The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-01-21
KN0TTY PROBLEM
PUT BEFORE COURT
Virginia Debt Casestag-
erin 6 in It's
lntricacy,
NEARLY A w EEK
f 0 R ARGUM ENT
Not in Years Has Supreme Court
Granted So Much Time to
Hearing of One Holmes
Conrad, for Bondholders,
Begins Laying Founda-
ton for Contest.

Washington, d. C.. Janun:y 90
The staggering arithme,icGl problem.
complicated by questions uf ntcrna-
tlonal law, Of how much cf the S33.-
100000 debt OF the old State Of VirgIn!,
. West VII Sin'n should bear, was laid
today before the Supreme Court OF
the United States cor us solution
Recognizing the intricacy of the
problem and tho Importance OF the out
come the court consented TO devote
practically all It's time until rcxt Thurs
day To a hearing OF arguments In tn
case. This Is moro time than has been
given TO amy case argued before the
supreme Court of the Cu!icd STATES
within many years.
The debt OF Virginia. at the time
West Virginia was organized. was
recosnized as about s33.D"o. coo. Many
more millions have been added to that
sum as interest The Commonwealth
OF virginia seeks TO have Nest Vlr-
GINA bear about one-third II the ncht
West Virginia denies hcr liability for
ono cent. 10 settle the controversy.
II may be necessary for the supreme
Court to review thc expenditures ana
receipts Of the State or Virginia since
1s95, and figure CIT from that cxaml-
nation the liabilities
Bitterness TX shown.
has been manifest for years. was re-
iiectcd to-day by the carrcstness Of
Holmes Conrad OF Virginia in OPEN
ing the argument. He was the spoRes-
man for the holders OF sl5.oO0.oo0
worth Of certificates, ieprescntInr
q part OF the debt III the present MI
CATION. The certificate holders are ,lrl..
Ing that West virginia %. required
TO pay the debt Represented by tho
certificates. Mr. Conrad only mad time
To lay before the court part OF the
foundation for the contest He took
the court back TO tho days Of 1925.
when Virginia inhuguratcd i system OF
constructing roads. canals ana rail.
ways, extending from the Atlantic 10
the Ohio River. THAT, he SAID. WAS the
time of the origin OF the public deb,
Of Virginia and existed in 1851 The
public improvements were largely. If
not entirely, Tor the development of
the coal and oil and mineral, and gas
that TO-DAY make the Sta.e OF West
Virginia the wealthiest state in the
Union Mr. Conrad tolG the court,
Because of the origin OF the debt.
II for no other reason, lie argued
that West Virginia was under a re
cosnizcd liability to pay hcr equitable
share OF it.
Mr.. Conrad told OF Virginias strug-
Eles TO bear the debt To induce IVES,
u
nally 10 find relief from the burden By
issuing new bonds for two thirds Of
the debt and giving certificates to the
old hondholders for the other third.
This was done with the understandings.
Mr.. Conrad said that the State OF
Virginia would be liable fer The re
naming third. II West Virginia did
not pay IT. lie acknowledged that Vir-
finia's liability for the remaining third
was disputed, and also NirGiiia's right
to sue West Virginia for Tic third.
lie claimed that Virginia had n right
TO suc as trustee"
Just before court adjourned he
said two plans would be advanced
for the settlement of the account one
he designated as the International
law plan and the other, the Wheel
Ing ordinance plan" lie approved the
former
The Commonwealth OF Virginia I'm
1906 began an action in the Supreme
Court to have an accounting with West
Virginia 10 determine the latter's cquit.
able share of The Indebtedness OF tbs
old Commonwealth prior to the Civr
War, and just before West Virginia
was organized as a separate state
Virginia claimed that the Indebtedness
amounted TO more than S33,o0lc0c.
Arguing Exceptions.
West Virginia objected to the suit.
Dut inc supreme Court sustained the
contentious of Virginia on this pom.
and finally appointed as special mas
ter, former Representative Charles T..
lhttleheld, of Maine. to take testimony
evidently with n view to settlement
Mr.. bittlcheld reported, but both sides
took exceptions to his report To-day.
the case was set for argument of these
exceptions.
The equities of such situations are
complicated by the so-callcd Wheeling
ordinance and enactments and acts OF
the two States. The ordinance adopted
at Wheeling providing for the forma-
tion of the new state contained n pro-
vision that the new State should take
upon Itself a just proportion of tile
public debt of Virginia. to he asccr-
tanned by charging to ii all state eT-
penditurcS within the limits thereof,
and just proportion of the ordinary
expenses of the Virginia government
since any part of the debt was con
tract. and dcducting thcrefrom the
moneys paid into the Virginia treasury
from the counties within the new state.
Virginia claims that West Virginia
should pay at least one third of the
years ago. West Virginia took the posi-
tion that settlement according to the
Wheeling ordinance would put Virginia
actually in debt TO West Virginia in
tho sum of $4,000 West Virginia
now claims that virginia cannot re-
quire 1t to pay one-third of the debt,
because the bondholders of that amount
Continued on Fifth paRel