The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1915-07-27
No JURISDICTION

w JOhiSDiIIlON
in another part OF this issue OF The
intellieeneer will be found a very
comprehensive review OF the virginia
debt question. with reference 10 the
seton OF the Supreme Court OF the
United States. IL will command the
nuention and interest OF the readers
Of The Intelligeneer on account % IT,
ex-cathedra character. because II ap-
pears IN The West Virginia Bar. ed
lied by Prof William p. Wiley. Of
the University law school faculty.
and a man who has had singular op-
portunities for familiarizing himself
with all phases OF the question. The
article bears out many OF the conten-
tons made by The Intelligcncer. the
most important OF which has been the
ciaim that West Yirginias liability
has never been JudiciaiIy determined
There are three points brought out
IN Prof willey's arguments that are
etrikingiy suggestive. The nrst IL
the declaration OF the court that
owing TO the nature OF the case Il
could only act as an arbitration com
mission. This admission, with all due
respect for the dignity Of the court.
makes ridiculous the whole proceed.
ing. In arbitrating between parties,
both OF them must be agreeable To- the
proceedings to make the conclusion
binding. There can be no arbitration
where one party Is unwillingly
dragged into the controversy. as was
West Virginia in this case.
The second point made Is the plea
. OF laches. on which the case against
West Virginia ought to have been
thrown out OF court 1T is no violent
assumption says The Bar. TO as.
sumo that there Is no court. State or
. Federal. in an action between credit
or and debtor for the recovery OF
money. would render judgment to the
amount OF one dollar in favor OF
creditor who had slept on his rights
for nifty years" In an ordinary Judi
cial proceeding the Supreme Court
would have given heed to the statute
OF limitations. which obtain in both
States. and which raised the bar in
this case from FIVE years after their
separation. In any court OF equity
This would have barred Virginia's
claim
Naturally with these points clearly
defined. Il is simply inexplicable that
the Supreme Court should have as
sumed Jurisdiction in this controver-
~, one OF the earliest contentious
made by The Intelligencer The Bar
asserts that the Supreme Court had
no Jurisdiction to sit as a judicial
tribunal in this matter. Everyone
knows. and the State OF Virginia con-
Tossed. that " had no interest in the
matter, but was merely masquerading
~ a plaintiff for the holders OF prac.
tically worthless certificates. In as
suming Jurisdiction. therefore. the
court reverses itself In its interpreta-
ton OF the XII amendment TO the con-
stitution. for upon parallel cases this
court has held IN no uncertain terms
that where upon the face Of the rec
ord. nominally there appeared 10 be
a conuoversy between two states.
and Il appeared that the State which
was plaintiff was suing. not for its
own use and interest, but FOR the use
and on behalf Of certain individuals
thereof. II was unanimously held BY
the court that II would look behind
and through the nominal plaintiff on
the record 10 ascertain who were the
real parties 10 the suit"
Clearly the Supreme Court accord
ing 20 its own opinion here related.
had no Jurisdiction 10 entertain the
suit Instituted by vIrrlnia. the nonin.
al plaintiff had no right 10 sue: the
real parties In interest had nothing
upon which 10 base legal Obligation.
and judgment by the court could
not be declared IN favor Of anybody
before the court More than ever ls
The lntclliFoncer convinced of the
competency Of the contentious O. has
made with regard 20 this question.
and that the people Of West virginia
cannot be- forced To- pay the enormous
amount LODGED AGAINST them b. nm
unjudicial determination
a@~a