the few and of their descendants ; 
 and on the o.her will crush to the earth every effort to 
 invade the sacred rights of property— it is the influence 
 of these principles, and of this public opinion which is 
 destined to encircle the globe with the institutions of 
 that race— which is destined to spread knowledge, civili - 
 zation and Christianity over the world. Let it not be said 
 that western Virginians are unworthy to participate in 
 ihis glorious work. 
 
 Again: property may be imperiled by excessive 
 taxation. It is conceded that a taxing agency in the 
 shape of a legislature may be organized so as to impose 
 burdens on the entire property of the State that will 
 impair its value and endanger its existence. This legis 
 lature, organized on the suffrage basis, would be com- 
 posed of agents reflecting the opinions and wishes of 
 equal numbers of tax-payers ; and on the mixed basis, it 
 would consist of agents representing unequal numbers 
 of tax-payers — not in the exact proportion of the amount 
 they were to pay, but in a ratio approximating that 
 principle — that is, in thfc proportion of the number of 
 tax-payers and the amount paid combined. And it is 
 argued that, without any restraints on legislative power, 
 the representatives of the smaller number of tax-pay- 
 ers are safely to be entrusted with the power to pass 
 laws affecting life and liberty, and also to lax the majori- 
 ty of tax-payers at their pleasure, because their respon- 
 sibilities to their constituents will be such as to secure 
 moderate public expenditures and low rates of taxes ; 
 whereas, if the suffrage basis be adopted, those who 
 levy the taxes will not be responsible to those who pay 
 them ; and that, whatever restraints may be imposed 
 on the legislative power, the majority of the tax-payers 
 will ultimately throw off those restraints and destroy 
 property by excessive taxation. And here allow me to 
 say that I am surprised at the sneers of eastern gen- 
 tlemen at " paper guaranties," as they are pleased to 
 call all limitations on legislative power. And what, I 
 ask, is your bill of rights — declared by your courts to 
 be a part of the constitution ? What is your constitu- 
 tion itself, with all its fences against the encroachments, 
 of power, but " paper guaranties ?" And permit me 
 to say, that he who succeeds in creating the impression 
 on the public mind that there is nothing sacred, nothing 
 enduring in the " paper guaranties" of the American re- 
 publics, will succeed in unsettling the very foundation 
 of our institutions, which rest upon faith — faith in the 
 people — faith in their respect for the rights of all, 
 from the humblest to the highest — faith in their capacity 
 to govern themselves, and to secure their own safety 
 and happiness — to provide for the greatest good of the 
 greatest number, and for all possible good to the small- 
 est number. The rock upon which American institu- 
 tions rests is faith in the people. The argus-eyed guar- 
 dian of the people's rights is jealousy of public agents. 
 But, it is said that if the legislature be restrained from 
 
 perty more active and more anxious than in the United | contracting a large public debt by a constitutional limi- 
 
12 
 
 tations upon its rr power, the wants of the west are such 
 that with a majority of votes it will be induced, will 
 be tempted to call another convention, for the purposes 
 of removing the limitations — of increasing the debt — 
 of accumulating burdens upon property and rendering 
 it valueless by excessive taxation. The evil to be 
 avoided is excessive taxation ; and reasonable limitations 
 on the power to create a debt, and to oppress by heavy 
 taxes, are to be discarded, not because the public inter- 
 , est would be unsafe whilst the limitations exist, but be- 
 cause the people may hereafter be so eager to swell 
 then- public debt as to throw off the restraints imposed 
 on their agents and expose themselves to be borne down 
 by the intolerable weight of taxation. &nd to what do 
 gentlemen invite us to look as in itself a perfect safe- 
 guard against a public debt and excessh e taxes ? The 
 gentleman from Fauquier says to the mixed basis : It 
 will secure property, good government, and will save 
 the people from heavy taxes. The danger of a public 
 debt in connection with the white basis was alluded to 
 in the convention of 1829-'30, by several distinguished 
 members of that body — I remember the names of Mr. 
 Morris, of Hanover, and of Judge Scott — a man whose 
 genius we have all been accustomed to admire, the 
 memory of whose virtues we will ever cherish and 
 revere. And it was then argued that a heavy debt for 
 internal improvements would be avoided by the mixed 
 basis — that all other restraints were mere "paper guar- 
 anties," and worthless, but that the white basis would 
 lead to an enormous public debt and a wasteful expendi- 
 ture of public money. Chapman Johnson, and others 
 replied, and predicted that the compound or mixed 
 basis would produce the very results which have flowed 
 from the provisions of the existing constitution, although 
 it secures to the east more power than the mixed basis. 
 They predicted (and their predictions have become proph- 
 ecies fulfilled) that the mixed basis would give to the 
 v concert of the western vote more power in respect to 
 internal improvements than was taken from their num- 
 bers — that western members would move in solid pha- 
 lanx, and that, by combinations with eastern interests they 
 would secure their own purposes, whilst, at the same 
 time, the public debt would be much more swelled and 
 increased than if they had the power to carry through 
 the State those great schemes which would connect its 
 eastern and western interests together and make them one. 
 Such was the prophecy. What has been the fulfilment? 
 Why, we have witnessed, under this unnatural and un- 
 just apportionment of power, the growth and develop- 
 ment of a system of public improvement and expendi- 
 ture well calculated to alarm the judicious and the 
 prudent. The condition of parties has been this : Sev- 
 enty-nine delegates and nineteen senators from the east, 
 and fifty-six delegates and thirteen senators from the 
 west: the western members representing a majority, 
 and the eastern a minority of the people : the western 
 members feeling no responsibility resting upon them for 
 the general course of legislation — remembering that 
 they were put under the ban in 1829, on account of in- 
 ternal improvements, and seeing, for a long time, in 
 the members from eastern Virginia an obstinate deter- 
 mination to deny the west all improvements and to close 
 their ears to ail appeals for the development of its 
 resources. Thus situated, how natural was it that the 
 fifty-six votes of the west should stand ready to com- 
 bine with any twelve members who might desire an im- 
 provement east of the Blue Ridge. 
 
 How natural that the internal improvement party 
 should understand that in union alone there was strength 
 — that they must combine to carry their schemes against 
 the unyielding and united vote of a large majority from 
 eastern Virginia. The eastern internal improvement 
 party took its origin in the Piedmont district, and in 
 those cities at the head of tide water that derive their 
 trade from the Piedmont and western districts. They 
 were led on by such gallant leaders as the gentleman 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) whose clarion voice has 
 always been heard in the front of the battle. Often 
 
 have I heard him rallying, with cheering cries, the 
 sometimes broken and scattered forces of tne internal 
 improvement party in the House of Delegates — acting 
 then as the bold leader of the " plunderers " and 
 now as the gallant defender of the saving, treasury 
 protecting, mixed basis faith ! This region of the Com- 
 monwealth therefore occupied the vantage ground. 
 With a united anti-internal improvement vote in 
 the tide water district, the Piedmont vote could 
 defeat any western scheme ; and no bill could pass 
 without its co-operation. Occupying this position then 
 it could dictate its own terms to the west and secure 
 such improvements as would best promote its own in- 
 terests. - And what has been the result of this condi- 
 tion of things ? Look abroad over the face of Virginia, 
 and you will find the east intersected with railroads and 
 other improvements, most of them tending towards the 
 west, but " dragging their slow length along" with te- 
 dious tardiness, whilst beyond the Blue Ridge there are 
 but thirty -two miles of railroad, and not yet has a fixed 
 policy of improvement marked the legislation of the 
 State. No great thoroughfares have been forced 
 through to the Ohio river and the Tennessee line. Such 
 I conscientiously believe would have been the case had 
 power been yielded to principle in 1829- '30. The im- 
 provements,of the State are impulsive and short-sighted, 
 and lead to no grand results. From Richmond four 
 railroads and a canal diverge ; from Petersburg three 
 railroads and a river improvement ; from Alexandria 
 two railroads and a canals and what are they all? 
 Mere sickly shoots, starting from insufficient trunks. 
 The public mind of the State, east and west, is now 
 becoming fixed in the opinion that the improvements 
 must be carried through the State before they cease to 
 be burdens on the public treasury. And I ask eastern 
 gentlemen whether it would not have been better for 
 them, as tax payers and as Virginians, that this had 
 been done long ago ? The income of these grand 
 works would now have been filling our treasury, and 
 our noble old State, with renewed energy and vigor, 
 would have been running the race of successful com- 
 petition for the immense and wealth-giving trade of 
 the great west with her bold and intrepid rivals north 
 and south. Virginia feels the despondency of the 
 racer who is thrown behind ; but still realizes the ab- 
 solute necessity of stimulating her exhausted energies 
 to reach the goal. But, I return to the question, has 
 the mixed basis saved the State from a public debt, 
 and from increased taxes ? And has the principle that 
 they who lay should be responsible to those who pay 
 the taxes availed to protect tide water Virginia, or been 
 carried into pi^ctice by Piedmont Virginia? By the 
 report of the finance committee at the present session 
 of the general assembly, it appears that the aggregate 
 debt of the State is $10,516,658, that the productive 
 stocks and funds owned by the State are $6,708,100, 
 leaving an apparent debt of $3,808,557 ; to which must 
 be added $4,632,868 of certain liabilities, and $4,791,894 
 of contingent liabilities in the shape of guaranties, &c, 
 which may or may not be made chargeable on the 
 treasury. A convulsion in the money affairs of the 
 the Union might throw upon the treasury the burden of 
 a debt of $19,097,420. And ^11 men agree that the 
 taxes must be raised. This state of things has grown 
 up under the system of combination, or log-rolling, 
 spoken of before. A distinguished member of the 
 nouse of delegates, (Mr. Burwell from Bedford,) de- 
 scribed this system thus : Log-rolling is a necessity in 
 the legislation of Virginia. At each session some great 
 scheme of improvement is started, and around it con- 
 gregate many smaller projects, all of which are to go 
 through or to fail together. He likened the system. to 
 the progress of a whale through a narrow frith, follow- 
 ed and pushed ahead by a hundred fishes of the smaller 
 tribes : if the whale be stopped, the way becomes 
 blocked up, and the small followers of his mightiness 
 are stopped with him. I now proceed to show that 
 "the whales" have generally been found in the Pied- 
 mont and upper tide-water districts, and that the prin- 
 
13 
 
 ciple that those who lay ought to be responsible to 
 those who pay the taxes has been repudiated in prac- 
 tice by those who now contend for it as the only safe- 
 guard against oppression and the plundering of proper- 
 ty. The following table shows the amounts expended by 
 the State in the four grand divisions; 1&J&1V5,123 78; 
 2nd. $7,449,185 77 ; 3rd. $2,119,363 85, ancf4th, $1,504, 
 098 60, making a total of $11,864,371, of which the first 
 district has received 6 7-10 per cent, whilst it is now 
 paying at the rate of 33 6-10 per cent of the public rev- 
 enue ; 2nd district has received 62 7-10 per cent, and is 
 paying 31 3-10 per cent ; 3rd district has received 17 6-10 
 per cent, and is' paying 17 3-10 per cent, and the 4th dis- 
 trict has received 12 6-10 per cent, and is paying 17 7-10 
 per cent. In addition to the above amounts $480,000 
 have been appropriated to the South Side Rail Road, and 
 $480,000 to the Manassa Gap Rail Road, at the present 
 session of the General Assembly— the one terminating in 
 Petersburg, and the other in Alexandria. (The Central 
 Railroad bill, though advocated by my friend from Fau- 
 quier (Mr. Scott,) has failed. The waters beyond the Alle- 
 ghany are too shallow to float such a whale.) Alexandria, 
 Heaven bless her ! she is indeed a favored daughter of 
 the old mother— she was lost and has been found— she 
 had wandered to a strange jurisdiction and has returned 
 to the bosom of her mother — most cordially has she been 
 welcomed — most gorgeously has she been clothed with 
 costly apparrel ! I do not object to her prosperity and 
 to the favoring smiles she has received. I rejoice, in- 
 deed, that she is so near the vantage ground of the Pied- 
 mont district. It is a little remarkable that the balance 
 on the above exhibit is $1,000,000 at least, in favor of the 
 we st — that the valley has been kept to the ratio of her 
 contributions, whilst the trans- Alleghany district, filled 
 as it has been said with "out-side barbarians," and always 
 crying "give! give!" has not by a great deal, received 
 of the fund of internal improvement a sum equal to 
 what she will have to pay. I have made this calcula- 
 tion upon the basis of the present rate of contribution. I 
 consider this fair because the internal improvements 
 have not been paid for out of the public treasury, but by 
 the creation of a public debt which is yet to be paid, and 
 the youthful energies of the growing west ara to be taxed 
 to pay for her education and development ; and also to re- 
 lieve her mother from her own burdens in a ratio greater 
 than the benefits the west has received. Is it not obvious 
 too that the practice of the Piedmont members in the halls 
 of legislation has differed much from the theories of some of 
 them here ? A heavy amount of taxes has been levied by 
 their votes on tidewater against the consent and remon- 
 strances of the delegates from that district, who declared 
 they did not desire the accomplishment of these schemes 
 of improvement, and who protested against being 
 taxed for purposes in which they had no interest — that 
 they were plundered of their property, and that the 
 Piedmont and the west were clutching at their purse 
 strings. The / answer was, the majority must govern — 
 it is true you have no identity in interest with us in re- 
 spect to internal improvements — but why clamor in our 
 ears ? You are protected by the mixed basis, be con- 
 tent. Every time a Piedmont delegate has voted a tax 
 for a Piedmont improvement, he has imposed a tax of 
 one dollar on his own constituents for his own benefit, 
 and one dollar and ten cents on the tide water district, 
 still for his own benefit and against the protestations of 
 the delegate from- the tide water. I say, that if there 
 be any soundess in the rule, that where there are pe- 
 culiar interests in the community not identified with the 
 general interests, representation should be so arranged 
 as to give those interests the power of self-protec- 
 tion, in defiance of the rule that the majority should 
 govern, then the tide water district ought still to con- 
 trol the power of the Stater I hold to no such doc- 
 trine. I am a firm friend of internal improvements, 
 and believe they eught to be directed by the will and sus- 
 tained by the purse of the community ; and I argue that 
 •in all fairness and justice it is just as safe and right 
 in respect to this vital question, that the will of the 
 
 majority, even if it should be confined to the valley and 
 the trans-Alleghany, should be heard as against the 
 Piedmont and the tide water districts, as that the will 
 of the Piedmont and of the west combined, should be 
 enforced against the tide water district — that it is just 
 as fair and right that the representatives of a majority 
 of the people should assess and expend the taxes for 
 the general benefit, in which Piedmont, from her pe- 
 culiar and advantageous position, must participate, as 
 that axes should be levied and distributed by agents 
 elected on the mixed basis principle, for purposes in 
 which the tide water district can feel no interest and 
 can never participate so long as power remains, where 
 it is. I think it is apparent that the mixed basis is 
 itself no guard against a public debt, or high taxes, 
 and that it will not alone secure a judicious adminis- 
 tration of public affairs. And I think the sentiment 
 is becoming general throughout the east — that other 
 guaranties must be sought than that which has here- 
 tofore been relied on — the guarantee of property repre- 
 sentation. And now, if other guaranties are to be in- 
 troduced, which will limit legislative power, not ac- 
 cording to the whim, caprice, or fickle purpose of the 
 delegate authorized to act at his discretion, and sub- 
 ject only to the vague responsibility of the representa- 
 tive to his constituents, (greatly impaired often times 
 by a temporary self-interest in the constituent body,) 
 why may not such wholesome restraints be wholly re- 
 lied on ? Act on the principle that a majority of the 
 people shall be represented by a majority of the dele- 
 gates, and you throw upon the majority, in and out of 
 your legislative halls, the full responsibility of public 
 affairs. You elevate the people to a sense of their 
 responsibilities ; you make them watchful of the con- 
 duct of their public agents, and you will develop and 
 carry out a public policy approved by a majority, and 
 calculated (if mankind be capable of self-government* 
 to promote the general good. But, at the same time 
 this general will, by common consent , will be subject to 
 such wholesome limitations and restrictions as will 
 secure order, safety, and a general sense of security 
 which the people of this State, both east and west, 
 have not felt for the last five years. 
 
 I proceed now to show that, upon the ordinary prin- 
 ciples of human conduct, the State w T ould be as little 
 subject to excessive taxation — indeed, less liable to 
 it — with the suffrage basis as with the mixed basis. 
 In the first place, 1 argue that the responsibility of the 
 representative, in voting an assessment of taxes, is pro- 
 portioned, not to the amount to be paid by his con- 
 stituents, but to the burden he is about to impose on 
 them, which burden consists chiefly in the difficulty 
 of paying the tax. And I ask gentlemen whether it 
 be not a conceded truth that the rich bear taxes more 
 kindly and contentedly than the poor communities. I 
 refer not to Great Britain, who bears her enormous 
 public debt on her shoulders with the apparent ease 
 and light-heartedness with which a young girl trips 
 along with the eider down upon her neck. 
 
 New York city, with a population of 500,364, ex- 
 pends annually $2,578,325, about three times the ex- 
 penditures of the entire State of Virginia— an average of 
 about $5 ahead. Boston, with a population of 145,750, 
 expended during the years 1849-- '50, about $3,169,850, 
 a large portion of which was borrowed to supply her 
 people with water. Her annual expenditures amountto 
 $1,266,030. Philadelphia pays into the public treasury 
 of Pennsylvania $602,944, being 30 per cent of the whole 
 taxes of the State, besides, at least, three-fourths of 
 $441,000 raised by the State by tax on corporations, 
 auctions, &c. The population of the city of Philadel- 
 phia proper, excluding the suburbs, is 150,000 ; her pub- 
 lic debt is $4,311,784, and her annual liabilities $795,- 
 238. The population of Baltimore is 167,000. Balti- 
 more pays more than 30 per cent, of the public reve- 
 nue of IVlaryland. Out of $1,315,439 raised in 1849 ^ 
 $432,650 were collected in Baltimore, whilst the annu- 
 al expenditures of the city were $819,622. The rate 
 of taxation on the $100 worth of real estate are— it* 
 
14 
 
 New York, #1 1% Philadelphia, $1 56; Baltimore, 
 
 93 cts.; Boston, 68 cts. And in Virginia, Norfolk, with 
 a white population of 9,068 has incurred a debt of 
 $270,000. Portsmouth, with a white population of four 
 or jive thousand, has a debt of 35180,000. Ricnmond with 
 a white population of 15,307, has a debt of $1,000,000. 
 I need not refer to the heavy liabilities assumed by 
 Wheeling, Lynchburg, and other towns in the State. 
 These liabilities have been voluntarily assumed, and the 
 burden is cheerfully born by such rich communties. 
 The rate of tax on real estate, even here in the city 
 of Richmond, imposed for city purposes, would, if ex- 
 tended to the lands of the State, produce an income ol 
 $1,373,401, or the interest on a debt of $23,000,000. 
 If entrusted with the power it may suit the purposes of 
 the richer portions of the State to increase the rate of 
 taxes, and if the ratio be uniform throughout the State, 
 what would be the effect ? — on whom would the burden 
 fall most heavily ? — and who would hold their represen 
 tatives to the sternest responsibility ? I ask, would 
 not the burden fall least oppressively on the rich, and 
 with the most crushing weight on the poor portions of the 
 State ? Go to the coitage of the poor man, and then to 
 the counting hquse, the farm, or the sumptuous man- 
 sion of the rich, and ask which will complain most of a 
 rateable increase of taxes ; the latter of their abundance 
 will cast into the treasury : the former of their penury 
 will cast in their all ; the one will curtail his luxuries, 
 perhaps, to meet the demands of the State ; he does 
 not complain of a scale of public expenditure propor- 
 tioned somewhat to his own outlays ; but the other, 
 stinted by penury in his personal indulgences to the 
 most ordinary comforts, will find the tax gatherer lay- 
 ing his hand on those comforts ; aye ! on the very ne- 
 cessaries of his wife and of his children, to sustain the 
 extravagances of the government. Who will com- 
 plain most ? Who will go out from his home to the 
 polls most firmly resolved to question his public ser- 
 vants as to the necessity, the propriety of an increase 
 of taxes ? The experience and common sense of all 
 who hear me will respond that the poor man, the poor 
 community, will feel most heavily, and resist mest 
 promptly the burden of excessive taxation. And I stand 
 here now to demand power for the moderate in cir- 
 cumstances, whether east or west, to protect themselves 
 from excessive taxation, to guard their humble means 
 from the oppression of wealth armed with power. 1 
 stand here to protest against the assumed right of the 
 minority to judge of the ability of the majority to pay ; 
 to measure that ability by the standard of their own 
 abundance, instead of by the scale of our poverty. We 
 resist the claim of eastern men who, upon the ground 
 that they must have power to protect their own proper- 
 ty, seek a power which may destroy ours ; who to 
 guard against taxes imposed by the majority, demand 
 the right to tax that majority; who, rather than yield 
 their contributions to be disposed of by the general will, 
 assert a right, not only to govern the majority, but to 
 tax the majority, and afterwards to dispose of the taxes 
 assessed at their discretion. Such claims of power are 
 enough to make the blood of freemen boil with indig- 
 nant resistance to its assumptions; enough to make the 
 young giant of the west struggle to snap the bonds 
 which bind him. Poverty is a hard lot ; it is a weari- 
 some toil, this struggle with adverse fortune ; and 
 whether men are regarded singly or in communities, the 
 doom of the puor is cheerless and depressed ; but for the 
 humble poor, with equal love of life, liberty, property, 
 and happiness, with an unconquerable yearning for 
 every birthright of freemen, to be oppressed, put down, 
 degraded, and kept down, by the strong, the prosperous, 
 and the wealthy ; and to be told by the strong man, 
 armed with power, as he stands over them, that all this 
 is necessary for his protection, is adding the bitterness 
 of insult to the wrong of injury. 
 
 Here Mr. Sheffey, being much exhausted, gave way 
 to a motion that the committee rise. 
 
 [Mr. SHEFFEY'8 REMARKS OF THURSDAY 
 FEBRUARY 20.] 
 
 Mr. SHSFFEY. I regret very much that indisposi- 
 tion under which I have been laboring for some days, 
 prevented me from concluding my remarks on yester- 
 day. I shall hasten to the conclusion of what I have 
 to say. 
 
 I was yesterday endeavoring to prove that the mixed 
 basis was, in itself, no safeguard against excessive 
 taxes, and that its friends, its peculiar advocates on 
 this floor, who are opposed to " paper guaranties " 
 with the suffrage basis, cannot rely on the mixed basis 
 as a sufficient protection to property, without " paper 
 guaranties ;" and I argued to prove that proper re- 
 strictions upon legislaave power might be efficient 
 in preventing abuses, and would prove to be as neces- 
 sary to the mixed as to the suffrage basis ; and, if as 
 necessary, then that the mixed basis, as an all-sufficient 
 protection against excessive taxation, was not sustained 
 by such a political necessity as, even in the eyes of 
 our opponents, would justify a departure from the fun- 
 damental principles of republican equality. I then 
 undertook to prove that the suffrage basis would be as 
 safe without any constitutional restrictions as the mix- 
 ed basis, inasmuch as the responsibility of the repre- 
 sentative in voting taxes would be measured, not by 
 the amount his constituents would have to pay, but by 
 the burden of the tax imposed — by the difficulty of 
 paying it ; and that those who possess most means impose 
 taxes on themselves, and others connected with them, 
 more freely and with fewer complaints, than those 
 who are less abundantly blessed with the means of con- 
 tributing to the support of government; and I declared 
 myself the advocate of equal power, in the adminis- 
 tration of the government, for the moderate in circum- 
 stances, as a means of self-protection to those who 
 were otherwise powerless. If government be designed 
 for the protection of one class above another, it is for 
 the protection of the weak against the strong — the 
 humble against the great— the poor against the rich; 
 and whence, then, comes this claim of power on the 
 part of the rich, the prosperous, and the great? What 
 is wealth? It is defined to be "the power by which 
 one man commands the labor of another." By itself 
 it commands men — it controls and directs the muscles 
 and sinews of the world. Its tendency is constantly 
 to involve the many in the iron grasp of its power; 
 and it is a cruel despot when it is endowed with su- 
 preme authority. Shall we not only protect it by law — 
 by constitutional guards from the assaults of the many — 
 declare it to be safe, whilst we acknowledge it to be 
 strong; but, in addition, exalting it to the dignity of an 
 idol, clothe it with the powers of government, and 
 surrender everything to its control? But gentlemen 
 say it is not wealth they seek to have represented, 
 but "the interests and rights which spring from the 
 possession of money," and which are impaired by ex- 
 cessive taxes. I reply that if taxes be uniform, the 
 interests of the tax-payers will be identical, and the 
 amount may be safely left to the will of the major- 
 ity — those who pay less having less to pay with, and 
 finding it harder to pay their ratable share than the 
 rich. I now proceed to show that the mixed basis 
 gives the majority of delegates to eastern Virginia, 
 whilst the majority of tax -payers reside west of the 
 Blue Ridge. There are very few slave owners who 
 are not landholders; the exceptions are principally 
 women and minors. The following table shows the 
 number of persons assessed with tax on lands, slaves, 
 and other property, in the four divisions of the State : 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 Slaves. 
 
 Other property 
 
 
 
 19,425 
 
 28,857 
 
 2 
 
 . . . .34,195 
 
 20,513 
 
 35,197 
 
 
 . . ,22,775 
 
 5,993 
 
 24,782 
 
 4....... 
 
 . . . .41,874 
 
 4,169 
 
 47,281 ' 
 
 
 
 50,200 
 
 136,117 
 
 From this table it appears that, admitting every 
 
15 
 
 ?lave owner to be a landholder, there are 84,364 land- 
 holders in the Commonwealth who are not slave own- 
 ers, and that the owners of land and of other property 
 east, are 133,869; west, 136,712 — showing a majority 
 of 2,843 in favor of the west, The great principle of 
 the Revolution was, that "taxation and representation 
 were inseparable — that taxation without representation 
 was tyranny." I ask, when a minority of tax-payers 
 govern and tax the majority of tax-payers, whether 
 this principle he not violated? It never was dreamed 
 or thought of by our fathers, that representation should 
 be in proportion to the amount paid, but that no man, 
 however humble, should be taxed, however little, ex- 
 cept by his own consent, or that of his representative 
 who should speak for him, and possess the same power 
 to protect him as the represetative of any other tax- 
 payer. And I charge the minority with trampling 
 under foot this great principle of the Revolution — a 
 minority who, aiming at self-protection, demand the 
 power to oppress the majority, who, whilst seeking to 
 retain the control of their own property, require the 
 majority to give up to them theirs also; who, in order 
 to shield the few who pay much, ask for all power over 
 the many, who pay as much in proportion as God has 
 blessed them with the means. 
 
 I proceed now to show that if representation be ap- 
 portioned according to the number ot the qualified voters, 
 the legislative power will be in the hands of those whose 
 interests will forbid the imposition of excessive taxes. 
 The basis of qualified voters would give to the east sev- 
 enty votes in a house of one hundred and fifty six mem- 
 bers ; to the valley twenty eight and to the trans-alle- 
 ghany fifty eight votes ; Jie valley and the east com- 
 bined would cast ninety eight votes against th: fifty eight 
 votes of the trans alleghany district ; and could protect 
 property if the entire far west were filled with plunder- 
 ers. I lay it down as a proposition not to be controvert- 
 ed, that (even if the amount of taxes paid be the crite- 
 rion of safety.) ' power f may be safely lodged in the hands 
 of those who pav an average amount of the taxes levied ; 
 and if I show that the valley is identified in interest with 
 the east, measuring that interest by the amount of her 
 contributions to the treasury, and that the valley and the 
 east combined will have the power to protect property 
 from plunder or excessive taxation, I demonstrate that 
 there is no political necessity for the mixed basis and 
 that, according to Mr. Upshur's admission, the rule of 
 free governments — the rule of the majority — should be 
 adhered to. The taxes as I have stated are $534,772.82 : 
 the average to each white person is 59 cent- 5 milis ; 1st 
 district 94 cents 9 mills: 2nd district 78 cents 1 mill: 
 3rd district 56 cents 6 mills: and 4th district 28 cents 6 
 mills. The white population of Richmond, Norfolk, Pe- 
 tersburg and Alexandria is 38.248, and the taxes paid by 
 them are $57,169/50. Exclude these towns and the av- 
 erage to each white person in the St:tte is 55 cents, 5 
 mills: 1st district, 81 cents 1 mill: 2d district, 78 cents 
 1 mill : 3d district 56 cents 6 mills : 4th district, 28 cents 
 6 mills : and in the four tpwns named, the average is 149 
 cents4 mills. There are 270,581 persons charged with land 
 .and other property, (slaves excepted) the average to each 
 tax payer is $1 97"; 1st district $2 78 ; 2nd district $2 41 ; 
 3rd district $1 94 and 4th district $1 06. There are 134,- 
 464 per-ons chaiged with tax on lauds and lots ; the gen- 
 eral average is §2 22: 1st district $2 56 ; 2nd district §2 
 36 ; 3rd district 82 68, and 4th district $1 56 : there are 
 50,100 persons charged with tax on slaves; the general 
 average is §1 62 : 1st district 81 54 ; 2nd district 81 91 ; 
 3rd district 81 14, and 4th district 81 03 : there are 136,- 
 117 persons charged with tax on property, other than 
 lands and slaves: the general average is 81 13 : 
 1st district 81 98 ; 2nd district 81 34 ; 3rd district 
 ^8 cents, and 4th district 53 cents. These general 
 averages show that upon the entire tax the valley 
 falls short of the average only 2 cents 9 mills 
 to each white person: that excluding the four towns 
 aamed before the valley exceeds the general av- 
 erage 1 cent 1 mill: that in respect to the tax on 
 
 lands and other property, it falls short of the av- 
 erage 3 cents to each tax payer : that it exceeds the 
 average of the land tax 46 cents, and stands in the front 
 rank in this regard: that it falls short of the average 
 in the slave tax only 48 cents to each tax paver — that 
 the tide water district also falls below this average, there 
 being a remarkable approximation to equality in the 
 amount paid by the owners of slaves. I submit the fol- 
 lowing statements further to show that on the score of 
 self-interest, power may be safely apportioned according 
 to the number of qualified voters : Lot tax : general aver- 
 a:e to each white person in the commonwealth is 7 cents 
 3 mills : 1st district 22 cents 2 mills ; 2nd district 3 cents 
 6 mills ; 3rd district 3 cents 8 mills, and 4th district 2 
 cents 8 mills : Land tax : general average 25 cents 9 
 mills ; 1st district 26 cents 2 mills ; 2nd district 34 cents 
 3 mills ; 3rd district 33 cents 8 mills, aud 4th district 17 
 cents 1 mill : Horse tax : general average is 3 cents 5 
 mills : 1st district 2 cents 8 mills ; 2nd district 4 cents 4 
 mills ; 3rd district 4 cents, and 4th district 3 cents : 
 Watch tax: the general average is 1 cent 9 mills: 1st 
 district 3 cents 7 mills ; 2nd district 2 cents 3 mills ; 3rd 
 district 1 cent 7 mills, and 4th district 7 mills : Clock 
 tax : general average is 1 cent 5 mills : 1st district 1 cent 
 5 mills ; 2nd district 1 cent 4 mills ; 3rd district 1 cent 
 9 mills, and 4th district 1 cent 3 mills. These items in- 
 cluding the slave tax already considered, yield a revenue 
 of $443,597. I have not alluded to the taxes on coaches, 
 pianos, harps, plate, gold, silver, interest, income, attor- 
 nies, physicians and collateral inheritances which yield a 
 revenue of $82,569. This revenue comes principally 
 from the cities and from property not diffused over the 
 east ; and in respect to which I suggest that the west may 
 be as safely trusted as the county delegates from the 
 the east, very few of whom feel as much interest in the 
 growth and prosperity of the cities as the people of the 
 valley. But even in regard to this tax the valley does 
 not fall very far short of the general average. To each 
 white person the average is nine cents six mills ; 1st 
 district 18 cents, 9 mills ; 2d district 15 cents, 4 mills ; 
 3d district 6 cents, 6 mills ; and 4th district 2 cents. 
 There is one tax in respect to which the west cannot 
 hope and will not desire to rival the east, I allude to 
 the tax on free negroes — a tax which amounts to $8,606, 
 and of which $7,363 are paid in the east; and $1,243 in 
 the west — the difference in favor of the east being $6,120, 
 almost enough to furnish one tax delegate. This tax is 
 included by the terms of the substitute as well as in the 
 actual apportionments made in proposition A, and gives 
 the east one delegate, making her majority 14 instead 
 of 12 in the house of delegates. It silences the voice of 
 upwards of 17,000 white persons and confers power on 
 those who imposed the burden on the free negroes to 
 drive them from the Commonwealth. I mention this 
 particularly to show how uncertain, fluctuating, and 
 really unjust the mixed basis is, and how power may be 
 retained by it in the hands of those who owe power 
 to it. 
 
 Before I proceed further I will say a few words con- 
 cerning the progress of wealth and population in Vir- 
 ginia Between 1819 and 1838 the real estate decreased 
 in value in the first district $10,792,943, and in the sec- 
 ond district $9,149,213, showing an aggregate decrease 
 in eastern Virginia of $19,942,15-6, whilst in the third 
 district there was an increase of $1,818,692, and in the 
 fourth district of $23,159,994, showing an aggregate in- 
 crease in the west of $24,978,686. The folloAving table 
 will show the value of the real estate in 1850, the in- 
 crease in the districts since 1838, and the increase in 
 taxes resulting therefrom : 
 
 Districts. 
 1st, 
 2d, 
 3d, 
 4th. 
 
 Value . 
 $77,964,574 
 77,786,477 
 59,250,746 
 61,527,769 
 
 Increase. 
 $17,260,521 
 8,769,771 
 16,258,542 
 22,310,224 
 
 Increase tax. 
 $3,195.05 
 5,541.02 
 12,915.37 
 16,995.05 
 
 Total, $299,529,566 $64,599,058 $38,646.49 
 
 It appears from this table that whilst the real estate 
 east has increased in value since 1838 $26,030,292, the 
 
16 
 
 taxes of the east will be increased thereby only $8,736.17, 
 aad that the real estate west* has increased in value 
 $38,568,765, and the taxes $29,910.42. The reason of 
 this apparent inconsistency is, that the value of real 
 estate has increased chiefly in the towns in eastern Vir- 
 ginia — the town property having been already entered 
 on the commissioners' books and charged with taxes. 
 The increase in the value of lands west over that east 
 will be seen to be $12,537,473 ; the increase in the towns 
 east over that in the towns west is $8,635,778, whilst the 
 increase out of the towns west over that east is 
 $20,274,250. I desire this fact to be remembered when 
 I come to speak of the mode in which the substitute 
 proposes to distribute the surplus population and taxes 
 of the towns. 
 
 I will mention some additional facts which will have 
 an important bearing on what I have to say. First, that 
 since 1830 the slave population has decreased in eastern 
 Virginia 3,580, whilst it has increased west 19,797. Be- 
 tween 1840 and 1850 the slaves increased east 17,487, 
 and west 9,497, showing a steady increase of this sort 
 of property in the west, an increase not subject to those 
 fluctuations that mark its progress in eastern Virginia. 
 Between 1830 and 1840 the white population decreased 
 east 6,259 and increased west 52,925 ; between 1840 
 and 1850 it increased east 33,373 and west 123,193. 
 The following table will show the increase of revenue 
 since 1845, derived from subjects on which the taxes 
 have not been changed, and not including merchants' 
 licenses, law process and deeds : 
 
 Per cent, increase. 
 
 If 
 
 H 
 
 2 
 
 24 
 4* 
 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 1845 
 
 $431,845 93 
 
 
 1846 
 
 439,444 04 
 
 $7,598 11 
 
 1847 
 
 452,850 22 
 
 13,406 18 
 
 1848 
 
 461,967 66 
 
 9,117 44 
 
 1849 
 
 472,516 64 
 
 10,548 98 
 
 1850 
 
 495,626 33 
 
 23,109 69 
 
 Increase in five years, $63,780 40 14f 
 
 This table shows a steady increase in the value and 
 amount of the property of the Commonwealth. If the 
 per centage of the taxes paid respectively by the east 
 and the west be looked to, it will appear that the ratio 
 has not been materially altered since 1840; and if the 
 explanation of this be sought, it will be found in the 
 prosperity and increased taxes of eastern towns. I will 
 be indulged whilst I show the per centage of taxes 
 paid by the east and the west since 1840. In 1840 the 
 east paid 67 9-10 per cent, of all the taxes, and the 
 west 32 1-10 per cent. In 1848, east 67 8-10, west 
 32 2-10 ; in 1849, east 67 7-10, west 32 3-10 ; in 1850, 
 east 68, west 32, and including the new land tax the 
 ratio would now be, east 65, west 35. It will be seen 
 that the west lost ground in 1850; that was owing to 
 the free negro tax of which I have already spoken. 
 The real estate, then, is increasing in value more rapidly 
 in the west than in the east, but the capital and per- 
 sonal property in the east, when compared with that 
 in the west, increases very nearly in the ratio of two 
 to one. This ratio of increase is not kept up in the 
 east by the land tax, by the tax on slaves or horses, 
 (subjects generally held by eastern property-holders,) 
 but, as will be seen by the tax on a class of subjects 
 enjoyed as luxuries, or held confessedly by a few per- 
 sons, and in which the people generally, either east or 
 west, are not interested. 
 
 I now proceed to show that, upon any question of 
 taxes, if the burden of the tax is to be estimated by its 
 amount and not by the ability to pay, western counties 
 may be as safely trusted as eastern counties. The argu- 
 ments urged on this floor are, that danger is to be ap- 
 prehended from the west. The east may be relied 
 on to resist excessive taxation. I propose to compare 
 a number of western and eastern counties. In making 
 my calculations I have used a statement recently fur- 
 nished to us by the auditor, because it contains the new 
 land tax. This statement also includes the tax on 
 law process and notarial seals, which is not to be in- 
 
 cluded in making apportionments under the mixed basis 
 But these items can make no appreciable difference, as' 
 the tax on them east is $18,445 03, and west $16,718 34. 
 According to this statement the average to each white 
 person in the Commonwealth is 64 cents 6 mills : or ex- 
 cluding Richmond, Norfolk, Petersburg and Alexandria, 
 59 cents 2 mills : 1st district 107 cents, including the 
 towns named, or excluding those towns, 85 cents 5 mills ; 
 2d district 82 cents 2 mills ; 3d district 60 cents 6 
 mills, and 4th 31 cents 8 mills, and in the towns named 
 160 cents 3 mills. It will be seen, the valley is still 
 above the average excluding the towns. The per capita 
 contributions of the counties west and east are as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 West. Bast 
 
 €ts. ms. Cts. ms. 
 
 Brooke 49 4 Accomae ..64 3 
 
 Greenbrier 52 8 Matthews... 44 5 
 
 Kanawha 45 0 Elizabeth City 72 8 
 
 Ohio 55 5 Gloucester 77 0 
 
 Washington 40 5 Richmond 52 7 
 
 Wythe 44 8 Westmorland 79 6 
 
 Berkeley 70 1 Stafford 61 7 
 
 Jefferson 106 5 Fluvanna 71 3 
 
 Frederick 75 4 Greene 50 2 
 
 Clarke 153 6 Rappahannock 63 5 
 
 Warren .59 3 Prince Wm 63 6 
 
 Hardy 48 2 Fairfax 70 7 
 
 Rockingham 58 5 Princess Ann 58 0 
 
 Augusta 72 7 Norfolk 68 0 
 
 Rockbridge 54 8 Nansemond 66 1 
 
 Botetourt 46 3 Isle of Wight/ 68 0 
 
 Roanoke 54 0 Pittsylvania 54 1 
 
 Brunswick .67 7 
 
 Appomatox .64 6 
 
 Nelson 62 6 
 
 Patrick 24 0 
 
 Henry 42 5 
 
 Franklin 34 4 
 
 Bedford 48 2 
 
 Amherst. 60 8 
 
 I ask whether these western counties, altogether, may 
 not be as safely confided in as the eastern counties I 
 have named? It is true, there are many western coun- 
 ties which fall far below the average standard, but if 
 the western counties named above are willing to base 
 representation on the qualified voters, what objection 
 on the score of safety can the eastern counties urge ? 
 Before leaving this subject I will remark, that it is a 
 striking fact that Pittsylvania, Bedford, and Brunswick, 
 which pay comparatively small per capita contributions 
 are large slave holding counties. Pittsylyania has 13,- 
 228, Bedford 9,958, and Brunswick 7,528 slaves. The 
 argument derived from the per capita contributions 
 which our opponents press upon us would strip those 
 counties of power. But another argument urged by 
 some, that where there is a peculiar property, its owners 
 should possess legislative power to protect it, would en- 
 title the same counties to a great increase of power. I 
 will not stop to reconcile the arguments. 
 
 I proceed now to consider the last danger to property, 
 the power in the legislative body to discriminate in im- 
 posing taxes, between one species of property and an- 
 other. If I have satisfied any gentleman that there is 
 no danger from excessive taxation, but he still dreads 
 western hostility towards slave property, his fears may 
 at once be quieted by the ad valorem principle of taxa- 
 tion. Strip the public agents of all power to discrimi- 
 nate ; fix now the ratio of contribution ; graduate it to 
 suit all the great interests of the State ; establish a scale 
 of taxes which may not be changed ; let the actual or 
 the annual value be the test as may be deemed best. In 
 my opinion the ad valorem mode of taxation is just, 
 equal and uniform ; it conforms to the principle that the 
 obligation to pay taxes is proportioned to the value of 
 the property to be protected — to the ability to pay. All 
 of us, I trust, desire to do ovir whole duty. None of us 
 wish to contribute less than our proper share ; none wish 
 
17 
 
 .others to pay more than what is just. Let us limit t,he 
 legislative power so as to secure what is right and dispel 
 the fears of all. But I am met again with the objection 
 that this too is a "paper guarantee" which the majority 
 may at some future day throw off at pleasure. What 
 temptation I ask, could there be to remove such a re- 
 striction ? What could the west gain by discarding a 
 just, an equal, a righteous system of taxation? Need 
 I say that the spirit of the age, which is marked by strong 
 distrust of pubiic agents, is against any such apprehen- 
 sion. But what could the west gain by annulling the 
 ad valorem guarantee ? The gentleman from Greens- 
 ville intimated that we wanted power in order that we 
 might get the control of the slave property of the east; and 
 it is, I suppose, feared that the ad valorem guarantee 
 would be set aside for the purpose of enabling the west 
 to burden slave property with the greater portion of 
 taxes. I have already shown that that species of pro- 
 perty is rapidly increasing in the west — increasing in a 
 ratio much greater than in the east — that we are every 
 year becoming more and more identified with the east 
 in this respect. In the convention of 1829, Mr. Joynes, 
 the distinguished member from Accomac, announced it 
 as a principle to be relied on, that where the number of 
 slaves in a county, when compared with the whole popu 
 lation, approximates to the ratio which the slave proper- 
 ty of the whole State bears to the whole population 
 the slave interest in that county may be considered safe 
 Now the ratio between the whole population in Virginia 
 (excluding free negroes) and the slave population is that 
 of one hundred to thirty-three. Those counties then in 
 which the number of slaves approximates thirty-three 
 per cent of the entire population are interested in pro 
 tecting slave property. The entire east, it is said, is to 
 be relied on, but the west has, it is said, no interest in 
 slavery and is not to be trusted. Permit me to compare 
 certain counties east and west — in some of which the 
 number of slaves exceeds, and in others it falls a little 
 short of thirty -three per cent of the whole population. 
 I submit the following table •: 
 
 West. Excess. 
 Alleghany 
 Augusta 
 Bath 
 Berkeley 
 Kanawha 
 Botetourt 
 Clarke 1136 
 Frederick 
 Jefferson 
 Roanoke 
 Wythe 
 Rockbridge 
 Pulaski 
 Warren 
 Montgomery 
 
 I beg gentlemen to consider this list and then ask 
 themselves whether these western counties, which on 
 the basis of qualified voters would cast 22 votes, enough 
 when added to the 71 votes east, to resist all assaults 
 
 Deficit, 
 
 East Excess. 
 
 Deficit. 
 
 iHh 
 
 Franklin 
 
 
 88 
 
 3148 
 
 Loudoun 
 
 
 1685 
 
 196 
 
 Patrick 
 
 
 876 
 
 1968 
 
 Henry 
 
 370 
 
 
 1974 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 
 1950 
 
 1232 
 
 Accomac 
 
 
 966 
 
 
 Fairfax 
 
 
 110 
 
 3030 
 
 Henrico 
 
 989 
 
 
 778 
 
 Isle of Wight 278 
 
 
 312 
 
 Matthews 
 
 690 
 
 
 1813 
 
 Nansemond 
 
 
 147 
 
 1150 
 
 Prince William 
 
 212 
 
 334 
 
 Norfolk City 
 
 
 478 
 
 454 
 
 
 
 
 1314 
 
 
 
 
 ers of the west consent to tax oppressively the slaves * 
 they are buying to work their lands ? The answer is, to 
 relieve from taxes the lauds to be worked by them. 
 Search the annals of civilized man and no such instance 
 of stupid wickedness can be found. Audit is the fear of 
 such folly and senseless viciousness that deters eastern 
 men from trusting their western brethren ! 
 
 I now desire to show what hereafter may be the at- 
 titude of parties in the house of delegates if either 
 the substitute or proposition A be adopted. There will 
 be sixty-eight delegates representing 494,763 white per- 
 sons, paying according to the last statement of the au- 
 ditor $204,256 taxes ; and 82 delegates representing 
 402,771, paying §366,236 taxes. The votes of Lou- 
 do in and Richmond city added, upon any question, to 
 the 68 western votes would produce a tie — 75 to 75 ; 
 deduct the population and taxes of Loudoun and Rich- 
 mond from the east and add them to the West, and this 
 result will follow, that 75 delegates will represent 
 525,136 white persons and $248,093 taxes, and 75 
 delegates will represent 372,398 white persons and 
 $ 3 22,349 taxes ; the majority of white persons on the 
 one hand being 152,738 and of taxes on the other being 
 $68, 975; that is to say 372,398 white persons will have 
 equal political power with 525,136, because they pay 
 an average tax of 18 cents 5 mills each more than the 
 525,136, or rather because a few rich men amongst the 
 372,398 pay a heavy amount of taxes to which the poor 
 amongst them become entitled by the legerdemain of 
 the mixed basis. In this profound political problem 
 the ratio between the surplus of men and the surplus of 
 taxes, is that of one to forty-five one hundreths, that is 
 one man is counted against 45 cents — a high price in- 
 deed does the mixed basis set upon the heads of free- 
 men. 
 
 View the subject in another aspect and the property 
 feature in the mixed basis will appear equally offen- 
 sive. The argument of gentlemen is that if the east 
 and the west were equal in population and taxes they 
 ought to be equal in representation, but that the mi- 
 nority east paying the majority of taxes should have 
 the greater power. The population east is 402,771 
 and the taxes west $204,256". Now if the population 
 west were only 402,771, and the taxes east only $204,- 
 256, then the two sections would be equal and entitled 
 to an equal number of delegates, say 68 each ; but it is 
 found that whilst 402,771 exhausts the white popula- 
 tion east, that number deducted from the white popula- 
 tionfwest leaves a surplus of 91,992 ; and that $204,256 
 which exhausts the taxes west, deducted from $366,236, 
 the taxes paid by the East, leaves a surplus of $ 161 ,980. 
 The East and the West then present themselves as 
 equals, with sixty-eight delegates — the West, however, 
 with a surplus of white population amounting to 91,992, 
 and the East with a surplus of taxes amounting to 
 $ 161,980, And how is this surplus on each side dispo- 
 sed of by the mixed basis? Why, it is said to be just 
 and right that the West should remain content with her 
 sixty-eight delegates, and lose her surplus of popula- 
 tion. Nay, more, that the East should" have fourteen 
 additional delegates. Thus, $161,980 in taxes, annuls 
 the representative power of 91,992 free white persons; 
 
 on the peculiar institutions of Virginia — and which are I and after accomplishing this wholesale destruction 
 
 so eagerly seeking to acquire slave property, may not be 
 trusted to resist either a discriminating tax or the repeal 
 of the ad valorem guarantee ? A discriminating tax or 
 the repeal of the ad valorem guarantee, with a view to a 
 discriminating tax on slaves, would, in the first place, be 
 an act of gross injustice, and I respectfully suggest that 
 western men have some moral sense, can appreciate 
 to some extent the distinction between right and wrong ; 
 but if they did not, they have intelligence enough to see 
 and understand that such a mode of taxation would de- 
 stroy the very property which they show such e agerness 
 to acquire. There are 91 7 slave-owners in Augusta, 611 
 
 confers fourteen additional delegates on the East. Such 
 a process of (S clipping the sovereigns" would well 
 justify a prosecution for petty treason against the of- 
 fending parties ! 
 
 I will now bring to your notice, a provision in the 
 substitute, which, in my opinion, is calculated to work 
 a three-fold wrong. I allude to that clause which de- 
 clares that 4 ' The representation in no town or city shall 
 at any time exceed delegates and 
 
 Senators ; but the surplus fractions thereof, whether of 
 population or taxation, shall be estimated in assigning 
 representation to the sections of the State in which 
 
 in Rockbridge — most of them voters — and a large por-j they are respectively situated. " In the first place, here 
 tion of the voting population in each of the counties is a violation of the principle on which alone the mixed 
 
 named, directly interested in protecting 
 erty. And for what purpose would thu 
 
 slave prop- 
 yl. tVe owu- 
 
 basis can be justified, that, the community possessing 
 wealth or property, which may be injured by legisla- 
 
tive acts, ought to have representative power to protect 
 its interests. This proviso of the substitute declares 
 that when the wealth shall have increased, the property 
 shall have accumulated, so as to be in truth a tempta- 
 tion to plunderers, the power of protection shall be cut 
 short, and the overgrown mass of glittering pelf shall 
 lie open to the assaults of all who may have the " itch- 
 ing palm" — may feel a propensity to seize their neigh- 
 bors' purse-strings. But in the second place, this pro- 
 viso not only declares that the inhabitants, by whose 
 energy and enterprize, the population and wealth of 
 the cities have been increased, shall cease to have the 
 power which the payment of large revenues would af- 
 ford for self-protection, but that at a certain point in 
 their progress, they themselves shall cease to be count- 
 ed in assigning representation. However great may 
 be the population, the surplus beyond a given number 
 shall be silenced, and the freemen of the cities placed 
 upon a worse footing of degradation than those even of 
 the West. How pleasant to the people of Richmond 
 will it not be, at some future day, Avhen suddenly ar- 
 rested by the very prosperity they once sought to pro- 
 tect, they find the increase of population or of wealth 
 of no avail to give them power. How pleasant then to 
 reflect that they aided to secure the adoption of the 
 mixed basis — that but for their own votes they might 
 have stood upon an equal footing with their fellow- 
 citizens throughout the State ! But in the third place, 
 this proviso not only disfranchises the population, and 
 strips the property of the cities of the power of self- 
 protection, but with an unheard-of generosity gives the 
 surplus fractions to the sections in which the cities are 
 respectively situated. The reservoir of city power 
 shall have a certain capacity and no more, and the 
 bright waters that' flow into it, shall rise sparkling to 
 the brim, and then fall in cool refreshing currents on 
 the parched and exhausted regions around it! The 
 picture is beautiful — the idea is poetical ; but is the 
 principle sound — is the thing itself just and right? — 
 What attracts population — what brings capital to your 
 cities? It is their trade — it is their commerce — it is 
 their back country ! Without the last, no city can grow ; 
 with it, and with ways opened to it, any city will pros- 
 per. And what is the effect of the proviso? Not to 
 give the back country of a city — that country from 
 which it derives its strength and support — the benefit 
 of its surplus population and wealth, but to give it to 
 the lowlands beyond her — who are her enemies oft- 
 times — hostile to her interests, and incapable of §ym- 
 pathizing with her purposes. Richmond, whose inter- 
 est and sympathies, all bind her to the Piedmont and the 
 West, is to furnish strength to tide-water, which trades 
 with Baltimore, to crush all those schemes of improve- 
 ment in which she is interested ! There is a meaning 
 in this proposition which I call on you and the country 
 to mark. It is put forth by the far-seeing and sagacious 
 champion of the mixed basis, (Mr. Scott of F.,) and 
 discloses two facts : First, that the mixed basis will 
 not work as a principle — its friends are afraid to trust 
 it—they see the results of following its lead — and they 
 are right. The mixed basis would concentrate immense 
 power in the cities. Did I not tell you yesterday that 
 Baltimore and Philadelphia paid forty per cent, of the 
 revenues of their respective States ? It will not do to 
 surrender ourselves altogether to the money power. 
 The second fact disclosed, is, that although the cities 
 are to be deprived of their surplus wealth and popula- 
 tion, that surplus is still necessary to sustain the ascen- 
 dancy of Eastern power, and must be so used. And 
 how used ? To give representation to people and mon- 
 ey, (by a pleasant fiction,) as belonging to Charles City, 
 New Kent, Matthews, Middlesex, &c, when, in fact, 
 they belong to Richmond, — to give these counties not 
 only the full benefit of their own population and wealth, 
 but, to make assurance doubly sure, lest the West might 
 overtake and beat them on their own principles, the 
 declining energies of Eastern counties are to be prop- 
 ped up and sustained by the power of the cities — which 
 power the cities have acquired by trading with the 
 West. Oh ! humiliating picture ! Sad deoline of East- 
 
 ern pride — of Eastern independence! Stop the influ- 
 ence on power of the growth of the cities, and the scale 
 of Western representation would rise rapidly, even on 
 the mixed basis ; but retain that influence, and I almost 
 despair, when I look forward to the future ! I have al- 
 ready shown how rapidly the value of real estate is in- 
 creasing in the cities. I will now show how they have 
 grown in taxable property. In 1840, the land and pro- 
 perty tax of Richmond, Petersburg and Norfolk, was 
 § 28,374 22 ; in 1848, it was $45,124 93 ; and in 1850, 
 it was $53,802 17. Add Alexandria to the list, and 
 the aggregate for 1848, is $50,789 24; and for 1850, 
 $61,341 24. The increase in these four towns, in two 
 years, has been upwards of $ 10,000. And what is the 
 prospect before us ? These very towns are stretching 
 out their arms for Western trade— opening their mar- 
 kets for Western products — straining every nerve to se- 
 cure the wealth-giving traffic of their back country ! 
 And what will be the effect of the system of internal 
 improvements Virginia is now executing ? Suppose the 
 Central Road and Canal, or either of them, extended to 
 the Ohio river, and the South-western road extended to 
 the Tennessee line, and there connecting with lines of 
 improvement reaching to Memphis, where will the fer- 
 tilizing and enriching streams of trade and travel, which 
 will flow through these channels, be chiefly felt? I ask 
 gentlemen to consider this matter^ Internal improve- 
 ments can produce no other effect on agriculture within 
 the State, than to enhance the value of its products in 
 proportion as the cost of transportation is diminished. 
 And hence, with equal fertility of soil, Eastern agricul- 
 ture must always be more profitable than that of the 
 West, because the tax on transportation must be less. 
 It is true that these improvements will develop the re- 
 sources and increase the wealth of the West ; but eve- 
 ry increase of Western production will proportionally 
 increase Eastern trade, manufactures and commerce. 
 This would be the case if the lines of internal improve- 
 ment should give vent only to the productions of our 
 own West ; but when those lines are extended into the 
 great vallies of the Ohio and the Mississippi, the two 
 broad and deep currents of trade which will flow through 
 Virginia, will make their golden deposits on the shores 
 of the East. Commerce, based not only upon the trade 
 of Western Virginia, but of a Western world, will be 
 found in the East, — a commerce which will be engaged 
 in exporting the vast products of two great vallies, wa- 
 tered by the Ohio and the Mississippi, and likewise in 
 importing for the millions of the West the products and 
 manufactures of other climes. And what is commerce ? 
 She is the receiver of heavy tolls on the products ot 
 labor ; and the experience of the world has shown that 
 these tolls are greater than the profits of labor. Look 
 at New York and Boston. How have the population 
 and wealth of those cities risen or fallen according as 
 they have felt or lost the magic power of Western 
 trade? In 1816, the real estate of New York was 
 valued at eighty-two millions ; in 1825, at one hun- 
 dred millions ; (in 1825 the Erie Canal was opened) 
 between 1825 and 1835, her population was doubled, 
 and her real estate rose in value to two hundred and 
 eighteen millions ; from 1835 to 1841, her population 
 and wealth increased 9| per cent, annually in despite 
 of the great fire of 1837, and the financial derange- 
 ments of 1836, '37 and '38. In 1841, the Great West- 
 ern railway was opened to Boston. Between 1841 and 
 1846, New York population increased only 1J percent., 
 and her wealth decreased l| per cent. During the 
 same period Boston increased in population from 93,000 
 to 115,000, and in the value of her real estate, from 
 ninety -eight millions to one hundred and thirty-five mil- 
 lions. Similar will be the developments in Eastern 
 Virgini a, if she ever taps the great reservoirs of West- 
 ern trade. Manufactures will also spring up in her 
 midst to supply the great consuming West. Capital 
 will be centred here to give life and energy to com- 
 merce and manufactures. The agriculture of the East 
 will be improved— her worn out soils will be revived 
 and mad e productive. Her white population is already 
 increasing, and the future will disclose a new, a bright- 
 
II 
 
 er era in Eastern prosperity. Such is the prospect 
 which opens upon the fond vision of every Virginian. 
 Our hearts leap up with gladness when we contemplate 
 the rising glories of Eastern prosperity. It is our ear- 
 nest desire that the vision shall become a reality. We 
 are identified with the East in sympathy and feeling — 
 we take pride in her glorious memories — we love her 
 high-toned, honorable character — we cling with instinc- 
 tive affection and veneration to Virginia, the beneficent 
 and noble mother of us all ! And now, I ask, I appeal 
 to Eastern gentlemen to consider, to pause, before they 
 inflict this great wrong on the West. They covet our 
 trade, and become strong on the food that grows in our 
 mountains. Will they use that strength to bind us with 
 cords ? They beckon us to come to them — to deal with 
 them — to advance their prosperity. Will they make 
 this very prosperity the means of oppressing us — of de- 
 stroying our political equality — of degrading us so that 
 our freemen shall be stripped of political power by the 
 hand of wealth we ourselves have fostered? Shall the 
 Eagle of the West be wounded, and see upon the arrow 
 that inflicted the deadly wound, the feathers plucked 
 from its own wing? Will gentlemen make our very 
 affections fetters to bind us faster? It may be that if 
 you smite us, we will kiss the rod and submit— that if 
 you do us this great wrong we will love you still, but I 
 implore you do not strain the bond too much, lest you 
 snap 
 
 " — the golden link, the silken tie, 
 
 That heart to heart and mind to mind, 
 In body and in soul doth bind." 
 
