The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1871-01-16


Under the authority thus given, an
effort was made to adjust it, which VISA
abandoned because the Railroad Com
papy proposed to pay only ten thou
sand dollars, and would not undertake
even to consider any proposition lot
larger sum than fifteen thousand dol
lars. ,
that a more favorable result might be
obtained, the present Board Of Super
y;sors renewed the authority, ard sent
their committee on to Baltimore. ]
need not say, therefore, that there was
no hasty or inconsiderate action in the
case. Ample time was allowed for de-
liberation; and the matter was carefully
considered, and compromise author
lied by two successive Boards of Super.
visors, without limiting the authority OF
the committee.
The committee went to Baltimore.
The railroad company proposed to pay,
first $4,000, then $4,000. The COM
mittee, with the approval OF the counsel
for the county, offered as their final
proposition to take $4,000, the railroad
company paying the costs. As already
stated, the railroad company, after
every effort for two days to OBJ
tain better terms, accepted this propo-
sition. One thing is certain: The
committee obtained for the county the
last dollar that could have been got by
way of compromise. Ought the com.
mittee to have refused the S25,O 600?
This depends upon two questions
Il. Was Marshall county under any OBJ
legation or duty to any one to continue
these suits and abide by the risk OF lit.
gation2 2. If the cases were submitted
to the Supreme Court, was there no risk
that Marshall county would get nothing,
and have bill of costs and expenses to
pay2 ~
To whom did she owe any such obi
CATION or duty To the other counties
along the line of the railroad which.
during six years of controversy, refused
to give aid or countenance to her efforts
TO establish the common right ? Or,
to the State who had arranged her own
claim for past taxes, leaving the rail
road company at full liberty to contest
all claims for county levies, past OF
future, and the claims for future State
taxes. The State obtained some seventy
thousand dollars from the railroad com
PAW by reason of these suits, and
think she did right to take it. But she
LETT Marshall county perfectly free &c
take care of herself The county had
the opportunity Of taking over two-thlrd;
of her own claim, and her counsel
thinks she did well to embrace it
Which of the counties along the rail
road will refuse the same terms
If Marshall county had determined
to refuse the last chance for compromise
and leave her claim to depend upon The
Judgment of the Court, was there nc
danger that she would get nothing, anc
have costs to pay ] wish to avoic
ANYTHING like a legal argument bu
the counsel for Marshall county mus
say, in Justice to himself, that he has ne
confidence in the PROF osition upor
which Mr.. Stanton seems to res
the case That when it becomes thu
duty of the Supreme Court Of thu
United States to determine whether the
obligation of a contract has been i'm
paired, it is not at liberty to ascertain
for itself the true meaning Of the con
tract alleged to have been violated
There is no question" says Governor
S. better settled, than that the Supreme
Court of the United States will follow
the decisions Of the State Courts in the
construction OF State laws This i,
true as a general principle, but like
most general principles OF law, it is sub
ject to some exceptions; and untortun-
ately our case would have come under
the exception, not the rule. Permit me
Messrs. Editors, to explain the rule
which would have been applicable to
the Marshall county case, in the Ian
guage of one of the judges OF the SUI
preme Court of the United States:
at has been contended that the con
struction given to these acts Of assem-
bly, by the State Courts ought 10 be re-
garded as conclusive 1t is said that
they are laws Of the State, and that
this Court always follows the coustruc,
ton given by the State Courts to their
own Constitution and laws.
But this rule Of Interpretation is
confined TO ordinary acts Of legislation,
and does not extend to the contracts OF
the State, although they should be made
in the form Of law. For it would be
impossible for this court to exercise any
appellate power in case OF this kind,
unless it were at liberty to interpret Tor
itself the instrument relied on as the
contract between the parties. 1t must
necessarily decide whether the words
used are words OF contract, and what
are their true meaning, before it can
determine whether the obligation the
instrument created has or has not been
impaired by the law complained Of,
&c.
This reasoning, independent Of alt
| thority, seems to me to be con-
elusive; and ] fear that some other
principle will be necessary to carry
throug h successfully any case involving
the same points as the Marshall county
tax.cascs. DANIEL LAMB.
--------------