The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-11

| 1t may be said in passing that possibly the
Central Pacific Railroad Company is. l say
! possibly, because, in the funding cases, CHIEF
Justice Waite decides that the Government has
the same power over the Central Pacific Rail
J road Company as over the Union Pacific Rail-
road Company, Dut with the Limitation eX
pressed by the learned Justice that the regu-
lation of the administration of the affairs OF
the company, in reference to the debts crea ted
under the authority OF the United States, must
not be inconsistent with the requirements Of
act accep ting what had been done by Congress
do not know that quote the exact language
but that Is the substance OF il.
Justice Brewer has had occasion to give these
subjects attentive consideration on account OF
his judicial eminence, and l may well adopt
his doubts in SO serious matter as the curtail
ment OF the sovereignty OF the State.
In the case of the United States vs. the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, 9S U. s., 619, Justice
Miller, speaking for the court, said
RAILROAD Company VS.. Pension, 1S Wall. s.
shows that the com pany Is not mere creature
OF the United. States, but while it owes duty To
the Government, the performance of which
may, in proper case, be in force, it is still q
private corporation, the same as other railroad
companies and is like them subject to the laws
OF taxation and the other laws of the State in
which the road lies, so far as they do not de-
stroy their usefulness as an instrument for
Government purposes"
What is meant by Government purposes is
not explained. But If it mean a military
and post road, which was the inducement OF
the grant to the company, or as common
carrier, 1t would seem its usefulness as Gov
eminent instrument could not be said to be
destroyed by the exercise of the conceded
legislative power OF the regulation of rates.
And there is remedy against abuse both in the
requirement that the regulation shall be rea-
sonable and in the exercise of the reserve
power of the United States 10 assume the mat
ter and remove the corporation from State con-
troll.
However, do not care to pass decisively on
this point, as it may come up again, and Us the
view take of the other grounds of the motion
renders II unnecessary.
The second and third grounds of int rven-
ton, 10 wit the rights of the Government as a
mortgage, and its rights under the Thurman
act, both depend upon the Governments rela-
tons to the company as creditor, and the ex-
tent OF interest is that the rates fixed by the
defendant shall be reasonable.
This being so, shall only consider the Thur
man act as The clearer ground TO relief. 1t is
objected generally by counsel for the Commits
sloners That no case can be cited which has
sustained an action by one not having the
legal title
In the Texas case Q54 U. S., 362) the COM
plainant was trustee in trust deed, exc
cuted by the railroad company to secure a sec
There was prior issue of over ST 900 600 Sc
cured by conveyance to others as trustees.
Inc deed, therefore, was only security, and it
was second and subordinate one besides.
In the Ames case, "a Federal Reporter, 165.
the complainants were stockholders only.
In Williams VS.. Morgan, Ill U. S., 6S4, the
suit was to foreclose mortgage on a railroad,
and the lntervenors were simply holders of the
railroad bonds. In the two first cases the right
OF compliments to sue was not raised; it was
taken for granite In the last case the right
of the intervenors was contested, and Justice
Bradley, speaking for the court said, after re-
citing the acts:
"From this recital of the facts in that case it
appears that the bondholders were permitted
as Williams and Thomson (also bondholdersl
were in the present case, to contest the clniun
sought to be established as prior to the mort
gage. The purchaser was not allowed To con-
so by virtue OF any stipulation made either at
or before the SALE"
Then proceeding, he says: "This, as It seems
to us, placed the purchasers In the present
which Swami occupied in the case cited. But,
II we are mistaken in this view as regards their
position as purchasers, there car, be no doubt
that as bondholders they had right under
the leave of the court (which was given TO
them and which could not have been properly
refused) TO oppose the charges and allowances
In question, and to appeal from the order by
which they were allowed.
1--WE think that the position of Williams and
thomson made them quasi parties in the case
and brought them within the reason of the
former cases decided by this court in which
persons incidentally interested in such branch
OF case have been allowed to intervene for
the purpose OF protecting their interest. and
even TO come into this court, or TO be brought
here on appeal, when a final decision OF their
right or claim has been made by the court
below"
The learned Justice then quotes a number
OF cases variously illustrating the principle.
The principle announced, therefore is "inter-
est in some branch of a cause
Has the Government an interest under the
thurman act in some branch of this cause !?
Against an affirmative answer to this question:
which seems at most to answer itself from