[1] The statement in the text is sufficiently accurate as a preliminary generalization. As will appear later, the road between Sacramento and Oakland was not built by the Central Pacific, but by certain other companies of which the Western Pacific and the California Pacific were the most important. It may also be important for some purposes to observe that the Southern Pacific system enters Ogden over Union Pacific tracks, and New Orleans over the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad Company.

[2] On the early history of the Central Pacific, see a document printed by order of the Nevada Senate, entitled “Evidence concerning projected railways across the Sierra Nevada Mountains from Pacific tide-water in California, etc., procured by the Committee on Railroads of the First Nevada Legislature” (Carson City, 1865). This document contains several valuable reports and some interesting testimony.

[3] Judah’s report of his mission to Washington as a delegate of the Pacific Railroad Convention is printed in full in the Sacramento Union for July 25, 1860.

[4] Testimony taken by the United States Pacific Railway Commission, appointed under an Act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, entitled, “An act authorizing an investigation of the books, accounts, and methods of railroads which have received aid from the United States, and other purposes.” (50th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document No. 51, pp. 2838-39, testimony D. W. Strong.) Hereafter referred to as United States Pacific Railway Commission.

[5] The expenses of this preliminary investigation were provided by small subscribers around Dutch Flat. A paper dated at Dutch Flat, June 26, 1860, contains 47 names, including that of D. W. Strong. No subscription was for over $15, and only nine were for as much as $10 apiece. (United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2959.)

[6] Judah manuscript, letter of Mrs. Anne Judah.

[7] Evidence concerning projected railways across the Sierra Nevada Mountains, sup cit., testimony L. L. Robinson.

[8] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 2960-61, testimony D. W. Strong.

[9] Sacramento Union, January 9 and 10, 1861.

[10] Sacramento Union, January 4, 1861.

[11] Stanford’s election to the United States Senate was resented by Huntington, and led eventually to an open breach between the two men. It is not improbable, however, that Stanford’s friends, and not Stanford himself, were responsible for the latter’s candidacy. It would not have been difficult to persuade a man of Stanford’s temperament that he was performing a public service in allowing his name to be used.

[12] Crocker said of his own personal appearance during the sixties: “While I was building the road, I weighed nearly all the time 264-5 pounds; at one time, in China, I weighed about 274 pounds; the Chinaman who weighed me called me a 4-picul man—a ‘picul’ being 66⅔ pounds.... While I was building the road, I weighed the first year, 244, which increased to 265, and when I finished the work, was weighing that. I am 5 feet 10¾ inches tall.” (Crocker manuscript, p. 63.)

[13] Huntington manuscript, p. 36. The Bancroft Library of the University of California possesses notes of interviews with a number of men prominent in California history collected by H. H. Bancroft or his representatives. In some cases these notes are very full and informing. They will be referred to in the present volume as “Huntington manuscript,” “Crocker manuscript,” etc. See also Redding, “Sketch of the Life of Mark Hopkins” (San Francisco, 1881).

[14] Huntington manuscript, pp. 9-10.

[15] Crocker manuscript, pp. 28-29. See also Hittell, “History of California,” Vol. 4.

[16] Report of a committee of the board of directors, Sacramento Valley Railroad Company, August 7, 1855.

[17] Articles of association and by-laws of the Sacramento Valley Railroad Company, together with an estimate of the gross receipts of the road when in operation, New York, 1853.

[18] Engineer’s report of a preliminary survey of the Stockton and Copperopolis Railroad with estimates of cost and traffic, October, 1862.

[19] Report of the chief engineer on the survey, cost of construction, and estimated revenue of the Placerville and Sacramento Valley Railroad of California, San Francisco, 1863.

[20] Report of President Moore to stockholders, 1873.

[21] Report of the chief engineer on the preliminary survey, cost of construction, and estimated revenue of the Central Pacific Railroad of California, etc., October 22, 1862; report of Acting Chief Engineer Montague, October 8, 1864. Reprinted in “Evidence concerning projected railways across the Sierra Nevada Mountains,” sup. cit.

