WEST VUiGJMA. 



751 



Tin' <liHvni:::>-:it uf Virginia has repeatedly 

 invited t!io authorities uf \\V-l Virginia to 

 nettle this matter; ht-r request, li<>\\ 

 to have ini't so fur with no satisfactory answer. 

 In his annual mossngo to the (i.-ni-rnl ', 

 lIy, dated December 7, 1870, tho Governor of 

 Virginia states: 



All mir oflforts up to this tlmo to effect a just sct- 

 ! h:ive pr.'Vcd unavailing. Tho Lctfislaturo 

 of 1866-'67 inBtitutod measures for tho organization 

 of a joint oommlMton for tho adjustment of tir. 

 tor, but our action met with no favorable response 

 from tho State of West Virginia. In February lust, 

 you passed an act authorizing the Governor to appoint 

 three commissioners to adjust and settle this claim. 

 I at once transmitted a copy of this act to tho Gov- 

 ernor of West Virginia, and requested him to procure 

 the enactment of a similar law by tho Legislature of 



ture the propriety and necessity of prompt action on 

 their part. I am informed that tho Legislature did 

 Authorize the appointment, by the Governor, of a com- 

 mlsslon to meet ours and adjust the debt ; out, up to 

 this time, tho receipt of my communication by the 

 Governor has not been acknowledged, nor, so far as 

 I am informed, have any commissioners been ap- 

 pointed by him. 



This mode of settlement, however, he judges 

 to bo too slow, and suggests the following : 



The better course to be pursued is, for the two 

 States to submit tho whole question to arbitration. 

 Let each Stato select one disinterested arbitrator, and 

 the two thus selected, a third, to whom the whole 

 subject shall be submitted, and their finding to be 

 final and binding upon the two States. 



Resolutions concerning this adjustment were 

 then introduced in the Senate of Virginia, and 

 referred to the Committee on Courts of Justice ; 

 which Committee, on December 28, 1870, re- 

 ported a substitute in favor of arbitration. 



The Governor of West Virginia ascribes the 

 delay in the adjustment mainly to the unsettled 

 political condition of Virginia since the war, 

 she having been but recently restored to the 

 Union. He disapproves the mode of set- 

 tlement, proposed on the part of Virginia, by 

 arbitration of strangers, "not entirely familiar 

 with the history of the debt, and the peculiar 

 circumstances under which much of it was 

 created." As to the basis of adjustment, he 

 considers that to be the just one which the 

 ordinance of August 20, 1861, set forth in these 

 words : 



The new State shall take upon itself a just pro- 

 portion of tho public debt of the Commonwealth of 

 V iririma, prior to tho first day of January, 1861, to 

 he ascertained by charging to it all Stato expendi- 

 tures within the limits thereof, and a just proportion 

 of the ordinary expenses of the State government, 

 since any part of said debt was contracted, and do- 

 ducting therefrom the moneys paid into the Treasury 

 <>f the Commonwealth, from the counties included 

 within tho said new Stato during tho same period. 



The Governor of Virginia, on the contrary, 

 had proposed tho following : 



I am equally clear as to tho basis on which a set- 

 tlement should be made. After deducting from the 

 total t debt the market or cash value of tho assets or 

 securities, bonds, stocks, etc., held by cither Stato, 



which originally belonged to the Stato of Virginia, 

 the remainder <>f tin- <lel>t hhoul.l in-, apportioned bo- 

 twe.-n the two St:it< * in proportion to the population 

 aud taxable valuation 01 each. 



A not her point worthy of being carefully de- 

 termined in tho interest of West Virginia, he 

 allirms to be, whether her portion of the debt, 

 wh.-n duly ascertained, should he paid into the 

 Treasury of Virginia, as claimed, or directly to 

 the creditors of Virginia, which ho thinks safer. 

 From the embarrassed condition in which tho 

 financial affairs of Virginia appear to b<% Iu- 

 suggests the possible danger of a double pay- 

 ment, observing : " If we bind ourselves to pay 

 our proportion of the debt to the State of Vir- 

 ginia, may we not be still held liable to tho 

 Holders of Virginia bonds ? " He concludes by 

 saying : " I hope the whole subject may receive 

 prompt and careful examination, witli a view 

 of bringing about, at an early day, some ar- 

 rangement that will be just to creditors, and 

 mutually satisfactory to the people of tho two 

 States." . ' 



During tho regular session of the Legislature 

 of West Virginia in the first months of 1870, 

 numerous acts and joint resolutions of general 

 and local importance were passed. On tho 

 day next preceding tho final adjournment, the 

 Senate bill, repealing the act locating the seat 

 of government at Charleston, was taken up in 

 the House, and, upon a motion to have the bill 

 read a second time, it was lost. 



The Democratic State Convention assembled 

 on June 8th. In the preparation of a platform 

 to be presented to the convention, the mem- 

 bers of the Committee on Resolutions disagreed 

 among themselves. A majority and a minor- 

 ity report were therefore submitted to the as- 

 sembly, " the principal difference between the 

 two being that the majority report embraced 

 a resolution indorsing tho ' Flick Amendment,' 

 not included in the other." This amendment 

 proposed to strike out of the State constitution 

 both the word "white," and the clause in Ar- 

 ticle III., section 1, which disfranchises persons 

 who gave voluntary aid to secession, thus 

 making negro suffrage a part of the organic 

 law, and at the same time enfranchising that 

 class of white citizens who are now excluded 

 from the polls. It was a measure introduced in 

 tho Legislature by Republican members, and 

 passed at the previous session; but the sub- 

 sequent non-compliance with the law, which 

 prescribes that an act proposing to amend the 

 constitution must bo published in every county, 

 whore a -newspaper is printed, at least three 

 months before the day of election in which 

 tho people should vote upon it, prevented the 

 measure from being submitted to tho popular 

 vote. Tho indorsement of this amendment 

 by tho Democratic party was the subject of 

 disagreement among the members of the 

 Committee on Resolutions, and their disagree- 

 ment spread itself also among the delegates of 

 the convention at large. Many Democrat* in 

 the Legislature had voted for the amendment. 



