The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1872-01-20

a nation, as defined by international law,
belonged to Virginia prior 10 the division
OF the State, and therefore, we cannot i'd
nit the applicability Of the quotation In
! that particular. Neither can we admit
Judge Meredith's construction Of the
word ratablc. lie applies Il exclusively
to territory and population and excludes
everything in the shape Of resources and
values, such rs public works, buildings
and institutions, which, as we all know
vitality affect the equity Of u division OF
territory.
Judge Meredith next adduces the fol.
lowing quotation from Chancellor Kent
to sustain his position; 40 ~
"lf the SiatG should be divided Ia re.
spect 10 territory, lis rights Ihp dbliga.
ttOns are NOT impaired; andlf lley have
not been apporIioned by special agree-
ment those rights are TO be OnioyGd and
those obligations fulfilled by ali Tic parts
in common" % n @ u n
This quotation Is much more intelligi-
bic and just, and we think will tend 10
sustain the conclusions VIC have reached,
rs hereinafter stated.
In addition to the two quotations al.
ready given, Judge Meredith cites other
authorities to sustain hiS position that
West Virginia is chargeable with one.
third OF the debt, but VIC do not regard
them as applicable To the case under con.
sideratiUn. First, because Virginia Is not
nation. Second, because In all the cases
referred TO in tho authorities quoted,
treaty stipulatiOns had more or less to do
with the question. Third, because the
debts were war debts, the benefits of
which, ilany, accrued To each individual,
and tho obligations oil which therefore
rested upon each In no instance was the
debt created for internal improvements
which necessarily confer partial and local
benefits that In most cases exceed the
general benefit Of the State at large. We
therefore fail TO sec the proper analogy
that should exist TO make these citations
preCcdents for the case Of Virginia and
West Virginia.
Judge Meredith winds up these refer.
ences to various authorities by two
general deductionso Of his own, as follows:
l. THAT the public debt OF State Is
not affected by a change in the form OF
It's government, nor by the partition of its
territory into two States, but remains in
full force and must be discharged"
2. "That II tho State be divided into
two or more States, the debts which had
been contracted by the whole before the
division are, unless they have been the
subject OF special agreement, ratably
binding upon the different parts in pro.
portion to territory and population"
The first deduction it is not necessary to
consider, as West Virginia, in her Ordi.
nance of separation from Virginia, as also
in her constitution, agreed to pay an equi-
table proportion OF the public debt. What
that equitable proportion is VIC are now
considering.
In reference 10 the second deduction we
have to remark that Judge Meredith
draws conclusion from his authorities
which they do not sustain. Phillimorc,
Tor instance, says that "if nation be di.
vided into various distinct societies, the
obligations which lad accrued TO the
whole before the division arc ratably
binding upon the different parts" Here
Phillimore 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 sin pro.
portion 10 territory and population"
These words are not found in any of the
authorities, so iaras we are advised, and
certainly not in any of the quotations ad-
duced by the Judge.
A hOment's consideration will show
that division Of debt according TO popu-
latiOn and territory would not only be i'm
practicable but would conflict with COM
mon sense. 1t would be impracticable be.
cause 1t does not determine the relative
value of each one of the two elements OF
population and territory. Suppose the
population TO he twicGS rs much US the
territory, or suppose the territory TO be
three times as great rs the population,
which element has tile greater value in
determining the result?
Without pursuing this thought further
1t is manifest that nothing is settled by
such rule. You must fix the relative
value OF the two elements before you can
reach conclusion. 1t is, therefore, plain
why the books do not give the rule as
stated by Judge Meredith. Because of its
indellnLeness, but mainly because Of It's
Injustice. Would any sane man lay down
a rule for the division Of State which
would ignore the great cities, public i'm.
prOvemenls, public works, institutions Of
all kinds, great commercial advantages.
sucn rs rivers and harDors and the great
advantage OF fertility Of soil; all of which,
and many other elements oil wealth, pro.
perry and power, might be found in one
division and be wholly absent in the other.
Hence we say that such rule is repug-
nant to common sense.
A public debt is mainly charge upon
the wealth and resources OF people. II
is represented by taxes, and taxes are inn
posed 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 devel-
oping and enriching one portion OF the
State almost exclusively. Nay, more,
when that division OF the State is in pos.
session of and enjoying, giving way and
selling at auction and otherwise disposing
Of the very subjects for which the debt
was created. se
These considerations afford abundant
reason why no authority would say, in the
absence OF compact (unless there was
perfect homogeniely) that it would be just
to divide "nation" any more than an in.
dividual estate by population AMI terrific.
ry. We doubt not that Judge Meredith
himself would scout the ideA Of dividing
an estate on such basis and without
reference to the quality Of the land and
theimprovements made. Why then would
he ignore such considerations in appor.
tioning public debt between two divis.
ions OF a State? Chancellor Kent, whom
he has quoted, docs not sustain him in so
doing. The quotation already given from
that author says that "if a State should be
divided in respect to territory its rights
and obligations are not impaired; and II
they have not been apportioned by agree.
ment, those rights are to be enjoyed and
In - n