The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-08-20
WARMLY CRITICAL OF
JUSTICE CHAS. E. HUGHES
West Virginia Newspaper Goes After Republican Candidate
on the Unique Charge That He Helped Decide the
Debt Case Against Panhandle State

its ordinance forming the state and
its original Constitution. Virginia de-
/ clined our offer to go into the figures.
! In short. We made the effort 20 do the
thing necessary to stop the running
/ OF interest. We made what would be
called a tender between individuals.
A tender stops the running OF interest
second. There was never a time
during the hfty-four years for which
Justice Hughes charged us interest,
when either Virginia or the bond
holders would have accepted the
amount found due by the court.
Third. There never was an hour
OF that flfty-four years during which
this State. under our Constitution and
/ laws could have levied TO raise money
( 10 make a tender This is so appar-
ent that IL needs no elaboration.
These three propositions being
conceded because they can not be re-
puted. why should West Virginia not
COMPLAIN bitterly that she was fined
for failure to pay the interest? Are
we dogs that we may not contend for
our Just rights? Remember that in
this very case. the Supreme Court
held that the ordinary. technical rules
Of la " which are enforced In suits in
controversies between sovereign States
and thereupon Il proceeded 10 charge
West Virginia ffty-four years inter
est on an uncertain, unliquidated
claim.
1T fixed the rate a. 3 per cent for
part Of the time; 4 per cent for tho
rest Of the period OF fiftv-four years
and then provided that both principal
and interest should bear interest At
the rate of per cent till paid. Why
3 per cent?
we dare any one 10 give a salts
factory answer. If 4 per Cect was
right once. why not again? II per
cent was first for part OF the time.
why not for ali the time? For the
same court to jump from 3 10 and
then 10 & in fixing interest rate appli-
CO Bile to sovereign State. which did
all that II could TO settle. looks a lit
tie arbitrary and West Virginia still
asks why.
no ono asserts that any Judge has
acted Corruptly but 1t Is plain thai
some Of them have acted unwisely ard
have thereby injured untold thousands
Of West Virginia citizens. This eight
millions Of interest Is the straw fhat
broke the camers back. This State
w49l suffer If it be compelled to pay
this enormous interest charged. THAI
Is a pu bic question. 1t Is not a dis
Hatrd question of law nor is there Il
oontrovertod fact involved It involves
the altitude OF the courts towards a
STATE and the Viewpoint of judges n
dealing with state affairs We lay
that Justice Hughes is in antagonism
20 thc heart the conscience and the
Judgment Of 90 per cent OF the people
of this state His immature finding
and hia uuwise attitude in this matter
may pat upon the labor and business
Of The state burdens too hard 70 carry.
II he WAS honest in arriving at his
view point SO much tho worse. That
viewpoint cruCihes this State.
Shall We endorse his finding
shall We adopt hts viewpoint? Is a
man who thus views our plea f)r jus
tleo 90 be rewarded by our votes
Shall the virginia LAWYERS hereafter
aesort thas West Virginia voted for
tha Judge who rendered this cp' n}on
IF West Virginia has her manhood
left she Will decide that 4 man who
reasons and thinks as does justice
Hughes is not the man TO ne Frcsi
dent at this time. Can she afford tC
decide otherwise 90