The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1877-06-28
Aggregate of indebtedness, s43, 1855, 1854;

Aggregate of indebtedness, $43, 1855, 2S6.43
This debt was contracted before the divis- /
ion of the State Of Virginia had been made,
and, as since been adjudged by our Supreme
Court of Appeals, in the case OF Higginbet-
TOMS x'or VS.. Commonwealth, 25th Graft.
627, both Virginia and West Virginia were
bound for the whole of it. The division OF
the State into two States, could, in no wise
affect the rights Of the creditors, though it
might affect their remedies. 1t was like che.
dissolution of d partnership. partners
remained as firmly bound for the debts OF the
partnership, after the dissolution, as they
had been before. -
Having ascertaihed the amount Of the debt. and
being unable to pay the interest, the Legislature
provided, as every railroad company. and every
be me
'S Being i unwiiling that the State of Virginia
ginia, for the whole debt. the Legislature, proyi-
ded by law, for the appointment OF three Commits
sia What proportion Of the debt Ti Should be as
sumed by West Virginia, and what proportion by
Virginia. Three Commissioners, viz: Mr. John
Janney, Of Loudoun. Mr.. William Martin Of Hen
make this settlement. The State of West Vir-
ginia, however, declined to appoint commission
ers to meet and confer with u.s. and thus the plan
OF settlement failed. subsequent effort to Ell
feet settle ment by other Commissioners was
In 1871. the Legislature being still unwilling
| that Virginia should remain bound for the whole
debt of the old State. determined if possible, to
| sever the Liabilities of the two States. This Of
course could not be done except with the consent
OF the holders OF the bonds OF the old State. III
was, therefore, determined to make an effort 10
| secure their consent, by offering to them terms
| which it was hoped would prove acceptable. This
led to the passage OF what is commonly known as
the Funding Bill
| I do not feel called on to express any opinion in
regard to the merits or dement's of that bill, be
| cause was not member OF the Legislature
| which passed it. But Will say that have gen
orally found that those who were most clamorous
in denouncfng it, were most ignorant OF its OBJ
jects. its principles and its provisions. Ne one
contends that bill was perfect. It. doubtless, was
detective in some particulars. And it is altogeth
err probable that if our Legislators had Forgotten
| that they represented proud spirited Virginians
and had humbled themselves before her creait
| ors, and with bowed heads and dated Dreatn, APP
1 pealed to their charity. more favorable terms
| might have been obtained. IL.
| The theory of that bill was this: AT the time O
its passage. the debt, by the accumulation OF IN
| terest, amounted in round numbers, to forty-hvt
millions of dollars. Fer the whole OF th1s
| amount. as have already stated and as our cour
of appeals has decided the State of Virginia wa.
| bound, Jointly and severally with the State
West Virginia. A large part OF this debt wa
| then due, and the bonds for the residue. Wer'
rapidly approaching maturity. This condition
things presented knotty problem Tor soiuIlon
| Virginia might have assumed the whoie deDt
and brought suit against West virginia IN IN
Supreme Court OF the United States. (Which is
! by the constitution clothed with jurisdiction il
suits brought by one State against anotherl 70 re
4 cover her fair proportion OF tine DEBT. But Uni
l was a tedious, extensive, and d1Sagreeable pro
eeeaipg. Hence the Legislature declined to adop