 In the name of Augusta, the daughter of the East — 
 a loyal and devoted daughter, yearning with unuttera- 
 ble affection towards her mother — I speak to you this 
 day on behalf of the great West, the daughter of Au- 
 gusta ! For the sake of the harmony and concord of a 
 common people, throw not this apple of discord into 
 their midst. Bitter will be the fruits of your acts, if 
 you alienate our affections from you, — if you make us 
 curse the necessity of coming to your markets, — if you 
 kindle in our midst a spirit of hostility to Eastern 
 wealth and Eastern prosperity. Let us, Oh! let us ra- 
 ther stand together — be one people in heart as well as 
 name — let us trust and love one another, and build now 
 upon solid principles, and with mutual confidence, the 
 fabric of a government which shall be founded on equa- 
 lity, sustained by justice, and guarded — yes, against a 
 world in arms — by patriotism ! 
 
 Here let us " raise on liberty's broad base, 
 The structure of a wise government, and rhow, 
 In this, our State, a glorious spectacle 
 Of social order. Freemen ! Equals all ! 
 Swayed by reason — self-governed — self-improv«d ! 
 And the electric chain of public good 
 Twined round the private happiness of each, 
 And every heart thrilled with the patriot chord 
 That sounds the glory of Virginia ! 
 A free Republic ! where, beneath the sway 
 Of mild and equal laws, framed by themselves, 
 One people dwell, and own no Lord but God ! " 
 
 \ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 GEORGE W. PUEKINS, ESQ., OF HALIFAX, 
 
 IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 
 
 THE BASIS QUESTION, 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 G2f 
 
 Friday, February 21, 1851. 
 
 EICHM-OID, YA. 
 
 [WILLIAM G. BISHOP, OFFICIAL REPORTER.] 
 
 PRINTED BY R. H. GALLAHER — REPUBLICAN OFFICE 
 1851, 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. I shall offer no apology for addressing 
 the committee upon a question of such vast importance 
 to the people of Virgiuia, as the one now under discus- 
 sion. I am here in the discharge of a high and important 
 duty, a duty entrusted to me by a generous constituen- 
 cy, to whom I may truly say, I am almost a stranger. 
 For the compliment thus conferred upon me, I trust I 
 feel sufficient gratitude ; and I know that the responsi- 
 bility of my situation is deeply felt by me. If I offer no 
 apology for an attempt faithfully to disch irge that re- 
 sponsibility, I hope I may be at least permiited to follow 
 the example of almost all the gentlemen who have pre- 
 ceded me in discussion, by expressing to the committee 
 that it is with great diffidence and embarrassment 
 I take part, for the first time in my life, in the dis- 
 cussion of an important subject before a deliberative 
 body. 
 
 I regret much that there is not a greater concurrence 
 of opinion as to what are the great fundamental princi- 
 ples of government, in an enlightened assembly like the 
 one here convened. I regret, too, to see that there is an 
 impression pervading this assembly that the calling of a 
 Convention by apolitical community " to alter, amend, or 
 to abolish the existing constitution, and substitute a new 
 one therefor, necessarily resolves that community into 
 the original elements which compose society, and that it 
 consequently follows that in considering and deciding 
 upon propositions proposed to be engrafted upon the or- 
 ganic law, the body upon whom that duty devolves, 
 must be guided in their investigations and decisions, by 
 the principles of natural law, rather than by those true 
 governmental principles which ought to prevail in the 
 formation of a social compact. We are not in a state of 
 nature. The ratification by the people, of the act 
 by which this Convention was called to amend the or- 
 ganic law of the State, did not abolish the existing state 
 of things, for the government under which we have 
 lived for twenty years, both in i 3 primary organic 
 law and the secondary and ordinary laws of the legisla- 
 ture, is just as obligatory upon the people of Virginia at 
 this day as though we had not assembled in this hall. 
 Then, I assert, we are to be governed in the decision of 
 this question, and in the decision of all other questions 
 that may come before us. more by those true principles 
 of governmental policy which ought to dictate to us 
 the true basis upon which to found the constitution of 
 this State, than by any speculative theories as to 
 what are the laws of nature. I had supposed, and not- 
 withstanding all I have heard to the contrary, my mind 
 is unchanged in that particular, that, when a communi- 
 ty has assembled or appointed representatives, to per- 
 form the duty of organisir g a social con, pact or form of 
 government, no individual interest in that commu- 
 nity should obtain all the influence of the government in 
 its behalf — that no individual interest should claim the 
 entire control of the pow.er of that government, but that 
 the government should be so formed as that it would 
 seek to advance all the varied interests over which its 
 influence would be felt ; and th .t in pursuance of that 
 principle in the bill of rights, to which allusion has so 
 often been made, that government should be so framed 
 as that every one of those interests would be amply se- 
 cured and protected under its administration. 
 
 Let us briefly examine this bill of rights. In the 
 first section of that instrument, and I will read the 
 whole section, iu order to a correct understanding 
 of its merits, it is declsred that all men by nature 
 are equal and have certain inherent rights which, 
 when they enter into a state of society they cannot 
 be deprived, nor can these rights be divested from 
 their posterity. What are those inherent rights ? 
 Why, the gentleman from Greenbrier, (Mr. Smith,) 
 the gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) the 
 gentleman from Preston, (Mr. Brown,) unite in say- 
 ing that they are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness and safety. But are these the only, the exclusive 
 purposes ? Look at the latter clause of the section and 
 you will find it says the enjoyment of life and liberty 
 with the means of acquiring and possessing property, 
 and obtaining happiness and safety. 
 
 "1. That all men are by nature equally free and inde- 
 pendent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, 
 when they enter society, they cannot, by any compact, 
 deprive or divest their posterity ; namely, the enjoyment 
 of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and pos- 
 sessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness 
 and safety." 
 
 Here, then, we have it laid down in the very chart 
 that is to direct us in our political voyage, and it is in- 
 scribed on the mast-head of our ship of State — that to 
 give security in the acquisition and possession of prop- 
 erty is one of the chief, the principil objects of a social 
 government ; that it is one of tho»e inherent rights of 
 which, when we enter into a state of society, we can 
 neither divest ourselves nor our posterity. But it does 
 not stop there. It goes further, as if vigilant lest it be 
 misconstrued, or misunderstood, — as if fearful that the 
 principle would not be sufficiently explicit or rightly 
 comprehended. In the third section of the article, it is 
 declared that governments are and ought to be insti- 
 tuted for the common benefit, protection and security of 
 the people, nation or community, and for the exercise 
 of all those influences which are calculated to produce 
 the greatest happiness and security of the people for 
 whom it is instituted : " That government is, or ought 
 to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and 
 security of the people, nation or community : of all the 
 various modes and forms of government, that is best, 
 which is capable of producing the greatest degree of hap- 
 piness and safety , and is most effectually secured against 
 the danger of mal-administration ; and that, when any 
 government shall be found inadequate or contrary to 
 these purposes, a majority of the community hath an in- 
 dubitable., unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, 
 alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most 
 conducive to the public weal." 
 
 And that they should guard most effectually against 
 any mal administration in carrying out its purposes. 
 What purposes ? The security of life and liberty '( Are 
 these the only purposes of government ? — the only in- 
 terests it was framed to protect ? Certainly not. One 
 of its purposes is the protection of the community — of 
 a majority of the community, (not a majority of the in- 
 habitants composing it) — but of a majority of a political 
 community, in the right to acquire and possess property. 
 The word community, as used in the first section of this 
 
4 
 
 bill of rights, is used in an apposite sense, with the words 
 nation and people, as they are generally understood. 
 Who are the people, by which this community is con- 
 stituted ? A political people ; and that is the commu- 
 nity of which this bill speaks ; and consequently 1 will 
 prove — if my strength does not fail me before I yield 
 the floor — that the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) stultifies itself, and in effect 
 gives up the whole question — and that when a majority 
 is spoken of as having the power to influence the action 
 of government, it is a majority of a political com- 
 munity and not of the whole people, which possesses 
 an indubitable, unalienable, aud indefeasible right tore- 
 form, alter or abolish, any laws affecting the public 
 weal. Let us look turther into the terms of this instru- 
 ment. Still wary of the great interests about to be com- 
 mitted into the hands of government, it proceeds to spe- 
 cify who are to have tbe control of these interests. The 
 sixth section provides that all men who have a permanent 
 common interest in, and an attachment to, the community, 
 shall have the right of suffrage, <fcc. Not, a mere perma- 
 nent interest, but a common interest, in the community. 
 But it does not stop even here. It goesjurther still. The. 
 eleventh section of this bill of rights makes particular re- 
 ference to the protection of the interests of property, for it 
 says that in any controversy respecting the rights of pro- 
 perty, or affectiug the interests existing between man and 
 man. the ancient system of trial by jury is preferable to 
 any other mode of settlement, and should therefore be 
 held sacred. Here, then, we find pervading this entire 
 instrument, the one idea — the fixed, unchangeable prin- 
 ciple, that social government is not, as in the language 
 of the gentleman from Augusta, instituted solely for 
 the purpose of protecting persons and personal interests, 
 but for other important purposes. If the protection of 
 life and personal liberty were the only objects of gov- 
 ernment, then those two interests should have the en- 
 tire control of government. No other interest should 
 influence the action of government, if this principle is 
 correct and carried out; but as soon as you assume this 
 position, you abandon the only just basis upon which all 
 government should be founded. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY, (in his seat.) No, sir ; we do not. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. The gentleman from Augusta says 
 no. "Property," says the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. 
 Wise,) must have adequate, ample, conservative and 
 radical protection. Now, how are we to arrive at this 
 result ? " Oh," says the gentleman from Preston, (Mr. 
 Brown,) " we are not contending for power without prin- 
 ciple ; we are in favor of regulating the action of indi- 
 viduals and of the community by giving the majority 
 the right to rule, but you do not want paper guarantees ; 
 you say paper guarantees will not afford you gentlemen 
 of the east adequate protection. I'll tell you what we 
 will give you, for mind you, we are not contending for 
 power without principle ; we will yield the principle 
 th it the majority shall govern, and engraft a provision 
 in the constitution which shall authorize the majority to 
 give power into the hands of a small minority by the 
 two-thirds rule, whereby they may be authorized to say 
 when the governmeut shall be changed." Now, this is 
 power with principle, with a vengeance ; this is a major- 
 ity principle of a most uncommon species. We do not 
 choose to abandon our position by reason of such soph- 
 istry. 
 
 I will notice in this connection another remark of the 
 gentleman from Preston. He says that we have scouted 
 the idea of paper guarantees, and have said that we had 
 no security that would last; that western Virginia might 
 call a convention at any time and remove these guaran- 
 tees from the constitution ; and the gentleman, in a tri- 
 umphant tone, as if he had settled the question, proceeds 
 to ask what we have now but paper guarantees. I'll 
 tell you what we have. We have the guarantees con- 
 tained in "the bill of rights, in the present constitution, 
 and we have the power by a majority of representation, 
 to maintain them. We have the legislative power of 
 government given to us, and if gentlemen of the west 
 
 will give us these guarantees and permit us to retain this 
 power, we will settle the question at once ; for, however 
 gentlemen may disguise the issue, intentionally or un- 
 intentionally, the fact is, the struggle here, on the part 
 of the west, is for power — naked power. The whole 
 tenor of debate thus far has proved that when they come 
 to talk about principle, if that principle leads to the ac- 
 quisition of power, it is good ; but if power does not ac- 
 company the principle, it is a bad one, and must be dis- 
 carded and abandoned. And for what purpose do they 
 assume the position they occupy ? In order that they 
 may obtain the power which will enable them in the 
 future to destroy this very principle. 
 
 It does seem to me a little strange that gentlemen 
 should deny that contributions given to the support of 
 government are nothing more than the fulfilment of a 
 duty imposed upon the people, and that where you find 
 one interest which contributes more than all other inter- 
 ests to the support and maintenance of government, 
 they allege that no influence should be accorded to 
 that interest on account of such contribution ; that no 
 power should be given it because of its faithful discharge 
 of so important a duty, a duty which we as subjects (say 
 they) owe to the government, and not as free citizena 
 voluntarily give it. It is said that, when we have dis- 
 charged that duty, there the matter ends, and that 
 no influenca or power should be granted to the particu- 
 lar interest which contributed most largely to the sup- 
 port of government. Sir, I have not been taught in that 
 school of political ethics. The gentleman from Augus- 
 ta, in speaking upon this topic, referred to a higher law 
 principle, and said that when we had discharged our 
 whole duty on earth even to our Maker, and went knock- 
 ing at the gate of Heaven for admission, we could not 
 claim entrance on the score of discharged duty. Now, 
 I am aware that we must attribute all the glory to the 
 Almighty ; but I know also that one of His inspired 
 writers has told us, that if we appear before Him, hav- 
 ing discharged our duty, He will say unto us — " Well 
 done thou good and faithful servant," and give us our 
 reward. Here, however, it is said, when contributing so 
 largely from our particular interest in eastern Virginia, 
 that we ought to pay, it is nothing more than a discharge 
 of obligation. Gentlemen from the west tell us we must 
 pay as long as we are able, and yet receive no reward in 
 the way of power for that discharge of duty ; and doubt- 
 less when they get the power they will say to us we 
 mean to tax you as long as you will bear it. I shall not 
 say any thing discourteous. I do n< t desire to deal in 
 harsh epithets, and if the*y have escaped me, certainly I 
 have not so intended ; but I was simply about to remark 
 that they will tax us and we will pay until the burden 
 becomes too intolerable to be borne; that is the pi tin 
 truth of the matter. The eastern part of Virginia will 
 thus be injuriously controlled and oppressed by this 
 transfer of power. Now, the bill of rights declares that 
 to give safety is one of the great objects of government, 
 and in truth it is its primary object. But we are met by 
 gentlemen who tell us that this safety refers to the se- 
 curity of people in their lives and personal liberty. Is 
 this correct ? Is this the true meaning of this instrument ? 
 Do gentlemen really believe that it has not a more com- 
 prehensive signification ? Does it not include with life 
 and personal liberty, property, with all its incidents and 
 enjoyments? How are you to possess happiness and 
 safety without property ? How are you to acquire hap- 
 piness and safety without the means which property af- 
 fords ? 
 
 Digressing for a moment, allow me to turn your at- 
 tention to this higher law principle for which gentlemen 
 contend. Grant that we are reduced to the original ele- 
 ments of society — that nature 'and natural laws are to 
 prevail in the construction of the social compact, and 
 gen.lemen will find that the highest authority to which 
 they can appeal, is in favor of the principle which we 
 of the east advocate — protection to property. They will 
 find that pr< perty is not the creature of government. It 
 is not a thing which government makes ; it is a thing 
 
5 
 
 which government distributes, protects and regulates. 
 It will be found that the Creator of all that is valuable 
 ■ — of life and liberty, and every earthly enjoyment — 
 when about to finish his great work of creation, said 
 unto our first parent, " T give you dominion over the 
 fowls of the ah, the fish of the sea, and every living 
 thing that cieepeth on the face of the earth." Here then 
 we see that property was a special gift, not a gift of na- 
 ture — but a gift from a higher source — from nature's 
 God. Revert then, gentlemen, to your own principles. 
 Go back to the very origin of things — to the original 
 elements of society — and you will find there, that man. 
 when first created, possessed and sought to acquire prop- 
 erty. The very first gift to man, after life, and before 
 liberty, was the control and enjoyment of property. 
 Life and liberty are the gifts of God, but property is 
 one of the creations of man. says the gentleman from 
 Augusta , although originally its possession and enjoyment 
 came from the hands of God. If I chose so to do, l"might 
 argue at length, to show that life and liberty are not worth 
 having, unless combined with the right to acquire, pos- 
 sess and enjoy property ; and I might show, that from 
 the time this world was brought into existence, that it 
 has primarilv been considered entit'ed to the protection 
 of government, and that, in point of fact, government 
 could hot exist without it. I shall not, however, pursue 
 that train of argument any further. 
 
 I have not heard that it was considered presump- 
 tuous on the part of my friend from Westmoreland, 
 (Mr. Beale,) and I trust it will not be so considered i 
 with regard to myself, to express a partial dissatis- 
 faction with reference to the substitute offered by the 
 gentleman from Fauquier, for I think that property 
 should not only be entitled to the protection of govern- 
 ment, but should influence representation, and, if it be 
 necessary to its protection, should be entitled to con- 
 trol, absolutely control all othrr interests. Odious as this 
 thought may appear to the gentleman from Fau- 
 quier, I understood him aud the gentleman from Lou- 
 doun (Mr. Jaxxey) to repeat, in substance, the same 
 sentiment, that^ this might be absolutely necessary, 
 in order to the full protection of property. Abhorrent 
 as the doctrine may be to gentlemen, "[ declare it as 
 my solemn and deliberate conviction, that not only that 
 interest, but every other interest — life, personal 'liber- 
 ty — all that may be imagit.ed, or of which we can 
 speak, demands that if the entire representation and 
 power of government is necessary to protect the inter- 
 ests of property, it is entitled to it. The same may be 
 said of any oth^r interest. I am in the habit of speak- 
 ing pla.nly. I never learned the art of concealing ideas 
 by iauguage. I learned language to express ideas ; and 
 if i entertain an opinion, there is not that power upon 
 earth, I care not from what source it may emanate, that 
 could prevent me, under prudeut circumstances, from ex- 
 pressiag it. Now, I do not say that it is necessary or 
 proper to give property the entire representation of the 
 State of Viiginia, in order to ensure its protection ; and 
 here I would reply to the inquiry of the gentleman 
 from Augusta ' why do you not commence at the foun- 
 tain instead of down stream ? " I answer, because it is 
 not necessary as regards our particular interest ; we 
 can take the stream after it has flowed from the foun- 
 tain ; if it w.re necessary to trace it to its first gush from 
 the earih, we might go even back to its origin and there 
 sectie the principle. I would repeat again, that unless 
 we can ensure its full, ample, adequate, providential, 
 conservative and radical protection (to use the language 
 of the gentleman from Accoraac) by beginning lower 
 down the stream, weou^ht to begin at the fountain. 
 
 The gentleman from Greenbrier (Mr. Smith,) made a 
 very unfortunate reference to a period in the history of 
 this confederation of States, in support of the principle 
 of the white basis, f allude to the period when the 
 struggle between this couitry and the mother country 
 took place. If I have read the history of that struggle 
 with any sort of profit to myself, it greVout of this very 
 principle of protection — protection against enormous and 
 oppressive taxation, based upon the fact that the taxes 
 
 were imposed by those who did not represent them, upon 
 those who did not consent. The duty upon tea and 
 stamps was but a mere trifle. Our pilgrim fathers did not 
 staks their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors 
 upon the mere payment of so trifling a tax, but entered 
 into the revolutionary struggle because their interests 
 and their property did not receive the requisite and 
 necessary protection at the hands of the British govern- 
 ment. This was the cause that gave rise to the struggle 
 between the United colonies and the kingdom of Great 
 Britain, and which resulted in the freedom of America. 
 I regretted very much that the gentleman from Green- 
 brier should have repeated what has been so often and 
 incessantly repeated in the ears of eastern Virginia, in 
 regard to the patriotism and gallantry which, upon one 
 single occasion, western Virginia manifested in defence 
 of eastern rights. Are we never to hear the last of this ? 
 Do western gentlemen remember that eastern blood has 
 flowed, in Indian warfare, from the veins of eastern men, 
 for their protection ? Do they remember that, at the 
 very time to which we allude, when their soldiers were 
 i encamped at Norfolk, and were suffering from the in- 
 | clemencies of the season, that the aid they received 
 came from eastern men r Is this the extent of west- 
 ern patriotism \ Was that patriotism exhausted in one 
 single struggle ? I love and admire western Virginia 
 and her people, and I do not believe they designed 
 to so restrict their patriotism. They did not act 
 [there merely in defence of Norfolk and its contiguous 
 territory, but they were linked, in one common destiny, 
 j with eastern Virginia, and had that struggle resulted in 
 jour defeat, western Virginia would have fallen with us. 
 
 But, to return to the issue ; absolute, individual, polit- 
 ical equality , in a political community , is a perfect absurd- 
 ity. You cannot effect equality ; inequality must exist ; it 
 always has existed and always will exist. It exists 
 in every community — in every nation in the world. 
 You have in society the rich and the poor, the weak and 
 the powerful, and these different grades of necessity 
 must continue to be. I am sure that no gentleman on 
 this floor would advocate a system that would destroy 
 this inequality. I am sure the time has not arrived 
 when, in Virginia, infinitely radical as some of her 
 sons maybe, agrarianism, socialism, and Fourierism are 
 to prevail. There is a mutual dependence of one class 
 !in society upon the other. The poor man contributes, 
 j by daily toil and hard labor, to the comforts of the rich , 
 and the rich man. of hi< substance, remunerates that poor 
 mm for his labor. This political and social inequality is 
 a matter of nece>s ; ty. You cannot organize a good gov- 
 ernment wi'hou : this inequality existing. You must have 
 t lis inequa i y as well political, natural and socia 1 . 
 
 For what purpose, I would inquire, does western 
 Virginia desire the supremacy of power in our State 
 [government? I think 1 have shown (and the gentleman 
 from Preston admitted) that they did not want it merely 
 because it was principle for which they contended. 
 He admitted that he did not want power without 
 principle ; and that that principle consisted in giving 
 the eastern part of Virginia a paper guaran.ee th^t i o 
 change should be made in the Constitution so as to af- 
 fect its interests, without a vote of two-thirds of the 
 members of the legislature. 
 
 Mr. BROWN. My position was, that the power of 
 government should be exerted in giving to the east full 
 aud sufficient protection to its rights of property. Of 
 course such an obligation should be sacred and binding. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. The gentleman's explanation does 
 not affect the issue at all. I understand him not to ask 
 for power without principle. And he further said, that 
 we were unwilling to accept paper guarantees, because 
 we said they could be erased from the constitution at 
 will ; but this defect, if it was a defect, he said could 
 be remedied by incorporating into the constitution a pro- 
 vision which would prevent the calling of another Con- 
 vention, unless with the concurrence of two-thirds of 
 tr© members of the legislature. It is not then for the 
 preservation of principle that the gentleman from Pres- 
 ton wants the power, for he is willing to yield the pnn- 
 
6 
 
 ciple that the majority should rule, because political in- 
 equality must exist, in order to the attainment of pow- 
 er. What does he want with this power then? Unless 
 it is wanted for the purpose of oppressing us by taxa- 
 tion and plundering us at pleasure, this desire for pow- 
 er must surely originate in a mere lust for its exercise. 
 Whenever power has been exercised from a mere love 
 of it, all historical experience proves that it has been 
 abused. I do not charge western gentlemen with having 
 any such object in view, but I do say it is hard for met 
 to know themselves. I do not charge it upon you that 
 you are seeking to wrest this power from us, in order 
 to oppress u?, but I tell you plainly gentlemen, that you 
 do not understand yourselves. Yon have not examined 
 your own feelings as you should. You do notknow what 
 position you may occupy. If you desire to attain pow- 
 er, of course you must have Some object in view by it' 
 altainment ;and that object in too many instances, leads 
 to abuse in the exercise of that power. I tell you gen- 
 tlemen we had rather remove temptation from you by 
 not entrusting this power in your hands. We do not 
 wish to give you even the opportunity of abusing the 
 exercise of power. 
 
 Mr. GOODE. Inasmuch as there has been between 
 two and three hours speaking, and as the gentleman who 
 has occupied the floor for the last hour appears obvious- 
 ly to be greatly fatigued, I move that the committee do 
 now rise. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee accord- 
 ingly rose. 
 
 The Convention adjourned until to-morrow morning 
 at 11 o'clock. 
 
 MONDAY, February 24, 1851. 
 THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, &c. 
 
 On motion of Mr. PENDLETON, the committee re- 
 sumed the consideration in Committee of the Whole 
 (Mr. Miller in the chair) of the report of the Commit- 
 tee on the Basis and Apportionment of Representation. 
 
 The CHAIR stated the question to be on the proposi- 
 tion of the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott.) 
 Mr. PURK1NS being entitled to the floor- 
 Mr. BROWN. Will my friend from Halifax permit 
 me to make a remark in explanation ? 
 Mr. PURKINS. Certainly sir. 
 Mr. BROWN. On Friday last the gentleman put 
 some interrogatories to me, which, in the confusion of 
 the moment, I did not apprehend, and my answer was 
 not to the point. I desire this morning to answer the 
 gentleman, that he may, before he proceeds, have the 
 advantage of making any commentary upon them that 
 he may desire. In my reply to the remarks of the gen- 
 tleman from Westmoreland, (Mr. Beale,) that consti- 
 tutional guarantees were worth nothing, I endeavored to 
 show that all our rights, of persons and of property, 
 were now secured, resting alone upon guarantees of that 
 kind. And in answer to the objection which that gen- 
 tleman raised, that although guarantees might now be 
 given in good faith; and observed by those giving them, 
 yet another race of people, another generation might 
 call a convention and repeal them. I observed that 
 that was a very far-fetched idea, but that even it proba- 
 bly might be guarded against, to some extent. I said, 
 that while the right in the majority of the community 
 to alter or abolish their fundamental laws was indubi- 
 table, unalienable and indefeasible, yet it is competent 
 for this Convention to lay restraints upon the legisla- 
 ture, in passing laws facilitating such call, or invitirg 
 such calls. While we could not take from the majori- 
 ty of the community their unalienable, indefeasible 
 rights, we could lay prohibitions upon the legislature to 
 pass laws inviting a call for the purpose of changing the 
 fundamental law. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. When the committee rose upon 
 Friday last, I was addressing myself to the particular 
 point upon which my friend from Preston (Mr. Brown) 
 now tenders an explanation, and in all candor I must 
 say to that gentleman, that his explanation, in my hum- 
 
 ble opinion, does not place him in any better position 
 than he occupied when he first stated his proposition. 
 The point which I was endeavoring to impress upon the 
 mind of the committee was this : that the west came 
 upon this floor, insisting that a majority of the people 
 had a right to govern, and that the east should sub- 
 scribe to this proposition. But the question arises just 
 here who are the people ? I insisted that they formed 
 a political community, created by constitutional pro- 
 vision and governmental arrangement, and that the ma- 
 jority of that political community was of right to be re- 
 garded the majority of all the inhabitants of the 
 State, and that in that majority the political power 
 should be vested, and that a tender of guarantees on the 
 part of the west, in whatever form they might be pre- 
 sented, were designed to transfer political power from 
 a majority to two-thirds or three-fourths of the commu- 
 nity, if it is to be effectual, and if they choose to regard 
 that community as consisting of all the inhabitants of 
 the State, it was a total abandonment of the principle 
 upon which they had declared they designed fixing their 
 basis of representation. The gentleman from Preston 
 is not alone in this tender of guarantees. Distinguished 
 gentlemen in this body, advocating the same principle 
 he contends for, have, upon more than one occasion in 
 discussions that have taken place heretofore, here and 
 elsewhere, proffered such guarantees and limitations of 
 legislative power as would secure and were absolutely 
 necessary to secure in all governmental institutions, 
 the protection to property. If they admit that proper- 
 ty requires protection from government, and they gen- 
 erally do admit this fact, for the gentleman from Au- 
 gusta, as well as the gentleman from Preston, more 
 than once have admitted the principle that property is 
 entitled to protection — I wish to inquire of them what 
 those means of protection are, and what are those guar- 
 antees of which they speak ? Unless they can show 
 that they can tender us such protection as will be ade- 
 quate to, and fully commensurate with, the attainment 
 of the end we have in view, and that these guarantees 
 are not the only means, it is clear that these guarantees 
 which are tendered us by the gentleman from Preston 
 and others, being the only security they can give us for 
 the protection of our property, every gentleman on this 
 floor who advocates the white basis, must come up and 
 back the gentleman from Preston, in the tender of these 
 guarantees, and in support of his proposition to require 
 a vote of two-thirds to change the government. 
 
 I desire, before proceeding further upon this point, 
 to say, that, upon reflecting on what I said to the 
 committee on Friday last, it has occurred to me, that, 
 probably in the heat of discussion, 1 may have uttered 
 some expression that has sounded harshly in the ears of 
 my western brethren ; if so, I entirely disclaim any de- 
 sign of saying anything offensive. I do not mean to call 
 you plunderers, but I mean simply this : that, in fram- 
 ing a government and in creating institutions under 
 which we are to live — (and I would here remark that 
 the gentleman from Augusta admits that security must 
 be given against the abuse of power) — it is a cor- 
 rect principle, and wise counsels will suggest tha* we 
 should have an eye to the security of the government 
 against all abuse of power, and I shall show that, unless 
 we do adopt some such principle, there must be 
 an abuse of power, of a kind that will practically tend 
 to plunder us of our rights. This is what I mean when 
 I use the word plunder, and I design, without meaning 
 any offence, throughout this discussion, to continue to 
 call things by their right names, and deal with them as 
 I think proper. 
 
 But the gentleman from Preston went further than 
 merely to tender to his eastern brethren guarantees in 
 the constitution. He says that the west must also have 
 guarantees for the protection of their property as well as 
 ourselves. Now, if they distrust their own exercise of 
 power, I hope they will not complain that we do not feel 
 fully satisfied to place ourselves under their power If 
 you are not satisfied with the guarantees in the present 
 constitution you must not fall out with us who are for 
 
7 
 
 not being dissatisfied with them. But we will Dot take 
 those guarantees alone, and we trust we may be permit- 
 ted the privilege of suggesting to you such guarantees 
 as will secure us against any abuse of the power you 
 desire to have. Your proposition now is to base the 
 representation of the State upon all the qualified electors 
 or inhabitants of the State. Let us look upon this pro- 
 position, and consider it practically. In the first place, 
 I would ask, how will you be able to apportion represen- 
 tation upon the qualified electors of the State ? It may 
 be by this plan approximated to, but it cannot, without 
 difficulty, be ascertained accurately. Take the popular 
 vote of the qualified electors of this ccmmonweaith in 
 1848 — the vote at a county election would not be a fair 
 criterion, because it is often the case that there are no 
 opposition candidates in the field, and reasons operate 
 to keep the voters from the polls, besides the number 
 of double votes given — the Presidential election, how- 
 ever, affords a good guide, as to the number of qualified 
 voters, at the election in 1848, 91,710 votes were cast 
 in this State. This was the united vote for Taylor and 
 Cass. Ths entire white population of the State of Vir- 
 ginia numbered 899,134. I would here state that the 
 increase of votes under the constitution we are about 
 to adopt— if we extend the right of suffrage— will, ma- 
 king a liberal estimate, amount to about 60,000 — an over 
 estimate rather than an under one. If the proposed 
 extension of suffrage, then, had been made in 1848, the 
 entire popular vote would have amounted to 151,710. 
 Deduct that vote from the entire number of the white 
 population, and you have remaining 747,424. Now, by 
 your principle laid down in proposition B, representa- 
 tion mu?t be based upon the white population. The 
 gentleman from Augusta, whom I sorry to see is not 
 now in his seat, denounced proposition A with great 
 force, declaring that it disfranchised 200,000 of the free 
 people of Virginia, at the same time forgetting that 
 proposition B, which he advocated with so much zeal, 
 disfranchised nearly 800,000 of the white population of 
 the State. Here then, is another total abandonment of 
 your principles. 
 
 But these are not the only instances in which you 
 abandon your principles. Your proposition, as it af- 
 fects representation, does not base it, in regard to the 
 legislature, upon the qualified electors of the State nu- 
 merically considered. Else why restrict it to county 
 limits ? If your intention is to carry your principle prac- 
 tically into operation, why do you not take the whole 
 qualified electors in the State and divide it by the number 
 of representatives of which you propose to compose the 
 legislative department of government, and thus, without 
 regard to county boundaries, give representatives to all 
 the qualified electors of the State ? 
 
 A MEMBER, (in his seat.) That would be the true 
 way. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. That would be the true way, if you 
 do not design abandoning principle for power, in this in- 
 stance. And, in view of this abandonment when there 
 is no necessity for it, can you blame us for insisting upon 
 the adoption of a principle which will work good results ? 
 This is the dilemma into which this abandonment of their 
 principle will throw them, and arguments, though 
 strong and powerful, and appeals, though warm 
 and generous, cannot extricate them from it. It is 
 that when they thus attempt to evade the necessa- 
 ry result of the position they have assumed, they 
 will carry the fraction of excess in voters from one coun- 
 try to another, and thus increase the representation of 
 the smaller counties, while the larger counties will be 
 curtailed of their just proportion of representation. 
 Here, then, are several instances of the utter abandon- 
 ment, on the part of western Virginia, of their own sa- 
 cred and revered principles, for which they have clam- 
 ored so loudly, from the year 1815 up to the present 
 time. Can the west— ought it — to take any exception, 
 if I tell them that this is a struggle upon one side for 
 power — naked power — while upon the other it is a con- 
 test for self-preservation, a contest in which we desire 
 to show that, in order to self-preservation, we must have 
 
 power. Sir, the principle for which they contend can- 
 not be carried out ; it is practically impossible for every 
 man, in a political community, to have equal political 
 power. There never has been a government established 
 upon the face of the globe, nor can there be one estab- 
 lished — I care not what its form may be — where equal 
 political power can be vested in every political individ- 
 ual, and practically carried out. This has never been 
 the case in Virginia, or in any other State in this con- 
 federation. It has been the result heretofore, mainly 'of 
 party conflict, where the successful party — the one hav- 
 ing the majority — has had in its possession all political 
 power, from the exercise of which the minority has been 
 excluded. Take, for instance, this State. Unfortunate- 
 ly, it may be, since I have had my residence in the 
 county which I in part represent on this floor, I have 
 belonged to a party which has been in the minority — 
 always deprived of political power in the halls of legis- 
 lation ; that has had no equality whatever with the ma- 
 jority power ; while my friend (Mr. Edmunds) from 
 the same county, has, owing to his being connected with 
 the majority party, been in the exercise of power all the 
 time. And you cannot produce such a state of things, 
 do what you may, as will give to each voter in this 
 State equal political power. This State, in the last 
 three or four presidential elections, has shown nearly 
 an equilibrium in the number of votes cast by each par- 
 ty ; the average majority of the successful party has not 
 exceeded two or three thousand votes during the last 
 twelve years. Yet, during that time, the democratic 
 party have almost invariably had, in the legislature of 
 Virginia, a majority of some thirty or forty members = 
 Under this stafes of affairs, was the whig party repre- 
 sented, or did it have equal political power in the legis- 
 lature with the democratic party? Still, they had equal 
 rights and freedom. You cannot show it; and, there- 
 fore, gentlemen of the west, you do right in abandoning 
 a principle which cannot be carried out, and serve the 
 purposes you desire. 
 
 But gentlemen argue that the right of suffrage being 
 the groundwork of representation, every individual who 
 is entitled to exercise that right, ought to have equal 
 political weight in the affairs of government. I never 
 so understood the exercise of the right of suffrage. This 
 right, if I understand it, is a practical incident of citizen- 
 ship, and the exercise of it is only one of the elements 
 of representation of which power is a part. The right 
 of suffrage alone, does not give power. It is the exer- 
 cise of a political right incident to citizenship ; but it is 
 not the only means by which political power is created ; 
 it may be called an active agent in giving effect to pow- 
 er. There a,re other means through which it is created, 
 as I shall show before I conclude my remarks. 
 
 The gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Sheffey) stated on 
 Wednesday, I think, that the east was entitled to pro- 
 tection, and that if we transferred the political power to 
 western Virginia by the adoption of proposition B, that 
 there was a possibility that that power would be abused 
 and our interests imperiled. Then, I say, we ought to 
 adopt the system of a mixed basis if that will alone se- 
 cure us in our rights. But will no danger result to our 
 interests by adopting the principle contained in propo- 
 sition B ? May we not be oppressively taxed ? Is there 
 no danger of a discrimination being made against the in- 
 terests of eastern Virginia aHd in favor of the interests 
 of western Virginia if this plan (proposition B) be 
 adopted ? But he says there is no great peril — 
 
 " These are mere phantasies — 
 There is no peril ; " 
 and then, like Sardanapalus, he goes on to prepare the 
 funeral pile and collect the faggots with which our in- 
 terests and his own are to be consumed. 
 
 I will endeavor briefly to show how our interests may 
 be imperiled. Of the ordinary interests from which the 
 revenues of this State are derived, eastern Virginia has 
 the largest share, and consequently pays a greater 
 amount of taxes upon them, than western Virginia, with 
 the exception of four only. And the entire amount of 
 
8 
 
 taxation upon those four items will not make more than 
 one-sixth, about, in truth, one-eighth of th* revenue of 
 the State. The four are horses, metalic clocks, stages, 
 and houses of private entertainment. They beat us in 
 keeping time with brass metal ; we beat them, I ihink, 
 on gold watches. And in regard to the number of mu- 
 sical instruments we are a long way ahead of them. In 
 the whole of western Virginia there are but two harps : 
 and I would here take the liberty of giving that section 
 a little advice and that is that they 
 
 " Hang those harps upon the willows.'' 
 
 A MEMBER. How many have you in eastern Vir- 
 ginia ? 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. In eastern Virginia there some thir- 
 ty harps, the exact number I do not recollect. 
 
 A MEMBER (in his seat.) You had better hang those 
 up too. 
 
 Mr. PURKLN T S. That would make the air too musical. 
 [A laugh.] Well, of all the sources from which revenue 
 is derived, western Virginia exceeds us in the payment 
 of taxes upon but four, while in every other class of tax- 
 able property we are ahead of them. Are not these 
 taxable interests of ours impeiiled then by entrusting 
 the highest power in government, the taxing power, in- 
 to the hands of those who have no similar interests to 
 tax ? Self-interest in government is the motive princi 
 pie with men, as is often the case in private life. I do 
 not know that to act from self-interest is a moral prin 
 ciple. It may be wrong and even detestable so to act 
 in private life ; but for one, I believe that it is the very 
 safest and most prudent principle that we can adopt in 
 political government. Not that narrow self-interest 
 that confines itself to the advancement of certain indi- 
 viduals, but which stretches its arms wide to embrace 
 the entire community whose protection from injury 
 ought to be the object of its peculiar care. And if this 
 be the principle which is governing the west, as I think 
 I have shown it to be in this contest for power, and 
 when her interests and then advancement demand that 
 our interests should be oppressed and destroyed, it be- 
 comes us, while we have the power, so to guard as, that in 
 entering into a social compact with them we will make 
 such arrangements as will afford us beyond all doubt 
 adequate security. » 
 
 1 said, and I repeat it, that western Virginia may im- 
 peril our interests first by oppressive taxation, and sec- 
 ondly by discriminating upon the various subjects of 
 taxation in her own favor. Give her the power and she 
 might divert taxation from her own taxable interests, 
 and increase it upon ours. She might not do it, but the 
 gentleman from Augusta, whom I am happy to see now 
 in his seat, has quoted to us from a very celebrated au- 
 thor, De Tocqueville, to the effect, that the love of pro- 
 perty is the predominant feeling in the American 
 bosom 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I said that respect for the rights of 
 property was the predominant feeling. 
 
 Mr. PURKINS. Precisely; and your quotation went 
 en to say the lore of property itself. If this, then, be the 
 predominant feeling in the bosom of the people of Vir- 
 ginia, I take it that it is as powerful in the bosoms of 
 western men as of eastern men ; and if it is, then there 
 is a struggle on the part ©f eastern gentlemen to retain 
 the control of their own property, and on the part of 
 western gentlemen to wrest that control from our hands, 
 and I am aware of no worse despotism than might fol- 
 low. They act upon the presumption that we are in 
 capable of attending to our own concerns, and regard 
 us as not only in the minority, but as minors, utterly 
 unqualified to take care of our own property. 
 
 There is another ground upon which they are wholly 
 unable to prevent our interests from being imperiled. 
 I assert that some of our interests are different from the 
 interests of western Virginia, and that the west is inca- 
 pable of attending to them in the manner which alone 
 can prevent them from being injured and oppressed. 
 Give the power into the hands of the west, and when- 
 ever a supposed necessity arises, we will be made to 
 
 feel that there is no community of interests between us 
 in this particular, in consequence of the increased 
 weight of the burdens imposed upon our interests. An- 
 other reason why this win he the case, arises from the 
 extt nt of our public debt. The public debt of Virginia, 
 including the appropriations by the present legisla- 
 ture — and all the liabilities of the State — amounts to be- 
 tween twenty and thirty millions of dollars. The inter- 
 est on that debt has to be paid annually, and where is it 
 to be raised ? The effort of the west may be, if the 
 power is given in her hands, to make eastern Virginia 
 pay it and relieve, to as great an extent as practicable, 
 western Virginia from the burden of the debt. We 
 are willing to pay our proportion of the tax ; but we de- 
 sire to have the right of saying how it shall be paid, 
 and in what manner the taxes shall be imposed upon 
 the subjects of taxation. The public debt — in process 
 of time — must be redeemed, and how is it to be ? Sup- 
 pose such i state of things should arise as that its re- 
 demption should be demanded immediately upon its 
 coming due. I ask if this self-interest might not force 
 you to impose the burden of its payment upon the east, 
 to the entire relief of yourselves ? In view of these 
 things, I ask my friend from Augusta, if there is not 
 good reason why this abuse may arise, and if therefore 
 an abuse of power ought not to be guarded against ? It 
 may be replied that the east may pursue the same 
 course in regard to western Virginia ; but I assert that 
 from the state of facts to which I have already directed 
 the attention of the committee, this cannot possibly take 
 place. The history of the political action of Virginia 
 during the last seventy years, plainly shows that hither- 
 to they have not done it. You have security in the fu- 
 ture, from the fact that eastern Virginia has a majority 
 of the interests which are subject to taxation, and she 
 cannot adopt a system of taxation, even if she desired 
 so to do, without oppressing her own interests. Thus, 
 our feelings would be directly opposed to any system of 
 oppressive taxation. 
 
 Suppose, gentlemen of the west, that you obtain the 
 ascendancy in political power. You are great sticklers 
 for the bill of rights, and the jus majoris. That is your 
 magna charta as well as palladium of political liberty ; 
 yet' you will, by pursuing the course you propose, strike 
 at the very foundation of the temple of liberty in which 
 you say you desire to worship, for you design destroy- 
 ing one of the great principles of republicanism, viz : 
 the enjoyment of property involving the pursuit of hap- 
 piness. But to this point I simply direct the attention 
 of the gentleman from Augusta, as I do not think it ne- 
 cessary to pursue it further. 
 
 I was struck with the declaration of the gentleman 
 from Augusta, which was made in a different form by 
 my venerable friend from Greenbrier, (Mr. Smith,) that 
 if eastern Virginia did not yield to the west the princi- 
 ple she was contending for, there would arise a clamor 
 from ninety thousand western freemen which would 
 continue to tingle in eastern ears until it was appeased 
 by their yielding up the principle and the power. If a 
 clamor of this kind is to be raised in favor of a princi- 
 ple which would, if adopted, destroy the equilibrium of 
 government, I tell gentlemen of the west that the voices 
 of more than one hundred thousand freemen would 
 come up in opposition from the beautiful tide-water re- 
 gion of the State, and uniting with thousands of similar 
 voices from Piedmont, travel on towards the Valley, 
 and the sound would swell in volume even to the sum- 
 mit of the Alleghanies, and it would echo and reverbe- 
 rate over mountain and through valley until your ears 
 would not only practically tingle with the sound, but 
 every habitation of the west would quake and trembly 
 at the voices of the east falling upon the ear as if the 
 thunders of heaven itself were roaring. Do gentlemen, 
 by their declarations, mean to intimidate us ? And 
 yet their language will bear that construction, and it 
 should be borne in mind also that within the last 
 few days resolutions have been received from the west- 
 ern counties declaring that unless the east yield the 
 power asked for by western delegates in this body, that 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 JAMES BARBOUR, ESQ., OF CULPEPER, 
 
 IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE BASIS QUESTION, 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 ON 
 
 THURSDAY, February 27, 1851. 
 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 PRINTED BY R. H. GALLAHER- 
 
 1851. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR said- 
 Mr. Chairman. I think that my course, since I 
 have been a member of this body, gives a stronger as- 
 surance of the diffidence and reluctance with which I 
 obtrude myself upon the attention of the Convention, 
 than any form of words which I could employ. As one 
 of the youngest — perhaps the youngest — member upon 
 this floor, I have felt that it was due to the Convention, 
 and due to myself, that I should not press myself upon 
 its notice, except when impelled to do so by a sense of 
 duty. But, like other gentlemen upon this floor, I have 
 duties to discharge ; and, if those who sent me here 
 had have apprehended that I would permit con- 
 siderations of personal delicacy and diffidence to em- 
 barrass me in the discharge of those duties, that full- 
 measured confidence by authority of which I am here, 
 would have been withheld, and properly withheld, from 
 me. I cannot, therefore, shrink from the task that is 
 before me. I must, however, in the outset, invoke the 
 indulgence of the committee. I am, for the first time 
 in my life, addressing a deliberative assembly, and am 
 very well aware that I may not be able to adapt my 
 style to the proprieties of this new position. The com- 
 mittee must, therefore, pardon me if I use, upon this 
 occasion, the same unreserve of manner, the same free- 
 dom of speech, that I would do were I addressing my 
 friends and neighbors from the galleries of my own 
 court-house, or upon the jury bench in my own county. 
 I will add, that I desire to say nothing that is offensive 
 to any gentleman, or any collection of gentlemen here. 
 And if any remark shall fall from me that may seem to 
 bear such a construction, 1 ask that it may be attributed 
 rather to inadvertence, arising out of the excitement of 
 the moment, than to any purpose to wound the sensi- 
 bilities of gentlemen. 
 
 In discussing this subject, I shall endeavor to view it 
 fairly in each of the two aspects in which it has been 
 considered by most of the gentlemen who have prece- 
 ded me in the debate — first as an abstract question, and 
 next as one involving the gravest considerations of pub- 
 lic liberty and public safety. One party upon this floor 
 contends that what they denominate the suffrage basis 
 of representation is the only basis consistent with pop- 
 ular rights, and the fundamental principles of liberty, 
 as they are asserted in our own bill of rights. If their 
 position is a sound one, then there is an end to the dis- 
 cussion. I acknowledge that there would then be no 
 occasion for further argument, and we should be bound 
 to go along with them. If, however, this question of 
 abstract right is not with them, and the fundamental 
 principles of free government do not require us to 
 adopt the basis for which they contend, then we must 
 give ourselves over to the guidance of those considera- 
 tions of public policy and safety that apply to the actual 
 condition of the country for which we are organizing a 
 government. 
 
 Before I enter upon the main part of this argument, 
 I shall invite the attention of the committee to one or 
 two points that have already been involved in the dis- 
 cussion by other gentlemen, and have a more or less 
 direct connection with it. I have been surprised and 
 amused at the superior purity of motive, and devotion 
 to principle, which gentlemen on the other side seem 
 disposed to assume for themselves. We are informed 
 that with them it is a contest for principle, and for 
 
 principle alone. They profess to prosecute this contest 
 for principle with a white-handed, pure-hearted faith 
 that would contemn any association with views of in- 
 terest. The gentleman from Augusta (Mr. Sheffey) 
 even tells us that when, on one occasion in the discus- 
 sion of this subject before his constituents, arguments 
 were addressed to them founded on considerations of 
 their own interests, a ground-swell of indignation re- 
 buked the unseemly assault upon their virtuous devotion 
 to principle. That gentleman permitted his fancy to 
 range in delighted vision throughout western Virginia, 
 everywhere beholding nothing but this disinterested 
 and ardent enthusiasm in behalf of the great principles 
 of which he is the champion. But the moment that he 
 crosses the mountain that interposes between the Val- 
 ley and the Piedmont, this appearance changes, and 
 the gentleman's sensibilities are shocked at the odious 
 coincidence which he thinks he perceives between the 
 principles and the interests of the people in that quar- 
 ter of the State. And, by way of chastising this repre- 
 hensible dereliction, the Piedmont is to be made the 
 subject and the victim of the prejudices of this Conven- 
 tion. Other gentlemen have equally indulged in a 
 strain of applause at the peculiar and exclusive enthu- 
 siasm for principle which inspires them and their con- 
 stituents in this contest. I understood the gentleman 
 from Preston (Mr. Brown) to go so far as to intimate 
 that he would still adhere to his principle, even did 
 the experience of the other States in the confederacy 
 demonstrate its impolicy. But the gentleman who oc- 
 cupied the attention of the committee on yesterday 
 (Mr. Lucas) went further on this point than any one 
 has yet gone ; for I understood him to congratulate 
 himself that the ardor of this attachment to their prin- 
 ciples had placed him and his constituents in a position 
 actuallv in conflict with their interests. This fact he 
 seemed to think ought to give peculiar force and influ- 
 ence to the views and advice which his constituents 
 might address to the practical and intelligent people 
 who live on this side of the mountain. This gentleman 
 entertained us at length with a beautiful eulogy upon 
 the happy condition of public sentiment in his county. 
 I was delighted with the eloquence of the gentleman, 
 and permitted myself for a time to be lost in admira- 
 tion of the holy ardor and enthusiasm for principle that 
 prevailed in that end of the Valley. The gentleman 'a 
 voice was occasionally inaudible where I sat, and it 
 was in the midst of one of those bursts of eulogy that I 
 lost the connection ; and when he again, in a few mo- 
 ments, became audible to me, I was astonished to find 
 him now dilating with the same fervor upon the policy 
 and equity of getting some of the loaves and fishes upon 
 his side of the Blue Ridge. I must confess that I was 
 entirely at a loss to perceive any particular connection 
 of the fundamental principles of free government, and 
 the natural rights of men, with the idea of getting some 
 of the loaves and fishes over the mountain. This tran- 
 sition from principle to interest was accomplished with 
 a grace and rapidity which the gentleman from Augusta 
 even would hardly expect to see surpassed in the 
 Piedmont. If the subject of the loaves and fishes had 
 been introduced into this discussion by one of the rep- 
 resentatives from Piedmont, it might have seemed to 
 some onlv to be in accordance with the general charac- 
 ter which it has pleased certain gentlemen to attribute 
 to that section. But, coming from the quarter that it 
 
4 
 
 did, and in the connection in which it was introduced, 
 I must again repeat the expression of my profound 
 amazement. 
 
 " The thing itself was neither rich nor rare, 
 The only wonder is, how the d — 1 it got there." 
 
 In reply to all this assumed disregard of interest, I 
 might simply ask gentlemen if they do not think that 
 the interests of their constituents will be promoted by 
 the suffrage basis ? If such is your own view of your 
 own interests, do you not yourselves present that very 
 coincidence between your interests and your principles, 
 as you regard them, which is imputed as an offence to 
 the Piedmont people. But I propose to prosecute, a 
 little further, the investigation which such assumption 
 justifies and invites. 
 
 The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Lucas,) and the gen- 
 tleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) have both presented 
 somewhat at length, the history of parties on this basis 
 question. I propose very briefly to follow these gentle- 
 men through a portion of that history, and correct some 
 of their facts. I wish to inquire whether the party to 
 which these gentlemen are attached has always been 
 controlled by that exclusive and disinterested devotion 
 to principle which is claimed for them. I think that 
 by the time I have gone through with this portion of 
 my subject, it will be found that there are other sections 
 besides the Piedmont which sometimes consult their own 
 interests. 
 
