The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-04-11
HAYNE ATTACKS
THE LONG LEASE,
And Produces Authorities
That Were Cited by the
Opposition.
THE LEASE IS VOID.
So Say Several Decisions of the
United States Supreme
Court.
REFERENCE TO A CEMETERY.
An TnSinuat;on That Ore Is Necessary
to the Business of Rail-
reading.


people yesterday morning in the Railroad
Commission case before Judge McKenna
in the United States Circuit Court. The
whole of the day was taken up with the
discussion OF the validity of the lease of
Pacific of Kentucky.
Mr.. Hayne has very aggravsting
method of arguing this case. 1t is not in
his manner, for Mr.. Hayne is as suave a
gentleman as ever scuttled fat fee or cut
the throat OF the law to serve his client
But il is in his method, which consists in
taking the authorities and eases cited by
the opposition in support of their case
and introducing them for the purpose of
showing that they support his case in
stead.
During the day Mr.. Pillsbury did the
batting for his colleagues, or rather he at
tempted to do so, for all his efforts were
tied with q string of rubber and Jumped
back 10 him. shifting him hip and thigh
with the Hayne retort, which is as cold
Hooded as that charity which weeps, but
which does not give.
Mr.. Hayne will resume his argument
xt Tuesday morning at half-past 10
O'Clock, and il is expected that some time
before the end of next week Mr.. CARRIER.
whose tender is loaded with the best legal
coal, VIII come footing down the track with
full mead of steam on. and Coke and
Blackstone AMI the Supreme Court of the
United States sitting on the cowcatcher.
Mr.. Hayne cited authorities from United
States Reports TO show that il cases of
DOUBT respecting the rights and privileges
OF railroad corporations the doubt is
a. ways 10 be interpreted in favor of the
people and against the corporation. He
also cited cases to establish the contention
that corporations cannot dispose OF their
franchises by lease or otherwise without
legislative authority.
The case OF Pennsylvania railroad COM
pany against q ST. Louis railroad company
III volume Is of the United States Supreme
Court Reports was cited. In that case the
court decided that lease would be void
where the lessee had not received legisla-
tive authority to enter into such con-
tract, even though the lessor had that au-
ttorlty by statute. The Southern Pa
cine Com pany is unable to furnish any au-
thollty for leasing the Central Pacific, and
no application was ever made to Congress
TO secure its consent to the lease of the
Central Pacific to the Southern Pacific.
The speaker denied that there existed or
had existed an implied consent on the part
OF Congress, or that this lease had been
made Nth implied consent. Several deci-
slons were read to establish the contention
that in public grants nothing passes by
implication. He asked if the doubt is to
be resolved in favor OF the Government in
ore action why not resolve the doubt in
the same way in the other actions.
Nj. Plllsbury interrupted by explaining
that when Congress passed the act of 1855
1t was advised of the situation of affairs
Mr.: Hayne quoted the law of Congress
IN 1855, whereby all railroad and telegraph
companies to which the United States has
granted subsidies or any other assistance,
are required to maintain aud operate the
railroads by themselves alone.
Mr.. Pl.lsbury asked permission to ex-
plain that the quoted section referred to
telegraph companies and not to railroad
companies.
This Interpretation was stoutly COM
baued by Mr.. Hayne and the Attorney
General, Mr.. Hayne remarking that the
fact that such eminent gentlemen as Pills
bury, Herrin and CARRIER had advocated
that Interpretation of the statute was an
indication OF the dire extremity to which
they had been driven in this case. He
added, commiseratingIy: s'See what a
doubtful abyss of conjecture the argument
OF counsel requires them to go into.n
The speaker quoted from United States
Supreme Court decision to the effect that
the charter OF corporation defines its
powers, and the enumeration of those
powers operates to the exclusion of all
Others. Another decision was to the effect
that though it might be fairly inferred
that the Legislature knew that the road
was operated under lease it was not nee
essary 10 decide whether it was done for
lawful purpose or not. The intention of
the law was that whoever did operate the
road and exercise its franchise was bound
by the rates of fares and freights estab-
lished by the Commissioners. An Oregon
case was also cited at the request of Attor-
ney-General Fitzgerald wherein the court
decided that Legislative recognition of
lease does not imply the power to grant
the lease.
Wherever contract is against public
policy ii IS void and unlawful" said Mr..
Hayne. at is faint, a poison, and no
court OF equity will have anything to do
with it"
The argument went on to establish from
opinions cited the contention that the
powers OF corporations organized by the
Legislative statutes ale such, and such
only, as those which the statutes confer.
Here Ny. Hayne entered upon the sec
ond point of his argument-the prohibi-
ton directed against the Southern Pacific
Company by which it was not allowed to
do business in the State of Kentucky,
which gave IL birth. He took up several
authorities which had been cited by Mr..
Plllsbury. and he argued that those very
authorities Were directly against the posi-
ton taken by Mr.. Pillsbury. 1t was also
argued that while State may create
corporation and authorize it to do business
in another State, yet If it introduces an act
prohibiting it from doing business in its
native State the principle of comfy be-
comes shut out and the other States may
say, Nor shall you do any business in our
State"
The Southern Pacific Company was pro-
hloited by its charter not from doing any
business, but from doing railroad busine IS
In Kentucky. But that is the only bust
ness that the Southern Pacific Company
could do in California; hence it could not
legally do any business at all in this State.
Mr.. Hayne asked Mr.. Pillsbury whether
he held that the charter of foreign cor
porauon was the measure of its powers in
foreign country.
Mr. Plllsnury replied that corporation
came into this State with its charter, like
COMMISSION or power of attorney, and
could do any business which its charter
Mr.. Hayne said that a corporation
created for the purpose of raifroading
could not go into the hospital or the GENE