Virginia v. West Virginia

209 U.S. 514
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 4, 1908
DocketNo. 4
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 U.S. 514 (Virginia v. West Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Virginia v. West Virginia, 209 U.S. 514 (1908).

Opinion

Original:

Form of decree announced May 4, 1908.

Order referring cause to master and directing conditions under which testi- . mony shall be taken and master shall report to this court.

Defendant's demurrer having been overruled, 206 U. S. 290, 322, and defendant having answered, both complainant and defendant submitted and sustained by argument forms of decree referring the cause to a master.1

The differences go rather to matters of procedure than to [515]*515any question of principle, as between pars. Ill and IV, complainant’s draft, and par. VII, defendant’s draft.

Complainant asks that the provisions expressed in pars. Ill, [516]*516IV and V, its draft, be embodied in the decree for reasons which will be apparent on reading those paragraphs. '

Complainant’s draft directs the master to take an account ascertaining:

[518]*518“The amount of the public debt of the Commonwealth of Virginia as of the first day of January, 1861, stating specifically, how and in what form the same was evidenced, by what [519]*519authority of law and for what purposes the same was created, and the dates and nature of the bonds or other evidences of said indebtedness.”

[520]*520The defendant’s draft adopts this paragraph.

. Par. II,. plaintiff’s draft, directs the master to take the following accounts:

Par. II, defendant’s draft, directs the master to take the following accounts:

(b) “The aggregate ordinary expenses of the state government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, prior to January 1st, 1861, and since any part, of said indebtedness was contracted.

[521]*521Par. Ill, plaintiff’s draft, directs that the master “will make and return with his report any special or alternative statements of the accounts between the complainant and the defendant in the premises which either may desire him to state or which he may deem to be desirable to present to the ' court.”

Complainant. objects to par. II, defendant’s draft, on thé ground that it seems to lend the sanction of the court in advance to a basis or scheme for the statement of the account, which is not shown by anything as yet in the cause to be either equitable or just.

Before any such question can be fairly adjudicated, it is necessary that the evidence in the. case be taken and have the aid of its master in collating and thoroughly digesting it.

There is not enough in the record to enable the court to come to any just or definite conclusion as to the precise scheme which it would be equitable to adppt in stating the account. To do so at this stage of the litigation, would be to decide an important question in the case béfore the evidence- is taken. The effect of par. II would be to have the court prejudge the case as to the basis on which the account shall be stated.

The case is now only submitted for a decree referring it to a master, to state and report to the court the data necessary to enable the court to justly decide it upon its merits.

If it should then appear that the basis prescribed by the Wheeling ordinance is binding upon the parties, and must be followed as the basis upon which the account shall be made up, that basis would be adopted. But if it should be then-manifest that that arbitrary basis of settlement is not the one on which the account should be stated, because it would, if applied to the facts of the cáse as they shall appear in the evidence, lead to absolutely unconscionable results and operate to impair the obligation of the contracts by which, the common debt was created, contracts which were and are alike-obligatory upon Virginia and upon West Virginia, or for any other valid reason, then the scheme of settlement indicated in the [522]*522Wheeling ordinance would have to be. discarded, and an equitable basis and scheme of settlement adopted.

Complainant contends that, while the Wheeling ordinance upon its face, prescribes an absolutely arbitrary basis of settlement, the representatives of Virginia are satisfied that upon a fair, reasonable and just construction of the language of that ordinance, and of the subsequent supplemental enactments, the scheme of settlement therein defined will, when applied to the facts as stated in the bill, and as-it is believed they can be established by proofs, result in fixing the proportion of the debt of Virginia which West Virginia should assume and pay, inclusive of interest, at a very large sum-, though not so large a sum as it would be equitable for West Virginia to pay.

The debt, a portion of which she was to pay, was an interest-bearing debt. It would be manifestly “just” and “equitable” that West Virginia should be required to pay interest as well as principal. Indeed, any settlement which does not require that State to pay interest during the long period of her default and refusal to- pay anything, would be not only unjust, and inequitable, but iniquitous.

West Virginia came into the Union upon the distinct condition expressed in her constitution, that she would- assume an equitable proportion of the common debt of the undivided State, as it existed prior to January 1, 1861, and would provide for the payment of the accruing interest .and the redemption of the principal thereof.

While it is believed that, upon the facts stated in the bill and accompanying exhibits, and upon the proofs hereafter -to be adduced in support thereof, West Virginia will owe a very large sum, even under the arbitrary scheme of the Wheeling ordinance, we submit that we should not, in the present status of the litigation, be tied down to the terms of that ordinance.

Another palpable objection to the defendant’s draft is, that it excludes from the account the value of the property, assets, and money which West Virginia has received from the Com[523]*523monwealth. Upon any basis of just accounting, these items should be brought into the account.

If the account should be stated on tñe Dasis of the Wheeling ordinance, these items would manifestly be proper charges against West Virginia. By the terms. of that ordinance, Virginia’s title to, and ownership of, all of the property and assets theretofore belonging to the Commonwealth remain intact.

By it, West Virginia would acquire no title to any of those assets or of that property. Framed as that ordinance was, by Western Virginians, and arbitrary, and on its face unjust, as were the criteria by which it undertook to provide that West. Virginia’s proportion of the common debt should be computed, its authors were not so conscienceless as to also propose that the new State, after making such an inadequate contribution to its share of a debt which had been chiefly contracted by the votes of the representatives of its people and for their benefit, should also have a share of the property and’ assets of the Commonwealth, free of charge.

Another objection to the account cálléd for by defendant’s draft, is that it does not direct any account to be taken ascertaining the amount and proportion of the debt of Virginia on and prior to January 1, 1861, which West Virginia should assume and pay, but contents itself with merely directing the arbitrary and inconsequential accounts defined in par. II, defendant’s draft.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia
209 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 U.S. 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virginia-v-west-virginia-scotus-1908.