The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1895-02-27

Pbillimore2 and, second, what are
we to understand by ratable part
OF Il debit We presume that it will
not be contended that the general
rights and obligations of Il nation,
rs defined ny international law, be-
Ionged to Virginia prior to the di-
vision of the State, and therefore we
cannot admit the applica bility of
the quotation in that particular
Neither can we admit Judge Mere
dith's construction OF the word
rarable. He applies it exclusively
TO the territory and population and
excludes everything in the shape of
resources aud value, such as public
works, buildings and institutions,
which, as we all know, vitality affect
the equity of a division of territory.
Judge Meredith next adduces the
following quotation from Chan
ceilor Kent 10 sustain his position:
"Ifa State should b; divided IN
respect to territory, its rights and
obligations are not impaired, and il
they have not been apportioned by
specia agreement those rights are TO
be enjoyed and those obligations
fulfilled by all the parts in COM
mon."
This quotion is much more intelli-
gible and just, and we think will
tend 10 sustain the conclusions we
have reached, as hereinafter stated
In addition to the two quotations
already given, Judge Meredith cites
other authorities TO sustain his posi-
ton that West Virginia is chargeabie
with one third of the debt, but we do
rot regard them as applicable to the
case under consideration First,
because Virginia is not nation.
Second, because in all the cases
referred TO in the authorities quoted,
treaty stipulations had more or less
to do with the question Third,
because the debts were war debts, the
benefits OF which, ii any, accrued 10
each individual, and the obligations
of which therefore rested upon each
In no instance was the debt created
tor internal improvements which
necessarily confer partial and local
benefits that in most cases exceed
the general benefit to the State at
large. We therefore fail TO see the
proper analogy that should exist TO
make these citations precedents for
the case of Virginia and West Vir
ginia.
Judge Meredith winds up these
references to various authorities, by
two general deductions of his own,
rs follows:
1. THAT the public debt of a State
is not affected by change in the
form of its government, nor by the
partition of its territory into two
States, but remains in full force and
must be discharged.
=. "That if State be divided
into two or more States, the debts
which had been contracted by the
whole before the division are, unless
they have been the subject of a
special agreement, ratably binding
upon the different parts in proper
tion to territory and population
The first deduction it is not
necessary TO consider, as West Vir-
ginia, in her ordinance of separa
ton from Virginia, as also in her
constitution, agreed to pay an
equitable proportion of the public
debt What that equitable proper
ton is we are now considering.
In reference TO the second deduction
we have to remark, that Judge Meredith
draws conclusion from his authorities
which they d. not sustain Phillimore
for instance, says that IF nation he
divided into various distinct societies,
the obligations whah had accrued to
the whole before the division are rata
bly, binding uron the different parts. -
Here Phillimore and the authorities
stop But this does not su ice for the
Virginia side OF the question, and Judge
Meredith adds after the word parts
the words Gin proportion to territory
and population" These words are not
found in any OF the authorities, so far as
we are advised, and certainly not in any
OF tie quotations adduced by the Judge.
y moments consideration Will show
that division OF debt according to
population and territory wnuld not only
he impracticabIe but would conflict
with common sense. 1t would be i'm.
practicable because it does not deter
mine the relative value OF each one OF
the two elements OF population and ter
ritory. Suppose the population TO be
twice rs much as the territory, or sup
pose the territory to be three times as
great as the population, which element
has the greater value in determining
tie result?
Without pursuing this thought fur
Their it is manifest that nothing is set
tied by such rule. You must fix the
relative value OF the two clements be-
fore you can reach conclusion. 1t is,
Therefore, plain why the books do not
give the rule as stated by Judge Mere
dith. Because OF its indefniteness, but
manly because of its injustice. Would
any sane may lay down rule for the
division of State which would ignore the
great cities, public improvements, pub
| lie works. institutions of all kinds, great
commercial advantages, such as rivers
and harbors and the great advantages of
| fertility of soil; all OF which, and many
other elements OF wealth, property and
power, might be found in one division
and be wholly absent in the other.
! Hence we say that such rule is repug-