The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-06-18

whole West Virginia W0nid, Inereioies ", pc
! n eresaary marty 10 any SUIT that might be
brought for5at would he necessary TO APP
portion any iinbility that might DE aseer-
tanned between Virginia and west VT
ginia. The litigation would necessarily IN
yolye not merely the rights OF. creditors as
against both States, but the rights OF .the
two States as between themselves. linus
we should have many Interesting issues pre-
sented. All questions connected VIII, inc
funding bill would be brought unorr re-
view. And an interesting point mignt DC
raised rs to the measure Of responsibility
of Virginia to West Virginia for misappro-
priation OF interests in railroad companies,
which were the joint property OF the two
States, and especially for the six and haii
millions OF railroad stocks and bonds which
Virginia so unwisely transferred to the At
lanfic, Mississippi and Ohio Railroad Com
pany.
Another important inquiry may be as TO
the relation of Virginia and West Virginia
TO the unfunded portion Of the old debt.
So far Us the debt has been funded, it may
well be maintained that the holders OF con-
sol.bonds are estopped by their contract,
evidenced by accepting the provisions OF
the funding bill, from asserting any clalm
against Virginia on account OF the West
| Virginia certificates. But, quere !! is such
the fact in regard to the portion OF the
debt which has not been fGn,ded7 II our
Legislature bad allowed the whole debt to
| be funded she could in no event be liable
for more than the two thirds which she
agreed TO pay and the creditors consented
to receive.
But suppose that the Supreme Court
should decide that, inasmuch as Virginia
got the benefit of most OF the improve
Ements which were built with the money
borrowed before the war, she is Justly re-
sponsible, in a settlement 6etoeeen the States,
for larger proportion than two thirds.
say three fourths, or four fifths-of the old
debt, what then?
The answer OF Virginia would be, We
have already, with the consent OF the cred
itors, fixed the proportion for which West
Virginia is to be responsible. The reply
might be ssThat is all very well, so far as
the creditors are concerned-their consent
binds them-but West Virginia was no
party to that agreement, and she has never
ratified it, and is not bound by it."
The fifteen millions OF unfunded debt
stands entirely unaffected by the provisions
of the funding bill Its status has been in
nowise changed. AS to that, there has been
no contract either between the States or
with the creditors which in any degree
limits or impairs the rights OF parties. May
not the Court then say: "Whlc it is true
we cannot interfere with the funded debt,
that having been adjusted by contract with
the creditors, we can dispose OF the fifteen
millions Of unfunded debt, as TO which no
contract has been entered into, in such man.
ner rs will be just and equitable; and it
being 4 subject properly under our control,
we may use it as IN equalization tu,1d, so as
to adjust the burthen properly upon the two
States respectively" For example, they may
say that, rs Virginia has by her funding bill
| shifted too much of the burthen from her
own shoulders to those Of West Virginia,
we will now require that Virginia shall bear
larger proportion Of the untu,ded debt,
so as to do complete justice between all
| parties.
Should this be the case, then the "anti-
flinders" will find that the effect OF their
policy in stopping the operation of funding
has been to add largely to the burthen to be
borne by Virginia.
know the readiusters" will "Pooh !!
pooh - this whole matter, as the ''pcace-
able secessionists" ridiculed the idea that
"war" would follow secession" But
these gentlemen may find in the end that it
as is difficult for Virginia to resist the de-
crees of the Supreme Court as it was for
her to withdraw peaceably from the Union.
w.. VIGILANCE.