OCTOBER TERM, 1907. From the avermente of the bill and the ?rni?io?s in the answer, and the argument at .the bar, it cannot be an open question in this case that the only liability of West for an equitable proportion of the an7?be?l?m debt is upon the basis of the ordln?nce. The ?neral rule stated in H? v. Green?, 1{12 U.S. 672, to the et?ect that where a State is divided into two or more States, in the adjustment of liabilities between each other, the debts of the parent State should be ratably appor- tioned among them, is e?entially qualified by the authorities there quoted, in this, that a special a?reement between the two States in respect of the assumption of a proportinn of the debt as it existed before the separation, takes the case out of the ?neral rule; so that the second iFound alle?d in the bill which specifically avers a special alFeement, destroys the ap- plicability of the rule to this case. This special atFeement oannot he dismissed from this case as the decree propo?d on behalf of V'n?nia would do. This court has sustained' the Wallace, 39,'in respec? of the provision contained in it for the incorporation of the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson in the latter State conditioned upon a popular vote ther? for. If the ordinance was valid then in respect of the incorpora- tion of these eounties, it cannot be held to be invalid as to the specific provision co?*&ined in �for the assumption by the new'State of a ?ust proportion of the indebtedness to be ascer- tained in the m*nner defined, clearly carried into the constitu-' tion of the new State and assented to by Congress by the ad- mition of West V'n?iA into the Union. Whether it was or was not the lawful government of V'n-ginia was a political question. When the House of Representatives admitted the members of Congress from that State and the Senate admitted the senators elected by the legislature of the ?'P?stored State," and the Pr?ident recognized that govern- ment �? the true government of Vh?..'?i*? that forever settled
�
