532 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument for Def?.,?_t. ?09 U. 8. an advisory.way, and it gives West V'n?o'ni? permission to have an accounting made, ff she desire? it, on the basis of the Ordlnanes at her. own expense. She is ddendant here. In that event we would have two lines of investigation proceed- ing 'before the master at the same time, each entirely distinct in basic principle from the other, each burdensome in labor, expense and the consumption of time. Neither would throw any light upon the other. An exhaustive acoounting under the ordinance would not aid the court in determinng ?hether it $ Binding and the only legal b?sis of settlement or'not. An exhaustive investigation upon the international law basis would no more aid the court in determining whether the ordi- nane?' is binding and thordore the sole ground upon which the liability of We? Virgi?'n? to an-accounting at all can he based. If the compact is in force, any accounting save under that will.he not only burdensome? but superfluous. I)efenchmt's draft is in literal execution of the. contract of the parties, as evidencod by the ordlna?ce and �of the fn?t eomtitution. It directs the master to ascertain and report: (a) The amount of state expenditures made bythe Common- wealth of Vir?nL?' prior to the first day of January, 1861, within the t?rrito?y now included within the State of West Virginia, shoe.any part .of said indebtedness was contracted, as provided by the ordinance adopted by the Commonwealth of' August 20, 1861. Defendant agree. that the last .clause need not he inserted. (b) To ascertain the a?greRate erdin?ry expenses of the state goYernment of the Commonwealth prior to January 1,. 1861, and since any part of said indebtedness was contracted. (c) All moneys paid into the treasury of the Commonwealth of �ir?nla from the counties included within the State. of West �ir?-!? .during the said veriod. The items'(a) and (b) ?re. under the ordinance, to be ehar? to West �h'?'ni?.. The item(c).is under.the. Qrdjn?nce to he c?dJted to the
�
