The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-08
TALKING FOR MILLIONS,
Heavy Argument in the Gov.
eminent Suit Against
Mrs. Stanford.
JUDGE McKIsICK CONCLUDES.
The Demurrer VIII Be Submitted TO
Judge Ross for Decision
on Monday.

One more argument and the case of the
United States VS.. the Stanford estate will
be IN the hands of the court for decision.
Judge McKisick finished his argument at
noon yesterday against the demurrer of
Mrs. Jane Stanford, and Monday morning
Judge CARRIER will again address the
court in one last appeal to throw out the
complaint drawn under the direction of
Acknowledgement Olney.
When Judge CARRIER finishes it will re-
main with Judge Ross to decide whether
or not the main case may proceed.
Should he decide to sustain the demurrer
it is more than likely that the suit will
never come up again, and such decision
will be practical victory for Mrs. STAN
ford. On the other hand, should the find
ing be the other way the main case will
proceed and oceans and oceans of testi-
mony as to the workings of the Contra.
Pacific Company and the dealings of it's
directors with the Government will be
given. 1t will be one of the greatest suits
ever handled in the courts of the United
States and will attract attention through
out the civilized world.
The argument on the demurrer so far
has been learned, if not brilliant forensi-
cally, and great things are expected from
Judge CARRIER Monday in his closing for
the respondent. 1t is felt that Judge Nc
Kisick has presented masterful case for
the Government, covering every part that
could possibly have been foreseen and
showing breadth of acquaintance with
authorities which is simply appalling to
the lay mind. He resumed his argument
yesterday morning by the statement that
he would undertake to show that the deb
of the stockholders of the Central Pacific
Railroad was not statutory one and that
the liability of the stockholders was irrevo-
cably fixed by the constitution. This
would place the stockholders in the same
position as any other creditor of the United
States, to be treated in exactly the same
way. Following out the same line of argu-
ment and taking the undisputed maxim
that "no time runs against the sovereign"
Judge McKisick held that the argument
in favor OF the provision in the law of 1850,
upon which so much stress had been laid
by Judge CARRIER, that suit on any liability
OF stakeholder of a corporation must be
instituted within three years, must fail.
He then read and took up in detail the
Thurman act of 1878, showing in every sec
ton the intention of Congress to collect
the debt owing to the Government by the
stockholders of the Central Pacific. In the
second section, for instance, it provides
that the whole amount of the compensa-
ton which may from time to time be due
to the railroad companies for services rem
dered to the Government, shall be re-
tanned by the United States, one
half thereof to be applied to the payment
cifc of the intention OF the trainers of the
act; Each and every of the provisions of
this act shall be held as an alteration and
amendment OF the act first mentioned"
''The three acts" said Judge McKisick,
.fof 1862, 1864 and 1878, are, therefore, to be
construed together as one act, the one part
to be construed by, the other.
1.-THE Central Pacific Railroad Com
pany," he continued, Ibid not begin to
build until January, 1868, and in 1864 it
went to the Government and asked for the
act of 1864 to grant it further rights and
privileges, and asked that instead of hold
ing all of the moneys due for transpor-
tation from the United States only one
half should be held; and the most i'm
portant part, they asked that instead of
the Governments bonds being first lien
on the road the railroad company should
have the right to mortgage the road and
issue its own bonds, to be a first lien on
the road.
"All this was done by Congress. After
that the work progressed, the road was
builded, and in 1878, eight years after the
roads were builded, came the Thurman
act. I was surprised to hear the argument
from the other side that the Government
had ample security; and yet, by the very
terms of the Thurman act, it appears that
the Government had not sufficient secur-
ity. 1t appears that Congress became APP
prehensive of the amount of money the
road would have to pay, and, thus came
the Thurman act"
Judge McKisick then drew the attention
of the court to sections 10, II, II and Ii of
that act and continued
Il recall to your mind the fact that the
demurrer suggests that the only remedy
the Government had to enforce the liability
of these railroads was to take possession of
them. | want to say, in this connection,
that the Thurman act absolutely repealed
the act of 1862, SO far as it authorized the
Government to take possession of the
roads. That repeating clause is in section
11-not in so many words, put in phrase
ology repeating all acts inconsistent there
with"
Section 10, according to Judge McKisick,
authorized the Attorney-General,b by proper
proceedings, to take such steps as might be
necessary to turn the road over to the See
rotary of the Treasury. The latter part of
the act of 1873, which made it the duty of
the Attorney General to begin proceedings
by bill in equity against the Union Pacific
Company and all other companies under
the act which had come into possession of
property they had no right to retain.
Now" said Judge McKisick, "can any
body say, upon reading section 10 of this
act, that the Government of the United
States released any body; that the Gov
eminent of the United States did not in
tend to enforce any right it had against
anybody who was responsible to act for
any money loaned these railroad corpora
tons? The language of that section posi-
lively negatives any such idea. And then
comes section IL, which positively mega
tives the power of the United States to
take possession of any such roads.
81 deny with emphasis that the United
States could take possession of any of
these roads; | say with absolute con-
fidence that the United States could not,
under section 10 or any other section, by
judicial process, forfeit any right, or fran
chise or property, of the Central Pacific
Railroad of California or of the Central
Pacific Railroad Company. Every priv
ilege, right and franchise. every bit of
property the Central Pacific has, it owns
and has paid for, as I have said before,
and if the United States should come into
court by the Acknowledgements and try to
enforce forfeiture, the Central Pacific
Railroad Company would say: This is
my property; you cannot wrest it from