The San Francisco call., 1896-03-03
AN OPINION BY HARLAN.
Reasons Why the United States
Supreme Court Sustains
Judge Ross.
GREAT JOY AT THE UNIVERSITY
College Students Arrange a Big Cele.
bration After Receiving the
Good News.

WASHINGTON, D. c., March 2.-The
efforts OF the United States authorities to
| collect from the estate of the late Senator
Leland Stanford of California SIS, ,237, 900
has been unsuccessful all along the line
Justice Harlan, speaking for the Supreme
Court OF the United States, to-day de-
clared that no liability attached to the
estate upon the grounds set forth by the
Government, and thus ended the litiga-
| tion.
The case was begun in the Circuit Court
! Tor the Southern District of California, the
bill proceeding upon the ground that the
constitution and laws of California at the
time the Central Pacific Railroad Com
pany of California and the Western Pa
cific Railroad Company. which were con-
solldated as the Central Pacific Railroad
Company, were organized as well as when
they received the bonds of the United
States held each stockholder liable in pro-
portion to the stock held by him, for
all its debts and liabilities and, conse-
! quently. that the estate of Stanford was
liable to the United States in the sum
named, that being his proportion of the
! bonds advanced to the railroad company
] and now overdue and unpaid. The Cir
cult Court dismissed the bill and that
! judgment was affirmed by the Court OF
Appeals, from which latter court the At
torney-GeneraI brought the case to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
The appeal was argued in January last
| just before the recess, Joseph H. Choate
! appearing for Mrs. Stanford and Solicitor
/ ,Opr
General Dickinson for the Government.
Owing to the magnitude of the claim and
the consequent interests involved, one Of
them being the fate of Leland Stanford Jr.
University in California, the case excited
an interest that was limited only by the
extent of the country. Discussing the
questions presented Judge Harlan asked:
WAS it part of the contract between the
! United States and the corporations re-
ceiving its subsidy bonds that the stock
| holders of such corporations respectively
should be personally liable for the princi-
pal and interest of these bonds? Or did
the United States make provision in the
acts of Congress for all the security in
tended to be taken for their payments?
"These questions could only be answered
| by examining the provisions OF all these
acts in the light of the circumstances under
which the United States made grants of
lands and provided for the issuing of bonds
in aid of the construction of the railroad
and telegraph lines from the Missouri
River to the Pacific Coast
The opinion reviewed at length the acts
of 1862, 1864 and 1865, from which review,
said Justice Harlan. it appeared that they
rolatod n the ooppral crh vi
must be regarded as one enactment for the
! purpose of ascertaining the object of Con.
gress.
That case was no longer Subject of in
quiry by the Supreme Court of the United
States-having been settled in the case of
the United States VS.. the Union Pacific
Railroad Company, decided by Justice
Davis and reported in ninety-first United
States-which declared the building of a
railroad from the Missouri River to the
Pacific Ocean to be National work.
The next question was did Congress
make any and if so what provision to Sc
cure the United States against liability on
account of its bonds, issued in aid of the
construction of the National highway
The important fact disclosed by the Pa
cifc Railroad acts, said Justice Harlan.
was that none of them contained any
clause imposing upon the stockholders Of
corporations receiving subsidy bonds per-
sonal responsibility for any debt due the
United States from such corporations by
reason of it's failure to pay those bonds at
maturity.
1T is not too much to say" the opinion
continues, "that if the acts of 1862-64 had
made stockholders of the corporations
therein named personally liable in proper.
ton to their stock for the repayment of
the bonds delivered to such corporation
the accomplishing of the objects Congress
had in view would have been seriously re-
tarded if not wholly defeated"
1t was not claimed, said the Justice.
! that any such liability was imposed upon
the stockholders of the Union Pacific
Compan and the position that it did at
tach to Central Pacific stockholders could
be sustained only upon the theory that
Congress intended to take larger security
in respect of that corporation than of the
Union Pacific.
But there was nothing in the legislation
OF Congress from which that could be con-
ferred. Throughout the whole of the acts
is manifest the purpose that the California
corporation should enjoy the rights, immu-
mites, benefits and privileges given to it
upon the same terms and conditions az
were prescribed for the Union Pacific.
In conclusion the opinion said:
"The relations between the California
corporations and the State were of
no concern to the National Govern
ment. Congress chose this existing
artificial being as an instrumentality
to accomplish National ends, and the re-
lations between the United States and
that corporation ought to be determined
by the enactments which established
those relations; and if those enactmentss
do not expressly nor by implication sub
ject the stockholders to liability for it
debts. IL is to be presumed that Congress