 The gentlemen inform us, that in the arrangement of 
 senatorial districts in 1816, the white basis party ob- 
 tained such a recognition of their principles as was sat- 
 isfactory to them. They derive this assertion, I know, 
 from the speech of Mr. Doddridge in the last convention. 
 But they have entirely overlooked the correction of Mr. 
 Doddridge's statement, that was made shortly after- 
 wards, in the same body by Mr. Tazewell. I hold in my 
 hand the debates of that convention. At the close of 
 his speech on the basis question, Mr. Tazewell refers to 
 the history of that senatorial re-apportionment in 1816. 
 He says that he was a member of the committee that 
 brought in that . re-apportionment bill, and was, of 
 course, cognizant of all its proceedings. He informs us 
 that those districts were arranged, not on the white 
 population basis — certainly not on the suffrage basis — 
 but upon a compound basis of taxation, federal num 
 bers, and white population. In connection with the 
 fact which I have just presented, I ask attention to an- 
 other fact, also stated by Mr. Tazewell. He says that 
 the west was satisfied with the apportionment then 
 made. Mr. Doddridge likewise states, that after this sen- 
 atorial apportionment, the western people took a breath- 
 ing spell, and agitation was suspended until 1824. That 
 re apportionment gave the west nine senators. Pre- 
 viously they had but four. It will be observed that 
 this re-apportionment gave to this party of devotees to 
 principle, a large accession of power, but no recognition 
 of their principle. They hugged the power to their bo 
 soms, and smiled over its possession, but, they forgot to 
 shed one tear, or utter one word in melancholy com- 
 memoration of their abandoned principle. The gentle- 
 man from Augusta told us with an air of triumph that 
 the mixed basis was not heard of in 1816. I have 
 shown that it was the very basis that then prevailed. I 
 wish to call the attention of the committee to a princi- 
 ple of basis that really was not heard of in the re-ap- 
 portionment of 1816. The suffrage basis was not then 
 demanded. It was the whole white population that was 
 then urged as the basis by the ardent and enthusiastic 
 devotees of the rights of man and the fundamental 
 principles of liberty asserted in the bill of rights. Such 
 likewise was the basis demanded by this party in the 
 Staunton convention in 1816, and in 1825. So far, if 
 my information be correct, this party planted itself upon 
 the white population basis, and not the suffrage basis. 
 We come now to the convention of 1829, where the en- 
 tire sentiment of this party in the State was organized 
 and represented In that convention this 1 suffrage basis, 
 now presented as the only basis consistent with the 
 
 rights of men and the principles of liberty, had but two 
 advocates ! One of these was R. B, Taylor, whose pow- 
 ers were revoked at an early period of the session. The 
 other was Chapman Johnson, and the fact that he stood 
 alone on that question is strikingly significant of the 
 feeling with which this suffrage basis was then regarded. 
 The gentleman from Augusta, the other day, described 
 Philip Doddridge, in 1829, as standing, like an eagle- 
 eyed sentinel on the crest of the Alleghany, to guard the 
 western interest from the approach of open and secret 
 foe. This eagle-eyed sentinel did not hesitate to chal- 
 lenge even Chapman Johnson, and when he gave the 
 suffrage basis as the countersign, Philip Doddridge would 
 not admit him into the camp. Yes, in the convention 
 of 1829, in the presence of the whole white basis party, 
 Mr. Doddridge told Chapman Johnson that he was the 
 only one of that party who was in favor of the suffrage 
 basis. I trust the committee will give their attention to 
 two short extracts, which I will venture to read from 
 the debates of the last convention : 
 
 "Mr. Doddridge rose to notice a remark of Mr. 
 Scott on what had fallen from Mr. Johnson. He under- 
 stood Mr. Johnson to have stated it as his understand- 
 ing of the first proposition in the report of the Legisla- 
 tive Committee, that representation was to be appor- 
 tioned on the basis of qualified voters ; and he hsid 
 added that he supposed this to have been the intention 
 of the mover of that resolution in the Legislative Com- 
 mittee. Now, Mr. Doddridge said that he had himself 
 been the mover of it, and such an interpretation was 
 certainly very far from his purpose. He had never in- 
 tended any such thing ; nor, so far as he knew, had such 
 an interpretation entered into the minds of the Legis- 
 lative Committee. His doctrine and his desire was 
 that representation was to be apportioned according 
 to the entire white population. — Debates, p. 342. 
 
 At a later period of the session he again repudiates 
 the suffrage basis in behalf of all his associates in the 
 Convention. 
 
 "Mr. Doddridge, in explanation to Mr. Stanard, dis- 
 claimed any opinion on the part of his friends, that rep- 
 resentation was to be based on votes alone ; none of them 
 hold it but Mr. Johnson." — Debates, p. 342. 
 
 There is what Mr. Doddridge said, uncontradicted 
 from any quarter. Ami not then fully authorized to say 
 that the suffrage basis was rejected by the able men 
 who represented western interests in the convention of 
 1829 ? That the principle involved in this suffrage 
 basis was not regarded by those men as one consistent 
 with the principles upon which they then planted their 
 party? A change is now brought about, and that which 
 was rejected of the builders in 1829, is made the corner- 
 stone of the edifice. Here we find this party changing 
 position in 1851. Let us direct our attention back 
 again for a few moments, and inquire whether there 
 has been any change of interest coincident with this 
 change of principle. The Committee will remember 
 that in 1816 the freehold suffrage was in force. In 
 1829 it was understood that the right of suffrage would 
 be extended to housekeepers who were tax payers. 
 Mr. Johnson, in the Convention of 1829, submitted es- 
 timates of the result of the white population basis, and 
 of the suffrage basis, as the suffrage qualifications then 
 stood, and also as it was proposed to extend it. White 
 population basis gave the west fifty-six members in a 
 house of one hundred and twenty. The suffrage basis, 
 if the right of suffrage was not extended, would give 
 the west forty-seven members ; and if the right of suf- 
 frage should be extended as was then expected to tax 
 paying housekeepers, the suffrage basis would give the 
 west fifty members. [Debates, p. 270.] Thus the white 
 population basis gave the west nine members more 
 than the suffrage basis, as the right of suffrage then 
 was and had beeu in 1816 ; and it gave six more than 
 the suffrage basis after the contemplated extension of 
 the right of suffrage. In that condition of affairs, wes- 
 tern gentlemen, with almost unbroken unanimity, came 
 
I 
 
 to the conclusion that the white population basis was 
 the only basis consistent with the rights of man and 
 democratic principles. How is it now ? Why, it is 
 generally anticipated that the right of suffrage will be 
 extended to all the adult males in the State. It is well 
 known that in an immigrating community the number 
 of adult males is larger in proportion to the whole pop- 
 ulation than it is in an emigrating community. Eas- 
 tern Virginia is an emigrating country, western Vir- 
 ginia is an immigrating country, so that after the con- 
 templated extension of the right of suffrage, the suf- 
 frage basis will probably give western Virginia more 
 power than white population basis. Under these cir- 
 cumstances we find gentlemen repudiating the white 
 population basis with the same unanimity with which 
 they formerly repudiated the suffrage basis, and now 
 vehemently contending that the latter basis is the one 
 whose principle meets the full requirements of the bill 
 of rights ! Here, then, I point to a change of position 
 and of principle, and coincident with it a change of in- 
 terest. I find that it is an easy thing for these gentle- 
 men to rGason themselves into the adoption of the par- 
 ticular principle that gives them the most power. 
 Let my western friends not misunderstand me. I do 
 not charge them with seeking power for improper pur- 
 poses. You no doubt think that when you have obtain- 
 ed power you will use it wisely and well. But I think 
 that I have detected the unnoticed and pervading in- 
 fluence of the desire for power that has shaped and 
 fashioned their principles. In view of the facts which 
 I have recited, I feel authorized to deny their assump- 
 tion of supeiior and disinterested devotion to principle, 
 and to tell them freely and boldly that on their side 
 the love of power mingles with the love of principle. 
 
 But I have not contented myself with an investigation 
 of the past ; I have extended my inquiries to the course 
 of gentlemen in this Convention, upon this subject. I 
 ask you to go along with me and review the course of 
 gentlemen who represent western views upon this floor, 
 and see if there is not that same coincidence even here 
 between their interest and their practical application of 
 their own principle ? I particularly invite the attention 
 of all my western friends to what I am now going to 
 present to the Committee. "We are persuaded that the 
 fires of indignation are always ready to kindle in the 
 bosom of the gentleman from Augusta, (Mr. Sheffey,) 
 as well as in the bosoms of his virtuous constituents, at 
 the bare thought of sacrificing principle to interest. 
 Let that gentleman prepare one of his ground-swells 
 of indignation now — for he has himself been an active 
 participant in what I am about to expose. In order 
 that there may be no misapprehension on my part of 
 the position of western gentlemen, I will state it as 
 I understand it. If I state it inaccurately, I ask as a 
 favor that some gentleman on that side will correct me. 
 They contend that a majority of the voters in the State 
 ought to control the legislation of the State. They 
 take for the present the number of white population 
 as the measure of the number of voters, and profess that 
 in arranging and distributing representation among the 
 counties and election districts, those counties and elec 
 tion districts which contain a majority of the white 
 population shall always be enabled to elect a majority 
 of the members of the legislature. Have I stated your 
 doctrine correctly ? Now let us see what is the prac- 
 tical operation of this principle, as it is exhibited in the 
 report of the western portion of the Basis Committee ? 
 Twelve of the most distinguished gentlemen from wes- 
 tern Virginia, constitute one half of the Basis Com- 
 mittee. Without interference or hindrance from our 
 side, these gentlemen have leisurelv and deliberately 
 matured their own application of their own principle. 
 The result of their labor is presented as the scheme of 
 representation which gives practical operation to the 
 principles for which they contend, and which, therefore, 
 t\ fcy wish to incorporate as a part (if the new eonsti- 
 
 \ion. This report was presented some weeks ago, 
 &> \ been printed and placed in the hands of every mem- 
 
 ber of the Convention. No proposition to amend — no 
 complaint of its imperfection has yet come from a sin- 
 gle member on the other side. I take it, therefore, that 
 this proposition meets the general approval of western 
 gentlemen, and fully accomplishes their views and 
 purposes. 
 
 I hold in my hand a tabular statement — I do not in- 
 tend to trouble the committee by reading it, but as soon 
 as I am done referring to it, any gentleman will be at 
 liberty to take it and examine it at his leisure — showing 
 that sixty-two counties and election districts, embracing 
 395,618 white population, will be authorized, upon this 
 plan, to elect seventy-nine out of one hundred and fifty- 
 six members of the House of Delegates, while the rest 
 of the counties, embracing about 500,000 inhabitants, are 
 authorized to elect but seventy-seven members. Yet 
 worse, by adding five other counties to the list, we have 
 sixty -seven counties, containing 437,000 population, elect- 
 ing eighty six delegates, while the other counties, con- 
 taining 458,000 population, sent but seventy delegates. 
 Thus, a minority by some twenty thousand," have a ma- 
 jority of sixteen in the House of Delegates, by a plan 
 whose professed purpose is to give the control of the 
 legislature exclusively to the numerical majority. The 
 same remarkable inconsistencies are observed in then- 
 senatorial apportionment. I have not gone to the 
 trouble of preparing a tabular statement in reference 
 to the Senate. But I have marked here on the face of 
 the printed report, nineteen districts, embracing in round 
 numbers, about 437,000 population, which are authorized 
 upon the plan, to elect nineteen senators out of thirty- 
 six. The other districts including about 458,000 popu- 
 lation, elect but seventeen senators. A minority by 
 twenty thousaud thus control the senate on the majority 
 plan ! Here is devotion to principle for you with a 
 vengeance. The gentleman from Jefferson (-Mr. Lucas) 
 told us that it was not merely a sectional majority, east 
 or west, but a majority scattered all over the State, 
 into whose hands he would pass the government. Yet 
 upon the very plan that he advocates as the embodiment 
 of his own principles, here will be a minority of more 
 than one hundred thousand people scattered ail over the 
 State, from Accomac to Brooke, and from Accomac to 
 Russell, that will elect a majority of the house of dele- 
 gates. In the face of this strange exhibition of their 
 own application of their own principles, I think I can 
 hear the mild-toned, musical accents of the distinguished 
 gentleman from Preston, (Mr. Brown,) still singing in my 
 ears, that in supporting this report he was only following 
 his principles. Gentlemen have followed their vaunted 
 principles, until they have transported the sceptre over 
 Rockfish gap, and while embracing the power that is 
 brought to them, they cease to pay any further regard 
 to the principle. The only majority to which this report 
 is sedulous to secure the control of the legislature, is the 
 sectional majority lying west of the Blue Ridge moun- 
 tain. Professing to be content with nothing but a gov- 
 ernment of the numerical majority, gentlemen are here 
 pressing the adoption of a system that gives the control 
 of the house of delegates to a minority of more than 
 one hundred thousand. Yet the gentleman from Preston 
 assures us that they are only following their principles. 
 Well, I always thought, for reasons which I will explain 
 before I resume my seat, that in attempting to follow 
 the principles professed by these gentlemen, they were 
 following a very unpractical, unsafe and unreliable guide. 
 I thought that they were following a will-'o-the-wisp. 
 But I hardly expected that they would be enticed into 
 such a quagmire as that in which they are now flounder- 
 ing. The gentleman must excuse me. He does not find 
 his principles in this reported plan. If he wants to fol- 
 low them, he must begin his travels anew. I am sorry I 
 cannot tell him how and where he will overtake them. 
 Perhaps they have taken refuge among the virtuous and 
 enthusiastic constituents of the gentleman from Augusta 
 (Mr. Sheffey) and are now preparing that ground-swell 
 of indignation which surely must overwhelm the gentle- 
 man when he returns to those constituents, after having 
 
6 
 
 been a chief agent in preparing a plan of constitutional 
 organization by which power was secured to them, while 
 their beloved principles were prostrated and abandoned. 
 Or perhaps they have crossed over to Monongalia, and 
 are now .kindling the fires of that volcano, which the 
 gentleman from that county (Mr. Willey) informed us 
 would burst in destructive eruptions upon the heads of 
 all those who support any scheme by which the hands 
 of a minority control the government. I am very fearful 
 that the gentleman will fall the first victim of his own 
 volcano. For he has made an eloquent speech in favor 
 of this report. 
 
 The great outcry that has been raised here against the 
 mixed basis report, is alleged to have been occasioned 
 by its giving a minority of ninety-one thousand the con- 
 trol of the legislative department, and putting money in 
 the scale against men. Gentlemen have exhausted the 
 language of invective in denouncing a proposition (and 
 such they declare ours to be) which weighs dollars against 
 men — money against moral and sentient beings. The 
 English language has not been adequate to express the 
 abhorrence with which gentlemen regard this proposi- 
 tion. The gentlemen from Augusta and Accomac (Mr. 
 Sheffey and Mr. Wise) have re-enforced language with 
 the most significant gesture, in the effort to give full 
 expression to their emotions on the subject. It was not 
 until I had witnessed those displays of the gentlemen 
 that I fully appreciated Shakspeare's description of 
 Hamlet in the play, as bearing the appearance of one 
 
 " Just let loose from hell to speak of horrors." 
 "When gentlemen come to study their own plan, I must 
 look for them to go off in hysterical convulsions. For 
 that gives the control of a majority of the delegates to 
 a minority of more than one hundred thousand. That 
 does not even put money in the scale, but with uncere- 
 monious hands sweeps off a hundred thousand or so of 
 people, as the worthless dust that encumbers the balance. 
 The gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) seemed to 
 think that the substitute of the gentleman from Fauquier 
 (Mr. Scott) proposed a sort of auction of white men, and 
 intimated that his indignation might be somewhat re- 
 lieved, or at least its agony rendered less intense, if that 
 substitute would value men at one dollar apiece, instead 
 of forty-two cents, the price at which they are estimated 
 in the mixed basis report, according to the gentleman 
 from Augusta. Here, in your own scheme, are one hun- 
 dred thousand men valued not at one dollar, or forty- 
 two cents, or even one cent apiece, but just at nothing 
 at all-r-knocked off for want of a bidder. Your auction 
 seems to be doing more of a wholesale business than 
 ours. 
 
 Here, then, is the proposition of these devoted advo- 
 cates of the majority rule. Let no gentleman plead 
 haste or inadvertance as an excuse for this startling de- 
 parture from principle. The report was cautiously and 
 deliberately matured by twelve of the ablest and most 
 zealous western men on this floor — yes, twelve learned 
 doctors sent out to exorcise and drive out of the consti- 
 tution this devil of a spirit that a minority should rule. 
 If this western proposition becomes part of our consti- 
 tution, I fear that gentlemen will find that the old spirit 
 has not only returned to his swept and garnished house, 
 but has brought along with him others more wicked than 
 himself, and made its latter condition even worse than 
 the former. But I forbear to press gentlemen further on 
 this subject. They are in a difficulty from which they 
 will find it hard to extricate themselves. They seem to 
 me at the very first move to have put their king in 
 check. I put it home to gentleman who are devoted to 
 the principle that the majority ought to govern at 
 all times, and under all circumstances, if they can 
 bring themselves to support the plan of this western 
 report ? 
 
 I will now invite the attention of the committee to the 
 main question under discussion, as I stated it in my 
 opening remarks. I assert that there is no principle an- 
 nounced in our bill, of rights that requires us to adopt the 
 
 suffrage basis, or to reject the mixed basis, in the appor- 
 tionment of representation. I propose briefly to examine 
 the clauses in the bill of rights which have been relied 
 upon in this debate by gentlemen on the other side. I 
 shall do so as briefly as possible, contenting myself where 
 I can do so with justice to the subject, with a simple 
 statement of my views, without argument. For before 
 the attention of the committee is wearied, I wish to 
 address myself to the more practical branch of the sub- 
 ject, and submit some considerations of public liberty and 
 safety, which, it seems to me, ought to control our action. 
 For convenience of arrangement, I shall comment on the 
 clauses in the order in which they stand in the bill of 
 rights. There are three clauses upon which gentlemen 
 rely. It is somewhat remarkable that all three of 
 these refer to the existence* of men prior to constitu- 
 tional organization, while a clause which really does 
 refer to the subject under discussion has been entirely 
 overlooked. I shall refer to them all before I close. 
 Here is the first clause : 
 
 " All men are by nature equally free and independ- 
 ent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when 
 they enter a state of society, they cannot by any com- 
 pact deprive or divest their posterity." ? 
 
 Now this, in its very terms, applies to the natural con- 
 dition of men before they enter into a state of society. 
 But admitting that all men are, or ought to be equally 
 free after they have entered society, is there any justice 
 in the inferences which these gentlemen draw from that 
 declaration ? Because all men are equally free, all men 
 ought to exercise equal political power, according to the 
 reasoning of these gentlemen. Power is not liberty,, 
 and the exercise of power is not the enjoyment of lib- 
 erty. You confound the means with the end. Power 
 is the means by which liberty is preserved. And if you 
 so organize power in the government as to preserve 
 liberty, you accomplish all the purpose of a free gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Gentlemen associate with the idea of freedom, the idea 
 of power ; and contend that in order to make men free you 
 must give them power. Were we in that happy, angelic 
 condition in which each, of his own free will, would re- 
 spect all the rights of others, we might dissolve gov- 
 ernments, and locate power nowhere. Will gentlemen 
 tell us that men in such circumstances would not be 
 free because they were not exercising power? Yet, 
 here their rights would be protected, their liberties pre- 
 served without any agency of theirs. But why do gen- 
 tlemen content themselves with claiming upon this prin- 
 ciple an equality of political power ? I find no special limi- 
 tation of the term in the bill of rights. Why not-claim, 
 too, an equality of social power ? Wealth is power — so- 
 cial power. Physical strength, intellectual endowments 
 constitute power. Upon the interpretation which gen- 
 tlemen give to the bill of rights, all men are by nature 
 entitled to equality in these respects. For we are told 
 that without equality of power there is no equality of 
 freedom. Gentlemen impressed with this view should 
 not stop at a re-organization of our political system ; 
 they should re-organize the social system; they should 
 lift their view still higher, and address their morning 
 and evening supplication to High Heaven that the 
 system of nature itself should be organized on a prin- 
 ciple different from that applied to it by infinite wis- 
 dom. But if men who have not an equality of power, 
 have not an equality of freedom, then it seems neces- 
 sarily to follow that those who exercise no power have 
 no freedom ; so that upon this theory, freedom is con- 
 fined to the qualified voters, and that equality of free- 
 dom asserted in the bill of rights and its concomitant 
 equality of power is the exclusive right of qualified i 
 voters. If this party should prevail in this Convention, 
 I shall look for a proposition from them to amend the 
 bill of rights so as to express their views more pre- 
 cisely. Thev ought, upon this theory, to make it reijd. 
 "all qualified voters are by nature equally free and - i- 
 dependent," If the free-hold qualification should f e- 
 
1 
 
 rail, then your bill of rights might assert that all men sure, and but little more than one thousand in favor of 
 who own twenty-five dollars worth of land are naturally it. Yet the two thousand, in consequence of their local 
 free and equal. It is well known that there is a party situation, elect one delegate, and the one thousand elect 
 on this floor, embracing gentlemen from both sides of two delegates? A few more than one thousand voters 
 thejnountain who will endeavor to make the payment thus exercising twice as much legislative power as but 
 
 of State and county taxes a qualification of suffrage 
 Your bill of rights, if the interpretation 1 am now com- 
 bating be correct, would then declare that all men are 
 by nature equally free ; provided, always, that they had 
 paid the county levy. Upon this theory if to-day I 
 chance not to have settled my tax-bills. I am not a free- 
 man entitled to enjoy all the natural rights of men. 
 No, the sheriff has my liberties in his saddle-bags in 
 the ungainly shape of a fax -bill. To-morrow I settle 
 the account, and I immediately am invested with all the 
 rights and privileges of a freeman, and by a fiction, 
 like those of the common law, these rights relate back, 
 I must suppose, to the day of my birth, for I am 
 now become by nature equally free. The receipt 
 which the sheriff endorses upon the tax bill thus con- 
 stitutes the great charter of the liberies of the citi- 
 zen. If such be the case, provision ought to be made by 
 law for preserving in public custody and at public ex- 
 pense, those interesting documents, those invaluable mu- 
 niments of title to equal freedom and the rights of men. 
 
 Well, now let us follow these gentlemen through ano- 
 ther stage of their singular mode of argument and de- 
 duction. They first infer from the bill of rights impro- 
 perly, as I think that I have shown, that every man is 
 entitled to exercise an equal share of political power, 
 and from that, by some curious art of logical legerde- 
 main, jump to the conclusion that the majority have the 
 natural right to exercise all power, and the minority 
 have no right to exercise any power at all. A trifle 
 more than one-half of the community are thus invested 
 with absolute power, and a trifle less than one-half to 
 be stripped of every semblance of power ! This, too, is 
 accomplished by the advocates of the theory that no 
 man is free, unless he exercises just as much political 
 power as any other man in the community. The only 
 political organization that I have ever heard or read of, 
 in which this principle of equality, in the exercise of 
 power, was practically admitted, was the old Polish 
 constitution, under which, not a majority, but unanimi- 
 ty was required, in the passage of laws. There, under 
 the pressure of necessity, the sword overruled the libe- 
 rum veto, and the life of the citizen was sacrificed while 
 his right to equal political power was respected. Sup- 
 pose we examine now the practical application which 
 gentlemen propose to give to this principle, and see 
 whether even their own purposes are in any degree ac 
 complished. I am not now going to make any further 
 criticism upon their report. I am going to suppose for 
 {he moment that they have made a theoretically perfect 
 application of their principle, and that they have divi- 
 ded the State into election districts, each one of which 
 embrace precisely the same number of votes. I concede 
 this for the sake of argument, though I know that in 
 practice it can never be accomplished. If you could so 
 arrange districts this morning, the equality of the dis 
 tribution would be disturbed before the sun would go 
 down to-morrow evening. But even in that imaginary 
 condition will you then have this desired equality of 
 political power ? Will not the location of the suffragan 
 in many instances determine the degree of influence 
 which his will may exercise upon the action of the le- 
 gislative departments? Most assuredly it will. Let 
 me give an illustration that will more clearly express, 
 at the same time that it enforces, my view. I will take 
 three of your election districts, and suppose that each 
 includes a thousand voters, and each elects one delegate 
 to the Legislature. A proposition is to come before the 
 Legislature, and elections are made with reference to 
 that subject. One of these election districts is unani- 
 mous against the proposed measure. A trifling majori- 
 ty in each of the other two districts are in favor of it. 
 How does the account stand. In the three districts 
 there are nearly two thousand voters against the mea- 
 
 a few less than two thousand voters. That is your pa- 
 tent-right plan for securing to each voter precise equal- 
 ity of power ! I perceive that the committee com- 
 prehend the view that I am now presenting. Allow me 
 to enforce it with another illustration. I trust that I do 
 nothing improper in referring for illustration to the pre- 
 sent division of parties in the State. It is well known 
 that members of the Legislature are now elected with 
 reference to parties, and will probably continue to be so 
 for years to come. The county of Shenandoah and the 
 county of Fauquier are each entitled to two delegates 
 by the suffrage basis report. In Fauquier, parties are 
 closely divided. In Shenandoah, they are nearly unan- 
 imous. Eight hundred Whigs in Fauquier send two de- 
 legates to the Legislature, while fifteen hundred Demo- 
 crats in Shenandoah send but two. Thus eight hun- 
 dred Whigs in Fauquier have as much weight in the 
 Legislature, as the fifteen hundred Democrats in She- 
 nandoah, and the seven hundred Democratic minority 
 in Fauquier combined. Eight hundred thus balance 
 twenty-two hundred. May I be excused for yet another 
 illustration ! I shall refer to an existing state of things 
 in two counties of my own district — Culpeper and Ma- 
 dison. I cannot name those counties here without emo- 
 tion. The gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Lucas) yes- 
 terday eulogized the historic recollections of his own 
 county. I too, if I chose to decorate my position here 
 by such allusions, could refer to the historic glories 
 that cluster about the reminiscences connected with my 
 own county, including, as she once did, that county of 
 Madison. But I forbear, and proceed to the illustra- 
 tion that I have in view. The county of Culpeper is 
 nearly equally divided in politics, a few votes either 
 way determining its political character. The coun- 
 ty of Madison is nearly unanimous. Near the Hue 
 dividing these counties, live a number of gentle- 
 men, whose farms extend in both counties, but 
 whose residences are in Madison. Suppose, after this 
 Convention has confined the right of suffrage to resi- 
 dents of counties, that some dozen of those gentle- 
 men have their dwellings removed from the Madison 
 to the Culpeper side of their farms. Probably they 
 fix the political complexion of Culpeper, while they 
 do not at all change that of Madison. They thus secure 
 for th,eir views two votes in the legislature, which, oth- 
 erwise, would exactly balance aud nullify each other. 
 Do you ask me to believe that the suffrage of these 
 voters avails as much in the one county as it does in the 
 other ? I shall not multiply arguments upon this point. 
 Gentlemen must themselves perceive in what incon- 
 sistencies they are involved when they attempt to or- 
 ganize a representative system upon the principles which 
 they contend to be the principles exclusively appropri- 
 ate to it. 
 
 I pass to the next clause referred to by the other 
 side : 
 
 All power is vested in, and consequently derived 
 from, the people." This has little or no application to 
 the subject. I might admit all that is contended for, 
 that power is derived from a majority of the people and, 
 yet the question, in what form shall that power be or- 
 ganized, in whose hands entrusted, would still remain 
 unsettled. But I choose to state my own view ©f this 
 principle in the bill of rights ; gentlemen can take it 
 for what it is worth. Whence is power really derived ? 
 Is it not derived from the parties to the social compact ? 
 And who are those parties ? The individuals who con- 
 stitute the community as people, and it is in this sens© 
 that all power is derived from the people. On entering 
 the social compact, each individual surrenders a portion 
 of his natural rights and privileges, and from these indi- 
 vidual sources is derived a fund of power, to be employed 
 for the good of the whole. It is only these derived 
 
8 
 
 powers that any human agency has any just right to 
 exercise. I deny that there are any prerogative power 
 here. I do not use the word prerogative in the narrow 
 sense of the English common law, but in the more en- 
 larged meaning ascribed to it by public writers. Pre 
 rogative power is the opposite of derived power. It is 
 not derived from compacts, constitutions, or laws, but 
 is above them, and is claimed as inherent in the party 
 exercising it. It is power having its foundation, not in 
 the gift of men, but in Divine right. I understand gen 
 tlemen to contend that there are such prerogative powers 
 here, and that they belong to the majority of the com 
 munity. I deny that any man, or set of men, have the 
 right to exercise any power over an individual, which is 
 not derived from the grant of that individual directly 
 or indirectly. By entering into the social compact he 
 confers upon the community thus formed the powers 
 necessary to accomplish the purpose of the social com- 
 pact, the formation of the government, the establish 
 ment of a constitutional compact that supersedes the 
 social compact. 'Whjle the community are engaged in 
 accomplishing the great object of the social compact 
 the establishment of a government, the community act 
 as an assembly, and of course are subject to the rule 
 of necessity applying to ail assemblies, that the will of 
 the majority shall represent the will of the whole. This 
 is a power derived from the parties to the social com 
 pact by the conditions of the compact, and ceases to 
 exist the moment that the social compact accomplishes 
 its object, and is merged into a constitutional compact. 
 After that, no portion of them have a right to any power 
 not granted and delegated in the constitution. So long 
 as the constitution has a valid obligatory existence, the 
 majority have a right to just what powers the constitu 
 tion gives them, and no more. This view brings us to 
 the last clause in the bill of rights, which gentlemen have 
 recited in support of their position : 
 
 " Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the 
 common benefit, protection and security of the people 
 nation, or community ; of all the various modes and 
 forms of government, that is best which is capable of 
 producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, 
 and is most effectually secured against the danger of 
 mal-administration, and that when any government shall 
 be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a 
 majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalien- 
 able, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish 
 it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to 
 the public weal." 
 
 This clause states the proper objects of government, 
 the conditions on which the constitutional compact 
 is entered into, and asserts that when these condi- 
 tions are violated, the constitution is no longer of valid 
 obligation, and the community are released from obedi- 
 ence to it, and reverted back to their rights under the 
 social compact, prior to the institution of government. 
 It asserts no power of the majority over the constitution 
 so long as it accomplishes the objects for which it was 
 established, asid upon the continued performance of 
 which the obligation of the people to support 'it de- 
 pends. The power of the majority does not exist under 
 the constitution, but springs up only a\ hen the valid ex- 
 istence of the constitutional compact has ceased, in con- 
 sequence of the violations of the conditions upon which 
 it was entered into. The community, I repeat, are then, 
 and not until then, restored to the condition of the 
 social compact, and must act as one assembly to accom- 
 plish anew the object of the social compact — the insti- 
 tution of government. The majority here have that au- 
 thority which the general rule of all assemblies gives to 
 the majority. Even after this the minority are not 
 bound in allegiance to the new government unless they 
 express their submission to it by continuing within its 
 jurisdiction. I hope I may be allowed to remark here 
 that the authority of the majority of an assembly to 
 represent the whole is not peculiar to democratic 
 assemblies. It is the rule of necessity which the 
 general consent of mankind applies to assemblies 
 
 generally. It was as much the rule of the Grecian 
 councils as of their popular assemblies, as much the 
 rule of the Patrician senate at Rome as of their popu- 
 lar comitia, as much the rule of the English House 
 of Lords as of the House of Commons. It is only of 
 more frequent operation in democracies, because such 
 are essentially governments by assemblies. The author- 
 ity of the numerical majority of the whole community 
 only comes into existence when the community acts as 
 one assembly. I respectfully submit that the right of 
 the majority to represent the community upon such oc- 
 casions was not the leading principle intended to be sol- 
 emnly asserted in this clause of the bill ot rights. The 
 right intended to be preserved and consecrated there 
 was the right of the community to withdraw its alle 
 giance from the government that had violated its trusts, 
 and to substitute a new government for it. It was the 
 right which our ancestors had exercised in the days of 
 the Commonwealth, an*d again in 1688, and which the 
 people of Virginia were exercising at the very time that 
 the bill of rights was framed. I have looked at the 
 declarations of rights prefixed about that time to their 
 constitutions by otl er States, and find that none use the 
 precise expression of the Virginia bill of rights, but all 
 assert this right to belong in general terms to the " peo- 
 ple," " society," " community." 
 
 I ask gentlemen whether a cotemporaneous exposi- 
 tion is not the be.-t exposition in law. I ask you if those 
 men who formed this bill of rights, who inserted this 
 assertion of a great fundamental principle in it, did not 
 understand what they meant quite as well as you un- 
 derstand what they meant ? Did not George Mason, 
 the author of the bill of rights, understand it as well as 
 you ? Did not the men who lived in his day un- 
 derstand that doctrine as well as you who live at this 
 day ? Was not public attention at the time peculiarly 
 attracted to this particular doctrine, the right of the 
 community to reform the government ? Why, that was 
 the very right which they had just exercised in each 
 one of the thirteen States of the confederacy. It was 
 a right for which they had been willing to sacrifice 
 life, fortune, and the establishment of which, after 
 passing through many scenes of trial and bloodshed, 
 they finally accomplished. There may be other princi- 
 ples which were not understood at that day, but I re- 
 peat that this great fundamental doctrine had been as. 
 serted and exercised in England at a period not very 
 long anterior to that, and was well understood at that 
 day by all American politicians and statesmen. I ask 
 you to look at the constitutions throughout the country, 
 formed by the men of that day, and I assert that you 
 will not find one solitary American constitution that 
 attempts to carry into practical operation this doctrine, 
 that a majority of the legislature should be elected by 
 counties containing a majority of the people. Here is 
 the book, name one constitution which does this, and I 
 will dispute it with the record. There is not one in 
 which this great principle for which gentlemen are now 
 ready to convulse society, is to be found practically en- 
 forced. Well, did the Virginia constitution carry it 
 out^-and it was formed by the very men who formed 
 this bill of rights ? Why, they gave Warwick, with a 
 population of some five hundred, the same representa- 
 tion, the same control over the legislature, that they 
 gave to Culpeper, to Berkeley, and to Loudoun coun- 
 ties, each containing from fifteen to twenty thousand 
 population. Will gentlemen tell me that that consti- 
 tution was but a temporary expedient ? If they will, 
 1 say that the declaration is at war with the character 
 of the constitution itself; it contains a provision look- 
 ing to the indefinite future operation of that very 
 principle of representation. Why, they provide in that 
 constitution that if at any future time, any city shall so 
 decrease in population as not to contain an amount of 
 population equal to that of one half the smallest county 
 in the State, it shall have its representative. Thus, 
 here was a provision under the hands of these great men 
 who asserted and fully understood the principles of the 
 
9 
 
 bill of rights, authorizing a city to send half as many re- 
 presentatives as Culpeper, even when the population of 
 that city should have decreased as low as two hundred 
 and fifty, and yet I am told that these men asserted 
 and advocated the very principles now asserted and 
 advocated by the friends of the suffrage basis ! The 
 gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Lucas) yesterday en- 
 deavored to prove that they themselves had departed 
 from their own principles, and that this great funda- 
 mental principle, to carry out which he tells us the 
 west may in a certain state of things be willing to revo- 
 lutionize fche State and society itself, was prostrated 
 and broken down by the very men who had toiled and 
 suffered in the cause of liberty and free principles. It 
 was an awkward compliment to those men to say that 
 they had not only violated the principles of liberty and 
 popular rights, but had recorded their own shame by 
 prefixing the most solemn and authentic declaration of 
 those principles to the very constitution which violated 
 and annulled them. George Mason was the author of 
 the bill of rights. Did he understand what he was 
 writing ? And yet when a member of the convention 
 that framed the federal constitution, did he not support, 
 as his first choice, the federal basis, which was essen- 
 tially a property basis ? Certainly one would suppose 
 that the very authors of the bill of rights ought to be 
 presumed to' understand what they meant as well as any 
 person at this day. Mr. Mason supported the federal 
 basis of representation, and thus repudiated this white 
 or suffrage basis. I think, therefore, that gentlemen 
 mu-t fail in the attempt to draw any aid from these 
 clauses of the bill of rights in support of their view of 
 a proper organization of the legislative department. 
 
 I have no particular desire to go in search of abstract 
 principles, or to explore this bill of rights for one. 
 Such principles must yield to practical limitations when 
 you come to apply them But there is one clause in the 
 bill of rights which does refer to this subject of legisla- 
 tive power, and how and by whom it is to be exercised, 
 which gentlemen have thought proper entirely to over- 
 look in their arguments : "All men," says the bill of 
 rights, "having sufficient evidence of permanent com- 
 mon interest with and attachment to the community, 
 have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or de- 
 prived of their property for public use, without theii 
 own consent, or that of their representatives (freely) 
 elected." No man, none of us, can be taxed without our 
 own consent. It is not a right which spreads over the 
 majority as a majority, but it is one which attaches to 
 each man as an individual. No one, by the bill of rights, 
 can be taxed without his own consent, or by that of the 
 representative whom he has elected, "nor bound by any 
 law to which they have not in like manner assented, for 
 the public good." There is a clause which does not re- 
 late to any state of things outside of the constitution, 
 prior to the constitution, or posterior to the constitution, 
 but it relates to things as they exist under the constitu- 
 tion. In the abstract theory of the constitution, not a 
 part, but the whole legislature enacts the laws. How 
 do the laws of the Commonwealth run ? Not be it en- 
 acted by a majority of the general assembly, but be it 
 enacted by the general assembly. In the abstract the- 
 ory of the constitution, not a mere majority of the peo- 
 ple are regarded as assenting and giving authority to the 
 la s, but every man in the community is regarded as 
 having assented to them through his representative. He 
 agrees to give that assent in the constitutional compact, 
 when he delegates the legislative power to an assembly, 
 of which his own representative is a member, and agrees 
 that a part, less than the whole, shall control the will 
 and the action of the whole. We have the right to pre- 
 scribe in our constitution what part of the legislative 
 assembly shall stand for the whole, and control the 
 whole. If we merely constitute the assembly, and are 
 silent as to the rest, we of course subject it to the com- 
 mon rule applied to assemblies generally, that a majori- 
 ty of the assembly is to represent and control the will 
 -of the whole. If we chose, we could require the con- 
 
 currence of two-thirds to control the. will and action o 
 the whole. So we could make a smaller number neces 
 sary. In the organization now existing, less than a ma 
 jority may represent and act for the whole assembly 
 A majority of a quorum can act. We have the right t<- 
 settle this question now, what part of the legislative as 
 sembly shall we authorise to stand for and control the 
 will of the whole assembly. Gentlemen on the other 
 side say that part, that represents the counties contain- 
 ing a majority of all the voters in the State. We say 
 that part, that represents constituencies who are most 
 interested in a wise and safe exercise of legislative pow- 
 ers. Here, then, we come back to the practical question 
 to be settled by this Convention. 
 
 At this point, I repeat the question put a few days 
 ago by my friend from Westmoreland, (Mr. Beale,) is 
 there any one here who is prepared to prosecute to its 
 legitimate consequences this doctrine, that the numeri- 
 cal majority should elect and control the legislative de- 
 partment? Is any one here prepared to have the legis- 
 lature elected by the numerical majority and responsi- 
 ble to it? If you desire that the numerical majority 
 shall control the representative body, you should make 
 that majority the constituent of the representative bo- 
 dy. Gentlemen who adhere to this majority principle, 
 can only secure their object by electing the legislature 
 by general ticket. It is not the object of the system of 
 representation of counties and districts, to take the sense 
 of the numerical majority. I say it without fear of suc- 
 cessful controversy, that the wit of man cannot make 
 such a system of representation of counties and districts, 
 as will constitute the representative body a faithful ex- 
 ponent of the will of the majority of the community. 
 If it really is the great paramount controlling purpose 
 of the organization of the legislative department to make 
 it the true experiment of the will of the numerical ma- 
 jority, then the representative system is one of the most 
 absurd, ridiculous and bungling pieces of machinery ev- 
 er put in operation by sane men. It is a purpose which 
 our system of representation cannot accomplish. I will 
 illustrate this by imagining a state of things which I 
 trust may never occur. Suppose that the views of wes- 
 tern gentlemen prevail, this basis is adopted, and power 
 is transferred West of the mountain. Let me imagine 
 that some measure of sectional injustice is meditated 
 against the East. The people on this side of the moun- 
 tains will, of course, be unanimous against it. One-third 
 of these on the other side, restrained by a sense of jus- 
 tice, may also oppose it, and yet be so dispersed through- 
 out the West as not to be able to elect a single delegate. 
 A minority of the whole people will thus control the le- 
 gislature, and a measure of gross outrage perpetrated in 
 defiance of the will of the majority. I might multiply in- 
 stances, but it must be admitted by every candid man, 
 that the sense of the majority of the separate constituen- 
 cies will often differ from the sense of the majority of the 
 whole. In such cases, which is to control ? Will the advo- 
 cates of the majority principle answer me that question ? 
 In case of conflict between the will of his own constitu- 
 ents and that of the majority of the people of the State, 
 to which is the representative to conform his action ? If 
 it is our incumbent duty in arranging the organic law, 
 to provide that the numerical majority shall control the 
 legislature, surely it will be no less the duty of those 
 who are chosen to execute this organic law, to co-operate 
 in this design. If the whole object and intention of 
 this part of the constitution is to place the legislature 
 under the control of the numerical majority, will it not 
 be treason to that constitution for any member of this 
 legislature to act otherwise than in strict subjection to 
 the will of that majority. To be consistent with them- 
 selves gentlemen must assume that the representative 
 ought to disregard the will of his immediate constitu- 
 ents, where it is in conflict with that of the majority of 
 the whole. They must here range themselves along lide 
 of the opponents of liberal principles both in this coun- 
 try and England. The generally received view of the 
 friends of popular government is that each represents- 
 
10 
 
 tive is elected by and for bis own constituents, and is 
 bound by their will ; be is no more at liberty to consult 
 the will of the majority of the people of the whole State, 
 when in conflict with that of his own constituents, than 
 he is at liberty to consult the will of a foreign despot. 
 That is the doctrine of the right of instructions long 
 since settled in this country, at least definitively, and 
 unanimously settled by the democratic party of the 
 country. The opposite opinion — that of the tory party 
 in England — is that the representative is elected for the 
 whole State or Kingdom, and bound by no peculiar re- 
 sponsibility to his own immediate constituency. Here 
 is the alternative presented to me. If I take a position 
 alongside of gentlemen who contend that a majority of 
 the community must control the legislature, I have to 
 abandon the faith in which I was reared, which teaches 
 me that the representative ought to be the mere reflec- 
 tion of the will of his constituents, and must accede to 
 doctrines that have been cherished by the tory party in 
 England. I must stand by the old alter, and worship 
 in the old temple. If then the representative is the 
 mere agent of the constituency, when you distribute re- 
 presentation among the counties and election districts, 
 you, in effect, entrust the legislative power of the gov- 
 ernment to those counties and election districts. There 
 is the theory of our government ; aye, there is the great 
 progress which modern society has made in the science 
 of government. If there is any one thing, as the gen- 
 tleman from Fauquier says, which experience fully de- 
 monstrates, it is that when all power is trusted in one 
 hand, or under the control of one body, whether it be 
 ten, one hundred or a hundred thousand, despotism, ty- 
 ranny and usurpation will be the natural result. The 
 concentration — the great apostle of liberty has told us — 
 of all power in the same hands is exactly the definition 
 of tyranny. "What, I ask, is the great improvement in 
 modern political science ? It is the diffusion of power ; 
 the distribution of power and the breaking up of the 
 consolidation of power. The great principle asserted in 
 our bill of rights is that power in the first place shall 
 be distributed among the various governmental depart- 
 ments, and that all power shall not be in one or the oth- 
 er. . The executive power shall be in the hands of one ; 
 the legislative power in another, and the judicial power 
 in the hands of a third. This is one step in the pro- 
 gress of political improvement, but the great step, the 
 greatest achievement of modern political science is this 
 representative system, by which the consolidation of 
 power is broken up, and the control of government is 
 taken from the hands of one individual unit, and dis- 
 tributed through a variety of communities. Now, upon 
 what principle will you distribute power among these 
 communities ? That is the question. You say in pro- 
 portion to the numbers of voters. We say that is an 
 unsafe principle, because we desire to have power lodged 
 in hands not interested in abusing it. We say that in 
 this distribution of power you must put most power 
 where there is most interest to use- that power wisely ; 
 where there are the most subjects of legislation. Give 
 it to those communities who have the most subjects of 
 legislation, and are, therefore, the most directly interest- 
 ed in a wise use of legislative power. Governments do 
 not confine themselves to the protection of the rights 
 and liberties of the citizen. Whether they are right or 
 wrong in overstepping that line of duty I do not now 
 inquire. I content myself for the present with the fact 
 that government is a vast agency for collection and ex- 
 penditure ; a tax collecting and a tax disbursing instru- 
 ment. Shall we entrust the power in the hands of those 
 whose interests will be most promoted by the heaviest 
 expenditures., in the hands of those"who are interested 
 to increase the burthens of the community ? What se- 
 curity have we that these burthens will not be rendered 
 intolerable ? But you say that when you increase the 
 taxation you will increase in the same proportion the 
 burthens on each ? Why, what security is that ? I will 
 illustrate my view, so that I may *be more clearly 
 understood. Here is one of the counties I represent, 
 
 Orange county, with a population of 3,660 paying a 
 tax of $5,550, and here is the county of Braxton with 
 a population of 4,125, paying a tax of $750. Now, 
 suppose these two counties were forming a compact 
 of government, would it be just to put the power to 
 distribute the taxes which Orange pays, in the hands 
 of Braxton, merely because the last county had the most 
 voters ? When Braxton felt the necessity for money, 
 she could very easily double the taxes and raise $11,000 
 in Orange, and $1,500 in her. own limits, and then apply 
 the whole for her own benefit. And would it be any 
 justification to Orange for Braxton to say, you are rich 
 and we are poor, and no injury can be done you if, when 
 the tax is doubled on you, it is doubled on us ? The an- 
 swer of Orange would be that you can very easily afford 
 to take $1500 out of your own pockets, when you bring^ 
 back to yourself more than 15,000, and expend the whole 
 amount as you please. Would it be any security, I ask 
 you, in constituting a government here, to place this 
 tax -collecting and distributing power in the hands of 
 those who are interested in increasing the burthens of 
 government, and with whom the necessity for improve- 
 ment and the power of improvement that junctio juris 
 et seisinae, according to the views that we have heard 
 here, vests a complete right to other people's money. 
 
 But the experience of the past has been referred to in 
 contravention of this view, and we are told that the 
 mixed basis has not proved a security to us heretofore ; 
 that the burthens of the community have been increased^ 
 and increased by the agency, in part, of that Piedmont 
 country, which advocates the mixed basis. Gentlemen 
 forget that'the mixed basis has not heretofore been the 
 actual basis of representation. But I pass that by. The 
 Piedmont country, heavily as she contributes to the 
 treasury, has not, you say, declined to accumulate upon 
 herself, and the rest of the State, the heavy burthens of 
 taxation, when it became her interest to increase the 
 burthens, because the disbursements were made in that 
 quarter. When it became the interest of that section to 
 increase the burthens of taxation, we are informed that 
 they have not hesitated to aid'in increasing them. Pied- 
 mont was in a minority, however, and it was by the aid 
 of others equally interested, that this increase of taxa- 
 tion and disbursement was effected. But because taxa- 
 tion has been increased by the agency in part of a coun- 
 try interested in such increase, we are told we must 
 feel perfectly safe in putting the taxing power in hands 
 interested to procure a still larger increase of taxation. 
 At the very moment that they point us to the abuse of 
 power in the hands of those interested to abuse it, they 
 invite us to entrust still larger powers to hands yet 
 .more interested to abuse. Piedmont and the West to- 
 gether have been heretofore interested in increasing dis- 
 bursements, and having the power, have increased them ; 
 therefore, you must place controlling power in the hands 
 of the West, which is interested to procure still heavier 
 disbursements ! I do not perceive the force of that 
 logic. The Piedmont country, with the aid of the West, 
 we ape told, has imposed upon Tide-water ; therefore, 
 Tide water must strip herself of power, and increase the 
 preponderance over her of Piedmont and the West both ! 
 The Tide- water section must not trust herself with power 
 for for fear that the sagacious Piedmont will make dupes 
 and victims of them, and use the power of Tide- water 
 for their own exclusive benefit ! The mixed basis gives 
 Piedmont forty-two members, and Tide-water forty, I 
 believe. In order to weaken Piedmont, you must re 
 duce her bv the suffrage basis to thirty-?even, and by 
 the same act reduce yourselves to thirty-three — increa- 
 sing considerably the relative preponderance of Pied- 
 mont over Tide-water. The power thus stript from both, 
 is to be transferred to the West — that very section most 
 deeply interested in that course of legislation, of which 
 the Tide-water people complain so much. In addressing 
 such appeals as those to the Tide-waterpeople, gentle- 
 men may accompany them with what compliments they 
 choQse to the simplicity of heart of those people. I 
 must bt excused for saying: that this course of argument 
 
infers for them, at least equal simplicity of head. It is i 
 the interest of the Tide-water people, gentlemen say, to J 
 co-operate hereafter with the West in the legislature. 
 On this ground, the Tide-water delegates are invoked to 
 strengthen the legislative power of the West, by strip- 
 ping themselves of it. I, for one, cannot, for the life of 
 me, discern this new-found identity of interest between 
 these two sections. But if it does exist, surely the peo- 
 ple of the Tide water will be as quick to discern it as 
 their delegates upon this floor, and when they do discern 
 it, they will unite whatever powers we give to them, 
 with the western powers in the halls of legislation. I 
 must be allowed to believe that no power will be so 
 well employed for the benefit of Tide-water interests, 
 as the power which Tide-water herself will control. 
 
 But the Piedmont is denominated a dangerous power 
 in the community, and she must be depressed. The 
 mixed basis does not depress her enough. You must or- 
 ganize your government on a principle of contest and 
 of war with the Piedmont — a contest in which Pied- 
 mont men and Piedmont interests are to be arranged on 
 one side and all the rest of Virginia on the other. The 
 mixed basis is to be rejected, because it gives dangerous 
 strength to the Piedmont. Well, the mixed basis gives 
 the Piedmont only forty -two members in a house of 
 one hundred and fifty, and leaves her in a minority of 
 sixty-six on the floor of the house of delegates. Whenev- 
 er Piedmont attempts a course of action adverse to the 
 general interests, the mixed basis enables you to rally a 
 legislative force of nearly three to one against her. In 
 the name of Heaven, if three to one be not odds enough 
 against Piedmont, what odds will gentlemen ask before 
 they venture in the contest. If a majority of sixty-six 
 is not enough, how much will you have the face to de- 
 mand? It has always been the boast of English pride, 
 that one British soldier was equal to two of any other 
 country, and I must confess my gratitude for the com- 
 pliment which gentlemen are paying to the Piedmont 
 country in intimating that in legislative contests in- 
 volving the prowess of statesmen, any one man from 
 Piedmont is equal to any three men from the other parts 
 of the State. You are afraid to trust yourselves in a 
 contest with Piedmont unless you are th ree to one 
 against her. You are organizing the government on the 
 principle of war upon the Piedmont, and is your spirit J 
 of chivalry such that you will not let us go into the j 
 contest — stript of our pristine strength as we shall be 
 even with the mixed basis, unless you first have us 
 bound and fettered. I appeal to my Tide-water friends 
 if they desire to go into a contest with us, if indeed one 
 is to go on, with such odds on their side as these. 
 
 But we are told that guaranties will afford the protec- 
 tion that we require. Now, I happen to be one of those 
 who do not believe in these guaranties, or in their effi- 
 caey, and I will tell you why. I fear power. I have 
 been taught to dread power, and I do not think power 
 is less dangerous even when restrained upon one side 
 while it has free scope everywhere else. Provide guar- 
 anties against power ! Will gentlemen tell me that 
 standing here and forming a constitution which looks, or 
 ought to look, to the indefinite future, they can, at this 
 moment of time, foresee what various forms of aggres- 
 sion power will assume and piovide against them? 
 Power is always shifting its aggressions, its forms of at- 
 tack, and it is not in the power of man to guard against 
 its abuse in all instances in the future. But the gentle- 
 man from Jefferson (Mr. Lucas) told us that the paper 
 guaranties were very valuable, and that they have of- 
 fered us ample protection heretofore, and that we would 
 have suffered no injustice at the hands of the general 
 government, had we had guaranties in express forms on 
 the subject in which we have suffered injustice. This 
 reference affords a happy illustration of the views 
 which I have just presented to the committee. Could 
 the federal convention that formed the constitution of 
 the United States have foreseen the acts of aggression 
 which took place but a few months ago, and could they 
 have provided against them, does any gentleman be- 
 
 lieve that they would not at once have done so 1 Does 
 any man in this hall believe that they could have fore- 
 seen that we were to have acquired territory from Mex- 
 ico, and that there would be a disposition on the part 
 of the people of the North to deprive us of our just 
 rights, in relation to that territory ? It is but an instance 
 of one of the multiform aspects in which unrestrained 
 power will present itself, and it is but additional evi- 
 dence of the total inability of man to provide against 
 these abuses of power. But, says the gentleman, if we 
 had had express guaranties on these subjects, thev would 
 have been observed, and it was but from the fact of the 
 absence of such guaranties that aggressions have been 
 committed upon us. Let me ask his attention to one 
 guaranty in the federal constitution, and let me ask him 
 also if it is not as explicit a guaranty as any of his 
 colleagues can make ? 
 
 " Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom 
 of speech, or of the press." 
 
 That was one of the amendments adopted in 1791. 
 There is a guaranty against the abuse of power. Yet 
 ten years had scarcely elapsed before the guaranty 
 was violated, and the federal statute book was disgraced 
 with the sedition law. Can you form any guaranty 
 more explicit than that ? That is the example to which 
 gentlemen appeal as evidence in support of the value of 
 express guaranties ! 
 
