The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1877-06-28
on nothing, as the holders OF the noa-fnnded
bonds we'll know.

citation on this point. After stating the
case as it was presented by the State of Vr-
ginia-that is, that an equitable division Of
the debt would be for Virginia to assume
two-thiris, and then arbitrarily assign to
West Virginia, without her consent or parti-
cipation, the other third, he says ;" Follow
ing out this idea, the Legislature passed a
solemn act, by which it proposed to the
creditors to surrender their old bonds, which
bound both States, and accept new bonds OF
the State of Virginia payable in "a years for
two-thirds Of the original debt, and certifi-
cate for the other third, for the paymen. OF
| which the creditors scere to look to Vest Vir-
ginia.''
And further: "Some ignorant people
maintain that this proposition was tainted
| with reputation, and others affirm that the
State of Virginia, Notwithstanding the &C:
ceptance of the proposition and the surren-
der Of the old bonds, is still liable for the
share Of the debt due from West Virginia.
| Both of these assumptions are idle dely
| sions.''
Here is the plain assumption Of the repl-
| diation OF the onc-third OF the debt. And
while the odium Of reputation is admitted
| by these sentences, the benefits expected
will not be realized. Upon this point the
Legislature Of Virginia was distinct ard
emphatic. A question arose as to what was
really meant by the certificates Of indebted
ness-whether Virginia was bound for them
or not-and, to settle it, Hon. Zeph Turner,
| Of Rappahannock. introduced resolution
declaring, In substance, that Virginia utterly
repudiated the one-third thus assigned to
West Virginia, and that the holders of the
certificates would get nothing, if West Vir-
ginia did not pay them. The resolution aoas
voted down by decided majority. The
alternative Of the proposition was that Vir-
ginia soould pay, if West Virginia did not.
The certificate itself does not justify the
language used by Mr.. Stuart. 1t says: 1.-The
payment of said one.third, with interest
thereon at the rate OF six per cent. per an
mum, will be provided for In accordance with
such settlement as shall hereafter be had be-
tween the States Of Virginia and West vir-
ginia." West Virginia, which was not
party to this agreement, has refused to make
any settlement at all. How must Virginia
act in reference to it? Must she repudiate
it or pay it? One or the other must be done,
and in either case MIR. Stuart's logic amounts
to nothing but assertion. Upon this point
Judge Staples says: IS II that State West
Virginia. is faithful to the obligations resting
upon her, the creditor will receive the other
third also. On the other hand, il she repu-
dates these obligations, there is 10 agree
ment or understanding absolving the State
from the payment Of such third. 1t is as
much bound for the payment Of the whole
debt as before the passage Of the Funding
Bill" -
The Supreme Court of the United States,
in case sent up from Wyoming Territory,
has decided the principle involved, and by
that opinion Virginia is bound for the entire
| debt. A county had created debt. Subse-
quently the county was divided. The old
county commended that the new county should
pay in proportion to the assessed value of its
property. This was refused, and the Su-
preme Court sustained the position taken by
the new county, holding the old county
bound for the entire debt.
The Funding Bill, nor the certificates OF
Indebtedness for the one-third, nor the Leg.
islature, nor the opinion OF Judge Bouldin
as that of the Court, nor that Of Judge Sta
pies as the dissenting opinion, nor the deci-
SION Of the Supreme Court OF the United
States, give color Of justification to the
view SO dogmatically asserted by Mr.. Stuart.
1t were bliss to be Ignorant when that
ignorance brings ''some people" in har-
mony with such an array Of authority.
Virginia cannot escape from the responsi.
bility to pay the certificates and the interest,
under the Funding Bill. The bondholders
know this. The foreign bondholders thought
debt, in the way it was divided by the Fund
| ing Bill, but the assurance that the interest
on the two-thirds would be promptly paid,
reconciled them to waiting for the other
third. until West Virginia determined her
relation to it, or Virginia recuperated sufii-
clently to pay it.
| The surrender OF the old bonds by those
who accepted the terms Of the Funding Bill,
before the Legislature repealed the coupon
receiYability feature, and their cancellation
| by the State, do not constitute considera.
ton adverse to the claim OF the bondholdcr
for his entire debt. The funded bonds for
| two.thirds and the certificates for one-third,
which. we contend, Virginia is bound for,
not only represent the original bond-but
more. They comprehend compound inter-
est, and to that degree augment the advan-
tagea OF the creditor and increases the bur-
dens OF the debtor-and that debtor strug-
Cling in the travail Of financial and material
despair and bankruptcy. Shylock himself,
in his palmiest days, could not have driven
harder bargain.
We can only arrive at conclusion, by
implication, from what Mr.. Stuart says of
the inequality Of the relations of the two
classes OF creditors-the holders of nom
funded and funded bonds-and from no
positive assertion. We infer from the gen.
eral tenor OF his argument that he would have
the Legislature recede from its enactment
annulling the receivability OF the coupons
for dues to the State, and open the way for
the conversion Of the "peelers " into I" con-
sol' bonds. He would consent to "re-
adjustment" il it still more securely bound !
the people To the purposes Of the Funding
Bill, but upon no other basis. 1t is hard
ship, we know, with those who have not |
funded their bonds, inasmuch as they receive
no interest. The conscienceless SPECTATORS
were on hand to avail OF the first moments |
time, after the passage Of the act, and they |
remained on hand until they had accom-.
plished their object. The policy Of the State, |
however, is not to add additional embarrass-
ments to the people, and the only "re-ad-
justment consistent with pven-handed |
justice Is to so lesislate, II possible, as to
bring all the creditors to an equality upon
basis Just alike to creditor and debtor, and
ia conformity to the ability Of the people to
pay. The people Of Virginia will never con-
sent to any modification Of past legislation
that would environ them with augmented