The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1915-04-30

~ Solo OASIS, he showed
TO the court very clearly that in
this one Instance West vlrainia
was entitled to a credit Of $780,
ooo, which the master had de
MED.
Went Into Details.
He took up in detail each and ev-
cry public Improvement and national
bank in which Virginia was a part
owner and showed West Virginia's
equity in each and every enterprise.
for which he claimed credit for
West Virginia. He laid claim for
West Virginia to $4,000 paid by GER
tain counties in the eastern part OF
the state as taxes into the treasury
at Richmond. after the separation
from the Mother state. I'VE do not
claim % and one half per cent OF
mat said Judge Holt I'VE claim
the whole. which the Master denied
TO US. The Master held IL was a pri-
vate payment by citizens and not by
the state. As matter of fact. II was
collected by the sheriffs OF these
counties and turned into the treasury
at Richmond and was a state trans.
action performed by the agents OF
the state" Judge Hole declared maj
he accepted the decision OF the court
OF March 9th. 1911, settling the prin.
cipal mat West Virginia's share OF
the uebt, II any debt existed. was 20
and one half percent as against the ar.
bitrary declaration of Virginia made
In 1871 that II was 80 and one third
percent.
SO far as that is concerned. / have
no argument TO offer. accept that
finding. II Is behind us" But after
discussing the credits In detail. Judge
Holt declared that West Virginia's liza.
bility under the findings Of the Mas.
ter. taken in connection with later off.
sets that had been produced. reduced
West Nirginia's obligation to a sum.
not exceeding s2.sSS.OOO
Constitutional Provision.
Judge Holt disposed of the argu-
ment that the debt should be consid-
cred as Virginia contends. of June
2Oth' 1868. instead OF January LIST.
1861. by citing the constitutional pro-
vision OF the Wheeling convention
which provided that the "Equitable"
proportion OF the debt should no set.
tied on the basis of January LIST. 1861
On the subject OF interest he contend.
90 mat no interest could be charged
~ the absence Of an expressed agree
ment TO that effect in the CONTRACT. Tie
oeclared that there was no such an
agreement either directly or bv i'm.
piicauon. FiUthermpre he Srgued
mat II had been decided by this very
court time and agaip that no Interest
would accrue where there was no as.
certainment Of the principal
In no place. no where. in any con.
tract said Judge Holt does tho
word Interest appear May We not
revoke the legal rule that a sovereign
state BE- not chargeabIe with interest
IN the absence OF an expressed agree.
ment To do 80. Interest cannot run
except upon an agreement Of bv dc.
tault There can be- no interest when
the principal remains undetermined
This court has held and repeatedly
held that an unliquidated debt bears
no interest"
Was Not Creditor
Asked by Justice Pitney why West
Virginia ala not press settlement.
Judge Holt declared that West virgin
ia was the debtor and not the credi.
tor and 10 was not the province Of the
debtor 10 seek or sue the creditor.
But from that question he branched
of into an argument 10 show that
West Virginia had. from the very time
~ the separation Of tho state tried 10
settle the matter in difference. he
pointed out that Virginia had Icft the
union 81 the states. that during the
five years Of the civil War West Vir.
ginia could not treat with her Had
she done 20. % would have been troa-
sonable After the war she could not
do Fo. because Virginia was sueine
Tor the retention 81 certain counties