Payment of the Virginia Debt

Extract from Special Message of His Excellency, Henry D. Hatfield, Governor, to the
Legislature of West Virginia, February 5, 1915 together with the Report of the
Virginia Debt Commission (Charleston: Tribune Printing Co., n.d.), pp. 46-62.

To His Excellency, J. J. Jacob, Governor of West Virginia:

SIR: - Under the joint resolutions passed by the West Virginia Legislature on the 15th and 24th days of February last, the undersigned were appointed Commissioners by you "to treat with the authorities of Virginia on the subject of a proposed adjustment of the public debt of that State prior to the first day of January, 1861," and were directed by the Legislature "to make report thereof to the Governor," which we have the honor to do as follows:

On the 9th day of August last the Commissioners met in Parkersburg to confer together upon the subject matter of their appointment and to organize a programme of procedure in respect thereof. They addressed a letter to your Excellency notifying you of their meeting and organization, and also the following letter to Governor Walker, of Virginia:

Parkersburg, W. Va., August 9, 1871.
To His Excellency, the Governor of Virginia:

SIR: The undersigned have the honor to inform you that under the joint resolutions passed by the Legislature of West Virginia on the 15th and 24th days of February last, they have been appointed Commissioners by the Governor of West Virginia to treat with Virginia in regard to the debt as it stood on the first day of January, 1861.

Also, that they met in this city today for the purpose of entering upon the discharge of their duties, and to this end have designated General John J. Jackson as their chairman, through whom they propose to receive such communications as your Excellency may be pleased to submit.

Will your Excellency be pleased to indicate at your earliest convenience what action, if any, has been or is likely to be taken by Virginia in the matter of appointing commissioners, or, in the event of no such appointments, what channel of communication will be open to us.

We have the honor to be,

Your Excellency's most obedient servants,
JOHN J. JACKSON
J. M. BENNETT.
A. W. CAMPBELL.

After forwarding this letter, together with the one to your Excellency, the Commissioners adjourned to meet in Richmond, on a day to be agreed upon later in the season, there to confer with the authorities of Virginia, and to make such examination of public documents as might enable them to carry out the objects of their appointment.

Meanwhile they received from the Governor of Virginia in answer to their letter of August 9th, a letter dated September 7th, the same purporting to be a copy of a letter addressed to your Excellency, and which is as follows:

Richmond, Sept. 7, 1871.
His Excellency, J. J. Jacob,
Governor of West Virginia.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 17th ulto., notifying me of the appointment of Messrs. Bennett, Jackson and Campbell as Commissioners on behalf of the State of West Virginia to treat with the authorities of this State upon the subject of the State debt. I have also received a certified copy of the joint resolutions empowering you to make these appointments. Absence from the capital has prevented an earlier response to these several communications. On the 18th of February, 1870, an act was passed by the Legislature of this State, and approved by me, authorizing the Governor to appoint three Commissioners on Behalf of this State to treat with the authorities of West Virginia upon the subject of a proper adjustment of the public debt of the State of Virginia, due or incurred previous to the dismemberment of the State, and a fair division of the public property.

Commissioners were promptly appointed under this act, and notice of their appointment, together with an authenticated copy of the act, were at once forwarded to the Governor of West Virginia. No response whatever to my communication was made by the Governor of West Virginia, but I learned through other sources that the matter was promptly submitted to the Legislature then in session, by which, either by act or resolution, the Governor was authorized to appoint Commissioners to meet and confer with these appointed from Virginia. I have never been informed, however, of the appointment of any Commissioner under the authority thus conferred.

A history of these proceedings, together with a statement of my own views upon the subject, was submitted to our Legislature in my annual message of December last, a copy of which I herewith enclose. The Legislature, acting upon the suggestion of the message, on the 11th day of February last adopted a joint resolution, authorized the Governor to tender to the State of West Virginia "an arbitration of all matters touching a full and fair apportionment between said States of the said public debt," an authenticated copy of which joint resolution, together with the tender of an arbitration as therein authorized, was promptly forwarded to the Governor of West Virginia.