 I have another reason to mistrust the efficacies of 
 guaranties. The moment that these restraints become 
 onerous restrictions upon the powers of the majority, 
 that majority will get rid of them. They will continue 
 to be restraints just so long as the majority choose to 
 be restrained by them, and then they would be snapped 
 like pack-thread. The same power that puts them in 
 the constitution could very easily put them out of the 
 constitution. The same majority that would control 
 the government in all its departments, would control 
 the constitution itself. They would very soon amend 
 your constitution, and purge it of guaranties whenever 
 these guaranties might become objectionable to them. 
 And then my friends of the guaranties would have 
 to swallow the white basis in its unsophisticated 
 purity. The pill would then have no sugar upon 
 it. But here are these gentlemen from the Jeffer- 
 son district with another guarantee to secure their 
 guaranties. They say that they will require a vote 
 of two-thirds of the legislature before another Con- 
 vention shall be called. I do not understand that 
 that proposition commands the general support of 
 western gentlemen. The chairman of the Basis Com- 
 mittee, (Mr. Summers,) in his remarks about guaranties 
 this morning, gave no intimation of his assent to it. And 
 I must, confess my surprize that such a proposition 
 should be presented in the quarter from which it comes. 
 Are gentlemen who are contending for the great funda- 
 mental principle of the right of the majority to rule, 
 going to beat down and lay prostrate that principle as 
 applied to the organization of the government. You 
 who are s > much afraid of the rule of the minority that 
 you will not entrust to it the powers of ordinary mu- 
 nicipal legislation, will yet authorize that minority to 
 enforce upon you an organic law — a form of govern- 
 ment that is objectionable to you ! Let me enquire 
 where is the difference in principle between the original 
 establishment of a law by a minority, and the continu- 
 ance of that law by the minority after a change of cir- 
 cumstances has rendered it objectionable to the majori- 
 ty ? Does not the law derive its valid existence from 
 the will of the minority by whom it is kept in force f 
 Gentlemen are willing to abandon their principle here, 
 provided they get the power of legislation. Yet they 
 do not want "power, only principle ! I will pass that 
 by, and inquire what security such a guarantee would 
 afford ? Does any man here seriously believe that such 
 a provision as that would prevent a majority in full pos- 
 session of the government, from affecting such amend- 
 ments to the constitution as they might determine to 
 introduce. Why, ev«n now, when they hare not that 
 
12 
 
 complete mastery over the government which they seek, 
 th( y tell us boldly that the majority of the community 
 are entitled to obtain the organic reforms which they 
 demand, and unless we will give them in. the form 
 which they desire, very distinct intimations are given 
 to us that ulterior measures will be adopted, in order to 
 enforce the will of the majority. Suppose they now 
 had control over the government, does any one suppose 
 that a provision requiring a two-thirds vote to procure 
 an amended constitution would stand in their way. We 
 should hear very able and ingenious arguments, based 
 upon the bill of rights — arguments perfectly satisfacto- 
 ry to those seeking the change, proving that such a pro- 
 vision is an insufferable violation of the rights of man, 
 and of no valid obligation. The gentleman from Jeffer- 
 son, (Mr. Hunter, 1 ) says that the majority could only 
 avoid such a provision by a revolution. If the occasion 
 ever arises, I predict that he will find the majority desi- 
 ring the reforms will entertain a different opinion, and 
 will demand the reforms as a legal right. But even if 
 they have to resort to revolution, what a safe and easy 
 thing will be a revolution when the government is on 
 the side of the revolters. It cannot be difficult to upset 
 a government that wants to be upset. It will be very 
 easy to overturn the forms of the organic law when the 
 law making and law executing power are in the hands 
 of those seeking the change. 
 
 Upon such considerations as these, I shall sup- 
 port the mixed basis proposition. Like the gentle- 
 man from Westmoreland, (Mr. Beale,) who addres- 
 sed the committee some days ago, I cannot support 
 it as a first choice proposition. When I look around 
 me and contemplate the peculiar condition of a great 
 interest in this state, for which we ought to pro- 
 vide, I want something accomplished in the organiza- 
 tion of government which tne mixed basis will not accom- 
 plish to my satisfaction. Gentlemen will, of course un- 
 derstand me as having reference to that great and sensi- 
 tive property interest to which the gentleman from 
 Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) referred the other day. Congre- 
 gated in one quarter of the state, are 400,000 slaves, 
 worth near $150,000,000. Between the owners of this 
 property and that portion of the State containing a ma- 
 jority of the white population, mountains interpose, and 
 no peculiar tie of business or of social intercourse binds 
 them in inseperable identity of feeling and interest. I 
 tremble when I anticipate the day when the unrestrict- 
 ed control over the powers of this government shall 
 pass into hands not interested in the preservation of that 
 property, for the history of the world shows that when- 
 ever this property has been subject to power intbe hands 
 of those not interested in it, it has been made the sub- 
 ject of oppression. I am solicitous for protection for this 
 property — yes, liberty for the property holder — the 
 best definition of liberty that I have ever read is that 
 given by Sir James Mcintosh when he said it is security 
 from wrong. I have all proper confidence, I trust, in the 
 people of the west, but it is a principle of human 
 nature that when it becomes the interest of a com- 
 munity to act in a particular direction it will so 
 act. What did we hear the other day from the gen- 
 tleman from Monongalia ? (Mr. Willey.) Why, if they 
 did not get this white basis— a very distinct intimation 
 
 I thought it was — if this slave property stood in the 
 way of the progress of the west to power, they would 
 resort to measures for the destruction of that which 
 thus stood in their way. Well, this is the state of feel- 
 ing now. If they are persuaded that this slave prop- 
 erty stands in the way of their rights now, how do we 
 know in what other aspects it may be presented as 
 standing in the way of these rights in the future. It is 
 the very argument upon which the free soil party of 
 the north bases itself. They deelarethat slave labor is 
 an interference with the rights of freemen, and it is be- 
 cause this people believe that it is an inteference with 
 their rights and interests that they have sought to per- 
 petrate those acts of injustice upon the South. Those 
 people, too, have all these moral feelings of which gen- 
 tlemen talk. They have sound hearts — they have fought 
 for their country, and their bones lie bleeching on the 
 battle-fields too. Yet, in pursuance of what they called 
 a great principle, when it became their interest to per- 
 petrate wrong, they hesitated not to perpetrate it. 
 There were not wanting men among them to persuade 
 them that in so doing they were acting in the prosecu- 
 tion and assertion of these rights. I do not know. I 
 cannot foresee what particular view of human rights 
 may be taken in the different sections of the state in all 
 future time. I do not know what will be their interests, 
 and therefore I am not willing to subject this immense 
 interest to the control of those who may take such a 
 view of their rights and interests as to require this 
 property to be destroyed. I feel especial occasion for 
 caution — when I am already told by their delegates here 
 that they will take that view of the subject if v we do 
 not give them thi? white basis, if, I understand, that, if 
 this great property interest enters as an element into 
 the mixed basis, and stands as a barrier between them 
 and the accomplishment of their wishes much longer, as 
 the intimation is most distinctly made to us, they will 
 remove that barrier. I am not willing to trust my inter- 
 ests and their safety and protection in the hands of those 
 who take such views of their rights and interests as may 
 require the sacrifice of my interests and my rights. 
 These very northern people to whom I have referred, 
 have supposed that in sacrificing the rights of the south, 
 they were acting in accordance with a course of justice 
 and propriety. I do not ask that the government shall 
 be placed in "the hands of those interested in this prop- 
 erty. I should be content if they were empowered to 
 check and prevent unjust and oppressive action when 
 attempted. I utterly despair, however, of obtaining 
 such an organization of this government as will secure 
 for this interest the permanent protection which I seek 
 for it. If I cannot get that, I must take the best that I 
 can get — reserving to myself the privilege, should an 
 opportuny occur, of successfully accnmplishing my views, 
 of availing myself of it. 
 
 I have already detained the committee longer than, I 
 ought to have done. I must tender to the committee 
 my unaffected thanks for the very kind attention with 
 which they have honored me. It may be some compen- 
 sation to assure them that their kindness has enabled 
 me to present my views in a much briefer space than I 
 could have done had I been compelled to labor to attract 
 their attention. 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 B, C. STAIAED, ESQ., OF RICHMOND CITY, 
 
 IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 
 
 THE BASIS QUESTION, 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 OK 
 
 THURSDAY, April 17, and WEDNESDAY, M ay 21, 1851. 
 
 RICHMOND, Y A . 
 
 [WILLIAM G. BISHOP, OFFICIAL REPORTER.] 
 
 PRINTED BY R. H. GALLAHER— REPUBLICAN OFFICE. 
 1851. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. ST ANARD. I do not know that I precisely com- 
 prehend the position in which I shall piace my friend 
 from Jefferson, (Mr. Hunter,) by proceeding to address 
 the committee at this time I am unwilling to adopt 
 any course that may have the effect of depriving him 
 of an opportunity of submitting his remarks. I under- 
 stand it will be agreeable to him to go on this evening 
 at the hour indicated by him. If that appears to meet 
 the concurrence of the committee, I am prepared and 
 willing to proceed with the remarks I have to offer on 
 this question. 
 
 MANT MEMBERS. Go on, go on. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I do not think any gentleman will 
 be disposed to question my sincerity, when I say, when 
 I repeat* that it is only under the most imperious sense 
 of duty, that I venture, at this stage of the debate, 
 with a subject and an audience alike exhausted, to throw 
 myself upon the indulgence of the committee. It is not 
 that the question itself is not one of vast consequence — 
 it is not that I do not entertain with regard to it opin 
 ions of the most decided character — opinions which 
 •have been the subject of very stfong, I might almost 
 say, of fierce and bitter denunciation on the part of va- 
 rious members on this floor, yet which, in my poor judg- 
 ment, may be triumphantly sustained and vindicated on 
 every principle of republican liberty, handed down to 
 us by our forefathers ; but it is because it would not per- 
 haps be going too far to say that the subject under dis- 
 cussion is not only exhausted now, but was exhausted 
 long before this debate commenced. We have now been 
 engaged for more than two months in the discussion of 
 a question which twenty years ago engaged for weeks 
 the deliberations, and exercised the talents of a body of 
 men of whom Virginia may well be proud. The debate 
 of 1829-'30 called into play all the resources that in- 
 tellect, the most commanding, information the most va 
 ried, and wisdom the most profound, could bring to bear 
 on any subject. The question was considered in all its 
 bearings, presented in all its phases, and that n an must 
 be presumptuous indeed who could hope, at this time 
 of day, to bring forward views characterized by any de- 
 gree of novelty, or to do more than apply to the exist 
 ing condition of the State, the principles and arguments 
 elicited by that debate. For one, therefore, I have had 
 no desire to take part in this discussion, to protract it 
 myself, or to see it protracted by others. I have uni- 
 formly given my support to every proposition calcula- 
 ted to bring it to a close, and there has not been a day, 
 for weeks past, in which I have not been willing, (as I 
 have more than once had occasion to declare,) that the 
 question should be taken at any moment that members 
 should be in their seats. It has, however, been deter- 
 mined that the question shall be taken to-morrow, and 
 not till then. In the meantime, I am aware of no oth- 
 er gentleman on my side of this question who is pre- 
 pa t ed or disposed at this time, to engage in this discus- 
 sion; and the floor, therefore, if not now taken by me, 
 must be yielded to gentlemen entertaining and advoca- 
 ting views different from those which I espouse, and will 
 continue to be, (as for some time past it has in a great 
 measure been,) occupied by them. 
 
 I hold a somewhat peculiar position in another re- 
 spect. I am one of the delegates from a district to 
 which especial regard appears to have been paid on 
 the part of many gentlemen here, and the concerns of 
 which have eng iged perhaps their full share of the 
 attention of the committee ; one of a delegation, the 
 sentiments of whose constituents have been more than 
 once alluded to, and to whom appeals of a very unusual 
 
 character have been more than ence made. Under 
 these circumstances, I feel it to be my imperious duty 
 at any personal sacrifice and inconvenience to myself 
 to answer those appeals, as in my judgment they should 
 be answered, and to say what I may now have the 
 strength to say, in vindication of the opinions I main- 
 tain—opinions upon the full, clear and decisive expres- 
 sion of which, (as I shall again express them,) I was 
 elected a member of this body, and which I believe are 
 cherished now as they were a few months since, by al- 
 most the whole body of those whom I have the honor in 
 part to represent. <■ 
 
 It cannot have escaped attention that in much of 
 the discussion which, has taken place on this question 
 our friends from the west, (I trust they will allow me 
 to call them so, coileetively and individually, for 
 such are, and such, 1 trust, will always continue to 
 be my feelings towards them,) have represented again 
 and agam to this committee, and through this com- 
 mittee to the country, that for years and years past 
 they and the people they represent have been the sub- 
 jects of the most rinding oppression and inequality in 
 being denied their proper representation m the legisla- 
 tive halls of the State. And this complaint, in one 
 form or another, has been echoed and re-echoed', I may 
 say, from every part of the country from the Blue 
 Ridge to the h Ohio. I do not doubt the sincerity of 
 gentlemen in the views which they have thus expressed 
 on this floor. But I must be allowed to say that they 
 are mistaken, and I think I can show that they are mis- 
 taken upon the very principles on which tiiey plant 
 themselves in this contest. I think it can be shown 
 that from the year 1816 down to the meeting of the 
 convention of 1829-'30, and also in that convention, the. 
 west had their full representation, and this too upon' the 
 principles advocated by western gentlemen themselves 
 and which they call upon us to sanction, by their decla- 
 rations and speeches here, as the true and correct, and 
 the only true and correct principles of representative 
 republican government. What are those principles? 
 What is this proposition B ? this suffrage basis, on which 
 they plant themselves in this contest ? Is it either more 
 or less than the proposition that representation should 
 be in proportion to the qualified voters, and to them 
 alone, and that when you have representation in that 
 proportion, no section of the State, no county or dif-trict 
 has a right to complain of unequal representation % Is 
 not that their position ? Have I not stated it fully and fair- 
 ly ? If not, I hope they will correct me. And if that be so, 
 then, 1 would ask, what becomes of the complaints made 
 again and again, iterated and reiterated in this hall, and 
 throughout the country, that in the convention which 
 adopted the present constitution, the west was shorn 
 of her proper strength, and delivered over to the 
 hands of the east, and that the present constitution 
 is a constitution forced upon the west by the people of 
 the east, through the instrumentality of a body in which 
 the west had not its proper share of representation? 
 What complaint has been more frequently heard on this 
 floor than this in every shape and form which inge- 
 nuity could present, or eloquence depict it ? There 
 is scarcely a gentleman from the west who has oct u- 
 pied the floor, that has not made it. JNow, let us 
 examine it. Representation, they say, should be based 
 on the qualified voters alone — they are the sovereignty 
 of the land, and they alone, say gentlemen upon the 
 other side, are entitled to representation in the halls of 
 your legislature or your convention, and representation is 
 just or unjust, equal or unequal, republican or anti-re- 
 
4 
 
 publican, according as it is or is not in proportion to the 
 qualified voters, whatever the qualification of the voter 
 or the right of suffrage may be. 
 
 Now, how, and under what circumstances wa3 the 
 convention of 1829- '80 organized, and what was the 
 condition of things in 1829, and between 1816 and 
 1829 ? The senate bill of 1816 organized the senate so 
 as to give to the west nine districts out of twenty-four. 
 The J3tate was 'divided into twenty-four districts, of 
 which the west had nine and the east fifteen. The con- 
 vention of '29 was a convention called upon the basis of 
 the senate bill of '16, four members being chosen from 
 each senatorial district, so that of the ninety-six mem- 
 bers composing that body, the west had thirty-six, and 
 the east sixty, in the proportion of nine to fifteen. Now, 
 was your representation in the Convention of '29 and 
 '30 equal or unequal upon the principles that you your- 
 selves now advocate and maintain to be the true and 
 the only true and proper principles? That, of course, 
 depends upon the number of voters in the State, and 
 the manner in which these voters were distributed east 
 arfd west of the Blue Ridge of mountains. And we 
 have the means of ascertaining this, if not with precise 
 accuracy, at least in a form of which the west has no 
 right to complain, that is, by a mode of computation 
 more favorable to the west than precise accuracy would 
 be. The land books of 1829, are* among the documents 
 to which we have access, and to which reference was 
 made in the convention of l829-'30. At that time 
 the right of suffrage was restricted in the ownership of 
 the soil, and free holders only had the right to vote- Now, 
 it will not be denied that there were in 1829, and have al- 
 ways been a much greater number of non-residents, and 
 consequently of on-voters, amongst those charged with 
 the land tax in the western than in the eastern portion of 
 the State, and therefore, when you refer to the tax list 
 and the commissioners' books in 1829, to ascertain the 
 number of those who, at that time, and under the then ex- 
 isting right of suffrage, were entitled to vote, you make a 
 statement that is much more favorable to the west than 
 the east, not only because of the excess of non-resident 
 land owners in the west over those in the east, but also 
 because a large number of those charged Avith land tax in 
 the west reside in the east, whiie few, very few, of 
 those charged with land tax in the east reside in the 
 west. 
 
 Referring to the land books then, we find that the 
 whole number of persons charged with land tax in 
 1829, was as follows : 
 
 West of the Alieghany, 29,946 
 In the Valley, 15,114 
 
 Total west of the Blue Ridge, 
 
 In the Piedmont district, 
 lu the Tide water district, 
 
 Total east of the Blue Ridge, 
 Total west of the Blue Ridge, 
 
 Total in the State, 
 
 36,060 
 
 28,744 
 28,052 
 
 56,796 
 36,080 
 
 92,856 
 
 Now, how many of these land holders did it requir.e 
 to send representatives to the convention of '29 ? You 
 had twenty-four districts, each of which sent four 
 delegates, and if you divide the whole number by twen- 
 ty-four, it will give you a ratio of 3,867to a district. 
 If you divide the number of persons west ofthe Blue 
 Ridge charged with the land tax, viz : 36,060, by 
 this, ratio of 3,869, and it will give to the west 
 nine districts and a. fraction of less than one-third. 
 The above statements include all the names on the 
 land books west of the Blue Ridge, without any deduc- 
 tion whatever, though for the reasons stated, a consid- 
 erable deduction, (not less, probably, than ten per cent.) 
 should unquestionably be made. Take it, however, as 
 it stands, and the result is to give nine districts west of who c 
 the Blue Ridge, and that is the number that you had in I for th 
 
 the convention of 1829- '30. Nine districts or thirty- 
 Six members were all, and more than all that the west 
 was entitled to in the Convention of 1829 upon that very 
 suffrage basis in which you now insert as furnishing the 
 only true basis of government ; and nine districts or 
 thirty-six members you had in that convention. You 
 not only had this full representation in that body, but 
 you had enjoyed it on the same basis in the legislature 
 of the State from 1816 to 1829. Since 1816 you had 
 had in the senate nine districts out of twenty-four, and 
 in the house of delegates eighty members out of two 
 hundred aad fourteen. In other words, the west had 
 been enjoying in the legislature since 1816 the full po- 
 litical weight and influence to which, upon the principles 
 now contended for by western gentlemen themselves, 
 she was entitled to in 1829, and this too, though a refer- 
 ence to the census tables will show that between 1816 
 and J 829, (or rathes between 1820 and 1829,) the in- 
 crease of the white population in the west was 65.308, 
 while in the east it was but 13,872, the excess of. in- 
 crease on the part of the west bring 51,436. How then 
 stands the case? Between 1816 and 1829 there had 
 been a clear gain in favor of the west of upwards of 
 50,000 ofthe white population, and yet in 1829 the west 
 had in the convention its full representation upon the 
 suffrage basis, according to its then population, and 
 that representation it had been enjoying in the legisla- 
 ture since 1816. What then becomes of the assertion 
 again and again made upon this floor, and which is cal- 
 culated, at least, if not designed as much as anything 
 else, to excite and arouse the western people on this 
 subject— that upon the suffrage basis you have not had 
 your share of representation ? It is demonstrated that 
 in the convention of '29 you had your full representa- 
 tion. That may account for the "significant and preg- 
 nant fact that in that convention this suffrage basis, this 
 very basis which is now the basis, and the only true re- 
 publican basis , of government, was disclaimed and re- 
 pudiated by every man espousing the western cause, 
 with the exception of Gen. Taylor and Mr. Johnson, 
 i say this may furnish the explanation of this remarka- 
 ole fact, for had western gemlernen stood then on the 
 suffrage basis where they stand now, how could they 
 hav indulged in those complaints about inequality and 
 oppression with which the convention of 1829, like 
 that of 1851, was made to ring? How would those 
 complaints have tallied with the facts? Sir, they would 
 not have tallied at all, and thus gentlemen were com- 
 pelled either to admit that these complaints about ine- 
 quality and oppression were without foundation, or to 
 repudiate, as they did repudiate in that convention the 
 very basis on which they insist in this. Hence the 
 emphatic statement of Mr. Doddridge, to which allu- 
 sion has already been made, when he disclaimed in the 
 face of the whole convention, speaking of the west and 
 for the west, without contradiction or question from any 
 quarter, <; any opinion on the part of his friends, 
 that representation should be based on voters alone" de- 
 claring that " none of them held that opinion but Mr. 
 Johnson." [See Deb. Conv.,p. 501.] 
 
 I submit then to the committee, that upon the princi- 
 ples which we are now invoked to adopt, upon the 
 principles of the suffrage basis, there must be an end to 
 the complaints we have heard as to the organization of 
 the convention of 1829, for the west had their full re- 
 presentation in that body, and the constitution then 
 adopted was not a constitution forced upon the west by 
 a convention organized upon principles of inequality, 
 but a constitution adopted upon the recommendation of 
 a convention in which the west was fully represented, 
 and which was therefore upon every principle just as 
 binding in point of law and morals upon the west as 
 upon the east. Will it be said that the constitution of 
 '29, proposed by a body thus organized, was adopted by 
 others than the freeholders and voters of the State? 
 Will it be said that the constitution of 1829 was adopt- 
 ed because the Convention offered inducements to those 
 could not vote under the old constitution, to vote 
 e new one, by submitting it alike to non-freehold- 
 
5 
 
 ers and to freeholders ? Or will the ground be taken that 
 that constitution would have been rejected by the free- 
 holders, and was only adopted because it was submitted 
 for ratification by those who were directly interestedto 
 vote for it, viz : the non-freeholders? If any such 
 ground as this be taken, it is only necessary to appeal 
 to the record, to show that this bribe, if you choose to 
 term it so, this lure which is said to have been held out, 
 was not offered by the east. On the contrary, the prop- 
 osition to permit other than freeholders to vote upon the 
 question of the ratification of the constitution of 1829 
 was opposed by a leading man fiom the east, and sup- 
 ported by the leading men from the west, and the only 
 votes against submitting it to non-freehold rs were from 
 eastern and not from western Virginia. Twenty-seven 
 eastern delegates voted with Mr. Randolph on his prop- 
 osition to restrict the vote, on the ratification, to the 
 freeholders, while the west, in a body, voted with Mr. 
 Johnson and Mr. Cooke, against it. 
 
 It is this constitution, then, proposed by a body, in 
 which, upon yourown principles, you were fully and 
 fairly represented, and ratified by the votes of those 
 to whom you thought proper to submit it, that we are 
 now called upon to revise and amend. You say, that 
 by it representation in the legislature is so apportioned 
 among the grand divisions of the State that, no matter 
 what may be the increase of population in the west 
 they never can obtain a majority in the legislature, and 
 you exclaim against the injustice of such arbicrary ap- 
 portionment. Well, we are willing to change it. All 
 who are acquainted with the history of the last Conven- 
 tion know that this arrangement vvas the result of ne- 
 cessity rather than of choice, and no one desires to re- 
 tain such a feature in the constitution we are about to 
 frame. We have no wish to regulate representation by 
 grand divisions or by sections, but would adopt a con- 
 stitution based on principle — a principle not fettered in 
 its operation by sectional lines, but co extensive in its 
 application with the whole State, and regulating the dis- 
 tribution of legislative power alike east and west of the 
 Blue* Ridge — a principle which is so far fro :n being merely 
 sectional in its operation, that, under it some of the west, 
 era counties, the county of Botetourt for instance, has 
 tvo delegates, while under the white or suffrage basis, 
 it gets but one. 
 
 What more ? You say that this constitution of 1829 
 authorizes the legislature to elect the governor, and 
 thus places the appointment of one aepartment of 
 the government in the hands of another. That 
 fault — if fault it be, and you say it is — is to be cor- 
 rected. The governor is not to be appointed by the 
 legislature, but by the voters of the State — in other 
 words by the west, if the west think proper to appoint 
 him. The power of appointment is given to that class 
 in which the west has uncontrolled sway, considering 
 the question in a sectional aspect. "What more ? The 
 public debt, (as shown by my friend from Meek eu 
 burg, [Mr. Go ode,] who has saved me the trouble 
 of going into any calculations on this point, and whose 
 inability to continue his remarks I am sure the commit- 
 tee, as well as myself, must have greatly regretted,) has 
 increased from abouc one million of dollars in 1829, to 
 an absolute debt of upwards of eighteen millions now. 
 or upwards of twenty-two millions if you include the 
 guaranteed bonds, and if you include the amount which 
 the State will bs obliged to contribute in order to com 
 plete works now in progress, to about forty millions of 
 dollars. This immense internal improvement fund is, in 
 a great measure, appropriated by a body termed the 
 Board of Public Works, and the report of the executive 
 committee gives the appointment of those controlling 
 that board, with all the patronage, power, and influence 
 it possesses, to the qualified voters of the whole State — 
 in other words, to the west, a majority of those voters 
 being in the west. Then as to the judicial department. 
 You desire to have your own circuit judges appointed, 
 not by the legislature, in which the east has a majority 
 of some 28 or 30 on joint ballot, but by the people 
 of the circuits. That is accorded. These changes are 
 
 ail made without question, without hesitation upon the 
 part of eastern gentlemen. We come, then, to the le- 
 gislative department, and in the organization of that 
 department how do the two parties upon this floor 
 stand? We say that we have given up to you the 
 matters to which I have referred, and all that we claim 
 in respect to the legislative department is, that it shall 
 be so organized that those who pay a major part of the 
 taxes shall have the power to say how those taxes shall 
 be raised, and to what purposes they shall be applied. 
 You wish to arrange the representation in the legisla- 
 ture so that that portion of the State which pays one- 
 third — or, as the gentleman from Mecklenburg has 
 shown, less than one-third — of the taxes, shall have the 
 absolute power of levying and appropriating the whole 
 taxes of the Commonwealth. We wish to give to that 
 portion of the State which pays the major part of the 
 taxes, the power of saying what taxes shall be raised, 
 and how they shall be applied. You wish to organize the 
 legislative department, so that the- tax-laying, tax-col- 
 lecting, and the tax-disbursing power shall be in one 
 set of hands, while the tax paying duty is devolved 
 upon a different portion of the State. You wish, in 
 other words, an organization of the legislative depart- 
 ment of the government that looks to one principle 
 alone — the principle of numbers merely — while we say, 
 that though we do not propose to disregard that prin- 
 ciple, yet, on the other hand, we are not willing to give 
 it absolute and despotic sway. We are willing to look 
 to that principle, not solely, but in combination with 
 other principles which are necessary, as we conceive, 
 to attain the ends of government. And because the 
 east is not prepared to say that, in the legislative as in 
 the executive branch of the government, the west shall 
 have unlimited control, we are told that the rights of 
 our brethren of, the west are disregarded and trampled 
 under foot, and the vocabulary of the language almost 
 is exhausted, in an expression of the degree of degra- 
 dation and oppression which we are informed is to re- 
 sult to the people of the west from the assertion, on the 
 part of the east, of the principle that the section of the 
 State which pays the larger portion of the taxes shall 
 have tne power to say, in that department of the gov- 
 ernment which has the control of this subject, how those 
 taxes shall be raised, and how, when raised, they shall 
 be expended. We show you, in respect to this matter, 
 that while you have a majority of 92,000 of the white 
 population west of the mountains, we have a majority 
 of 292,000 of the total population east of the moun- 
 tains. 
 
 We show you (by statements brought to the notice 
 of the committee yesterday, and in respect to which my 
 friend from Mecklenburg has anticipated me, and ren- 
 dered it unnecessary that I should go over the ground 
 he has so fully occupied,) that of the lands of the 
 State, according to their assessed value, there is an 
 excess in the east over the west of thirty-six millions 
 of dollars, and that of the slaves of the State there 
 is an excess in the east over the west of one hundred 
 and four millions — making, upon the subject of lands 
 and slaves alone, an excess of property upon this side 
 of the ridge of one hundred and forty millions. And if 
 you look to other sources of wealth, I apprehend that 
 the statement o£ the gentleman from Mecklenburg will 
 be found to be fully within the mark, when he estimates 
 the excess in favor of the east at one million, thus mak- 
 ing an aggregate excess of the property of the east 
 over that of the west of not less than $240,000,000. 
 
 That is the position in which we stand upon this 
 question ; and standing in this position, the eastern 
 section say to their brethren of the west, we desire that 
 in the organization of the legislative department — the 
 great tax laying, tax-collecting, and tax-disbursing 
 body — entire and exclusive regard shall not be had to 
 white population alone. We are willing to take that 
 element in the account. We are willing to give it its 
 fair and just weight, but we are not willing that it 
 should be allowed despotic sway, and heard to the ex- 
 clusion of every other consideration that ought to bear 
 
6 
 
 upon the solution of the great problem of the apportion- 
 ment of legislative power. We demand that it shall 
 not be heard to the exclusion and prostration of what 
 we maintain to be the principle of the American Rev- 
 olution; and the principle of every representative gov- 
 ernment that deserves to be called free — that taxation 
 and representation shall go together, and that the pow- 
 er to say how the taxes shall be applied shall be with 
 those by whom those taxes are paid — in other words, 
 that the government shall not be so organized that in 
 one section shall be vested the power of levying taxes, 
 and on another section be imposed the duty of paying 
 those taxes. Nov/, is this so unreasonable, so revolting 
 a proposition, as to justify or excuse the denunciations 
 that have been hurled against it ? Is this principle, I 
 ask, so monstrous, that we are to be told here, and 
 have it iterated and reiterated again and again, that its 
 very .assertion is an insult to our western brethren, and 
 that to incorporate such a principle as this in our or- 
 ganic law is utterly to degrade them ? 
 
 Let us look for a moment — for I do not propose to go 
 into any detailed examination of them — let us look for 
 a moment at the competing propositions fur the organi- 
 zation of the legislative department nowbefore the com- 
 mittee — the white, or the suffrage basis, on the one 
 hand, and the mixed basis, or that proposition which 
 regards white population and taxation combined, on 
 the other. Proposition B, insisted on by our western 
 friends, is a proposition in which, it seems to me, they 
 have the white basis and the suffrage basis both. It is 
 a proposition by which the legislative department of 
 the government is to be organized now, at this time, 
 upon the white basis alone, and five years hereafter it 
 is to be organized upon the suffrage basis, or the basis of 
 qualified voters or not, precisely as those having the pow- 
 er under the original organization shall determine. In 
 other words, it is the white basis in esse, and the suff- 
 rage basis in posse. It is the white basis, and it may be 
 the suffrage basis, and being presented in this form, it is 
 liable to the objections that apply to both. In putting 
 their proposition in this shape, therefore, gentlemen 
 cannot escape the argument pressed upon them 
 again and again in the former Convention, and nev- 
 er answered because it could not be answered, that 
 upon the basis of white numbers alone, you include, 
 in determining the number of representatives, per- 
 sons who are themselves not represented ; you in- 
 clude minors, you include women and children, you 
 include convicts and paupers, you include all these ; 
 and this suffrage basis has, doubtless, been resorted to, 
 among other considerations, with a view, if possible, of 
 eluding the force of this argument. But that design, 
 let me tell gentlemen, is not accomplished by propo- 
 sition B, because, while that proposition does look to 
 the suffrage basis as the basis to be adopted Jive years 
 hence, it organizes government now with all the powers 
 of an organized government upon the white basis, the 
 basis of mere numbers, and on that alone. But take it 
 upon the suffrage basis, and let us look at that principle 
 for a few moments. What is the favorite dogma of the 
 advocates of this suffrage basis ? It rests, say they, 
 upon a principle which lies at the foundation of all re- 
 publican governments, and which cannot be compro- 
 mised or modified without a surrender of essential and 
 inalienable rights, viz : that as all men are possessed by 
 nature of equal rights, ergo all men in society should 
 have equal portions of political power; that the depart- 
 ments of the government, and especially the legislative 
 department, should be so organized as that, in the lan- 
 guage of the proposition B, " the suffrage of one quali- 
 fied voter shall avail as much as that of another quali- 
 fied voter," and each voter, wherever residing, shall be 
 entitled to the same weight in the government, and ex- 
 ercise the same influence in directing its operations, as 
 any other voter. This, I say, is the great principle of 
 the suffrage basis as I understand it — that there is an 
 inherent, unalienable right, a right lying at the founda- 
 tion of all free governments, that there shall be per- 
 fect equality among qualified voters. That is your 
 
 principle, as expressly declared in proposition B. And 
 how is that principle worked out in practice ? Why, 
 sir, your proposition is, that the vote of one qualified 
 voter shall avail as much as that of another, and equal 
 bodies of qualified voters have the same representation ; 
 yet the moment you come to carry out that principle, 
 and form a representative government upon it, what is 
 the result ? Look to your own favorite scheme, your 
 proposition B, and let that answer the question. You 
 first take the white population as the standard by 
 which to ascertain the number of qualified voters, and 
 then you declare, by proposition B, that 9.790 white 
 persons, living in the county of Accomac, shall elect 
 two delegates, while 9,068 persons living across the bay 
 in the city of Norfolk, shall elect but one delegate ; so 
 that a qualified voter in the county of Accomac is 
 worth about twice as much, upon the application of 
 your own principle, as a qualified voter in the city of 
 Norfolk ; and the county of Morgan, from which my 
 friend comes, who entertained the committee yesterday, 
 (Mr. Stewart,) with a population of 3,431, elects one 
 delegate ; so that a qualified voter in the county of 
 Morgan is worth about three times as much as a quali- 
 fied voter in the city of Norfolk. 
 
 I know the answer which gentlemen will attempt to 
 give to this, for they have made that attempt already, 
 fhey say that this is unavoidable — that it cannot be 
 helped. Sir, it is not unavoidable — it can be helped ; 
 and gentlemen cannot be permitted in this way to es- 
 cape from the legitimate consequence of their own 
 principles, the inevitable results of their own argu 
 ments. If, as they cortend, this right to political 
 equality and to equal political weight, is one in the ab- 
 sence of which the voter is degraded, and put below 
 the level of a freeman, if it is a principle which can- 
 not be compromised, surrendered, or modified without 
 dishonor ; are there, I ask. no means by which a prin- 
 ciple so sacred can be fully carried out in the practical 
 organization of the government ? Cannot the legislative 
 department be so organized as that the vote of a qual- 
 ified voter in one part of the State shall have precisely 
 the same weight as the vote of a qualified voter in any 
 other part of the State ? Unquestionably this may be 
 done. To effect it, you have only to require that the 
 representatives from every county in the State shall be 
 elected by the voters of the whole State ; in other 
 words, that your delegates to the legislature shall be 
 elected by general ticket, instead of by counties or dis- 
 tricts. In such an election, and in such an election on- 
 ly, the vote of one man will have precisely the same 
 weight as that of any other. Gentlemen say that to do 
 this, would be to destroy representative government. 
 If this be so, then is such destruction but the legitimate 
 consequence of their own principles. They say that 
 this principle of the right to political equality must be 
 applied without regard to circumstances ; that it is a 
 principle in the absence of which the freeman is de- 
 graded ; that his vote, wherever he may be, whatever 
 his means may be, shall exercise precisely the same 
 weight upon the operation of the different departments 
 of the government, as the votes of his neigbors residing 
 east or west, north or south ; and with these declara- 
 tions upon their lips, the very moment they are called 
 on to carry out their principles into practice, when 
 they can do it without destroying the counties, but 
 keeping up the county divisions precisely as they are, 
 when they can do it by electing by general ticket in- 
 stead of by districts — they tell us that it is impractica- 
 ble in a representative form of goverment, and in such 
 a government the elections must be by districts. I ask 
 whether this does not show, conclusively, that a repre- 
 sentative government is, in its very nature, inconsist- 
 ent with this pragmatical idea that the vote of one man 
 shall have precisely the same weight as the vote of 
 every other man ? It is demonstrable that you cannot 
 carry out this idea, if you have those elections by coun- 
 ties and districts, which are, we are told, and which I 
 concede to be, of the very essence of representative gov- 
 ernment. Proposition B, itself, proves this ; and yet 
 
7 
 
 we are to be told that if, under the application of your 
 principle as made by yourselves, a voter in one part of 
 the State should exercise only half the power, and en- 
 joy only half the representation that is exercised and 
 enjoyed by another voter in another portion of the State, 
 this is no degradation — none whatever ; but the mo- 
 ment we venture to apply a different principle under 
 which, when applied to the several counties of the 
 State, similar inequalities of representation are found 
 to result, then it is a degradation. It is in vain to in- 
 sist on such a proposition. Inequality of representation 
 among the several counties is no more peculiar to the 
 mixed basis than to the white, or the suffrage basis. 
 It is inseparable from any basis, where there exists that 
 local or county representation which is so distinguishing 
 a feature of representative government ; and hence it 
 is that this idea of making the vote of one man avail as 
 much as that of any other man, cannot be carried out 
 in a representative government. 
 
 It can be carried out nowhere but in an unmixed de- 
 mocracy of numbers. A representative government is 
 in itself a check upon it, for the very moment you 
 break the State up into districts and give to those dis- 
 tricts a representation, you provide that a majority of 
 the districts represented in the legislature may speak 
 one voice while a majority of the people may speak 
 another. And when those two come in conflict which 
 ought to give way ? Unquestionably on your principle 
 the voice of the legislature ought to give way because 
 according to your principle, the voice of the numerical 
 majority however ascertained, is omnipotent. And yet 
 no man will pretend to say, that in a government or- 
 ganized on this very principle as you yourselves have 
 carried it out in the proposition B, this omnipotent voice 
 of the numerical majority will not be obliged to give way 
 to the voice of the legislative majority though that ma- 
 jority should represent a numerical minority. This is the 
 necessary result of a representative government as may 
 be shown by the simplest examples. Take for instance 
 three counties, each containing 1,000 voters. Each is enti- 
 tled, we will suppose, to a delegate in the legislature — 
 a question arises on which the people of those counties 
 are divided in opinion — the voters of A are unanimous 
 in one opinion while a small majority of those of B and 
 C entertain a different opinion. Five hundred and one 
 voters in B and C elect each a delegate while the thou- 
 sand votes in A added to the 998 in B and C elect but 
 one ; so that here is a legislative majority of two to one 
 representing a numerical minority of nearly two to one. 
 And yet with Jhese things staring us in the face we are 
 asked by proposition B, and that too in the face of its 
 own apportionment of representation to lay it down as 
 a fundamental principle in the organization of the leg- 
 islative department, that the vote of one qualified vo- 
 ter shall avail as much as that of any other qualified 
 voter ; and because we do not choose to say this ; be- 
 cause we do not choose to put a declaration into the 
 constitution as a principle of" government which is vio- 
 lated the very moment you attempt to carry it out into 
 practice, or to adopt such a text and then follow it up 
 with such a commentary, we are to be told that the 
 east is insisting on a principle which is to degrade the 
 freemen of the west. 
 
 But we are told that this principle is fully recognized 
 by the bill of rights and that it is a violation of that in- 
 strument not to carry it out. If so, then I have to 
 remark in the first place, that the bill of rights is viola- 
 ted alike by both the schemes of representation now 
 under consideration, for I have already shown that this 
 principle is no more carried out by proposition B, (the 
 white or suffrage basis,) than it is by proposition A, (the 
 mixed basis.) Let us look however, a little more 
 closely into this subject. I hope the committee will 
 not be alarmed with the idea that I am about at this 
 time of day to enter into anv dissertation on the bill of 
 rights. That is a subject which, whatever may be its at- 
 tractions in other respects, can scarcely be said to pos- 
 sess the charm of novelty, as it has formed thes taple, to 
 
 a greater or less extent, of nearly every speech that has 
 been delivered here, at least by those gentlanen with 
 whom it is my fortune to differ on this question. I have 
 no purpose to go over again the ground that has been so 
 often trod before, -but design simply to call the atten- 
 tion of the committee for a few moments to the three 
 first sections and to a brief commentary upon them. 
 The first section declares " that all men are by nature 
 equally free," and the deduction from that is— what? 
 By nature all men are equally free ; ergo, in the state 
 of society each man has an equal right to dispose in 
 the form of taxation, of the property of others ? Now 
 this, it strikes me, is what would be styled in logic, a 
 very palpable " non sequitur." The premises and the 
 conclusion have nothing to do with each other. They 
 are utter strangers. There is no coherence between 
 them. This principle of the bill of rights, obviously de- 
 signed as a source of protection to individual rights, is 
 not to be perverted with an instrument of political 
 power. And so far from its being true, that because 
 all men in a state of nature are equally free, therefore 
 every man m a state of society has an equal right to 
 dispose, whether in the form of taxation or otherwise, 
 of the property of others, the true inference, if any 
 can be drawn, is precisely the reverse, viz : that every 
 man has the best right to dispose of his own property. 
 I do not think, therefore, that gentlemen can derive much 
 aid to their argument from the first section of the bill 
 of rights. 
 
 The next section declares " that all power is vested 
 in and consequently derived from the people ; that 
 magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all 
 times amenable to them." 
 
 Now does any man doubt what our ancestors meant 
 when they made this declaration ? Have gentlemen 
 forgotten the time at which, the circumstances under 
 which, and the purpose for which it was made ? What 
 was the doctrine against which they were then in arms 
 and what the great principle, on the maintenance of 
 which, they had staked their lives, their fortunes and 
 their sacred honor ? It was against the slavish doctrine 
 of the "right divine of kings to govern wrong" they 
 were then warring, and the cause in which they were 
 enlisted was the great cause of popular right against 
 royal prerogative. Hence it is declared that the peo- 
 ple, not the prince, are the only legitimate source of 
 power, that magistrates are the servants of the one, not 
 the minions of the other, and from the highest to the 
 lowest, are at all times amenable to those from whom their 
 powers are thus derived. But what has this to do 
 with the question how the people themselves shall ex- 
 ercise their own, undoubted powers, what limitations 
 they shall impose on themselves, and upon what principles 
 and in what form they shall organize the different de- 
 partments of their own government ? Construct the 
 government as you may— organize the legislature or any 
 other department of it on what basis you will, it is from 
 the people alone it must derive its authority to act, and 
 it is to them and to them alone that it is responsible 
 for its action, With these questions therefore, this 
 second section of the bill of rights has precisely noth- 
 ing at all to do, and I cannot but regard as an evidence 
 of the extremity of their case when gentlemen of the 
 ability of those who have argued this question on the 
 other side have found it necessary to lay the stress they 
 have on thi«tiportion of that instrument. It is to the 
 third section, however, that these gentlemen have most 
 frequently referred, and that too with an air of confi- 
 dence and triumph, as though the argument based upon 
 it admitted of no reply. The committee will bear with 
 me therefore, for a few moments while I examine the 
 proposition announced by this third section. It reads as 
 follows : 
 
 " That government, is or ought to be, instituted for the 
 common benefit, protection and security of the people, 
 nation or community; of all the various modes and 
 forms of government, that is best which is capable of 
 producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, « 
 
8 
 
 and is most effectually secured against the danger of] majority of mere numbers, told by the head, nor was it 
 
 mal-administration, and that when any government 
 shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, 
 a majority of the community hath an indubitable, una- 
 lienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abol- 
 
 i majority of qualified voters, and the evidence of this 
 is to be found, (if evidence were required apart from 
 the bill of rights itself, taken in connection with the 
 constitution of 1716, of which it formed part,) in the 
 
 ish it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive manner in which we adopted the federal constitution, 
 to the public weal." Is the constitution we are now revising the only con- 
 
 Am aj or ity of the community! Now there are but | stitution of Virginia ? Have we not another constitu- 
 two modes by which a government can be changed, iti on, which with respect to the matters embraced 
 The one is by peaceful reform, the other by revolution, therein, is paramount to any that we can form or 
 The change by reform is a change made by the consent that the people themselves can adopt? Are we 
 of those in whom the political power of the State is for I not bound by the federal copstitution, as part and 
 the time being vested — that is, what has been here styled parcel of the constitution of Virginia ; and constitu- 
 
 the governmental majority. The change by revolution 
 is made without or ag.anst the consent of the existing 
 government, and results from a right existing in man 
 independent of and above government. Wow do gentle- 
 men imagine — does the gentleman from Kanawha (Mr. 
 Summers) and other gentlemen on this floor imagine 
 that under this clause of the bill of rights, the moment 
 you ascertain that a majority of one of the qualified vo- 
 ters of the State desire a reform or a change in the gov- 
 ernment, that moment a change must be ' made, and 
 made too without regard to the rights conferred by the 
 
 ting within the broad range over which it extends the 
 supreme law of the land ? And how was that federal 
 constitution adopted? Look to the records of 1787 
 and what do you find there ? You will find that the 
 convention which framed the federal constitution met 
 at Philadelphia in the summer, 1787, that the con- 
 stitution was adopted in September, 1787, and was then 
 referred to the States. In October, 1787, there was a 
 series of resolutions passed by the legislature of Virgin- 
 ia, simply suggesting and proposing to the good people 
 of this commonwealth to elect delegates to a conven- 
 
 constitution as it stands ? Is that their idea of peace- 1 tion to meet in June, 1788, for the purpose of ratifying or 
 fill reform as distinguished from revolution — a reform rejecting, so far as Virginia was concerned, the federal 
 effected by constitutional means, and through constitu- constitution. This legislature was composed of two dele- 
 
 tional agencies, or is it either more or less than naked 
 and unmitigated Dorrism ? Sir, I maintain that the com- 
 munity referred to in that clause of the bill of rights 
 is a community which can speak only by the voice of 
 those in whom the political power of the State is, for 
 the time being, vested. It can speak only by that voice 
 unless you resort to revolution, and when you come to 
 that, it is not, 1 apprehend, a majority only of the 
 community that have a right to commit revolution. 
 Will gentlemen get upbore and maintain that a majority 
 cannot do wrong — that there cannot be a governmentin 
 which a majority of the people or of the qualified vo- 
 ters if you please, might oppress the minority, and that 
 in such an event, the minority would not have the right 
 to revolutionize the government precisely as they would 
 to throw off the government of any other despot ? Sir, 
 the right of revolution is not measured by majorities or 
 minorities. Man's last resort against tyranny, it is com- 
 mon to all — to all the oppressed and down-trodden in 
 all ages and every clime. The other mode of changing 
 the government is, as I have said, by peaceful and con- 
 stitutional reform, to be effected by the agency and 
 with the consent of those who hold for the time being, 
 the political power of the State, people or community. 
 That is the community, the political body or entity re- 
 ferred to in the bill of rights j and which is composed not 
 of merely the qualified voters taken en masse, and told 
 by the head, but of those voters as they are distributed 
 throughout the different sections, divisions and sub-di- 
 visions of the State with that degree of political power 
 attached to their votes which is given by the very con- 
 stitution which it is proposed to change. 
 
 It is for this political community then, this organized 
 people, speaking as alone it can speak by the voice of 
 its constituted authorities, to determine in the first in- 
 stance whether the constitution shall be changed, and 
 to prescribe how that change shall be made. It may 
 foe done in various modes — either by submitting to the 
 qualified voters en masse the question whether or not they 
 will have a Convention for reforming the constitution 
 and if that question be decided in the affirmative, try 
 by directing the Convention to submit such constitution 
 as they may agree upon, to be ratified or rejected by 
 the voters of the State, or they may effect it by provi 
 ding that a convention shall be organized, which shall 
 have the power, without appeal, without submitting 
 the question of ratification or rejection to the people 
 themselves to adopt and put into operation the consti- 
 tution which they may determine upon. 
 
 The majority of the community then referred to by our 
 ancestors in the third section of the bill of rights was no 
 
 gates from each county, and was a body, therefore, in 
 which Warwick, with its six hundred inhabitants had ex- 
 actly the same weight and representation as Montgomery 
 with its twelve thousand, Culpepper with its thirteen 
 thousand, Loudoun with its fourteen thousand,and Berke- 
 ley with its sixteen thousand. • It was in that man- 
 ner that the legislature which assembled in October, 
 '87, wasconstituted which passed the resolutions,for the 
 election of delegates to the convention of 1788. And 
 what was that convention to do ? To advise people or 
 the qualified voters of the State whether they shouM 
 accept or reject the federal constitution ? No, sir, but 
 to decide absolutely, finally, and without appeal upon 
 the question whether the federal constitution should or 
 should not be the constitution of Virginia. And 
 yet was that convention itself organized with any 
 reference to this numerical majority, either of the 
 white population or of the qualified voters ? Not at 
 all sir. It was a convention consisting of two del- 
 egates from each county in the State, and in which 
 the voice of Warwick had as much weight as the 
 voice . of Loudoun, of Albemarle, of Culpepper, or 
 of Berkeley. It was a convention organized, not only 
 without any reference to this numerical majority but 
 with reference solely to the existing government and 
 with all the political power given to the different 
 divisions and sub-divisions of the^ State, to which 
 they were entitled under the existing State con- 
 stitution. And what was the action of the con- 
 vention thus organized on the momentous ques- 
 tion of the ratification or rejection of the federal 
 constitution? The record will show that that ques- 
 tion was decided by a majority of but ten votes. The 
 final vote on the ratification being 89 ayes to 79 nays, 
 and in all human probability — I do not make the asser- 
 tion, but it may be so, and it certainly might have been 
 so — the eighty-nine who voted in the affirmative may 
 have been the delegates from the smaller counties, while 
 the seventy -nine who voted in the negative may have con- 
 sisted chiefly of the delegates representing the larger 
 counties. 1 have not made the calculation, but in a 
 body constituted as was the convention of 1788 it was 
 not only possible but far from improbable that the con- 
 stitution which is now the supreme law of the land, 
 might have been adopted by the votes of those repre- 
 senting scarcely one-third of 'the white population of the 
 State, and adopted too, as it was, absolutely, finally and 
 without any submission of the question to the people 
 or to the voters of the State. Suppose this had been so , 
 will the gentlemen from Augusta, from Berkeley, or 
 from Kanawha undertake to say that a constitution thus 
 
 I 
 
9 
 
 adopted would not be the supreme law of the laud ? 
 Will they undertake to say that we have been living 
 ever since 1788 and are living now under an usurpation \ 
 Can there be a stronger demonstration than is presented 
 by the whole course of action which resulted in the adop- 
 tion of the federal constitution, that this modern dogma 
 that government is an usurpation to which the numeri- 
 cal majority of the people or of the voters told by the 
 head have not assented was not the doctrine of the 
 republicans of that day, the framers of the bill of 
 rights of 1776, and the constitution of 1788 ? No, sir, 
 this doctrine is of modern birth. It was never thought 
 of, never dreamed of, for one moment by those men who 
 laid the foundations of our civil liberty and built 
 up the structure broad and deep "by those great arch- 
 itects at whose bidding that " fabric huge rose like 
 an exhalation," and in respect to whom it is or ought to 
 be among the proudest recollections of every marT now 
 within the sound of my voice that he has the honor 
 of belongiug to the State that gave them birth. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. Just at this point, if the gentleman 
 from Richmond will allow me, I desire to state a fact. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I prefer that you should make the 
 statement after 1 get through. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY, (in his seat.) The white basis was 
 not thought of at that time. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. Precisely so, sir. And the gentle 
 man need scarcely have interrupted to make that re- 
 mark ; for if there could be demonstration furnished by 
 the most solemn acts of the very men who framed your 
 bill of rights acting upon subjects the most momentous 
 to themselves and their posterity, that the idea that all 
 government was an usurpation to which the people or 
 the voters told by the neadhad not given their sanction, 
 had never entered into their imagination, it was furnish- 
 ed on that occasion. Had such an idea ever been con- 
 ceived by them they would never have adopted the 
 proceedings above referred to, which resulted in the 
 establishment of what is now and what I trust will 
 continue to be for all time to come the supreme and 
 paramount law of the land — the constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 Resuming the line of my remarks and again advert- 
 ing to the bill of rights, which has been the subject of so 
 much commentary here, and on which so much stress 
 seems to be laid by gentlemen on the other side, I 
 beg leave to call the attention of the committee for one 
 moment to the bill of rights adopted by the men- who 
 composed the convention of 1788, and prefixed by them 
 to their ratification of the federal constitution. The 
 first section of that instrument is in these words : 
 
 " That there are certain natural rights of which men 
 when they form a social compact cannot deprive or 
 divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment 
 of life and liberty, with all the means of acquiring, pos- 
 sessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and ob- 
 taining happiness and safety." 
 
 This section contains a declaration of those natural 
 rights of which when men enter into society, they do 
 not, and cannot deprive or divest their posterity, and 
 is the same in substance, and almost identical in lan- 
 guage with the first section of the bill of rights pre 
 fixed to the constitution of 1776. The second section 
 is as follows : " That all power is naturally vested in 
 and consequently derived from the people ; that ma- 
 gistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at 
 all times amenable to them " 
 
 This again, is substantially the same with the corres- 
 ponding section of the present bill, and shows most 
 clearly that the design of that section was as I have 
 stated it to be, to assert the doctrine of popular rights 
 against royal prerogative, and to declare that the peo- 
 ple are not the subjects of the prince — but the prince is 
 the servant of the people. The first clause announcing 
 the principle, and the latter drawing the conclusion 
 from it; that ''magistrates, therefore, are their trus- 
 tees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.' 
 
 The 1st and 2d sections then of the bills of rights of 
 2 
 
 1788 and 1776 are in substance the same; and in what 
 respect does the third section of the former differ from 
 the corresponding clause for which it is substituted in 
 the latter ? Does it contain any recognition of the doc- 
 trine of mere numbers, any declaration that of all forms 
 of government, that is best in which the voters have the 
 same or as nearly as may be the same political weight, 
 or in which the vote of one qualified voter shall avail 
 as much as that of any other I ' Not at all. The men of 
 1788 like those of 1776, appear to have labored under 
 the delusion, that there was no form of government 
 which was adapted alike to every condition of society ; 
 that which was a very good government for one country 
 might prove a very bad one for another, and that of all 
 forms of government that was best which, under the 
 peculiar circumstances of the people to whom it is in- 
 tended to apply, is calculated "to produce the greatest 
 degree of happiness and safety, and to afford the great- 
 est security against mal-admiuistration." The bill of 
 rights, therefore of 1788, (like its counterpart of 1776.) in 
 its third section sets forth the ends for which government 
 should be instituted, and asserts in the most unqualified 
 terms, the right of revolution, when it becomes destruc- 
 tive of those ends. It declares: "That government 
 ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protec- 
 tion and security of the people ; and that the doctrine 
 of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppres- 
 sion is absurd, slavish and destructive to the good and 
 happiness of mankind ;'' thus branding with deserved 
 reprobation that pernicious dogma of passive submission 
 and non-resistance which as late as the reign of James 
 II, and since, was the cherished creed of a large party 
 in England, but not recognizing in any form the despot- 
 ic sway of the numerical majority, or substituting "the 
 right divine" of numbers for "the right divine" of 
 kings, and thus throwing down one idol only, to 
 erect another in its stead. No, sir, no. The advocates 
 of this doctrine of mere numbers when they are seeking 
 for authority to sustain their position, will look in vain 
 to the bills of rights, either of 1776 or 1788, as understood, 
 interpreted, and acted on by their authors themselves ; 
 they must look elsewhere than to the declarations or the 
 acts of those wise and practical statesmen, those virtu- 
 ous and enlightened men who, chastened by the frills, 
 and purified by the fires of the revolution, 'laid br^ad 
 and deep the foundations of that temple in which we 
 are now worshipping, and in which I trust our children 
 and our children's children will long continue to wor- 
 ship. Those men were no visionary speculators — no 
 mere theorists and sciolists in government who pos- 
 sessed with a single idea, would apply it to society like 
 the rack of Proerastes to his victims, and cut and clip 
 and wrench the body politic until it was made to con- 
 form to some preconceived theory; but they were prac- 
 tical and enlightened statesmen, who looking to govern- 
 ment not as an end, but as a means, would so ordain it 
 as in their own language to "produce the greatest degree 
 of happiness and safety, and to be most effectually se- 
 cured against the danger of mal-administration ,' And 
 can that government be said "to be most effectually se- 
 cured against the danger of mal-administration," in the 
 very organization of which the tax laying power is sepa- 
 rated from the tax-paying duty \ in which you confer 
 on the one section of State the principal right of lay- 
 ing and of appropriating, while you impose on another 
 section the principal duty of paying taxes for the 
 support of government ? In which finally no relation 
 is recognized between representation and taxation, but 
 the legislative department is organized on numbers 
 alone ? We say no ; and standing upon the bill of 
 rights itself, appealing to the principles as well as the 
 practice of our forefathers, we maintain that the legis- 
 lative department should be so organized a9 to recog- 
 nise the relation between representation and taxation, 
 and to confer upon those who pay the taxes, the power 
 to say what taxes shall be raised, and how, when raised, 
 they shall be applied. This is what we propose to ac- 
 complish by the mixed basis of representation ; which, 
 
10 
 
 looking neither to population alone nor to taxation 
 alone, but to population and taxation equally combined, 
 was so triumphantly vindicated by the representatives 
 of Eastern Virginia in the convention of 1829-'30, and 
 to the principles of which a decided majority of the mem- 
 bers of this Convention were understood to be pledged 
 wheu they took their seats on this floor. 
 
