usion that separation would be effected jointly accounted for the
small number of nearly nineteen thousand votes, Mr. Powell called for
the yeas and nays. The motion was put and the bill to admit was
passed.[108]

Even the passage of the bill did not cause Mr. Carlile's opposition
to cease. Determined in his efforts to make a final plea for the
slave-holding interests, he introduced Senate Bill No. 531[109]
supplemental to the act for the admission of West Virginia into the
Union and for other purposes. This bill sought, of course, to make
effective his plan that the whole work of the Constitutional
Convention be reenacted. The bill was reported with amendments and
adversely from the Judiciary Committee, whereupon Mr. Carlile sought
to have it considered in the Senate. This effort, like his previous
ones, was wholly unsuccessful.[110]

While this battle was in progress in the Senate the House also was
considering the question. The debate in the Senate on the admission of
the proposed new State of West Virginia into the Union hinged largely
upon the consideration of the question of slavery. Was the new State
to be admitted as a slave State, providing for gradual emancipation?
Was it to be admitted on a program of immediate emancipation, or was
it to come in with no conditions relating to the disposition of this
all-absorbing matter? These were the questions to be determined. They
were not altogether the chief considerations in the House.

On the twenty-fifth day of June, 1862, Mr. Brown, of Virginia, by
unanimous consent, introduced before the House a bill for the
"Admission of West Virginia into the Union and for other purposes."
After the first and second readings it was referred to the Committee
on Territories.[111] On the sixteenth of July the bill as passed by
the Senate was read a first and second time. Mr. Bingham demanded
previous question on the passage of the bill; whereupon Mr. Segar,
representing a district in Eastern Virginia, objected to a third
reading and moved that the bill be laid on the table. On a call for
the vote the motion was defeated. On the motion of Roscoe Conkling the
consideration of the bill was postponed until the second Tuesday in
December, 1862.[112]

The bill came up again for consideration in the House at the time
designated, December 9, 1862. Mr. Conway, of Kansas, obtaining the
floor through the courtesy of Mr. Bingham, remarked that he had no
objection to the erection of a new S