This joint resolution, while it does not in terms repeal the act of February 18, 1870, was intended to supersede it, and therefore I do not feel authorized to appoint Commissioners. Our tender of an arbitration has not been withdrawn, and I regret exceedingly that the authorities of West Virginia declined to accept it. I cannot understand what reasonable objection can be raised to this fair and equitable mode of adjustment so frequently resorted to by individuals and nations, and I trust that West Virginia will re-consider her action and accept the more speedy and satisfactory mode of settlement proposed by Virginia, to the end that prompt justice may be done to the creditors of the old State, and that harmony and good feeling may prevail between the people of the two States.

Very respectfully,
Your Excellency's Ob't. servant,
G. C. WALKER, Governor of Virginia.

(P.S. Accompanying the above): "The foregoing is a copy of the original letter mailed to Governor Jacob."

From this letter we at once understood that so far as a conference with Commissioners or other persons authorized to represent Virginia in that capacity was concerned, our mission was at an end. But the joint resolution under which we were acting, copies of which you had forwarded for our guidance, directed that we should "ascertain and report the amount of the debt of Virginia on the first day of January, 1861, and what said debt was incurred for, and what amount of this State debt was then held by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, and by the Board of the Library Fund." Also that we should j"ascertain and report the amount of all investments then held by the State, their respective amounts and character, and what portions thereof were then productive, and the dividends therefrom, and whether any of such investments then held by said State have since been donated, changed, converted or disposed of by the authorities of said State, and, if so, the amount and how disposed of." Also that we should "ascertain and report the revenue derived from the fiscal year ending on the 30th of September, 1860, from all sources by the State of Virginia within the present territory of Virginia and the amount derived from all sources from the territory now comprising the State of West Virginia;" and also that we "report any other relevant matter deemed proper" by us.

In addition to the foregoing duties thus devolved upon us by the terms of the joint resolution passed on the 15th day of February, we were "further empowered," in the language of the additional joint resolution passed on the 24th of the same month, "to proceed as soon as practicable to adjust, award and determine upon fair, just and equitable principles what proportion of said public debt of Virginia should in their opinion be paid by West Virginia, subject, however, to the approval and ratification of Legislature of West Virginia and the General Assembly of Virginia."

Under this authority and direction thus minutely specified to us, we felt called upon to take substantially the same steps after the receipt of Governor Walker's letter of September 7th as we would have taken had we expected to meet Commissioners representing Virginia, viz.: to go to Richmond and endeavor to gather the information expected and required under the terms of our appointment.

Accordingly we met in that city on the 9th of November last and after spending several days in the examination of such public documents as were available to us at the Capitol, and realizing the necessity for further and more explicit and official information than we could gather of ourselves unassisted from said documents, we addressed the following note to the Second Auditor of Virginia:

Richmond, November 14, 1871.
To the Second Auditor of Virginia:

Sir: I am directed by the Commissioners representing West Virginia in the matter of the public debt of Virginia prior to the first of January, 1861, to procure from your office such information as can be furnished upon the following points, viz.:

1. The actual amount of the public debt of Virginia on the first of January, 1861. And under this head the amounts of said debt owned by the Sinking Fund, the amount owned by the Literary Fund, and the amount owned by the Library Fund.

2. What portion of the bonded debt was invested, and how invested on the first of January, 1861. Also what portion of the investment was productive, what were the dividends or profits arising therefrom for the year 1860, and whether any such investments have since been donated, changed, converted or otherwise disposed of.

3. What portion of the appropriations expended in West Virginia for public improvements came from the sales of State bonds and what portion from the revenues of taxes of Virginia.

4. A copy of the advertisement for the redemption of a portion of the public debt on the first of January, 1861.

5. A statement of the amount of public debt actually redeemed on the first of January, 1861, pursuant to said advertisement.

Upon these points the Commissioners desire to hear from you at your earliest convenience.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. W. CAMPBELL, Secretary.

In reply to the foregoing communication we received the following note at 5 o'clock on the evening of the 16th of November, after a lapse of two and a half days, and after we had abandoned all hope of assistance asked for in our letter, and after, in fact, we were on the eve of our departure for home:

Richmond, Nov. 16, 1871.
A. W. CAMPBELL, ESQ., Secretary, &c.:

Dear Sir: Yours of the 14th was received. You ask me for a report upon a variety of questions connected with our public debt, the transactions of the Board of Public Works in regard to it, and the financial affairs of the State, which it is understood, of course, you propose to use in the contemplated adjustment of the portion to be paid by West Virginia of the debt.

