Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1911-04-15
RECENT RULING
IS DISCUSSED
BY West Virginia Bar, Official organ
Of Lawyers Of This
state,

~A&NCs
The April number of the West Vir-
ginia Bar has the following extremely
interesting article on the Virginia
debt case. The article is so illumina-
tive and instructive that it deserves
to be repeated and read in every sec
ton Of the state.
The Bar says:
We believe all lawyers will agree
that lie action OF the United States
supreme court in the debt controversy
between Virginia is the most anoma-
Gus as to its procedure and result OF
any in the history of that court.
We believe it is a proceeding with
out precedent in any court unless it
be The Hague court of international
arbitration, to which 1t approaches
some resemblance.
Having decided to entertain q suit
IN equity purporting to be instituted
by one state against another state
to adjudicate a monetary claim. it
proceeds in the usual course to reach
the result until the questions CT law
and fact have been fully hard, but
make no decree.
Thereupon the court takes the atti-
tCde of court OF arbitration nd
deals with it from the standpoint,
but makes no award, but rather re-
fers it back TO the parties themselves
for arbitration, with covert threat
that if they don't arbitrate they may
have to litigate.
The question OF law which were
urged against the plaintiffs conten-
ton and which we're deemed so fun
damental by the commission of able
lawyers representing the defense, that
they were unanimous in their judg-
ment and absolutely confident in their
expressed conviction, that the plain
tiff's claim could net prevail in any
court of law, we've CURLY brushed
aside The conceded fact that the
plaintiff was without any interest in
the case; that under the constitution
she had no right there except as a
state making a bona fide claim il 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; had in fact admitted that
under her agreement West Virginia
would thereafter own her nothing
and Aqt anything that might be re-
covered would go to her assignees
this fundamental fact, this imposture
this abuse of strict constitutional
privilege, was also CURLY brushed
aside by the court; and although
rendering no decree, award, or judg
ment, they seem to have reached a
finality-or hope they have-while
the position of the parties is left
about as it was before the suit was
instituted.
This anomalous result can be ex-
planned only by guessing at some
thi1gs-for the opinion or disgust
ton which the court handed down
does not vouchsafe any explanation.
We guess that il we had been be
hind the scenes, in the council cham
Der of the court when this case was
being considered, we would have wit
messed a divided court-a divided
court, first on the matter Of taking
any jurisdiction of the case. We are
sure that Chief Justice White entered
vigorous protest against taking jur
isdiction in a case, and rendering
decree which the court could not en-
force. He had already put himself
on record. in the North Carolina case,
not chief justice when the demurrer
to the Virginia bill was being consid-
cred, and the then chief justice (F'ul-
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-
Ter, come in who are of the opinion
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
II at mind. But the case was on their
bands. They must dispose OF it in
same fashion. A majority will not
agree to ioin in a decree they cant
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
us hand down an opinion indicating
cur judgment as TO the equities of the
case, without rendering any judgment
or decree; leave it to the parties to
arbitrate and compromise between
themselves.
This explanation, to our mind, ex-
plains the anomalous action of the
court. 1t was a compromise between
members OF the court, contending
against any decree and those who
were willing TO render a decree.
ne baua naiJ IL Iaauor III a