Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1895-04-16
w. Va. Direct Tax.
Senator Faulkner Explains the I'M
poudnce of the Passage 81 Me
Joint Resolution. to the State.
lrrom the Martinsburg statesman.l

fErOm the MartlnsDufB kSttttS9siieAA-I 49,
Senator Faulkner to whom is princi-
nallv due the refunding to West Va.
her share of the direct tax, while
talking afew days ago with the editor
of the Statesman, was asked the fol-
lowing question:
Senator, will West Virginia derive
any benefit from the passage OF the
Joint resolution rcsunding the Direct
Tax to the State, other than the pay
ment of the amount it carries?
To which he replied.
Our people do not seem to have
appreciated the real purpose and
effect of that joint resolution as
framed by Congress is influence
ON the interest of the State, in its
relation to the Federal Government,
| is much greater and far reaching
than the simple refund of one hum
bred and fifty-three thousand dollars
of Direct Taxes heretofore paid.
After the passage of the Direct Tax
Bill. the State made application for
the payment of its share of the re-
fund. The Comptroller of the treas
ury questioned the right of the State
to its payment, upon the theory that
prior to the division of the State of
| Virginia, and the creation of the
State of West Virginia dept had
been created by the old state for
which it had issued bonds, and the
United States had become the pur-
chaser of those bonds, as an invest
ment for the Indi m fund, held in
trust by the government, to the
amount of S1,600.000. He main
tanned that as this debt existed prior
to the separation, it was the right OF
the United States to apply any fund,
due by it to the State of West Vir-
ginia to the discharge of those Vir-
ginia bonds.
He submitted this question to
Attorney General Miller, who sus-
tanned his contention, and the fund
due to the State was under this ruling
turned over to the credit of the bonds
of the State of Virginia. 1 realized,
at once, the unfortunate position in
which this ruling placed the State of
West Virginia, as to all cases involv-
ing liability of the Federal Govern
ment to the State. In fact, / had two
other claims before Congress, in
behalf of the State. for money due
by the United States, and should this
ruling remain unreversed, by the
passage of positive law overriding
it, knew that not one dollar benefit
would be derived by the State, should
/ pass those Bills, nor would she in
the next twenty-five or forty years,
in my Judgment, receive anything
from the United States government.
For this reason, in 1890, / intro
Educed this joint resolution, which
declared the right of the State to
recover any funds due to her, by the
United States Government, notwith-
standing the debt due under the
bonds of Virginia to the United
Stltes. This joint resolution / passed
in '91 through the Senate, but it
failed in that Congress, in receiving
consideration by the House.
1t was introduced in both Houses
in 92 passed the House late on Sat
urday evening of the first of March,
and passed the Senate at two o'clock
In Ine morning Oh lne Gniru, receiS-
ing the signature of the President on
the same day.
The effect therefore, of this action
of Congress, is Legislative Declare
ton, that the officers of the Treasury
cannot apply any funds, due to the
State of West Virginia, to the dis
charge and liquidation of the bonds
of Virginia, held in trust, as a part
of the Indian fund, and will enable
The State, whenever any amount is
appropriated by Congress hereafter,
to receive it, without involving this
question.
believe this gives full explana-
ton of the question which you have
submitted to me.