Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1884-02-09


the 2Gth inst. Ny attention had been
called to the article i'll the Richmond
"Statc." had also seen publications of
the resolutions submitted TO the Lcgisla-
ture of Virginia in papers of our State.
do not apprchond that Mr.. Mason will
he able TO involve our State in any diff
cdlty growing out OF the debt question.
| am now, and have been for years OF
opinion that the status of this State is fix
| cd rs to our liability, and that it is only
question of stating the account as to the
amount we will be called upon TO Pay.
You will recollect that the 9th section
of the ordinance to provide for the forma-
ton OF new State ont of Il portion OF the
| territory of Virginia passed August 70,
! 1861, provided that ''the new State shall
! take upon itself {. just proportion OF the
/ pu bile debt OF The commonwealth OF Nir-
| ginia prior to the first day of January,
! 1861, to be ascertaincd by charging TO 1t
all State expenditures within the limits
I thereof, and just proportion OF the ordi-
nary expenses Of the State government
| since any part of said debt was contracted,
! aud dcdncting thcrctrom the moneys paid
| into tho treasury OF the commonwealth
from the counties included within the
said new State during the same period"
| BY the admission of the State Of West
! Virginia INTO the Union the ordinance
above referred to, including this section,
! received the sanction of Legislative and
| executive branches of the national govern
mcnt. In the litigation between the States
| of Virginia and West Virginia as TO the
| jurisdiction over the countios of Berkeley
| and Jefferson, with which you are famil-
! lar, having appeared rs counsel for this
State, and by your energy and ability con-
tributed largely to our success in said
suit, the Supreme Court of the United
States also passed upon the validity of the
| ordinance, thus settling III my opinion
! our liability. do not know whether the
! balance, on stating the account against
us, will be large or small. | do not know
that the mamie" of stating the account as
| provided il the ordinance will be equita-
! bic or not. 1t is our contract and we must
perform it if we are able to DO so.
Any legislation Mr.. Mason might be
! able TO procure in Richmond will not al
feet us. If the old State through proper
channels should seek to state the account
with us, our constitutional obligation and
our contract requires that We should meet
them and endcavOr to adjust the debt rs
therein required. If litigation is sought
through the Supreme Court. and That
court should take jurisdiction of the case,
their former decision on the validity of
the ordinance of August, 'Gl, fixes By lc-
gal rules orr liability. In either aspect
of the case, cannot see how crratic Jim
Mason can do tue State Of West Virginia
harm. do not therefore deem it adyiSa-
Bile TO act upon your suggestion to have
some one in Richmond 20 countcract his
schemes,
As to the second branch of your letter:
had bad forwarded to me the paper con-
tanning the call for The meeting of tax
PAYERS upon the assessment order, as also
the editorial thereon.
did not call upon the AttornOy-Gen-
eral for his opinion in the premises. L
acted upon the opinion of the Supreme
Court of this State, 10 be found in 10 West
Virginia, page los, c. & o. Railway Co.
VS.. Miller, Auditor. The AttOrney-GGn-
eral argued this case. | was acquainted
with lis views. | did not deem it neces
sary TO have any opinion from him. 1t
seemed to me that the opinion of the court
was so plain upon the question involved
that it was only necessary TO refer TO it to
settle the question.
On page 435 Judge Johnson says, "But
the second clause, and all property, both
real and personal, shall Dc taxed, GER
tainlv shows that it was tho intent of the
trainers of the constitution to declare in
the most explicit terms that oN property
in the State should bear It's equal share of
the burdens of the government, and that
there should be no property exempted
from taxation unless it was specifically
exempted in the constitution itself" This
| is 10 oLiteS dictum. 1t is an Interpretation
! of the constitution. 1t WAS the question
! squarely presented by the record. What
! did tho constitution say us to exemptions:
| The answer was no property could be en-
emptcd, except that in the constitution
mentioned.
fyou will turn to your journal of the
convention of 1872 you will see that the
committee ou taxation and finance in their
original report attempted to make consti-
tutional the exemptions IA TO farmers,
manufacturers, &c. The article, rs re-
ported, WAS amended by inserting the ar
ticle of the constitution OF 1868. The ar
ticle of the constitution Of 'G3 and the
present constitution are nearly Identical.
An Interpretation of one is IN iuterpreta-
ton of the other.
The exemptions contained in section -,
chapter -, acts of 1881, not embraced in
the constitution, are clearly repugnaut
thereto.
1t is my duty In seeing that the laws
are faithfully executed 10 sec that the
constitution is obeyed.
This may be unpopular now. When my
action is fully understood l do not fear
the result.
am sorry to see that Democrats CEN