The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1886-07-29
The VIRGINIA Debt Case.


the House OF Representatives, consisting
OF Hons. j. r. Tucker, of Virginia, E. II.
Taylor, of Ohio, and P. A. Collins, of |
Mass, on the bill introduced by Hon. J..
ID. Brady, OF Virginia, in reference to the |
Virginia Debt. The bill was offered in |
the House by Col. Brady, in June last, and |
was entitled IA bill to authorize the Pres
ident OF the United States to appoint
Board Of Commissioners to investigate to |
what extent the United States may be le-
gaiiy or equitably liable for the debt due
by the State Of Virginia on account of the
partition of the State by Congress during
the late war. the extent of the equitable
liability of the United States to the bond
holders of other States and foreign bond
holders on account of the acts of the State
Government of Virginia multiplying the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States. and for other purposes.
The discussion of the question pre-
scented in this bill before the SUBJ commit
tee by Mr.. Hume and Col. Parsons, was
able and convincing. Mr.. Hume, speak
ing for the creditors of the State, the
holders of the evidences of debt created
previous to the war, assumed that "all we
have to establish is that, in her dealings
with Virginia, the National Government
inflicted loss upon us as creditors, who
had forfeited no right. under circum-
stances and conditions emitting us to
compensation according to the guarantees
of the Constitution All the property
and revenues of the State, he intimated,
were dedicated to the payment of The deOt
contracted for the construction of her in.
| ternal improvements and the development
| of her resources. Not one third, OF one
half, but the whole Of Virginia was so
pledged, and that the National govern
ment, in arbitrarily discovering the Com
monwealth, and erecting out of part OF
her territory another State, thus destroy
| ing the security of the creditors, without
their consent OF that of the people of Vir-
| ginia, did wrong to the holders OF her
bonds, who were not a party to her action
in attempted secession, which it was it's
duty to correct. Throughout MI. Hume's
discussion of the pregnant question there
| is a spirit of fairness, of reasonable pre-
misses and logical deduction, that all i'm
partial men must recognize, who will read
| it. 1t presents the case from an equitable
standpoint, to the calm judgment and the
conscience of the country, and cannot but
have deep impression upon all who will
give it consideration. And all should, for
the honor of the government is involved
in it, in that the forcible destruction of
the security of the creditors was without
valid excuse or Justification, as it affected
their rights, and consequently imposed
upon the United States the duty of max
ing good, in some form, that which it had
willfully destroyed.
The able argument Of Col. Parsons was
based on patient research into the his
tory of the debt, the result of his having
been appointed by Gov. Stevenson, of West
Virginia, in 1870, one of the Commits
sioners of that State, to meet similar
commission from Virginia, to ascertain
the equitable share of each State of the
public debt of Virginia as she stood when
the debt was contracted. He had found
in that Investigation that the public debt
bred and twenty-six acts of the Genera
Assembly, running through a long period
prior to 1861 that it was contracted fol
the construction of works of internal i'm
proyement or pubic buildings, and that il
was stated in 1861 as $31 ,S00.712; part OF
which was in five per cent. consols, the
balance in six per cent bonds. These
bonds, he asserted, had been placed at q
high price From 1910 to 1850 the bonds
of Virginia rated higher in the markets Of
the world than the bonds of the United
States This high credit was the result Of
the prompt protection by the State Of tht
interests Of her creditors. But the wal
swept away all values. upon which tht
debt was predicated-one third of the ter
ritory was forcibly wrested from the STATE
and her power to pay thus destroyed. NJ
people, he continued, were more jealous o.
their honor than the people of Virginia
and but for her absolute inability to pay
the full demands of her creditors, there
would be no occasion for such a proceed
ing as that contemplated in.the bill Offered
by Col. Brady and discussed before tht
House Judiciary Sub COMMITTEES.
Col. Parsons stated the condition of the
debt and the relations of the two States tt
it, with patient minuteness and interest
ing accuracy, evidencing the care witt
: which his researches have been made anG
the patriotic manhood which controls hin
in the interest he takes in final adjust
ment and a permanent disposal of this
; yexed question, the agitation of which has
done SO much harm toVirginia. We hopt
to be able to give his remarks in full il
our next issue, so our readers may reae
for themselves what he has so ably ani
clearly stated.
In a subsequent statement, elsewhere
: given, Col. Parsons assumes as just ba-
sis for action, that the United States
should pay 10000, 900 in money and thai
Virginia should pay S20,000,000 in pei
cent bonds and that West Virginia should
pay about So, 900, 0Oe in 5 per cent. bonds
!, In arriving at this conclusion he stated
,, that the amount expended by the State
previous to 1861, in East Virginia, as the
territory stood before separation, for in
ternal improvements and public buildings
and in common assets retained by Vir
ginia as she now is, was $45, 207 900, anG
in West Virginia So ASS, 600.
Had the simple equity of the Virgins
debt question been considered by the Leg
islature of the State when it first convened
to formulate basis for settlement after
the war, there would have been no Difficult
: ty in reaching conclusion that woult
have been accepted by the creditors ant
within the ability of the State to meet
But spectators took possession of thu
State under the Walker administration
forced the funding bill of 1871 upon thu
people, based as it was, upon a fals'
statement of the taxable resources OF thu
Commonwealth, made for the purpose O.
deceiving and misleading, and framed SO a
! to make it a binding contract. That bill wa
one of the most cruel iniQuitOuS and I'm