The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-03
Vote the straIghf Republican ricke,
MRS. STANFORD WINS.
The Government Cannot Collect From
the Late senator's Estate.

Washington City. March s.-The SUI
preme court today decided the Stanford
case In favor of Mrs. Stanford. Justice
Harlan delivered the opinion He held that
individual stockholders were not liable
for the government debt Of the Central Pa
cifc Railway Company. He said the con-
gressionGl acts OF 1ss2. 1854 and 1865 re-
garding the Pacific railroads must all he
regarded as one law, as the object was the
construction of one continuous line, con-
gress employing different railroad com
panies only as instruments. Security was
given 20 the government by mortgage on
the property OF the railroad companies.
IL was. ne said, not too much TO say that
if In building the Union Pacific. for
instance. the stockholders had been made
liable. the purpose OF congress 10 secure
national highway would have been ma
terially retarded. and IL was plain no obli-
cation was meant TO be put on one COM
pany that WAS not put on the others Any
other construction would be Inconsistent.
The decision Of the court below was here
fore affirmed.
The opinion concludes as follows, The
relations between the California corpora
ton and tlle state we're OF no concern 70
the national government at the time the
purpose WIS formed 10 establish a great
highway across the continent for govern
mental and public use. Congress chose
mentality 10 accomplish national ends.
and the relations between the United
States and that corporation ought 10 be
determined by the enaCtments which es-
tablished those relations, and II these en-
actments do not expressly. nor by iinpii-
cation subject the stockholders Of snch
corporation 20 liability for its debts. ~ IS
20 be presumed that congress intended 20
waive its right to impose any such lsabs-
iiy The views we have expressed render
IL unnecessary to consider any other ques-
ton in the case We are ~ the opinion
that the BIN fled by the United States was
properly dismissed. and that the order of
the circuit court Of appeals affirming such
dismissal was correct. The judgment Is
therefore affirmed
The title Of the case is the United States
vs.. Jane l.. Stanford. exeeutrix OF Le-
land Stanford, decea sed. II involved the
individual liability OF stockholders in the
Central Pacific Railroad Company for the
debt due the United States on the bonds
issued in aid Of the Central Pacific under
the California constitution. Mr.. Stanford
held 1887 shares Of Central Pacific
stock and IL was claimed ~ the govern
rnent in insiitutinw its suit that the gnv-
eminent was entitled TO collect Si5S97 60
from the Stanford estate This contention
was resisted by AIRS. Stanford, on the
ground that the California constitution
g.
that N was the intention Or congress In
granting aid 10 the Central Pacific Com
pauy to put 81 on a footing different from
the footing on which the other gov
ernment-alded roads were placed.
The case was brought originally in
the circuit court for the Cali
forufa district. where the decision
was favorable 70 Mrs. Stanford. ard was
then appealed 10 the circuit court of ap-
peais for the Ninth circuit. whore the deci-
sion was also against the government.
The government appealed 20 tho supreme
court and. SIS soon as the case was dock
efed. moved 90 have IL advanced for hear
ing This motion being granted, the afgu-
Tnent was made during January. eminent
counsel appearing on both sides. The suit
has attracted attention from its initia-
ton hv the effect the decision win have
lYrsan the other Central Pacific stoCkhoid-
srs and also because the future of the
Stanford university is determined largely
hv the decision
Chief Justice Fuller handed down a de-
cisIon In the SoEaies land grant case. from
Southern Arizona He dla not 10 into the
general merits OF the case. but affirmed
the decision OF the court o. private land
ciafrns. on fhe ground that the court bad
no jurisdicfion. as the grant had been To-
Gated AZ the time of the Gadsden treaty
Justice Brewer rendered decision IN the
case of Samuel Marks rs. the United
states and the Bannack Indians. lav0iE-
ing a claim for Indian fepredSfi0ns. The
decision involved the construction Of part
Of statute Of 1851 concerning deprsda-
tious committed by Indians ''in ami'y
with the United States" The case was
appeales from the decision Of tire court ~
claims which held that tae words Sin snai-
;vr meant state 81 actual peace. ard
when no hcsfiiities were In progress. The
supreme court affirmed the decision OF
The court 5elew.