which a majority of the qualified voters of Virginia did not participate. But it is a universal practice in popular elections in all these States to give no legal consideration whatever to those who do not choose to vote as against the effect of the votes of those who do choose to vote. Hence it is not the qualified voters but the qualified voters who choose to vote that constitute the political power of the State. Much less than to non-voters should any consideration be given to those who did not vote in this case; because it is also a matter of outside knowledge that they were not merely neglectful of their rights under and duty to this government, but were also engaged in open rebellion against it. Doubtless among these non-voters were some Union men whose voices were smothered by the more numerous Secessionists; but we know too little of their number to assign them any appreciable value. Can this government stand if it indulges constitutional constructions by which men in open rebellion against it are to be counted, man for man, the equals of those who maintain their loyalty to it? Are they to be counted better citizens and more worthy of consideration than those who simply neglect to vote? If so their treason against the Constitution enhances their constitutional value. Without braving these absurd conclusions, we cannot deny that the body which consents to the admission of West Virginia is the Legislature of Virginia. I do not think the plural form of the word "legislatures" and "states" in the phrase of the Constitution "without consent of the Legislatures and of the States concerned," etc., has any reference to the New State concerned. That plural form sprang from the contemplation of two or more old States contributing to form a new one. The idea that the New State was in danger of being admitted without its own consent was not provided against because it was not thought of, as I conceive. It is said the devil takes care of his own. Much more should a good spirit-the spirit of the Constitution and the Union-take care of its own. I think it cannot do less and live. But is the admission of West Virginia into the Union expedient? This in my general view is more a question for Congress than for the Executive. Still, I do not evade it. More than on anything else it depends on whether the admission or rejection of the New State would, under all the circumstances, tend the more strongly to the restoration of the National authority throughout the Union. That which helps most in this direction is the most expedient at this time. Doubtless those remaining in Virginia would return to the Union, so to speak, less reluctantly without the division of the old State, than with it; but I think we could not save as much in this quarter by rejecting the New State as we should lose by it in West Virginia. We can scarce dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle; much less can we afford to have her against us in Congress and in the field. Her brave and good men regard her admission into the Union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the Union under very severe trials. We have so acted as to justify their hopes and we cannot fully retain their confidence and co-operation if we seem to break faith with them. In fact they could not do so much for us if they would. Again, the admission of the New State turns that much slave soil to free; and this is a certain and irrevocable encroachment upon the cause of the rebellion. The division of the State is dreaded as a precedent. But a measure made expedient by war is no precedent for times of peace. It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name there is still difference enough between secession against the Constitution and secession in favor of the Constitution. I believe the admission of West Virginia into the Union is expedient. THE SIGNING OF THE BILL. Granville Parker relates that happening to be East on private business and gathering from the papers "the critical situation at Washington," he went thither on the last day of December and that evening called upon Hon. J. B. Blair, congressman from the Parkersburg district. Mr. Blair informed him he had just come from the President, who had told him "to call next morning and receive a New Year's gift." "In the morning," says Mr. Parker, "Mr. Blair, as he afterwards told me, called at the Presidential mansion before the doors were open, went in at a window and met the President, who had just got up. He went immediately to a drawer and took out and showed Mr. Blair the bill for the admission of West Virginia, with his signature affixed, as the New Year's gift he had promised; manifesting the simplicity and joyousness of a child when it feels it has done its duty and gratified a friend." HOW PRESIDENT LINCOLN GAVE THE "ODD TRICK." In a letter published in the Wheeling Intelligencer January 22, 1876, Mr. Blair relates that when the bill was in the hands of the President, accompanied by his colleague in the House, Hon. William G. Brown, and Senator Willey, he called upon the President in the interest of admission, and he describes what occurred as follows: We had hardly taken our seats when Mr. Lincoln remarked that he was glad we had called as he wished to talk with us as to the constitutionality and expediency of creating the proposed New State out of a part of the State of Virginia. Without waiting for reply he went on to say that he had consulted his Cabinet on the above points, that he had their opinions in writing, that he would read them to us but would not tell us which was which. Friend Brown just then got in a word and remarked that he thought we would be able to tell whose opinion he read. We did so in every instance. He had the written opinion of every member of his Cabinet save that of Mr. Smith. Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase and Mr. Stanton were for us; Mr. Welles, Mr. Blair and Mr. Bates were against us. The President then pulled out a drawer in the table by which he was sitting with the remark: "Now, gentlemen, I will give you the "odd trick;" and I remarked "that is the trick we hope to take." One thing I do know that we three agreed afterwards that Mr. Lincoln's argument was the clearest, most pointed and conclusive of all. Above all, it was most satisfactory to us. We went at seven o'clock and left at ten. Just as we were leaving I obtained a promise from him that notwithstanding the next day was New Year's day, when the President received no visitors on business, that if I would come up early he would let Mr. Brown know whether he had approved our bill or not. I was there early in the morning and he kept his promise-as he always did. He brought the bill to me and holding it open before my eyes, he said: "You see the signature." I read: "Approved-Abraham Lincoln." CHAPTER XXI. AMENDMENT MADE AND RATIFIED-WEST VIRGINIA INAUGURATED. THE CONSTITUTION COMES BACK. January 14, 1863, the Schedule Commissioners issued a proclamation recalling the Constitutional Convention and ordering elections in Greenbrier, Monroe, Morgan, Pendleton and Pocahontas Counties, not before represented, and to fill vacancies: In Ohio County, caused by the death of Gordon Battelle. In Marion, by the resignation of Hiram Haymond. In Kanawha, by the resignation of James H. Brown. The Convention reassembled in its former meetingplace at 11 A. M., February 12, 1863. Daniel Lamb was called to the temporary chair and Abraham D. Soper, a venerable looking white-haired man of 66 was made permanent President. The following new members appeared, most of them at the opening of the session: Andrew F. Ross, Ohio County; James H. Brown, Kanawha (who had changed his mind and came back); Moses Tichenal, |