The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-11
ARGUMENTS AT AN END,
The Stanford Demurrer Sub
mitted to Judge Ross
for Decision.
FIFTEEN MILLIONS AT STAKE.
Strong Pleas Have Been Made by
Both Sides-Many Authorl-
ties Cited.

Arguments ON the demurrer to the COM
plant OF the Government in it's suit
against The estate of Senator Leland Stan
ford for SIS, 000, 600 were concluded yester-
day at noon and the matter was submitted
to Judge Ross for decision.
When court convened in the morning
Judge McKisick. who had announced the
conclusion of his argument on last Friday,
asked leave to submit few more authori-
ties IN line with the views presented by
him. This was granted and he occupied
the attention of the court for about quar-
ter of an hour.
Then Judge CARRIER, in support of the
demurrer, began the closing argument
he said that he had but little to say in
reply to the arguments of J. V. McKisick,
but there were some points advanced which
he could not let pass uncontroverted
Taxing up the position of opposing coun-
sci that all the acts of Congress concerning
the Pacific railroads should be taken
together and construed one by the other,
ne held was utterly out of the question.
Furthermore. he challenged the produc-
ton OF any provision in any of the acts
mentioned in which there was one single
sentence, phrase or word which could be
twisted by any process of construction
into covenant on the part of the rail
roads to make payment for the bonds
issued.
II do not see the pertinency of the sug-
gestlon in this case at all, he continued.
The point is, what was the condition of
af1alrs as they existed in January, 1863,
when, as the bill alleges, and is self-evident
by the existence of the act, whatever con-
tract or relation existed then came into
being and were consummated by the
"a Nfny a<aft : IL
the acceptance of the provisions of the act
OF 1862 was filed then, if ever, the contract
relations and all relations, as far as the
contract is concerned between these
parties, became fixed and finally deter
mined. What boots it to go to subsequent
acts, to what Congress may afterward
have done, as throwing some light on the
question as to what was the intention in
the act of 1862? If there was contract it
was by virtue of the act of 1862 and not by
virtue of any other act.
ION this question this first and vital
question on the demurrer, whether there
was covenant or a bald condition, no
light whatever can be obtained by search
ing into the subsequent acts passed by the
Government. They do not purport to
change it, and there is not one. of these
decisions shown here which affirms that
the Government of the United States had
any right, by any act subsequent to the
act OF 1867, to make new contract relation
and compel these companies to covenant
to pay anything for which they were not
liable. There was no such agreement or
promise or engagement to pay in the act of
1862, and you cannot find it,
Judge CARRIER then quoted the case of
Hale VS.. Finch Q04 United States), where
an express agreement had been made by
the purchaser of a steam boat to comply
with certain conditions. He held that had
the Congress of the United States intended
to enforce payment from the projectors of
the Pacific roads such an agreement would
have been inserted in the act in express
terms.
Speaking of the decision in the sinking
fund cases, to which extended reference
had been made in Judge McKisck's argu-
ment, Judge CARRIER stated that it was as
sumed without thought, without conten-
ton, without the mind of the court being
directed to that particular point, that there
was debt created by these acts of Con-
gress which obligated the payment of these
debts. He continued by stating that Judge
Mckisick had taken the dissenting opinion
OF Justice Field in those cases and used it in
his argument against the demurrer.
Turning his attention then to the matter
of the liability of stockholders, Judge Gar
Der stated that taking the acts for it, there
was no individual liability contemplated
on the part of Congress, and if there could
be a waiver by contract, here was that
waiver on the part of the Congress of the
United States.
Judge CARRIER concluded that as the liza
bility of stockholders as fixed by the law
of California was statutory provision, the
limitation set forth in the law of 1850 ap-
piled and the complaint must fail.
At the conclusion OF his argument Judge
Ross asked counsel for their authorities
and was informed that they would be fur
nished him, as well as the printed argu-
ments of counsel. Court then took an
adjournment till tomorrow morning at
1880 o clock.
1t is not possible to tell when Judge
Ross will be ready with his decision, but
it is more than likely that it will not be
handed down for several weeks.