The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1911-02-09

SUE anu 10 renect great credit on MT.
Upon the fling OF the report both
litgants fled their exceptions. and az
ter many delays the cause was called
on Friday. January 20, 1911. for ar
The Final Argument.
At the request OF counsel for both
Sides the court allowed a total OF six
teen hours for the argument of the
case, each side to have eight hours.
~ IS said that not for forty years has
any case been given a longer hearing
in this great tribunal.
throughout It's course the court in
ulcateo its appreciation Of the magni-
tuue and Importance OF the case. and
the interest OF the justices was clear
~ evidenced by their strict attention
and the frequency OF their Interrupt
lions 10 question the speaker.
IL was, indeed. a great debate.
according TO the usual practice, the
opening and closing speeches fell to
virginia as the plaintiff.
Major Holmes Conrad, known as
one OF the most forcefuI speakers in
the country. opened the case for Vir-
Sinles and in an eloquent, brilliant
and effective argument OF over two
hours presented Virginia's case under
equity.
He argued with great force that
that portion OF the wheeling ordf-
nance" which attempted to prescribe
the method OF ascertaining West Vir-
g1nias just proportion OF the public
oeot had never become operative, was
not binding on Virginia, and that IL
was tmpracticable to reach an eoui-
table settlement under it's arbitrary
provisions.
He urged that. equitably. the debt
oouno West Virginia as much as Viz
ginia. and that she should not be al
lowed TO evade the obligations which
rested upon her in morals and in law
MAJOR Conrad advanced the theory.
that the debt should be apportioned
on the basis OF territory and popuIa-
ton, and showed that should this
basis be adopted her share would be
about one-third of the whole, with
the interest due upon it,
These views were presented with an
earnestness. eloouence and power diff
ficult to describe, and which through
out received the careful consideration
Of the court.
Opening for West Virginia.
Major Conrad was followed by Hon.
Charles r. Hosg. for West Virginia.
VINO, in carefully prepared argu-
ment, endeavored to maintain the
proposition that Virginia was without
standing in the court, because she
had no such interest in or relation to
the suit as gave her the right to ap-
pear as party plaintiff
He argued that Virginia was mere
~ a, trustee, lending her name to the
bondholders. without which they could
not maintain suit against a State:
that they, and not Virginia, were the
real parties plaintiff. and that this
was evidenced by the fact that they.
and not Virginia, were bearing the
costs of the proceedings.
MT Hogg also argued that any bal
ance which West Virginia might owe
on the old debt. she owed direct to
the creditors OF the old State and not
TO virginia, and that, therefore Vir-
ginia could not maintain the suit. He
further invoked the doctrine OF Iaches
and claimed that any right the Com
monwealth might have had was lost
TO her by reason Of her long delay in
enforcing such rights at law.
A further position taken was that
under the Wheeling ordinance meth
Cd of ascertainment. Virginia could
be shown to he in debt TO West VIr-
ginia, and dwelt al length on the ef-
feet OF Nirginia's various funding bills
as releasing her from any liability un-
der which she may, without them
have been to her creditors.
Mr.. Hogg spoke about two hours
and was frequently questioned by the
court.
Attorney General Williams.
Following Mr.. Hogg. Hon. Samuel
W. Williams. the present Attorney
General of Virginia, presented a brief
but pointed, argument, designed to
show the unsoundneSs OF West Vir-
ginias contention that Virginia was
not q proper party plaintiff; and re-
piled with great force 10 Mr.. Hoggs
declaration that West Virginia should
settle with the bondholders direct and
not with Virginia.
Judge Williams showed that not
only was this position unsound as
matter Of law and fact, but showed
that as a result, West Virginia would
so forever free as result, and made
the point that IL Virginia was not n
proper party plaintin and individuals
could not sue State, West Virginia
could not be forced 70 any settlement
with anyone, and that Virginia would
be left to bear the whole burden.
After a further brief discussion Of
some Of the broad equities of -Yir-
ginia's claim. Judge WilliamS con-
cluded by urging that all that Virginia
desired was decision in accordance
with the very right of the case, and
that she was content 70 leave that TO
the judgment OF the cSuFt.
william A. Anderson's~ Speessl1.
Following gofdge williams, William
A. Anderson. former Attorney Cen
eraI OF Virginia for eight years. and
during whose administration and un-
der whose sanction this suit was in
stituted. took up the argument for
Virginia.
Than Mr.. Anderson, no one I'm viz
ginia has devoted more time TO the
study OF Virginia's Interest in this
great cause. both as 70 the questions
OF law and fact involved, and none
are more intimately familiar with
every phase OF it's complicated de-
tails. To him IL due great credit for
Its present status.
In speech OF two and a quarter
hours. Mr.. Anderson addressed him
self 10 the more vital issues of the
case and discussed them in a manner
which left but little to add on those
points at his conclusion.
he earnestly argued for the follow
ing as the basic propositions of Vir-
ginia's case:
That West Virginia owes a just and
equitable proportion OF the Virginia
debt, Cd Under, khe benign principles
of equity and public law; and, (2)
Under the constating enactments and
agreements OF the two States, by vir-
tue or which West Virginia came into
existence.
Rapidly reviewing the masters re-
port, he showed that there was a re-
markable agreement az To the aunouot