[22] Report of the chief engineer on the preliminary survey, cost of construction, etc., October 22, 1862 (October 1, 1861), sup. cit.

[23] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3774, testimony C. P. Huntington.

[24] Complaint of Samuel Brannan, June 21, 1870. Filed in the case of Brannan v. Central Pacific Railroad, in the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District of the State of California.

[25] Bancroft, “History of California,” Vol. 7. p. 545, note. The assessed value of the associates’ property in Sacramento County in 1861 was $118,035.

[26] United States Pacific Railway Commission Report, p. 87.

[27] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3421, testimony M. D. Boruck.

[28] Crocker manuscript, p. 32.

[29] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 2630-31, testimony Leland Stanford.

[30] Ibid., p. 2652. testimony Leland Stanford. Stanford and his associates bought stock in 1871 for which they paid $400 or $500 a share, but Stanford says that this was to quiet litigation which he described as blackmail.

[31] Ellen M. Colton v. Leland Stanford et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sonoma, 1883. Hereafter referred to as “Colton case.” The record in this proceeding contains much valuable information relative to the history of the Southern Pacific and the activities of the Huntington-Stanford group.

[32] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3493, testimony D. O. Mills.

[33] Crocker manuscript, pp. 29-30.

[34] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2731, testimony Leland Stanford.

[35] Ibid., p. 2399, testimony A. Cohen; p. 2767, testimony Leland Stanford.

[36] Colton case, pp. 948-49, Huntington to Colton, October 8, 1874.

[37] Tinkham, “History of Stockton,” p. 356; San Francisco Chronicle, June 13, 1874.

[38] Laws of California, 1852, Ch. 77.

[39] Ibid., 1857, Ch. 243.

[40] Ibid., 1858, Ch. 300.

[41] Ibid., 1859, Ch. 241.

[42] Ibid., 1859, Ch. 263, 264.

[43] Ibid., 1859, Ch. 262.

[44] Laws of California, 1863, Ch. 77

[45] Ibid., 1863, Ch. 125.

[46] Ibid., 1863, Ch. 207.

[47] Ibid., 1863, Ch. 310.

[48] Ibid., 1863, Ch. 209. The value of these privileges has been estimated at $200,000.

[49] Ibid., 1863, Ch. 291.

[50] Ibid., 1863, Ch. 314.

[51] Ibid., 1864, Ch. 320. Twenty years later the quarries were still undelivered.

[52] Constitution of the State of California, Arts. VIII, XI, Sec. 10.

[53] People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal., 176 (1865).

[54] Angel. “History of Placer County,” 1882, p. 280.

[55] “The Great Dutch Flat Swindle!—An address to the Board of Supervisors, Officers and People of San Francisco,” 1864.

[56] French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 518 (1864).

[57] Laws of California, 1864, Ch. 344.

[58] California Supreme Court Records, Vol. 38, case of People v. Coon.

[59] California Supreme Court Records, Vol. 38, p. 98, sup. cit.

[60] People v. Coon, 25 Cal. 635 (1864).

[61] People v. Supervisors, 27 Cal. 655 (1865).

[62] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3610-11, testimony Leland Stanford.

[63] Ibid., p. 3464, testimony E. H. Miller.

[64] Angel, “History of Placer County,” pp. 158-65.

[65] Fankhauser, “Financial History of California,” p. 299 ff.

[66] Report of the chief engineer upon recent surveys, progress of construction, and an approximate estimate of cost of first division of 50 miles of the Central Pacific Railroad of California, July 1, 1863.

[67] Letter of L. L. Robinson, chief engineer, to Chas. A. Sumner and Henry Epstein, Chairmen Committees on Railroads, Legislature of Nevada, Sacramento, February 3, 1865. Printed in a pamphlet entitled “Evidence concerning projected railways across the Sierra Nevada Mountains,” sup. cit.

[68] Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern counties. In Kern County the bond issue was limited to $480,000 and in Stanislaus to $180,000.