To answer the questions propounded would involve an amount of labor which we could not bestow on the subject.

But, apart from this, I presume at an early day this office will be called upon by the Executive or the General Assembly of Virginia for detailed reports of all the matters referred to, which will be available to you. The books and records of this office are open to your inspection.

I trust that in failing to respond to your inquiries you will not regard me as in any wise wanting in official courtesy to you or your associates. None, certainly, is intended.

I have the honor to be,
Most respectfully yours,
ASA ROGERS.

With the reception of this note the Commissioners closed their labors in Richmond, finding that a further stay was not likely to add to the scant information already gleaned by them from the public documents.

It is proper to say in connection with the Second Auditor's communication that we, in delivering our own communication to him, caused it to be verbally understood that we were ready and willing to pay for the services of an expert, competent to obtain for us the information requested and that we did not desire or intend to trench upon the services of any one with whose duties the labor required might seriously conflict.

After this termination of their visit to Richmond, the Commissioners agreed to meet again on the 12th of December following, at Parkersburg, there to prepare and transmit to your Excellency such information as they had been able to obtain, and such as they might still further obtain, and along with it such an expression of opinion as is called for in the joint resolution of February 24th.

Accordingly we met in Parkersburg at the date named, and after nearly two weeks of examination and comparison of all the sources of information accessible to us, agreed upon and drew up the facts and statements hereinafter presented.

Previous to this meeting we had just received copies of the Richmond papers of December 7th, containing Governor Walker's message to the General Assembly of Virginia at its meeting on the 6th, in which we observed that among other allusions to the debt question pending between the two States, and after reference to our correspondence with him of August last and his answer thereto, as already quoted, he proceeds to arraign the good faith of the authorities of this State as follows:

"Now, if the authorities of West Virginia entertained an earnest desire to make a speedy and final settlement of this matter, why did they not accept our tender of arbitration? - a mode of settlement of such controversies universally recognized by both nations and individuals as right and appropriate. Suppose an equal number of Commissioners were appointed by each State, and that they should meet and disagree upon any or all points involved, who is to decide between them? And yet, beyond a doubt, they would radically disagree upon the first or chief point to be settled, viz.: the basis or principle upon which the settlement should be made. But suppose that the Commissioners should finally agree, does any one suppose that their finding would be ratified by the legislatures of the two States, disagreeing as the people do radically upon the merits of the question at issue? Of course not."

This question from Governor Walker's message fairly exhibits the spirit in which he has seemed to view not only our own efforts to carry out the objects of our appointment but likewise the sincerity and good faith of the Legislature of West Virginia in providing for the appointment of such a commission by your Excellency.

And yet while this is the case it is not to be forgotten that Virginia herself initiated this method of attempting to adjust the debt question. And the language of the Governor would seem to be all the more gratuitous in such a connection from the fact that in his annual message of December 7, 1870, he considered it worth while to allude to the political change that had taken place in this State at the preceding October election, and bespoke in so many words for the "new administration" and "opportunity of manifesting its intentions and its appreciation of honesty and fair dealing." And yet notwithstanding this language by himself thus voluntarily employed on our behalf, and notwithstanding also the fact that one of the early acts of the "new administration" was to respond to the policy that Virginia herself had initiated, and before it was known in this State that she had changed that policy, and while the appointees under the response were in Richmond seeking in vain from the proper authority of Virginia for such information as every debtor is entitled in law to receive from his creditor, saying nothing of that spirit of "fair dealing" that was so conspicuously spoken of on our behalf, Governor Walker proceeds in his later message to asperse the good faith of the State of West Virginia after the manner and in the words that we have quoted.

The authorities of West Virginia have never assumed to themselves any right of precedence in the matter of a policy for adjusting the difficulties surrounding the debt question. But in the joint resolution passed on the 24th of February last, they did assume the modest right of adhering to the policy already inaugurated by the State of Virginia, and by her so freely tendered heretofore for their acceptance, and therefore they respectfully declined to adopt a new and different proposition from her until they could test the merits of the one already adopted.

