The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-10-06
Berkeley and Jefferson Goun-
81 .a5l q ties sa5lIl15s ..f..ls E

berkeley and Jefferson G0un-
5'. Z So .a.l q. 2. ties. .f,3ss IL E
Reply OF senator Van Wrinkle to tlle
Hon.tH. Il Dawes. q sssp nsall
PARRERsnURo, Oct, 2, 1895.
Editors Of the IlteLti1enceF,
have read with attention Hon. II.
I. Dawes second letter in relation to
the position Ofthe counties of Berkeley
and Jefferson. Mr.. Dawes might have
spared his depfecatory preface, as Il ana
sure every, rehecting citizen of West
Virginia Will kindly appreciate his ef-
forts to SGT us right in a matter in, which
he believes US to DO pursuingan errone-
GUS course.p .fi5
Mr.. Dawes final position seems to be,
that Whatever wAs the character of the
proceedings by which those counties
We're transferred from Virginia to West
| Virginia, they constituted such an agree
ment or compact us Is referred to in
article u section 10, clause 3, of the
| National Constitution. had admitted
that II there was an actual and formal
agreement or comphct, or II the procec-
dings were in tho nature thereof, or II
the object to obeaeebmplished was Ileces-
I L.
the consent OF Congress must tbe ObtaI-
med: In Justice TO myself may add,
/ for kenH a different impression NAV be
made on those who have seen Mr..
DAWes'-ssOOud.l lettar- and have not seen
mydirsts that my allusion to. ap eVGSion
conceded that nothing of TINT kind
would help rthe side OF the question /
lsas adyocatng, nndlthat my ddaiisSioh
alluded to by Mr. Dawes, was delibe-
rately and expressly, and not inadver-
tently or, implied y, made. I may say
further, that 1 never nlledged that an
indenture in two .pNrtsiwas necessary
70 constitute q Contract, and that the
words used by, Mr. Dawes in that con-
nectiOn, and included in quotation
marks, are not mine.
fftIdo not deem 1t necessary to examine
critically and in detail what Mr.. Dawes
has said in reply to my former letter.
still retain the views expressed at its
close. It Is, however, only fair to say
that Mr.. Dawes, AIR. Stanton and your
ClnrksbuFg correspondent, seem not to
be aware TINT Berkeley and jefferson
were not transferred to West Virginia
under any legislation which preceded,
was contemporary with, or immetli-
atcly followed, the formation and adop-
ton Of our constitution. In my previous
letter i stated that "the fact that the two
counties were originally intended by
both States TO. constitute part ofNYest
Virginia has, tony mind, no bearing
on the legal aspect Of the present oues-
ton. SO stRted because the acts ofthe |
Legislature OF Virginia which author- |
ised the transfer were respectively |
passed on the 3lst Of January and 4th Of |
February, 1868, n month after the nppro- |
wax of the Act Of OfGpngressa admitting the |
State of West Virginia into the Union /:
and because that act names the counties |
which were to form tho new State, with |
out including Berkeley and JEFFERSON,
which up TO that tinne had taken no vote |
on the subject. 75f- - I3I.sl = |
suggest that the acts ofthe Legislh- |
ture OF Virginia above referred to, which |
may be found ut pages Al and II of the |
acts of the extra session, commenced |
December, 4, 1862, be published in the |
INTELLIdBNCBR, in. connection with /
this letter, omitting, II you plense, what /
they contain ofmere detail. PIehse also, |
publish the preatnb1es and first sections |
Tor ono of them, as i pbelieve they are /
identical in language)- of tho acts of l
West Virginia (ghnpters 35 and 90. |
acts Of the First Ssessionl admitting /
berkeley and Jefferson. This Is but JUS
tlce to Mr.. Dawes, us according to the |
views he has expressed he will think /
that the former, at least, strengthen his |
side of the question. These 1cts were |
distinctly mentioned in your editoriall
which letltbl this discussion.
.dI nevertheless venture to believe thnt |
tho acts referred to, which in fact emI |
brace all the legislation in tho caSe, will |
support the opinions have expressed. |
The act admitting West Virginia was |
approved on the 31st of December, 1862,
but was not to take effect until the Con-
vention which framed the Constitution
of the New State and the people thereofl
had ratified the amendment proposed
by Congress, nor until sixty DAYS nfter
the President had issued his proclnma-
ton nstaung the fact ofsuch ratification.
The vote OF the people WINS taken on the /
28th March, 1893: and the oclatnation |
expired on the 2Ist of June in the same |
year, until which date, there was no
State Of West Virginia.
The votes of the people of the two
counties We're cast on the fourth Thurs
dayi6f May Hrecedirg, when there was |
hoStats Of West Virginia with which to |
contract. The consent of their then /
Legislature wasGto be dependent upon |
there was mo Obligation resting on the |
latter to receive them, and the acts con-
tain no application or request TO thht /
effect. If Their" was anything in tho |
nature ofQn agreement or. compact, it |
was worry plainly, in the first pIhte, be- |
tween the State Of Virginia and the
people of the counties, and, In the second |
place, between them and the State of
West Virginia. There is, believe, no
protenBe that contracts between State |
and Its citizens or other individuals are |
invalid without the consent of Congress. |
Iihsist, then, that there wasneither
an actual agreement or compact be-
tween the two States, nor any proc6a-
ding In tho 'nnture of such nm agreement |
or. compact. The Remaining Question. |
broadly stated, Is whether two Suites |
can effect an object desirable to both |
without entering into an agreement or |
compact 2 This Is certainly abstrRctly |
possible, and Is doubtless often done by |
concurrent glegtslRti ion. Now. is there |
anything tutlle mere transfer ofa pOf- |
ton OF territory by one State to another, |
which " likely to affect injufionsly the |
rights and interests of other States, or |
those of the general government SO as |
70 equtre Cor ionAl supervisionP |
Dawes admits, that the transfer of Bos- I
ton Corner by 1Idssachdsatts toTNew |
York, could not have led to such a re-
suit. In the ClSe ofBloffElh %; GeorUin. |
he further admits, In reply to Mr.. STAN |
ton, that there We're lands belonging to |
the United y Statesui in the former. the |
quantity. of, which would have been In |
creased or rdtminishe by the I'D djnstment |
of the boundary in question. Had this |
not been tho case, do not see any foun-
dation for the remark Of the Supreme |
Court that eHch of the other twenty nine |
States of the Union had nm interest in |
thequestion which might be injnrionsiy
affected 1byi a 90 6IlusiTe Gfeeineht be- |
tween the two States. Certainly under
any other snppositiOn their interest
could not edtttareLt or greater than in |
the case ofaBpstpn Corner, Where then
Is the authority for asserting that the
transfer Of BhFE eleY ind JEFFERSON. how
ever ehected, necessa an Y tpnstituteda an