The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-01-23
ssDscisf aQf'sslsnisfls, faEably binding upon she

different parts in proportion to territory md
p0pulation2 -
The first deduction 1t Is not necessary 70
ef,nsider al w est Virginia; in her ordinance
Of separation from yirginia, as also IN ner
constitution, agreed to pay an equitable pro
portion Of the public debt. What that eeli-
table proportion Is we are now considering.
In reference to the second deduction, we
have to remark that Judge Meredith draws
conclusion from his authorities which they
do not sustain. Philhmore, for Instance, says
that "if nation be divided into various dls-
tinct societies the obligations which had ac-
cr1led to the whole before the division are
ratabty bfrdingsupe the different parts"
Hare PhiIlimorer and the authorities stop.
But this does not suffice for the Virginia side
Of the question, and Judge Meredith adds
after the word "parts" the words " in pro-
portion to territory and populations" These
words are not found in any Of the autiiori'
ties. so far as we are advised, and certainly
not in any of the quotations adduced by the
Judge. =,
a moments consideration will show that
O division Of debt according to population
and territory would not only be lmpracnca'
BILE, but would conflict with common sense.
It would be impracticable becauseit does not
determine the relative value Of each one of
the two elements of population and territory.
Suppose the population to be twice as much
Us the territory, or suppose the territory to
be three times as great as the population,
which element has the greater value in de-
ter1nining the reslilt2
Without pursuing this thought further, it
Is manifest that nothing Is settled by such
rule. You must fix the relative value Of the
two elements before you can reach conclu-
sion. 1t is, therefore, plain why the books
do not give the rule as stated by Judge Mere
dlth. Because of its indefniteness, but
mainly because of its injustice. Would any
zane man lay down rule for the division Of
State which would ignore the great cities,
public improvements, public works, instltu-
tons Of all kinds, great commercial adYan-
taces. such us rivers aud harbors, and the
great advantage Of fertility Of soil; all Of
which, and many other clements of wealth,
property, and power, might be found In one
division and be wholly absent in the other.
Hence we say that such rule Is repuSnant
to common sense.
A public debt is mainly charge upon the
wealth and resources of people. It is repre-
scented by taxes, and taxes are imposed not on
numbers or square miles, but on resources
and values. How much stronger Is the case
when the very debt under consideration was
created in developing and enrichins one por-
| ton Of the State almost exclusively; nay,
more, when that division Of the State Is in
possession of and enjoying, giving away, and
selling at auction, and otherwise dlsposlng of
tie very subjects for which the debt was Gre
ated.
These considerations afford abundant rea-
son why no authority would say, IN the abb
sence Of o compact (unless there was per-
feet homogenity), that it would be just TO
| divide O. "nation" any more than an lndiY1d-
ual estate by population and territory. We
doubt not that Judge Meredith himself would
scout the idea of dividing IN estate on such
basis and without reference to the quality
of the land and the improvements made.
Why, then, would he ignore such considera-
lions in apportioning public debt between
two divisions Of State? Chancellor Kent,
whom he has quoted, does not sustain him in
so doing. The quotation already given from
that author says that "if State should be
divided in respect to territory its rights and
obligations are not impaired; and if they
have not been apportioned by agreement,
those rights are to be enjoyed and those obi
cations fulfilled by all the parts in common"
! ~
ratably according to population and terrific
~. According to this authority the State OF
Virginia was only Il tenant in common with
West Virginia in all the public works, i'm
proycments, and property Of the original un-
divided State, and had no authority to alien.
ate, sell, give away, or dispose Of any of the
public works, and being in possession and
holding them for her own exclusive use and
benefit, By ousting West Virginia she would
be bound to account to the latter for her
share. This would seem to be the Legitimate
conclusion from the authorities relied Oh by
Judge Meredith, even admitting their appli-
cability to the case under consideration,
which we do not concede by any means, and,
therefore, with this reference we pass them
by.
We think we take more practical view OIL
the subject, and one which will attain all the
ends of justice. The tables accompanying
this report show that the bonded debt Of
Virginia on the first day Of january, 1861
represented money borrowed and expended
in improving the State by canals, railroads
turnpikcs, plank-roads, and bridges. Al
these expenditures conferred local and spe
cial benefit where expended, not only by the
outlay of the money in creating market
and stimulating enterprise and trade, but Ii
otherwise developing the resources OF par.
ticuEr localities to al extent quite equal &c
the general benefit Of the State ut large. And
this local and general development Is the sum
OF the value OF the improvements to the sec
ton where located, and gives them al inestl
mable and abiding value to that section. 1bk
value is progressive, and not susceptible Of
being fixed. So certainly is this the case
that it is probable, if it were practicable tc
utterly eYtinguish these Improvements, anC
thereby extinguish the debt, the State where
they are located would hot listen to such a
proposition.
1t may he assumed that the public work:
for which the debt was created are worth
what they cost. Virginia, by selling, donating
and disposing Of these works as her owl
property, without regard to the rule lalt
down by Chancellor Kent, and without con
sulting West Virginia, must be taken to hav
accepted them on that basis, and Is Therefore
chargeable with them on that basis.
When the tables ore consulted they vii
show oil expenditure Of over thirty millions
In Virginia and about two and a half million
in West Virginia. Much Of this latter wa
expended at comparatively recent dates
whereas the expenditures in Virginia rang'
through period Of fifty years, with benefit!
accruing more or less throughout that Pc
Rod. In the light Of such facts, we submit
that no intelligent mind, wishing only 10 d.
Justice, can doubt for q moment that tn
benefits conferred, and not the territory ant
population, should be the principal II not TIT
only basis Of an adjustment Of the debt
The Governor Of Virginia, in his message 0
1870, and again in 1871, and the Legislator
Of that State, by its funding bill, seem, how