 But it has been asserted here more than once 
 that while gentlemen were committed to the mixed 
 basis, they were not at all committed to the pro- 
 portion, or as the gentleman from Accomac, ( : V'r. Wise,) 
 has been pleased to express it, " the mixture" of the 
 mixed basis — but that its proportions, (that is the pro- 
 portion in which population and taxation should respec- 
 tively enter as elements of representation,) might vary 
 almost, if not altogether without any limit whatsoever. 
 According to this idea, the mixed basis would certainly 
 be a very convenient sort of doctrine, as it might be 
 made to mean any thing, every thing, or nothing at all, 
 precisely as gentlemen thought proper to interpret it. 
 They have only to add to the weight given to the ele- 
 ment of population, and diminish that given to the ele- 
 ment of taxation, to make the mixed basis under this 
 view of it, mean any thing short of the white basis it- 
 self, and thus get rid in a very summary manner of any in- 
 convenient trammels that might be imposed by such 
 things as pledges or instructions But unfortunately 
 for those (if any such there be) who are disposed to 
 adopt this convenient theory, I am prepared to show by 
 the most incontrovertible evidence that the mixed basis, 
 as proposed by Judge Green, and advocated by the re- 
 presentatives from the East in the convention of 1829-30, 
 as it was understood then, and as it has been under- 
 stood ever since meant and never did mean but one thing, 
 and that was, that population and taxation should enter 
 equally into the apportionment of representative power 
 — in other words, when you base representation on the 
 mixed basis, you base it one half on population and one 
 half on taxation. That, I say, was the only mixed ba- 
 sis ever heard of in the former conveution, or in the 
 great debate that took place on judge Green's amend- 
 ment. It is the mixed basis as it has been uniformly recog- 
 nized since 1829, in the discussions which, from time 
 to time, have taken place in the legislature. It is the 
 principle embodied in the bill calling this very Conven- 
 tion, the basis on which this Convention itself is organ- 
 ized, and according to which we hold our seats here. I 
 feel it my duty in this connection to call the attention 
 of the committee for a short time to tue language of 
 my friend from Berkely (Mr. Faulener) and I must be 
 permitted, with all respect, to say that I think if that 
 gentleman had exhibited the ability which we all know 
 he possesses, in the candid investigation of this question 
 as presented by the debates of the convention of 1829- 
 '30 he never could have fallen into the error contained 
 in the extract I am about to read from the speech re- 
 cently delivered by him. Here is what he said : 
 
 ''If the old, original scheme of the combined basis were 
 now before us — that scheme, I mean, which aggregated 
 the population and taxation of the entire State, and by 
 means of a common quotient, ascertained a ratio com- 
 mon to the entire State, it might not be liable to this 
 particular objection which I am now urging. But that 
 scheme is far too weak for the purpose for which this 
 is now intended. It could only retain power to the 
 east a few years more. When Thomas R. Joynes in 
 that celebrated speech which he made in the convention 
 in 1829, and which has furnished the armory of statis- 
 ts from which his friends have been supplied with wea- 
 pons of defence ever since — I say, when Mr. Joynes then 
 announced that upon the combined basis, the west would 
 have the control of the legislative power in 185*7, he 
 stated what upon that principle would be so ; he, at least, 
 little dreamed that after a lapse of twenty years, anew 
 device would be resorted to, which would postpone this 
 consummation some forty or fifty years longer. I do 
 not mean to say that you cannot find amongst the de- 
 bates of 1829-'30, allusion to that South Carolina 
 
 scheme which is now sought to be pressed upon us, but 
 I do say that with the solitary exception of one brief 
 allusion to it by Mr. Leigh, the references to this par- 
 ticular scheme were made by the enemies of the mixed 
 basis, and made for the purpose of presenting to the 
 convention an illustration, in its most abhorrent form, 
 of the practical operation of the principle they were op- 
 posing. This scheme in its present deformity never 
 was submitted by any eastern man to the consideration 
 of that convention. I have no doubt, if it had been, it 
 would have been promptly scouted by that illustrious 
 body." _ 3 
 
 Now, sir, I have read the whole of this extract, so 
 that I might not do my friend from Berkeley any possi- 
 ble injustice ; so that I might present him before the Con- 
 vention and the country precisely as he has thought 
 proper to present himself ; and having done that, I 
 take occasion to say, that so far from the mixed bixsis of 
 1829, being what the gentleman from Berkeley has 
 been pleased to represent it ; so far from its being true 
 that the mixed basis, as advocated in the convention of 
 1829-'30, involved on any scheme or idea whatsoever 
 of aggregating or compounding population and taxes, 
 men and money together, and thence deducing the ratio 
 of apportionment, that very idea was expressly repudiated, 
 and the mixed basis as proposed in the convention 
 of 1829--' 30, and as it has been insisted upon ever 
 since, and is insisted on now, is neither more nor less 
 than the basing one moiety of representation upon the 
 white population, and the other moiety upon taxation. 
 In other words, it is the same principle which in 1808, 
 was engrafted in the constitution of South Carolina, 
 and was distinctly so recognized by the leading mem- 
 bers on both sides, who took part in the debate of 1829- 
 '30. Now, sir, there is no doubt as to the South Caro- 
 lina scheme of representation. The popular branch 
 consists of 124 members, of which 62 are given to 
 population, and 62 to taxation, the South Carolina con- 
 stitution providing that, " in assessing representation to 
 the several districts of the State, the legislature shall 
 allow one representative for every sixty -second part of 
 the whole number of white inhabitants in the State, and 
 one representative for every sixty-second part of the 
 whole taxes raised by the legislature of the State," 
 and a reference to the debates of 1829-'30, will show 
 that this was precisely the mixed basis proposed by 
 Judge Green's amendment as understood, advocated and 
 opposed by leading members on both sides in the con- 
 vention of that day. Thus Mr. Leigh says, (p. 163,) 
 "South Carolina finding herself in circumstances similar 
 to ours, though the diversity of interest is by no means so 
 great there as here, has adopted thai very compound basis 
 of population and taxation which the amendment of my 
 friend from Culpeper (Judge Green,) proposes." This is 
 what Mr. Leigh t aid, and what says Mr. Johnson, the 
 lea ding opponent of the mixed basis in the convention of 
 1829— '30, as Mr. Leigh was its leading advocate ? Here 
 is what Mr. Johnson says, (p. 278,) speaking of the 
 South Carolina Constitution : " In 1808, the constitution 
 of the house of representatives was changed by intro- 
 ducing into it, what ? — ' the precise compound basis now 
 proposed to us by the gentleman from Culpeper! The 
 precedent, as it regards the popular branch of the 
 legislature, seems to be in point, and how far we shall 
 respect its authority, it is for the good sense of this 
 committee to decide." 
 
 Mr. FAULKNER. I would inquire of the gentleman 
 from the city of Richmond, (Mr. Stanabtd,) whether 
 Judge Green ever made that explanation of this propo- 
 sition ? 
 
 Mr. STAN ARD. Precisely that, and I will show it, 
 not only by the statement of Judge Green himself, but 
 by the admission of western gentlemen, in commenting 
 upon Judge Green's position. I have referred to the 
 speeches of Mr. Leigh and Mr. Johnson, but I have not 
 read all that Mr. Johnson said on this subject. I refer 
 to the remarks of that gentleman, at p. 265 ; and I wish 
 particularly to call the attention of the gentleman from 
 
11 
 
 Berkely (Mr. Faulkner) to the passage, which I am sure 
 he has not read, for if he had, he would not have haz- 
 arded the assertion he has made with respect to the 
 mixed basis of 1829-'30. "The proposition to amend," 
 (-ays Mr. Johnson, speaking of the mixed basis, as pro 
 p>sed by the amendment of Jjidge Green,) "which of- 
 fers the basis of population and taxation combined, is 
 not very definite in its term, but as explained by its mo- 
 ver is very intelligible. It does not propose to compound 
 the number of dollars paid for taxes in each district, icith 
 the number of white persons therein, and thence derive the 
 rule for apportionment, but it proposes to compound the 
 ratios of taxation and numbers, thus to give one half the 
 delegates according to the ratio of taxes paid, and the other 
 half according to the ratio of white persons — or thus take 
 for each district the mean proportional between the 
 number it would be entitled to according to the ratio 
 of white persons, and the number it would be entitled 
 to according to the ratio of taxes paid. To illustrate : 
 
 from Berkeley by referring him to the explanation to 
 which he seems to attach such peculiar importance. It 
 occurred as well as I recollect, in the course of the re- 
 marks of Mr. Mercer, and here it is. If the gentleman 
 from Berkeley will refer to p. 179 of the debates, he will 
 find what passed between Mr. Mercer and Judge Green 
 on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Mercer having inquired " whether gentlemen 
 would adopt the plan of South Carolina, and distribute 
 the territory of this Commonwealth into two descrip- 
 tions of election districts, one in reference to free white 
 population — the other to taxation as it now exists ?" 
 Mr. Green (I read from p. 179,) explained, but in so low 
 a tone of voiee, that the reporter could not catch his 
 language. 
 
 Mr. Mercer regretted that he had been unable to hear 
 distinctly the explanation of the gentleman from Cul- 
 peper, but from the few words which had reached him, 
 he inferred it to be his intention to adopt the system of 
 
 The Trans-alleghany would be entitled, on the basis of South Carolina, and to divide the State into two sorts of 
 white population, to 31 ; on the basis of taxes, to 11 ; election districts. (Mr. Green having changed his seat 
 on the compound (or mixed) basis (of population and in the hall, again rose for explanation. He explained 
 
 taxation) to twenty-one and a half, (adding 32 to 11 and 
 dividing by 2.) The Valley on white population 24, 
 taxes 10, compound basis 17 — middle district on white 
 population 35. taxes 49, compound 42 — eastern district 
 on white population 29, taxes 41, compound 35." 
 
 The mixed basis of 1829--'30, then, did not propose to 
 do what the gentleman from Berkeley says it proposed ; 
 but it did propose precisely what we now propose, and 
 that is, to give one half of the delegates in proportion 
 to the amount of taxes paid, and the other half accord- 
 ing to the ratio of white persons. This, then, is the 
 mixed basis of 1929--S0, as explained by Judge Green, 
 who moved it, and re-explained by Mr. Johnson, wh© 
 opposed it. Here is the sum worked out in figures by 
 Mr. Johnson, precisely as we now propose to work it 
 out. And what says Mr. Summers on the same point, 
 another prominent member of the convention of 1829- 
 '30. Speaking of the mixed basis as advocated in that 
 convention, he says, (p. 662,) "their principles of com- 
 bination required that, to ascertain the number of dele- 
 gates to which any particular district would be entitled, 
 it was first necessary to find xchat number would be given 
 by while population, and secondly , what number the tax 
 paid by the district, woidd entitle it to. The combined re- 
 sult divided or averaged, was then assumed as the proper 
 representation. " 
 
 I hope then, there will at least be an end of the ques- 
 tion, as to what was the mixed basis proposed and ad- 
 vocated in the convention of 1829- '30. Whatever dif- 
 ference of opinion may exist on other points, there can, 
 I submit, be none upon this. If gentlemen are not pre- 
 pared to adopt the mixed basis, I trust they will at least- 
 meet it fairly — meet it as it was proposed and insisted 
 on then, and as it is proposed and insisted on now. 
 
 it to be his plan to take the white population of the 
 State, and the population of each county. Apply the 
 rule. Population gives to representation in proportion 
 to numbers. See the number of representatives required. 
 In like manner, take the whole taxes of the State, and 
 those of each county, if the taxes give the like rule 
 for the county, add them together, and that is the rule. 
 
 There, sir, is the sum again worked out — the amend- 
 ment of Judge Green as explained by the mover, to which 
 Mr. Johnson in his remarks just quoted refers — the 
 mixed basis, as proposed in the convention of 1829-30, 
 one-half on white population, one-half on taxes — the 
 only mixed basis that was ever thought of by the men 
 of that day — the basis on which the east has stood from 
 that day to this, and to which (as I have said before) 
 a decided majority of this convention were understood 
 to be pledged t\ hen they took their seats on this floor. 
 
 I hope these "extracts from the record" will be suf- 
 ficient to satisfy the committee, if not the gentleman 
 from Berkeley himself of the very grave error into 
 which he has fallen. There is, however, one other view 
 to which I will advert before I pass from this subject. 
 It was agreed upon all hands that in 1829, the mixed 
 basis as proposed and practically worked out at that day, 
 and federal numbers, produced the same result. This 
 Mr. Cooke (p. 550) and other gentlemen emphatically 
 declare. 1 have taken therefore the federal numbers of 
 1829, and worked it out, and I find that according to 
 this basis, in a house of 134 members the west would 
 have been entitled to forty-seven delegates. I then pro- 
 ceeded to ascertain the number of delegates to which the 
 west would have been entitled in 1829, in a house of 134 
 members, upon the mixed basis worked out precisely as 
 we now propose to work it out, and I find the result is 
 
 Mr. FAULKNER. I ask the gentleman to refer to j precisely the same, and that it gives forty-seven mem- 
 Judge Green's explanation of his amendment. What I bers west of the blue ridge. And this result cannot be 
 said was, that, with the exception of the explanation of! produced on any other basis than that which apportions, 
 Mr. Leigh, I did not recollect that it was referred to by one-half the representation to the white population and 
 
 any mixed basis advocate, but the reference to it was by 
 the opponents of the mixed basis, for the purpose of ex- 
 hibiting the scheme in its most odious and most abhor- 
 rent form. Now, I want to know where Judge Green 
 has explained the proposition as advocated by the gen- 
 tleman from the city of Richmond, (Mr. Staxaed.) 
 Mr. STAN ARD. And I wi^h to know whether I am 
 
 the other half to the taxes paid. I shall not detain 
 the committee by going over these calculations — they 
 are before me and any gentleman may examine tbem 
 for himself. Looking then to the mixed basis as it really 
 is and always has been, and standing on the same ground 
 in 1850-51 on which our fathers stood in 1829-30, what, 
 I ask, is there in that proposition as applied to the po- 
 
 to understand the gentleman from Berkeley as assert- \ litical condition of this State to provoke or to justify 
 ing before this committee and the country, that Mr. j the denunciation with which it has been assailed ? Is 
 Johnson did not understand Judge Green's proposition, ! it an extreme proposition conceived and adhered to in an 
 
 when he made the explanation of it, I have just read, 
 in the presence of Judge Green, and uncontradicted by 
 him, and stated that that was Judge Green's amend- 
 
 uncompromising spirit, with a view merely to claim and 
 to conquer power for power's sake ? a scheme of repre- 
 sentation by which the east demands everything and 
 
 ment as explained by its mover 7 Is the gentleman from j yields nothing? To judge from the strain of invec- 
 Berkeley prepared to assume this position? But sir, jtivein which gentlemen have so freely indulged one 
 my strong impression is that Judge Green himself, gave j would imagine the mixed basis to be all this and worse; 
 the same explanation, and if the committee will indulge i and yet nothing is more certain than that the mixed ba- 
 me for a moment, I think I can gratify the gentleman | sis is itself a compromise. It is no extreme proposition, 
 
12 
 
 but a compromise, and in the opinion and in the language 
 of such men as John Marshall, a " fair and just compro- 
 mise" between extremes, and as such, was offered by 
 the eas; to the west in th« last convention. On this 
 point T need appeal to no higher authority than that of 
 one of the wisest and purest men that ever adorned the 
 annals of this or any other country. In the debates ol 
 1829-30 Judge Marshall says : (I read from page 498.) 
 
 " I would observe that this basis of representation is a 
 matter so important to Virginia, that the subject was 
 reviewed by every thinking individual before this Con- 
 vention assembled. Several different plans were con- 
 templated. The basis of white population alone; the 
 basis of free population alone ; a basis of population 
 alone; a basis compounded of taxation and white pop- 
 ulation, (or which is the same thing, a basis of federal 
 numbers :) two other bases were also proposed, one re- 
 ferring to the total population of the State, the other 
 to taxation alone, Now, of these various propositions, 
 the basis of white population, and the basis of taxation 
 alone are the two extremes. Between the free popula 
 tion and the white population there is almost no differ- 
 ence : between the basis of total population and the ba- 
 sis of taxation, there is but little difference. The peo- 
 ple of the east thought that they offered a fair compromise 
 ivhen they -proposed the compound basis of population and 
 taxation, or the basis of the federal numbers. We thought 
 that we had republican precedent for this — a precedent 
 given ux by the wisest and truest patriots that ever 
 were assembled." 
 
 And what was that precedent and what the prin- 
 ciple on which it was based? Sir, it was the pre- 
 cedent of the federal constitution based on the prin- 
 ciple of the American Revolution — on that princi- 
 ple which proclaimed that representation and taxa- 
 tion should go hand in hand — on that principle to 
 which Judge Marshall refers when, in the same speech 
 from which I have just quoted, he says: *'One gentle- 
 " man seems to imagine that we claim nothing of repub- 
 " lican principles when we claim a representation for 
 V property. Permit me to set him right. I do not say 
 " that I hope to satisfy him or others, who say thatrepub- 
 " lican government depends on adopting the naked prin- 
 " ciple of numbers, that we are right ; but I think I can 
 " satisfy him that we do entertain a different opinion. I 
 " think the soundest principles of republicanism do sanc- 
 " tion some relation between representation and taxa- 
 " tion. Certainly no opinion has received the sanction 
 " of wiser statesmen and patriots. 1 think the two ought 
 " to be connected. I think this was the principle of the 
 " revolution : the ground on which the colonies were torn 
 "from the mother country and made independent States.\ 
 Yet, I understood the gentleman from Morgan (Mr. 
 Stewart) last ni^ht to talk about this as a monstrous 
 falsificationof history — the assertion that it was a prin- 
 ciple of the American revolution, that representation 
 and taxation should go hand in hand. Now, sir, with 
 all due respect for the authority of that gentleman, and 
 of the book from which he read, (some history of Ma- 
 ryland I believe,) I must be pardoned if I choose rather 
 to rely upon the authority of Judge Marshall upon this 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. STEWART, of Morgan. The gentleman will 
 allow me one moment. I did not deny that representa- 
 tion and taxation are to go hand in hand. It was with 
 reference to the colonial fixation that the authority 
 which had been quoted here was cited, the idea that the 
 colonies complained because they were not represented 
 in the British Parliament. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I believe I understood the gentle- 
 man, and did not mis-state his position. Gentlemen do 
 not venture to deny that representation and taxation 
 i hould go together. On the contrary, the gentleman 
 from Augusta (Mr. Sheffey,) who opened this discus- 
 sion on the white basis side, stated expressly that taxa- 
 tion without representation was tyranny, but he and 
 others who followed him seemed to be impressed with 
 the idea that if there is any representation at all (it I 
 
 matters not how trivial it is, and how great the dispro- 
 portion between it and taxation may be,) the principle 
 of the revolution is satisfied. Although this was a ques- 
 tion of sufficient magnitude to cause our forefathers in 
 1776, to sever their connection with the British crown, 
 yet their wiser descendants in the year 1851 would make 
 it out to be the merest abstraction conceivable. Ac- 
 cording to the modern lights in the science of govern- 
 ment, with which we have been favored on this occa- 
 sion, if the tax-paying portion of the community has- 
 one representative and the non-tax-paying forty repre- 
 sentatives, this is not taxation without representation — 
 by no means ; the revolutionary principle that taxation 
 and representation shall go hand in hand is preserved 
 intact — and there is no manner of oppression or tyran- 
 ny in such a government as that. Sir, I tell gentlemen 
 that our forefathers contended for no such absurdity ; 
 they fought and bled for no such shadow. The princi- 
 ple for which they contended was, that there should be 
 such a proportion, such a ratio between representation 
 and taxation, that those who paid the taxes showldbe able 
 to control those who levied them. Whether representation 
 and taxation should be to each in precise arithmetical or 
 geometrical proportion was immaterial. It rarely, if 
 ever happens, that the exact sciences can be applied to 
 the measurement of moral or political quantities. But 
 if the acknowledged principle, that taxation and repre- 
 sentation shall go hand in hand, means, or ever meant 
 anything, it means and always meant, that the propor- 
 tion between taxation and representation should be 
 such as to protect the tax-payer by the immediate and 
 direct responsibility of the tax-levier — and it never 
 meant that any government should be so organized as 
 to confer on one section of the State, the principal 
 power of laying taxes, while it devolved on another 
 the principal duty of paying the taxes so laid. Look, 
 sir to the very first act of those patriots and sages who 
 had just passed the fiery ordeal when they met together 
 in 1787, for the purpose of framing the federal consti- 
 tution. Upon what principle did those men, fresh from 
 the fires of the revolution, propose to organize that de- 
 partment of the government to which the right of rais- 
 ing revenue, of laying and of appropriating taxes should 
 be confided? They were engaged in framing a govern- 
 ment that should be at the same time federal and nation- 
 al — federal in some of its features — national in others^ 
 A government in which the States should be represent- 
 ed in one branch, and the people in another ; but which 
 unlike the old confederation should act not on the States, 
 but on the people ; and in organizing that branch of the 
 legislative department in which the people of all the 
 States should be represented by delegates selected di- 
 rectly from among themselves — that popular branch 
 'in which ivas to be vested the sole power of originating mo- 
 ney bills, or in other words the sole power of taxation, 
 upon what principle I say, did these men base repre- 
 sentation in that branch? Sir, they based it on taxation 
 alone Sir, I repeat it, and I vouch the proceedings and 
 debates of 1787 to sustain me in the assertion that by 
 the framers of the federal constitution, representation 
 in the house of representatives was based on taxation 
 alone, and what is known as federal numbers was resorted 
 t merely as a measure of the wealth of t e country, or of its 
 ability to pay taxes — and consequently the amount of tax- 
 es to be paid. In other words the federal number was 
 adopted as a convenient, and under the circumstances 
 the most convenient measure of taxation — and thus it 
 is, that by the constitution of the United States, repre- 
 sentation and direct taxation are apportioned to each 
 other and are each apportioned to the common ratio of 
 federal numbers. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I fear that I may be wearying the 
 committee and I am certainly exhausting myself ; but I 
 trust the committee will bear with me. [Cries of go 
 on— e;o on.] There have been upon this subject and 
 especially upon this branch of the subject which I am 
 now considering, positions of so extraordinary a char- 
 acter assumed, and that too by gentlemen of the highest 
 intelligence and respectability that I regard it as due to 
 
the truth of history — as due to the men who framed 
 tie federal constitut on — as due to truth and justice and 
 aid right, as well as to the position I maintain, to go 
 fully into this subject, and even at the hazard of being 
 tedious and of abusing the kind indulgence of the com- 
 mittee, to trace the provision in question step by step, 
 and to show as 1 think I can conclusively show from the 
 
 of it had a right to preponderate, and he could not deny 
 it. But he wished it not to preponderate hereafter, 
 when the reason no longer continued. From the nature 
 of man, we may be sure that those who have power in 
 their hands will not give it up while they can retain it. 
 On the contrary, we know that they -will always, when 
 they can, rather increase it. If- the southern States, 
 
 record, that by the federal constitution representation j therefore, should have three-fourths of the people of 
 in the lower house was based on taxation alone. Now America within their limits, the northern will hold fast 
 then to the proof. I have before me the debates and pro- jthe majority of representatives. One-fourth will gov- 
 ceedings of the convention of 1787, as reported by James Urn the three-fourths. The southern States will com- 
 Madison — and I will refer in the first place to the origin j plain, but they may complain from generation to gene- 
 al report of the committee of five, to whom was refer- ration without redress. Unless some principle, there- 
 red the subject of representation in the house of rep- fore, which will give justice to them hereafter, shall be 
 resentatives, or the first branch of the legislature as it 
 was then styled. This report will be found at p. 1051. 
 It provides of what number of members the first con- 
 
 gress shall consist, and assigns to each State its repre- 
 sentatives, and then proceeds as follows : 
 
 " But as the present situation of the States may pro- 
 bably alter, as well in point of wealth as in the number 
 "of t ! eir inhabitants, that the legislature be authorized 
 "from time to time to augment the number of represen- 
 tatives. And in case any of the States may hereafter 
 "be divided, or any two or more States united, or any 
 "new States created within the limits of the United 
 "States, the legislature shall possess authority to regu- 
 *'late the number of representatives in any of the fore- 
 "going cases, upon the principles of their icealth and num- 
 "6er of inhabitants". On the basis, in other words, of pro- 
 perty and persons, in the laryest sense — that i,s the total 
 
 inserted in the constitution, disagreeable as the decla- 
 ration was to him, he must declare he could neither 
 vote for the system here, nor support it in his State." 
 
 He then proceeds to show what that principle should 
 be, and expressly maintains that "numbers of inhabi- 
 tants, thougrt not always a precise standara of wealth, was 
 sufficiently so for every substantial purpose." This was 
 the language then held by George Mason, and what 
 said James Madison on the same occasion and in the 
 progress of the same debate ] In answer to Governeur 
 Morris, who was opposed to fixing any standard in the 
 constitution, wishing to leave the whole matter to the 
 discretion of the northern majority in Congress, and in- 
 sisting that " the best course that could be taken would 
 be to leave the interests of the people to the representa- 
 tives of the people" — Mr. Madison emphatically re- 
 marked, that he was not a little surprised to hear this 
 
 population — all the inhabitants of whatever description, j implicit confidence urged by a member who, on all 
 Thus it will be perceived it was proposed originally to ;Sions, had inculcated so strongly the political depravity 
 base the representation of the different States in the | of men, and the necessity of checking one vice and in- 
 
 popular branch " on the principles of then wealth and 
 number of inhabitants" — not the w ute inhabitants, or 
 the free inhabitants, but the whole number of inhabi- 
 tants, white and black, bond and free. And when this 
 proposition came to be voted on, the vote stood — ayes, 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 
 Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
 Georgia — 9. Xoes — New York, New Jersey. So that 
 it was adopted by a vote of nine States, (among which 
 was Virginia) in the affirmative, to two in the negative. 
 
 The committee will not fail to observe, however, that 
 while, by this vote, the principle of regulating repre- 
 sentation by wealth and the number of inhabitants 
 was adopted and recognized, it was yet left discretionary 
 with the Congress of the United States, after it should 
 assemble, to carry out that provision, and to determine 
 in what manner representation should be apportioneu 
 among ihe several States upon the principles thus de- 
 clared. And what was the position of parties in the 
 country at that time ? The northern States had a ma- 
 jority of the whole population, and a majority of wealth, 
 and in the first Congress there was obliged to be a ma- 
 jority of representatives from the northern States. 
 Under &uch circumstances, the representatives from the 
 southern States were afraid that, if the provision were 
 adopted in the vague form in which it was reported, and 
 no standard fixed in the constitution, the northern ma- 
 jority might refuse to carry out these principles, and 
 make a fair apportionment, and therefore the question 
 arose as to adopting a rule by which Congress should 
 be regulated in carrying out the provision just adopted 
 in the future apportionments of representation ; and it 
 was to this question that George Mason was addressing 
 himself when he made the remarks I am about to quote 
 from page 1065. 
 
 " The greater the difficulty (says Mr. Mason) we find 
 in fixing aproper rule of representation, the more unwil- 
 ling ought we to be to throw the task from ourselves on 
 the general legislature. He did not object to the con- 
 jectural ratio, which was to prevail in outset; but con- 
 sidered a revision from time to time, according to some 
 permanent and precise standard, as essential to the fair 
 representation required in the first branch. According 
 to the present population of America, the northern part 
 
 terest, by opposing to them another vice aud interest. 
 If the representatives of the people would be bound by 
 the ties he had mentioned, what need was there of a se- 
 nate ? What of a revisionary power ? But his reason- 
 ing was not only inconsistent with his former reason- 
 ing, but with itself. At the same time that he recom- 
 j mended this implicit confidence to the southern States 
 in the northern majority, he was still more zealous in 
 exhorting all to a jealousy of a western majority. To 
 reconcile the gentleman with himself, it must be im- 
 agined that he determined the human character by the 
 points of the compass." 
 
 After arguing thus to show the necessity of fixing the 
 standard of representation by constitutional provision, 
 Mr. Madison proceeds to consider what that standard 
 should be, and I beg leave to call the special attention 
 of the committee to his remarks on this point. Speak- 
 ing as Mr. Mason spoke, not of the free white popula- 
 tion, but of the total population, bond and free, of the 
 whole number of inhabitants, Mr. Madison says, (page 
 1073 :) " He could not agree that any substantial objec- 
 tion lay against fixing numbers for the perpetual stan- 
 dard of representation. It was said that representation, 
 and taxation were to go together ; that taxation a»d viealtk 
 ought to go together ; that population and wealth were not 
 measures of each other. He admitted that in different 
 climates, under different forms of government, and in 
 different stages of civilization, the inference was per- 
 fectly just. He would admit that, iu no situation, num- 
 bers of inhabitants were an accurate measure of wealth. 
 He contended, however, that in the United States it was 
 sufficiently so for the object in contemplation." 
 
 Here, then, you have Mr. Madison expressly contend- 
 ing that population (that is the total population) should 
 be adopted as the standard of representation, and why? 
 Because, in his judgment, population was a sufficiently 
 accurate measure of wealih — while it was agreed on ail 
 hands, that wealth was the measure of taxation, and 
 taxation the measure of representation. Accordingly, at a 
 subsequent stage of the debate, it was unanimously re- 
 solved, "That direct taxation ought to be proportioned 
 to representation" — (page 1081) — and instead of the to- 
 tal population, the free inhabitants, and three fifths of 
 the slaves, or what has since been knswn asthefede- 
 
14 
 
 ral numbers, wa9 adopted as the standard of representa- 
 tion ; and why? Because that had been the ratio fixed 
 by Congress in 1783, under the articles of confederation 
 as the rule of taxation — the rule according to which the 
 several Staies were to contribute to the common fund. 
 And upon the proposition of the committee of five as 
 thus amended, how stood the vote ? I read from page 
 1086, and give the answer in the words of Mr. Madison : 
 " On the question on the whole proposition, as proportion- 
 tl ing representation to direct taxation, and both to the white 
 "and three fifths of the black inhabitants, and requiring a 
 "census within six years, and within every ten years af- 
 terwards — Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vir- 
 "ginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye — 6; New Jersey , 
 "Delaware, no — 2 ; Massachusetts, South Carolina, divi- 
 ded." 
 
 Am I not then fully warranted by these recorded pro- 
 ceedings of the convention of 1787 in the assertion 
 that, by the framers of the federal constitution, repre- 
 sentation in the popular branch — the tax laying branch 
 — in which it is expressly provided that " all bills for 
 raising revenue shall originate," — representation, I say, 
 in this tax laying and revenue raising department of 
 the national legislature is based on taxation alone i — and 
 that the federal number w/as resorted to as the stand- 
 ard of representation, because, and only because, it was 
 believed to be, and had been adopted as the proper stand- 
 ard of taxation* And by whose agency — under whose 
 auspices — and by whose votes was this thing ac- 
 complished? By the agency of such men as James Ma- 
 dison, and G eorge Mason, and by the votes of the entire de- 
 legation from Virginia, against the determined opposi- 
 tion of Governeur Morris, and those who concurred with 
 him. And yet, sir, the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. 
 B. H. Smith,) with this record before him, has not scru- 
 pled to represent those with whom 1 act, as occupying 
 the position, and advocating the doctrines of Governeur 
 Morris in the convention that framed the federal consti- 
 tution, while he claims to stand on the same platform 
 with Madison, and with Mason ! I heard these remarks, 
 I confess, with profound amazement. I will not detain 
 the committee by any further notice of them, having 
 said' enough, 1 trust to show how utterly unsupported 
 they are by the recorded facts. 
 
 The foregoing, however, are not the only portions of 
 the debates and proceedings of the convention of 
 1787, to which I deem it proper to call the attention of 
 ibis committee. The entire clause with respect to rep 
 resentation in the house of representatives, as originally 
 ad< pted, will be found at page 1107, and is in these 
 words : 
 
 " Resolved, That in the original formation of the le- 
 gislature of the United States, the first brauch thereof 
 shall consist of sixty five members, of which number 
 New Hampshire shall send 3 ; Massachusetts 8 ; Rhode 
 Island 1 ; Connecticut 5 ; New York 6 ; New Jersey 4 ; 
 Pennsylvania 8; Delaware 1; Maryland 6; Virginia 
 •10; North Carolina 5; South Carolina 5 ; Georgia 3. 
 But as the present situation of the States may probably 
 alter in the number of their inhabitants, the legislature 
 of the United States shall be authorized, from time to 
 time, to apportion the number of representatives, and 
 in case any of the States shall hereafter be divided, or 
 enlarged by addition of territory, or any two or more 
 States united, or any new States created within the 
 limits of the United States, the legislature of the Uni- 
 ted States shall possess authority to reguUte the num- 
 ber of representatives in any of the feregoing cases, 
 upon the principle of their number of inhabitants, ac- 
 cording to the provisions hereafter mentioned : provided 
 always, that representation ought to be proportioned accord- 
 ing to direct taxation. And in order to ascertain the al- 
 teration in the direct taxation, which may be required 
 from time to time by the changes in the relative circum- 
 stances of the States. 
 
 " Resolved, That a census be taken within six years 
 from the first meeting of the legislature of the United 
 States, and once within the term of every ten years af- 
 
 terwards, of all the inhabitants of the United States, 
 in the manner, and, according to the ratio, recommended 
 by Congress in their resolution of the eighteenth and 
 of April, 1783 ; and that the legislature of the United 
 States^shall proportion the direct taxation' accordingly." 
 
 (The ratio recommended by Congress in 1783, being 
 the free inhabitants, and three-fifths of the slaves — in 
 other words, the federal number.) In this form the en- 
 tire clause was referred to the committee of detail— 
 and that portion of it which relates to future apportion- 
 ments of representation, was reported back by them, 
 as follows : 
 
 Sec. 4. As the proportions of members in different 
 States will alter from time to time ; as some of the 
 States may hereafter be divided ; as others may be en- 
 larged by addition of territory ; as two or more States 
 may be united; as new States will be erected within 
 the limits of the United States, the legislature shall in 
 each of these cases, regulate the number of representa- 
 tives by the number of inhabitants, (according to the 
 provisions hereinafter made,) at the rate of one for every 
 forty thousand. 
 
 " The provisions hereinafter made " are contained in 
 the third section of the sixth article, (page 1233,) which 
 is in these words : 
 
 " The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated 
 by the whole number of white and other free citizens 
 and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, includ- 
 ing those bound to servitude for a term of years, and 
 three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in 
 the foregoing description, (except Indians not paying 
 taxes.") 
 
 When this report of the committee of detail came up 
 for consideration, the words " according to the provi- 
 sions hereinafter made" were stricken out, and the 
 words " according to the rule hereafter to be provided 
 for direct taxation" inserted, so as to make the whole 
 sentence read : " Shall regulate the number of repre- 
 sentatives by the number of inhabitants, according to 
 the rule hereafter to be provided for direct taxation ; thus 
 again, in terms, basing representation on taxation, and 
 regulating both by a common standard. (Page 1261.) 
 And then Mr. Governeur Morris moved still further to 
 amend by inserting the word "free" before the word 
 " inhabitants," so as to base representation neither upon 
 taxation, nor upon the total population as a measure of 
 taxation, nor upon the federal numbers as such mea- 
 sure, but upon the free inhabitants only ; thus pre- 
 senting in that convention, a question very similar to, 
 if not identical with that which has been discussed in 
 this, and sustaining his proposition by arguments which 
 I shall not detain this committee by quoting, but which, 
 I regret to say, are not altogether dissimilar to some 
 that have been urged on this floor in the course of this 
 discussion by some of those with whom the gentleman 
 from Kanawha r. Smith) acts, if not by that gentle- 
 man himself. On the other hand, Mr. Sherman said that 
 "he did not regard the admission of negroes into the 
 "ratio of representation as liable to such insuperable 
 " objections. It was the freemen of the southern fi'ates 
 " who were in fact to be represented according to the taxes 
 "paid by them, and the negroes are only included in 
 " the estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the 
 " matter." 
 
 The amendment of Governeur Morris was rejected by 
 a vote of ten to one, all the States except New Jersey 
 voting in the negative. Aid the clause was finally 
 adopted as it now stands in the constitution of the United 
 States, regulating representation and taxation by the 
 common ratio of federal numbers, and thus proportion- 
 ing them directly the one to the other. 
 
 I stand then upon the principles of the federal con- 
 stitution, when I insist that representation shall be pro- 
 portioned to taxation ; when I claim the practical ap- 
 plicition of the great truth, that it is of the essence of 
 free government that taxation and representation shall 
 go hand in hand, and that he who lays the tax .shall be 
 not constructively, or theoretically, or nominally, but 
 
15 
 
 practically, and substantially, and directly responsible 
 to him -who pays it. I stand upon the principles of 
 the federal constitution, and I vouch the declarations 
 an I the acts of the patriots and sages who framed that 
 sacred instrument (esto perpetua) — when I claim pro- 
 tection to property, and protection through representation. 
 This is the precedent to which the venerable John 
 Marshall referred in 1829-30, as sustaining the position 
 he occupied then, and we occupy now — ' k a precedent,'' 
 said he, " given us by the wisest and truest patriots 
 ever assembled." Sir, I too claim the benefit of this 
 precedent, and I put it to those gentlemen who have 
 denounced the mixed basis in the unmeasured terms 
 that have been applied to it on this floor, to say whether 
 they are prepared to maintain that the constitution of 
 the United States is, to use a somewhat favorite phrase 
 with them, " an aristocracy in disguise r" 
 
 Is that their opinion of the constitution of the United 
 States, and are they prepared to avow it i And if they 
 are not, upon what principle is it to be maintained that 
 there is no aristocracy, nothing anti-republican, in bas- 
 ing representation in the national legislature on taxa- 
 tion alone, but that it is rank aristocracy to base repre- 
 sentation in the State legislature on taxation and white 
 population combined ? Is the same principle altogether 
 republican in the federal government, and utterly anti- 
 republican when applied in a mitigated form to the 
 State government ? Or are we to be told that the gov- 
 ernment of the United States is not " an aristocracy in 
 disguise," but simply a republican government based 
 upon anti-republican principles 1 Sir, I may be wrong — 
 very wrong; but I must be pardoned for saying that I 
 would much sooner take my ideas of republican govern- 
 ment and republican principles from the men who 
 achieved the independence of their country and framed 
 the constitution of these United States, than from any 
 of the modern lights that have been so bounteously 
 shed upon our path. 
 
 Now, let us suppose we were in the position in which 
 our forefathers stood in 1787 ; that we were about now, 
 for the first time, to unite the two sections of the State 
 together into one government; that we come here, men 
 from the east of the Blue Ridge and men from the west 
 of the Blue Ridge, and we propose to form an united 
 government. "Well, we of the east say to you of the 
 west : " We will organize this government so that with 
 respect to the executive department it shall be under 
 your entire control ; and as respects the legislative de- 
 partment, inasmuch as we have much the larger propor- 
 tion of property, and pay much the larger proportion of 
 taxes, as our property exceeds yours by some two hun- 
 dred or two hundred and fifty millions of dollars, and 
 our taxes are to yours in the proportion of more than 
 two to one; and even in respect to population, while 
 your white population exceeds ours by some 93,000, our 
 total population exceeds yours by some 292,000 stand- 
 ing, I say, in this position we propose to you not as our 
 fathers did to our northern brethren — to base represen- 
 tation in the legislature, or the revenue raising branch of 
 it, on taxation alone, and to adopt eitner the total popu- 
 lation, or the federal number as the measure of taxation 
 and the standard of representation, but we propose to 
 you to base representation in equal proportions on your 
 white population and on our taxation ; or to speak more 
 accurately, on the white population of which you have 
 the majority, and on taxes of which we pay, and must 
 continue to pay, much the greater proportion. In other 
 wore s we tender you the "mixed basis" of population 
 and taxation. 
 
 Now, I ask if a proposition of this kind were made 
 under the circumstances I have supposed, are you pre- 
 pared to say that you could not accept it without "per- 
 sonal and political degradation ?" If you are prepared 
 to say that, I ask you in what position do you place 
 your fore-fathers and the fore-fathers of your northern 
 brethren, when they formed that constitution to which 
 we are indebted for so large a share of the blessings we 
 enjoy, and which is destined, I trust, to transmit those 
 
 blessings to our latest posterity ? Are you prepared to 
 say, that in the framing of that great instrument, con- 
 cessions were made that we had no right to exact, and 
 that the very compromises which lie at the foundation of 
 our federal Union, without which it never could have 
 been formed, and in the absence of which it would not 
 now stand for a day or an bom - , involve personal and 
 political degradation ? Surely no one will be hardy 
 enough to affirm this. And if there was no degradation 
 for northern men to unite with their southern brethren 
 in a government in which representation is based upon 
 taxation alone in the tax-laying department of the gov- 
 ernment, I ask how can it be degrading to western men 
 now to unite with their eastern brethren in a govern- 
 ment in which representation in the same department 
 is to be based upon your white population and our 
 taxation combined? Why, of whom did our fathers 
 make this demand, and when was it made ? It was 
 made when they had but just passed through the ordeal 
 of the revolution ; and made not of aliens and strangers, 
 but of comrades and brethren, of those with whom they 
 had stood side by side and shoulder to shoulder in that 
 most unequal contest ; with whom they had shared the 
 toils of the winter's march, and the perils of ' the battle 
 field. Your fathers and our fathers thought it no de- 
 gradation to demand of their northern brethren for their 
 protection, guaranties similar to those which we ask of 
 you for our protection. They demanded that represen- 
 tation should be proportioned to taxation ; that proper- 
 ty should be protected, and protected through repre- 
 sentation ; protected by the most effectual of "ail guar- 
 anties — the power to protect itself. 
 
 The men of whom those guaranties were sought were 
 bound to them by every tie that can bind man to man. 
 They were those who had but just pledged their lives, 
 their fortunes, and their sacred honor to maintain the in- 
 dependence of their country/and nobly had they re- 
 deemed the pledge. They did not therefore, and could 
 not distrust them. And yet, they sought guaranties 
 at their hands, and those guaranties were accorded 
 to them — accorded without degradation on the part of 
 those who sought or those who gave them. ISTo man 
 wiil say so — no man will venture,by such a charge to 
 asperse the memory of the illustrious dead. It is idle 
 then — it is worse than idle, to talk about personal and 
 political degradation being involved in a question of this 
 kind. It is at war with the whole history of the coun- 
 try — at war with everything which tends to make and 
 keep us united, prosperous and happy. Strike that pro- 
 vision out of the federal constitution — discard taxation 
 as an element of representation — declare that property 
 shall no longer be protected, and protected by and 
 through representation — organize your national as you 
 proposed to organize your State legislature, on the ba- 
 sis of white population alone, and how long would this 
 Union last ? And is this the time and these the cir- 
 cumstances, under which southern men are to be called 
 upon to enter on this mad crusade against the compro- 
 mises of the constitution — the principles and practices 
 of our forefathers — and to denounce, as applied to our- 
 selves, the very principle to which we are indebted for 
 nearly one-third of the representation we enjoy in the 
 legislature of the Union ? But this is a subject on 
 which I forbear to dwell. It is one on which 1 cannot 
 and will not trust myself. 
 
 But where is this argument of epithet, which more 
 than any other, as I solemnly believe, has had its effect, 
 both in and out of this hall — this denunciation of the 
 mixed basis, under the idea of its involving a principle 
 degrading to the freemen of the west — where, I ask, is 
 it to stop, and whither is it to carry those who use it ? 
 Because forsooth, under the mixed basis, those counties on 
 both sides of the Blue Ridge, which happen to pay a larger 
 amount of taxes, and to contain a smaller number of white 
 people, are made equal in their representation with those 
 counties which are paying a much larger amount of taxes, 
 have a smaller white population — this we are told is de- 
 gradation. It is a degradation for a gentleman to stand 
 
16 
 
 on the floor of the house of delegates, representing nine 
 thousand white persons, or voters if you please, by the 
 side of one who represents but three or tour thousand 
 voters. Now, 1 have already shown under your own fa- 
 vorite white basis the very same inequalities exist. 
 
 I have shown that by your own proposition B, 
 you give to some three thousand people in the 
 couuty of Morgan, West of the Blue Ridge, the 
 same representation that is allowed to upwards of nine 
 thousand in the city of Norfolk, east of the Ridge ; and 
 your whole apportionment abounds with similar viola- 
 tions of the principle you profess to hold so sacred. Sir, 
 this whole idea is founded on fallacy — a gross and pal- 
 pable fallacy. You cannot so organize the government 
 of this State ; you cannot organize any republican rep- 
 resentative government for a people situated as we are, 
 upon any basis you may choose to adopt, so that the 
 vote of one man, according to your own favorite theory, 
 shall avail as much as that of any other. And because 
 we do not choose to carry out this impracticable dogma, 
 or rather to profess to carry it out while, in truth, we 
 are violating it every step we take, it is said that we 
 are degrading our western brethren. But where, I ask 
 again, is this argument to stop ? If you are degraded 
 by standing here upon the floor of the house of dele- 
 gates, by the side of your eastern brethren, be- 
 cause of our having a smaller white population, while 
 we have a larger total population than you ; I say if 
 you are thus degraded in your own State legislature, 
 how can it be contended that you are less degraded by 
 occupying a similar position in the legislature of the 
 Union ? How far then is this argument to go ? "Will 
 you refuse to sit side by side with eastern delegates 
 in the State legislature, because they represent a smal- 
 ler white population thau you, and yet retain your pre- 
 sent position in congress ? I know that the present con- 
 stitution contains a provision by which the representa- 
 tion in congress is required to be proportioned amongst 
 different counties and election districts of the State ac- 
 cording to the federal and not according to the white 
 population of those counties and districts. I know too 
 that the provision thus engrafted in our present consti- 
 tution was made a part of proposition A, (the mixed 
 basis report,) and was not embraced in proportion B, 
 (the suffrage basis report,) though, I believe, it is not : 
 proposed by western gentlemen to strike out that 
 
 Eart of proposition A. But, if I am not mistaken, it has 
 een very broadly intimated on this floor, I think, by : 
 the gentleman from Kanawha, (Mr. B. H. Smith,) and I i 
 know it has been said elsewhere, and under other circum- ; 
 stances, that this right to slave representation ; this ] 
 power whieh the State gets in her congressional repre- < 
 sentation by the application of federal numbers, (to 1 
 which, by the way, we are indebted for nearly five rep- i 
 resentatives out of the fifteen assigned us,) it has been » 
 maintained, I say, that this power was a State acquisi- i 
 tion, and like the literary fund should be apportioned - 
 throughout the State, not according to the federal, but ! 
 according to the white population of the different coun- ' 
 ties, cities and election districts of the State. That, sir, < 
 is no new proposition. It was broached long ago, and 1 
 among others by no less distinguished a man than Philip ] 
 Doddridge, and the effect of it at this time would be just i 
 to reverse the position of eastern and western Virgi- t 
 nia in respect to their representation in congress; and < 
 instead of nine reprsentatives east of the Blue Ridge to < 
 six west of it, (as we now have) to make it, nine west to 1 
 six east ; in other words, to take the representation to ( 
 which we are entitled on account of our slave popula- 1 
 tion from that portion of the State where the slaves ( 
 are, and give it to that portion where the slaves are not ; ( 
 take it from those who own slaves and give it to those 1 
 who do not own them. I may, and doubtless I shall, be \ 
 told that you do not propose to do this thing; that you r 
 do not propose to strike out this provision of the pre- c 
 sent constitution, but are willing to retain it precisely ^ 
 as it stands. Sir, I desire to do injustice to no one, least e 
 of all to those for whom, individually and collectively, f 
 
 e I entertain the sentiments I feel towards western gen- 
 e tlemen on this floor. I am willing, therefore, to g ve 
 I all credit to their professed intentions on this subject, 
 and to concede, if you please that neither they nor the 
 people they represent have any purpose at this, time to 
 make any change in this respect. But I cannot shut my 
 3 eyes to the fact that you propose to organize the State 
 3 legislature on the basis of the white population alone, 
 3 and that you propose to do this upon principles, and 
 1 under the influence of appeals to popular feeling, which 
 - may eventually carry you much beyond that point. ' I 
 , cannot forget that the doctrine to which I have advert- 
 
 ■ ed has already had, and, if * mistake not, still has dis- 
 ; tinguished advocates both in and out of this body ; and 
 
 ■ that it has happened and may happen again, even with 
 , the best of us, that those who feel power forget right ; 
 
 nor can I wink so hard as not to see that when you 
 , shall have organized your State legislature on the basis 
 i of the white population alone, you put it in the power 
 , of those representing a majority of that population, at 
 i any moment to call a new convention, and to expunge 
 from the constitution any provision which may stand in 
 the way of the enjoyment by them of what that majori- 
 ty may believe to be their just and equal representa- 
 tion as well in the national as in the State legislature. 
 Supposing, therefore, this clause to be inserted in the 
 constitution we are about to form, and, at the same 
 time, the State legislature to be organized on 
 the white basis, is it not apparent that the question 
 whether this clause shall stand or not will depend en- 
 tirely upon the views which the western people or their 
 representatives may take of this subject hereafter? 
 Should they change the views we are told they now 
 entertain'; should they believe that the same principle 
 applies with equal force to the federal as to the State 
 legislature ; should they concur with Philip Doddridge 
 and other distinguished western men that this is but a 
 State acquisition to be distributed, like the literary fund, 
 throughout the State, acccording to the white popula- 
 tion, what, I ask, under these circumstances, is to pre- 
 vent them calling another convention for the purpose 
 of expunging the obnoxious proposition from the con- 
 stitution t Are we to be told that the Valley will pro- 
 tect us; that we are to rely upon the slaveholding 
 interest in the Valley for protection ? Sir, has it ever 
 protected us? Does it protect us now? Looking to 
 the course of the delegation from the Valley on this 
 floor, I apprehend that those who think and act with me 
 may well be pardoned for being somewhat skeptical as 
 to support from that quarter. But concede that they 
 have the will to protect us, will they have the power to 
 do so ? Sir, is this committee aware that, according to 
 the present ratio of increase in the course of five-and- 
 twenty years, a majority of the whole white population 
 of the State will be found west of the Alleghany moun- 
 tains? — in that region of the State which, of the 
 474,591 slaves now within its limits, contains but 
 24,436 ? And then the Valley as well as fiedmont, and 
 Tidewater, the only sections of the State in which any 
 considerable proportion of the slave population is found, 
 will be placed on a position in which the legislative 
 power will be vested almost exclusively in that section 
 in which slave property scarcely exists at all. Can the 
 slaveholding interest of the Valley protect us then ? 
 Can they protect themselves ? These, sir, are pregnant 
 questions, on the answer to which gentlemen would, per- 
 haps, do well to ponder. But let it be conceded that this 
 clause will not only be inserted now, but no attempt 
 will be made to expunge it hereafter. Are we certain, 
 can we be certain, that in apportioning representation in 
 congress regard will always be had to it ? Do we not 
 know that it has been maintained, and maintained too 
 by leading men, that representation in Congress is a 
 matter over which the State convention and the State 
 constitution has no control ; a matter in respect to which 
 we cannot limit or control the State legislature in the 
 exercise of the power expressly conferred on it by the 
 fourth section of the first article of the constitution of 
 
17 
 
 the United States which declares that, " the times, 
 places and manner of holding elections for senators 
 and representatives shall be prescribed in each State 
 by the legislature thereof? ' And that when, therefore, 
 we have constituted a State legislature, we have given 
 it being and a capacity to receive this grant of power; 
 but th# grant is not from us, but another ; and the ex- 
 tent of the power cannot be regulated by us, but must 
 be regulated only by the instrument that confers it. 
 Now, sir, I by no means concur in this view or acknow- 
 ledge the f.^rre of this argument. I regard it as a here- 
 sy, and utterly repudiate it, bat I should be blind to all 
 the lessons of experience if I did not know that argu- 
 ments weaker than this have been found quite sufficient 
 for those who would claim or conquer power. Nor can I 
 be insensible to another consideration, and that is that 
 this very view which I regard as unsound and untenable 
 has found distinguished advocates *rnong western gen- 
 tlemen, and that too in their official character as the 
 representatives of the western people. Why, sir, what 
 is the history of the very clause we are now considering, 
 and uuder what circumstances, and by what vote was 
 it inserted in the present constitution ? (for it formed no 
 part of the constitution of 1776, and was inserted for 
 the first time into that of 1829-30.) By reference to 
 page 857 of the debates of the convention of 1829-30, 
 the committee will find that this clause, precisely as it 
 now stands, was offered by Judge Green, and oppos- 
 ed by Mr. Summers, (the late Judge Summers, a dele- 
 gate from Kanawha district, and a leading western 
 member of the last convention.) And on what ground 
 did he oppose it ? Let him answer for himself. I 
 quote his own words : " Mr. Summers explained the 
 reasons why he should vote against the amendment ; 
 not that he was opposed to its principle, but because it 
 was unnecessary and improper to regulate by constitution 
 any of the powers or duties devolved on the legislature 
 by the constitution of the United States. Under that 
 aut iority the general assembly had for forty years wisely 
 and satisfactorily exercised the discretion confided to 
 them, and he thought it could not be abridged or restrain- 
 ed by any act of the convention." 
 
 Here then is the position expressly taken in the 
 former Convention by as leading a member as the late 
 Judge Summers, that he was opposed to the in- 
 sertion of this clause into the constitution upon the 
 ground that it was a matter with which the Convention 
 had nothing to do, because the power of the legislature 
 over this subject could not, to use his own language, 
 " be abridged or restrained by any act of the Convention, ' 
 and therefore, the provision itself was a nullity. On this 
 ground he voted against its insertion. Nor did he stand 
 alone, for thirty -four members voted with him, and 
 there were in the last Convention but thirty-six members 
 west of the Blue Ridge. 
 