Apparently the present Executive of Virginia from an enforced familiarity with the workings of "personal government" which he so much deplores, has acquired ideas as to the right of initiative between equal contracting parties that are scarcely consistent with the delicacy of the issue pending between this State and his own. For instance, in his letter of September the 7th, he tells us that the legislature of Virginia, upon his suggestion, has tendered an arbitration to this State, and he trusts "that West Virginia will reconsider her action and accept the more speedy and satisfactory mode of settlement proposed by Virginia." And again in his last message, he says that "the better course to be pursued is for the two States to submit the whole question to arbitration," and West Virginia is arraigned, as heretofore shown, for not concurring in his opinions. Apparently it did not occur to the Governor that since Virginia had proposed both modes of settlement to this State, the latter might make her choice between them without subjecting her motives to imputation. And yet all that she had assumed to do is simply to choose between two policies initiated by Virginia. Unless, therefore, it can be shown that it is the prerogative of that State to prescribe the terms upon which the debt shall be adjusted, the question should hereafter be discussed in a spirit better calculated to allay all sectional irritation.

But we pass from this incidental reference to Governor Walker's strictures upon the attitude of this State towards the debt question to the action of the Virginia legislature upon the same question as embodied in the act approved on the 30th of March last, and known as the Funding Bill. This act is in keeping with the initatory [sic] legislation in regard to the debt to which we have just referred. It assumes to apportion the debt of that State arbitrarily, notwithstanding her authorities had six weeks before the passage of the act received notice of the joint resolution of the West Virginia Legislature, providing for the appointment of Commissioners. It assumes, also, to apportion the debt, not as it stood on the first day of January, 1861, but as it would stand on the first day of July, 1871, after the interest had been twice compounded, once in 1866, and again at the date last named; and to apportion it, too, upon the basis of territory and population, and without any reference to the equities that should always govern an assignment of debt between sections that were so notorious in our own case. In other words it assumes to apportion to West Virginia one-third of the debt as it now stands, simply on the ground that she has one-third of the territory and population formerly belonging to Virginia, and without reference at all to the question of resources and values. This is apparently the practical result which Governor Walker hoped to reach when he urged upon us the "more speedy and satisfactory mode of settlement proposed by Virginia," inasmuch as he tells us in his late message that this is the "plan for a reorganization of the State debt," which he "had recommended twelve months before."

But without reference to the authorship of this or any other "plan" for adjusting the debt question, we propose to consider as briefly as possible the real cause now pending between Virginia and West Virginia as we understand it.

The tables or statements which we annex as a part of our report who, among other things, the following facts:

That the funded debt of Virginia on the first day of January, 1861, was $31,778,867.32, after all reductions.

That all or nearly all of this debt was incurred for and actually expended in works of public improvements, such as canals, railroads, turnpikes, plank roads and bridges.

That this vast sum, upwards of $30,000,000, was expended for improvements in the present State of Virginia, and only about two and a half millions in the present State of West Virginia.

That the present State of Virginia contains 41,352 square miles and West Virginia only 20,000 square miles or less than one-third.

That the counties composing what is now Virginia contained by the census of 1860 a population of 1,220,829, and those composing West Virginia only a population of 374,985, or less than one-fourth.

To these exhibits we append others, under our instructions from the Legislature, but they are such as do not enter into our argument here, which is to show that no just apportionment of the debt can be made upon the basis of population and territory alone, which is the basis upon which the Virginia Funding Bill is confessedly predicated.

This theory of apportionment is apparently quite current among the people of that State, and is defended with ability by Judge Meredith, of Richmond, in a carefully prepared paper on the subject. His position is that West Virginia should pay one-third of the debt, because, as he says, it is a principle of international law governing the division of nations that "the obligations which had accrued to the whole before the division are, unless they are the subject of special agreement, ratably binding upon the different parts." This he gives as a quotation from Phillimore. Two inquiries present themselves in connection with it: First, was Virginia a nation in the sense intended by Phillimore? and, Second, what are we to understand by a ratable part of a debt? We presume that it will not be contended that the general rights and obligations of a nation, as defined by international law, belonged to Virginia prior to the division of the State, and therefore we cannot admit the applicability of the quotation in that particular. Neither can we admit Judge Meredith's construction of the word "ratable." He applies it exclusively to territory and population and excludes everything in the shape of resources and value, such as public works, buildings and institutions, which, as we all know, vitally affect the equity of a division of territory.

