The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-04-09

when he voted Tor the ADMISSION VI West
Virginia he had lost sight Of the debt
question between the two States, and that
he now regretted that Congress had not
made stipulation in regard to the share
that West Virginia should assume. We
are ct q loss to imagine how Congress
could arbitrarily make such stipulation.
The constitution under which West Viz
Rinia was admitted contained the follow
Ing provision in regard to the debt oil the
old State:
IAN equitable proportion Of the public
debt OF The Commonwealth OF Virginia,
prior TO the first day Of January, 1861,
shall be assumed by the State; and the
Legislature shall ascertain the same as
soon as may be practicable, and provide
for the liquidation thereof by sinking
fund sufficient to pay the eccLuing In
tsrest and reduce the principal within
thirty.tour years"
This sort OF q provision was all that Con-
gress had right to demand Of West Vir'
ginia before admitting her into the Union.
How could that body undertake to say
how much oil the old debt West Virginia
should psy2 That would be to assume
judicial functions, and would be an I'm.
heard Of requirement in the admission Of
State.
Mr.. sherman went on to remark as fol-
lows:
1.-THE State Government OF West Vir.
giniA had, however, appointed Commissions
ers arrange the matter with the State
Of Virginia, and those Commissioners had
gone TO Richmond for that puppOsei but
there had been q disagreement, and, final
ly, the Democratic party had come into
power In West Virginia, and the debt was
repudlSted.
MR.. DAVIS Nv. vA.)
challenged the correctness oil this state:
mRnt, and declared that in the revised
Constitution the Democrats had inserted
o provision mot exactly similar TO that In
the Constitution OF 1869 for the payment
OF the debt whenever settlement as to
the amount t ok place. He said the Dem.
ocratiC party OF West Virginia was the
only party that had moved straight on
the question. 1t was on his Davis own
motion that Commissioners had been sent
TO Richmond. These Commissioners had
not agreed with the Commissioners from
Virginia, and their report had been made
by Mr.. Campbell, leading Republican.
West Virginia was ready at the time 10
take It's fair, Just and equitable portion Of
that debt, and he hoped the time for
doing 80 would soon come. Il was the
Democrats and not the Republicans who
had sent the Commissioners to Richmond.
Mr.. Davis rather strained the point when
he contended that the present Constitu'
ton Of the State, framed in 1872, contain
ed provision at oil analogous to the one
we have quoted from the first Constitution
OF the State-lhe one under which it was
admitted. 1t never, In 30 many words, made
any provision whatever on the subject.
In fact, one may read II without discover.
ing any mention Of the West Virginia
debt.
Mr.. Davis should not have coupled the
appointment Of Debt Commissioners with
the present Constitution. lie will re-
member that said Commission was pro.
vided for In 1871 and the Commissioners
appointed in that year-the year before
the meeting OF the Constitutional Con.
vention. And as regards the appointment
Of said Commission, 1t was not On original
movement on the part Of the Slate Of
West Virginia, but responsive one-a
comfy, as 1t were, to the State Of Virginia,
which State had previously provided for
and appointed Commissioners to treat
with West Virginia.
This brings US to the debt question itself.
No one doubts the liability Of West Viz.
ginia for share OF the Virginia debt. This
has never been disputed by any RESPONSE
Bile man or newspaper in West Virginia.
The only question that has ever arisen
has been as to fair apportionment Of said
debt. The State OF Virginia assumed to
decide that question Tor herself and Tor
West Virginia when she Topped OF one.
third Of her debt, not as 1t stood in 1861,
but as It stood on the lst day Of July, 1871,
ten years later, and alter the interest had
been twice compounded. She proceeded
as a party In interest to adjudicate the
case, and on the ground that we had one.
third OF the territory, and, without any re.
spect to the question Of resources and as.
salts, assigned to Us one.third Of The debt
as II stood in 1871.
AZ to our le.al liability for the debt,
there would be no question about II II the
principle Of law that holds any part Of an
estate liable for a debt created by the
whole estate could be enforced as sgainst q
State, but 1t cannot. The judicial power Of
the United States does not extend to q
suit Ia Law or equity against q State by the
citizens OIL any other State, and the Con.
stitution Of West Virginia further provides
that this State can not be made defend.
ant In court Of law or equity. Nevertheless
there Is principle Of what is known as
public Law" that provides, In cases like
Ours, Tor the payment Of just portion OF
such a debt. This public law may be
defined 10 DO the law Of we'll settled pub.
lie opinion in all enlightened countries.
In the case OF Hartman vs.. Greenhow, In
the United States Supreme Court early In
this year, Justice Field, in delivering The
opinion Of the Court, took occasion to
make the following observation In refer.
enCe to the debt Of Virginia and West
Virginia:
"Dufing the war portion Of her Ter.
titoty was separated from her, and by liz
people q new State, named West Virginia,
was formed, and by the Congress OF the
United States was admitted into the
Union. Nearly one.thitd Of her territory
and people were taken from her jufisdic.
tiun. But IA the whole State had