[69] Letters of Governor Haight, on the constitutional power of the legislature to authorize cities and counties to donate bonds to railroad corporations, Sacramento, 1870.

[70] Persons who desire details of the controversies in Congress prior to the outbreak of the Civil War may consult Haney, “Congressional History of Railways,” or Davis “History of the Union Pacific.”

[71] Laws of California, 1852, p. 276. See also resolutions passed May 17, 1853 (Laws of 1853, p. 315); May 13, 1854 (Laws of 1854, p. 224); February 25, 1854 (Laws of 1854, p. 227); March 19, 1857 (Laws of 1854, p. 370); April 1, 1859 (Laws of 1859, p. 390); April 15, 1859 (Laws of 1859, p. 394). In 1859 the legislature adopted a memorial to the same general effect (Laws of 1859, p. 395).

[72] The proceedings of the Pacific Railroad Convention of 1859 were published in the San Francisco Alta, September 21-26, 1859, and in a special supplement of the same paper. See also The Pacific, October 6, 1859, and other California papers. The convention was attended by delegates from Oregon and Washington. It thought that the Pacific Railroad should run from the city of San Francisco through the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda, to the city of Stockton, thence over the Sierras by a central route. It favored also a branch to Puget Sound. Resolutions were adopted contemplating an issue of $15,000,000 in bonds by the state of California to cover the cost of railroads within that state, and an issue of an unspecified amount, presumably $5,000,000 by the state of Oregon. In February, 1860, an adjourned meeting of the same convention was held at Sacramento. Considerable opposition developed at this meeting to the proposal to bond the state for The vote taken at San Francisco was reconsidered, and a new resolution passed, recommending state aid to a transcontinental railroad to the extent of not more than $15,000,000, but proposing that security be taken for the advances made so that the sum should not become a state charge. In other words, this idea of a loan was substituted for that of a donation. (Sacramento Union, February 7-11, 1860.)

[73] Report of the chief engineer of the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California, on his operations in the Atlantic states, Sacramento, 1862. It should be added that Huntington himself was in Washington while the Act of 1864 was being debated. Cornelius Cole, one time senator from California, says of Huntington’s activity at this time: “During the pendency of this legislation [Act of 1864], C. P. Huntington spent much of his time in Washington. Many of the amendments were suggested by him, and it gave me much satisfaction to forward his views. In former years in Sacramento we had been in close political fellowship, besides ... I had been associated with him and others in the organization of the Central Pacific Railroad Company....” (Cornelius Cole, Memoirs, pp. 179-80.)

[74] 12 United States Statutes 489 (1862).

[75] United States v. Southern Pacific Co., Record, pp. 1654-57.

[76] Report of chief engineer, Central Pacific Railroad of California, on his operations in the Atlantic states, 1862.

[77] 13 United States Statutes 356 (1864).

[78] For a full digest of the Acts of 1862 and 1864, and for an account of the Congressional history involved, the reader is referred to Haney, “A Congressional History of Railways.” Senator A. A. Sargent asserted in 1878 that he, Sargent, wrote the acts himself. (45th Congress, 2d Session, Congressional Record, Vol. 7. p. 2024.)

[79] Huntington manuscript, pp. 78-79. The act referred to appears in 14 United States Statutes 78-79.

[80] Report of the chief engineer on the preliminary survey of the Central Pacific Railroad, etc., October 22, 1862.

[81] United States v. Union Pacific, 91 U. S. 72 (1875).

[82] 12 United States Statutes 489 (1862), Sec. 6.

[83] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2562, testimony W. H. Mills.

[84] The Western Pacific had received in addition two patents conveying 27,505.93 acres, but these lands were assigned by the Central Pacific to outside parties.

[85] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3569-70.

[86] United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 146 U. S. 570, 593 (1892).

[87] Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761 (1875).

[88] Kansas Pacific v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 629 (1885).

[89] Hastings and D. R. Co. v. Whitney, 132 U. S. 357 (1889); Whitney v. Taylor, 158 U. S. 85, 92 (1895); Bardon v. Northern Pacific, 145 U. S. 535 (1892).