Judge Meredith next adduces the following quotation from Chancellor Kent to sustain his position:

"If a state should be divided in respect to territory, its rights and obligations are not impaired and if they have not been apportioned by special agreement those rights are to be enjoyed and those obligations fulfilled by all the parts in common."

This quotation is much more intelligible and just, and we think will tend to sustain the conclusions we have reached, as hereinafter stated.

In addition to the two quotations already given, Judge Meredith cites other authorities to sustain his position that West Virginia is chargeable with one-third of the debt, but we do not regard them as applicable to the case under consideration. First, because Virginia is not a nation. Second, because in all the cases referred to in the authorities quoted, treaty stipulations had more or less to do with the question. Third, because the debts were war debts, the benefits of which, if any, accrued to each individual, and the obligations of which therefore rested upon each. In no instance was the debt created for internal improvements which necessarily confer partial and local benefits that in most cases exceed the general benefit to the State at large. We therefore fail to see the proper analogy that should exist to make these citations precedents for the case of Virginia and West Virginia.

Judge Meredith winds up these references to various authorities by two general deductions of his own, as follows:

1. "That the public debt of a State is not affected by a change in the form of its government, nor by the partition of its territory into two States, but remains in full force and must be discharged.

2. "That if a State be divided into two or more States, the debts which had been contracted by the whole before the division are, unless they have been the subject of a special agreement, ratably binding upon the different parts in proportion to territory and population."

The first deduction is not necessary to consider, as West Virginia, in her ordinance of separation from Virginia, as also in her constitution, agreed to pay an equitable proportion of the public debt. What that equitable proportion is we are now considering.

In reference to the second deduction we have to remark that Judge Meredith draws a conclusion from his authorities which they do not sustain. Phillimore, for instance, says that "if a nation be divided into various distinct societies, the obligations which had accrued to the whole before the division are ratably binding upon the different parts." Here Phillimore and the authorities stop. But this does not suffice for the Virginia side of the question and Judge Meredith adds after the word "parts" the words "in proportion to territory and population." These words are not found in any of the authorities, so far as we are advised, and certainly not in any of the quotations adduced by the Judge.

A moment's consideration will show that a division of debt according to population and territory would not only be impracticable but would conflict with common sense. It would be impracticable because it does not determine the relative value of each one of the two elements of population and territory. Suppose the population to be twice as much as the territory, or suppose the territory to be three times as great as the population, which element has the greater value in determining the result?

Without pursuing this thought further it is manifest that nothing is settled by such a rule. You must fix the relative value of the two elements before you can reach a conclusion. It is, therefore, plain why the books do not give the rule as stated by Judge Meredith, because of its indefiniteness, but mainly because of its injustice. Would any sane man lay down a rule for the division of a State which would ignore the great cities, public improvements, public works, institutions of all kinds, great commercial advantages, such as rivers and harbors and the great advantage of fertility of soil; all of which and many other elements of wealth, property and power, might be found in one division and be wholly absent in the other? Hence we say that such a rule is repugnant to common sense.

A public debt is mainly a charge upon the wealth and resources of a people. It is represented by taxes, and taxes are imposed not on the number of square miles but on resources and values. How much stronger is the case when the very debt under consideration was created in developing and enriching one portion of the State almost exclusively. Nay, more, when that division of the State is in possession of and enjoying, giving away and selling at auction and otherwise disposing of the very subjects for which the debt was created.

