Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-01-23
VIRGINIA AGAIN
WINS DEBT CASE
Special Master Littleheld De-
cides Interest Should Date
From Separation.
WEST VIRGINIA GAINS OFFSET
Entitled to Proportion of States
Assets as of January
l, 1861.

West Virginia is entitled to it's pro-
portionatc share of the assets owned
By the old state Of Virginia on Jan
uary l. 1861. according to the report
made yesterday By Special Master
Charles r. I.ittlcneld 10 the United
states Supreme Court. which desir
mated him several months ago to settle
disputed points In the famous debt
ease. At the same time. the spccia |
master held that West Virginia was
liable for it's share of the interest or
the outstanding bonds. which, II IL
estimated, will overshadow the point
gained. The report. as n whole. is
considered & sweeping victory for Nir-
gin!a.
Special Master Littlcfeld submitted
his report. consisting OF 125 type
written pages to tho court Yesterday.
1t embraced his findings on all ques
tions which have been raised since the
decree handed down In 1911, when
West Nirginia's share of tho debt was
fixed at s1.lSo5O746. Before the de
cree became effective. representatives
OF the defendant state filed n claim In
which the right to an Offset of s4.S55.
3l2.lS was asserted. Extensive hear
!ngs on this point were held by Special
Master Li;tlcficld In this city last Au-
gust and September.
DEBT APPORTIONED on
BASIS OF RESOURCES
IN apportioning the principal debt,
the Supreme Court adopted the relative
resources Of the two states as the ratio.
On that basis. Mr.. Littlefeld reported
that. out Of tho si.5Il.a54.7i assets con-
stdcrcd In his report. West Virginia
was entitled TO s3.4lO. 307.25. In this
connection. however. he called atten-
tior TO the testimony that West Nir-
ginia about 1868 and 1868 received
credits from tho mother State. the
amount Of which he placed at s541.-
+67.6I. That would leave net ball
ance In favor of West Virginia OF So
s6s.s39.i9 out of these assets. which.
he recommended. bc allowed as an Off
set against the principal debt.
Mr.. Littlefield supported the conten-
tlon OF West Virginia that the assets
of the mother State should be com
puted as of January l. 1861. instead OF
on June 90. 1863. when the legal scpara-
tion. took place, and when the assets
had deprecated. He also held that
West Virginia must pay the principal
designated by the court decree, less tho
offset allowed. together with interest
on 1t from January /. 1861. Rcprcsen-
ta;ives of West Virginia last night
estimated that tho interest would
amount to ss.0oO.oOo. while bondholders
assert that it will reach total of at
least s14.o0O,o 900, Mr. Littlcacld in his
report made no effort TO compute the
interest. hut left that to the deter
Ininaton OF the court
IITTLEFIELD QUOTES FROM
WEST VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION
Mr. Littlehcld reported that the basis
for the settlement had been fixed by
contract arising out OF the Constitu-
tion adopted by West Virginia in 1863.
Il believe that the provision for the
sinking fund was intended to make
for the security of bondholders and
Virginia" said the master referring 10
n provision In the West Virginia Con
stitution, land that the same wise pro-
vision that applied thereto before the
separation. and that the 'accruing in
tercst' for which West Virginia was
bound TO provide and which she was
required to assume by the contract
was the 'accruing interest on the ex-
listing debt. evidenced by the terms of
Its bonds. making the amount not only
definite and certain. but an INSOFAR
able part of the debt Itself. If this CON
struction is correct. West Virginia
would he liable for 90 l-o per cent
the ratio Of West Virginla's resources
TO those of Nirginia) of 'accru!ng in
tercst' of such portion OF debt as she
ultimately turns out to be liable TO
pay"
MUCH OF THE MONEY WAS
SPENT IN WEST VIRGINIA
There has been long standing dis
pute between the two States over the
assumption OF the debts owed prior to
1861 Tor public improvements. Much
or ms money was spent i'm the present
West Virginia. but it would he n hard
matter to compute the proportion OF
the debt on that basis. Therefore. the
Supreme Court fixed the ratio on the
resources at that time.
shortly after the Civil War, or in the
latter part of 1867, Virginia claimed
jurisdiction over the Counties OF
Berkeley and jefferson, but the United
States Supreme Court ruled adversely.
the decision being made in 1871. In
the interim Virginia rejected n move
ment TO have compromise on the debt
made. From that time until 1907 the
matter dragged along. In that year
the present action was instituted. The
1911 decision left the adjustment re-
garding interest and participation In
assets TO the States themselves. After
n Joint commission representing them
failed to agree. Virginia asked the
court to enter a final decree In the
case.
WEST VIRGINIA WINS
AS TO DATE OF DIVISION
West Virginia at that time asked to
be allowed to share In the Virginia as
sets as on January /. 1861, while Vir-
ginia asserted that balance should
be struck ms of June 20. 1863. when the
legal separation became effective. IL
also asked that, West Virginia he com
PEELED to pay interest from the date
on which the balance was struck. West
held that 1t should only nay
interest from the date OF tho final de-
cree.
Tho State OF Virginia will benefit lit