Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1895-01-10
NEW VOL. 30--NO. II.

While this is true as general principle,
it must always be borne in mind that,
under the peculiar circumstances of the
present case, it applies only to apart OF
the original Virginia debt. For part,
as we have seen, Virginia is solely liable,
and West Virginia has nothing to do
with it beyond seeing that its amount IS
correctly determined.
As regards what may be called the
''joint debt" then, it appears that west
Virginia is liable for, and ought to pay
the same proportion of it that it should
have paid had it remained part OF the
old State. Now this debt could only
have been paid by means of revenue de-
rived from taxes. These taxes must,
under the Constitution of Virginia, have
been levied at a uniform rate on the as
sessed value of all property in the group
of counties which now compose West
Virginia, and on the assessed value OF
property in the counties which remain
in the old State. Hence the amounts
contributed by each group Of counties,
respectively, would have been IN exact
proportion to the assessed values OF all
taxable property in each group. These
fix the proportion of the joint debt which
each group of counties would have been
called on to pay had there been no divis-
ion of the State; and submit that there
is no reason why either should be called
on now to pay a greater proportion on
account of that division.
To illustrate the matter again by a
concrete example, take the s2'ooo,ooo
above assumed to be the amount OF the
Joint debt. Suppose that on the basis
selected the assessed value of property
in the Virginia counties was found to be
500, 900, 900; and that of the property
of the West Virginia counties to be s25,'
100000. The aggregate amount of taxes
paid by each-and by consequence their
respective shares of the debt-would be
in the same proportion that is, West
Virginia would be liable for one-hith
and Virginia must pay the remaining
four-hfths. It will be understood, oi
course, that these figures are purely ar
bitrary, used for the purpose Of illustra-
ton only, and not chosen on account OF
any supposed relation to the amounts
actually involve d.
OF course the question will present 1t
self whether we are TO take as our basis
the assessed values at the time the bonds
were issued, at the date of the separa-
ton of the States, or at the maturity oi
the bonds cor whether we should COM
pute the average values for the period
between the issue of the bonds and their
maturity. This is a question OF great
practical importance but it is none the
less a matter Of detail whose considera-
ton would be out of place here, even II
time aud space permitted it.
THE CONCLUSION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE DEBT.
The conclusion may now be stated III
as summary manner. Its main element
is that the original debt must be divided
into two parts. Virginia IS solely liable
for one Of these parts, whose amount is
to be computed by adding the sum spent
upon State institutions to the value OF the
States interest in the works of internal
improvement in which it invested. And
the balance, after deductiug this sum
from the original indebtness as II stood
at the date Of West Virginia separation,
is the amount for which the two States
are jointly liable. This joint debt is to
be divided between them in the same
shares that would have been paid by the
two groups of counties Of which they are
respectively composed if they had all
remained under Virginias jurisdiction
And these shares are exactly proportion
al TO the assessed values Of the taxable
property in these two groups Of counties
respectively, at date to be deteruind
as indicated above.
THE NEED FOR A SETTLEMENT.
There are many reasons why the State
ofWest Virginia should proceed prompt
ly and intelligently to determine the
amount justly chargeable to her and to
make arrangements for its payment. In
the first place it is the just and honorable
course and the only means Of avoiding the
stigma which has so long threatened the
fair fame Of West Virginia. Again, the
constitution OF 1862 committed the State
to all equitable adjustment" Of the debt,
and directed the Legislature to proceed
to carry it out; and our present constitu-
ton gives that body general power ito
redeem any previous liability Of the
State" Lastly, it is questionable wheth-
er the existing uncertainty may not be-
come prejudicial to our material pros
perity. It may be-as it has already
been charged on the one hand that We
will ultimately be subjected to the pay
uent of large amount on this account
the sum being stated as high as $1,000.
700; and that our taxes must therefore
be made much heavier at some time in
the near future. On the other hand, we
may be subjected to malicious imPuia-
tons of having repudiated our just debts
Either charge must have bad effect on
the credit ofthe State, and or is standing
as desirable field for the investment oi
capital; and neither can be met eaectu-
ally save by an actual, fair determine
ton of the extent Of our liability in The
premises.
THE METHODS OF SETTLEMENT.
1.-THE foregoing argument issound and
the expression of it intelligibie, It Il
,,o,, aoDarer1t that the adjustment of thf