supremacy. But it needed no foresight to deter-
mine, that the relative numerical strength of the
two sections would not remain unaltered in
1790, the balance of white population in favor of
the East was 185,938. In 1820 it was ony 94,-
965. In 1839 only 43,229. The progression
was certain and alarming, and the prophecies,
which the delegates from Eastern Virginia, made
of the increasing strength of the Western section,
were realized in 1840, when the white popula-
tion of Western Virginia exceeded that of East-
ern Virginia, by nearly 2000, although the total
aggregate of Eastern Virginia was then 806,942,
and of Western Virginia only 432 845. In 1850,
the white population of Eastern Virginia was
404,371, and that of Western Virginia, was 494,-
763, the increase in the former being 34,937—
and in the latter 123,203. The gross population
of the East, including slaves and free colored per-
sons, was 863,065, and of the West only 565,798.
This result, plainly foreseen in the Convention
of 1829, did not interfere with an adjustment
more favorable to the Western sections of the
State, than that recognised in the old Constitu-
tion. No one dreamed of placing the colored
population, on an equality with the free whites,
in the computation of numbers, although an ex-
pedient, so simple, might naturally have sugges-
ted itself to the delegates from Eastern Virginia,
to increase their representative strength. Chief
Justice Marshall, (Virg Deb. p. 851,) said that
all had repudiated the idea.. The struggle was be-
tween those, who desired to base representation
on white population only, and those who wished
to stop at some point short of a principle, which
would make Eastern Virginia subordinate to
Western Virginia. But so strong was the opin-
ion in favor of the propriety of representation
according to white population, that it was lost
only by a vote of fifty to forty-six, (Virg. Deb. p.
666 ) The compromise, which ultimately car-
ried, was introduced by Mr. Gordon, * and was
based on the white population of 1820 By this,
the principle of representation, on the basis of
while population, was admitted—because, al-
though the Convention, meeting in 1839, adopted
the white basis of 1820, it did not abandon the
principle by selecting a particular period for the
rule of its application.
It would greatly profit us to dwell more at
length upon the important lesson taught us in
1829 and at the present time by the people of
Virginia. All the arguments, which can be urg-
ed here against the theory of representation on a
while basis, or on gross numbers, exist in a more
marked degree in that commonwealth. And it is
proper that we should observe, that, in the strug-
gle which is occurring there at the present time,
some attempt at least is made by all sections to
found their plans upon the sure basis of a princi-
ple, whether it could be maintained in argument
or not. But in our Convention, gentlemen have
not even made pretence of observing other than
a purely arbitrary will. Some indeed have un-
*For the vote, see Virg. Deb. p. 704. It pas-
sed by a vote of 55 to 41. See Chief Justice
Marshall's remarks. Virg. Deb. 851. |
advisedly talked about representing territory.
But I certainly have not discernment to under-
stand, why any number of mere square miles
should be equally represented, though in one
case they are sparsely settled, and are of small
value, and in another are crowded with human
beings, and are of tenfold pecuniary value. This
notion of territory, vague and erroneous as it is,
survives in only four States of this Union. And
its want of reason is no where better demonstra-
ted than in our own system Kent county has a
territory of 216 square miles—a property of $3,-
612,000—a white population of 5 590, and a gross
population of 11,857. Washington county has a
territory of 948 square miles,—a property of
$11,656,997, a white population of 26,969.— and
a gross population of 30,943. Yet the gentleman
from Anne Arundel, not content with attempting
to introduce such a section into the senatorial
system, desires to introduce the same element
into the House of Delegates.
There are many, who look back with peculiar
regard, to the Senate of Maryland, as it was or-
ganised under the old Constitution. We have
been told that Madison himself, had, in conversation,
intimated his approval of the system. There
was no need to adduce such recollections. In
the sixty-third number of the Federalist, the Sen-
ate of Maryland is cited as an admirable exam-
ple of governmental wisdom. The filtration of
power, as it has been elsewhere called, through
an intermediate body, was supposed to conduce
to its purity and strength. But notwithstanding
this high authority, there are many yet living, of
both parlies, who can bear witness to the incon-
veniencies resulting from the dominance of a
single party, and from the want of local identity
and interest which the system entailed.
it is certain, that in 1808, 1811 and 1818, the
Senate of Maryland found so little favor with the
popular branch of the legislature, that bills were
passed to repeal the old system, and providing
for a representation from such county and the
city of Baltimore, in the Senate. In the year
first named, the gentleman from Anne Arundel,
(Mr. Dorsey,) was a delegate from Baltimore
city. He voted against the abolition of the old
senatorial system. There was a manifest reason
to control the action of a delegate from the city.
It was usual to take two Senators from Balti-
more—and this out of the fifteen, then compri-
sing the Senate, gave the city a share in political
power, which it was not wise to part with un-
less the loss was compensated for by an increas-
ed representation in the House of Delegates.
The action of the gentleman was, therefore, in
strict conformity with his duty to the constituen-
cy which he then represented. But the efforts
made in 1808, 1811, and 1818, and in subsequent
years, proved conclusively that the senatorial
system was in no favor with the people of the
State, despite the opinions of Mr. Madison, and
the reverence with which its now faded glories
are regarded. The Senate, itself at an early pe-
riod began to show a disposition to change its
form. In January 1, 1812, when the House Bill
of 1811, was under consideration, it was moved
to amend it, by providing for the division of the |
