The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-30
fits conferred by the act.

tits conferred by the act. This was
promptly done by the Central Pacific
Company, and in this way that corporation
voluntarily submitted itself to such legis-
lative control by Congress as was reserved
under the power of amendment. (99 U.
S. 727-S.)
he theory upon which the decision of
the Supreme Court in the sinking-fund
cases proceeds, in SO far as concerns the
two California corporations. is that to the
extent OF the powers, rights, privileges and
lmmunities granted them by Congress they
are to be regarded as the
No Indiridnal creatures of Congress and
Liability in precisely the same
IN the Absence light as the Union Pacific
Of Such Company. The logic of
Provision. this is that the contract
in respect to the subsidy
bonds was precisely the same with the
California corporations that it was with
the Union Pacific Company and to be
measured by the same standard. The act
OF Congress embodying the contract in re-
spect to each of the corporations not hav-
ing provided for any individual liability
on the part of their stockholders none can
be held to exist. pollard VS.. Bailey,
supra; Carroll VS.. Green, go U. S., 512)
Had the provisions of the act of July 1,
1862 remained unchanged and the road
been built solely Hereunder the Govern
ment, with the retention of all compensa-
ton for services rendered for it by the
companies and per centum of their net
earnings and first mortgage on the entire
aided road, with its appurtenances, would
undoubtedly have been sure of the repay
ment OF the bonds as provided in and by
the act. But to speed
the enterprise and The United States
to further aid in the Waived It's First
construction of the Lien ON the Roads.
roads, Congress
passed the act Of July 2. 1854, by which, as
has been seen, the grant of lands was
doubled, provision inserted that only one
half of the compensation rendered by the
railroad companies for the Government
should be required to be applied to the
payment of the bonds issued by the Gov
eminent, and by which the United States
waived their first lien for the repayment of
the amount of its bonds, with interest, and
consented that the railroad companies to
which the grants applied should issue their
own bonds in like amounts, which should
be secured by lien on their respective
roads paramount to the lien of the United
States. While this generosity on the part
OF the Government clearly entitled it to the
utmost good faith on the part of the rail-
road companies in all their dealings with
the United States it cannot justify the
court In departing from the true interpre-
tatlon OF the contract as the parties them
selves made it.
s'The views that have been expressed
render it unnecessary to consider other
questions argued by
Unnecessary to counsel; and if they are
Consider Other sound, of which / have
Questions. no doubt, it is apparent
that no amendment of
the bill can make good the compIainants
claim in this case. Nevertheless, leave
will be given the complainants to amend,
if they shall be so advised"
The courtroom was crowded with attor-
neys and others anxious to hear Judge
Ross decision. Among those present
were: Ex-Chief Justice Curry. Harvey
Brown, Thomas Shackelford, w. Spaulding,
ex-United States Marshal Long, United
States Commissioner Heacock, Assistant
United States District Attorneys knight
and SchlessinAer, Frank s. Moncktou, Pro.