The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-30
CHOATE PLEADS
FOR HIS CLIENT.
Eloquence in Behalf of
Mrs. Stanford and the
University.
END OF THE ARGUMENT.
Decision in the Famous Case
May Not Be Rendered
Before March I.
SUPREME COURTS ATTITUDE
Significant Remarks in Colloquy
at the Close of Conrad's
Efforts.
SUPREME COURTS ATTITUDE

Solicitor-General Conrad for the United
States.
A colloquy at the close of Mr.. Conrad's
efforts was believed by those who heard it
to have a significant bearing upon the
attitude of the court. The Solicitor
General was urging upon the court his
contention that under the constitution
and laws of the State of California the
stockholders of the Central Pacific Com
pany were individually liable to the
United States for its debts to the Govern
ment, when Mr.. Justice Gray remarked:
''Mr. Solicitor-General, [ did not know
that it had any bearing on it, but in 127th
United States Statutes this court held
that the Central Pacific had franchise
from the United States"
Solicitor General Conrad-Yes, sir; they
did, but that was where there was an at
tempt on the part of California to tax the
franchise of that company, and this court
did hold beyond question, Judge Bradley,
l believe, delivering the decision, that the
California company had franchise OF its
own.
Justice Gray-The difficulty, in my mind,
was this: That the court there, as | re-
member it, in reference to the taxation of
franchises within the State OF California,
said that must have included the fran
chise from the United States, and because
it included franchise from the United
States, therefore the taxation was void.
The reason | suggested it was to see how
You reconciled that decision or what you
thought should be done with it in order to
carry out your view in this case.
The Chief Justice-It seems to ME that
Judge Bradley's language is that the fran
chise of the United States is independent,
though collateral to the State franchise
Mr.. Conrad-He does say so; and Justice
Davis says that this company was invested
with every important franchise. Justice
Bradley, in another place, says that this
company was invested by the United
States with fundamental franchise.
do not know the meaning of those tie rms
l suppose fundamental franchise is the
franchise of being a corporation. it is
creative act. and l had supposed that
those terms were just as my learned com
petitor here has referred to as terms that
were used by the Judges arguendo-not in
volved in the decision at all.
At this point the Solcitor-Generai be-
gan arranging his papers, as if to leave,
although he had spoken only about an
hour, when the Chief Justice said "You
may have more time, MIR. Conrad
Mr.. Conrad am tired.
And the presentation of argument in the
great case was ended.
In concluding his plea for Mrs. Stanford
Mr.. Choate said that he rested the case
upon these propositions:
First, that Congress, for its own ends
and purposes, intended in the whole bust
ness covered by the Pacific Railroad Com
pany to make itself and did make itself
absolute master OF the situation, not 10
rely upon the aid of any State, or the laws
of any State, nor to permit the interference
OF any State, or the laws of any State, but
to be self-sovereign, supreme, absolute
and sufficient for the whole business, and
by Its own laws to cover its whole scope
and to regulate the entire relations of par
ties in respect to all that each party was to
do or receive; that all companies were to
be on footing of absolute equality, and
1.-THE Central Pacific was not singled out
alone among them ali to furnish to the
Government substantial indemnity in the
shape of stockholders liability to the
amount OF $50, 900, 900, while no other COM
PotiS was W AuIutSA QOiluI u SuGu H.
demnity.
Second-That by the law of Congress, as
construed by its own courts, which this
court will follow, there was no such thing
as an individual liability of stockholders
existing in the California corporation at
the time the contract was made between
the Central Pacific Company and the Gov
ernment and hence the defendant cannot
be liable.
Third-That by the law of California, as
construed by it's own courts. which this
court will follow if there was such liability
it was only qualified liability, limited to
the condition that it should mature and
be enforceable within three years from the
! date when the liability was created, and
when the United States made their bonds
for thirty years they necessarily excluded
the possibility of any stockholders liza
bility beng predicated upon them or at
tached to them.
FouTth-That by the true construction
OF the act of Congress, illustrated and
guided by the Thurman act and by the de-
clslons OF this court, the com panies them
selves are not absolutely Internationally
liable for the repayment OF bonds, but
they are only to be paid upon the condi-
lions and in the manner provided in the
| act, and therefore defendant is not liable.
II wish TO call the attention of the
court, said he, ''to some matter contained
IN brief of special counsel in California
which think the learned Attorney-Gen-
eral must have inadvertently adopted.
wherein certain gross personalities against
the memory of Senator Stanford are in
dulged in as arguments to the court. 1t
| is suggested that somehow or other those
projectors, as he calls them, have made
profits which they ought not to have
made. If the estate of Senator Stanford
| is liable to the Government on any such
ground let them come boldly forth and
| say so. Let them come out into the open
and not skulk behind this artificial,
fictious, pretended, unfounded claim of
stockholders liability.
! And now. if the court please, l earn