526 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument for Defendant. 209 U.S. one-third of th, bonds issued by Virginia prior to the forma- tion of West Virginia, which have not been funded. The liability of West Virginia on account of the common public debt, has sometimes been estimated by Virginia or her representatives at one-third thereof, but never at more than one-third, and Virginia has undertaken to take care of the other two-thirds with which West Virginia has nothing to do. It is true, that there are some millions of the debt of the undivided State, which Virginia has paid in full, and holds the obligations so taken up by her as a cla!m against the new State, to the extent of West Virginia's equitable liability for contri- bution therefor; and the extent of that liability can be ascer- tained and stated in the account directed by par. II, com- plainanUs draft. There is no occasion for any of the accounts directed by pars. III, IV, V and VI, defendant's draft. If West Virginia wants any of them to be stated, she can have that done as a special statement under par. III of complainant's draft. Mr. John G. Carlisle and Mr. John C. Spooner, ?dth whom Mr. C. W. May, Attorney General of the State of West Vir- ginia, Mr. Charles E. Hogg, Mr. W. 'Mollohan, Mr. George W. McClintic and Mr. W. G. Matthews _were on the brief, for de- fendant: The difference between the two proposed decrees .is radi- �cal, and presents t? the court a question which in our view is fundamental and which West Virginia contends, respect- fully and very earnestly, should be decided before any reference to a master to state the account between the parties. The jurisdiction of the court over this case is settled by the decision overruling the demurrer. We are quite aware that the court has recognized a distinction between suits by private parties in respect of the application of the rules of pleading and of practice, and suits between States. Rhode Island v. Massachusdts, 13 Peters, 23; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Peters, 256.
�
