The San Francisco call., 1896-03-04
Judge McKisick Says There Is
Nothing Further to Do but Bow
to the Decision.
REVIEW OF THE BIG CASE.
May Be Other Forms of Procedure
Under Which the Stockholders
Might Be Made to Pay.

In speaking OF the decision OF the
United States Supreme Court in the suit to
recover from the estate of Leland Stanford
the proportion of the railroad debt to the
Government represented by Stanfords s
stock Judge McKisick said:
THAT ends it, so far as this case is con-
cerned. l am accustomed to fighting
cause to its furthest limits, and when it is
decided there to submit. This case was
decided by the unanimous judgment of the
eight justices who heard it. A rehearing
can be secured only by one or more of the
concurring Justices changing his mind.
That was done in the income tax case. /
do not think it will occur in this case.
Therefore | say the decision settles the
matter so far as this action is concerned.
'There are many people, however, who
believe that the Government has good
claims that may be collected under diff
ferent course of proceeding. Some people,
laboring under a misrepresentation OF the
facts, were inclined to criticize me for
bringing the action in the form that it
took. They did not seem to know that l
had nothing to do with the institution of
the suit. The Acknowledgement brought
the suit and l was enlisted to conduct it.
My duties were defned-they were to prose-
cute this particular action.
mo, have no opinion to express in the
matter. 1t would be very improper for me
to criticize the decision. Neither have l
anything to say as to any other form In
which proceedings may be brought. l am
only calling attention to what others have
said about 1t.
'.The claim upon which the suit just
decided was brought was filed in May,
1894, against the Stanford estate as q stock
holder OF the railroad company under the
- Cot oil
was rejected by Mrs. Stanford in July,
1894.
''The action could not be brought until
the bonds matured, which occurred in
January, 1895. Within two months after
that time, as required, the Attorney
General began the action. and in March
was appointed to conduct it here.
"There had been no attempt to prevent
the distribution of the Crocker or Hopkins
estates, but this action prevented the dis
tribution of that or Stanford.
81 have no doubt that the action was
brought in perfect good faith, and 1t was
carried forward and presented to the
United States Supreme Court for all 1t was
worth by Hon. Holmes Conrad, Solicitor
General, and Mr.. Dickinson, Assistant
Attorney General. In their presentation
of the case argument made before the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
was included.
1.-THE theory of the Government in argu-
ing the case was that there was contract
between the United States and the Central
Pacific Company; that the contract on
the part of the railroad company was
made under and by virtue of its California
franchises. 1t is plain principle Of law
that corporation cannot make contract
without the power so to do, and that its
power is the franchise derived from its
sovereign State-the State that created it
by charter or under the general laws
of the State. And the theory of the
Government in this case was that
when the Central PACING Railroad Com
and entered into a contract with the
United States to build part of its trans
continental line it carried Its charter with
it to Washington, and as that charter ex-
listed under the laws of California those
laws were written into the charter as par
ticularly and specifically as if the Legisla-
ture had chartered the company by an act
Incorporating all those laws into the char
ter. The constitution and statutes of Cali
fornia in existence when the contract was
made with the Government expressly
provided that each stockholder of a rail-
road corporation should be individually
and personally liable for his proportion of
the debts and liabilities of the corporation.
"The Supreme Court of the United States,
as / gather from the newspaper report of
the opinion, took the view that there was
no contract before the court to be con-
strued, no laws of California to be con-
strued, but simply the Pacific Railroad
acts. And as they could not find pro-
vision in either of those acts imposing in
dividnal liability upon the stockholders Of
the railroad corporations mentioned in the
acts, the court conclusively presumed that
Congress did not intend to hold the stock
holders 0f tho California cOrpOrarjona la.
BILE for the debts which they owe to the
Government -