These considerations afford abundant reason why no authority would say, in the absence of a compact (unless there was perfect homogeneity) that it would be just to divide a "nation" any more than an individual estate by population and territory. We doubt not that Judge Meredith himself would scout the idea of dividing an estate on such a basis and without reference to the quality of the land and the improvements made. Why then would he ignore such considerations in apportioning a public debt between two divisions of a State? Chancellor Kent, whom he has quoted, does not sustain him in so doing. The quotation already given from that author says that "if a State should be divided in respect to territory its rights and obligations are not impaired; and if they have not been apportioned by agreement, those rights are to be enjoyed and those obligations fulfilled by all the parts in common." Not a word in this quotation about a division ratably according to population and territory. According to this authority the State of Virginia was only a tenant in common with West Virginia in all the public works, improvements and property of the original undivided State, and had no authority to alienate, sell, give away, or dispose of any of the public works, and being in possession and holding them for her own exclusive use and benefit, by ousting West Virginia she would be bound to account to the latter for her share. This would seem to be the legitimate conclusion from the authorities relied on by Judge Meredith, even admitting their applicability to the case under consideration, which we do not concede by any means; and, therefore, with this reference we pass them by.

We think we take a more practicable view of the subject, and one which will attain all the ends of justice. The table accompanying this report shows that the bonded debt of Virginia on the first day of January, 1861, represented money borrowed and expended in improving the State by canals, railroads, turnpikes, plank roads and bridges. All these expenditures conferred a local and special benefit, were expended, not only by the outlay of the money in creating a market and stimulating enterprise and trade, but in otherwise developing the resources of particular localities to an extent quite equal to the general benefit of the State at large. And this local and general development is the sum of the value of the improvements to the section where located, and gives them an inestimable and abiding value to that section. This value is progressive and not susceptible of being fixed. So certainly is this the case that it is probable, if it were practicable to utterly extinguish those improvements, and thereby extinguish the debt, that the State where they are located would not listen to such a proposition.

It may be assumed then that the public works for which the debt was created are worth what they cost. Virginia, by selling, donating, and disposing of those works as her own property, without regard to the rule laid down by Chancellor Kent, and without consulting West Virginia, must be taken to have accepted them on that basis, and is therefore chargeable with them on that basis.

When the tables are consulted they will show an expenditure of over thirty millions in Virginia and about two and a half millions in West Virginia. Much of this latter was expended at comparatively recent dates, whereas the expenditures in Virginia range through a period of fifty years, with benefits accruing more or less throughout that period. In the light of such facts, we submit that no intelligent mind, wishing only to do justice, can doubt for a moment that the benefits conferred, and not the territory and population, should be the principal, if not the only basis of an adjustment of the debt. The Governor of Virginia, in his message of 1870, and again in 1871, and the Legislature of that State, by its funding bill, seem, however, to have entirely overlooked the foregoing considerations, and to have jumped to the conclusion that West Virginia should pay one-third of the debt.

We see the case differently. On the one hand, for instance, we see rich cities, commercial marts of all kinds, navigable rivers, fine harbors, a highly improved productive territory, wealthy capitalists and a well to do people, public institutions, such as a State Capitol, and extensive public grounds, an Executive Mansion, a Penitentiary, Armory, University, two Lunatic Asylums, a Military Institute, a Blind Asylum, a valuable miscellaneous and law library, a large literary fund and the United States deposit of surplus revenue, all these resources in addition to the vast millions invested in canals and railroads and other avenues of inland commerce.

On the other hand we see set in the balance against these rich resources the territory of West Virginia, less than one-third of the old State, much of it broken into barren mountains and hills, no navigable streams penetrating it in every direction, no railroad but the Baltimore & Ohio, no public works or institutions, her lands mostly covered with unbroken forests and rewarding industry but grudgingly, no outlets in the interior for the little surplus existing, the people poor and subsisting by rough work in the woods and fields, possessed of no capital wherewith either to develop their localities or ameliorate their own condition in life, in fact, their only wealth being for the most part their poor soil, their untiring perseverance and their indomitable love of liberty.

