4th.  I have already said I am satisfied with the old system under which such good men have triumphed and that I desire no departure from its principles.  But if there must be a departure from it, I shall insist upon a more accurate and just apportionment of delegates, or representative votes, to the constituent body, than exists by the old, and which you propose to retain in your new plan.  If we take the entire population of the counties as shown by the late census, we shall see by the old plan, and by your proposed new plan,

Morgan County, with a population 16,541, has but ....... 8 votes
While Sangamon with 18,697--2156 greater has but ....... 8  "
So Scott with 6553 has ................................. 4  "
While Tazewell with 7615 1062 greater has but .......... 4  "
So Mason with 3135 has ................................. 1 vote
While Logan with 3907, 772 greater, has but ............ 1  "

And so on in a less degree the matter runs through all the counties, being not only wrong in principle, but the advantage of it being all manifestly in your favor with one slight exception, in the comparison of two counties not here mentioned.

Again, if we take the Whig votes of the counties as shown by the late Presidential election as a basis, the thing is still worse.

It seems to me most obvious that the old system needs adjustment in nothing so much as in this; and still, by your proposal, no notice is taken of it.  I have always been in the habit of acceding to almost any proposal that a friend would make and I am truly sorry that I cannot in this.  I perhaps ought to mention that some friends at different places are endeavoring to secure the honor of the sitting of the convention at their towns respectively, and I fear that they would not feel much complimented if we shall make a bargain that it should sit nowhere.

Yours as ever,
A. Lincoln.

To _________ Williams,

Springfield, March 1, 1845. 
Friend Williams: 

The Supreme Court adjourned this morning for the term.  Your cases of Reinhardt vs.  Schuyler, Bunce vs.  Schuyler, Dickhut vs.  Dunell, and Sullivan vs.  Andrews are continued.  Hinman vs.  Pope I wrote you concerning some time ago.  McNutt et al. vs.  Bean and Thompson is reversed and remanded.

Fitzpatrick vs.  Brady et al. is reversed and remanded with leave to complainant to amend his bill so as to show the real consideration given for the land.

Bunce against Graves the court confirmed, wherefore, in accordance with your directions, I moved to have the case remanded to enable you to take a new trial in the court below.  The court allowed the motion; of which I am glad, and I guess you are.

This, I believe, is all as to court business.  The canal men have got their measure through the Legislature pretty much or quite in the shape they desired.  Nothing else now.