Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1911-03-18
4 q purchase Of atocks.

what we have said then the determi.
nation OF just proportion was left
by the Constitution to the Legislature
Of West Virginia, ald that irrespec-
| lively OF the words CT the instrument
| 1t was only by legislation that a just
/ proportion could be fixed. These ar
| gunents do not impress us. The pro
vision in the Constitution Of the state
q West Virginia that the Legislature
shall ascertain the proportion as soon
| as may be- practicable was not intend
| ed to undo the contract In the pre-
ceding words by making the represen-
tative and mouthpiece of one of the
parties the sole tribunal for its en-
forceme1t 1t was simply an exhor-
tation and command from supreme to
subordinate authority to perform the
promise as soon as might be and an
indication Of the way. Apart from
the language used, what Is just and
equitable Is judicial question sim
liar to many that arise in private liti-
cation, and in nowise beyond the COM
petence of tribunal to decide.
The ground now IS clear, so far as
the original contract between the two
States Is concerned. The effect of
that is that West Virginia must bear
her just and equitable proportion of
the public debt az 1t was intimated
IN Hartman VS.. Greenhow, 102 q. S.
672, so long ago as 1880, that she
should It remains for US to consider
such srbquent acts as may have af-
fected the original liability or as may
bear on the determination of the
amount to be paid On March 30,
1871, Virginia, assuming that the
equitable share of West Virginia was
about one-third, passed an act author
zing an exchange Of the outstanding
bones, &c, and providing for the fund
ing Of bwo-thirds of the debt with in
terest accrued to July /, 1871, by the
issue of new bends bearing the same
rate OF interest as the old, six per
cent. There were to be issued at the
same time, for the other one-third
certificates of same date setting forth
the amount of the cid bond that was
not funded, that payment thereof
with interest at the rate prescribed
in the old bond would be provided
for in accordance with such settle
ment rs should be had between Vir-
ginia and West Virginia in regard to
the public debt and that Virginia
held the old bonds in trust for the
holder or his assignees. There were
further details that need not be men
toned. The coupons &C the new bonds
were receivable fer all taxes ant de-
mands due to the State. Hartman VS..
Greenhow. 102 u S. 672. McGahey
Vs. Virginia. 1876 U. S. 662. The GER
t'ficates issued to the public under
this statute and outstanding amount
to $12, 703, 45179.
The burden under the statute of
1871 still being greater than Virginia
felt able to bear. a new refunding
act was passed on March 28, 1879, re-
ducing the interest and providing that
Virginia would 1egc tiate or aid in ne
gotiating with West Virginia for the
cate holders and that the acceptance
Of certificates for West Virgilia's one
third under this act should be an alb
solute release Of Virginia from all IL
ability on account of the same. Few
of these certificates were accepted.
On February IA, 1882, another at
tempt was made, but without suffic
lent success to make it necessary to
set forth the contents OF the statute.
The certificates for balances not rep
resented by bonds, constituting West
virg'nia's share of the old debt,
stated that the balance was ito be ac-
counted for by the State OF West Vir-
ginia without recourse upon this COM
monwealth."
On February 20, 1892. statute was
scribed in the bill ss final ami salts
factory. This provided for the issue
CT bonds for nineteen million dollars
in exchange for twenty-eight millions
outstanding, not funded, the new
bonds bearing interest at two per
Cthl lOl TIC III Si bN~l gtdAS Gnu AAi &C
per cent. for ninety years; and GER
tificates in form similar to that just
stated, in the act of 1882. On March
6, 1894, a joint resolution Of the Sen
ate and House of Delegates was pass
ed reciting the passage of the four
above mentioned statutes, the provis-
ions for certificates, and the satisfac-
tory adjustment of the liabilities as
sumed by Virginia On account of two
thirds of the debt, and appointing a
committee TO negotiate with West Vir
ginia when satisfied that majority
OF the certificate holders desired 1t
and would accept the amount TO be
paid by West Virginia n full settle
ment OF the one-third that Virginia
had not assumed. The State was to
be subjected to no expense. Finally
an act of March 1900, authorized
the commission to receive and take
On deposit the certificates, upon con-