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

100000 in 1908, an enhancement OF
e4S per cent. while the taxable
wealth OF Virginia during the same
period had increased from $354.0OO.-
cent.
Looked 20 the Future.
Pointing out'thst the debt had been
contracted upon the faith OF prospec-
tive and future enhanced values.
rather than upon the values existing
at the date OF it's creation. ne showed
/ that West Virginia's enormous in
| crease In taxable wealth had been
largely produced by the roads and
railroads built by the svsils OF the
debt.
Mr.. Anderson showed that while
any decree which ascertained West
| Virginia's fair share OF the debt and
the interest justly due thereon would
necessarily be for a large amount. It
was to be remembered that West Vfr-
ginia was responsible for the long de-
lay and consequent accumulation OF
interest, and had gained enormously
by II. for. happily. owing 20 the vast
increase In her taxable resources. she
could more easily now pay a debt OF
$2o.0oo,o0e than she could have paid
100000 forty years ago I'm the then
condition OF affairs.
George w. 1GcCIintic.
Following Mr.. Anderson, George w.
AcClintic argued for West Virginia
|
ly to the exceptions to the masters
report and endeRvored to show that
West Virginia, under the Wheeling
ordinances, owed no part OF the old
debt. Mr.. AcClintic vigorously en-
deevored to make the point that the
master. In making up the report. and
that counsel for the defendant, in pre-
senting the case to him. had over
looked items of credit to which West
virginia was entitled. amounting to
several millions OF dollars. and that
this enormous sum appeared as n
double charge TO the defendant in the
classification OF ordinary expenses OF
government"
He argued also In support OF va
rious grounds Of objection to the mas
ter'S report.
Senator Spponer's Argument.
Following Mr.. McCuntic, Ex-Sena-
tor John 9. Spooner presented for
west virginia most ingenious and.
in some OF its aspects, a powerful ar
gument Possessing a fine analytical
mind, and being a speaker of great
force. Mr.. Spooner's argument was
one of exceptional interest. In brief.
he took the position that the Virginia
debt was contracted chiefly for build
ing roads. turnpikes. bridges. canals
and railroads. and other public works
located in what is now Virginia; that
such debt was a special and not a
general debt OF the Commonwealth;
Shdt uhueE tle principles OF equity and
| international law, West Virginia
could be held liable only for debts
local to her own territory, and for
/ an equitable proportion Of such other
general debt as was contracted for
the common and general benefit OF
the people Of the entire State. That
the purchase OF stock in internal i'm
provement companies by the issuance
! OF bonds constituted a local debt, the
benefits OF which Injured 10 Virginia
charged on that account except to the
extent that such expenditures could
/ be allotted to her territory.
He argued that of the $4,000, 900
constituting the Virginia debt in 1861,
more than 100000 had been ex-
/ pended in the stock OF internal i'm
provement companies whose proper
| ties were located in the present Vir-
/ gina ar in constructing railroads and
ca1uis in Virginia territory. He ar
gued for an adjustment under the
Wheeling Ordinance under such a con-
struction, and claimed that this would
eXOnerate West Virginia from any liza
bility whatever.
After discussing other phases OF the
case, particularly West Virginia's non
cluded with simple, but touching
tribute TO his late colleague and the
leading counsel for West Virginia. the
late Senator John G. Carlisle.
The closing presentation of Nir-
ginia's case was made in an able. con-
vincing and comprehensive argument
/ by Randolph Harrison.
Mr.. Harrison is one OF the members
OF the Virginia debt settlement com
mittee and has been closely Identified
with the history OF the controversy
for many years His speech before the
Legislature OF West Virginia in 1900
is printed as an exhibit with the plain
a Ill =
OF the most masterful presentations
Of Virginia's claims ever made.
In his argument last Thursday Mr..
Harrison first clearly stated Virginia's
position In the suit and the grounds
for relief which she had made out
from the proofs in the record, and the
just and equitable nature of her cause.
He then took up in their order the
principal points made by opposing
counsel, devoting especial attention
10 those urged with so much force by
Mr.. Spooner.
Dealing with these, Mr.. Harrison
showed that the reasoning upon which
they were founded was fanciful, and
! that in fact they were not supported
by reason or authority. or by the facts
as established in the record.
His reply TO Mr.. Spooner was hardly
short OF triumphant denomination
OF Vtrgtnia's right to recover upon
either of the principal grounds. assert
ed in her bill. and presented by her
counsel
Mr.. Harrison also took up the sug-
gestion OF Mr.. McClintic that West
Virginia was entitled to an enormous
credit, which her counsel had over
looked and conclusively disposed OF
| that remarkable contention.
For three hours, Mr.. Harrison held
the closest attention OF the court and
upon the conclusion of his argument
received the warm and sincere con-
CALCULATIONS of many who had the
privilege OF listening TO his splendid
effort.
Mr.. Harrison's argument concluded
the hearing before the court, and was
a hitting close to contest OF such
magnitude and Importance.
When the decision OF the court will
be reached is matter of conjecture,
but IL is thought that it will not be
long delayed
VIRGINIA COUPLES
WE'D IN WASHINGTON