And yet, notwithstanding this great discrepancy between the condition and resources of the two States, Virginia assigns one-third of her funded and compounded debt to West Virginia to pay, simply because the latter has one-third of the territory and one-fourth of the population formerly belonging to the whole State. And, this, too, notwithstanding her papers have often proclaimed that West Virginia was a foster child of the old State, and as such dependent upon her bounty. This opinion we shall not stop to discuss, and we only refer to it as showing the inconsistency between the theory and practice of our Virginia friends. Supposing it to be correct, the explanation as to how it came about can never be made creditable to those who lavished all their favors on one section of the State, and withheld them from the other, and the vindication of the step taken by West Virginia during the war in separating from the old State consists largely of this traditional discrimination against her. And in this connection it may not be out of place to notice that the increase of population in West Virginia during the decade from 1860 to 1870 was of a character to still further vindicate the step taken, it being about thirty per cent. This large increase illustrates her onward march since her separation from her former foster parent, and tends to suggest how far in advance of her present position she really might have been had she received in the past anything more than "the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table."

We come now to the conclusion of our report. Having given our reason why we dissent entirely from the position of Virginia in reference to the debt, we proceed to state our own conclusions in regard to it as follows:

Statement A, as annexed to our report, shows that the bonded debt of Virginia, on the first of January, 1861, after all deductions, was ................... $31,779,067.32.

The same statement also shows that all of said debt was expended within the present State of Virginia, with the exception of ...................... $2,784,229.29.

Statement E, shows that $328,706.22 was collected from counties in West Virginia after January 1, 1861.

Statement F, shows that the amount of expenditures for all purposes in West Virginia was ............ $3,343,929,29.

We are not able to say certainly what part of this expenditure was from the proceeds of State bonds (and, therefore, a part of the State debt) and what part was appropriated from the regular receipts of the treasury. We have had access to no data that could determine the question. Our letter to the Second Auditor at Richmond sought information on this point in vain. But we have given Virginia the benefit of it all as a credit on her side of the account, although the resolutions under which we are acting contemplate nothing on the part of West Virginia but an assumption of her proportion of the bonded debt, inasmuch as both sections, and particularly Virginia, received appropriations out of the ordinary receipts of the treasury.

We have charged West Virginia with all that we have found expended within her limits, viz.: The amount of the funded debt created for improvements within her territory, the amount invested in her banks, the amount expended on the Lunatic Asylum at Weston, and the estimated value of the property known as the Lewisburg Law Library.

On the other hand we have credited her with her share of the estimated value of the public property and assets of Virginia, other than the property represented in the bonded indebtedness. This latter equalizes itself, and therefore does not enter into the account. Virginia has the property and owes the debt which it represents. We refer only to the public buildings, institutions, and other assets as given in Statement G. As to West Virginia's share in these we can only venture an approximate estimate. The public buildings, the common property of the two States, paid for out of the general revenue, we have estimated at $3,875,000 as per Statement G, and it would be reasonable we think to estimate West Virginia's interest in them at one-fourth on the basis of population.

The same statement shows that the surplus revenue of the United States deposited with the State under the act of Congress, June 23, 1836, gave Virginia $2,937,237.34, of which sum she appears to have received at least $1,932,809.33. This act assigned to each State its share of deposits on the basis of its representation in Congress, and Virginia having in 1860, thirteen representatives, three of whom were from West Virginia, it would seem that three-thirteenths of that fund belonged to the latter.

To this share of the deposits, and her interest in the public property, we add, as per statement, her proportion of the literary fund. This fund at the date quoted in statement G, amounted to $1,509,583.16. As it was apportioned throughout the State, on the basis of the white population, we follow that rule in assigning to West Virginia three-sevenths of it, that being her ratio of white population in 1860.

Upon the data thus ascertained and explained, we summarize the account between the two States as follows:

This is the balance as we find it after a protracted examination of such sources of information as were available to us. And the ascertainment of it naturally brings our labors to a conclusion. We commend our investigations to your Excellency's favorable consideration. From the beginning we realized that the results arrived at must necessarily be only proximate in their character, inasmuch as our sources of information were limited. Subsequent inquiry, under more favorable circumstances, may change the general result a few thousands for or against either State, but such a contingency is of course unimportant. The principle upon which the debt should be adjusted is the important point to settle. And it is to this point as set forth in these pages, that we beg leave, through your Excellency, to call the attention of the Legislature.

Very respectfully,
Your Excellency's most obedient servants,
J. J. JACKSON,
J. M. BENNETT,
A. W. CAMPBELL,

Government and Politics