The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-29
STANFORD. ESTATE SUIT.
Argument I'm II Case Wherein the
Government Claims S1J,OOO.OOO.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2S.-Argument was
begun in the Supreme Court of the United
States to-day in the case of the United
States vs. Mrs Jane l.. Stanford, widow
and executrix of the last will of the late
Leland Stanford, in the suit of the govern
ment to recover from the Stanford estate
Mr.. Stanfords proportion of alleged in
dividual liability for the bonds of the Gen.
trail Pacific Railroad Company. Over $15,-
100000 is involved. The suit comes to the
Supreme Court on appeal from the decision
OF the Circuit Court or Appeals Tor the
Ninth circuit, where the decision was ia
vorable TO Mrs. Stanford. Tne argument
for the government was begun by Assistant
Acknowledgement Dickinson. who spoke for
about two hours. Mr.. Dickinson prefaced
his remarks with statement Oh the condl-
tons under which the Central and Union
Pacific roads were built and then took up
the railroad charters and quoted presidents
at length These were in.erspersed with rea-
soning 10 show that the stockholders were
personally liable for the railroad company's
bonds He contended that there was no
popular demand for the building of rail-
roads across the continent at the time the
bill of 1862 became law and asserted that
whatever clamor was raised for these lines
was the result OF EFFORTS OF their incorpora-
tors of whom Mr. Stanford was one They
he said drew the bill and engineered the
movement through Congress. He said the
governments interest in THESE railroads
constituted a debt for which the stockhold-
ers were individually liable under the terms
of the contract Nothing could, he argued,
be taken against the United States by in
tendment but where there silence that
silence must be construed for the govern
ment He dwelt on the fact that the gov
eminent grant was made and the money
advanced on condition that the debt was to
be paid on maturity, and these conditions
could not be construed as otherwise than
binding on all the parties 10 the contract.
Mr. Choate followed in Mrs. Stanford's
behalf. His argument was largely techni-
cal. possessing very little of the character
of a personal appeal. He contended that
the successive acts of Congress relating to
the Central Pacific and Union Pacific roads
should be read together, and said that, be-
ing so read, they demonstrate that Con-
gress intended them 10 cover the entire re-
lations of the government TO all of the
companies with respect TO subsidy bonds,
without reference 10 the laws of the States
through which the roads pass, 10 which
they were superior; that the grounds We're
national institutions military highways and
mail routes; that the functions and liabiii-
ties of ali the Pacific roads were the same
and that IL was not intended TO impose a
burden upon the stockholders in one COM
pany which was not imoosed upon the
stockholders in the other company and
that as 10 both companies the government
looked TO the companies alone for the per-
Torrance OF all that the acts imposed
These acts did not contemplate the per-
sonal liability OF the stockholders OF either
road. but, the contrary. did intend that
there should be no personal liability of the
stockholders for the bonds. He demon
strated that no such liability was imposed
on the Union Pacific stockholders. and con-