The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-03-09

wha. may have been done as TO two
Inirds docs not concern tho defendant
not less than that. II tho bonds out
standing In 1851 have been taken 10
It Is only by the Issue of new bonds
lor Two thirds and certificates to he
other third; Liability for any pay
ments BY Virginia is denied and &C.
countabilty. IL any. Is avcrred to be
o on on the principle OF section o of
the Wheeling ordinance, to be stated
IL is Set up further, that under the Con-
stitution of West Virginia. her
equitable proportion can be established
by her Legislature alone. that tho
provided BY that instrument. and hence
mat This suit cannot be maintained
ne settlement by Virginia with her
creditors also is pleaded rs a bar and
that she brings this suit solely as trus-
tee for them.
nc, grounds OF the claim are matters
vi public history, After the Virginia
orainance OF Secession, citizens OF the
state who dlsscntcu from that ordi.
nance organized government that
was recognized as the state of Virginia
=! lhe government OF the Cnited
,h Forthwith convention OF
heid at Wheeling, proceeded TO carry
oul long entertained wish OF lnany
vest virginians by adopting an urdi-
nance Tor the formation OF a new stat.
- 3
commonwealth. a part of section .
OF the ordinance was as follows: The
ne" state shall take upon Itself I, just
PROPORTION Of the public debt of the
!. commonwealth OF Virginia prior to the
llrst day OF January. 1861, to be as.
certained by charging to it all State
expenditures within the limits thereof.
and just proportion Of the ordinary
expenses OF the state sovernment,
since any part OF the said debt was
contracted. and deducting therefrom
ne moneys paid into the treasury OF
the commonwealth from the counties
included within the said new state dur
ing the same period Having pre-
Fiously provided for a popular vote
a constitutional Convention, etc, the
ordinance in section 10 ordained tina
when the General Assembly should give
us consent TO the formation OF such
new state. II should forward to the
congress- OF the United States such
consent, together with an official copy
Of OF such Constitution with the request
that the new state nigh, he admitted
into the Union OF states
Constitution was framed for the
new new state by. constitutional Convcn-
NoVember %. 1861, and was adopted
BY article 6, section S. AN equitable
proportion of the public,ldebt OF the
commonwealth OF Virginia. prior to
thousand eight hundred and sixty-on
snail be assumed by this State: and the
Legislature shall ascertain the same
as soon as may be practicable. and pro-
Nide Tor the liquidation thereof BY a
sinking fund sufficient to pay the ac-
cruing Interest. and redeem the. prin-
cipal within thirtyfour years. An
act OF the Legislature Of the restored
state OF Virginia, passed May -, 1852
gave the consent OF that Legislature to
the erection of the new State under
me provisions set forth in the Consti-
tuition Tor the said state Of West vir-
'lY it,,
tlon by an act Of December 81 1852. {.
IS Il Stat. 633, which cited the franiipg
ana adoption of the West Virginia Con-
stitutloii and the consent given BY
the last mentioned actl as we'll as the
request Of the West Virginia
convention and of the Virginia
Legislature, as the grounds for its con
adoption OF an emancipation clause be-
Tore the act OF Congress should take
eject. and Tor proclamation by the
5resident, stating the fact when the
cnrdingly, after the amendment and a
proclamation by President Lincoln.
West Virginia became q State on June
90, 500 -
It was held in 1870 that the fore
going constituted an agreement be-
tween the old State and the new. Vir-
ginia vs.. West Virginia, II Wall. go.
ana SO much may be taken practica lly
10 nave been decided again upon the
demurrer in this case, although the
demurrer was overruled without preju-
dice TO any question. deed, so much
IS almost II not quite. admitted In
the answer After the answer had
been filed the cause was referred to n
master by u decree made on May 4
1908. 2G9 U. S. 5li, 534 which pro
ylded for the ascertainment of the
by the original Wheeling >1dinance,
and also OF other facts that would fur
nish an alternative method IL that prc-
scribed in the Wheeling ordinance
without prejudice TO any question In
the cause The master has reported.
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
nntechnical spirit proper for dealing
with a quasi controversy
remembering that there is no mum
cipal code governing the matter. and
that this court may be called on to
adjust differences that cannot be dealt
Win BY Congress or disposed of by
the legislature OF either State alone.
Missouri VS.. Illinois, 200 u = 1876 $40
$40. Kansas vs. Colorado. EOS IT, S.
10, S2-Si Therefore. We shall spend
no time on objections as o multifarious
ness laches and the like accent SO far
we proceed 10 deal. See Rhode Island
rs. Massachusetts. Is Peters, 21O, 257.
United states VS.. Beebe. le7 u. S. 3ss.
The amount OF the debt January I,
1851 that we have to apportion no
longer is in dispute. The masters
Hnding was accepted by West Virginia.
and at the argument we understood
Virginia not to press her exception.
that ii should be enlarged BIZ a dis
puted item. It was S33.S97,0i2se the
sum being represented mainly by In
tcrest bearing bonds The FIRST thing
10 be decided is what tho final agree.
ment was that was made between the
two states. Here again we arc not
10 be bound by technical forln.l
HONEST CCNyEEcc1O>