 Now, sir, I say again, organize your State legislature 
 on the basis of the white population — do this upon the 
 principle avowed and reiterated in every form and from 
 every quarter on this floor, that to organize it on any 
 other basis is degrading to the western people — in 
 volves in the language of gentlemen here, their " person- 
 al and political degradation and how long will it be 
 before those will be found who will be prepared to in- 
 sist that the same sort of degradation is involved in the 
 existing apportionment of your representation in con- 
 gress — how long will it be before the western people 
 will be appealed to to sustain theposition already assumed 
 by such men as Philip Doddridge and Lewis Summers, 
 and to disregard that provision which some of their 
 ablest and most distinguished champions have already 
 declared to be utterly nugatory ? And if they should 
 p'-ove not insensible to these appeals ; if the western 
 people should be induced to assume hereafter on this 
 question the position which nearly their whole delegation 
 occupied more than twenty years ago ; if, with the ma- 
 jority in both branches of the legislature, and believing 
 (as they may conscientiously believe) that they possess 
 under the federal constitution a control over this sub- 
 
 ject that cannot " be abridged or restrained by any act " 
 of this or any other State Convention, they should un- 
 dertake to apportion representation in congress accor- 
 ding to the white population of the State ; what I ask 
 in that event would be the position of eastern Virginia, 
 and what their remedy then ? What is the tribunal that 
 would have to decide upon the validity of such an ap- 
 portionment bill and the return of the members elected 
 under it? The house of representatives of the United 
 States — that northern — that anti-slavery — I had almost 
 said that free soil house — 1 will say that house in which 
 even now — even at this day, the free soil party holds 
 the balance of the power. And can slaveholers — can f he 
 slaveholding interest expect favor — nay, sir, can they 
 look for justice at the hands of such a tribunal as this? 
 Is that a body that would be apt to nullify a law of 
 tne State, and vacate the returns of members elected 
 under it in order to protect interests or vindicate rights, 
 in the protection and vindication of which the slave- 
 holder alone is concerned? Sir, no man is credulous — 
 is romantic enough, to believe any such thing and should 
 the case I have supposed ever occur, (and God grant it 
 never may, as I devoutly hope it never will) — there will 
 be no redress — no alternative, but submission or revo- 
 lution. Sir, let me not be misunderstood — I am far 
 fiom imputing to the western delegates or to the west- 
 ern people any present purpose or desire to apportion rep- 
 resentation in congress, otherwise than is provided for in 
 the existing constitution—I have already disclaimed 
 any such imputation, and I repeat the disclaimer. I be- 
 lieve the western sentiment on this subject is sound — 
 perfectly sound, and^l believe further, that if it shall ever 
 undergo a change, it will be due to the unhappy preva- 
 lence of principles and opinions, which I am this day en- 
 deavoring to combat. But I am here in the discharge of 
 a solemn duty, and woe be to me and to mine if I do not 
 strive at least to discharge it faithfully, and with a 
 single eye to the maintainence of the rights and the 
 protection of the interests confided to any care. I am 
 here one of the representatives from a city in which the 
 colored population is equal or nearly equal to the white, 
 and from a district in which it exceeds the white ; and 
 I should be recreant to every sentiment of representa- 
 tive duty if I permitted considerations of any kind to 
 prevent me from examining this momentous question to 
 the extent of my poor ability in all its aspects, or from 
 endeavoring to exhibit to the Convention and to the 
 country all the consequences, direct or contingent, im- 
 mediate or remote, which may result from the establish- 
 ment of principles which we are called upon to engraft 
 for the first time on our constitution, as part and parcel 
 of the organic law. This duty 1 have endeavored to dis- 
 charge in such manner as not to give just cause of of- 
 fence to any ; but discharge it I will fearlessly and 
 faithfully, with whatever of ability it has pleased God 
 to endow me with. 
 
 But it is said that the m,ixed basis is a most aristo- 
 cratic basis, and that its effect is to give power to the 
 rich at the expense of the poor. That, we are told, is 
 the character of it. And gentlemen have said again 
 and again, if you insist upon this principle why do you 
 not carry it out, (as they are pleased to term it) to the 
 fountain head? Why do you not give representation to 
 property-holders in proportion to their property, in- 
 stead of apportioning it through the section where the 
 property holder may be ? My distinguished friend from 
 Kanawha (Mr. Summers) took that view, and the gen- 
 tleman from Augusta and other gentlemen took the 
 same view. Now, I will tell you why we do not do 
 this. We do not do it simply because the mixed basis 
 not only has not the effect which has been thus confi- 
 dently ascribed to it, but has precisely the opposite ef- 
 fect. So far from giving power to the rich man at the 
 expense of his poor neighbor — the effect of the mixed 
 basis is to give to the poor at the expense of the rich. 
 Its effect and operation being to apportion the power, 
 which is necessary to the protection of all in a district, 
 aot so that it will be wielded by the property-holder, 
 
18 
 
 but in such a manner that the poor man as well as the 
 rich man of the district, may, through his representa- 
 tive, protect himself from improper taxati©n by those 
 whose interests in respect to that matter are not identi- 
 cal with his own. 
 
 Whilst on this subject allow me to call the atten- 
 tion of the committee to the citation made by the gen- 
 tleman from Berkeley (Mr. Faulkner) from Mr. Burke's 
 rerlections on the French revolution. He says that Mr. 
 Burke was totally opposed to the mixed basis, and he 
 triumphantly invokes the authority of Mr. Burke to s js- 
 tain him in his opposition to it. This is all very well. 
 But did it never occur to the gentleman from Berkeley 
 to inquire why Mr. Burke was opposed to it? Avery 
 slight examination of the essay to which he has so ex- 
 ultingly referred, would, I think, have been quite suf- 
 ficient to satisfy him on this point. What then, was 
 the point of Mr. Burke's opposition to this scheme which 
 his authority is so triumphantly cited to condemn ? Did 
 he oppose it on the ground that it was e oo aristocratic ? 
 No, sir. But upon the slightly different ground that it 
 was not aristocratic enough — upon the ground that it 
 was democratic in its character and tendencies; and 
 being democratic, it did not give sufficient protec- 
 tion to the rich man. That is the express point of ob- 
 jection on the part of Mr. Burke, and the distinct ground 
 upon which his opinion rests. 
 
 i o show this, 1 beg leave to read the remarks of Mr. 
 Burke, referred to by the gentleman from Berkeley, 
 and a portion of those remarks which he did not read. 
 
 He read as follows, from page 194 : 
 
 " Let us suppose one man in a district (it is an easy 
 supposition) to contribute as much as a hundred of his 
 neighbors : Against these he has but one vote : if there 
 were but one representative for the mass, his neighbors 
 would out-vote him, by a hundred to one, for that single 
 representative. Bad enough. But amends are to be 
 made him. How? The distriet, in virtue of his wealth, 
 is to choose, say ten members, instead of one — that is 
 to say, by paying a very large contribution, he has the 
 happiness of being out-voted, a hundred to one, by those 
 not having property, for ten representatives, instead of 
 being out-voted exactly in the same proportion for a 
 single member. " 
 
 The gentleman read to this point and there he stop- 
 ped. . I will take leave to continue the quotation. 
 
 Mr. Burke proceeds : 
 
 " In truth, says he, instead of benefitting by this su- 
 perior quantity of representation, the rich man is sub- 
 jected to an additional hardship. The increase of rep- 
 resentation within his province sets up nine persons 
 more, and as many more than nine as there may be 
 democratic candidates, to cabal and intrigue, and to 
 flatter the people at his expense and to his oppression. 
 An interest is by this means held out to multitudes of the 
 inferior sort, in obtaining a salary of eighteen livres a 
 day (to them a vast object) besides the pleasure of a 
 residence in Paris, and their share in the governmentof 
 the kingdom. The more the objects of ambition are 
 multiplied and become democratic, just in that proportion 
 the rich are endangered. ' ' . 
 
 Here, then, you have the point of Mr. Burkes's objec- 
 tion to this aristocratic mixed basis, which gentlemen 
 tell us is to give power to the rich at the expense of the 
 poor, but by which, according to Mr. Burkes's view, 
 '* the objects of ambition are to be multiplied and be- 
 come democratic, and just in that proportion the rich 
 were to be endangered." The gentlemen are wel- 
 come to their authority, which I am under many obliga- 
 tions to the gentleman from Berkeley for having intro- 
 duced, (though he did not read the passage just quo- 
 ted,) and which I venture to commend to the special 
 attention of the gentleman from Kanawha and the gen- 
 tleman from Augusta; for if there has been any one idea 
 that has been harped upon on every side, and iterated 
 and reiterated in every form, it is tins utterly unfound- 
 ed — I had almost said this demagogical and ad captan- 
 dum argument, that the mixed basis was aristocratic 
 in its tendency, and that its tendency was to provide 
 
 for the rich at the expense of the poor. Now, I have 
 the authority quoted by the gentleman himself, to shew 
 that if power be given to a district by the mixed basis 
 to protect itself against taxation by another distri 't not 
 having the same interest with it," that power, instead 
 of being wielded by the rich, is given to and wielded 
 by the poor of the district, and it was because the 
 mixed basis had this effect that Mr. Burke, (whose opin- 
 ions were cert inly not of a particularly democratic or- 
 der,) was utterly opposed to it. He wanted something 
 more aristocratic. But the gentleman from Berkeley 
 (Mr Faulkner) says, the mixed basis will a' ord no 
 protection to property, because of the great extension 
 of the right of suffrage. Suppose he is right, how is 
 property to be protected under the same right of suf- 
 frage by the white basis ? And yet this is the protec- 
 tion he would accord to us. But, in truth, when that 
 gentleman maintains that the poor in a particular sec- 
 tion, according to this idea, are to be arrayed against 
 the rich, he forgets, totally forgets, that in the same 
 section of the State the poor and the rich have the 
 same interests. It is not the interest of the poor man 
 to send a delegate to the legislature who will vote away 
 either his money or that of his rich neighbor, for the 
 construction of works or the promotion of schemes that 
 are to benefit neither. But, when gentlemen tell us 
 that the mixed basis affords no protection to property, 
 because, under an extended right of suffrage, the poor 
 of a district may oppress the rich of the same district — 
 when they tell us this, do they propose to correct the 
 evil by restricting the right of suffrage ? By no means : 
 their remedy is, : to give us the same right of suffrage, 
 and the white basis along with it, and thus superadd to 
 the oppression which, (according to their theory,) the 
 poor of one district may inflict on the rich of the same 
 district — the additional burdens which the poor of one 
 section may impose upon both the rich and the poor of 
 another section. This is their mode of protecting prop- 
 erty by the white basis. You cannot rely upon your 
 neighbors with whom you are in constant and daily in- 
 tercourse — you cannot rely upon those whose interests 
 in the main are identical with your own, who have no 
 inducement or temptation to spend your money upon 
 works which, if worthless to you, must prove equally 
 valueless to themselves, and if they spend it on works 
 that are to benefit themselves, must, by that very ex- 
 penditure, and perhaps in a still greater degree, benefit 
 you. You cannot rely upon these people at all ; they 
 will be sure to oppress you. But you can rely with en- 
 tire confidence upon exactly the same class of voters 
 living one, two, or three hundred miles off, whom you 
 have never seen and never expect to see, and whose in- 
 terests are so far from being identical with your own, 
 that, perhaps, they can scarcely be so materially pro- 
 moted in any other way as by taking your money to im- 
 prove, not your property, but their own. I confess that 
 this is a proposition that, in my humble judgment, will 
 hardly bear to be stated. But we are to have guaran- 
 tees, and if the white basis and universal suffrage don't 
 protect us, the guarantees will. Now I do not mean to 
 go into the consideration of the value of any guarantees 
 in controlling the will of that majority which, we are 
 told by those who tender them, has the natural, inde- 
 feasible, and inalienable right of doing precisely what it 
 pleases to do. I will not inquire, " quis custodiet cus- 
 todes ? Who will guarantee the guarantors ? IS or will 
 I speculate as to the probable duration of any provis- 
 ions which may be expunged from the constitution by 
 the act of those whom they are designed to fetter. All 
 the views pertaining to this branch of the subject have 
 been presented by gentlemen who have preceded me, 
 and I should but weaken the force of what they have 
 so well said, by going over the ground they have so ful- 
 ly occupied. But let us look for a moment at these 
 vaunted guarantees, on which the gentleman from Berke- 
 ley seems to place implicit reliance, and see what they 
 are. What is the great guarantee tendered us by the 
 gentleman from Berkeley, to afford to eastern Virginia 
 
19 
 
 that protection which he concedes she is entitled to de- 
 mand against the improper exercise of the taxing pow- 
 er — rhat power ia respect to which I speak but the lan- 
 guage of the fathers of the Republic, when I say that 
 those who surrender it have nothing more to give. As 
 was truly said by John Randolph in the last Conven- 
 tion, "the richest man in Virginia, be that man who 
 he may, would make a good bargain to make you a 
 present of his estate, provided you gave him bond up- 
 on that estate allowing him to tax it as he pleases, and 
 to spend the money as he pleases." And if this be true 
 of individuals, why is it not true of communities or of 
 sections ? 
 
 But to return to the guarantee of the gentlemara from 
 Berkeley— his boast« d panacea for all the ills arising, 
 or that can arise, under the white basis, from the un- 
 limited exercise of the power of taxation and appro- 
 priation. Where is it to be found ? It is to be found, 
 he tells us, in the ad valorem tax. That is to be our gua- 
 rantee and safeguard ; and no small portion of the able 
 argument of the gentleman from Berkeley was devoted 
 to an attempted establishment of this proposition. 
 
 Now, sir, just look at this idea for a single moment. 
 I have shown you, (or rather my friend from Mecklen- 
 burg (Mr. Goode) has shown you, and I will not go 
 over his statements again,) that the excess of property 
 in the east over that of the west, in the matter of land, 
 is thirty-six millions of dollars, and in slave property, 
 one hundred and four millions of dollars ; which added 
 together, makes an excess of. one hundred and forty 
 millions of dollars in lands and slaves. That is the ex- 
 cess of property east of the Blue Ridge over property 
 west of the Blue Ridge in these items alone, to say 
 nothing of an excess of at least one hundred millions in 
 other subjects of property. Now you impose an ad va- 
 lorem tax, and by the imposition of that tax, for every 
 dollar you collect in the west you collect a dollar in 
 the east, and you collect, besides, the ad valorem tax, 
 whatever that maybe, on one hundred and forty or two 
 hundred and forty millions of dollars more, and then 
 you give to the west the unlimited power of spending 
 the whole amount (all that they contribute themselves, 
 and the much greater sum they collect from us,) precise- 
 ly as they please. And this is to be our guarantee 
 against taxation — this the protection the east is to get 
 under the combined operation of the of the ad valorem 
 tax and the white basis ! You confer the power, and 
 you offer at the same time the strongest temptation to 
 abuse it! You say, in effect, to people of the west, 
 lay what taxes you please, for under this system your 
 eastern brethren will not only pay dollar for dollar with 
 you. but they will pay the ad valorem tax on two hun 
 dred an forty millions of property besides ; and then 
 it will rest, not with them, but with you to appropriate 
 the whole as you shall think proper, and according to 
 your own views of propriety and justice. Sir, I have 
 as much confidence, fully as much, in the patriotism, 
 intelligence, and honesty of the western as of the east- 
 ern people. But I will not act on the principle of con- 
 ferring on any man, or set »f men, power which they 
 m ay abuse, and which they will be under constant temp- 
 tation to abuse. And I put it to the candor of western 
 gentlemen themselves to say, if we of the east are un- 
 reasonable when we decline to place ourselves, or those 
 whose interests are confided to our keeping, in the atti- 
 tude to which I have just referred ? Will you say that 
 by refusing to do so we are distrusting or degrading 
 you ? On the contrary, are you not degrading us, when 
 you ask us to place ourselves in that condition? Are 
 you not in fact asking us to give up to you that which 
 our fathers refused to surrender to the crowned head 
 of Great Britain — the power of deciding how much 
 money shall be raised, and where, and when, and how 
 it shall be expended, to be exercised by those who are 
 obliged to raise the money ? 
 
 But no ; the white basis is to be adopted, with this 
 most efficient guarantee (God save the mark !) of an ad 
 valorem tax ; and an alliance is to be formed between 
 
 the tide-water and the trans-Alleghany, and one of the 
 first articles in that treaty of alliance — one of the con- 
 ditions upon which we of the tide-water are to be ad- 
 mitted to its bent- fits — is, that we shall surrender ten 
 delegates to the west. The mixed basis gives us forty- 
 one, while the white basis gives but thirty-one, and the 
 ten members, making a difference of twenty votes, are 
 to be transferred to the west, so that when this alliance 
 is formed, it will be worth nothing to us, for the pow- 
 er is given up to the west by which whatever the 
 west thinks proper to do, they can do without the aid 
 of a single tide-water vote. Now, sir, as my friend 
 from Essex (Mr. M. R. H. Garnett) said the other 
 day, I trust that our western friends will not think that 
 we are wanting in due courtesy or deference to them, 
 when we say that however great may be our confidence 
 int heir ability to manage our affairs, still we areunder 
 what may, perhaps, be a very great delusion, (but yet 
 it is one I apprehend of which our people very general- 
 ly partake,) and that is, that we can manage our own 
 affairs just as well ourselves. I confess I do not see 
 why these ten delegates should not be retained by the 
 tide-water district, so that they may be able to decide 
 for themselves and their people in respect to the schemes 
 of improvement in which they may, or may not, be dis- 
 posed to unite with their trans-Alleghany brethren, in- 
 stead of transferring the whole jurisdiction over that sub- 
 ject to the other side of the mountains. And I say further 
 here in my place, as the representative of a tide-water 
 constituency, as one of the representatives from this 
 city and this district, that regarded as a question of ex- 
 pediency alone, throwing the question of principle al- 
 together out of view, it does seem to me to be the most 
 extraordinary of all possible delusions to maintain that 
 the interests of tide-water are to be promoted, the tide- 
 water cities built up, and commerce invited to our ports 
 by the adoption of this white basis. Why, sir, if you 
 adopt the white basis, what will be its effect at once? 
 You give to the counties lying west of the Blue Ridge 
 a majority of fourteen in the House and two in the 
 Senate, and that majority would have the entire con- 
 trol of the legislative department, with the power to 
 i raise and appropriate taxes, and to decide what roads 
 shall be made and how they shall be made, withoul the 
 aid of a single vote from Piedmont or the tide water. 
 Now, if this majority is given, am I to be regarded as 
 casting an imputation on the west when I say that with 
 a majority of fourteen delegates coming from the coun- 
 ties west of the Blue Ridge theie is no certainty — nay, 
 sir, there is the reverse of certainty — that such a direc- 
 tion will be given to the internal improvements of the 
 State, as to bring trade and travel to the tide water, 
 or to the cities of eastern Virginia ? Look, sir, to the 
 present condition of things, and to the position, the 
 commercial relations, the affinities, and the wants of 
 that section of the State to which you propose, by this 
 wnite basis, to transfer all legislative power. The west 
 consists of the valley and the trans-Alleghany, the 
 trar.s- Alleghany of the south-west, the central west, 
 and the nortli-west. Where does the trade of the north- 
 west go now? You have the Baltimore and the Ohio 
 railroad, which is to be extended to the city of Wheel- 
 ing. You have also a bill, passed at the last session in 
 spite of all the opposition that I and others could make 
 to it, for incorporating a company to make a road from 
 the Baltimore and Ohio railroad at Three Forks, in the 
 county of Taylor, to Parkersburg, thus giving the same 
 direction to another portion of the trade of the north- 
 west, and sending that too to Baltimore. 
 
 The north-west, then, already trades to Baltimore. 
 How is it with the central west and the south-west ? 
 You have a continuous line of railroad at this time from 
 Baltimore up the valley to Winchester ; and a company 
 has been incorporated, and is now engaged in making 
 another road from Alexandria through the Manasses 
 Gap to Harrisonburg, which will pass, at Strasburg, 
 within eighteen miles of the railroad from Baltimore to 
 Winchester. Now, sir, you have only to extend the 
 
20 
 
 Winchester road up the valley to Stauuton, and thence 
 by the way of Covington to Guyandotte, or extend the 
 Manasses Gap road in the same direction, and fill up 
 the gap of eighteen miles at Strasburgh, and you have 
 the central west, like the north-west, in direct commu- 
 nication with Baltimore, and that, too, by a railroad 
 every foot of which will lie in the Valley and the trans- 
 Alleghany country. And if you give to the delegates 
 coming from that section — that is, the Valley and the 
 trans- Alleghany — the absolute power of controlling the 
 finances, and moulding the internal improvement policy 
 of the State, can you suppose that they will not make 
 a rosd every foot of which will be in their own section, 
 and the money employed in making which will be ex 
 pended among themselves, even though that road when 
 made should bring them in direct communication with 
 Baltimore, instead of with Richmond or Norfolk? Can 
 you put any guarantee into the constitution against that ? 
 But this is not all. I have traced this Manassas Gap 
 road from Harrisonburg to Staunton, and from Staun- 
 ton to Covington; but it was, I think, only at the last 
 session of the legislature that a bill was introduced for 
 a railroad to run from Harrisonburg, by the way of 
 Staunton and Lexington, to Salem, in the county of 
 Roanoke, and connect there with the Tennessee rail- 
 road, and you have but to look at the map to see that 
 this road, too, passes right through the section of the 
 State to which you propose to transfer the whole politi- 
 cal power, and that you have but to make it to bring 
 the south-west, like the central and the north-west, in 
 direct communication with the city of Baltimore. 
 
 Now, I ask if it is not a very small compliment that 
 gentlemen pay to our intelligence, or to that of our con- 
 stituents, when, under pretext of building up the tide- 
 water cities, they propose to us to confer on the Valley 
 and trans- Alleghany country the entire legislative pow- 
 er of the State, with the power of making roads through 
 their own section which will take the whole trade and 
 travel to Baltimore ? Confer the power, and then the 
 practical question is, will the delegates coming from the 
 Valley and trans-Alleghany country be most likely to 
 make railroads, every foot of which will be in their own 
 portion of the State, to carry their produce to Baltimore, 
 or to make them in other portions of the State to bring 
 that same produce to Richmond or Norfolk ? With the 
 power to raise money in the east in the proportion of 
 two dollars to one, and to spend it in the west in the 
 proportion of three dollars to nothing, are we to be told 
 that this power will never be used by those to whom 
 we are asked to confide it ? Or, are we to be persuaded 
 that sucn are the superior advantages of our markets 
 that the western delegates, with the absolute power to 
 do in this respect precisely as they think proper, will 
 rather spend their money among us, to get to Richmond 
 and Norfolk, than spend our money among themselves 
 to get to Baltimore ? And this, too, when we know 
 that the north-west already trades to Baltimore, while 
 the extension of the railroad from Winchester to Staun 
 ton, and from Staunton by the way of Covington to the 
 Ohio on the one hand, and up the Valley to the Tennes- 
 see railroad at Salem, in the county of Roanoke, on the 
 other, will bring the central west and the south-west 
 in direct connection with the same city, thus tapping 
 the Central railroad at Staunton and the Tennessee 
 railroad at Salem, and carrying directly to Baltimore 
 that western trade and travel for which the tide-water 
 cities of Virginia have been so long struggling, and 
 which, we are told, is to build up a Manchester at Rich- 
 mond, and a Liverpool at Norfolk. To accomplish this 
 most disastrous result of carrying trade and travel away 
 from us, instead of bringing them to us, it is only neces- 
 eary to construct railroads, every foot of which will be 
 in the Valley and the trans-Alleghany country, and 
 every dollar employed in the construction of which will 
 be expended there ; and yet it is to that section of the 
 State that the tide-water people and the tide-water 
 cities are asked, by this white basis, to transfer the ab- 
 solute sway, and this, too, on grounds of expediency 
 
 and as a matter of interest ? I can comprehend the 
 position of the man who advocates the white or suffrage 
 basis on the ground of principle, however I may differ 
 with him — as I do, utterly and absolutely ; but as to 
 this argument of expediency, by which the tide water 
 people and the tide-water cities are to be induced to 
 give up their representation in the legislature and to 
 strip themselves of the power of voting their own money 
 to bring trade and travel to their own doors, in order 
 that other people may use that same money in building 
 roads to carry that same trade and travel somewhere 
 else, I confess that, in my humble judgment, it passeth 
 all understanding. 
 
 Sir, this thing cannot be done now, and why ? Not 
 because it has not been suggested — not because, even 
 now, it has not been tried — but because, under the pres- 
 ent apportionment of representation, the legislative 
 power is east of the Blue Ridge, because our western 
 friends must have money to make their roads, and we 
 of the east are not disposed to vote money to make roads 
 to carry the trade out of the State, although we have 
 voted and, I trust, will continue to vote it freely for 
 the purpose of building up Virginia, by bringing her 
 trade and the trade of the great west to her own cities 
 on the tide and on the ocean. That is the result of the 
 present distribution of legislative power — that the re- 
 sult of the apportionment of representation onthe mixed 
 basis. It is not that you cannot have internal improve- 
 ments, but those improvements must be such as shall 
 enlist both eastern and western support, improvements 
 which both the sections of the State must unite to car- 
 ry through ; and which are destined, when completed, 
 to retain our own and to bring foreign trade and travel 
 within our own borders, and thus to add to the wealth 
 and develop the resources of the whole State. 
 
 But if, under the pretext of advancing the interests of 
 tide-water, and building up Richmond, and Alexandria, 
 and Petersburg, and Norfolk, this transfer of legislative 
 power shall be made, then, indeed, may the t.-me come, 
 and that, I fear, at no distant day, when despite the re- 
 sistance of tide-water and of Piedmont against the vote 
 of every delegate east of the Blue Ridge, the whole in 
 ternal improvement policy of the State may be chang- 
 ed, and Virginia become the mere thoroughfare for a 
 trade and travel, the rich fruits of which she is never 
 destined to enjoy. Sir, it cannot be necessary to dwell 
 longer on this subject. I say, then, that upon grounds 
 both of principle and of expediency, I stand upon the 
 mixed basis; upon the basis on which eastern men stood 
 in the Convention of 1829, and successfully stood ; the 
 position on which Leigh, and Randolph, and Up ,j hur, 
 and Marshall, and their distinguished coadjutors then 
 stood, and which they sustained by arguments that will 
 be remembered and admired when this debate, and ev- 
 erything connected with it, shall, I fear, have sunk into 
 oblivion. 
 
 That, sir, was a body of men of whom Virginia might 
 well be proud — men who reared amidst the scenes of 
 the revolution, were animated by the spirit, imbued 
 with the principles, and ennobled by the virtues 
 that marked that glorious epoch, and who, having 
 earned the highest distinction in every department 
 of the public service, approached full of years and full 
 of honors to that the closing scene of a long and bril- 
 liant career. Though a mere boy at the time, I was 
 no inattentive attendant on the sessions of that august 
 body, and the impressions produced then, subsequent ob- 
 servation and reflection have tended only to strengthen 
 and to confirm. I recollect as well though it had oc- 
 curred yesterday, when in this very hall, (it had not 
 then passed under the hand of reform and been render- 
 ed, as I must be permitted to say I think it has, less fit 
 than before for the use of a deliberative body ; I re- 
 member, I say, as well as though the scene had occurred 
 but yesterday, when in this very hall John Randolph 
 rose to close the great debate on this very basis ques- 
 tion, and to vindicate against all the assaults that had 
 been made on it, that old constitution of 1776 which, 
 
21 
 
 said he in those peculiar tones that told with such dis- 
 tinctness on the ear, ''he had always been in the habit of 
 ''considering, with all its faults and failings, and with all 
 "the objections which practical men, not theorists and 
 "visionary speculators, have urged or could urge against 
 "it, as the very best constitution ; not for Japan, not for 
 "China, not for New England or for < Id England, but for 
 "this our ancient commonwealth of Virginia." We all 
 "know what was the impression produced on the popu- 
 lar mind by the discussion of the basis question in the 
 last convention. The seed then scattered broadcast 
 over the land took root, and have yielded an abundant 
 harvest. Those who doubted before, were convinced by 
 the views and arguments then urged wi h such conclu- 
 sive force ; the wavering were confirmed, the timid 
 were rebuked, the decided were strengthened, and east- 
 ern Virginia then took her position on this question and 
 has steadfastly adhered to it ever since. Gentlemen 
 tell us that the mixed basis principle cannot be sus- 
 tained, that it is fast giving away before the influence of 
 public sentiment and what they are pleased to term, 
 the progress of popular principles. I. have no doubt 
 gentlemen think this because they say it, but I appre- 
 hend it will be found that in this, as in many other cases, 
 the wish is father to the thought. We all know how 
 apt we are to believe that to be true which we wish to 
 be true. But what sir, are the facts, those stubborn 
 things with which, however reluctantly, we must some- 
 times grapple ? Prior to the meeting of the conven- 
 tion of 1829-30, the whole country had been agitated 
 for years on this subject, and the agitation had all 
 been on the white basis side Zealous missionaries 
 had traversed the State from one end to the other. 
 Meetings had been held and resolutions adopted in al 
 most every county. Conventions had assembled at 
 Scaunton, and various other points I believe throughout 
 the west, and the public mind had been excited and inflam- 
 ed by appeals of every kind against the gross inequality 
 of the then existing representation. Under these cir- 
 cumstances the convention of 1829-30 assembled and 
 how stood parties in that body? Out of the sixty dele- 
 gates from the counties east of the Blue Ridge, there 
 were originally fifteen white basis men One of these, 
 Gen. Taylor, resigned his seat under instructions, an- 
 othfr (Dr. Read of Northampton) died, and the remain- 
 ing thirteen voted with the thirty-six western delegates 
 against Judge Green's amendment (the mixed basis) so 
 that the vote on that proposition in committee of the 
 whole stood 47 ayes to 49 nays. 
 
 [I here take occasion to correct the statement that 
 Mr. Midison was among the forty-nine. He voted in 
 the affirmative and not in the negative, as will appear 
 by reference to the vote taken the next day on the pro- 
 position to base representation on federal numbers, on 
 which, as on the mixed basis, the vote stood forty- 
 seven to forty-nine, and among the forty-seven ayes you 
 find the name of James Madison.] 
 
 But, sir, as this was the first triumph achieved by the 
 white basis party in that convention, so it was their 
 last. The mixed basis was for the time defeated, but 
 the white basis, (I say the white basis for as compared 
 with that the suffrage basis, which is the basis now, was 
 utterly repudiated by western gentlemen then,) the white 
 basis 1 say was not carried, and was never destined to 
 be carried in that convention. The discussion on the 
 basis of representation went forth to the country and 
 produced upon the popular mind the impression due to 
 its commanding ability ; meetings were held, public 
 sentiment re-acted and made itself known in tones that 
 could not but be heard and heeded by those to whom they 
 were addressed. Under its influence one of the dele- 
 gates from the Albemarle district who had voted with 
 the west in committee of the whole on Judge Green's 
 amendment, declined to go further and brought forward 
 a proposition, of hie own, and on two succeeding trials of 
 strength, the vote stood forty-eight to forty-eight, and 
 the final result was the adoption substantially of Mr. 
 Gordon's plan and its insertion into the present constitu- 
 
 tion. That plan, it is true, was not in terms the mixed 
 basis ; but, sir, our western friends will tell you, as they 
 have in effect told you again and again, that it was 
 still further from being the white basis. They know 
 as well as we do that call it by which name you will 
 the scheme of representation adopted by the convention 
 of 1829- 30 gave to the east all that she sought to ob- 
 tain by the mixed basis, all that she struggled foi then, 
 and all that she struggles for now. It gave her protec- 
 tion to property and protection through representation, 
 and it gives her now, (as we all know,) a majority in the 
 legislature greater by nearly one-half, than according 
 to the present population and taxation of the State 
 she would be entitled to on the mixed basis itself. That 
 was the practical result of the struggle on this question 
 in the convention of 1829-30. Well, sir, twenty years 
 have rolled around during which this basis question has 
 been once and again before your State legislature. 
 Another convention has been called, and we are here in 
 obedience to that summons. And on what principle is 
 this convention organized ? On the very principle that 
 has been so bitterly denounced for weeks and months 
 past, and in respect to which the argument of epithet 
 at least, has been exhausted, on the mixed basis of white 
 population and taxation equally combined. This, sir, is 
 the basis on which the people of Virginia by a majority 
 of more than 25,000 votes have declared that this Con- 
 vention shall be organized, this the basis on which we 
 hold our seats here and are clothed with the high and 
 responsible trust of proposing to those who sent us " a 
 new constitution or alterations anil amendments to the 
 existing constitution." An 1 how stand parties here on 
 this basis question, or at least how were they under- 
 stood to stand according to the avowed opinions and 
 principles of gentlemen when the convention met ? We 
 have seen that in the former convention out of the sixty 
 delegates from the counties east of the Blue Ridge, fif- 
 teen were white basis men, or just one-fourth of the 
 whole, while in this Convention out of the seventy-six 
 delegates from these same counties east of the Blue 
 Ridge there are but four white basis men, or just one- 
 nineteenth of the whole. Fifteen out of sixty in the 
 convention of 1829-30, and four out of seventy six in 
 the convention of 1850-'51! Is thist he evidence to which 
 gentlemen would appeal to show the rapid progre&s of 
 the white basis principle in eastern Virginia in the last 
 twenty years? I speak only of eastern Virginia be- 
 cause our friends on the other side had all the delegates 
 west of the Blue Ridge in 1829, and they will not claim 
 more than all now. But how, I ask, do the unquestion- 
 ed and unquestionable facts to which I have referred 
 tally with the assertion so often and so confidently 
 made that the mixed basis can no longer be sustained, 
 that it stands condemned by public sentiment and is 
 fast losing ground in popular estimation ? Sir, our 
 friends on the other side, (I am free to admit,) have 
 many advantages over us in this debate. They abound 
 in eloquent invective, in glowing declamation in im- 
 passioned appeals to the feelings, not to say the preju- 
 dices and passions of those they address. They "are 
 passing rich in that same heavenly speech and spend it 
 at their pleasure." But I must be pardoned for saying 
 in all respect and kindness, that in my humble opinion, 
 they rarely come into contact with one of those stub- 
 born things called facts, without incurring great risk, 
 (to use a homely phrase,) of breaking their shins over it. 
 
 The east then went into the convention of 1829-'30 
 with a majority against her. She comes into this 
 convention, according to the avowed opinions and ex- 
 press pledges of the members composing it, with a ma- 
 jority of from seven to nine in her favor. 
 
 And shall eastern men with the example of their fa- 
 thers before them, shall we, coming from the same peo- 
 ple, representing the same interests, and charged with 
 the same high responsibilities as they, abandon the 
 principles which they so triumphantly vindicated, or 
 meanly shrink from the position they so gallantly main- 
 tained? The west has ' sent to this body champions 
 
22 
 
 worthy of any cause — men -who have proved themselves 
 the worthy successors of Doddridge and of Johnson — 
 and the representatives from the east will not, I tivst. 
 be found to be altogether the degenerate sons of noble 
 sires." If we cannot aspire to their eloquence, we may 
 at least imitate their example ; if our lips are not 
 touched, like theirs, with the honey of persuasion — if we 
 cannot, as they did, command the public ear and sway 
 the public mind — we can at least maintain the princi 
 pies they held dear, and stand by, and if need be, fall 
 with them. Let it not be then I appeal to eastern gen- 
 tleman one and all, let it rtot be that those who sent us 
 here shall have cause to curse the hour they confided their 
 interests to our care, and to say to our shame and to 
 our confusion, that while in our fathers' hands a mi- 
 nority swelled to a majority, in ours a majority has 
 dwindled into a minority. 
 
 My friend from Kanawha, (Mr. Summers,) in die 
 course of his remarks was pleased, with that power 
 of eloquence which he possesses in so eminent a degree, 
 to draw a picture in which he represented himself as 
 returning to his people, and the people making inqui- 
 ries of him in respect to his stewardship, and the re- 
 sponse he would give if the mixed basis were adopted. 
 I wish I had the same graphic power to draw the coun- 
 terpart of that picture, to draw the picture of an eastern 
 man who goes back to his constituency with this white 
 basis, either in name or in substance, fixed upon them 
 by any act or omission of his ? What will they say ? 
 Will they not tell him, " We agreed to go with our 
 western brethren into Convention, upon a basis that 
 preserved to us that degree of representative power 
 which we thought essential to the protection of our in- 
 terests, for the purpose of making what we considered 
 necessary and proper reforms. We were willing to 
 make the necessary and proper reforms ; we were will- 
 ing to infuse a greater degree of popular vigor 
 into the government, to reorganize the judiciary and 
 the county court system to extend the right of suf- 
 frage, to reorganize the executive, to make provisions 
 for a board of public works ; but we sent you there 
 with your course upon this one question of the basis of 
 representation, distinctly marked out by opinions the 
 most decided and pledges the most solemn, and we call 
 upon you to say how comes it that these opinions have 
 not be m maintained, that these pledges have not been 
 redeemed? 
 
 Sir. I envy not the man who in answer to a demand 
 like this, shall be forced to admit that by his agency, 
 active or \ assive — by his supineuess or faint heartness — 
 or something perhaps worse than either — a constitution 
 — not that sir, which may be ena ted to-day and repeal- 
 ed to-morrow, but an orgauic law to last, it may be, for 
 generations and generations, is to be forced upon a con- 
 fiding constituency, w'.-ich in one of its provisions, and 
 that too the most important of the whole, is ti± i very 
 reverse of what, they believed a d had every reason to 
 believe, when they absented to the call of this Conven- 
 tion, would 1 ave been submitted to the people of Vir- 
 ginia for their ratification or rejection. 
 
 If in the case supposed by my friend from Kanawha, 
 the delegate from the west, who like that gentleman 
 has stood by his principl ts, and done all that human 
 power could do to render them triumphant if in such 
 a case such a man sh dl return to his constituents with 
 tie feelings my friend has so eloquently portrayed, 
 what, I ask him, must be the feelings of that represen- 
 tative from the Cast who has not s'ood by his princi- 
 ples, but- has hasely abandoned, surrendered, or compro- 
 mised them away ? How will he face an indignant 
 and outraged constituency, or fl e from the reproaches 
 of a conscience that should pursue him with a whip of 
 scorpions, and lash him to a dishonored grave? T can 
 speak at least for one eastern delegate, nay, sir, I feel 
 that I can speak for many — I would fain hope I might 
 speak for all — when I say that come weal come wo, we 
 will endeavor to walk without faltering in what we 
 solemnly believe to be the plain path of honor and of 
 
 Idutv — we will redeem the pledges under which we 
 were elected, and stand by the principles we were 
 sent here to maintain. 
 
 Gentlemen talk about compromise, about the spirit of 
 compromise and the n scessity for compromise. Why, 
 sir, what is the mixed basis itself but a compromise? 
 And in the opinion of some of the wisest statesmen and 
 purest patriots that ever lived, a fair and just aud equal 
 compromise between the extremes of the white popula- 
 tion (the basis of our western friends) on the one hand, 
 ana taxation the basis of the federal constitution on the 
 other. Is it not enough that we are willing to meet 
 you half way between your own extreme proposition 
 on the one hand, and the principles of the federal con- 
 stitution — which is also our constitution and your con- 
 stitution — on the other? Or do you require us to go 
 yet further, and if so, how far shall we go ? With all 
 that has been said about compromise, both in and out of 
 this hall, where, I ask, is the proposition for a compro- 
 mise yet offered by the west ? Where is the western 
 gentleman that has yet tendered such a proposition in 
 any form ? When it shall be made I /or one am dis- 
 posed to receive it in tie s irit in which it is offered, 
 and to give it the most respectful and candid consider- 
 ation. But our western friends tell us, that they stand 
 upon principles not to be surrendered or compromised 
 away, and in this I doubt not they are sincere ; I doubt 
 not they stand upon what they believe to be the true 
 principles of republican government. But is it unreas- 
 onable to ask, that they should give us credit for equal 
 sincerity, when we say that we too claim to stand upon 
 principles consecrated, as we believe, by the blood of 
 the revolution and handed down t ) us by our forefathers, 
 as fundamental tenets of free governments — principles 
 that the people we represent will not and cannot sur- 
 render, without a surrender at the same time of their 
 dearesrt rights and interests. It is (to say no more) 
 quite charitable to infer, that in this matter they alone 
 are actuated by principle, while with us it is a mere 
 struggle for power for power's sake? 
 
 But perhaps, I am wrong in saying that there has 
 been no offer of compromise, for it has I understand 
 been suggested (I did not myself hear the suggestion) 
 by one gentleman from the west, that by way of com- 
 promising this question we should propose to the people 
 of Virgiuia two constitutions — one with the white basis, 
 and the other with the mixed basis. But for the respect 
 ± have for the gentleman from whom I understood this 
 suggestion came, who proposed it as in his opinion, a 
 fair and honorable compromise, I should really have 
 supposed it was meant only as an example of that figure 
 of speech that rhetoricians, I believe call irony. I should 
 not have believed, and I really can scarcely yet believe 
 that r he gentleman was serious in the proposition he is 
 said to have made. Two constitutions for the peop'e of 
 Virginia ! one with the white basis and the other with 
 the mixed basis ! Where sir, in the first place do we 
 get the authority to do this ? Were we sent here to 
 make two constitutions, or half a dozen constitutions ? 
 Or did the people send us here with our duties distinct- 
 ly marked out, with our letter of attorney plainly defi- 
 ned, with directions to propose to them in tl e language 
 of the bill convening us, "a new constitution or amend- 
 ments and alterations to the existing constitution." 
 VVhen therefore, I shall have voted for a new constitu- 
 tion, such a one as according to the best of my poor 
 judgment I believ j to be proper ; or when I shall have 
 voted for such alterations and amendments as I think 
 ought to be made in the existing constitution, T shall 
 have done precisely all 1 am authorized to do. and pre- 
 cisely all will do und^r any conceivable state of cir- 
 cumstances. And I cannot help having a very strong 
 impression that if we shall succeed in proposing to the 
 people one constitution, we shall do quite as much as 
 was ever expected at our hands, and more than some be- 
 lieve we shall accomplish. 
 
 My friend from Kanawha observed when ' ou sir, (al- 
 luding to Mr. Janney, who was then in the chair,) were 
 
23 
 
 expressing views similar to those I am now presenting, | 
 that he had no idea that you were so technical ; he did 
 not suppose you were such a strict constructionist. 
 Now, I do not know what my frien l from Kanawha's idea 
 of strict constitution may be, but I take occasion here to 
 say. that if there be a party here or elsewhere who are| 
 prepared to hold, that those who are sent here to make! 
 a constitution have the authority under that grant of j 
 power to make as many constitutions as they please — 
 if there be those who maintain that sort of construc- 
 tion. I do not know whether or not I am entitled to be 
 styled a strict constitution Ut, but I certainly am not 
 latirudinarian enough for that. 
 
 But, sir, apart from this plain defect of authority, I 
 for one, will never consent to do indirectly what I will 
 not do directly, or place myself in the position of saying 
 to he west I will not give you power and I will 1 t 
 you take it. I will never skulk from a question which 
 duty requires me to meet, nor meanly attempt to evade 
 responsibility by shuffling off upon others the decision 
 of questions which it is our province to decide or we 
 have no business here. The white basis principle is 
 either right or wrong. If right, let it be adopted and 
 engrafted on the constitution ; if wrong, let it be re- 
 jected and some other principle adopted in its stead. 
 If I believed it to be right, I would vote for it out and 
 out, and right out without disguise or evasion of any 
 sort. Believing it to be wrong, I shall vote against it in 
 every form in which it can be proposed. 
 
 But it is said that the western people will not accept 
 a constitution with the mixed basis engrafted on it, but 
 will reject it; and resolutions have been presented here 
 from some of the counties in the west, (chiefly, 1 be- 
 lieve, in the north-west,) indicating a purpose and a 
 desire to have a separation or division of the State if 
 the mixed basis be adopted. Now, I have too much 
 regard, too much respect for the good sense and the 
 good feeling — for the true Virginia spirit and patriotism 
 of my western brethren, among whom 1 am proud to 
 reckon some of my best friends — gentlemen who would 
 do honor to any country — too much respect, I say, for 
 these men and the peop'e they represent, to believe 
 that should this Convention recommend to the people 
 a constitution embracing those reforms which are de- 
 manded by the whole people, east and west, such a 
 constitution would be rejected by them merely because 
 it embodied also the mixed basis of representation iw 
 the legislature. 
 
 I have no fears on this point — none whatever. There 
 is nothing new, sir, in the suggestion thus made, the 
 argument thus presented, the threat — if threat it be — 
 thus held over us. The very same ground was taken 
 twenty years ago by gentlemen just as much entitled to 
 speak for the western people then, as anv of those, 
 however enlightened and respectable, who represent and 
 undertake to speak for them now. Who, sir. I ask, in 
 the last Convention was the acknowledged leader and 
 champion of the western forces? Who but Philip 
 Doddridge — a champion, let me add, worthy of any 
 cause and a leader of whom any party might well be 
 proud? And what did Mr. Doddridge say in the last 
 convention with respect to the very constitution under 
 which we are now living, and have been living for the 
 last twenty years? Speaking of the plans then before 
 the convention, one of which was Mr. Gordon's, (the 
 plan that was subsequently adopted,) and adverting 
 particularly to the fact that under the schemes he was 
 considering, (as also under the existing constitution of 
 which it forms, as I have already stated, in my humble 
 judgment, the most objectionable feature.) the east 
 would have in all future time a majority of the legisla- 
 ture even though, " the eastern population," (to use his 
 " own language) should be stationary, and the west in- 
 " crease to a million." Mr. Doddridge proceeds in these 
 emphatic terms : (I read from page 684 of the debate* 
 of the last convention.) " I am satisfied, Mr. President, 
 " that if a constitution should be offered to the people 
 "on either of these plans, it would, nay, it must be rejected 
 "by the people." This, sir, was the language of Philip 
 
 Doddridge in the last convention — speaking for the 
 west — its acknowledged leader — and no man raising his 
 voice against him. And yet a constitution was offered 
 to the people on one of " these plans " to wit : on Mr. 
 Gordon's plan, and was adopted by the people by 
 a majority of upwards of ten thousand votes. This was 
 the absolute majority; and how much of that majority 
 came from the counties west of the Blue Ridge? How 
 did the west vote on the ratification of the existing con- 
 stitution notwithstanding the objection Mr. Doddridge 
 had pointed out, and the confident prediction he had 
 hazarded with respect to it? I have the record before 
 me, and beg leave to call the attention of the committee- 
 for a moment to the recorded vote of some of the largest 
 and most p pulous counties of the Valley and the trans- 
 Alleghany. In the county of Botetourt, for instance, 
 the vote sto d six hundred and sixty for the constitution 
 to twelve against it : 
 
 In Jefferson 234 for it ; 53 against it. 
 
 Rockbridge 416 ** 125 " (three to one.) 
 Rockingham 457 " 49 " (ten to one.) 
 
 Shenandoah 671 " 64 " (ten to one.) 
 
 Washington (in the extreme south-west) 
 
 556 for it ; 175 against it. 
 Lee (on the borders of Tennessee) 
 
 330 for it; 99 against it. 
 A MEMBER. How did Mr. Doddridge's county 
 vote ? 
 
 Mr. STANARD. Mr. Doddridge's county voted 
 against it ; but Mr Doddridge did not undertake to 
 speak alone for his own county. Gentlemen may speak 
 perhaps for their own counties, but it is a very different 
 matier when they get up here and undertake to speak 
 for the whole west, the trans-Alleghany and Valley. 
 And, sir, I would appeal to my friend from Berkeley 
 himself, to say whether he believes if a constitution is 
 offered to the people — satisfactory in other respects — 
 that constitution would be rejected by them because it 
 contained this mixed basis principle? 1 would make a 
 similar appeal to my friend from Botetourt, (Mr. Mil- 
 ler,) does he believe the Valley will vote against the 
 constitution with the mixed basis ? Does he believe 
 his own county will vote against it, which under the 
 mixed basis gets two delegates, while the white or suf- 
 frage basis gives it but one? 
 
 I have referred, sir, to the history of the last Conven- 
 tion, to the predictions made then as authoratively and 
 confidently as they are now, and to the extent to 
 which these predictions were verified by the result; 
 but we have yet a more recent example of the difference 
 between the prophecy of to-day and the history of to- 
 morrow. Many men are prophets — after the fact — few 
 comparatively before the fact. But how was it when 
 the bill was pending last winter to call this Conven- 
 tion, and to call it on the mixed basis — what did we 
 hear then, such of us at least as happened to be mem- 
 bers of that legislature ? Precisely what we have 
 heard since — unsparing denunciation of the mixed basis 
 principle as unjust, unequal, anti-republican, insulting, 
 and degrading to the west — and confident predictions by 
 western gentlemen, that a Convention called on such a 
 principle would never be held — that the west would 
 rise up as one man and reject the proposition to hold a 
 convention organized on such a principle with indigna- 
 tion and with scorn. Nevertheless the bill was passed, 
 and the question was submitted to the people — not the 
 naked question — will you have a convention or not ? but 
 will you have a convention as proposed by this bill ? — that 
 is, a convention organized on the mixed basis of white popu- 
 lation and taxation equally combined? And to this ques- 
 tion with a decided majority of the white population, 
 and of the voters of the State west of the Blue Ridge, 
 che people by a majority of upwards of 25 000 responded 
 in the affirmative. And are we now to be told that it 
 is altogether right to call the convention on the mixed 
 basis, but that it is entirely wrong to organize the legis- 
 lature on the same basis ? 
 
 I confess I had always supposed that it was the pro- 
 
24 
 
 vince of the Convention to frame the organic law, as it 
 is the province of the legislature to enact the ordinary 
 laws, and 1 know not on what ground consistent with 
 reason an J common sense it is to be maintained that the 
 same principle which is altogether proper as applicable 
 to the one should be utterly discarded in the organiza- 
 tion of the other. On the contrary it seems to me that 
 it was right to call the Convention on the mixed basis, 
 it cannot be wrong to organize the legislature un the 
 same basis. 
 
 And why, I ask, in the name of all that is reasonable, 
 should not the west be satisfied with a consti ution un- 
 der which they will have the control now pretty much 
 of every thing but the legislature, and according to the 
 arguments of many western gentlemen h re — (arguments 
 which I suppose must at least be satisfactory to those 
 who use them) — in the course of some ten or twelve 
 years, they will get the control of that too? The west 
 is the growing portion of the State. It already controls 
 the vote of the State in the presidential election — and, 
 under the constitution we propose to adopt, will elect 
 the governor, and it may be also, the board of public 
 works ; it already exercises a nost patent influence over 
 the subject of internal improvement, and for its benefit 
 in a great measure — to open up its lands — develop its 
 resources — and augment its population and wealth ha> 
 the internal improvement debt of the Sta'e been swelled 
 from some one million of dollars in 1829, to some eighteen 
 or twenty millions in. 1851. Is not this enough ? or must 
 we surrender all — all of political power, sir, that we 
 can give ©r they can take, under the penalty of 
 h iving the constitution rejected or the State divided? 
 "Why, sir, does any reasonable man suppose — does an)* 
 man in his senses imagine that the western people would 
 prefer living under a constitution that gives to the east 
 a majority of twenty three in the popular branch, and 
 thirty (I believe) on joint ballot — and contains none of 
 the reforms they so ardently desire to adopting a con- 
 stitution that gives the east a majority of but fourteen 
 in the popular branch, and sixteen on joint ballot, while 
 at the same time it embodies all those great reforms? 
 or that sooner than submit to the latter, they will di- 
 vide the State ? I speak, sir, with the most perfect re- 
 spect to gentlemen who may think differently, and who 
 are certainly just as much entitled to their opinion as I 
 am to mine; but I must say that this idea of rejecting 
 the constitution or dividing the State, because of the 
 adoption of the mixed basis is, in my humble judgment, 
 the veriest bug-bear — ihe merest raw-head and bloody- 
 bones that was ever held up to frighten — not childron, 
 
 sir, but bearded men, to whom (however unworthy) the 
 people have been pleased to confide the high trust they 
 have delegated to us — from their propriety and their 
 
 duty. 
 
 Let us then, I implore gentlemen, dismissing all such 
 apprehensions as these, proceed calmly and deliberately 
 — unseduced if possible by prejudice — unswayed by 
 passion — undismayed by menace — to the discharge of 
 the high and solemn duty to which we have been called. 
 Let us not, possessed with a single idea, and blindly fol- 
 lowing its guidance, disregard -utterly disregard all 
 those numerous and multiform considerations that should 
 enter into the great and complex problem of govern- 
 ment, and especially of free government. Let us not 
 adopt the unstatesmanlike course of looking to one prin- 
 ciple only— giving it despotic sway, and permitting it to 
 override, and to hush to silence all the rest. Let us 
 rather base the government we propose to rear on all 
 the great interests of the people whose destiny it is to 
 control. Let us rest it on the principles and doctrines 
 of the American revolution, and the precedent and ana- 
 lagies of the federal constitution. Let us rest it, in fine, 
 on the two great elements of all society — the two great 
 subjects of all government — persons and property — and 
 on this foundation, broad and deep, let us rear a struc- 
 ture which, for ourselves, and for our childre", and our 
 children's children, we may dedicate to liberty in the 
 true sense of the term — liberty founded on law and pro- 
 tected by law — the only liberty that can be preserved 
 or that is worth preserving ! 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I feel that T must draw these remarks 
 to a close. Suffering from indisposition when I com- 
 menced speaking, I am now greatly exhausted, and must 
 pass by altogether some of the views I designed to pre- 
 sent. I have endeavored in what I have said, to give 
 some of the reasons for the principles I maintain — for 
 the faith that is in me — and in doing this, my object has 
 been to address myself rather to the understanding of 
 my hearers, than t© their prejudices or to their pas- 
 sions. To-morrow we shall be called upon to decide 
 a most momentous question, and I cannot believe that 
 this is the fitting time or place for displays of rhetoric 
 or flights of declamation even were I as gifted in 
 those respects as I know myself to be deficient. It only 
 remains for me to express my sense ofthe very flattering 
 attention which, at this late stage of this protracted de- 
 bate, the oommittee has been pleased to accord to me, 
 and to add, that I will trespass no longer on their 
 patience or indulgence. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 R. C. STANARD, ESQ., OF RICHMOND CITY, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF EIGHT, 
 
 COMMONLY CALLED THE COMPROMISE. 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 DELIVEEED ON 
 
 Wednesday, May 21, 1851. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I had the honor yesterday to sub- 
 mit a simple proposition to the Convention, which I ac- 
 companied with an explanation of some five or ten min^., 
 utes, merely to put the Convention in possession of the' 
 points I desired to present, and I was content then to 
 leave it to their decision. I should not again have en- 
 tered upon the subject. I made the proposition be 
 cause I understood both from the discussion that has 
 taken place, and from the statement of one of the mem- 
 bers ©f the Committee of Eight, with whom I had spo- 
 ken a few moments before I submitted my amendment, 
 that it was the purpose of the committee in the scheme 
 they proposed to give to the west what the west was 
 now entitled to upon the suffrage basis in the house of 
 delegates, and to give to the east double the represent- 
 ation that the east would be entitled to upon the mixed 
 basis in the senate. Believing that to be their object, 
 and being satisfied from the documents to which I call- 
 ed the attention of the house, that this object was not 
 attained, but that the west got by this so-called compro- 
 mise, not only all that it is now entitled to in the house 
 of delegates on the suffrage basis, but two more than 
 it could claim even on that basis — a fact which is now 
 conceded on all hands — I felt it my duty to bring this 
 matter to the notice of the Convention, and to invoke 
 their judgment upon it I wished to see if we were 
 prepared to go further than the committee themselves 
 (as 1 understood them) designed to go — if we were to 
 out-compromise the compromisers — and to give to the 
 west two more in the house of delegates than even they 
 intended the west should have. I proposed, therefore, 
 so to modify the report as to make the representation 
 in the house of delegates 81 west to 69 east, instead of 
 82 west to 68 east ; and it was upon a proposition of 
 this kind, accompanied as it was with a bare explana- 
 tion of its character, that gentlemen have been pleaded 
 to go into a discussion of matters from all allusion to 
 which I have throughout carefully abstained, and to 
 attempt to justify their own course by arraigning the 
 course of other gentlemen, both in and out of this hall. 
 When I say "arraigning," I mean that they have at- 
 tempted to show that in sustaining this so-called com 
 promise, they have provided better protection for the 
 rights and interests of the eastern people than did the 
 members of the eastern committee of conference, and 
 such other eastern members as may have concurred 
 with that committee in the propositions submitted by them 
 to our western brethren, and this, too, notwithstanding 
 the incontestible fact, that each and every one of the 
 propositions thus submitted was unanimously rejected 
 by the western committee, and that rejection unani- 
 mously concurred in by the western caucus, while as 
 respects this compromise (which we are told is so much 
 better for the east, and so much worse for the west 
 than the propositions thus made and rejected) every 
 western vote stands recorded in its fwor, and every 
 eastern vote but seven stands recorded against it, and 
 of those seven, three were the members of the commit- 
 tee who reported it. 
 