[90] Menotti v. Dillon. 167 U. S. 703 (1897).

[91] Central Pacific Railroad case, 3 L. D. 264.

[92] 9 United States Statutes 631 (1851).

[93] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2412, testimony W. H. Mills.

[94] 1863 to 1913 “An Account of the Ceremonies Attending the Inauguration of the Work of Construction of the Central Pacific.” Interesting details of the course of construction of the Central and Union Pacific railroads are given in Carter, “When Railroads Were New,” and in Sabin, “Building the Pacific Railway.”

[95] Report of the chief engineer upon recent surveys of the Central Pacific Railroad of California, July, 1863.

[96] Ibid., December, 1865, and July, 1869.

[97] Ibid., October 8, 1864.

[98] Ibid., December, 1863.

[99] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 2581-82, testimony Arthur Brown, superintendent of bridges and buildings.

[100] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2579, statement William Hood; pp. 2580-81, 3150, statement J. H. Strobridge; pp. 2576-77, statement L. M. Clement; p. 3055, testimony E. H. Miller; pp. 2581-82, statement Arthur Brown.

[101] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2523, testimony Leland Stanford. On the other hand, there were abundant supplies of timber along the line, and the price of machinery declined after the war.

[102] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3139-41, testimony J. H. Strobridge. The following table is prepared from Mr. Strobridge’s testimony:

Number of Men Employed in Central Pacific Construction, 1864-69, and Rate of Pay

Year	Number of Chinamen	Rate of pay	Number of White Men	Rate of pay
1864	Very few		1,200	$ 30 a month
1865	7,000	$ 30 a month	2,500	—30 ”—”——
1866	11,000	—30 ”—”——	2,500–3,000	—30 ”—”——
1867	11,000	—30 ”—”——	2,500–3,000
1868	5,000–6,000		2,000–3,000
1869	5,000		1,500–1,600

[103] Huntington was always openly in favor of unrestricted Chinese immigration. He said that exclusion deprived the United States of tractable and cheap labor, which was needed to build up the desert places of the country. He believed the fanatical hostility to the Chinese was limited to California, where, he asserted, the Irish Catholics swung the balance of power. (San Francisco Examiner, January 4, 1889.)

[104] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3642, testimony Charles Crocker. A letter from Mr. Judah to Dr. Strong, dated July 10, 1863, suggests that it was Judah’s influence which prevented Crocker from building sections 19 to 30. Judah wrote: “I have had a big row and fight on the contract question, and although I had to fight alone, carried my point and prevented a certain gentleman from becoming a further contractor on the Central Pacific Railroad at present.” (Ibid., p. 2966, testimony Strong.) This was probably only one of a number of differences of opinion between the Stanford-Huntington group and the original promoters of the Central Pacific, led by Judah. It was only after Judah’s death that the first-named interests were able to dominate the situation completely.

[105] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3769, testimony Collis P. Huntington.

[106] Ibid., pp. 2621-26, testimony Leland Stanford.

[107] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3048, testimony E. H. Miller. For a general discussion of the relative advisability of construction by contract as opposed to construction by the Central Pacific itself, see an earlier report by Stanford, Hopkins, and Miller. (Ibid., pp. 3045-46.) This report made the point that the letting of contracts to a responsible contractor would raise the credit of the railroad.

[108] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3436.

[109] Ibid., p. 3157, testimony J. H. Strobridge.

[110] The actual cost of the whole work to the Central Pacific depended upon Mr. Crocker’s reports upon the work which he did. There is no evidence that the company exercised any supervision over these reports, although it was to the advantage of the construction company to describe as much of the work as possible as heavy; but on the other hand, Mr. Crocker’s engineers testified that Crocker never attempted to influence them in their estimates. (United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3207, testimony L. Clement.)

[111] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3511, testimony Richard F. Stevens.

[112] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2636, testimony Leland Stanford.

[113] Ibid., p. 3661, testimony Charles Crocker.

[114] Colton case, pp. 266-68, deposition of Collis P. Huntington.

[115] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2640, testimony Leland Stanford.

