The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1911-04-12
DEBT Case
WEST VIRGINIA BAR DISCUSSES
4 REC ENTs uLlNG Of SUPREME
COURT OF ulITED STATES IN

i ESlEltNihSlNlAN BARt DISCUSSES
: REC EMIT RULING Of SUPREME
COURT OF UNITED STATES. h
The April number OF the West viz
ginia Bar has the following extremely
interesting article ON the Virginia
debt case. The article is SO illumlna
tive and instructive that It deserves
TO begrepeated and read lin every sec
ton OF the State. The Bar says:
We believe all lawyers will: agree
that the action OF the u. S. Supreme
Court In the debt controversy between
virginia and West Virginia is the most
anomalous as to its procedure and re.
suit OF any in the history ofthat court.
| We believe It is a. proceeding with.
out precedent In any court unless It be
The Hague court OF international ar.
bitration, to which 1t approaches some
resemblance.
Having decided to enter a suit In
equity purporting to bel instituted by
one State against another State to
ad1udicate a monetary claim, 1T pro-
ceeds In the usual course to reach that
result until the questions OF law and
fact have been fully heard, but makes
no decree.
Thereupon the court takes the atti.
tude Of court OF arbitration and
deals with it from that standpoint, but
makes no award. but rather refers It
back to the parties themselves for ar.
bitration with q covert threat that II
they don't abitrate they may have to
lltigate. 5
| The questions OF law which were
urged against the plaintiffs conten.
ton and which were deemed so. funda.
mental by the commission OF able law.
yers representing the defense, that
they were unanimous In their judg.
ment and absolutely confident in their
expressed conviction. that the plain.
tif's claim could not prevail In any
court Of law, were CURLY brushed
aside. The conceded fact that the
plaintiff was without any interest in
the case; shat under the constitution
she had no right there except as a
state making bona flde claim in her
own right, yet had already cancelled
all rights and obligations OF her own,
and by the very act Of instituting that
suit; whether she won or lost, had
cancelled all claim to any recovery in
the suit; whether she won or lost, had
cancelled all claim to any recovery in
the suit; had In fact admitted that un.
der her agreement West Virginia
would thereafter owe her nothing, and
that anything that might be recov.
cred would go to her ,assignees; this
fundamental fact, this imposture, this
abuse Of d strict constitutional privi.
lege,awas also CURLY brushed aside by
the court; and although rendering no
decree. award. or judgme nt, they seem
ITO have reached Ia finalty-Eor Nhopel
they have--whiles the position Of the
parties Is left about as 1T WAS before
the suit was Instituted. ~
This anomalous result,,oan be ex:
planned | 6hB4 BI giesslhsl at some
thingkltoE ihe abinlbd bti disquistion
which the court handed down does not
vouchsafe any explanation. !.
We guess thatlif we liad been be:
| hind the scenes,ain the'tcouncii cham.
pber OF thefcourt when THIS case was
being considered, We would have wit.
messed n divided court--a divided
court. first ron the matter Of taking
any Jurisdiction OF the case. We are
sure that Chief Justice White entered
Il vigorous protest against taking tur.l
isdlction in case, and rendering a dc.
cree which the court could not en-.
force. He had already put himself. on
record, in the North Carolina case,
against such course. But he was
not chief Justice when the demurrer
TO the Virginia bill was being consid.
cred, and the then chief justice (Ful.
ler) was Of a contrary mind. and sew
eral members of the court were with
Fuller then that have since passed
with Fuller to another. Jurisdiction.
New members have, since the demur.
REF. COME IN who. are of the optniou
perhaps to agree with the present
chief justice that the case ought not
to- have been entertained in the first
instance. Probably a majority are OF
that mind. But the case was on their
hands. They must dispose OF 1t in
some fashion. A majority will not
agree to Join in decree they can't
enforce. What other course was
open? 1t was probably urged that as
the case had been very deliberately
presented and very expensive to the
parties, let lis hand down an opinion
indicating our Judgment as to the
equities of the case, without rendering
and judgment or decree; leave 1t to
the parties to arbitrate and compro.
mise between themselves. =
This explanation, to our minds, ex.
plains the anomalous action OF the
court. 1t was 4 compromise between
members Of the court, contendIng
against any decree and those who
were willing to render decree.
| 8 y &
GEORGE CANS