 Reverse the votes of the eastern committee men, and 
 even now this scheme would be defeated. And yet we 
 are to be told a scheme thus sustained by the west and 
 repudiated by the east is better for the east and worse 
 for the west than the propositions submitted by the 
 eastern committee of cenference and unanimously re- 
 jected by the western committee and the western meet- 
 ing. Sir, I must be pardoned for saying, with all due 
 respect, that gentlemen must be driven to extremities 
 indeed, when they find it necessary to assume positions 
 and to hazard assertions like these. If they have no 
 better excuse to offer for the support they have given 
 to this miscalled compromise, than is to be found in the 
 proceedings or votes of their eastern associates either 
 in or out of this hail, then, indeed, is their case hope- 
 less — utterly hopeless. I have said, sir, that I have 
 made no allusion to the proceedings, either of eastern 
 or western gentlemen out of this hall 1 , whether in com- 
 mittees of conference, caucus,' or otherwise — it was 
 not my purpose to allude to them in any the remotest 
 manner : but, as they have been alluded to, I feel it to 
 be not only my right, but my duty, to meet and to repel 
 the positions that have been assumed with respect to 
 them, and to show, as I think I can, most conclusively, 
 that so far from this thing called a compromise being 
 better for the east than the propositions made by the 
 eastern committee, it is decidedly worse for the east 
 than one at least, if not two of the propositions offered 
 cy the western committee. And I feel it to be the 
 more incumbent on me to do this, because these po- 
 sitions have not only been takanby the gentleman from 
 Albemarle, (Mr. Randolph.) but, as I understand, have 
 been endorsed by the distinguished gentleman from Ka- 
 nawha, (Mr. Summers.) He, as well as the gentleman 
 from Albemarle, has found in the proposition submitted 
 by the eastern committee of conference to the western 
 committee, a justification of the course of those eastern 
 members who have united with the west in the support 
 of the proposition of the committee of eight. 
 
 Mr. SUMMERS. As to that matter, I only referred 
 to the second proposition submitted by the committee 
 of conference, as having proposed a larger majority up- 
 on joint ballot to the west than the proposition now be- 
 fore us. I spoke of the proposition submitted in the 
 house by the gentleman from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) as 
 containing the same principle and the same admission 
 that the compromise itself did — there being merely a 
 difference as to time. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. I understood the gentleman per- 
 fectly, and had he allowed me to proceed, he would 
 have found that I should not have misstated his position 
 in any respect. As regards the proposition of my friend 
 from Fauquier, (Mr. Scott,) that gentleman himself 
 has avowed, that he brought it forward as a matter of 
 necessity, not as a matter of choice ; to use his own 
 language, " it was not his choice, but Hobson's choice." 
 And I have already stated that that proposition did not 
 command my support, except as a competing prop*- 
 
2 
 
 6 
 
 sition to this report of the committee of eight, to which, 
 in my humble judgment, it has been showed to be de- 
 cidedly preferable. But I do not mean to be drawn off 
 into any discussion of this matter at this time. I am 
 now considering the attempt made by gentlemen to 
 shelter themselves behind the propositions submitted 
 by the eastern committee of conference, and before I 
 advert to those propositions in detail, 1 desire to state 
 the circumstances under which they were submitted, 
 and the action of the eastern meeting with respect to 
 them, so that my own course and that of eastern gen- 
 tlemen who acted with me, may be fully understood 
 now and hereafter. I do this as an act of sheer justice, 
 to disabuse the public mind of any impressions that may 
 have been produced by the extraordinary course of re- 
 mark indulged in yesterday, and when 1 shall have made 
 a brief and simple statement of the facts connected with 
 this matter, I shall leave to the country to say by what 
 sort of perverse ingenuity anything like censure is to be 
 visited on eastern gentlemen for the course they have 
 pursued throughout this affair, from its beginning to its 
 end. 
 
 The facts, are simply these: on Friday, the 9th 
 inst., a test vote was taken in committee of the whole 
 on the principle of the mixed basis, as contained in pro- 
 position A, and a motion to strike out that proposition 
 was lost by a vote of 58 yeas to 62 noes, being a major- 
 ity of four in a full house, every member but one (and 
 that an eastern member) having voted or paired off. On 
 Saturday, the 10th instant, after this decisive exhib- 
 ition on the part of the advocates of the mixed basis of 
 their power to carry out the principles they were pledg- 
 ed to support, if they only thought proper to stand by 
 those principles, a motion was made by an eastern gen- 
 tleman, without consultation, however, so far as I know 
 or believe, with eastern members generally, and against 
 the wishes, I feel assured, of a large portion of them, to 
 adjourn over till Monday. This motion was made and 
 sustnined, I doubt not, from the purest motives and un- 
 der the strongest convictions of its propriety on the part 
 of the gentleman who- submitted it, but it was done on 
 his own responsibility, and that, I believe, of one or two 
 others with whom he consulted. The motion prevailed 
 and the convention adjourned. 
 
 Immediately after the adjournment, the eastern mem- 
 bers met together in this hall, with feelings of strong 
 dissatisfaction on the part of a large portion, if not 
 much the larger portion of them. In that meeting it 
 was finally agreed that a committee should be appointed 
 who were clothed with no power beyond that of simply 
 conferring with such a committee as might be appoint- 
 ed upon the part of the west. The members of the 
 eastern committee (of whom I was not one) came to- 
 gether, as I understand, and agreed among themselves 
 upon certain propositions, which were communicated, 
 so far as I know or believe, to no one o; the eastern 
 members until they had been submitted to the western 
 committee of conference, under the circumstances 
 which have been detailed to the Convention by two 
 of the members of the respective committees, the gen- 
 tleman from Loudoun (Mr. Janney) and the gentleman 
 from Kanawha (Mr. Summers.) 
 
 Well, sir, every proposition which was presented by 
 the east was unanimously rejected by the western 
 committee, and the action of that committee was unan- 
 imously endorsed by the western meeting. When these 
 facts were communicated to the eastern meeting, and 
 we were then for the first time informed what proposi- 
 tions had been submitted by our committee of confer- 
 ence, and how those propositions had been received, we 
 thought it best to pursue the course we did pursue in 
 not taking any vote or expressing any opinion in rela- 
 tion to the propositions thus made and rejected. And 
 if in this respect we erred, I confess I am wholly at a, 
 loss to conceive in what the error consisted ; I am at a 
 loss to imagine in what respect it was either necessary 
 or proper that eastern members should express any 
 opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of proposi- 
 
 tions which had been unanimously rejected by the west. 
 They had been proposed and rejected, and there was 
 end of them. No one entertained an idea of imposing 
 on the west, as a compromise, that to which western 
 gentlemen were decidedly and unanimously opposed. 
 And until we saw this report of the committee of eight, 
 some of us, perhaps, were simple enough to suppose 
 that a compromise was one thing, a surrender another. 
 
 On the other hand it was proper to express an opin- 
 ion with respect to the propositions submitted by the 
 western committee because it was not certain that 
 they might not prove acceptable to a portion of that 
 eastern meeting, and if so, they might form a ground 
 of compromise; and accordingly when the question 
 was about to be propounded to the meeting, with re- 
 spect to the report of the commmittee of conference, 
 and before it was propounded, my colleague, who sits 
 before me, (Mr. Scott,) rose and inquired whether he 
 was to understand that question as confined exclusively 
 to the action of the eastern committee in rejecting the 
 proposition submitted by the western committee? 
 This inquiry was answered in the affirmative. The 
 question was then jDUt, the vote was taken, and the 
 rr^eting unanimously concurred in the course pursued 
 by their committee in rejecting the propositions which 
 were submitted to them by the western committee. 
 That was our course and our whole course of action. 
 I leave it to any candid man to say whether it in any 
 respect justifies and excuses the comments that have 
 been indulged in on this floor. I have made this state- 
 ment (I wish it to be distinctly understood) as matter 
 of history merely, in order that as the proceedings of 
 these meetings have been referred to (not by myself 
 but by others) the facts, and all the facts connected 
 with them, should appear. I repeat then, that we 
 took no action in our meeting upon the propositions 
 submitted by the committee of conference, simply be- 
 cause we did not consider it necessary or proper to do 
 so, after those propositions had been unanimously re- 
 jected by western committee and the western meeting, 
 and no one, therefore, is authorized to say, from any- 
 thing that transpired on that occasion, whether any, 
 or how^ many of the eastern members would have con- 
 curred in the propositions made by the committee of 
 conference on the part of the east, and so made on 
 their own responsibility alone, as they expressly de- 
 clared at the time, to the committee of conference on 
 the part of the west. This much I have deemed it pro- 
 per to state as due to the truth of history — but let me 
 tell gentlemen that when they venture to institute a 
 comparison between these propositions and this thing 
 miscalled a compromise, and to assert that the latter is as 
 good or better for the east, they present an issue which 
 I haye not 'the slightest disposition to shrink from or to 
 evade, but on which I am prepared to meet them, now 
 and at all times, here or elsewhere, before the Conven- 
 tion or before the country. Sir, I maintain with con- 
 fidence, that whether you look to the principle involv- 
 ed or to the great interest at stake, regarding it as a 
 question of principle, or a question of power — con- 
 sider it in what light you will — and I maintain there 
 is no fair, candid and impartial man that can for a 
 moment entertain a doubt that the propositions sub- 
 mitted by the eastern committee, and each and all 
 of them, are not infinitely preferable to this scheme of 
 the committee of eight, which may be a compromise 
 in name, but is neither more nor less than an utter and 
 an absolute surrender in fact. 
 
 Nay, sir, I will go further and say — and before I get 
 through I trust I will show — that there is at least one 
 ifnottwoof the propositions submitted by the west 
 and rejected by the east, that is decidedly preferable to 
 this scheme of compromise (forsooth) that is now about 
 to be made part and parcel of our organic law. 
 
 These propositions have been published, and I am 
 glad that they have been and have gone to the coun- 
 try. I shall not detain the Convention by reading them, 
 but I shall comment upon them in their order, and shall 
 
append them to my remarks. I wish the people, and 
 
 especially the eastern pe >ple, to see what was proposed 
 to chewest. what was offered by the west, and then to 
 say what they think of this sclieoie waich, reported by 
 an eastern committee elected by western votes, is now 
 about to be forced upon them in the name of compro- 
 mise, by the united western, aidid by a fragment of 
 thy eastern delegation on this floor But to proceed 
 with the examination of these propositions. 
 
 What was the first proposition submitted by the 
 eastern to the western committee ? It proposed a 
 house of delegates of one hundred aud fifty-six members 
 on the suffrage ba^is, giviug to the west a majority of 
 not more than fourteen, if that. The senate to consist 
 of fifty members, was to be based on taxation alone, 
 giving to the east a majority of fourteen — thus making 
 a tie on joint ballot, and with the provision that all fu 
 ture apportionments of rep -esentation in the two houses 
 should be ma le ou the same principles. That was the 
 first proposition submitted by the eastern com nittee. 
 and how does it compare with the one that we are called 
 upon here to adopt, and to say is preferable so far as 
 the east is concerned I Look at it in the first place a^ 
 regards the question of principle. What are the pro- 
 positions upon which we have been standing here in de 
 bate for weeks and months i On the one. side you have 
 been invoked to look to population alone as the sole 
 element to be consulted in respect to representation 
 On the one side it has been maintained that you should 
 look to taxation a9 an element of representation. Plant- 
 ing ourselves on a principle consecrated, as we believe, 
 by the blood of the revolution, we have insisted that 
 representation and taxation should go hand in hand, 
 and we hive endeavored to show, and I think have 
 shown, by reference to the debates and proceedings of 
 the Convention that formed tne federal constitution, 
 that this principle is recoguized to its fullest extent in 
 that sacred instrument, and that in the house of repre 
 sentatives representation is, in truth, based on taxation 
 alone. 
 
 Now. what is the first proposition of the east ? and the 
 committee, in submitting it, what did they say to the 
 west? Simply this : We will recognize your principle 
 in the house of delegates, if you will recognize our prin 
 eiple in the senate. We will give you a majority of 
 fourteen in the house of delegates on population, if 
 you will give us a like majority of fourteen in the sen- 
 ate on taxation, and thus make a tie upon joint ballot, 
 and give to neither party the power to elect senators 
 of the United States, and all other officers that are to 
 be elected by the legislature. 
 
 They did this with a further declaration that this 
 state of things shall hereafter continue, without change, 
 either through the form of a submission of the question 
 of representation to the people or otherwise. And is 
 it pretended that that proposition is worse for the east 
 than the scheme reported by the committee of eight, 
 according to which the west are to have now the pop 
 ular branch — to have now the majority on joint ballot 
 — to have now a majority of two more than they are 
 entitled to in the house of delegates, even upon 
 their own favorite principle of the suffrage basis, while 
 the east has a majority of four less than they are enti- 
 tled to in the senate % An 1 besides all this, even the 
 shadow of protection thus afforded us, is but tempora- 
 ry — even this state of things is to last but a little while, 
 and then the west is to have both houses, and absolute 
 sway in the legislative as in the executive department 
 of the government. This, then, is the first proposition 
 of the committee of conference aud this the better scheme 
 devised by your compromise committee. Let eastern 
 Virginia decide between them. 
 
 And what is the second proposrtion submitted by the 
 eastern committee ? It is identical with the first with 
 this single exception that instead of a majority of four- 
 teen for the west in the house of delegates, there was a 
 majority of twenty. In point of principle then, there 
 
 was no difference between the propositions. In both, 
 suffrage basis was recognized in the hou-*e, and the tax- 
 ation basis in the seuate — for I do not profess to under- 
 stand that sort of special pleading bv which we are 
 told that when you give to a party all, and more than 
 all, they are entitled, to on a given principle, still jou 
 do not recognize the principle. I confess I had always 
 supposed, that in political as in mathematical science, 
 the whole was greater than a part — and I cannot well 
 imagine a more distinct and practical recognition of any 
 principle than in yielding to the party that asserts it, 
 all aud more than all, that the principle itself would 
 then give them. The difference between these propo- 
 sitions was a difference not of principle but of degree. 
 Identical in other respects with the first, the second 
 proposition gave to the west a majority instead of a tie, 
 on joint ballot ; and this additional power was tendered 
 to you, as I know from the declaration of the gentlemen 
 who made that proposition, for the purpose of showing 
 that they were prepared, if you would recognize their 
 elemeut of taxation in one house, to give you the full 
 benefit, and more than the full benefit, of your element 
 of population in the other house. 
 
 In other words, these gentlemen said to the west by 
 this proposition, recognize our principle in one branch of 
 the legislature, so as to give an efficient protection for 
 our property ; give us the majority to which on that 
 principle we are entitled, to a practical efficient major- 
 ty of fourteen, instead of an arbitrary majority of ten, 
 based on no principle, inefficient and unreliable; make 
 this arrangement permanent, instead of adopting a mere 
 temporary and sh fting expedient ; do this on your part, 
 and to show you that on ours we not are engaged in a 
 mere struggle for power for power's sake, we will not 
 only recognize your principle in the other branch of the 
 legislature,(and that, too, the popular branch,) but we 
 will give you more power, than even upon your own 
 principles you yourselves can claim. Sir, was not this 
 proposition fair? Was it not more than fair — was it not 
 "liberal ? Will any candid and impartial man say that 
 it did not go to the utmost verge'of concession, if not be- 
 yond it ? And yet, sir, I pray you to remark that while 
 some eastern gentlemen were prepared in a spirit of 
 compromise, aye, in a spirit of large ana liberal corces- 
 sion, to go thus far, yet at the same time they express- 
 ly declared to their western brethren that they would 
 neither directly nor indirectly give their sanction to any 
 scheme by which, at any time, now or hereafter, repre- 
 sentation in both houses should be apportioned on the 
 suffrage basis. To that they expressly declared they 
 would never consent either in the form of a direct man- 
 datory clause in the constitution, or under the thin dis- 
 guise, the transparent veil of submission of the ques* 
 tion to the decision of the numerical majority. It was 
 reserved for the committee of eight, this compromise 
 committee as it has been styled, composed of eastern 
 gentlemen elected by western votes — for them, I say, 
 sir, has been reserved the honor of devising a scheme by 
 which the suffrage basis is recogn : zed to its full and 
 more than its full extent in the house, while no princi- 
 ple whatever is applied to the senate, by which the west 
 with a majority on joint ballot, has two more in the 
 house than it is entitled on the suffrage basis, while 
 the east has four less in the senate than it is entitled on 
 the taxation basis — an arbitrary majority to be marked 
 out by an arbitrary apportionment so as to form, it may 
 be, two or more white basis districts east of the Blue 
 Ridge ; and lest even this state of things should prove 
 too favorable to the east, lest even such a government 
 as this should furnish some semblance of protection to 
 eastern rights and eastern interests, provision is care- 
 fully made by which in the course of a few years the 
 whole legislative power in both houses shall be trans- 
 ferred to the west. Yes, sir, in the year 1865, or short- 
 ly thereafter, the west is to have all — all, sir, of legis- 
 lative power, that we can give or they can take. This, 
 then is the second proposition of the conference commit- 
 tee, and this your compromise scheme. You have them 
 
28 
 
 here side by side, and again I say to the people of east- 
 ern Virginia, choose ye between them. 
 
 I do not mean to go into any calculation as to the re- 
 lative power of the eastern and western sections of the 
 State under future apportionments of representation, 
 supposing those apportionments to be made on the suff- 
 rage basis in the house and the taxation basis in the 
 senate. That has been already sufficiently done by my 
 friend from Essex, (Mr. M. R. H. Garnett,) and I should be 
 wholly inexcusable, after what he has said, in detain 
 ing the Convention a single moment on this point. But 
 I have no hesitation in saying, that so far from the rela 
 tive power of the east diminishing hereafter on the 
 taxation basis, it is, in my opinion, obliged to increase. 
 I have no idea at all that in the next ten years the 
 difference in the ratio of increase between t e different 
 sections of the Commonwsalth either in respect to pop 
 ulation or in respect to the elements of wealth, will be 
 so much in favor of the west as it has been during the 
 last ten years. I have never believed, and I do not now 
 believe, that upon the mixed basis the west could ever 
 get the power ; and I have said so from the beginning. 
 1 have never made any concealment of my opinions on 
 this or any other point. I have always believed that, 
 upon the mixed basis, the west never would get pow- 
 er, because while their population would never increase 
 hereafter in the same relative proportion over the pop 
 ulation of the east that it has done for the last ten 
 years, the taxation of the east would preserve and aug- 
 ment its relative proportion over that of the west. 
 Look, sir, to the very means by which alone the pop 
 ulation and taxation of the west can materially increase, 
 that system of internal improvements which is destined. 
 I trust, at no distant day, to convert that whole coun- 
 try into a very garden sj.ot, and you will see that those 
 improvements themselves cannot be constructed with- 
 out building up here, in the tide-water district, cities, 
 not of 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000, but of 100,000 and 
 200,000 inhabitants, and making this whole section of 
 the State to bloom and blossom as the rose, and thus 
 the very sources of wealth and population to the west 
 must impart, in a still greater ratio, wealth and popu- 
 lation to the east. Such, I have always believed, must 
 be the result of a wise and judicious system of internal 
 improvement. 
 
 I pass now to the third and last proposition of the 
 committee of conference, and what is it? It gives the 
 west the senate, on the suffrage basis, with a majority 
 of two in a senate of 36, while the east was to have 
 the house of delegates on the mixed basis, with a ma- 
 jority of 14 in a house of 150, with re-apportionments 
 on the same principle, and a further provision that it 
 should require three-fifths of each house to call an- 
 other convention. By this proposition the question of 
 principle was not surrendered on either side. We gave 
 you your basis in the senate, and we took our basis in 
 the house of delegate*, giving thus to the east the po- 
 pular branch and the majority on joint ballot, and de- 
 claring at the same time that such should continue to be 
 the organic law of the State, until by a vote of three- 
 fifths of the legislature, another convention shall be 
 called. Now, no man, I apprehend, will be bold enough 
 to maintain that thi6 proposition is not infinitely bet- 
 ter for the east than the scheme of the committee of 
 eight. 
 
 But this is not all ; for I maintain, and will now pro- 
 ceed to show, that not only were the propositions sug- 
 gested by the committee of conference on the part of 
 the east infinitely preferable to the scheme that is now 
 about to be forced upon us, but that this latter is de- 
 cidedly worse than one at least, if not two. of the pro- 
 positions submitted by the western committee them 
 selves. 
 
 What were those propositions ? By one of these the 
 west proposed to take the senate of 36 members on 
 the suffrage basis and give us the house of 160 mem 
 bers upon the mixed basis, and that was to continue un- 
 til 1862, when the question was to be submitted to the 
 
 people to say whether this state of things should con- 
 tinue. or the suffrage basis should be applied to both 
 houses. Now, look at this proposition and contrast it 
 for a single moment with the scheme embodied in the 
 report now before us. Here the western men were 
 willing to give us one house, and that the house of 
 delegates, the popular branch, with a majority of at 
 least 12, and take themselves the senate, with a majori- 
 ty of but two, thus giving us a majority of 10 on joint 
 ballot ; to allow this state of things to continue until 
 1862, and then submit the question to the peeple. And 
 yet, with this proposition made to us by the west, by 
 which we were to have the controlling power in that 
 branch of the legislature that comes directly from the 
 people, with a majority of 10 on joint ballot until 1862, 
 and then a submission of the question to the people, 
 without any mandatory apportionment whatsoever — ■ 
 with this offer, I say, made to us, by the west, we are 
 called forsooth to compromise — aye, sir. that is the word 
 — to compromise upon a scheme by which we are to give 
 to the west the popular branch now, give them now the 
 majority on joint ballot, let this state of things continue 
 until 1865, and then give them both houses and all 
 power. True, the transfer is not made in express terms 
 by a deed of conveyance now signed, sealed and deliv- 
 ered — tru j , a certain form is to be gone through, but, 
 sir, it is a mere form, and it can be a matter of but lit- 
 tle moment to practical men whether the thing is ac- 
 complished by an express mandator) clause of appor- 
 tionment, or through the flimsy and transparent di.-guise 
 of the submission to the people of a question which every 
 ody knows will be decided against us, and which this 
 report of the committee of eight takes care to submit 
 in such a form that they are obliged so to decide it. 
 For what is the question as submitted by that report ? 
 Sir, it is not the question that would have been submit- 
 ted under the proposition made to us by the west, but a 
 very different question. 
 
 Under the proposition made to us by the west, the 
 mixed basis was to be adopted and to continue in ope- 
 ration till 1862, in one branch of the legislature, and the 
 suffrage basis in the other. The government was to be 
 organized on principle. Both houses were to be based 
 on principle, and no arbitrary patch- work — no mere 
 device to give power east or west without regard to 
 principle was to be resorted to in the organization of 
 either — and when such a government should have con- 
 tinued in operation for ten or twelve years, and should 
 have fulfilled the great purposes of its institution in 
 protecting the rights and promoting the interests of all? 
 who can undertake to say that the people would have 
 been prepared to change it? Who can undertake to 
 affirm that a portion even of the people of the west, 
 especially of the people of the valley and the south- 
 west, whose interests are becoming day by day and 
 year by year, more and more identified with those of 
 their eastern brethren, satLfied with the recognition of 
 their favorite principle in one branch of the legislature, 
 content with the practical working of the government 
 under which they lived, would not be disposed to ' let 
 well enough alone,' rather than Introduce fresh changes 
 and enter again upon new and untried experiments. 
 In such a state of things, no one, I apprehend, not en- 
 dowed with the gift of prophecy, could undertake to 
 predict what would be the aecision of the people on 
 the issues that would have been presented to them? 
 But in lieu of that issue, this eastern committee ap- 
 pointed by western votes has brought in (and that too 
 in the name of compromise,) a srheme by which the 
 west is now to have the popular branch and a majority 
 upon joint ballot, and in 1865 you are to submit to the 
 people for the first time, the question whether they will 
 have the legislature organized on the mixed basis ; that 
 is to say: whether they will have both branches of the 
 legislature organized upon a principle which, up to that 
 moment, had never been applied to either, and of the 
 practical working and operation of which they know and 
 can l^ow nothing whatsoever. For be it observed that 
 
9 
 
 by this compromise scheme you do not apply the mixed 
 basis to either branch of the legislature. The suffrage 
 basis, or something beyond the suffrage basis, is applied 
 in one branch, and an arbitrary principle in the other 
 branch, and under this scheme, therefore, the question 
 is not whether the people shall adhere to a principle 
 that had been tried and found to work well, but whether 
 they shall in 1865, adopt for the first time, a princi- 
 ple till then unknown and untried. That, sir. is the 
 question submitted in 1865, by your compromise scheme, 
 and that man must be sanguine indeed, who, under such 
 circumstances, can look forward to any other result 
 than the establishment of the suffrage basis in both 
 houses, just as certainly as if you had made it mandato- 
 ry in the constitution. 
 
 Sir, the gentleman from Accomae may dismiss all ap- 
 prehensions on this score. Under the propositions made 
 by the west, we did stand some chance, under the com- 
 promise we have none. By that scheme, the advocates 
 of the suffrage basis have indeed, made " assurance 
 doubly sure, and taken a bond of fate." 
 
 This, then, was one of the propositions made by the 
 western committee — but not the only one. By another 
 proposition they offered to give us both houses on the 
 mixed basis till 1862, with a mandatory apportionment 
 then on the suffrage basis — and I leave it to any candid 
 man, with the facts before him, to say whether either 
 of these propositions is not decidedly better for the 
 east than this thing miscalled a compromise. Sir, I 
 am glad that these matters have been adverted to, and 
 that facts connected with them have been brought out 
 and have gone to the country. I wish the people to see 
 and to know these things, and I invoke their judgment 
 upon them. I rejoice that an opportunity has been af 
 forded me to meet the issue that gentlemen have ven- 
 tured to make on this floor, and I leave it to the coun- 
 try to say whether, upon an exhibition of these various 
 propositions as contrasted with this miscalled compro- 
 mise, I am not fully ?orne out in the declaration that 
 so far from its being true that eastern men who voted 
 for the compromise can shield themselves under the ac- 
 tion of the committee of conference upon the part of 
 the east, the record, (aye, the very record to which 
 they themselves have appealed) shows that they have 
 gone beyond what was offered by the committee of con- 
 ference on the part of the west, and have fixed upon 
 their own constituents and the whole of eastern Virgiuia 
 about the very worst system that could well have been 
 devised. 
 
 Why, sir, you talk about this scheme as a protection 
 to property — I do not mean to go into a discussion 
 upon this subject. ] have had occasion at another time 
 to make some remarks on the constitution of this sen- 
 ate, and I do not intend to repeat them here. I will 
 only observe that with a white basis house of delegates 
 and a white basis executive, a senate with an arbitrary 
 majority of ten, (to be reduced, it may be, by an arbi- 
 trary apportionment, which shall give some two or more 
 white basis districts east ot the Blue Ridge — to six, or 
 less than six) would seem likely to afford but slender 
 protection to property or anything else. And even sup- 
 posing the east to get the full majority of ten, it would 
 require a change of but six votes to reach any result? 
 and is a change of six votes so difficult a matter ? Let 
 the experience of this convention answer th t question 
 bir. we started in this body with a majority of nine, 
 and where are we now ? But, as I said, I do not mean 
 to go into any discussion upon this question — my sole 
 object at this time is to beg the attention of the Con- 
 vention for a few moments, while I bring to their notice 
 the opinions upon this very subject, of one whose po 
 litical sagacity no man will question ; I refer to the 
 opinions of John Randolph under similar circumstances 
 when a similar proposition to this was under conside- 
 ration in the Convention of '29- '30. It was then pro- 
 posed to organize the house of delegates upon the white 
 population and the senate on federal numbers. That 
 scheme I say was proposed at that time. It was one of 
 
 the last propositions of compromise offered by western 
 gentlemen in the convention of '29. And how was 
 that proposition which was certainly far better for the 
 east than this report of the committee of eight, can 
 be pretended to be — how, I say, was this proposition 
 met by that man who stood confessedly in the front 
 rank of those who, in that convention, were regarded 
 as the especial champions of the principle of protection 
 to property ? 
 
 I will tell you how — it was met by him with the de- 
 claration, tha he should prefer the white basis in both 
 houses and should vote for it. Here are the reasons he 
 assigned for his course. I commend them to the special 
 attention of those gentlemen who talk about this sen- 
 ate as a protection to property. 
 
 " He would add one word (said Mr. Randolph,) as to 
 the ultimatum for which the ge-'tleman contended, viz: 
 the basis of white population, exclusively in on« branch 
 of the legislature and the federal number in the other. 
 He declared with a sincerity, which his vote would be 
 found to vouch for, that if the grntleman should suc- 
 ceed in imposing on them the hard and stern condition of 
 submitting to so intolerable a yoke in the lower house, 
 he would yield to him the same principle in the other, 
 and let both branche be based on the white population 
 alone. He should do so by preference. He would pre- 
 fer having both branches on the white basis, to the 
 Manichcean plan of a good and an evil principle, in 
 which, as in the Manichiosan, system, the evil princ.ple 
 was the stronger, and was always in the end sure to pre- 
 vail. To adopt such a plan could be doing nothing but 
 sowing the seeds of interminable discord, which must 
 lead to consequences that all could see. He would vote 
 with the gentiemen so soon as he should have vanquish- 
 ed them. He would then go for the whole of what he 
 contended for by preference. He would sooner throw him- 
 self upon the generosity, he might almost say the char- 
 ity of the west, then take a fallacious security — not the 
 Balkin — but a mound of sand — something with which 
 to cheat his constituents, crying to them peace, peace, 
 when there was no peace, and never could be any. 
 
 "From the days of Aris'ole till that day, no such 
 government had ever been heard of — it was a monster. 
 Two branches of the legislature representing the same 
 people, elected by the same voters, to manage the same 
 interests, to be pitted against each other like two game 
 cocks, to tear and wound each other till one or the other 
 should be forced to submit; that was the government 
 proposed for Virginia, for all time to come. A gov- 
 ernment of numbers in opposition to property was Jaco- 
 binism, rank Jacobinism, he was about to say pure 
 Jacobinism — but nothing pure, nothing defecate could 
 belo g to the thing. It was to be an arraying of num- 
 bers against property, and that then we would .-oon hear 
 the old cry, " peace to the cottage, war to the palace,' T 
 and when the Convention should have established this 
 Jacobinal principle, it was not a few despised nobles — 
 not a few hated priests — odious at once for their hy- 
 pocrisy and their rapacity — no, it was the body of free- 
 holders, the sub-tantial yeomanry of the common- 
 wealth, into w ose mouth they were to put that bridle, 
 and into whose nose they would put that hook. But 
 they never could do it — by him and his friends they 
 never should do it — they ought not, they could not con- 
 sent to it. And as he had said once before, to make 
 the attempt would only be to sound the trumpet of civil- 
 war. It might, at first, be a weaponless warfare, a war 
 of words, but it would pour into the cup of existence an 
 animosity so deep and deadly — it would fix in the bo- 
 soms of the injured a wound so wrankling and remedi- 
 less, that nothing short of the plenary power of the 
 federal government would be able to keep Virginia to- 
 gether." 
 
 1 have read this extract for the especial benefit of 
 those gentlemen who talk about this senate as a protec- 
 tion to property, and for the purpose of bringing to the 
 notice ot the Convention and the country, in the pecu- 
 liar and striking language of that remarkable man, the 
 
30 
 
 views entertained and expressed by him more than 
 twenty years ago, with respect to a scheme which differs 
 irom that now under consideration in those particulars, 
 and in those particulars only, in which it was more favor- 
 able to the east. On another occasion Mr. Randolph 
 speaking of representation in the house of delegates 
 thus expresses himself: 
 
 " We will not give up this question for the certainty, 
 and far less for the hope that the evil will be rectified 
 in the other branch of the legislature. We know, eve 
 ry body knows that it is impossible. Why, sir, the 
 British House of Peers, which contains four hundred 
 me bers, holding a vast property, much more now, it 
 is true, than when Chatham said they were but as a 
 drop in the ocean, compared with the wealth of the 
 Commons — if they, holding their seats for life, and re- 
 ceiving and transmitting them by hereditary descent 
 have never been able to resist the House of Commons, 
 in any measure on which that house choose to insist, do 
 you believe, that twenty-four gentlemen up stairs can 
 resist one hundred and twenty below — especially when 
 the one hundred and twenty represent their own dis- 
 tricts, and are to go home with them to their common 
 constituents ? Sir. the case has never yet happened, I 
 believe, when a senator has been able to resist the united 
 delegation from this district in the lower house." 
 
 I have felt it my duty to bring these matters to the 
 attention of the Convention, and through the Conven- 
 tion to the country, in order that the people, and espe- 
 cially the people of eastern Virginia, may see and 
 know what has been the course pursued by their dele- 
 gates on this floor. I wish the country to see what 
 were the propositions that the eastern committee were 
 piepared to submit — what were the propositions that 
 western gentlemen were willing to go for, and what 
 is the proposition that is now, by the means, in the 
 manner, under the circumstances, and through the influ- 
 ences to which I have adverted, about to be inserted in 
 the constitution as part and parcel of the organic law. 
 With the history of these proceedings before us, is it, 
 I ask, at all surprising that when this report of the com- 
 mittee of eight was first presented to the consideration 
 of this body, it received but one single eastern vote in ad 
 dition to those of the three eastern members of the com- 
 mittee that reported? Yes, sir, out of 69 eastern mem- 
 bers on this floor, it could command but the single vote 
 of the member from Williamsburg (Mr. Bowden.) And 
 how was it again brought forward after it had been 
 thus signally repudiated and rejected by the almost 
 unanimous voice of the eastern delegation in this hall ? 
 How was vitality again breathed into this scheme, af- 
 ter it had thus been killed by a solemn vote of the house ? 
 Sir, I will tell how. The mixed basis, as contained in 
 proposition A — that very proposition which less than a 
 week before, the Convention had refused to strike out 
 by a majority of four upon a test vote in a full house — 
 was now stricken out, in the first place, by the votes of 
 gentlemen, one of whom had declared himself instruct- 
 ed to vote for it ; another had actually made a speech 
 in favor of the mixed basis principle, and all, or nearly 
 all, were understood when they came here to be pledg- 
 ed to its support ; and finally, after the vote had been 
 taken, and the result known, but before it was announc- 
 ed, by a change of his vote on the part of the chairman 
 of the committee of eight himself, (Mr. Martin, of Henry.) 
 
 Sir, the facts I have stated are within the recollec- 
 tion of every gentleman present; they occurred before 
 our own eyes, and there can be no mistake or question 
 about them. Upon the vote as originally taken upon 
 the call of the yeas and nays, the entire western dele- 
 gation voted to strike out, and with them voted the 
 following gentlemen from the east, viz : Mr. Botts, of 
 Henrico; Mr. Bowden, of WiUiamsourg ; Mr. Chilton, 
 of Fauquier ; and Dr. Saunders, of Ljnchburg. The 
 vote then stood 56 yeas to 57 nays — the absentees on 
 both sides having paired off — and then the chairman 
 of the committee of eight, (Mr. Martin, of Henry.) by 
 changing his vote, made it 57 ayes to 56 nays, and thus 
 
 struck out and struck down the principle of the mixed 
 basis. It was thus that room was made for the renewal 
 of this repudiated and rejected scheme, miscalled a 
 compromise, and by these means and under these cir- 
 cumstances that it was again brought forward. I know 
 it has been said (with a view, I presume, of avoiding 
 or at least of diminishing the responsibility that gen- 
 tlemen have incurred in the vote to which I have re- 
 ferred) that the gentleman from Accomac, (Mr. Finney,) 
 who voted for proposition A in committee of the whole, 
 had indicated a purpose to vote against it in the house. 
 Be it so. 
 
 The gendeman from Campbell, (Dr. Saunders,) who 
 voted in committee of the whole for striking out pro- 
 position A, has indicated a corre ponding change of 
 purpose on his part, for he has actually voted in the 
 house against concurring with the committee of the 
 whole, in the vote by which A was stricken out. These 
 two votes, therefore, balance each other; and gentle- 
 men cannot escape the responsibility resulting from the 
 course they have thought proper to pursue. The tact 
 stands before the country uncontested and incontesti- 
 ble, that after this compromise scheme had been killed 
 by a fair vote, in a full house ; after it had been so ut- 
 terly repudiated by the entire eastern delegation m this 
 halL, that out of 59 votes it could command but one — • 
 when it was thus dead and burie , it was necessary to 
 reanimate it by defeating the mixed basis; and to ac- 
 complish this result — and that, too, even by a majority 
 of one— it was not enough for gentlemen to vote against 
 proposition A, who were, confessedly, instructed to 
 vote for it, but, after the vote had been taken, and the 
 result ascertained — though before it was announced — ■ 
 the chairman of the committee, who had reported this 
 precious scheme of compromise himself, found it ne- 
 cessary to change his vote and thus to defeat the mixed 
 basis by a majority of one. 
 
 Now, sir, I do not inquire into the motives of gentle- 
 men—I have nothing to do with their motives — but I 
 state, as I have a perfect right to state, the facts that 
 have occurred before our eyes. 1 give as it is my 
 right to give, a history of this transaction, and I leave 
 it to those who are entitled to pass judgment on the 
 conduct of gentlemen on this floor, to make their own 
 deductions, and to come to their own conclusions there- 
 on. 
 
 Sir, it is in vain to attempt to disguise the fact that 
 the mixed basis has been defeated, and this thing, mis- 
 called a compromise, put upon us by the course pursued 
 by a portion of the professed adv< cates of the mixed basis 
 on this floor. We have always been able to carry the 
 mixed basis — we can carry it now if those who were 
 understood to be its friends will stand up to the princi- 
 ples they were sent here to maintain. But it is idle to 
 expect to carry any principle when its professed advo- 
 cates tell you beforehand they are willing to compro- 
 mise it. Sir, I have had occasion once before to say, 
 and I now repeat, that under such circumstances it will 
 generally be found that those who begin with compro- 
 mise end with surrender. And I leave it to eastern 
 Virginia to say whether our experience, in the present 
 ease, furnishes any exception to the general rule. 
 
 I desire now, sir, to make a single remark as to what 
 some gentlemen seem to regard as the inconsistency of 
 my position in submitting the motion 1 made yesterday 
 to amend this report, after objecting to it on the grounds 
 stated in the few remarks made on Monday last. And 
 I think it will appear that there is about as much found- 
 ation for this idea as for some other positions I have 
 had occasion to consider, and no more. On what ground 
 was it that I objected to the report last Monday, in the 
 few remarks then made? Simply because it gave to 
 the west, in a house of but one hundred and fifty mem- 
 bers, the same majority that the west claimed by its 
 extreme proposition in a house of one hundred and fifty- 
 six, and 1 am to be told that because you give the west by 
 this scheme more than it is entitled to upon the suffrage 
 basis, even according to its own extreme demand, you 
 
81 
 
 do not, therefore, recognise the principle of the suffrage 
 basis ? Or is it to be argued that because you thus put 
 upon the eastern people that very inequality of repre- 
 sentation and degradation, about which our western 
 friends have discoursed so eloquently, you thereby ren- 
 der the scheme more palatable to the east ? This cer- 
 tainly does not obviate the objection I made. It in- 
 creases the objection. You not only take the principle 
 to the full extent to which it will carry you, but you 
 go beyond that principle, and you give to the west 
 more than they are entitled to on their own principles. 
 Thus, by this compromise scheme, it requires a greater 
 number of qualified voters east of the Blue Ridge to 
 send a delegate to the legislature than it does west of 
 the Blue Ridge ; and this degradation, which has been 
 the theme of so much eloquent invective and bitter 
 denunciation on the part of our western brethren, has, 
 by the action of eastern men, been visited upon the 
 eastern people. 
 
 Mr. CHILTON". Will the gentleman from Rich- 
 mond allow me to ask him a question ? Did he not 
 contend that the western people would not be degra- 
 ded? 
 
 Mr. STANARD. Unquestionably, I do so contend, 
 but in doing so I had to encounter the united voice of 
 the western delegation on this floor; and if there be 
 anything in the views so eloquently urged by them, they 
 apply in their full force to the people of eastern Vir- 
 ginia under this compromise scheme. But, sir, whether 
 this inequality of representation in the popular branch 
 be degrading or not, the fact is undeniable that under 
 this scheme more poicer is given to the west than they 
 are entitled to, even upon the suffrage basis itself. 
 Upon what grounds this is done, and whether or not 
 it should be done, I leave it to the eastern people to de- 
 cide. 
 
 But, sir, we are told all this is the result of ultraism 
 — and the gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) has in- 
 formed us that the compromise itself has been brought 
 about by ultraism. Yes, it has been the effect of ultra- 
 ism, but it has been the ultraism of the west, concurring 
 with the — submissionism, shall 1 say ? or, sir, for I would 
 fain adopt the politest phrase I cau think of to express the 
 idea, the compromising spirit, let me call it, of certain 
 gentlemen of the east. That, sir, is the sort of ultraism 
 whicli has produced this result Here have been these 
 western gentlemen, day after day, week after week, 
 and month after month, battling for the principles they 
 were sent here to maintain, with an energy untiring and 
 a zeal that knew no flagging. Sir, I honor them for 
 it — every man of them — and, I wish to Cod we could 
 have had men of like spirit on our side. They never 
 talked about compromise, and s'ill less did they ever 
 think about surrender. They stood as they profes ed 
 to stand, upon principle, and that principle they meant 
 to carry out by any and all the means in their power. 
 Why, sir, have we forgotten the efforts that were made 
 for days and weeks, not to say for months, to control 
 the action of the delegation from this district? Have 
 we forgotten how the halls of this Convention have 
 echoed and re-echoed with appeals, in every form, to 
 the people of Richmond to instruct their delegates to 
 vote for the suffrage basis ? How for days and days to- 
 gether the discussion was carried on here undisguisedly 
 — I had almost said avowedly — wiih a view to effect 
 this result ? And had these efforts proved successful, 
 and the suffrage basis could thus have been carried, 
 even with a single vote, does any man believe that the 
 advocates of that principle would have hesitated for a 
 moment so to have carried it? Does any man believe 
 that under such circumstances western gentlemen 
 would have come forward to compromise this question? 
 No sir, no ! They have never disguised their purpose 
 of carrying their principle by any majority by which it 
 could be carried ; and they would have put it in the con- 
 stitution (if they could) just as certainly by one vote as 
 by twenty or by fiity. But while this was the spirit that 
 prevailed on one side, how was it on the other ? Had we 
 
 no principles to maintain — principles cherished by the 
 people who sent us here, and consecrated by the names 
 and embalmed by the genius of men to whom Virginia 
 will poiot with pride so long as a throb of patriotic emo- 
 tion shall continue to beat in the bosoms of her sons ? 
 And how were principles like these to be vindicated 
 and sustained by declaring in the same breath in which 
 you avowed them, that you were willing to compromise 
 them ? _ We have principles, say gentlemen, principles of 
 the justice, propriety and sound republicanism of which 
 we are fully convinced— principles which some of us 
 have main ained even in argument, on this floor — prin- 
 ciples, that are dear to us, and, it might be added, still 
 dearer to those who sent us here. But be not alarmed, 
 gentlemen of the west, we have no idea of carrying 
 out these principles. You will not fail, if you can, to 
 put your principles into the constitution by any ma- 
 jority that will effect that result; but we have not the 
 remotest idea of adopting the same course as respects 
 our principle. Oh ! no. God forbid we should think of 
 doing that. It might produce excitement— it might 
 lead to revolution — and possibly to a division of the 
 State. Sir, for one, I have indulged in no apprehen- 
 sions of this kind, nor have I permitted considerations 
 like these to cause me to swerve from what was, ac- 
 cording to my poor judgment, the plain path of princi- 
 ple and of duty. I have said, and I repea it, that I 
 never entertained the slightest apprehensions of any 
 revolutionary movement or division of the State pro- 
 duced through the instrumentality of such men as I 
 saw around me here, or of the law-loving and law- 
 abiding people from whom they came. Whatever mio-ht 
 have been the feelings of temporary excitement, Re- 
 sulting from the failure to carry a favorite measure, 
 (feelings in which I can fully sympathise,) I had too 
 much confidence in their good sense, their true Virginian 
 feeling— their loyalty to the State as -well as to the 
 Union — (heir law-loving and Jaw-abiding spirit, ever to 
 doubt the influence or the effects of their sober second 
 thoughts, when those feelings of momentary excite- 
 ment should have passed away. But what reliance 
 can be placed — what calculation can oe made as to the 
 coarse of that man whose conduct is regulated not by 
 his convictions, but by his fears? who<e cwurse is 
 moulded and whose action conti oiled, not by his con- 
 viction of what he ought to do, but by his fears of 
 what somebody else may do ? No great principle of 
 any kind, nothing worth struggling for, either in public 
 or in private lite was ever accomplished by means like 
 these. A contest carried on as this has been, with such 
 unyielding energy and determination on the one side, 
 and such a "compromising spirit,' [I trust I use a 
 phrase to the poli;eness of which at least no exception 
 can be taken, and which will not shock the ears of 
 any gentleman.] so compromising a spirit" I say then on 
 the other could have but oue result — and that is precise- 
 ly the result that has taken place, and which I fear 
 eastern Virginia, at least for all time to come, will have 
 but too much reason to deplore. A great deal has been 
 said in the course of this discussion about the feelings 
 of western Virginia. I think, sir, 1 have all due respect, 
 as much respect as any man can have, for the op uions 
 and feelings of our western brethren. I have always 
 respected them, and that respect has not been dimin- 
 ished, but enhanced by the course they have pursued 
 in their firm, manly and unyielding devotion to the prin- 
 ciples they believed to be right — but I must be pardoned 
 for asking whether no consideration is due the princi- 
 ples and feeling of eastern Virginia ? That is a view 
 of the subject which really would scarcely seem to have 
 occurred to gentlemen. And yet no one I presume is 
 prepared to affirm that the people of eastern Virginia 
 have no principles to be violated — no feeling to be out- 
 raged, or that they are prepared to acquiesce in any 
 abandonment of principle, however glaring— to submit 
 without a murmur to any form of government, however 
 certain to be weak aud almost certain to be corrupt — 
 and, finally, to swallow any scheme, however obnoxious, 
 
provi led only you christen it, " a compromise." Sir, I 
 tr ist they will take this matter into their own hands 
 and expiess their opinions wirh respect to this thing mis- 
 called a compromise ; and if the fire that once burned 
 in the bosoms of our sires is not utterly extinct in those 
 of her sons, 1 believe they will speak to their delegates 
 on this floor, and that too, in tones that can neither be 
 misunderstood, misrepresented, nor evaded. 
 
 But the gentleman from Accomac (Mr. Wise) tells 
 us that we may be thankful for what we have got. If 
 so, our spirit of thankfulness would indeed be great. 
 We should certainly be thankful for very small favors. 
 But if the gentleman means that had the west held 
 out a little longer, they would have got. the suffrage 
 basis out and out, perhaps he is right. At all events, 
 I shall not take issue with him on that point. How far 
 this " spirit of compromise''' has gone, we all see and 
 feel, and for aught I know, gentlemen may have been 
 prepared, in the same spirit, to go yet further, if that 
 thing be possible. I do not profess to be able to fix 
 
 the limits to which western ultraism and eastern 
 
 Mr. WISE. Will the gentleman allow me to say, 
 that by the ultraism which I referred to yesterday, this 
 compromise was brought about ; and if this ultraism 
 was presisted in, I shall not lose the hopes of getting 
 the pure unmitigated suffrage basis in presenti. 
 
 Mr. STANARD. Precisely so, sir. And if the gen- 
 tleman does get it, as I have had occasion to say be 
 fore, he will get that between which and this so-called 
 compromise, there is, in my humble judgment, nothing 
 t ) choose. But let me again tell that gentleman that 
 it is not ultraism, but the absence of ultraism on the 
 part of the east, c imbined with ultraism on the west, 
 that has produced this result. If, sir, the same spirit 
 (or anything like it) that rrevades and animates the 
 action of our western friends, had directed the course 
 of eastern gentlemen on this floor — if the same spirit 
 had animated them that the gentleman from Loudoun 
 (Mr. Janney) has manifested throughout this debate — 
 and never more strikingly than as evinced in his elo 
 quent speech of yesterday — " the flag of the east would 
 not (iO borrow his glowing language) now have been 
 trailing in the dust." 
 
 No sir, no ! We should never have found ourselves 
 in the circumstances in which we are now placed. 
 Either the principle contended for by the east would 
 have been engrafted on the constitution, or there would 
 have been a victo'-y on neither side, but a fair and hon- 
 orable adjustment of this, controversy between the dif- 
 ferent sections of the State upon terms satisfactory to 
 both parties — a compromise of this question in fact as 
 well as in name — not a scheme devised by an eastern 
 committee appointed by western votes, but a compro- 
 mise in the proper sense of the term, emanating from 
 a committee in which the east as well as the west should 
 be represented by men selected by themselves, and car- 
 rying with it all the weight due to the recommenda- 
 tions of such a body — a compromise by which, while 
 each party would feel that it had abated something of 
 its extreme demands, yet neither would have been com- 
 pelled to yield to the terms or to submit to the ultimatum 
 propounded by the other — a compromise, in fine, by 
 which the losing party would at least have enjoyed 
 the poor satisfaction of believing that if they were 
 compelled to submit to the ultimatum of the other 
 side, they at least did not do worse than that — they, 
 at least, did not take less than their adversaries them- 
 selves (adversaries, I mean, on this question, and I 
 trust in no other sense) were willing to give them. 
 And yet, sir, by this scheme of the Committee of Eight, 
 even this poor privilege is denied to the east, for I 
 think it has been shown, and shown conclusively, that 
 one, at least, if not two of the propositions offered us by 
 the west, was decidedly preferable to what is now about 
 to be put upon us by way of compromise. 
 
 It is in vain to talk about this result as anything but 
 a victory of the west over the east. On Saturday night 
 week, the west tojd us that they would agree to nothing 
 
 but a surrender of the whole question in both houses, 
 either now or at some short period — and they have 
 got it. We have not only come up to their ultimatum, 
 but have gone beyond it, and have compromised for less' 
 decidedly less than they themselves were willing to' 
 give us. And this, we are told, is no victory. Sir.it is a 
 victory—a victory on one side, and a total route on the 
 other — a victory on the part of the west, and an utter and 
 absolute surrender, both of the question of principle, 
 and the question of power, on the part of the east. To 
 borrow again thf expressive language of my friend from 
 Loudoun, (Mr. Janney,) " We have not been allowed 
 even to retain our side arms, or to march out with 
 something of the honors of war." We have not capitu- 
 lated, but have surrendered, or rather, have been sur- 
 rendered at discretion. 
 
 How different, how widely different was the course 
 
 pursued by our fathers in the Convention of 1829-30 > 
 
 and how humiliating the contrast between the conduct 
 of eastern representatives in this Convention and in 
 that i The east came into the Convention of 1829-30 
 with a majority against them. Upon the first trial of 
 strength, the white basis party had a majority of two 
 in the committee of the whole. Did eastern repre- 
 sentatives then talk about compromise, about surrender, 
 no matter what the majority was against them on the 
 first trial? No sir, they fought for their principles, 
 they appealed to the country, they sent forth those ap- 
 peals, those arguments, those illustrations that com- 
 manded the public attention, and finally directed and 
 controlled the public voiee. They put forth those 
 speeches on this very basis question, which form a col- 
 lection of deliberative eloquence that has rarely, if ever 
 been surpassed, and which caused the eyes of the whole 
 country to be turned towards the body from which 
 they emanated. The public attention was aroused— 
 the public feeling was excited — the public mind re- 
 acted, and though that reaction operated, in the first 
 instance, so far only as to change a single vote, even 
 that change was productive of the most decisive re- 
 sults. You will find that in 1829 the representatives 
 of eastern Virginia stood day and day, and week alter 
 week, upon a tie vote — once, twice, thrice, did the vote 
 upon this question stand 48 to 48. Not a man faltered 
 or gave way. Armed in conscious rectitude, they were 
 content to stand or fall by the principles they professed. 
 That is the way our fathers fought this question, rep- 
 resenting the same interests, embarked in the same 
 cause, coming from the same people, advocating the 
 same principles, to the support of whih nearly every 
 man of us was pledged before he took his seat in this 
 hall. 
 