[116] Ibid., p. 3661, testimony Charles Crocker; p. 2637, testimony Leland Stanford.

[117] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3436-37.

[118] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2897, testimony W. E. Brown; p. 3062, testimony E. H. Miller; pp. 3511-20, testimony R. F. Stevens.

[119] United States Railway Commission, pp. 2712-17, testimony D. Z. Yost.

[120] Ibid., pp. 2875-92, testimony John Miller; pp. 3028-33, testimony N. Greene Curtis.

[121] There is some evidence that $6,000,000 of this cash was not strictly cash, but took the form of notes of the Central Pacific Railroad which were ultimately settled in land-grant bonds at $86.50. (United States Pacific Railway Commission Report, p. 75.) Mr. Crocker says that the interest on a portion of these bonds paid his expenses on a trip to Europe. (Ibid., p. 3668, testimony Charles Crocker.)

[122] United States Pacific Railway Commission Report, pp. 74-75.

[123] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 2655-56, testimony Leland Stanford; p. 3668, testimony Charles Crocker. Mr. Huntington said in 1873 that he thought his dividend amounted to about $1,000,000, but in 1887 he admitted that he had earlier mistaken the facts. (Ibid., pp. 4026-28, testimony C. P. Huntington.)

[124] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 2977-88, testimony W. E. Brown.

[125] An Account of the Ceremonies Attending the Inauguration of the Work of Constructing the Central Pacific. Scribner’s Magazine for August, 1892, contains an article describing the completion of the Central Pacific and also a reproduction of the well-known painting, “The Joining of the Central and Union Pacific” (“The Last Spike”).

[126] The indenture making this assignment, dated October 31, 1864, is printed in full in the appendix to the journals of the Senate and Assembly of the 20th Session of the Legislature of the State of California, Vol. 6 (1874), No. 2. pp. 27-29. It covers not only the right to build and operate a railroad between Sacramento and San José, but also “all the rights, grants, donations, rights-of-way, loan of the credit of the Government of the United States, or the bonds thereof.”

[127] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2785, testimony Leland Stanford.

[128] Laws of California, 1852, Ch. 107.

[129] City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Company, transcript of testimony, p. 649, deposition Horace W. Carpentier; p. 1755, testimony A. J. Moon.

[130] City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Company, transcript of testimony, pp. 704-5, deposition Horace W. Carpentier; Wood, “History of Alameda County”; San Francisco Examiner, June 26, 1892, July 3, 1892.

[131] Moon, one of the trustees who approved the grant, was afterwards taken into Carpentier’s employ. Adams, another trustee, secured the property now known as the “Adams Wharf” to the east of the narrow-gauge bridge.

[132] City of Oakland v. Carpentier, 13 Cal. 540 (1859); 21 Cal. 642 (1863). The Oakland ordinances were ratified and confirmed by act of the California legislature passed May 15, 1861. (Laws of California, 1861, Ch. 377.)

[133] City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Company, transcript on appeal, pp. 652-54, deposition Horace W. Carpentier.

[134] Laws of California, 1868, Ch. 230.

[135] City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Company, transcript of testimony, sup. cit. pp. 976-80.

[136] City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Company, transcript of testimony, pp. 657-64, deposition Horace W. Carpentier.

[137] See the Ordinance of the City of Oakland, No. 302 (April 2, 1868). An excellent account of these transactions is given in an unpublished manuscript in the University of California Library, prepared by Stephen S. Barrows, one-time student in the University of California. It is of some interest to observe that among the direct beneficiaries of the agreements cited were Messrs. Carpentier, Felton, and Merritt, all three at one time or other mayors of Oakland. Mr. Merritt was mayor at the time ordinances Nos. 300, 301, and 302 were passed. The compromise described was effected under authority of an act of the California legislature dated March 21, 1868.

