Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-04
RAILROAD COUPON CASES.

The arguments of counsel in these cssss
were concluded on Saturday. AT the open
ing Of Court, Judge McKune followed up the
argument of W. W. Foote, and contended
that the provisions of the Act Of 1864 Ielat-
ing TO the payment of the coupons, with re-
gard to time and manner, had been repealed
by subsequent legislation, and had been alb
rogatei by the provisions of the Constitution
embodied in Article ", Section D. Upon
this point counsel argued at great length, and
cited the celebrated Memphis case, as well as
the Jumel and Writ cases. reported in the
10Y United States Reports that the railroad
company had never complied with the terms
of the contrac', therefore the coupons are
void that the only remedy petitioner can
have is to apply to the Legislature tor relief !;
that the conveyance of the half section Of
land named in the Act Of 1864 Is condition
precedent, and must be performed before
there is any binding effect to the contract.
The argument Of Judge Mckune occupied
the entire forenoon.
After recess, Judge S. w. Ssnderson pro-
ceeded to close the case. He stated that his
time was limited. and that he would only re-
view the principal points. That the PROPOSE
ton that the provisions of the Act of 1864
are conditions precedent is absolutely absurd
upon its face, for the conditions to be per.
formed by the railroad company to do all
certain transportation for the State IS for all
time, and to say that this must be performed
before the coupons are valid would defeat the
very object of the Act. Who would take
such coupons, if they had TO wait forever to
get psvment? This is a contract of the
State, not with the Central Pacific Railroad
Company, but with the holders of the
coupons, that the State will pay this nego.
table commercial paper, to whoever may hold
it, at the times and place named in the
Act. It is a contract which cannot be affected
by aEy act of the railroad company, or any
third party. Would it not be precarious
security if it should be at the mercy
or mere within of any third party {?
There is nothing in any of the Acts subse-
uueut, nor in the Constitution, that in any
way impsirs the obligations of the Act Of
1864 1t is simply the plain duty under the law
for the Controller to draw his waTrsntfor this
lawful claim, and for the Treasurer TO pay
the same. There is case of the Chattanooga
r ailroad Company, decided by the Supreme
Court Of Alabama, which is directly in point,
and which declares the status OF bonds or
coupons issued as those coupons were Issued.
Cosnsel referred to th5 analogous state Of
aft airs existing between the United States
and the Central Pacific Railroad Company
in the issuance of bonds to aid in the con-
struction Of the road. That it does not APP
pear that the railroad company has ever failed
to do any act named in the conditions, or
that the State or its officers have ever re-
quired the company to do anything as pro-
vided for in the Act of 1864. Certainly to
require means to make demand to do some.
tbi,o mat "a the holder Of the commons ara
required to make demand for payment.
Judge Sanderson traveTse1 at length each
point and proposition of defense, and upon
each furnished copious legal authorities. At
the close Of the argume nt the Cours took the
cases under consideration, with the under
standing that counsel for both sides should
furnish additional briefs of argument and
authorities. 1t Is believed that decision
will be rendered this morning.