The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-03-02
In Favor of Mrs. Stanford.

In Favor of Mrs. Stanford.
WASHINGTON, March 2-The Supreme
Court today decided the Stanford case In
ayor OF Mrs. Stanford.
THE STAMFORD CASE.
The title OF this case Is the United
States vs.. Jane l.. Stanford, sxecutrix OF
Leland Stanford, deceased, IL involved
the individual liability of stock holders
In the Central Pacific Railroad Company,
for the debt due the United States on the
bonds issud In aid of the Central Pacihc
under the California constitution. Mr.
stanford held IA. 3S7 shares OF the Central
Pacific stock and 1t was claimed by the
government In instituting It's suit that
the government was entitled to collect
$15, 237, 900 from the Stanford estate.
This contention was resisted by Mrs.
Stanford on the gronud that the Califor-
mia constitution was not self-exccuting
and also on the plea that 1t is not the IN
tention of Congress In granting aid to
the Central Pacific Company to put 1t on
q footing different from the footing on
which other government aid roads were
placed. The case was brought originally
In the circuit court for the California
district, where the. decision was favora-
BILE to Mrs. Stanford, and was then ap-
pealed to the.circuit court OF appeals for
the ninth cicruit, where the decision was
also against the government. The govern
ment appealed to the United States Su-
preme Court and soon after the case was
docketed, moved to have 1t advanced for
hearing.
This motion being granted, the argu-
ment was made during January, eminent
counsel appearing on both sides. The
suit has attracted great attention from
its initiation because Of the effect the
decision will have upon the other Gen.
trail Pacific stock holders, and also because
the fortunes OF the Stanford University,
will be determined largely by the decis-
ion.
CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION CASE.
There were two cases involving the con-
stitutio ality of the California law known
as teh Wright law, permitting the State
to be divided into irrigation distr cts and
property in the districts taxed for the
construction OF irrigation works. One OF
the g involved the Fa.l Brook irrigation
districts and the others the Modesto s.
trict. The same points were raised in
botn, but the Fall Brook was appealed
from the decision of the Fed raj circuit
court, while the Modesto c4se was
brought up from the California State Su-
preme Court. In the Federal Court the
decision was against the Wright law, while
in the State court that law was sustain d.
The cases were argued in the Supreme
court by ex-President Harrison and other
attorneys of national fam.
Their import nee Is not confined to the
State of California, but the decision
affects the irrigation interests of the en-
tire semi-arid region, many states of which
have adopted the law. II also involves
the broad constitutional question of the
right of taxation and the taking of pri-
vate property without due process of law.
Most of the irrigation d stric's have out
large bond issues which are affected by
the decision.
BROWN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CASE.
This Gaze was advanced o. the docket
of the Supreme Court on the motion of
the Attorney Gene eral, made at the instance
of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
1t was considered test case and the
claim was set forth in letter written for
the commission, that a large mum ber Of
similar cases must wait uron its final de-
cision by this court. The case came up
to the Supreme Court on an appeal taken
by Brown from the decision of the circuit
for the western district of Pennsylvania,
refusing to grant n writ OF habeas corpus
and arose out of q proceeding by the
Interstate Commerce Commission against
the Alleghaney Valley Railroad company.
of which Brown IL an officer He was a
witness before the grand jury for the
answer certain questions propounded to
him on the ground that in doing so he
might incrimipate himself. He was then
proce eded against for contempt of court,
found guilty and sentenced to imprison-
ment. Mr.. Brown pleaded constitutional
right OF silence, but the statute of Feb.
IA, 1893, requiring answers in such ques-
tions, was invoked against him and held
to be valid by the circuit court.