OCR Text |
Show (b) No evidence of any formal agreements between these States concern- ing such a project has been found. (9) "Virginia and West Virginia Debt Agreement of 1862s (a) Congressional assent to this agreement is found in the Act of Dec- ember 31, 1862,85 admitting VJest Virginia into the Union. (b) By the Ordinance of Aug. 20, 1861, sec. 9,86 of the "Restored State of Virginia" a provision was made for the payment by the State of VJest Virginia for an equitable portion of the debt contracted by the parent state* This obligation was accepted by West Virginia and embodied in its Constitu- tion* ' (c) In Virginia v. VJest Virginia (1907) 206 U. S. 290., 27 Sup* Ct. 732* it was held that the Court had jurisdiction of a suit by Virginia to enforce this obligation. In (1908) 209 U, So 5l4, 28 Sup. Ct. 6l4 the Court ren- dered a decree referring the cause to a master. In (1911) 220 U* So 1s 31 Supc Ct« 330* it was decided that West Virginia was under a liability to pay an equitable portion of this debt* In (191l) 222 U. S. 17., 32 Sup. Ct. 4, a motion by Virginia that the Court proceed to determine the questions left undecided by its earlier opinion, was overruled* In (1913) 231 U. S. 89, 34. Sup. Ct. 29* the Court postponed action in order to allow a reasonable time for amicable settlement of the controversy. In (1914) 234 U. S. 117, 34 Sup. Ct. 189* West Virginia was permitted to file a supplemental answer assert- ing the existence of new credits serving to reduce its liability. In (1915-) 238 U. S« 202, 3JL4. Sup. Ct. 795, the master!s deer00 fixing the amount of West Virginia*s liability was affirmed. In (1916) 2I4I U. S. 531, 35 Sup. Ct. 719j> a motion of Virginia for execution was denied, on the ground that the legislature of West Virginia had not convened since the rendering of the decree. In (1918) 2l±6 U». S. %5, 38 Sup* Ct. 1+00, the Court reaffirmed West Virginia-s liability and announced itself as capable and willing to resort to execution in the event of continued refusal on the part of West Virginia to meet its adjudged liability. A bill providing for the payment of this 85l2 Stat. at L. 633. See also Virginia v. West Virginia (1911) 220 U» S. 1, 26a 31 Sup. Ct. 330* 332? An agreement of a similar nature between Vermont and New York has been omitted from the above list* because the status of Vermont at the time of making the agreement did not bring it within the category of a "State." With the establishment of an independent State out of territory claimed partly by New York and by Massachusetts controversies as to boundaries and the mutual rights of .the parties naturally arose© Nego- tiations for their settlement continued over a period of ten years. Finally in 17914. Vermont paid &30*000 for certain lands granted to,it by New York in extinguishment of claims which had theretofore been urged against the State by the Uew York commissioners. The payment was in accordance with the terms of an agreement entered into by commissioners of both States on Oct. 15* 1790. A collection of documents bearing on this controversy* and of the acts of the Vermont legislature with reference to its settlement, is con- tained in 3 Records of Governor and Council of Vermont, Appx. H, lj.21-l|63« 8^Ta. Acts (Wheeling) 1861-1862, 16, 19- 87ifest Va. Const, Art. VIII, sec. 8. |