The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-07-27
For How Much Of the Public Debt Is
Virginia Bound?


Court Of Appeals, in the case of Htggan'
6othan'S Executors Us. The Commonwealth,
had decided that Virginia was bound for the
whole of the public debt, including the third
set apart for West Virginia by the funding
act, that the public has come to believe the
statement to be true So far, however, is
this from being the fact that the opinion oil
the court in that case is the strongest argu.
ment ia favor of the funding act that we
have anywhere seen. That august tribunal
distinctly aud clearly sets forth that as TO all
of the public debt not funded under the
funding act both Virginia and West Virginia
are iointly and severay bound for its pay
ment, [Such was the case with the HIGGIN.
BoTHAM claim.] But as to that part of the
debt which had been funded the court
Judge BoULDIS spcaking> says:
cit is scarcely necessary to add that 10
what has been said above it has not been my
purpose to express or intimate any opinion
as to the respective rights and liabilities of
the S ate aud those OF her creditors who have
accepted the provisions Of the act OF March
80, 1871. commonly called the funding act.
That question is not before US, even incl
dentaIy, d'ri no optntoa as expressed there
on"
No language could be more explicit than
this. The court first declares In the most
emphatic manner that the State of Virginia is
bound for all that part of the public debt
which was not funded under the act Of
March 80, 1871, and then in equally clear and
explicit language declares that as to that part
of the debt which had been so funded it would
not express any opinion because the point was
not before it. Bot it seems 20 Us plain that
the court would have decided as to this latter
part OF the debt, that the State was not bound
for that portion which had been assigned to
West Virginia.
Now, what are the grounds upon which
we would expect such decision from the
Court of Appeals: These are presented so
forcibly, and indeed unanswerably, 10 letter
written by Judge MEREnlTE, of this city, Sn
1871, that We reproduce the letter In full. at
leaves nothing to be said. 1t 0akes out the
case beyond doubt. Here is the letter:
The FrSbsaS RaLL.-SAgunsAY, Noven.
Der %, 1S7I.-IU Ghe Editor tGf the Wing:
In the Wing Of this morning Is commhni.
cation, over the signature of'1 A Citizeu,''
dissenting from one OF the views expressed
In NV letter TO you on the SUBJECTED the pub.
sie debt. The passage objected TO Is the one
in which, when speaking Of the creditors ac-
ceptiDg the terms OF the bill, 1 say he s. sur
renders aud gives up TO the'State one third OF
the debt and accepts TIVE thirds in satisfaction
OF the whole, and at the same time sumenders
the evidence Of the old debt and accepts new
bond rs evidence OF the new contract. lie can
never assert any claim on the old contract
he is estopped by the new" This passage is
qualified by subsequent one, in which
say: "Ef she never makes any settlement
with West Virginia the creditor can never
demand payment of her of any part of this
third. He Is estopped from SO doing by the
very terms OF his contract. Ii she does SET
tie, then he can only demand payment Of
this third Of his debt in G0asgdance ,ciM
such settlement. This is the only demand
the creditor can ever make for this Que third
OF the 5t, and the State will account for
her EUSf BY referring to Der settlement
with West Virginia aud Offering 10 settle
with her creditor " IN dccOfdaaee suth such
settlement" This is apparent from the bill
itself Let uS look at it.
The third section of the bill. terAirecting
new bond to issue for two thirds of the
debt, and certificate for the remaining one
third, and a surrender of the old and accept
ance of the new bond and certificate. de.
clares "that the State of Virginia holds said
bonds SO far as unfunded in trust for the
holder or his assignees." Now, what is the
effect OF this undertaking, and what is the |
position OF the State in relation to these
bonds? Before she was obligor, now she ia !
trustee. The old bond has been surrendered /
and new bond and certificate accepted IN
lieu OF II. Her undertaking is to hold the
old bond SO far as unfunded 1.-THE uDf,Inde6
amount being represented by the certifcatel
IN trust for The holder or his assigpecs. She
now assumes the relation Of trustee of the
old bond so far as unfunded, and abandons
her position es oblgor, which she before
occupied IN the old bond, and holds as
trustee for her creditor. Instead of being
liable 70 her creditor as obligor, she holds as
Trustee for him. II she meant 10 contjnne
iiaoie as obiigor, which was her original no.
sltion. why did she change il? WHY did She
shfs from me position OF ob!isor to tha, q, I;
trustee. which makes her liable not for the
aniunded amount, but only for its collection
aud preserga!ion! And this change II MADE
with the assent OF the creditor, evidenced nv :
ne surrender Of the old and the ACCEPTANCE 4
,, d. Inc new bond aRd certificate as the con. i
a da -. VI ner accepting The trust. need 30
nv spas f'hs Character VI obligcr to q boslt !