The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-10-21
VIRGINIA in n.
NO DANGER
Major Anderson, Attorney Gem
era1, Discusses North Car
mi DINA Case.
CONDITIONS ARE UNLIKE
UNLIKE
Interesting Questions Raised by
Recent Decision Of the
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Tho attention Of Attorney General An
derson was called to the article III the.
Baltimore Sun OF yesterday, In reference
to the likelihood Of n suit against West
Virginia, and the possibility OF a Nutt
against Virginia. IL the decision Of tie
United States Supreme Court In the case
OF South Dakota vs.. North Carolina, is
correctly reported. M
Major Anderson stated that lie had
seen the opinion of the United states SUI
prcme Court in the case OF Dakota We.
North Carolina. decided last winter and
he powerful dissenting opinion by Mr..
Justice White. which was concurred In
j, by three Of the other Judges, so that the
court stood i've TO four on the question.
. lie had not seen the opinion OF the court,
II any was rendered, when on Monday
last tho court denied the motion OF North
4 Carolina for a rehearing OF tho case.
While he was unwilling TO discuss the
matter. he said that the contra ct upon
which South Dakota had sued North Car
4 ollra was very different from any vir-5
gin!a had ever made In connection witt,
the creation or settlement OF her ante
+ bellum debt. North Carolina had over
thirty Years ago issued the bonds upon
which South Dakota had sued that state
for the purpose OF building railroad aud
had gotten or was entitled to have shares
OF tha capital stock OF the railroad COM
pany for the amount which she thus
{ contributed to building this railway.
y She pledged this stock as security for
the payment OF u,ese bonds. and the ma
5ority Of the Supreme Court held that the
shares OF stock so pledged should be sold
n ms. fNo ~ To- ~ t,i,l
pledged collateral. So far as he had been
sinformcd5n no other property Of North Carr
DINA had been decrced to be sold.
No Such Contract.
Just what bearing this decision OF the
United States Supreme Court would have
upon the question OF the unsettled debt
Z Of old Virginia. which had been set apnrt
81 TO he paid by Vast Virginia. ajor An-
derson was not prepared to shy. He did
remark. however. that Virginia had never
Il made any such contract with her credi-
tors as that relied on by South Dakota
In her suit against North Carolina;
Some large holders OF North Carolma's
defaulted bonds, secured by the pledge
f OF the stock in 4 railroad company In
that state. had given South Dakota $4,000
OF these unpaid bonds. evidently for the
purpose OF getting South Dakota 20 sue
5 North Carolina South Dakota brought
favor--at least for the sale OF the stock
pledged as security. Whether the SUI.
preme Court Hil directfthe State capitol.
or any other property Of Sorth Carolina
TO he sold. In the event that the hypother
Gated shares fall to pay the $1,000 OF
4 bonds Held by Dakota and the 1900 Of
defauited interest. on. thise bonds. Is OF
course. a matter OF wild conjecture
q Such a decree presents a ra ther startling
nroposttion: but It is one within the range
or probability. according 70 the su gees
tons in the dissenting opinion OF Air.5J US.
t!ce White.if the majority OF the court
carry their decision to It's logical 5coHse e
z ruences. 1
Story From the Sun.
The exceedingly interesting article IN.
the Sun OF yesterday follows:
..The decision Of the United States SUI
preme Court last Monday in the case OF
the State OF South Dakota. against North
Carolina. validating North Cardinals
guarantee OF certain railroad bonds given.
4 "a South Dakota for the benefit Of the.
university OF that State, is OF much local
Interest because OF a somewhat similar
case existing between the States OF Viz
gInia and West Virginia. u
The State OF West Virginia was created
from portion OF Virginia about lh'2,
and at that time Virginia had debt
of si5,oOOn0. After endeavoring for some
lime to get West Virginia to Join In a
settlement OF that debt Virginia took the
matter in hand and arbitrarily paid two.
thirds. or $50, 900, 600, with an issue OF new
z three per cent. bonds that are now SELL
Ing around 90, and allotted $4,000. $50 as
West Nirgnia'S portion. For these Vlr-
ginia issued certificates known as Vtr-5
ginia debt certificates. which state that
y West Virginia owes the amount deslg-
mated lii each certificate. or $1,000. It is
said that the latter State has always
claimed that it does not owe the money.
Under an act OF the Virginia Legisla-
ture of 1900. debt commission was APP.
pointed for}the purpose of trying to bring
about n settlement of the debit conten-t
tionEwlth West Virginia. The act provides
+ that when the commission has collected
a certain amount of the debt certificates,
It shall take such action rs would bring
about the settlement through, and by tlfa5
advice of the Attorneys General OF Vir-f
ginia.
The holders OF the debt certificates had
appointed n debt commission to collect
tho certificates.
What Banker Says.
Mr. John Crosby Brown, of the bank
ing house Of Brown Bros. & Co.. New
York. is chairman OF the committee. and
< Mr. Bartlett S. Johnson & Coz this city,
is Il member. Mr., johnson said yester-
day that the committee has collected
about sl2Oo0,OoO OF these debt certificates,
and that they are now deposited with the
State OF Virginia.
Mr. Johnston further explained that
about 100000 OF these debt certificates
are held In Baltimore, many more being
scattered through Virginia and West Vir.
glnia, The Debt Committee has an adj
visory hoard. consisting OF ex-Secretary
OF the Treasury Lyman ]. Gage. OF New,
York; Ex-Governor William Pinkney
Whythe, Of Balt!more; President VIII
llams Of the Chemical NATIONAL Bank OF
New York. and Hon, Wayne McYeash,
of Philadelphia.
1t is said that a bill has been pr repaired
and is now In the hands OF the Virginia
debt commission to enter suit In the