Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-04-23
VIRGINIA DEBT CASE
WILL HAVE HEARING
West Virginia Will Be Forced to
Satisfy Judgment Against
Her.
CONGRESSES POWER SUPREME
Chief Justice White Points Out
How State May Be
Made to Pay
rsrccial to rhc Times Dispatch. J

tice White. IN an opinion to-day dock
ctcd tho Virginia West Virginia debt
controversy FOR q hearing to dctevmin"
tho waya and mcanS for compelling =
the latter State 20 pay, and made il
plain that West Virginia shall cvcntu-
ally he forced 10 satisfy the iudgnyn,
which has been found against her rhe
chief justice lcC, tho door open FOR
West Virginia 10 pay voluntarily tho
b judgment In fact. lie expressed tho
hope Of the court that this would be
done and that compulaicu would be
avoided.
The chlct Justice also Sc, forth that
Congress has it Within its power to
force West Virginia TO pay tho debt,
lie said tho act Of Congress admitting
West Virginia into the Union carries
a provision binding West Virginia To
pay her just share of Virginia. old
state debt. A Congress approved this
contract. the court holds Congress has
tho pCwer To enforce it. especially a.
il exists between two sovereign States
Tile debt controversy came before
the court again on a petition from
virginia for a mandanus 10 compel
the West Virginia Legislature to lcvy
tax for tho PURPOSE Of raising money
to pay tho judgment. The chief jus
tico, while not passing finally on tho
question whether the court has the
power I" compel such action by tho
legislature. declared that method 81.
collecting the money will hc submitted
10 argument at tho next hearing af-
ter Tive February recess nest :car. II.
nlEo stated that the cour, reserved tho
-.r-H.,
thought necessary, ii master to 80 to
West Virginia for the purpose Of maxi
ing AN i-;Ncsticatiou a to tho amount
aud method OF taNation to bo put into
effect in the event tho court is forced
TO take compulsory action.
In rendering the opinion, Chief Jus
tice White said:
The vcstns in Congress or conp!c:a
power to control agreements bet-cen
States: that is. to authorize them when
deemed advisable and TO refuse 10
sanction thcm when disapprovcd
clearly rested upon the conception that
Congress, as the repository, not only
Of legislative power. but OF primary
authority 10 maintain armies and de-
clare war. speaking for all Tic states
and for their protection, was concerned
with such agreements. and. therefore,
Was Virtually endowed with the ulti-
mate power OF final agreement, which
Wa withdrawn from State authority
and brought within the Federal power.
II follows as necessary implication
that the power OF Congress TO refuse or
to assent TO a contrac, between state.
carried with 1t the right. if the con-
tact was asscntcd TO, and hence be-
came operative by the viii OF Congress.
10 see its euforGcment
Having thus the power to provide
for the execution Of the contract. i;
must follow that the power is p!enary
and complete, limited OF course. as
wc have just said. by the general rule
that the acts done for its cxcr,ion must
y" relevant and appropriate 10 the
power. This being true. II further fol-
lows. as Nc have already seen, th.: bv
the very fact that the national lower
is paramount in the area over which il
extends. the lawful cxcrt!on OF It's au-
thor!ty by Congress 10 compe! COM
Riiance with tho obligation resulting
from the contract between the TWO
States. which il approved. II not cir
cumscr!bed by the powers reserved TO
the states. Indeed. the argument that
the recognition OF such o power in
congress IS subvest!vc Of our cons;i-
'ut!onal Institutions. from its mere
statements, proves 10 tic contrary.
since e. last il comes TO insisting that
any one State may, by violating its
obligations under the Constitution.
take away the rights OF another and
thns destroy constitutional govern
ment.
obviously. if it be conceded that no
II.
state its duty under tho Constitution
IN one respect. and TO prevent it from
doing swrons 10 another state. I, would
follow that tho same principle would
have TO he applied 20 wrongs done bv
other states. and thus the government.
under the Constitution, would not ho an
!ndissoluble union OF indestructiblc
states. but a government co,nposed o,
states. each having the potency with
impunity 10 wrong or degrade another.
a result which would inevitably lna6
to the destruction OF the union between
them. Besides. il must he appsren,
that to treat the power OF Congrcs; to
iesislate to secure the performance by
a State OF its duty under the Cons,i-
tuition: that is. its continued rcspec,
tor and obedience 10 that instrument,
as coercion, comes back at last TO the
theory that any one State may throw
off and disregard without sanction its
obligation and su5icction to the Con
sttution. y conclusion which brings
at once TO the mind the thought that
to maintain the proposition now urged
by West Virginia would compel a dis.
regard Of the very principles which led
20 tic carving out of shat State from
the territory OF Virginia; in other
words. 10 disregard and overthrow the
doctrines irrevocably settled by the
great controversy Of the War Between
the States which. in their ultimate
respect. find their conservation in the
amendments to the Constitution which
followed.
The remedy sought, as wc have at
the outset seen, IS an order in the
nature of mandamuS commandinp tho