New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-03
THE STANFORD DECISION.

The decision handed down yesterday IN Ihe
United States Supreme Court IN the CASE vi 'hc
Government against the Leland Stanior" cs'"'e
was in no sense surprise To any one laiiiiii"i
with tbe facts upon which the suit was Drought.
The decision was against the Government ana
in favor OF the estate and is final. III CLOSES up
the matter and makes an end OF WHAT has pee"
from the beginning most absurd ana ridlc"lo"s
nroceeding set on foot by rank ana uhprihcipie"
demag ogues. who have been able Without rish OF
cost 70 themselves to subject both parties 10 'h'
suit TO long and expensive litigation be!o""
This II has subjected Mrs. Stanford rs the execu-
triy of her husbands will and the agent Tor
carving ont his large charitable and philan-
,hronic nurnoses to an endless amount OF v'Aa-
tion and embarrassment and. Of course. to very
ornot eypense The ground upon which the SUIT
was brought was that under a provision OF the
California State Constitution the stockholders OF
the Central Pacific Railroad Company. OF when
Mr. Stanford held 1il.3s1 shares were individ-
uallv liable for the debt due the United States
Government on the bonds issued in aid OF the
road. 1t was begun few years ago in the 'lr'
emit Court for the District Of California, was
taken thence TO the Court OF Appeals for the
district and thence to the Supreme Court ana
,he decision has been the same by each tribunal
II is now definitely settled that the security
unon which the United States Government
issued IFS bonds in aid Of the Pacific roads dd
not differ from the security upon which any
other loan upon bond and mortgage by indivd-
nails or corporations is made. There WAS never
any prc,cncc that the Individual stockholders
of the other bond-aidcd railroads were personally
liable for the debt 10 the Government The IN
Il, of
STATE Constitution was the only prcicXi for this
claim and suit. II hardly needs 10 be polh''"
on, tina, not one Of the Pacific roads could have
been built II the origlnators and projectors OF
those enterprises had supposed for moment
that In addition 10 the security furnished by
tho mortgages themselves they were 20 be held
individually liable for the sums borrower upon
them In fact. this may be said OF all the rail-
roads Of he country. The existence of an indi'
vidual liability provision similar To that al 'Hi-
fornia in any State Of the Union would nave
made an end of railroad building before 1t be-
can. end we should be depending now upon
stage coaches and canals for practically AL our
Transportation and INSTRUMENTATION Nor II
Il likely that this suit against the STANFORD 's-
tate would ever have been begun cxcept lor the
fact that parcel Of noisy dcmagogues saw IN II
an opportunity To make political capital for them
selves and raised such persistent clamor abou'
II that the law officers OF the Government fet
compelled to begin the proceedings which have
resulted in such disgraccful failure.
The decision comes at an opportlIne time.
Congress Is now considering measures for the
nd ustncnt Of the Pacific Railroad debts. Two
alternatives are presented one Is TO erect
settlement upon business principles or purely
business transaction. The other is To exercise
sovereign power. and by some sort OF unjust
ncsslikc procedure take possession or Inc ROADS
and initiate the Socialistic policy Of Government
control and management Of railroads. The al
vocates of the latter course have been bowling
themselves red in the face over the infamies ana
crimes OF the projectors and builders Of the
roads and insisting that they or their heirs and
| executors should be compelled TO pay the prln-
| cinol and interest Of the Government loan. That
| feature Of their contention has now been posi-
lively and finally eliminated What every in
| tecent nerson knew before has now been put
in the form Of decision of the court Of last re-
| sort The claim Of the Government upon the
Pacific railroads is that of second mortgage
| bondholdcr. differing in no degree from that OF
any other second mortgage bondholdcr. It's
whole security Is named and described IN the
bond, and it cannot fall back upon any provision
| Of the California any other state Constiti-
ton TO increase il by holding individual stock
holders to personal responsibility. That dema-
| gogue's cry having been silenced there seems 70
be no reason why Congress should not settle
down 10 the consideration OF the whole question
| upon It's merits.
| -------------