Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-03-24
OBJECTIONS FILED
IN STATE DEBT CASE
Acknowledgement Pollard Excerpts to
Findings OF Special Mas
ter lfttlcficld.
OLD CASE NEARING ITS END
Final Argument Before Supreme
Court of United States Set for
April 10, and Decision Is Expected
Within Short Time.

N'"' -H"S'er ilItieneld IN the Virginia.
West Virginia debt case
There were objections also from West
Virginia and from The holders of the
and the State OF West Virgins. sled
their respective objections some time
ago.
The papers Will be taken under con-
sideration by the court and the final
hearing in tho celebrated c,so ms hea,
set for April 10
The complaint OF Virginia in the OBJ
iec'ions stated yesterday takes issue
with tho special masters recommends,
ton that West Virginia is entitled 10
credit for portion OF the old Virginia
assets OF January l. 1851. and rho Az,
torney General claims that these assnts
should be valued as of June 30. 1853
me date OF separation of the two States
POLLARD ENCEPTs TO
SPECIAL MASTERS REPORT
In his first exception TO the finding
and conclusion OF Specia! Master Little
forth:
The only RICH, tina, West Virginia
acquired as to these assets or invest
ments. as against Virginia. was the
right to require Virginia. on the date
agreed upon. TO apply the assets or in
restments. At their fair value at the
time agreed upon. towards the liouida-
uon OF her own debt. so that West Vir-
Eihla could know, when the assets we're
so applied, the amount of the real debt
remaining to which she would he
Obliged TO contribute. II was perfectly
competent for the two States to agree
upon any date upon which the debt and
the value of the assets and the invest
ments. and the difference between the
two. could be ascertaincd West Vir-
Ginia's rights do not depend upon any
title that She acquired to assets Eolclv
owned by Virginia. as to which she did
not and could not acquire any title.
but they do depend upon the agreement
OF Virginia 10 account for these assets
or investments, at their fair value upon
the date when the amount of the debt
Is TO be aSccrtaircd This is an abso-
Lutte protection to West Virginia. ms
Virginia cannot recover any portion Of
the debt of West Virginia until those
assets are thus accounted for and an
Piled This construction Is in nv iudr-
mont plain, clear. simple, couitab!e.
Just and completely and adequately
protects every legal and equitable right
OF both OF the parties thereto.
CLAIMS ASSETS SHOULD
he VALUED AS or JANUARY, 1861
1T is my conclusion. therefore, that
tho assets are TO be valued as OF Janu-
AIRY l. 1861"
The conclusion stated by the Attor-
ncy-General is based on his contention
that there was no such agreement as
Special Master Littcfcld assumed; that
there is no warrant for such a construc-
ton found in the terms of the contract
OF separation between the two States
and that the finding and conclusion OF
INC master arc In conflict with the de-
ctsion OF the United States Supreme
Court. rendered March 6, 1911. whereby
the court adopted az the mode OF arriv-
ing at the equitable proportion of tho
I. T. mot IL ri - Il -,
defendant the comparative value OF tho
real and personal properties OF the two
states al the date OF separation. June
20. 1862.
Exception No. Is an objection to the
report because the master failed to and
that tn" items embraced in the supple
mental answer arc 70 be valued as OF
tho date OF separation OF the two
States"
Exception No touches upon tho
book values" which were a frequent
bone OF contention during the bearing
before the special master here.
OBJECTS TO USE Or
MERE hook VALUES
The Attorney says:
complainant respectfully excerpts
for this, TO wit: that, In ascer-
tanning and computing the value on
January !. 1861. OF tho shares of tho
capital stock Of railroad compa MES the
master erred. In that, disregarding
other and competent evidence as to said
values. he took and considered. solely,
the hook values and the alleged paper
earnings Of said companies for the peri-
nds more or less arbitrarily selected by
nm, as the same were inaccurately do
duced from the book accounts OF said
companies as evidence. or the true value
.! said shares, rs OF said date
said book values did not onstitute
"a
true value of said properties inasmuch
as theE represented merely the original
cost thereof. ard both the said book
values and the said paper earnings
ar" unreliable and misleading as cvi-
dcnce Of the true values Of said prop-
cFt:"S because. in their computation no
account whatever was taken OF the de-
probation and necessary cost Of re-
h"wal or the physical properties Of said
companies"
Exception No. is TO the finding OF
the master IN allowing sl4a9S4 as the
basis for an Item Of charge against Vir-
Einia and Of credit to West Virginia.
being the value OF a dividend bond OF
the Richmond Fredericksburg and Po-
tomac Railroad Company, held by Vir-
gin!a. for which obligation Virginia
realized only the equivalent Of Sl9,-
lll.il, that being the value OF the Con-
'edcrate currency in which the obl!ga-
ton was paid Off by the company
The NTH and final exception Is to tho
matters hndinG as 10 the value. az of
January ]. 1851. OF the holdings Of Vir-
g!nia In the James River and Kanawha
Company, for the rcnson that the ind
ing Is In conflict with a previous find
ing OF the master. and in conflict with
IA" evidence In the case. which demon
, Strates that after making the ncces-
shry, reasonable and moderate allow
hnce for depreciation OF its physical
property said company was 10 all prac :
ticai intcuts and purposes insolvent on
ana after January J, 1861: and, at any
rate. The holdings OF Virginia therein,
pnshcsseG no dividend earning capacity
and no npprcciablc value. whatever. on
or after that date"
West Virginia has objected TO other
parts OF the masters report. including
the recommendation that that State be
required to pay interest on It's share OF
I ne sfi lel.t from I Gel q -