Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1911-03-18
SUPREME COURT DECISION
IN VIRGINIA DEBT CASE

]
his suit solely as trustee fer them
The grounds Of the claim are mat
| tiers Of public history After the Vir.
ginia ordinance Of secession, citizens
Of the State who dissented from that
ordinance organized government
that was recognized as the State of
Virginia by the Government OF the
United states. Forthwith conven-
ton OF the restored State, as it was
called, held at Wheeling, proceeded
to carry out long entertained wish
OF many West Yirginians by adopting
an ordinance for the formation OF a
new State out Of the western port on
Of the old Commonwealth. A part OF
section 3 Ct the ordinance was as fol-
lows: The new State shall take
upon itself just proportion OF the
public debt OF the Commonwealth of
Virginia prior TO the first day of Jan
uary, 1861 TO be ascertained by charg.
ing to II all state expenditures within
the limits thereof, and a just proper
ticn of the ordinary expenses OF the
state government. since any part Of
said debt was contracted: and de.
Quoting therefrom the monies paid
into the treasury OF the Common
wealth from the counties included
within the said new state during the
same period Having previously pro-
vided for a popular vote, constitu-
tional convention. etc, the ordinance
in section 10 ordained that when the
General Assembly should give it's
consent to the formation OF such new
State, It Should forward to the Con
gress Of the United States such con-
sent, together with an official copy
Of such constitution, With the re-
quest that the new State might be ad-
mitted into the union Of States.
A constitution Was framed for the
new State by constitutional con-
yenton, as provided in the ordinance,
on November 26. 1861, and was adopt
ed. BY article s, section 8. "An
equitable proportion OF the public debt
If the Commonwealth of Virginia.
prior to the first of January in the
year ne thousand eight hundred and
sixty-ole, shall be assumed by this
State: and the Legislature shall as
certain the same as soon as may be
practicable, and provide fer the liq-
uidation thereof. by a sinking fund
sufficient to pay the accruing interest,
and redeem the principal within thir-
ty-four years An act of the Legis-
lature of the restored State Of Vir-
gi1ia, passed May 10. 1862, gave the
consent CT that Legislature to the
erection of the new State under the
provisions set forth in the constitu.
tion for the said State of West Vir-
ginia" Finally Congress gave its
sanction by an act of December 81,
1862, C. 6. IL Stat. 633. which recit-
ed the framing and adoption OF the
West Virginia constitution and con-
sent given by the Legislature of Vir-
Ginia through the last mentioned act,
as well as the request of the West
Virginia convention and of the Vir-
Giaia Legislature. as the grounds for
fer the adoption OF an emancipation
clause before the act OF Congress
should take effect. and for a procla-
nation by the Pres dent stating the
fact, when the desired amendment
was made. Accordingly. after the
amendment and proclamation by
President Lincoln, West Virginia be-
came State on June 20. 1863.
1t was held in 1870 that the fore
going constituted an agreement be-
tween the old State and the new, Vir-
gnia VS.. West Vrgini, II Wall. SO,
and so much may be taken practically
to have been decided again upon the
demurrer in this case, although the
demurrer was overruied without pro
iudice to any question. Indeed, so
much is almost IL not quite admitted
in the answer. After the answer has
been filed the cause was referred &c
8 master by a decree made on May 4,
1908. 209 L. s. 514, 534. which pro-
vided for the ascertainment of the
facts made the basis OF apportion-
ment by the original Wheeling ord-
nance, and also Of ether facts that
would furnish an alternative method
If that prescribed in the Wheeling or
dinance should not be followed; this
again without prejudice 10 any ques-
ton in the cause. The master has re.
ported. the case has been heard upon
the merits, and now is submitted to
the decision Of the Court
The case is to be considered in the
untechinical spirit proper for dealing
with a quasi-intenational controver-
sy remembering that there is no mu'
n;cipal code governing the matter,
and that this Court may be called on
to adjust differences that cannot b.
dealt with by Congress or disposed
q by the legislature of either State
alone. Missouri VS.. Illinois, 200 U
s. 496. $40, $40. Kansas VS.. Colorado
206 L. S. 46, 82-S4 Therefore we
shall spend 10 time on objections as
10 urltifaTiousue 1aches and the