The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1872-02-03

SATURDAY, FEB. 3, 1879.
The Virginia Debt.-.WeSt ViTginia's
Liability 10 Virginia and Her Lila.
billy TO the Creditors.
THE Wellsburg Herald Is not pleased
with the report Of the West Virginia
Debt Commissioners 1t intimates that
II the State should insist on such settle
ment as the Commissioners advise II,
would be about equivalent to reputation.
Tho Herald, however, does not discuss
the reasons assigned by the Commission.
ers for their conclusions. If tho Herald
would suggest basis Of settlement
whereby the proper liability Of this State
to Virginia might be ascertained, 1t would
no doubt do much to promote an adjust.
ment between the two States and save
the credit Of this.
There seems to be slight con.
fusion touching this question which
does not distinguish between West
Virginias liability TO Virginia and her
liability TO the creditors. These seem TO
US to rest distinctly on different bases.
Virginia arbitrarily assumes that VIC are
bound to her tor third Of the debt, be-
cause we have (abouD third Of the
taxable property Of the original State
which made tue debt, which pro.
perry the creditors have q right to
look TO rs their security. So far rs
the creditors arc concerned, 1t seems
to rs true that West Virginia Is liable to
share Of the debt proportionate 10 tho
share Of taxable assets which she with,
drew from the old State. And VIC pre-.
sumo either State in case the other failed
to pay Its share in part or whole would
be liable to the creditors for that dc1-
cheney,
The question VIC have to deal with just
now is not our liability TO the creditors,
but how the burden Of that liability shall
be adjusted between the two States. That,
we take 1t, Is TO be a question OF
simple equity, and each is to account 10
the other for the share ofthej joint property
that fell to it upon the dissolution OF the
partnership, and to abide by other cquita,
bic features of the joint business. When
the two partners have agreed between
themselves how much Of the obligation TO
the creditors each will pay, the right Of
the creditors TO hold both States is still
unimpaired. II one State should prove
unable TO pay the share that its obliga.
tionS to the other State require II 10 pay,
the other State, and not the creditors,
must be the sufferer by that bankruptcy.
Let us say, by way Of illustration, that
our partner, upon settlement, owes US US
much as halt the whole debt Of the firm
and discharges the debt to us by
undertaking TO pay the whole joint
obligation. But until he docs pay,
the creditors may hold both respon.
siblc, unless they release us and ac-
cept our partners individual liability.
That is precisely what the creditors have
been doing under the Virginia funding
act They have given up some thirty
millions of their claims against the old
firm and taken Virginia'0 individual notes
Tor it. This in nowise affects the equita.
bic settlement that must be made between
this State and Virginia, but 1t releases
West Virginia from all liability to the
creditors for so much Of the debt as is
funded by Virginia. SO far as that
is concerned, if Virginia fails to
pay, the creditors can never come
on us. Tho indications arc that
two.thirds of the debt will thus be
funded; so that ir Virginia should fail
altogether the creditors could never claim
more than third from West Virginia.
The latest proposition Mt Richmond is to
repudiate that third fatty and only pay
over such part Of it as West Virginia may
pay Virginia upon settlement. In that
event, it seems to us West Virginia would
be bound 10 see that the creditors did not
suffer by the dishonesty of our partner
and would be liable to them for whatever
Virginia repudiated-that being the cost
ofour unfortunate connection with State
capable Of regulating its lust obligations
WE arc glad to see that the "Ohio''
oor.oo,,ondoDt ~ ,Lo p.,,:,I,, l:.J.