The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1911-03-07
WEST VIRGINIA
MUST PAY DEBT
.. S. Supreme Court Decides
LOng-standing Case.
RELIC OF ANTEBELLUM DAYS
Bonded Indebtedness Incurred by
Original State of Virginia to Be
Shared by Offspring, According to
Decision Handed Down by Justice
HOImes-POints at Issue.

| Inc state or west Virginia should
pay s7,1S2.5O7.46 as her proportionate
share OF the original public debt of the
old State of Virginia. as it existed in
| 1861. This decision was handed down
in the Supreme Court of the United
States yesterday by Associate Justice
Holmes. and concurred in by all the
other members of the court
! When West Virginia applied for sep
arate Statehood in 1861, and parted
company with the Commonwealth of
| Virginia, there was a large outstand-
! ing bonded indebtedness. which the Old
Dominion had incurred, largely
through the influence of that part OF
the then Commonwealth that is now
known West Virginia, which was for
the development of West Virginia
Railroads and canals were to be built,
and avenues OF commerce opened up.
In the constitution adopted for the
new State of West Virginia it was
agreed as a part of the terms Of the
separation that the new State should
assume its equitable share of the
bonded debt. But the amount was never
paid The State of Virginia carried the
burden, although the Indebtedness has
taken on new forms through refund
ing. The original amount was approx
imately s34.OOO,0OO.
Debt Was Refunded
In 1SI1 this debt was refunded. and cred
itors agreed to accept a new issue of
6 per cent bonds in payment Of two
thirds of the sum, and look to West Vir-
ginia for the payment of one-third.
which, according to the contention of
the Commonwealth Of Virginia, was the
prOpOrtionate share to be contributed
by West Virginia, on basis of area and
population. For the one-third of the pub
lie debt chargeable TO West Virginia,
interest-bearing certificates were issued
The Commonwealth of Virginia has been
trying ever since the civil war to get
a settlement OF the differences with her
offspring. Finally. the matter was sub
mitted to the Supreme Court by a bill
filed on behalf of the State Of Virginia
asking that the proportionate share OF
the public debt that should be borne by
West Virginia be ascertained and salts
fed
The court. in an elaborate opinion,
found the amount to be due as stated
above. which does not include interest
and which is subject as final adjudica-
ton TO a further conference between
parties" The court did not adopt the
contention of the Commonwealth of Vir-
GINA and determine the share of West
Virginia upon the basis OF area and popu-
latiOn in 1861. 1t took instead the report
of a commissioner of the ratio of the
assessed valuation of real and personal
property in West Virginia to that of
the Commonwealth of Virginia as it was
returned for taxation in 1861. On this
basis the court found that Virginia should
pay. after certain deductions were made,
I6.5 per cent of the whole debt, and that
West Virginia should contribute 23-5 per
cent
The court commented upon the unusual
character of the proceeding, charaCteriz-
ing it as ''quasi-internatiOnaL" Justice
Holmes said there was no municipal
code governing the matter"
Said he:
LAS this is no ordinary commercial
suit, but as we have said, a quasi-inter-
national difference referred to this court
in reliance upon the honor and constitu-
tiOnal obligations of the States concerned,
rather than upon ordinary remedies, we
think it best at this stage TO go no far
Their, but to await the effect of a confer
ence between the parties which. what
ever the outcome, must take place. If
the cause should be pressed CONTINUOUSLY
to the end, it would be referred TO a
master to go over the figures that We
have given. Professionally. and to make
such calculations as might become neCes-
sary. But this case is one that calls for
forbearance upon both sides. Great
States have a temper superior to that OF
private litigants. and ii is to be hoped
that enough has been decided for patriot
ism, the fraternity of the Union, and mu-
tual considerations, to bring it to an
end"
Attorneys in the Case.
The case for West Virginia was argued
by the late John G. Carlisle and ex-
Senator John C. Spooner. One OF the
contentious was made that the Com
monwealth of Virginia, having extin-
guished one-third of the debt by an
agreement with the bondholders in 1871.
that West Virginia was absolved from
any further liability, because by her own
contention the Commonwealth of Nir-
ginia had fixed the proportionate share
of West Virginia's contribution at one
third.
The new State was generous enough to
permit the one-third of the debt that
had been extinguished to be borne en-
tirely by the mother State. But this con-
tention did not appeal to the court. The
court held there was a valid contract,
and it also decided that the contention in
the answer filed for the State of West
Virginia, that the Commonwealth Of Viz
GINA should not maintain the action as
oil