The San Francisco call., 1895-10-08
GRIDIRONS THE FOUR RAILROAD MAGNATES

DOrtlOnale nhDlIlty tne Legislature WAS
by the other section empowered to go fur
ther and to make them liable as full part
nerS in solido, each aGswerable for all the
debts, Il his private estate should be so
large, Just as the stockholders OF the Glas
gov Bank were answeYable.
"If il be replied to this that no matter
how absuTd-no matter how unworthy Of
respect the decision OF tne Supreme Court Of
California may be-yet, as itis a decision of
the highest tribunal Of that State, constrn-
ing the constitution OF that State, that de-
cisIon IS binding upon the courts OF the
United States, the answer is that there is
no rule making It absolutely binding upon
those courts.
'The principle that the Legislature of
California could not by statutes enacted
after the contract under consideration was
made put the stockholders of those rail-
road companies in a worse position than
the contract had placed them is stated by
Judge Ross in his opin ion, though the
statement involved a misappication of
The principle, for ali the legislation in cues
ton is plainly remedial.
"But waving this and assuming with
Judge Ross that this subsequent legisla-
ton is not remedial, and consequently that
the Legislature of California had no power
to enact it SO as to make it apply 10 the
rights OF the Central Pacific stockholders,
yet he overlooks the correlative propo-
slllOE ILdG WIdL buo IJcSlStdJuIE VI Adi1-
fornia cannot do against the Central Pa
cific stockholders the Supreme Court of
California cannot do against the United
States. The decision in French
VS.. Teschemaker, under the constitution
OF the United States, could no more
be allowed to strike down the rights
of the United States, vested under the pre-
vious contract, than an act of the Leglsla-
ture of California could be allowed to have
this effect. Nor can this conclusion be
evaded by merely calling one kind of State
action legislation and the other kind in
terpretation.
''If the Interpretation is absurd, contrary
to the plain reading of the constitutional
provision under which the rights OF the
United States became vested, then the ST.
prsme Court of the United States will not,
by following that interpretation 'lmmolate
truth, justice and law
The writer then dissects the case of
French VS.. Teschemaker and says it was an
action brought by certain taxpayers to
enjon the Board of Supervisors from
issuing city and county bonds in aid of
the Western Pacific and the Central Pacific
Railroad Company. The issue was author
lied by the Legislature on the express con-
dition that the city shall not be liable for
any Of the debts and liabilities OF said
companies.
The railroad companies were already
ldlScI1 III QcUl dnQ ll1C IdA pay CTS leu
they wouId be involved to a greater ex-
tent than the subscription for the bonds.
THE case was, of course, decided in favor
Of the railroad companies" goes on the
writer. THAT is to say the court decided,
under the statute, the liability of the
municipal corporation could be waived,
provided any person, in giving credit to
the railroad company would expressly stip-
ulate in the contract to waive it.
The Judge who wrote the opinion in this
case, on quitting the bench in 1869, went
into the service of the railroad company
and died in its service.
But assuming that Judge Ross is right
in the foregoing proposition, his third
proposition that the Central Pacific stock
of the general railroad law of California
enacted May 20. 1861, and consequently in
force when the contracts in question were
made and when the indebtedness was
created by the issue and delivery of the
United States bonds, is clearly untenable,
and there is no decision of the Supreme
Court of California in the way of Federal
tribunal holding the Stanford estate liable
under this statute"
After quoting the long statute, the writer
says: 1T will be seen that Judge Ross
simply reads the statute out of existence
and does it on the authority of French VS..
Teschemaker. Not that French VS.. Tesche-
Judge Ross finds this statute TO be little
more definite than section SO of article "
of the constitution. and no more definite
than the provision contained in section 80
of the act concerning corporations passed
in 1850, which was held by the court in
French VS.. Techemaker to be insufficient
to give reasonable and practicable opera
ton to section SO of article " of the con-
stitution of 1849.'"
1--WE cannot see wherein the above
statute is indefinite for any purpose con-
nected with the suit of the United States
brought to charge the Stanford estate. 1t
seems to US to be very explicit and definite
on all essential points. We are not now
addressing the legal profession of Califor-
mia; they have become used to judicial
decisions reading statutes, and even con-
stitutional provisions. out of existence.
We appeal TO our professional brethren
throughout the country generally, to know
whether the above statute is not Just as
definite and certain as similar statutes
which have existed in New York and many
other States which the courts have en-
forced without difficulty.
But not content with reading the statute
out of existence,ss ,ssthe learned Judge dis
covers another ground for reaching the
same conclusion, in the conception that
the acts of Congress under which the sub
sidy bonds were issued were emergencies,
ana Lnat Ln6V 'uDmlSCdkaDlV snow bldC no
personal liability of the individual stock
holders was contemplated, either by the
United States on the one side. or the rail-
road companies and their stockholders on
the other side n In the thousands
of cases relating to the statutory liability
of stockholders, decided by the English
and American courts, not one can be found
advancing such doctrine; and even the
decision in French vs.. Teschemaker is to
the contrary.
Authorities need not be cited to the
proposition that all public grants are con-
strued most strongly in favor of the Gov
ernment and against the grantees, and
that doubtful charter or other public
grant does not exist, because whenever it
is doubtful the rule in question resolves
the rule in favor of the Government
Columns OF adiudications could be cited to
this effect. Therefore, even if the grants
embodied in the acts of Congress under
consideration were doubtful and ambigu-
Gus with respect to the point under con-
sideration, this rule would resolve all such
doubts in favor of the United States.
but they are not doubtful. Not a line.
not a word, not a hint is found in them
which suggests the idea of purpose on
the part of the United States to release any
security to which it was entitled under the