The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-12-31
The Debt of VIrginin...WhO Should
Pay 1t?
EditorS InfeLLincncel. :

Editors IntelIigeHceT
l read your able and Just remarks in
Mondays paper upon the above sub
iect. l agree with you that the only
open questions to be settled, are: FIRST,
what portion of the money derived
from this debt as it existed january lst
1861, was expended upon the territory
now comprising the New State, or 9TH
erwise came to her use? Second, what
would be the just proportion for the
counties comprising the New State to
pay, of the ordinary expenses of the
government w-tic his debt was accu-
mulatiug-tO Haiermined by the rel
alive valuation, or population of these
counties? And, IHrd, the total
amount of taxes these counties paid in
to the State Treasury during the same
periOd-the New State to be credited
with the last, and debited with the two
former.
1t the whole subject were open and
submitted to Il Court of Equity, It
seems to me it could adopt no other
principle of settlement, as between the
parties at least, than the one laid down
by the ordinance passed by the Wheel
ing Convention i'll 1861, as and for one
Of The Fundamental conditions Of ScpuTCL-
ton: which must be regarded as the
true interpreter of the meaning OF
Equitable proportion of the debt OF
Virginia" as used in our Constitution.
On what principle of justice and equity
can the Old State claim more? Be
sides, there is this further important
equitable consideration i'll favor of the
New State: she has no Public Build
ings or Institutions, and has these all
to build for herself; Notwithstanding
she contributed for years before tic
state dcbt began to accumulate towards
erecting the spacious and COmmOdious
State buildings, Public Institutions and
endOwing these-now all left i'll the Old
State, to be exclusively owned and en-
joyed by her people.
And what relation do the two States
sutain 10 the creditors or bOndhOlders?
True. they may say, they parted with
their money and took the security, re-
lying upon the WhOtc State, as it then
eXis ted, for payment; yet they must be
presumed to have done so with full
knOwledge of those Constitutional pro-
visions which authorize new States to
be erected out of the territories of old
ones, and their domains to become
thereby abridged. In the present case
less than one and half of the forty
odd millions have been expended with
in our borders, while ali the balance
was expended-much of it with trea-
sOnable aims, rs is now manifest-in
improvements exclusively within the
Old State, whose people have had the
full benefit and are now the exclusive
owners of and are able to pay for. IT
the two States were subject to Il Court
of Equity, is there any doubt such
Court would appOrtiOn the burden so
as to do Equity between the States ?
There is none. II Co-partnership
composed oftwO individ unls, one bein g
Il mere nominal partner, should give Il
note in the FIRMS Dame for 81 900,
and the nominal partner should APP
pTopriate but twenty-five dollars OF the
sum so borrowed, to his use, while the
other should eXpend the remaining
nine hundred and sevenLy-five, in inn
proving and beautifying his mansion,
though standing in the FIRMS name,
and afterwards by wicked and out.
rageOus conduct, should force the nom
inal partner to withdraw without be-
ing paid for his labor, and the firm
should afterwards, by lapse OF time, OF
other cause, become discharged in law
| though not in honor, from paying The
note, could the holder of the note, with
any show of conscience or equity, ask
the eXpelledand abused nominal debtor
to pay any part, until the mansion o
the Other-the actual product of the
money loaned-with his other means
had been appropriated? And il soon.
er asked, might not the former wei
say, my former partner forCibly ex
| PEELED me and appropriated nll to him
self, and is now owing me u balanc,
for my labor, after deducting the TWEEN
| ty-five dollars / reCeived.l Pray col
lect the whole note, II possible, from
him, as he is able and ought to pny.'