The record-union., 1896-03-05

are so inclined to burn their fingers
few times in order to bring them will
ingly into the traces. A way out will
soon be provided and matters properly
adjusted.
ARE THEY UNPATRIOTIC?
Stockton Independent: When Sousa's
Band played the "Star-Spangled Ban
ner'' in San Francisco a few nights ago
the audience rose and remained stand
ing, with a few remarkable exceptions.
Even the ultra -fashionables Joined in
the popular testimony of patriotism,
and this incident emphasized the excep-
tions very unpleasantly. What made
the exceptions remarkable was that
those VINO formed them are officers of
the army and navy; men educated at
Government expense for professions Of
which patriotism is OF should be a
prominent Characteristic. That such
men should exhibit indifference in the
midst of enthusiasm for the flag is re-
naarkabla. The people cannot be too
patriotic. and the army and navy off,
GERS should not lack in National pride.
HAS HE SENSE ENOUGH.
PIacerville Nugget: In a few days
the committee on the Pacific roads
question will report, in all probability
favorable to the railroad, and his fell
Icw-sand- d-lotters will, once more sink
into Oblivion till the next Congress
meets. If it wasn't for the railroad
what would Mr.. Cliff House do? No one
would ever know he was alive. Hasn't
the gentleman sense enough to see that
If his cause triumphs, having nothing
more to kick about, his name is Vacuum
or has he sense enough to know the
cause?
THE YAHOO YELL.
Bakersfield California: AS all fair
minded and unprejudiced people have
been convinced from the start would
be the case, the United States Supreme
Court has decided the suit brought
against Mrs. Stanford in her favor.
There never was any doubt about the
result from the commencement. OF
course, the Supreme Court will now be
insulted by a lot of yahoos who will
emit the old sand-lot yell, but regard
less of what they may say, the general
public will coincide with the business
of the decision
THE STANFORD DECISION.
Oakland Enquirer: The decision writ
by all the other members of the Su-
preme Court of the United States in the
Stanford case is as much of a settler as
an egg in a cup of coffee; it puts to rest
forever the idea that the Government
can recover from personal estates of
builders of the Central Pacific Railroad
the sums of money due for principal
and interest of the bonds and, mas
much as Harlan, the writer of the opin-
ion, is the Justice who was foremost in
dissenting from the majority opinions
in the sugar trust case and the income
tax case, it is not likely to be charged
that the result is due to a bias in favor
of corporations.
The opinion is q peculiar and at
the same time a simple document Two
thirds of it is devoted to a summary
of the Acts of Congress respecting the
Union Pacific and Central Pacific Rail
roads-matter which is not ordinarily
admitted into judicial opinions to such
an extent-and the argumentative part
Of the document is brief. The latter is
based on the proposition that the
United States Government stood in a
different relation to these debtors from
the other creditors. The court says it
does not decide or discuss the question
whether an ordinary creditor of the
railroads could take advantage of the
personal liability of the stockholders;
it merely holds that the United States
cannot, and for this reason-the Gov
ernment of the United States was the
sovereign and in bestowing land grants
and subsidies on the railroads, created
such liabilities for payment as it saw
fit; it could have established personal
liability of stockholders if it had de-
sired to do so but did not; it did not do
so in the case of the Union Pacific. and
the presumption of the case of the
Central Pacific is that it did
not intend to take advantage of the
liability which the State of California
had created for the benefit Of itself and
of its citizens.