The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1872-03-14

him, with entire respect 10 tue uouy
that more time had been consumed
upon the question under consideration
than its real importance merIted. 1T
had been called a great question:
question involving the integrity and
even the existence of West Virginia
He did not look upon it in that light.
He could not rea ize its vast impor-
lance, nor appreciate its influence upon
the future destnies of this State.
1t was conceded by every gentleman
in debate, that the State of West Vir-
ginia is liable upon some basis, and to
some extent, for a portion of that debt,
which at the period of our voluntary
separation from Virginia was binding
upoa all who formed part of that
community. Whether that liability Is
the result of public or international
law, or Of our own express compact
with the State OF Virginia, it was un-
important to inquire; for all concede
the liability, and no proposition has
been submitted which denied it, or
which sought even to prescribe any
basis upon which that liability was to be
adjusted.
1t had been equally conceded By
every gentleman who had taken part
in this debate, that no admission OF
such liability embraced in the Constl-
tuition now being made, or omitted to
be so embraced, can add to, or impair
the force of our existing obligations.
Where then, is the importance OF the
question which for three days has con-
sumed the time Of the Convention? 1t
seemed 10 him that the propositions
involved, presented questions OF taste
and sentiment rather than Of public
duty. According to the view OF the
gentleman from Monongalia, (Mr.
Willey,) the omission to re'affirm the
declaration of our liability contained in
the eighth section of the eighth article
OF the Constitution, would cover the
State OF West Virginia with the infamy
Of reputation and bad faith. and even
20 felt the condition upon which Con-
gress gave its consent to our separate
existence as State. In the view Of
the gentleman from Taylor, Mr..
Martin to insert any such declaration
in our proposed new Constitution
would excite the burning Indignation OF
the people, and endanger the adoption
Of the instrument. And yet both gem
tlemen, and all others agree, that
whether the section be reatfirmed or
ommitted, it will not, in the slightest
degree, affect our LEGAL relations 10 the
controversy.
Mr. Faulkner said he hal not risen
to discuss the question which had
entered so largely in this debate, but
simply to present an amendment which
exhibited his own views OF the question
under consideration more satisfactorily
than the report Of the committee, or
the amendment OF the gentleman from
Ohio.
In his opinion, the Convention had
nothing to do with re-atiirmance or
reputation of the existing liabilities OF
West Virginia. That subject is purely
legislative, and falls exclusively under
authority and control Of that depart
ment of the government. 1t had, In no
form been referred to this body by the
people. Our function was to frame a
proper Constitution Of government for
the State. II in framing that Constltu-
ton, il would fall pertinently within the
scope OF powers to notice the existing
claim of Virginia, to our assumption OF
a portion of her debt, we ought so to
notice it, but beyond that, it seemed to
him, we were intermeddling with sub
iect over which we have no proper
authority.
Is there then anything in our pro,
posed plan of government which rem
ders it proper that we should notice this
Virginia debt2
We propose to insert in our Constitu-
ton a section which forbids the Legs
lature to assume or contract any public
debt. This provision meets unusual
acceptance. twill, no doubt, have the
support of every member on the floor.
Now, if we shall incorporate such a
Limitation upon legislative power in our
Constitution, without al the same time
vesting in that body full authority to
to make provision for the liquidation
of that Virginia liability. should the
contingency ever arise when we shall
be required to pay a portion OF it, we
shall undoubtedly subject ourselves to
these imputations of bad faith which
have been thrown out in this debate.
But if we shall, by clear and distinct
provisions confer upon the Legislature
the needful authority to discharge our
portion of that debt, should any such
liability hereafter devolve upon us, he
could not see why such a provision
would not fulfill every duty which good
faith and the lottiest integrity would
demand Of US. In the opinion Of many
that object is already sufficiently at
tanned by the report OF the committee,
whilst others. and especially the gen
tlemsn from Hampshire, (Mr Arm
strong,) has argued with great force and
ability that the language of the report
is equivocal and uncertain, and does not
meet the full requirements OF our duty.
He, Mr.. F., thought the Language OF the
committee did confer the necessary
authority upon the Legislature, but to
remove all doubts upon the subject,
and to meet the question fairly and
squarely, he had submitted his amend
ment. He believed that his amend
ment would accomplish all that the
most earnest advocate of the good
faith of our State could desire, whilst
it would avoid some objections which
had been urged with great force to the
re-adoption OF the section Of the present
Constitution. He could conceive OF
many reasons which justified the
original insertion o. that section in the
Constitution of 1862 which did no,
apply to the Constitution of 1872. 1t
4