The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-02-28
THE VEST yIRGINIL DEBT.
No Valid Objection to the Proposed Suit
Against That state.

Editor Times:
The resolution reported by the Senate n
mittee on Finance is a measure the State
should have taken long ago, yiz-tle resou-
ton providing for the ascertanment OF the
portion of the public debt To be borne Dy
West Virginia If there is any liability on
this State for any of the one-third o. the debt
arbitrarily cut off as the West Virginia one
third" this resolution provides for her aoso-
Lutte release before the commission proposed
to be appointed can act and II - further
provided that the certificate holders shall pay
the entire expense Of the settement so far "a
this State shall incur expense.
The State is 90 well protected by the terms
of this resolution that she will incur no la
bllty IN any event.
There have been but three objections
urged against this resolution, and they are
entirely unteDable.
First, it is objected that the present holders
Of the certificates bought them up for a song.
and that they expect 10 make aprotit on their
Investment in the event settlement with
West Virginia can be effected.
The State of Virginia issued these certit-
Gates in such shape as TO make them legltl-
mate subject of barter In the markets OF the
world and people had perfect right TO buy
them at market prices. and If they sold Tor
less than their face value in the markets no
one was more responsible for their deprecla-
ton than Virginia, for she would neither pay
them herself nor require West Virginia TO
account for her proportion, and she IS estopped
from complaining now that people have
bought up these evidences OF deDt at low
prices.
The second objection is that the passage Of
the resolution might disturb politics IN West
Virginia entirely.
Is not this objection entirely groundless:
Are not both parties in West Virginia OPP
posed TO any settlement. Virginia has a con-
stltutiOual duty 90 perform IN this matter
that she cannot honorably avoid. and that IS
to secure a settlement with West Virginia
On the other hand, suppose the Legislature
rejects the Oler OF the West Virginia GER
tificatc- holders 20 eNOnerate her from the pay
ment Of any part Of the one-third and bear
all the expenses Of q settlement. what will be
the effect in the politics Of Virginia. Would
not this be a dangerous weapon IN Mahones
hands,
The third objection is to a suit of Virginia
against West Virginia 10 require an account
ing. This objection is based on the fear OF
some that old Virginia might be brought IL
debt by the court. New IL Is submitted that
this il a remarkable position for any sirginian
TO take IL has been proclaimed from every
stump in Virginia that West Virginia owed "a
portion Of the debt Of the old state. and IN
1871 third of the debt was cut III by Virginia
as West Nirginas Ono-third. and all parties
=
one dollar Of il. Was there no ground tor
cutting of this one-thirdy Was it II cowardly
reputation by Virginia Of one-third OF her
debt. under the false prete1t that West Viz
GINA owed it,
Surely not Virginia knew that West Viz
ginia owed a portion Of the debt. and West
Virginia conceded the fact and provided IN
her first Constitution that portion Of the
debt should be assumed by that State.
But suppose the court should exOnerate
West Virginia from the payment Of any por-
ton of the debt and decide that Virginia Is
responsible for the entire third cut OF for
West Virginia. it would not effect Virginia in
the slightest as before any settlement can be
made by the Virginia commissioners with
West Virginia the holders of the one-third
are required to release Virginia from all la
this release is executed Nirginia's debt will be
settled. except as TO the sJ,OO0,0jO not in
cluded in the Olcott settlement.