The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-01-23
I'M 1Ssisr fbs oId Si1te

Rsffid WIS q foster Ell OF TIC Old EtAte,
an, aa such depend lent tpons herr bounty.
This opinion we shall not stop to discuss, and
we onfY refer to It az showing the inconsist.
ency between the theory and practice Of our Z
Virginia friends. Supposingit to. be correct,
the explanation as to how it CAME about can
never be made creditable to those who lAy.
ished all their favors on one section Of the
State and withheld them from the other, and
the yindication of the step taken by West
Virginia during the war In separating from
the old State consists largely Of this tradl-
tional Discrimination against her. And In
this connection 1t may not be out Of place to
notice that the increase Of population In West
Virgins during the decade from 1880 to 1870
was of o character to still further rindicats
the step taken, 1t being about thirty per cent.
This large increase illustrates her onward
march since her separation from her former
foster parent, and tends TO suggest how Gar
in advance Of her present position she really
might have beeh had she received In the past
anything more than "the crumbs that fell
from the rich mans table"
We come now TO the conclusion Of our re-
port. Having given our reasons why we
dissent entirely from the position of Virginia
in reference to the debt, we proceed to State
our own conclusions in regard to 1t as fol-
lowss
Statement A, as annexed to our report,
shows that the bonded debt Of Virginia on
the 1st January, 1861, after all deductions,
was S31, 49, 67.32.
The same statement also shows that all Of
said debt was expended within the present
State of Virginia with the exception of g..
7S4,329.29.
Statement Z shows that 1925, 1862 was
collected from counties in West Virginia after
january 1st, 1861.
Statement F shows that the amount Of ex.
penditure for all purposes In West Virginia
was s3,343, e2929.
We are not able to say certainly what part
of this expenditure was from the proceeds
of State bonds (and, therefore, a part Of the
State debt), and what part was appropriated
from the regular receipts Of the treasury.
We have had access to no data that could de.
ternline the question. Our letter to the
Second Auditor at Richmond sought infor.
nation on this point in vain. But we have
given Virginia the benefit Of 1t all as credit
on her side of the account, although the
resolutions under which we are acting con-
template nothing on the part Of West Vir-
ginia but an assumption Of her proportion Of
| the bonded debt, inasmuch as both sections,
and particularly Virginia, receiyeda ppropria.
tions out of the ordinary receipts of the trea-
sury. ..
We have charged West Virginia with all
that we have found expended within her
limits-viz., the amount Of the funded debt
created for improvements within her terri
tory, the amount invested in her banks, the
amount expended on the lunatic asylum at
| wy a. tod r-oI,,n - Ia
perty known as the Lewisburg Law Library.
On the other hand. we have credited her
with her share of the estimated value OF the
public property and assets Of Virginia other
than the property represented IN the D?ndcd
Indebtedness. This latter equalized Itself,
and therefore does not enter into tue &C.
counts. Virginia has the property, and owes
| the debt which it represents. We refer only
to the public buildings, institutions, and
other assets, as given In statement g.. AS TO
| West Virginia's share in these, we can only
venture an approximate estimate. The pub.
lie buildings, the common property of the
two States, paid for out of the general rere-
nue., we have estimated Mt $3,S75,000, as per
statement G., and it would be reasonable, we
think, to estimate West Firginia's interest
in them at one-fourth on the blsis of popu-
lation.
The same statement shows that the surplus
revenue of the United States deposited with
the States under theact Of Congress, Junc23,
1886. gave Virginia $685. ,231.3t, OF which
sum she appears to have received ut least
s., 1872, s09.33. This act assigned to each
State its share of deposits on the basis OF It's
representation in Congress, and Virginia nav
| ing in 1860 thirteen representatives, three OF
whom were from West Virginia, 1t would
seem that three-thirtcenthS Of that FUND be-
longed to the latter.
10 this share of the deposits and her i'll
terests in the public property we add,a ms per
same statement, her proportion OF the literary
fund. This fund, It the date quoted in state
meut G., amounted to q, 5O3, 695.l0. as II
was apportioned throughout the State on the
basis OF the white population, we follow that
rule in assigning to West Virginia three
seventies of it, that being her ratio OF While
population in 1860. :.
Upon the data thus ascertalned and explain
ed. we summarize the account between inc
two States us follows:
WEST VIRGINIA TO TILE STATE OF vrRcIsA;
DIR.
For the amounts czpendcdan,d Invested este,
| In her territory, rs set forth In stap'- -. >,
n'cu' OK.
| I3y ope-foErth OF tie esttlnauH Vhlueot
| the public buildings and other asseS,
rs given In statement g ...9gs;'so "
BY tiiree-thirteenths OF tho
United States surplus fund,
Us per same stitement...... lie,cas "
~ y, nv fI,nd' NJ per same. e47,o7a %
BY the amount collected IN
| IVES. Virginia after Janu-
| ary lst 1851. a. per stale .,s -, =,
hien1 '''' - sa..sl;53 -
p,,.,oo dim Virginia, . $3.50 y
This is the balance as we find itafter pro-
tracted examination Of such sources OF M
formation as were available to us. Ana lhe