Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1877-07-03

the old and acceptance of the new bonds
for two-thirds the amount due as pro.
vided in the last preceding section, there
shall be issued to the owners, for the
other one-third of the amount due upon
the old bond, stock, or certificate of in
debtedness SO surrendered, a certificate,
bearing the same date of the new bond,
setting forth the amount of the bond
which is not funded as provided in the
last preceding section, and that payment
of said amount with interest thereon,
at the rate prescribed in the bond sur
rendered, will be provided for in accor-
dance with such settlement as shall
hereafter be made between the'States of
Virginia and West Virginia in regard
to the public debt of the State of Virgin
ia, existing at the time of dismember
ment." This was the contract. Now,
II 1t was intended by those whose infiu-
ence, and whose votes sustained the
measure, that it should he q contract,
the purpose OF which was to relieve this
State wholly and entirely from the fu-
ture payment Of this remaining third,
wouldn't it have been couched in Ian
Eguagssso plaius and 90 clear, that even
an Augusta Farmer' could not have
mistaken it? IF the construction now
promulgated Is the true construction,
that it was q contract entered into by
the Virginia Legislators for the specific
purpose of relieving the State from the
payment of this enormous sum of
money. for which it is claimed we were
bound before, don't the Virginia legis-
lature deserve at the hands of their con-
stituents a rebuke commensurate at
least with the disgraceful stupidity that
marks the transaction? But the Ian
guage here used means, if it means any
thing, that the holders of the certificates
OF Indebtedness are to postpone their
collection until Virginia has had reason.
able time for settlement with West Vir-
ginia. If it shall be found at the time
OF such settlement, that West Virginia
agrees and assumes to pay it all. then
OF course Virginia is relieved of it all !?
II 1t Is found that West Virginia agrees
to pay only one half of this apportion-
ment, then, in accordance with such
settlement, under the Funding bill, Vir-
ginia must provide for the other half.
If the settlement results in the refusal
of West Virginia to pay any of it, then,
in accordance with such settlement,
Virginia will be held and must provide,
under the provisions of the contract, for
its payment. The provisions of this
contract clearly indicates that the cred.
itors are to be paid dollar for dollar,
principal and interest, the full face val
ue of the certificates, and not SO much
only as West Virginia agrees to pay.
This settlement between the two States
is question with which the creditors
of the Commonwealth have nothing to
do, but it is question in which we are
vitality interested; question in which
is involved round little sum approxi-
mating nearly to twenty millions of dol
lars. West Virginia holds that they
paid our treasury more money than they
took out of it; that they got none of the
benefits of these loans, and are therefore
In equity bound for none of it. and will
not assume the payment of it. The
case therefore cited of Higgin bottoms
ex'or VS.. Commonwealth, 25th Graft,
does settle efectually the principle, and
the decision leaves Virginia (the present
State) with the bag to hold What is
Governor Walkers understanding of
this thing?A Governor Walker, 1.-THE
father of the act ITSELF" says in message
addressed to the legislature, in which
he urges Its passage: sit was never in
tended that there should be a division
between the two States of the original
Indebtedness. Such a transaction would
be impracticable If not impossible. The
obvious intent of all the legislation upon
this subject is, that whatever amount
the State of West Virginia ought to as
sumo, should be paid into the treasury
of this State, to be by her used in the
extnguishment of the debt. The bonds
are the bonds of the State Of Virginia
and not West Virginia, and to the treas
ury ofVirginia does the creditor look
forsthe Re3ment of his. debt" Such is
GoveFfI1& Walkers construction, and
from his close intimacy .and untiring
efforts N the premises, his opinion is
entitledTI should say, to weight. But
how dothe bondholders themselves con-
strue it? Letsl us see. Here is an ex-
tract from theleSter of an English for
eign) bondholder, written upon this very
subject: "The State of Virginia agreed
by that bill (thei Funding BILLY to pay
interest on two-thirds of its debt, but
it did not repudiate- the other third. 1t
issued on that thi-d'A certificate of in
debtedness, bearing interest at six per
cent. and to be paid in accordance with
such settlement as shall hereafter be
hUu OCOW ecu tuc OtdtcS Vi VlIkluld duO
West Virginia. and the State holds such
or his assigns. Whatever West Virgin
ia pays, the holder will get, and if it be
found on q settlement that West Vir.
ginia owes nothing, the State of Vir-
ginia will be liable for the whole sum-
Here we see that the construction given
to this bill by the father of it, and the
understanding of the bondholders them
selves are in perfect accord; that both,
as does the bill itself, utterly repudiats
the idea that these certificates of ise-
debted'aess, are. to be regarded as "mere
evidence of the amount due from West
Virginia." The review of this ques-
ton might well rest here, for it seems
to me, in the face of the facts al
ready presented, the claim that these
certificates Of Indebtedness were only
intended to show that West Virgin
las third was "still due and unsat-
isfied" is little less than ludicrous.
But if there is still remaining doubt
as to what was meant by the passage of
the Funding bill, let us dispel the doubt
r by probing little deeper into the mat
ter. Let us US look for moment into
the journal of the Assembly whilst the
bill was under consideration. When
the fracas over the brilliant enterprise
was still waxing warm, the friends of
the movement over sanguine and its
enemies little detected, Mr.. Turner, of
Rappahanock, moved to insert in the
body of said certificate a proviso in the
following words "But the State of Vir-
ginia Is not and will not be bound in
any manner or form for the pay
ment, now or at any future time,
of this certificate, or any part there
of; but this is without any preju.
dice to the rights of the holder thereof
to demand payment of the same of the
State of West Virginia" This was a
plain and unvarnished proposition, in
which it was sought to give to the Fund
Ing bill the very imprint now fruitlessly
claimed for it. If the amendment had
been accented this whole disnlte of