The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-08-19
To HEAR EVIDENCE
IN THE DEBIT CASE
As Of BOTH OATES

After attorneys for the bondholders
and for Virginia and West Virginia
had argued at some length on mo-
ton offered by Major William A.
Anderson for Virginia that the Vir-
ginia-W West Virginia debt suit be set
the State az OF June 20, 1883, Special
Master Charles E. Littleton yesterday
ruled that evidence ip the case would
be heard according to that schedule.
Also West Virginia will be allowed to
give evidence as to the assets OF Vir-
ginia at the time that she separated
from this State on January !. 1850.
interesting question which will have to
be settled. 1t is claimed by West Vir-
ginia that Virginia had on hand cash
and securities valued at about $4,000
600, which should be deducted from
the 37,1s1.5o74s which Virginia
claims. without accrued interest.
would amount to several million more.
according to Virginias financial con-
dition in 1861 West Virginia will
claim this offset.
On tho other hand. should the case
be settled according to the debts OF
the State in 1853. as claimed by Vir-
gintA, West Virginia will be forced to
pay the entire amount claimed by the
STATE al l0c treasury lido hCooh cSN't
depleted in 1858, on account OF the
war
The following Ia q copy of the reso-
luton offered by Major Anderson:
That as West Virginia dated her
political existence from June 20, 1868,
this date be agreed upon by commits
sioners and representatives of the two
Commonwealth as the time when a
balance be struck and from when IN
no dah ne rzlfsHjltafPH
Major Holmes Conrad, OF Virginia,
and Conway Robinson, OF New ork,
following the reading OF the resolution
offered by Major Anderson, arose and
stated that Us attorneys for the bond
holders they upheld the contention
contained in Major Anderson's mo-
ton. They both expressed the belief
that the United State Supreme court
had already held that 1863 the date
claimed by Virginia, YVES the correct
date for the settlement or the claims
Governor Hatfield was an interested
listener TO the arguments advanced by
Judge Holt and Charles E. Hill. OF
West Virginia. that January j, lS6l,
was the date upon which arguments
and testimony should be based. 10th
OF the attorneys contended that tho
date of the separation OF the West
Virginia from Virginia in 1851 should
be- used and not the date of West Viz
ginia's birth on June 20, 1858
Commissioner Randolph Harrison. OF
I>ynchburg. of representatives for Viz
ginia, following the attorneys for West
Virginia, argued that there could have
been no debt between two States or
two governments precedent to the
date one which one OF those govern
ments was created.
He argued that West Virginia
could not discuss liabilities or assets on
date previous to her own political
existence. He claimed that January
II. 1881. West Virginia had no real
financial existence. That 1t would be
obn oxious to all rules OF equity or logic
for a State to compute her assessed
values at q time when she did not ex-
list
II was the ruling OF Master Little
field that both dates, both January |.
| 1851, and June 40. 1853. would be
! left open by him and evidence be al
lowed by each side as Of each date
/ It was Mr.. Littlefe1d's belief thai on
! this basis the hearing would occupy
more time, that in the end II would be
e timcsaver.
| Following this ruling, evidence will
! be introduced today in regards to the
assets and liabilities as of both dates
and the hearing will mainly be after
| this be taken up by technical testi-
mony in regards 40 the financial con-
dition OF Virginia at both dates in
question.