The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1907-01-09

| 6A' "a = AOesSOA1 aOO oN6
gested by the demurrer, suit was
brought without authority. Vir.
ginia forbad suit unless the cert.
ficates were under the commiss.
ions control, and they are not
under its control. They are de.
posted under contract which
Says that any holder may with
draw after Oct. 1902. If holders
may Withdraw they are not under
control. It illustrates the situa-
ton to observe that the shrewd
lawyers managing for the com
mission, we'll knew that with
drawing a certificate would upset
suit, but they correctly calculated
that no state official would take
sufficient interest to render this
public service. The governor has
a contingent fund for just such
an emergency, but unfortunately
he did not understand the matter,
and probably does not understand
it yet. There is yet time to upset
suit by wlthdrawinga certificate.
1t need not cost 81, 900 to do SO.
If, when the legislature meets, a
competent commission is prompt:
ly appointed to manage this mat
ter, which will look to the states
interest and not to graft, certiti-
cate will be withdrawn, and the
fact will be thereby demonstrated
that the Virginia attorney general
was, Ito express it mildly. mistake
en- about the certificate being un-
der the commissions control. II
certificate be Withdrawn the
Virginia attorney general will be
in a very embarrassing position
when the fact is held up to the
gaze of the court.
Third-That Virginia had no
interest in this suit, because
whatever is realized belongs to
the certificate holders. But this
ground OF demurrer is q miscons
ception. Virginia sues on the
contract imported by the ordin-
ance, under that ordinance West
Virginia promised to pay, say
five millions. Virginia is not
suing on the certificates. The
certificates import a contract be-
tween Virginia and her creditors.
The only function of the certiti-
Gates is to identify the person
entitled to demand from Virginia
what she receives from West
Virginia. West Virginia has
nothing to do with what Virginia
may do with the money. If West
Virginia had bought up the GER
tificates, then she would have an
offset against Virginia.
Fourth-That the Virginia ACT
of 1900 authorized action by the
commission, whereas this suit il
an action by the state. Techni-
cally this is true, but technical.
ity will hardly avail in equity.
Fifth-That this Is a SUIT fol
the benefit of the certificate hold
ers. This is true, but, as mat
ter of law, Virginia is suing OF
the contract created when he
western counties accepted the or
dinance. True, Virginia would
never have brought the suit unles
the New York committee hac
agreed to pay money to member
of her legislature acting as com
mission This viii infinitely dis
credit Virginia. but it is no de
fence to such suit as she ha
brought It must be carefully re
membered that the bill Virgins
has filed is trap to catch thos
Iunacouainted with the history o
her debt.
Sixth-That the court lacks ju1
isdiction because no way has, a
yet, been provided to enforce
judgment against a state Thi
means that West Virginia will de
, fly the court. Do Elkins and Daw
son take this view? Loose tall
and ignorant persons is one thing
the responsibility of public of
fetal is another thing If Yves
Virginia proposes to defy tn
court, the matter will come befor
the senate within six years, and. j
re elected, Eltins must set ON il
L q - I,