Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1895-01-10

in the construction and maintenance OF
various distinctive State institutions,
public buildings and the like. Ofcourse
when the western counties were sepa-
rated from the State and erected into the
new State of West Virginia, their inhab-
itants forfeited all interest in or lost all
use of these institutions, and were coui-
PEELED to provide others within theirown
jurisdiction. The sole benefit of those in
Virginia accrued to the citizens remain
ing within her jurisdiction and it is but
Just that they should bear the whole bur
den of their cost, or be held liable TO
creditors for the full amount of the loan
expended in their construction aud
maintenance.
The rest of the money borrowed was
used III the construction, or in aid OF the
construction, of works of internal im-
provement, such as roads, canals, rail-
roads and the like. Now the beneht
accruing from these works under the
circumstances was two-fold; and the dis
tinction between the two species IS I'M
portant. There was first the advantage
inuring to the general public from this
increase in the means and facilities tor
transportation. This benefit is enjoyed
as freely and fully by the citizens OF
West Virginia today as 1t could have
been had there been no separation 1t
is a benefit arising from instruments OF
commerce, and in commerce there are
no State lines. Under the Federal Con-
stitution trade between the States IS rem
dered absolutely free from State restric-
tions; and all discrimination III favor OF
States own citizens and against those
of another State is prohibited. The use
and enjoyment Of these works by West
Virginia's citizens is in no wise curtalled
from what it would have been had the
State never been divided; and it IS there
fore lust that the cost Of providing this
public use in the first instance should be
shared between the States.
But, as l have said, there is a second
advantage accruing from these works OF
internal improvement. By investing Its
money in them, Virginia acquired 4 GER
tain proprietary interest therein, which
was represented by their stocksor bonds
held by her. These Injured to the bene-
fit of all the citizens Of the Common
wealth of Virginia but Of course when
those residing in its western counties
withdrew from its jurisdiction and formed
new State, they forfeited all their IN
terest in this regard, which henceforth
vested solely in the citizens of the old
State. These, reaping the whole bene-
fit, must Justly bear the whole burden |;
aud the value of this proprietary interest
at the time of separation must be charged
wholly to the commonwealth OF Nlr-
ginia.
The conclusion is that so much of the
entire original Indebtedness as was ex-
pended in the erection ofpublic buildings
and State institutions, added to the value
of the State interest in works OF inter
nal improvement aided or constructed by
it. constitutes an Indebtedness for which
Virginia is solely liable, without any right
whatever. in her or her creditors, to call
on West Virginia to contri butte thereto.
If this amount be deducted from the en-
tire Virginia debt at the time of her dl-
vision, the balance will represent a debt
for which the two States are jointly liable
in proportions which will be stated
presently. And West Ylrginia's share
of this balance is the West Virginia
debt"
To put the matter in more concrete
form. and so avoid the possibility OF
misconception, let us suppose that Nir-
einia had issued and sold $40, 900
worth of bonds. OF this amount she
spent s., ,ooo, 600, let us say, in building a
capitol, asylums, prisons and institu-
tons of similar character; the other so,-
ooo, 900 she used in aiding the construc-
ton of canals and railroads, whose stocks
aud bonds she held to that amount, aud
we will suppose that the value OF these
at the time of separation was 81 900, 900.
All the public buildings and the stock
and bonds remained in the possession
of Virginia therefore their combined
value, IS, 600, 600, represents portion OF
the whole bonded Indebtedness for which
she is solely liable. The balance of s2,-
600. 900 represents the benefits which in
ure to the citizens of both States alike,
and it is therefore the joint debt of Vir-
ginia and West Virginia.
WEST yIRGINIA's SHARE OF THE JOINT
DEBT.
The equitable adjustment of this joint
debt between the two States becomes now
a comparatively simple question OF law.
Authorities on international law are
universally agreed that when State is
divided into two or more distinct Sow
ereiguties-as was the case with Virginia
the Obligations and debts Of the origi-
nal State are to be "ratably apportion-
ed" between the parts. The question
then is, what does "ratably apportion-
ed" mean in the premises2 The Legis-
lature of Virginia assumed, in the Fund.
ing Act, that this phrase meant divided
in proportion to area and population
and accordingly she computed West Vir-
ginia's share of the debt at one-third.
But it is plain that area and population
have no more relation to the benefit de.
rived from the loan or the ability to re-
pay it, than has the average annual rain
fall, for example. Taxes are not assess
ed on any such basis as area and poPu'
lation. The only reasonable meaning Of
= -,