Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-03-07
QUESTIONS AUTHORITY
OF U. S. SUPREME COURT
Controversy Doubt Power to
Compel Payment.
NEW LIFE IN LITIGATION
Oral argument Abandoned When
Direct Challenge Is Made and
Agreement Reached to Submit
Written Briefs in Twenty Days.

Especial to Tho Times Dispatch
WASHINGTON. March s.--Thc debt
controversy between Virginia and West
Virginia took on new life to-day when
agreed to receive written arguments.
involving that judicial tribunals power
and authority to compel the, West -vir-.
gfnia Legislature to levy tax for the
payment of the sl3.000,000 judgment
which was handed down nearly "a wear
ago against West Virginia as its share
Of NirEinia's antc-bellum debt before
the state was divided.
West Virginia. through it's Attorney
General. T.. 7. England. and Judge John
III. Holt, special counsel for the State,
hled in the Supreme Court reply 10
NirSinias recent motion for man
damus. compclln the West Virginia
Legislature to levy a special tan for
the payment OF :hc debt. Attorney
General England vigorously contests
tho right and power of tho court To
issue such mardamus. lie holds that
no branch of the Federal government
can force State TO levy taxes. He
also contends that tho Supreme Court
has no authority TO force payment OF
q =
The right of tho Supreme Court 10
issue tho proposed special tax man
damus was 10 have been orally argued
this afternoon. hut Judge Holt. repre-
sen,ing West Virginia. and John G..
Johnson and Sanford Robinson. repro
Scnting tho bondholdcrs. agreed 10 sub
nit this question TO the court in n
written brief within the next twenty
days. Tho case. therefore, was not
orally argued.
West NirSinia's brief to-day is il
direct challenge to the power Of the
Supreme Court 10 force payment II the
Sl3.ooo,oOo Judgment. Judge Holt and
Attorney General England summarize
thcir grounds in asking the discharge
Of Nrginia's petition for a special tax
mandamus ms follows:
First. \ writ OF mandamua from tho
Supreme Court OF tho nation cocrcing
the Legislative department of State,
and compelling it TO enact revenue
law, or TO lay tax for state purposes.
would infringe upon the constitutional
rights Of states expressly reserved
unto them by the tenth amendment To
the Federal Constitution
Second. The constitutional grant Of
Jurisdiction 10 hear and determine CON
troversics between States does not in
ciudc. as an incident to such jurisdic-
tion. the power tn enforce q jud .Incnt
rendered in the cNcrcis. thereof. by Il
writ of iuandanuS addressed 10 "a state
Legislature. cocrcing and controlling
it in tho exercise Of its Legislative
functions.
Thtrd. Such writ for such a pur-
pose would be contrary TO tho prin-
ciplcs and usages OF law, and does not
fan within the category Of final writs
against State.
Fourth. 1t is not tho Office OF a writ
Of execution, nor can it bc OF any writ
used as substitute therefor. to create
property. by Legislation or otherwise.
for the satisfaction Of debt, but only
to seize and subject property In exist
cncc for that purpose"
HOLDS UNITED STATES
OWES FOR CEDED AREA
In its answer West Virginia So, up
the contention that the Northwest
Territory was ccded by Virginia to the
United States: that the United states
owes Virginia for that area. that Nir-
sinia ought TO bring suit To recover.
divide the proceeds with West Virginia
and allow West Virginia's share 10 b.
used for settlement Of the debit Wcs,
Virginia, il claims, is powcrlcss 10
bring its suit aud can only advance its
claim against the Federal government
through Virginia. Filcd as an exhibit
was 4 massage from Governor Swan
son to the General Assembly in 1910.
calling attention 10 the Northwest
claims and asking the General AS
sembly to appoint a committee TO look
into the matter. The General Assembly
took no action.
The Supreme Court gave Virginia
ten days to Ale an answer. and allow
ed West Virginia ten days from that
time to- answer Nirsinia's brief, tho
case as to the mandanus 10 be then
submitted on briefs without argument.