The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-01-23
fsysY,sn fis sfsfffor


State of West Virginia afterthe manner and
| in the words that wa have quoted. III
The authorities Of West Virginh have
never assumed to themselves any rlght OF
precedence in the, matter of policy for ad.
busting the difficulties surrounding the dept
Question. But in the joint resolution passed
on the. 9th OF February last they did assume
the modest right Of adhering to the policy
| already inaueurated by the State Of Virginia
! and by her so freely rendered heretofore for
their acceptance, and therefore they respect
fully declined to adopt new and dinerent
proposition from her until they could test the
merits, of the one already adopted. -,
Apparently the present Executive of Viz
ginia, from an enforced familiarity with the
workings Of Tpersonal government" whlch
he so much deplores, has acquired ideas as to
the right of the initiative between equal con-
tracing parties that ure scarcely consistent
with the delicacy of the issue pending be-
tween this State and his own. For instance,
in his letter of September 7th he tells us that
the LEGISLATURE of Virginia, upon his sugges-
ton. has rendered un arbitration to this
state: and he trusts "that West Virginia
will reconsider her action and accept the
more speedy and satisfactory mode Of settle
ment proposed by Virginia" And again, in
his late message be says that "the better
course to be pursued Is for the two States 10
submit the whole question to arbitration"
and West Virginia is arraigned, as heretofore
shown, for not concurrinS i'll his opinion.
Apparently it did not occur to the Governor
that since Virginia had proposed both modes
Of settlement to this State, the latter might
make her choice between them without SUD
jecting her motives to imputatlon. And yet
all that she has assumed to do Is simply TO
choose between two policies Initiated by Viz
ginia. Unless, therefore, it can be shown
that it is the prerogatiye of that state to pre-
scribe the terms upon which tne dept snah De
adjusted, the question should hereafter be
discussed in spirit better calculated to ullay
all sectional irritation.
But we pass from this incidental reference
to Governor Walkers structures upon the
attitude of this State towards the debt ques-
ton to the action of the Virginia Legislature
upon the same question as embodied in the
act approved on the 30th Of March last, and
known as the funding bill. This act is in
keeping with the initiatory legislation Of Vir-
einia in regard to the debt to which we have
| iust referred. 1t assumes to apportion the
debt of that State arbitrarily, notwlthstand-
inc her authorities had six weeks before the
passage of the net received notice of the joint
resolution of the West Virginia Legislature
providing for the appointment Of commits.
sioners. 1t assumes, also, to apportion the
debt not as it stood on the 1st day Of Janu.
AIRY, 1851, but as 1t would stand on the 1st
day of July, 1871, after the interest had been
twice compounded, once in 1865, and again
at the date last named; and to apportion it,
too, upon the basis Of territory and popula-
ton, and without any reference to the equi-
ties that should always govern an assignment
of debt between two sections, and that were
so notorious in Our own case. In other
words, it assumes to apportion to West Viz
ginia onc-third of the debt as it now stands
Simply on the ground that she has one-third
of the territory and population formerly be-
longing to Virginia, and without reference
at all to the question Of resources and values.
This is apparently the practical result which
Governor Walker hoped to reach when he
urged upon lis the "more speedy and salts
factory mode Of settlement proposed by Vir-
rinia,'' inasnuch rs he tells lis in his late
message that this is the "plan for q reorgani-
cation Of the State debt" which he chad re-
commended twelve months before"
| But without reference to the authorship Of
this or any other "plan" for adjusting the
debt question, we propose to consider as
briefly us possible the real case now pending
between Virginia and West Virginia, as we
understand it.
The tables or statements which we annex
ms part Of our report show, among other
things, the following fucts:
That the funded debt of Virginia on the
1st day of January, 1861, was S31, 7179, 06I.32,
after I'LL deductions.
That all, or nearly all, Of this debt was in
CURED for and actually expended in works
Of public improvement, such as canals, rail-
roads, turnpikes, planh-roads, and bridges.
That of this vast sum upwards of $50, 0O0,-
900 were expended for improvements in the
present State of Virginia, and only about two
and a half millions In the present State OF
West Virginia.
That the present State of Virginia con-
tains II $50 square miles, and West Virginia
only 10000 square miles, OF less than one
third.
That the counties composing what is now
Virginia contained by the census Of 1860 a
population of 1,2l9, 1904, and those composing
West Virginia only population Of 374,0S7,
or less than one-fourth.
To these exhibits we append Others, under
our instructions from the Legislature, but
they are such rs do not enter into our argyll
ment here, which is to show that no just ap-
portionmcnt of the debt can be made upon
the basis of population and territory alone,
which is the basis upon which the Virginia
funding bill is confessedly predicated.
This theory Of apportionment is apparently
quite current among the people Of the State,
and is defended with ability by Judge Mere
dith, of Richmond, in carefully prepared
paper on the subject. His position is that
West Virginia should pay one-third of the
: debt, because, as he says it Is principle OF
international law governing the division OF
nations that 1.-THE obligations which had &C.
crued to the whole before the division, are
unless they are the subject Of special agree.
ment, ratably binding upon the different
parts" This he gives rs n quotation from
Phillimore. The inquiries present themselves
in connection with it--frst, was Virginia ma.
ton in the sense intended by Phillimore
and, second, what are we to understand by
q ratable part Of debt2 We presume that
it will not be contended that the general
rights and obligations of nation, as defined
by international law, belonged to Virginia
f prior to the division Of the State. and there
fore we cannot admit the applicability of the
quotation in that particular. Neither can we
admit Judge Meredith's construction of the
word atable. He applies it exclusively to
territory and population, and excludes every
thing in the shape of resources and values,
such as public works, buildings, and institu
tons, which, as we all know, vitality affect
: the equity ofa division Of territory.
Judge Meredith next adduces the following
quotation from Chancellor Kent to sustain
his position:
off the State should be divided in respect
to territory, its rights and obligations are
not impaired; and if they have not been up
| Nv npf crbt