 I have said, sir, and I here repeat it, that conscious 
 as I have always been that the east had not in this Con- 
 vention the representation she enjoyed in that — yet, I 
 confess I had hoped that some of our fathers' fire still 
 burned in the bos»ms of their sons. I did hope that, 
 though we could not originate such arguments as they 
 brought forward, or enforce them with such eloquence 
 and power as to convert a minority into a majority, as 
 they had, done yet with these arguments before t he peo- 
 ple, making, as they had made, a deep and abiding im- 
 pression on the public mind, and with a decided n.ajority 
 in favor of the east here at the commencement of the 
 conflict, I confess, I say, that under these circumstances, 
 I did indulge the hope that we could so far hold our 
 own as not to let this Convention terminate in an ut- 
 ter, absolute, and I was about to use a term -which I 
 will not use — I was about to say shameful surrender on 
 the part of the east. But, sir if the deed is to be done, 
 if the principles we were sent here to maintain are to 
 be stricken down, and injury, perhaps irreparable, in- 
 flicted upon those whose rights and interests have been 
 confided to our care, I shall, at least, have the consola- 
 tion of feeling, that not by my arm, or the arms of those 
 who have acted with me on this question, has the par- 
 icidal blow been dealt. If the flag of the east is indeed 
 "trailing in the dust, " it is not our hands that have drag- 
 
33 
 
 ged it down — if others have seen the star in the west, 
 we at least have not gone forth to worship it. But, sir, 
 the deed is not yet done, the act of surrender is not yet 
 consummated, and now the question is : shall this thing, 
 that is a compromise only in name, be permitted to 
 stand ? Shall it be finally consummated and carried out 
 by being made part and parcel of the organic law — by 
 being emblazoned upon the folds of your constitution, 
 there to remain so long as the constitution itself shall 
 endure ? I have no doubt how this question will be 
 decided now and here. I have no doubt as to what will 
 be the decision of this body at this time. But, sir, there 
 is another tribunal to which we are all responsible, and 
 to that I appeal. I hope and trust that before this act 
 is finally consummated, an opportunity will be afforded 
 to the people of considering this most vital question, i 
 and of expressing their sentiments with respect to it. 
 I hope they will have an opportunity of examining this 
 scheme in all its parts, in its origin, its progress, its de- 
 tails, its consummation, and its probable, nay, its al- 
 most certain effects in the establishment of a govern- 
 ment as devoid of efficiency in its operation as of prin- 
 ciple in its organization — a government alike weak, 
 corrupt, and corrupting in its tendencies — a ricketty and 
 unstable machine, under which the great interests of the 
 State, instead of being fostered and promoted, will lan- 
 guish and decay. Let the people examine into these 
 matters for themselves, and when they shall have done 
 so, let their voice be heard — and it is a voice, sir, which 
 if heard, must and will be heeded in this hall ; and I 
 do not despair ; no, sir, I am very, very far from de- 
 spairing, that one or two results will follow, and either 
 the principle for which the east has contended — the 
 principle on which this Convention itself is organized — 
 will be embodied in the constitution it is to send forth, 
 or, at all events, that some plan may be devised and 
 agreed upon that is free from the insuperable objections 
 that exist to this most pernicious scheme; some plan 
 that is fair, and just, and equal for the east and for the 
 westj and which, if adopted, may have the benign ef- 
 fect, so devoutly to be wished for by us all, of enabling 
 this Convention to close its labors under feelings on both 
 sides very, very different from those which I believe 
 will pervade the breasts of a large portion of this body 
 if a scheme so justly obnoxious m every point of view, 
 as this has been shown to be, shall, by a meagre majori- 
 ty of some four or five vote?, (and those, too, the votes 
 of the gentlemen who originated it.) be now forced upon 
 the Convention and upon the country. 
 
 I may, perhaps, be asked what course I shall pursue 
 if this scheme be finally adopted and engrafted on the 
 constitution. I have no difficulty, sir, in answering that 
 question - 1 shall pursue precisely that course which I 
 have little doubt the great body of our western friends, 
 if not the whole of them, would have pursued, and 
 which I have still less doubt that the great body, if not 
 the whole of the western people would have sustained 
 them in, if the principle of the mixed basis (which 
 cannot be more obnoxious t© them than this thing, mis- 
 called a compromise, is to me) had been adopted and 
 put on them as this is about to be put upon us — I will 
 submit to the law of the land. I will abide by the will 
 of the people, declared by their constituted authorities. 
 I. am no secessionist, no disunionist, no disorganize^ no 
 Dcrrite, and if it be the will of the people that this 
 shall be their government, they have a right so to or- 
 dain, and I, as a citizen, have no alternative but to sub- 
 mit. There is, or ought to be, but one sovereign in a 
 free country, and that sovereign is the law of the land, 
 as declared by the constituted authorities to whom the 
 people have delegated the power of declaring what that 
 law, organic or oth^r, shall be. To the will of the peo- 
 ple thus expressed, I am and trust I shall always be 
 ready to bow. But, sir, I say again, that before the act 
 is consummated, 1 trust the people will be heard. I 
 trust their voice will come up to this hall, and if it shall, 
 I do not believe that a scheme like this will ever become 
 part and parcel of the constitution of Virginia. I do 
 5 
 
 not believe when this scheme comes to be seen and un- 
 derstood as it really is, when it comes to be stripped of 
 the garb of compromise and viewed as it is in its naked 
 deformity, I do not believe that it will command the 
 approbation of the people of Virginia, east or west, 
 north or south. The east, almost with one voice, has 
 already condemned it, and I know from their own de- 
 clarations, that it is far from being satisfactory even to 
 some of the gentlemen from the west. 
 
 I had no idea, when I commenced speaking, of occu- 
 pying so much of the time of the Convention as I have 
 done. I am aware of the tedium which any gentleman 
 inflicts on the Convention, and the great disadvantages 
 under which he labors, who attempts to make any re- 
 marks upon this subject at this time, but I trust the 
 Convention will hold me excused when they see that it 
 is a course of remark brought about by nothing which 
 I have said or done, or meant to say or do, but rendered 
 necessary as an act of self-defence — to defend myself 
 and those eastern members who have acted with me 
 against statements and charges which I regard as, and 
 trust I have shown, to be utterly unfounded in fact. 
 - And now, speaking, as I trust, for the last time on 
 this question. I take occasion to say to western gentle- 
 men that if at any time in the course of this discussion, 
 under the influence of what they must perceive, and 
 what I most sensibly feel, to be a perhaps too impulsive 
 nature, I have said or done any thing in language or in 
 manner calculated in the slightest degree to wound the 
 feelings of gentlemen, I hope they will believe that 
 nothing was further from my intention. Feeling strong- 
 ly, I have spoken freely ; but without the slightest 
 design in so doing to transcend the just limits of free 
 debate, or to do more than express in such language as 
 I could command, the strong and decided convictions of 
 my own mind on this most vital question. 
 
 PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED BY THE EASTERN COMMITTEE* 
 
 [A.] 
 
 1. Resolved, That the house of delegates shall consist 
 of one hundred and fifty-six members, and that repre- 
 sentation therein shall be based upon the qualified vot- 
 ers of the State. 
 
 2. Resolved, That the senate shall consist of fifty 
 members, and that representation therein shall be based 
 upon taxation, exclusive of the license tax, the tax 
 on law process, and the capitation tax on free ne- 
 groes. 
 
 3. Resolved, That all laws may originate in either 
 of the two houses of the general aesembly, to be ap- 
 proved or rejected by the other, and all laws may be 
 amended by either house, 'With the consent of the 
 other. 
 
 4. Resolved, That the legislature shall, in the year 
 1862, and in every ten years thereafter, re-apportien 
 representation in the house of delegates and in the sen 
 ate, upon the principles stated in the first and second 
 resolutions. 
 
 LB.] 
 
 1. Resolved, That the house of delegates shall con- 
 sist of one hundred and fifty members, and that eighty- 
 five members thereof shall be apportioned among those 
 counties, districts, and cities lying west of the Blue 
 Ridge of mountains, and sixty-five among those coun- 
 ties, districts, and cities lying east of the Blue Ridge of 
 mountains. 
 
 2. Resohed, That the senate shall consist of fifty 
 members, and that representation therein shall be 
 based upon taxation, exclusive of the taxes levied on 
 licenses, law process, and the capitation tax on free 
 negroes. 
 
 3. Resolved, That all laws may originate in either 
 of the two houses of the general assembly, to be ap- 
 proved or rejected by the other, and all laws may 
 be amended by either house, with the consent of the 
 other. 
 
 4. Resolved \ That the legislature shall, in the year 
 
34 
 
 1862, and in every tenth year thereafter, re-apportion 
 representation in the house of delegates, equally among 
 the qualified voters of the State ; and in the senate, 
 equally upon taxation, excluding taxes on licenses, law 
 process, and capitation taxes on free negroes. 
 
 [C.] 
 
 1. Resolved, That the house of delegates shall consist 
 of one hundred and fifty members, seventy-five of which 
 shall be apportioned on the suffrage basis, and seventy- 
 five on taxes, exclusive of taxes on licenses, law process, 
 and the capitation tax on free negroes. 
 
 2. Resolved, The senate shall consist of fifty members, 
 and representation therein shall be based upon the 
 qualified voters of the State. 
 
 3. Resolved, That all laws may originate in either 
 house, and be amended or rejected in the other. 
 
 4. Resolved, The legislature shall, in the year 1862, 
 and in every tsnth year thereafter, re-apportion repre- 
 gention in each house, upon the prineiples stated in the 
 first and second resolutions. 
 
 5. Resolved, No Convention to alter or amend this 
 constitution shall be held, unless in pursuance of a law 
 passed by a vote of three-fifths of all the members elect- 
 ed to each house of the legislature, and upon the final 
 passage of such law, the yeas and nays shall be entered 
 upon the journal of each house. 
 
 PROPOSITIONS SUBMITTED BY THE WESTERN COMMITTEE. 
 
 1st. That the house of delegates shall be apportioned 
 on the mixed basis, as in proposition A, excluding the 
 capitation tax on free negroes, giving to the counties, 
 &c, lying east of the Blue Ridge a majority of thirteen 
 in a house of one hundred and fifty members. 
 
 That the senate be apportioned according to the 
 qualified voters, giving to the western division of the 
 State a majority of two in a senate of thirty -six mem- 
 bers. 
 
 That in the year 1862 both houses of the general as- 
 sembly be apportioned according to the number of 
 the qualified voters of the Commonwealth. 
 
 2d. The same as the preceding, except that instead 
 of a mandatory provision in the Constitution for the 
 apportionment of both houses upon the suffrage basis in 
 
 the year 1862, a provision be inserted requiring the 
 general assembly, in the year 1862, to submit the ques- 
 tion to the qualified voters of the State, whether the 
 same plan of representation shall be" continued, or 
 whether both houses of the general assembly shall be 
 apportioned according to the qualified voters. 
 
 3d. So to modify the first proposition submitted by 
 the eastern committee, as to provide that the house of 
 delegates shall consist of one hundred and fifty-six 
 members, apportioned according to the qualified voters, 
 and the senate of fifty members apportioned upon tax- 
 ation, exclusive of taxes on licenses, law process, and 
 free negroes, giving in the house of delegates a majori- 
 ty of fourteen to the west, and in the senate a majori- 
 ty of fourteen to the east, with a provision that in the 
 year 1862 both houses be re-apportioned according to 
 the qualified voters. 
 
 4th. That both houses be apportioned on the mixed 
 basis, as in proposition A, excluding the capitation tax 
 on free negroes, and so continue until the year 1862, 
 when each house shall be re-apportioned according to 
 the number of the qualified voters. 
 
 The above propositions were successively made ac- 
 cording to the order in which they are here given, and 
 were each accompanied by the declaration of the west- 
 ern committee of the entire readiness on thei r part and 
 on the part of those for whom they acted to unite in 
 any and every proper limitation upon the legislative 
 power in regard to taxation and appropriation, and the 
 protection and security of property. 
 
 ULTIMATUM OF THE WEST. 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to 
 inform the eastern committee that this meeting ha3 
 unanimously approved and adopted the report of their 
 committee of conference, and to confer further, if re- 
 quested, with a committee on the part of the eastern 
 meeting ; and to inform that meeting, through its com- 
 mittee, that this meeting can accept of no plan of com- 
 promise which does not ultimately, in a reasonable 
 time, recognize re-apportionment on the suffrage basis, 
 or the submission of the question of re-apportionment 
 to the decision of the qualified voters at the polls. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. HENRY A. WISE, OF ACCOIAC, 
 
 IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 
 
 ON 
 
 THE BASIS QUESTION 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 VIRGINIA REFORM CONVENTION, 
 
 WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY, MONDAY, 
 April 23, 24, 25, 26, and 28, 1851. 
 
 RICHMOND, Y A . 
 
 [WILLIAM G. BISHOP, OFFICIAL REPORTER.] 
 
 PRINTED BY R. H. GALLAHER— REPUBLICAN OFFICE. 
 1851. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, April 23, 1851. 
 
 Mr. President — For myself, personally, on this sub- 
 ject, I have not one word to say. All personal consi- 
 derations are overshadowed by the coliseum of the 
 State ! What man — what mere man, now living, is wor- 
 thy — what matter touching self is worthy to be consid- 
 ered ? to be weighed in the balance at this moment, when 
 "the crisis of our fate has come," and Tirginia — 
 Virginia is in the scales ? When the question — the 
 big, the ominous question is here — shall Virginia be 
 herself again, or shall she lie sick — aye, sic, sic, sic 
 semper tyrannis? Shall she be sick semper, or shall 
 she be re-invigorated and made herself again ? What 
 are local considerations, what is trans- Alleghany, what 
 is the Valley, what is Piedmont, what is Tidewater, 
 what are these mere sectional conflicts compared with 
 the entire, immeasurable interests of the State, as a 
 whole State — a State measured by herself in the past, 
 a State that cannot be measured for the future ? Now, 
 the question is, whether in this moment of general ri 
 valry among States, Virginia shall remain supine 
 and dormant, or whether Virginia shall not reach out 
 her hands to take an empire more magnificent than 
 that of the Caesars? Does any one suppose that 
 at such a time as this, in the hour when we are delibe- 
 rating for the general good, for the destiny of posterity, 
 to vindicate ourselves, too, as worthy of the glory of the 
 past — does any one suppose that I can be tempted to 
 debate with my friend, (Mr. Lyons,) whether to prefer a 
 division of the State under any circumstances, or whe- 
 ther I would permit others to accept it, or to drive me 
 to that dread alternative ? Avaunt ! all these minor 
 and mischievous considerations. Down with all these 
 sectional discriminations ! Anathema maranatha be the 
 idea of Virginia divided ! Virginia divided ! She has had 
 that question twice before her. She has parted with emi- 
 nent domain enough. Have gentlemen forgotten that 
 this mother commonwealth gave to the Union quite 
 five empires — one of which is now larger than herself? 
 Have you forgotten that out of her limits were carved 
 not many years ago, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, 
 and that she herself had ceded to her own children, 
 the State of Kentucky ? And now, it is pointed to, 
 as one of the acts of her folly, that she ever divided 
 her domain. Is it possible to suppose that there is a 
 head so mad or a heart so bad now, as under any con- 
 tingency to contemplate another dismemberment ? Sir, 
 there is too much at stake, there is too great a trust put 
 in our hands, too grand, too sublime for subjects of 
 debate like that of dividing the State again to have 
 a resting place for one moment on our minds in con- 
 sidering this great question. 
 
 Sir, do not be alarmed when I tell you that I have a 
 great deal to say. I am ready to speak day and night 
 until it is all said, but I must say it all. 
 
 This question involves so much — so much hangs upon 
 our decision at this moment, that we are compelled — no 
 matter whether you have one basis or another — no 
 matter how you decide this question of representation — 
 to take a view of all the interests that are dependent 
 
 upon our decision. As I said upon a former occasion, 
 I cannot say, in the language of an illustrious man, (Mr. 
 Randolph,) that I " am perfectly aware that on entering 
 upon this subject, we go into it manacled, hand-cuffed 
 and tongue-tied." Handcuffed we may be, but not 
 tongue-tied. Some of you gentlemen, may be, but I 
 am not tongue tied. Debate it, sir ! I would not be 
 happy if I did not debate this question. My children 
 would never forgive me, they would always remember 
 me with regret when they came to their manhood or 
 womanhood, if I neglected my duty upon the present 
 occasion, to debate this question. Debate it ? Yes sir, 
 debate it for eastern Virginia, where it has never 
 been generally debated. I say, debate it ; debate it 
 fully, because appeals have been made to the pledges 
 of gentlemen, and made against all reason and con- 
 science. Gentlemen have been pointed to their mana- 
 cles, they have been reminded that they have made 
 pledges, and pledges to whom ? That they are manacled, 
 and manacled by whom ? Pledges to the people ! We 
 are told you are manacled by the people. Ah, you 
 gentlemen who curl your lips and cock your noses at 
 the " dear people" — you too, it seems, have made pledges 
 to the "dear people !" You are manacled by the dear 
 people ! I am glad that, at least, gentlemen acknow- 
 ledge some power in the people; that this much ho- 
 mage at least, is paid to the " dear people." They are 
 the masters, and pledges to them must be executed • 
 yet we are told by the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. 
 Lyons,) that we, "we, we" will submit to these same 
 " dear people" what " we" think right for them to elect ; 
 sir, that is the language of monarchs, is the language 
 of kings. Who are " we ?" We, we, [laughter,] we will 
 give the people what we think right, but they shall not 
 judge of it ! Will the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr. 
 Lyons,) tell us which are the majesties who say to the 
 people, "we will give you what we please?" Is the 
 autocrat of Russia that same we? Is that a mark of 
 a republican representative? Who says " we?" Is it 
 little Vic. of England — who is "we?" What does the 
 gentleman mean ? 
 
 Mr. LYONS, (in his seat.) The people themselves. 
 
 Mr. WISE. And yet the gentleman says "toe" will 
 not allow the people to decide this question for themselves. 
 [Laughter.] "We are not* so green as that." " We 
 will dictate to the people what they, the people, ought 
 to have !" ^Who are "we?" The property holders, the 
 governmental majority, the real sovereign minority — 
 that's we ! [Laughter.] Now, sir, I bow to their ma- 
 jesty, [renewed laughter,] very awkwardly, very yeo- 
 man like, but I bow to their majesty when they set up 
 the pretentions that the minority of government shall 
 undertake to say what is right to be submitted to the 
 people. They must take what is given them by " we" 
 or they shall have nothing ! Well done for these little 
 kings ! Magnifique ! Write that upon the throne ! I 
 should like to see it enacted in the Richmond theatre — 
 this " we" play ! [Laughter.] I should like to see the 
 costume of the court. I should like to see the diadem 
 and sceptre of the we. I will remember who is king. 
 King money in the State of Virginia is the royal dignity,, 
 
4 
 
 and the child is christened "we." [Great laughter.] 
 We — gentlemen don't mean the sovereigns at the polls — 
 but they mean "we," our little selves, the minority 
 of the property-holders in the State who hold the 
 power in the municipal government, and the power 
 in this Convention ! You have the power to say whe- 
 ther the people shall have the right of election, or 
 whether you, the mere agents of the people, shall 
 substitute your election for the election of the sove- 
 reigns. "Wef "we!" with a sneer — with a most 
 aristocratic sneer. — [Laughter.] What! "We," en- 
 tertain such an idea ? "Out! Pooh!" [Great laugh- 
 ter.] That the people shall not have the right — that 
 the masters of the people shall have the right to say 
 to the people : " You are no judges of what is for your 
 own good; you thall not elect, but, "t«e" will judge 
 for you — " we" will elect for you, and you shall take 
 our election or nothing ! " Is not that a serious principle 
 to be adopted here ? that here, the servants shall become 
 greater than their masters ? whether the mere agents of 
 the people shall set themselves up above the people ? 
 whether de facto, without any pretence de jure, these 
 little " wees" shall really wield the power of the people 
 against their own will ? 
 
 But, sir, I don't debate for the moral use only 
 of torturing consciences pledged to error. No, I 
 debate this question, in the second place, because 
 the people are to vote upon our work; and I 
 wish to show that, conceding the principle of the mixed 
 basis, that property shall be an element of representa- 
 tion, yet I do not yield that it carries us to the extreme 
 conclusion that property shall have the preponderance 
 over the white population. Gentlemen may, if they 
 please, take their principle for granted — they may force 
 us to endure their pretensions to be " ice" — I will grant 
 their principles for the sake of argument — though I 
 deny their proposition, that property shall be an ele- 
 ment in the organization of government — yet there is 
 a large margin left, in which to show that property 
 shall not only not preponderate over, but shall not be 
 anything like on an equality even with white population. 
 
 I debate the question, in the third place, because, al- 
 though J may have nothing new to present, yet, as it is 
 in painting, so it is in life. Every artist will present 
 the same object in his own style, and in a different style 
 from any other. From the work of one pencil upon 
 the cauvass, the perspective may not catch the eye of 
 some ; each mind has its own grouping, and the perspec- 
 tive of truth, may at last be caught by a change of the 
 canvass to the unpractised eye, so as to strike the gaze 
 of those who are spectators, even though — 
 
 "To nicest judgment show the piece, 
 "At best, 'twould only not displease." 
 
 I shall debate this question, in the fourth place, be- 
 cause it involves the whole American theory of human 
 liberty, and we are laying the foundation of freedom, 
 it may be, not for another twenty years, nor for half a 
 century, nor for a whole century, but as I hope and 
 trust, for ages. 
 
 I shall debate the question in the fifth place, to an- 
 swer not only the living but the dead — the mighty dead. 
 You sir, were a compeer with my predecessors, (Upshur 
 and Joynes,) in the last Convention. You remember 
 them both, for they were, both men like Byron's Lara, 
 who " dared you to forget." One has his niche in 
 Virginia's temple of the mighty men who have departed, 
 one is still living in all his vigor and strength, and is 
 now overlooking this, our work. Oh ! Mr. Chairman, that 
 I had him who is gone here this day by my side. You 
 remember the front of the man, you remewaber the " os 
 homini sublime," you remember that intellectual struc- 
 ture ; oh, what power of intellect was there ! You re- 
 member the words that flowed from lips to?;ched as if 
 with live coals from off the altar. The bare allusion re- 
 calls him to my mind when last I saw him in his shroud, 
 with the iron in that brow, and with a sweet smile upon 
 his face. He was my friend, and I say that Virginia 
 
 has not now the like of him in power of oratory. 
 Randolph, Randolph said, and you doubtless heard him 
 say, " that the one by his figures of arithmetic, and the 
 other by his figures of rhetoric," had carried the vic- 
 tory in the last Convention, for the property principle." 
 I stand here, therefore, not only to answer the argu- 
 ments of the living, which I have heard in this Conven- 
 tion, which, if they have added nothing new to the 
 great debate upon the same subject in the last Conven- 
 tion, have at all events been founded upon new data, 
 have been modified by time, and have been addressed to 
 the men of another day. I have not only to answer 
 the host who fight the battles of the mixed basis 
 here, but I have also to answer the arguments of the 
 dead, who have left sanctified memories. 1 have to 
 answer the arguments of Abel P. Upshur, which have 
 made such an indelible impression upon the minds of 
 eastern people. I have to grapple with that subtle 
 metaphysics which showed, or attempted to show, that 
 this pretension of property was not only legitimate, 
 but expedient, which endeavored to establish a priori 
 by a curiously woven web of sophistry, that upon first 
 principles the pretension of property was true and well- 
 founded. Then, as the counties of Accomac and North- 
 ampton sent that argument forth to the world — dis- 
 claiming the attempt to disparage the mightiest of the 
 mighty in the last Convention, I say that the speech of 
 Mr. Upshur, as one single effort, was li the speech" of 
 that Convention — so it has been generally regarded — 
 it becomes one at least of their representatives to grap- 
 ple with that effort of Mr. Upshur, and it shall crush 
 me or I will crush it before 1 am done. I know I have 
 the work of a giant to contend with, and I feel how 
 weak and feeble I am to undertake such an encounter, 
 but I am armed with the truth, and I feel it in me that 
 I can meet and conquer the error, and I will do it, and 
 I will do it too with the " stone and sling" of that de- 
 spised sentiment which I have heretofore uttered, " in- 
 finite radicalism." 
 
 Now, what is the question ? The question is 
 not, who shall be represented, nor what shall be 
 represented. No, sir, without hesitation or reserve 
 I not only concede but claim that all, all shall be repre- 
 sented — all, all shall be protected. Show me that that 
 principle which bases the government upon the rights 
 of the moral kingdom, that bases the government upon 
 the reason and conscience and will of men, will not pro- 
 tect property as well as persons — persons as well as 
 property — and 1 will yield the question in one moment. 
 And if I can show that God Almighty, by placing man 
 and man only in the moral kingdom of nature — by giv- 
 ing him, and him only, reason and conscience and will, 
 has given him and him only the right to decide upon the 
 questions of human government, and questions of moral 
 conduct — I claim jure divino the right of man to gov- 
 ern property — his right not to be governed by property 
 nor by any thing that is in the physical kingdom only, 
 and that is not in the moral kingdom of the Almighty. 
 Some gentlemen say for themselves, " If I were a 
 western man, I would represent and protect only west- 
 ern interests — if I were an eastern man I would repre- 
 sent and protect only eastern interests." It has been 
 uttered here again and again by gentlemen on the 
 eastern side of this question. The sentiment is so far 
 below the merits of this question that I will not deign 
 to discuss it. Is such selfishness, such a groveling, sor- 
 did element either of feeling or action as this, worthy 
 of the sons of men who pledged all, all — lives, fortunes 
 and sacred honor, without regarding whether Massa- 
 chusetts paid mere than Virginia or Virginia more than 
 Massachusetts, in the war for liberty? and what is this 
 but a civil contest for human rights. You are not now 
 acting in an ordinary legislature. You are not now 
 passing upon bills which may be enacted to-day and 
 repealed to-morrow. You are not controlling mere 
 questioi s of expediency, except so far as expediency 
 is synonymous with justice, but you are a conventional 
 body. You are an assembly of great organic law givers 
 who are not merely dealing with the out-works of ad 
 
5 
 
 ministrative policy, but you are laying the very founda- 
 tion of government, which if not laid solid, the super- 
 structure will not be safe. Whatever we may base 
 representation upon, base it where you please, the 
 State constitution, I contend, must be based upon popu- 
 lar virtue, upon moral right, upon the constitution of 
 man, upon the laws of nature and upon the will of God, 
 to "do unto others as you would others should do unto 
 you," or it will stand like that house of which we are 
 told in God's holy word, which was founded upon the 
 sand, and when the floods came and beat thereon it 
 fell, "and great, was the fall thereof." 
 
 I have shown now what is not the question. What 
 is the que stion ? 
 
 The question is, shall wealth be a representative ? shall 
 moral interests be controlled by money? shall property 
 have 'political as well as money power ? shall man rule 
 money or money rule man ? Cannot persons adequately 
 protect property ? Must it have political power for its 
 owners to protect itself? can political power be given to 
 it viithout depriving men of their moral rights? The 
 answers to these questions depend upon the answer to 
 the question, who or tvhat, primarily, has the right to 
 forma State? These are the questions to be debated 
 here — these are the mighty questions that you are to de- 
 cide here. 
 
 Now, before we can debate these great questions, we 
 must look at the condition of this commonwealth. I 
 am the last man in the world to trouble you with any- 
 thing like a mere detailed statement, or tables of 
 figures and facts. The little petty arithmetical facts 
 that may be hashed up ad infinitum, I do not intend to 
 deal with in this discussion- I wish to deal with great, 
 striking, leading, comprehensive, incontrovertible facts, 
 in order to ascertain from the condition of this com- 
 monwealth the true issue of this discussion. And what 
 is it ? You find that the total white population of the 
 east is 401,104, and that the east pays of taxes 
 $347,000 ; while the west has a white population of 
 494,763, and pays a tax of $185,316.37. The whole 
 population of whites in the State then, is 895,867, and 
 the total tax paid is 1532.664.46. The proposition upon 
 your table, as far as it goes, proposes to give to the 
 401,104 of white population in the east 33 58-100 
 representatives, and to the $347,348.09 of tax of the 
 east 48 91-100th representatives. Or in round num- 
 bers, it proposes to give to 400,000 white population 
 33, and to 1347,000 of tax 49 representatives — a propor- 
 tion of 33 to 49. It proposes therefore, to give to 
 $347,000 east of the mountains — to say nothing of the 
 west — a majority of fourteen representatives, over 
 401,000 white population in the east, without any sec- 
 tional controversy in the matter whatever. Throw out 
 the western portion of the State — suppose for one mo- 
 ment that western Virginia did not belong to us — and 
 that the territory east of the mountains alone constitu- 
 ted the commonwealth of Virginia, and then take what 
 the gentleman from Fauquier says he would accept. 
 I ask him whether in eastern Virginia he would carry 
 las principle to the extent of giving to 401,104 white 
 population of the east, but thirty-four representatives, 
 while he gave to $347,000 of taxes forty-nine represen- 
 tatives ? I put him upon the issue with reference to 
 eastern Virginia alone, and what says my friend? 
 This then is a question between property and the white 
 population of the east, as well as a question between 
 east and west. Shall $347,000 of a factitious, fluctua- 
 ting, uncertain, unpermanent tax be counted forty-nine 
 east of the mountains, when 400,000 white population 
 are to be counted but thirty-four ? If you throw the 
 gold in the scale, will it not take a little more than 
 $347,000 to make the balance kick the beam against 
 401,000 white population of the eCt ? 
 
 The total white population of the west is 494,763, 
 and to that population you propose to give 41 42-100th 
 representatives. The west pays but $185,000 lax and 
 to this $185,000 tax you give twenty-six representa- 
 tives — on the same proportion that you arrange repre- 
 sentation east by the mixed basis. Gentlemen of the 
 
 west need not complain, for as I have said to my con- 
 stituents, they have not as much cause of complaint as 
 our white people have, of the tyranny and oppression 
 that will be produced by the inequality between the 
 property holder and the non-property holder of the east. 
 Your case is bad enough, gentlemen of the west — the 
 disparity there is bad enough — but fortunately for you, 
 you do not pay tax enough to make the proportion of 
 representatives assigned to taxes exceed that assigned 
 to the reasons and consciences of men, as will be the case 
 in the east. We have a preponderance of dollars and 
 cents over us. With a number of population greater than 
 the number of dollars — with a greater number of hu- 
 man souls — yes souls, not politically, but souls in the 
 sense of grace — white souls, (I beg pardon, there are 
 some white souls that are black, [laughter,] and I be- 
 lieve some black souls are white too,) with a popula- 
 tion, I say, of four hundred and one thousand that are 
 human beings, out-counting the dollars as 401,000 is to 
 347,000 — yet in distributing seventy -five representatives 
 you give them as thirty-four to forty-nine in favor of 
 the almighty dollar against flesh and blood, and the 
 reasons and consciences and wills of man ! How do 
 these people of Richmond regard it? When told at 
 home — when it is laid before their eyes — will they give 
 their voices to consent that the lesser sum than the 
 number of the population shall out-count the population 
 by more than one-fourth of the whole amount of repre- 
 sentation? 
 
 The question is not only one between propeity and 
 white population in the east and property and white 
 population in the west, but it is a question also between 
 the east and west. And how is it so ? I will go to 
 another table, which I have prepared, and which shows 
 that the east has of white population 401,104, and the 
 west 494,763. The majority then of white population 
 in the west is 93,659. The east has of slaves 412,738, 
 and the west 63,232. The east then has a majority of 
 slaves of 349,506. The east pays of tax $347,347.09, 
 and the west 185,316.37 — the east paying a gross ex- 
 cess of tax of $162,032.32. The west has an excess of 
 white population of 93,659, while the east has an ex- 
 cess of slaves of 349,506. The west has given to it 
 sixty-eight representatives, while to the east is given 
 eighty-two. But from the tax of the east must be taken 
 the amount expended in the east, amounting to $126,000, 
 leaving the net taxes of the east at $220,802.36. The 
 tax of the west is $185,000, and there is expended in 
 the west $97,092.41, leaving the net tax of the west 
 at $88,223.96. This leaves a net balance in favor of 
 the east of $132,576.40. 
 
 What then is the condition of the commonwealth ? 
 Ninety-four thousand free white citizens of the State 
 upon one side, and 349,000 slaves and $132,000 of tax 
 on the other. Look on the one side and then on the 
 other, ye free masters of slaves, and tell me, as states- 
 men, which has the right to rule? Shall 349,000 
 slaves — aye, and multiply them by ten, if you please, 
 and ten added to that, and $132,000 of tax bagged with 
 them, if you please — outweigh 94,000 free white popu- 
 lation — not of Yankees — not of free-soilers — not of fo- 
 reigners — but of our own Virginia born Virginians — 
 men to the manor born — bone of our bone, flesh of our 
 flesh, feeling as we feel, acting as we act, and abiding 
 with us through evil and through good report ? Shall 
 these 94,000 free white citizens, no matter where they 
 reside, east or west, or these 349,000 slaves and $132,000, 
 rule in this commonwealth? That is the great ques- 
 tion now presented to this Convention ! Masters ! mas- 
 ters ! how do you value white men, your own brethren, 
 as compared with your slaves? That is the question 
 for you to decide ! It is not the arithmetical, but the 
 moral aspect of this question. You, that can order 
 your slaves to be taken out and cowhided at any mo- 
 ment — will you attempt to out-weigh with them in the 
 political balance nearly 100,000 free white citizens ? 
 Will you dare to say that you will balance 94,000 free 
 white population, with all their interests, moral, intel- 
 
6 
 
 lectual and political, and -with their police and arms- 
 bearing responsibilities, with a million even of your 
 black serfs? Western men might be misunderstood if 
 they put the question in this light. But I am of the 
 east — I am a master — I am a pro-slavery man — and I 
 do not hesitate, as a pro-slavery man and as a slave- 
 holder, to say that I would not give, in the formation 
 of a State, 100,000 free white citizens in the State of 
 Virginia, for all the slaves on the continent. Nor do I 
 presume that it will be considered bold, even in this 
 Convention of masters, to utter such a sentiment. 
 
 The first question then is, shall property rule white 
 population in the east, as well as have disproportionate 
 power in the west? Shall 347,000 of dollars in the 
 east rule 401,000 of free white population in the east ; 
 and then shall 849,000 slaves and $132,000 of tax rule 
 94,000 majority of free white citizens in the State ? 
 That is the great question for us to decide. 
 
 Here, in my place, in the discharge of my duty; here, 
 with the fall appreciation of what that duty is ; here, 
 looking to the ends to which a proper discharge or an 
 improper discharge of that duty may tend ; here, an ex- 
 treme eastern man, I defy any man to set himself up 
 above me, or to go further than I will in defence of the 
 institution of slavery. And I defy any man to get' far- 
 ther east than I am sectionally, keeping himself in this 
 commonwealth. Figuratively and in fact, therefore, I 
 am an extreme eastern man. Here, then, as an extreme 
 eastern man, both in deed and in fact, I stand upon the 
 free white suffrage basis — and why? Why? Pretend- 
 ing at least to understand this subject thoroughly — pre- 
 tending to have studied it in all the experience of my 
 public life — and pretending to understand the tenden- 
 cies in the United States in respect to the institution of 
 slavery, I plant myself upon the free suffrage basis. I 
 not only shall go for free, equal and universal suffrage, 
 but for free, equal and universal representation ; be- 
 cause it is morally right ; because it gives the best pro- 
 tection, not only to persons but to property ; because it 
 involves all that progress which I hope to see achieved 
 before I die, and all that development that I hope my 
 posterity may enjoy in the future after I have gone ; 
 and because it alone will fulfil the mission which I have 
 every reason to think God has intended this common- 
 wealth of Virginia to accomplish, at this time, and at 
 this day, and now — for it is now or never. The insti- 
 tution of slavery is endangered by this Bourbon, " we,!' 
 property pretension, that gentlemen set up under the 
 name of the mixed basis. I believe that the worst ene- 
 my of slavery, the worst foe to that institution that 
 could be raised up at this'day, is to be aroused by press- 
 ing this pretension of property, and of slave property 
 too — this claim, that it shall be put against 94,000 free 
 white population in western Virginia, and against 15 
 or 20,000 majority of the voters of this State. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR. If my friend from Accomac will 
 allow me, as it is two o'clock, and as he has arrived at 
 a very convenient point in his argument to break off, I 
 will move that the committee rise. 
 Mr. WISE. I have no objection. 
 Mr. TAYLOR. I now move that the committee rise. 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee rose 
 and reported progress. 
 
 Mr. FINNEY. I move that when the Convention ad- 
 journ, it adjourn to meet at half past seven o'clock. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY. I wish to inquire whether the gen- 
 tleman who has the floor himself prefers that hour ? 
 Mr. WISE. Yes, sir; I prefer it. 
 The motion was agreed to, and the committee then 
 rose. 
 
 On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the Convention then 
 adjourned to half past seven o'clock, P. M. 
 
 EVENING SESSION. 
 
 When the Convention again re-assembled, at half past 
 seven o'clock, the galleries and lobbies and even the 
 floor, were thronged with spectators, a large number of 
 
 whom were ladies. After the Convention had again 
 resolved itself into committee of the whole, 
 
 Mr. WISE resumed. I wish that I were only worthy 
 of this audience, and that I could be conscious that what 
 I have to say will be worthy of this great subject. But 
 here we are assembled and I hope I may say that if 
 there be no excitement, and I would have no excitement 
 — that at all events there is a commanding interest on 
 this occasion. What occasion is it \ Why have we 
 been assembled for four months, engaged in one contin- 
 ued debate, the end of the commencement of which we 
 have hardly arrived at yet, I fear ? Why are we near- 
 ly equally divided this day, this night, this hour, in this 
 age, and upon what are we divided ? " Tell it not in Gath, 
 publish it not in the streets of Askalon," that now, this 
 day, this hour, here present this night, Virginia, in her 
 capitol, is debating whether the people shall be free ! 
 Is that so? Pause, pause, gentlemen, and in your minds 
 ask yourselves and honestly answer yourselves the 
 question, is this true ? This debate might do on the con- 
 tinent of Europe ; this debate would excite no wonder 
 m France ; this debate might rouse but little wonder in 
 England, but tell me honestly, ye who profess to be re- 
 publicans of whatever party, of whatever hue, of what- 
 ever shape, whatever may be your federal politics or 
 your State politics, tell me is it not a wonder that in this 
 great republic of the confederated States of the United 
 States of North America, this day, now, you are stand- 
 ing where you stood at the end of the American revolu- 
 tion ? • Have you made a step in the progress of the 
 emancipation of free white men in your commonwealth ? 
 Have you made one step which England has not made ? 
 You have abolished the old rotten-borough system — you 
 have abolished the old property qualifications of suffrage, 
 but Great Britain has abolished the rotten-borough sys- 
 tem, too, and " old Sarem's self" is no more even in Eng- 
 land, and she made the step nearly as soon as we did. 
 What ! here in North America, here in this day, in this 
 hour of progress, in this day of free schools, in this day 
 of pulpits, in this country where nothing is heard and 
 nothing is preached politically but the power of the peo- 
 ple, the rights of the people, the sovereignty of the 
 people— where the dear people are praised, are cajoled, 
 are nattered even by the conservatives so sweetly, and 
 where their sweet voices are courted as graciously as 
 even by the radicals— here in this capitol, in this me- 
 tropolis, where you, Mr. President, are sitting in that 
 chair, which if it could speak, could rebuke us— are we 
 debating whether the sovereign voters of the State of 
 Virginia shall be equal, man with man ! * 
 
 We have made the proposition, that they shall be 
 equal. We have submitted it. It does not yet "lie like 
 love bleeding," but I know not how soon— I fear it will 
 be too soon — it will be found to have too few friends to 
 sav,e it. 
 
 But sir, why is it and what is it that we are here de- 
 bating \ I have answered myself by saying that the 
 question before this Convention of the people of Virgi- 
 nia, is whether the people of Virginia shall be free. I 
 am told they are free. Social freedom they have. I 
 admit that they have social freedom as unlimited as any 
 
 upon earth. But are they politically free ? Are th 
 
 equal ? Are they man and man, equal one with the oth 
 er ? No ! and it is because they are not equal, because 
 there is a distinction between men, because there is a 
 distinction between classes of men, because there is a 
 distinction between sections of men, that we are debating 
 now — seventy odd years after the the declaration -of 
 independence — the first elementary, fundamental prin- 
 ciples of civil liberty. We have proposed that the peo- 
 ple, the sovereign people at the polls, shall be counted 
 man with man, and we are told that they shall not 
 stand equal, and that those who have property s.hall 
 have communicated and attributed by property, politi- 
 cal power preponderating over those who have not, pro- 
 perty ! What, I ask, is the objection that is urgeri now, 
 at this day, in this State, to this equality of the people, 
 this political freedom of the people as well as/ social 
 
7 
 
 freedom of the people? It- is denied that social and 
 political liberty are not put upon the same footing here. 
 I tell you gentlemen that you cannot deny that this 
 question is settled every where else on this continent. 
 Why not settled here — here on this consecrated ground? 
 We, the people, are told that " we," somebody else, will 
 not agree to be governed by numbers; that " we" the 
 property holders, "we" who set up the pretensions of 
 property to political power will not consent to be gov- 
 erned by the people, by numbers. You are answered 
 that nobody proposes to govern you by numbers, no- 
 body proposes now to control this State by the masses 
 of the people en masse, no-body proposes an exclusive 
 white population basis ? What is it that is pro2)osed ? 
 That qualified voters, men that shall be adjudged fit to ex- 
 ercise the reason and the conscience and, the free human 
 will of freemen, shall be the sovereigns of the political 
 power of the State of Virginia. 
 
 G-entlemen from the east have throughout debated 
 this question, as if it was the same question debated in 
 the last Convention, as if it was the report of the com- 
 mittee which reported that white population exclusive- 
 ly should be the source and basis of legislative repre- 
 sentation. That is not the question here. You have 
 full latitude, you have full margin to prescribe the quali- 
 fication of voters as you please. You, not the representa- 
 tives of the people at the polls, but you whose majority 
 here corresponds with the governmental majority — you 
 have power to prescribe the qualification of voters. By 
 the same power that you decide in what manner the 
 representation of the State shall be based, you have 
 power to determine how the voters shall be qualified. 
 What then is it that you deny ? I deny that your de- 
 nial is of the power of numbers. That is not your 
 position. Gentlemen shall not deceive the people, 
 they shall not deceive their own constituents by taking 
 or pretending to take the position that they simply de- 
 ny the right of numbers to rule. You deny the right of 
 qualified voters to rule. That is your denial, and that 
 is the question here this night. After you have deter- 
 mined who shall be qualified voters, after you have 
 ascertained what the qualification shall be, after you 
 have fixed by your constitution who shall or shall not 
 exercise the sovereign power at the polls, with that 
 power in your hands you say that the people shall not 
 rule legislation or representation, but that the govern- 
 mental power, the municipal power of the State, shall 
 rule the sovereign qualified voters of the State. No 
 sir, no. I am as much opposed to the mere power of 
 unregulated numbers as you are. Men, women, chil- 
 dren, sane, insane, adults, infants, aliens and citizens 
 shall not mingle together and as disjuncta membra exer- 
 cise the power of the State. But what the west claims 
 and what I here from the east claim is, that when you 
 have philosophically defined the sovereign, that sover- 
 eign shall be sovereign, and that you shall not put the 
 mere agent of the sovereign over the master. Great 
 God 1 has it come to this that practically, really — dis- 
 guise it as you may, deny it as you may — now in this 
 hour the sovereignty of the people and consequently the 
 freedom and equality of the people is denied in the 
 State of Virginia, the mother of democracy! "The' 
 mother of democracy!" What a legitimate offspring] 
 this, from such a mother ! Patrick Henry in the days! 
 of the revolution exclaimed at Williamsburg: " Giv< 
 me liberty or give me death." 
 
 A MEMBER. It was at Richmond. 
 Mr. WISE. No sir, it was at Williamsburg. Rich 
 mond may claim every thing from the old capital, but) 
 there is some little left there yet. 
 
 It is the democracy of the Essex junto, which you 
 preach. It is the democracy of the Adams school. 
 This is your democracy in the State of Virginia, where 
 we are, in this day, and this hour, denying the sovereign 
 power of the people ! 
 
 But, I did not come here this day, I did not come into 
 this Convention, to declaim upon mere party distinctions 
 in the State. They are light, they are mere trifles, light 
 
 as air. I come here to assert and to discuss a proposi- 
 tion which I would assert were I alone, and the only man 
 in this broad commonwealth, to assert it. If the people 
 were not conscious of it themselves, if they were so de- 
 generate as to have forgotten the A. B. C. principles of 
 human liberty, I would stand up here alone, this night, 
 and proclaim the proposition that qualified voters are the 
 sovereign people and have the right to rule. 
 
 This brings me to the discussion of the question, of 
 who, or what primarily, have the right to form a State? 
 I repeat the question, who or what primarily have the 
 right to form a State ? I will answer the question by 
 repeating the proposition that qualified voters are the 
 sovereign people and have the right to form the State. 
 
 Sir, from whence is this right of the people derived ? 
 It is derived from the law of nature. This is especially 
 a doctrine combatted by the lamented Upshur. Opposi- 
 tion to it is an Upshur heresy — a heresy which he so suc- 
 cessfully contended for in his day. Representing now the 
 same constituents which he represented then, 1 come lure 
 this night to combat his (Upshur's) doctrine that there 
 are no principles a prioriin government. What is the law 
 of nature ? Gentlemen have talked about the law of na- 
 ture, and yet have denied natural rights, and have vio- 
 lated natural rights. Some have contended for them, 
 and others have denied them ; yet no one has defined 
 what the law of nature is. Sir, we are a christian peo- 
 ple ; we acknowledge, not only the being of nature, 
 but the great first cause of nature. 
 
 The law of nature — there is no other christian defi- 
 nition — is the will of God, natural and revealed. Search 
 in your own mind, and tell me whether you can give 
 any other definition than that. The law of nature is 
 the will of God, natural and revealed. It is divided — 
 first, into the law of moral right ; secondly, into the law 
 of animal and physical force, and thirdly, into the law 
 of social organization, the end of which is to restrain 
 all force from invading the law of moral right. 
 
 Now, upon what ground do I make my first onset 
 upon the position which the doctrines of Judge Up- 
 shur, in support of the mixed basis, were founded ? — 
 The very first principles upon which he grounds 
 his great argument in favor of the mixed basis — the 
 wbole and sole ground upon which it is in fact 
 based — is an argument of the French school of phi- 
 losophy, which denies the first principles of the nat- 
 ural law, of the moral law, and of the social organization, 
 and which sets up alone the natural law. of force. The 
 doctrine of the mixed basis recognizes no other law 
 than that of force. This doctrine rejects the social 
 aw as a part of the natural law, and, above all, re- 
 ects the moral law, and attacks the throne and mon- 
 irchy of God himself. I denounce it as an atheistical 
 doctrine, as an unphilosophical proposition, denying all 
 ;reat first principles, all justice, and all rule of moral 
 right, as I will show. I will refer to Mr. Upshur's 
 speech, pages 66, 69 and 70, and where he says : 
 
 "Let me not be misunderstood, sir. I am not now 
 inquiring whether, according to the form and nature of 
 our institutions, a majority ought or ought not to rule. 
 That inquiry will be made hereafter. At present I 
 propose only to prove that there is no original a priori 
 principle in the law of nature which gives to a majori- 
 ty a right to control a minority ; and, of course, that we 
 are not bound by any obligation prior to society to adopt 
 that principle in our civil institutions." 
 
 This is a doctrine of atheism ; it is a doctrine of Italy 
 and Germany ; it is one which declares that the law of 
 force is the only rule of right, and that in tL< i^w of na- 
 ture, which the God of justice, the God of truth, the 
 God of benevolence established, not only in the physi- 
 cal kingdom, but in the moral kingdom of man, he 
 established no other rule than that of force. Again, 
 Mr. Upshur says : 
 
 "In truth, Mr. Chairman, there are no original prin- 
 ciples in government at all. Novel and strange as this 
 idea may appear, it is nevertheless strictly true in the 
 sense in which 1 announce it. There are no original 
 
s 
 
 principles existing in the nature of things, and indepen- 
 dent of agreement, to which government must of ne- 
 cessity conform in order to be either legitimate or 
 philosophical. The principles of government are those 
 principles only which the people who form the govern- 
 ment choose to adopt and apply to themselves. Prin- 
 ciples do not precede, but spring out of government. 
 
 "I have thus, Mr. Chairman, endeavored to prove that 
 there is not in nature, nor even in sound political 
 science, any fundamental principle applicable to this 
 subject which is mandatory upon us." 
 
 ]f this doctrine be proved to be true, what is our con- 
 dition as a people? The people, in this sense, who may 
 happen to be in the minority, holding the govermental 
 power, may adopt what government they please, with- 
 out regard to first principles, and without regard to a 
 priori and fundamental truths. That minority may es- 
 tablish something else than what they call a representa- 
 tive republican government ; in a word, they may es- 
 tablish what they please. 
 
 This brings me to inquire, are there any first princi- 
 ples ? Are there any true guaranties or guides of right ? 
 19 there no justice, no moderation ? Are there none of 
 the principles enumerated in your bill of rights which 
 are not only to be referred to, but referred to often? 
 I ask the question again: Is a state of nature a wild 
 unregulated existence, governed by no God ? Has God 
 himseJf no attributes of eternal right? Has man no 
 destiny in civil government but what he himself may 
 make ? If there be none other, then wo, wo, unto us. 
 I — n© preacher, no evangelist, no professor — assert that 
 there is a standard, an Infinite standard, of truth in gov- 
 ernment as well as in the pulpit of conscience. I assert 
 that there is a standard of" moral law, an Infinite stand- 
 ard — that is precisely what Mr. Upshur denied, and 
 what the mixed basis denies — that reason and con- 
 science were given to men to discern the standard 
 of truth ; that reason and conscience were given to 
 men to be exerted in all their force, governmental as 
 well as individual and that the same justice thai 
 acts between you and I individually, is the very 
 same justice, or any other virtue is the same that acts 
 between you and I, when we come to form a State. 
 There is no difference. Private and public virtue is tile 
 same. Moral principle, whether it be applied, to States 
 or individuals — I care not what Mr. Madison said, I hav|e 
 higher authority than Mr. Madison — is the same as it 
 is between man and man. 
 
 And this brings me to say, that the doctrine which 
 refers human government to its Infinite source is Infi- 
 nite Radicalism. Now, let those who come to scoff at infi- 
 nite radicalism remain to pray. You have got a defi- 
 nition now of infinite radicalism. It is a doctrine that 
 believes in a God. It is a doctrine that believes in the 
 moral law. It is a doctrine that believes in the divin- 
 ity of Jesus Christ. It is a doctrine that takes the Bible 
 as the standard of the moral law. That is infinite rad- 
 icalism, and I claim my title from no monarch upon 
 earth, from no crowned head, from no grant of "us" 
 or « W I claim my rights ; I claim them for my con- 
 stituents, for this people, as a grant direct from God, 
 and I am shielded in my rights by the eternal moral 
 truths which govern the universe. [Great applause.] 
 Do not applaud that sentiment, it is Heaven's own, 
 not mine. No, I do not go to Greece, ancient Greece, 
 whose temples were inscribed to the "unknown God." 
 I do not go to Rome with her plebian and patrician 
 orders. I do not go to Rome, whose imperial spears 
 pierced my Saviour's sides upon the cross. I do not go 
 to the modern republics of Italy or of France, as I said 
 before, whose sans-culottes and fishwomen tied the 
 Bible to the tail of a jackass, and dragged it through 
 the streets of Paris. No no. I do not go to the magna 
 charta of Great Britain itself, which recognises majesty, 1 
 that says, as the gentleman from Richmond (Mr. Ly- 
 ons) said to day,* "we," the aristocracy, or '« we," the 
 
 Burkes, her Humes, her Butlers, her Hampdens, her 
 Sidneys, or even to her Miltons, for they are all' tinc- 
 tured, more or less, with the doctrine of inequality of man; 
 and they all teach you that false theory for American 
 example, which is, I hope, now crushed forever, that man 
 when he forms a State gives up any of his natural rights. 
 The last of the authorities which I would quote is Black- 
 stone, who has made more blunderers and pettifoggers 
 in the law, and more blunderers in politics, and polit- 
 ical philosophy, especially in Virginia, than all the 
 other books put together. [Laughter.] There is noth- 
 ing in all his doctrine but fawning sycophancy towards 
 the throne, and towards the prerogative and suprema- 
 cy of parliament. I do not go there. I do not go to that 
 poor old bill of rights of Virginia, that is now so low 
 that none will do it reverence. [Laughter.] It has 
 got into'the hands of the lawyers, and is so perverted, 
 so distorted, so misrepresented, so misapplied, that all 
 its unction and sanctity of republican truth are gone, 
 not excepting even its democracy of infinite radicalism 
 itself, which exhorts you to return to first principles, and 
 tells you, you must often recur to them. I do not 
 go to that, because here, by almost half of this body, 
 it is denied, rejected, scorned, and it has been put to 
 the rack until I saw I could not save it. It has groan- 
 ed and expired, and I never wish to see another 
 bill of rights put to a constitution to suffer such torture 
 as long as I live— never. [Laughter.] I do not go to the 
 apostles of American liberty. I shall not even go to Mr. 
 Jefferson; and I hope I maybe pardoned for saying 
 that I even do not know that Mr. Jefferson would 
 agree with me in my infinite radicalism. I do not go 
 to the heathen gods. I do not appeal to the dii ma- 
 jorum gentium, nor to the dii minorum gentium, but 
 I go to Jesus Christ of Nazareth ! I go to the in- 
 carnate God. I go to the Father and the Son, the 
 author of my being and of my eternal destiny. Let 
 no one imagine that I say this impiously. 1 say it earn- 
 estly and reverently, that my charter for human liberty 
 and equality among men is from on high. I plead 
 Heaven's own title for my liberty. I go to Him who 
 was cradled in the manger and was called the carpen- 
 ter's son. I go to him Avho had compassion upon the 
 multitude. I go to him who caused the " dumb to speak, 
 the lame to walk, the blind to see ; and who caused the 
 Gospel to be preached to the poor." I go to him who 
 tells me that it is easier for a camel to go through the 
 eye of a needle, than for a rich man to go to Heaven. 
 I go to him who scourged the money changers from the 
 temple of the living God, as I would have the money 
 changers scourged from the temple of human liberty. 
 I go to him who regarded the widow's mite more than 
 He did what the rich cast in from their abundance. 
 Who asked, of whom do the kings of the earth take 
 tribute ? Who lest He should offend them cast a hook 
 into the sea. I go to him who said to Jerusalem, as 
 I would say to Virginia, " Oh ! Jerusalem, Jerusalem , 
 thou who killest the prophets, and stonest them sent 
 unto thee, how often would I have gathered thee to- 
 ge ther as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wmg, 
 and ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you 
 desolate." I am serious in this. I would appeal, not 
 )nly to the author of my being, to divine example, for 
 authority to prove equality among men, but I would ap- 
 peal to the example that was set by Him who selected 
 ."nonarchs, instead of saying we the people. I do not go to 
 :he writers of England. I do not go to her Lockes, her 
 
 * An old copy of the Great Charter, printed in London in 
 
 die year 1680, in the rude quaint looking letter press of tha* 
 Deriod, and purporting to be "faithfully translated for the 
 benefit of those that do not understand the Latine, by -Edw. 
 Cooke, of the Middle Temple, Esq., gi/es the first clause of 
 the instrument in these words : — 
 
 " Imprimus, (a) We have granted to God, and by this, our 
 present charter have confirmed for us, and (b) our heirs for- 
 ever," &c. 
 
 To this is appended the following explanatory note : 
 " (a) When a thing is granted for God, the law says, it is 
 granted to God ; and wnat is granted to His Church, for 
 His Honor, &c., is granted for and to God. Quod datum 
 est Ecclesia, datum est Deo."