Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1867-06-25

jgs the entire torritOTy Of the State did NOT
actually control the whole OF its people and terri
90 that much the larger part set at naught ts
authorltYs and we're in arms against Il. as well
against the government OF the United States. But
whose iault was that? Were not the United States
bound by the Constitution to Enaintai In and uphold,
and make efectuaI throughout the entire gebgraph
tul government Of that Sta.e-the authority Of that
government of the State which the United States
recognized as In harmony with itself-a govern
ment entitled by the express words of the Consti-
tutton at all tiunes 70 be protected from invasion
tormance OF this clear duty, the United States
attribute Il as hult tn the lawful government of
virginia that this duty was not performed, and at
taeh 70 tts own failure Of Performance the penal
tics Of destruction Of that lawful government, and
the expulsion Of the State from the Union.
States suppressed the rebellion in Virginia, it sup
pressed IL in the performance Of is constitutional
obligation, we'll 70 the lawful government OF
that State, as to the government of the United
states. IL the word conquest can have any obi
the lawful government OF the State 10 the actual
possession Of lite constitutional powers, we'll 20
actual possession Of their constitutional powers
And the assertion by the United States of an ahsO-
lutte and uncomfortable authority by conquest over
tho lawful government OF that State which the
United States was bound to restore and main tain,
s as inconsistent with good faith and with the pub
lie law Of the world, as Il Is with the Constitution
Of the Union.
State of Virgina and if Il shall be found that this
recent legislation OF Congress has that extent. re.
gress exceeded its power.
Il does not seem absolutely necessary 60 to inter.
pref these acts of Congress. However Obiectiona
necessity say that they Affect to expel this state
from the Union, or deprive it of power 20 sue as
State in this Court and certainly this Court will go
further in this direction than IL shall find to be
absolutely necessary.
Because Congress has undertaken. without con-
stitutional authority interfere with and control
some OF the just powere of the State for temporary
purposes and to gain particular ends, the Court Il
Ia eel nor in To-
c!aTing what Congress has not declared that there Is
not a Slate Of VugiHiG Congress has no: go de-
clareds confidently or inconsistently. These acts
recognize the existence OF the State and Of its gov
eminent.
they relate as existing States; they refer to their
respective governments competent to execute
their appropriate functions; and though they in
terms empower military force in some things 10
control the action of the State authorities they
where attempt to authorize the military power to
destroy State or its government or to be superior
to the action of those tribunals OF the United States
which can lawfully exist and act only within the
limits Of States of the Union.
The learned counsel for West Virginia refers to
the imPTacticabliry Of recOnciling military inter.
Not unto Us is this task committed.
We are not concerned with the consequence OF
the continued existence of the State OF Virginia
but only with the fact of its continued existence
That VIC respectfully submit, has been demOnstra
ted Its consequences will remain TO be considered
by this Court, in cases and controversies wherein
they may he drawn in question. In this case they
are not drawn in question.
ment, to which am to reply: l. is, in substance,
that inasmuch as the State of Virginia committed
the election i" these counties of jefferson and
Berkeley, and inasmuch the Governor was of
opinion that the elections were held and majority
Of votes of the people of each county given in ia
vor Of its annexation and he certified therefore
me me o. N;Ignia IL s'toPpsd to assert
sham. and the certificates obtained by fraud.
But the counsel for West Virginia has misappre.
heuded the purpose for which these facts charged
in Tho
to this cause and its parties.
This bill is not founded on fraud. II does not ask
that concluded agreement should be set aside by
court of equity, because of the parties was
duced by deception to enter into the agreement.
1t is founded on the want of any concluded agree
ment, because one Of the contracting parties
sonably withdrew from the treaty before any COM
pact, capable of changing any rights, had been
formed.
The subject of inquiry is n compact between two
States, concerning their respective territory and jul
rsdiction: subject as to which they had the same
rights, and were governed by the same principles
of public law as two independent nations, when
enabled TO enter Into compact by the consent Of
Congress. And, upon the question whether these
two States did efectuallv make such a compact, it
is most material to consider that the Willingness
do SO, expressed by one of them, manifestly
based upon condition precedent, which its duty
to part Of its people required it TO prescribe, and
which it plainly aud clearly did prescribe. The
same duty which required its prescription, required
that its performance should be insisted on. Ard
when Virginia ascertaincd that it had not been
performed that the consent Of the people OF these
counties have not been given, for that cause ascer-
tanned for ITSELF and admitted by the demurrer to
this bill to have been correctly Rscertaiued it with
drew its consent TO the cessiOn before any compact
or agreement had been entered into.
Bound by its own self-respect, as wel as by Just
regard to the opinions of this high tribunal to Jus.
tify its withdrawal from the proposed compact it
pu's forward these true aad sufficient reasons =
That its original consent conditional; that the
condition was expressly coupled with its consent;
iheHi hot
that it was mAuiieslly and clearly fundamental
that II had not been complied wiIh-and that the
means devise for ascertaining its performance had
proved 10 be Intellectual through f:aUd and deceP-
ton: tn retore, aud not from any want Of good
faith on its own part, the State withdrew from the
proposed compact.
few words more on one other topic and shall
cease 10 task the patience of the Court.
The counsel of West Virginia have exhibited to
the Court picture of the deplorable consequences
which will ensue il these counties should be re-
lected, courts held, judgments and DEGREES pro-
EonnCed, and criminals punished on the territory
Of these two counties under the authority of West
Virginia. And it is asked will a court of equity
set aside contract when the parties to it, and those
claiming under them, cannot possibly be restored
to their former condition.
To this there two answers.
The first is, this is not bill TO set aside con-
tract, but 10 obtain declaration that no contract
made.
The second is, that these formidable consequences
are all imaginary.
West Virginia is the de facto government of these
counties As between the inhabitants Of the Sc
counties and that State its acts of taxation aud of
administration generally, and will remain lawful
The question raised by this bill is not Of the past
or Jurisdiction the people aud territory
OF these counties but OF the future jurisdiction over
them, when the DEGREES of this Court shall take
effect and change that jurisdiction. And such a
change can have retroactive effect in this no
more than in any other of the cases which have
drawn into question before this Court the boundary
OF States. 1t the objection taken be sufficient
to preve1t the Court from granting the relief pray
for in this case, it must wholly defeat its settled ju-
risdiction and control over the controversies re-