[138] By ordinance passed August 31, 1867, the Oakland City Council voted to pay Mr. Felton a fee equal to 15 per cent of all the property recovered by the city in the water-front litigation. (Transcript of testimony, sup. cit. p. 759.) Mr. Merritt was subsequently accused of having promoted the settlement between the city of Oakland and the Oakland Water Front Company in order to derive a pecuniary profit for himself. In 1869 the city council of Oakland authorized the appointment of a committee of three to ascertain by what title Mr. Merritt held certain water-front property near the foot of Broadway in Oakland. On report of the committee the council exonerated Mr. Merritt. (Ibid., pp. 1406-7, 1410-21.)

[139] City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Company, 118 Cal. 160 (1897).

[140] Western Pacific Railway Company v. Southern Pacific Company, 151 Fed. 376 (1907). The court also pointed out in the decision that although the low-tide line was projected across the mouth of the estuary for the purpose of determining the boundary of Oakland, this should not be done in ascertaining the limit of the railroad grant.

[141] The boundaries are set forth in the San Francisco Times of March 7, 1868. As later amended and confined to the area north of Point Avisadero, they are described in the Daily Alta of March 14, 1868.

[142] Appendix to journals of Senate and Assembly of the California Legislature, 17th Session, Vol. 3, 1868.

[143] San Francisco Bulletin, March 7, 1868.

[144] Daily Alta California, March 10, 1868.

[145] San Francisco Times, March 13, 1868.

[146] See resolutions of a meeting of San Francisco business men in March, 1868, recommending that the legislature grant 150 acres each to the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific; and the admission of the Southern Pacific that it could get along with 250 acres.

[147] Laws of California, 1867-68, Ch. 543.

[148] Laws of California, 1867-68, Ch. 386. A lively account of the circumstances attending the passage of the Goat Island bill through the legislature was published by an old newspaper man, Sam Leake by name, in the San Francisco Bulletin, March 17 and 19, 1917. There is, however, no way of verifying this story, and it cannot be accepted on Mr. Leake’s authority alone.

[149] Laws of California, 1869-70, Ch. 381.

[150] Mr. Stanford has asserted that the whole trouble was caused by six gentlemen, three of whom had interests near Ravenswood, where it was thought that the Central Pacific might cross, and three of whom had interests in Sausalito. He says he was informed by a member of Congress that he could have had necessary legislation in Congress for $10,000. This refers to the campaign of 1875-76. (United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3170-71, testimony Leland Stanford.)

[151] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3496-3500, testimony D. O. Mills.

[152] The California and Oregon Railroad Company was subsidized by Congress by Act of July 25, 1866, to build from a point on the Central Pacific Railroad to the Oregon boundary, where it was to meet a railroad coming south from Portland. Tracks reached Chico, July 2, 1870. In 1870, the California and Oregon was consolidated with the Central Pacific. In 1872 it reached Redding, and on October 5, 1887, the state line. The federal legislation relating to the California and Oregon Railroad is notable for the liberality of the land grant made.

[153] This branch was known as the San Joaquin Valley Railroad. The company bearing this name was incorporated in 1868. Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins, Charles, and E. B. Crocker were directors. In 1870 it was consolidated with the Central Pacific. Stanford declared in 1887 that the trunk lines up the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys were the most important factors in the Central Pacific’s local business.

[154] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3628-29, testimony J. P. Jackson; p. 3613, testimony Leland Stanford.

[155] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3366-67, testimony J. C. Stubbs.

[156] Ibid., pp. 3628-29, testimony J. C. Jackson.

[157] San Francisco Bulletin, November 29, 1869.

[158] Main v. Central Pacific, argument of Harvey S. Brown, of counsel for the defendants, 1886.

[159] San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 1874, statement Milton S. Latham. This was the bridge over which the California Pacific was entering Sacramento.

[160] Main v. Central Pacific. Statement of facts. The closing argument of L. E. Chittenden, of counsel for plaintiffs, 1886. See also San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 1874, statement of Milton S. Latham.

[161] Opponents of the Central Pacific described the transaction in 1886 as follows: “Huntington, the incarnation of this hostility, whose name was an inspiration of personal aversion, entered the state on the 24th of June; and the suggestion is, that the Court shall believe that under these circumstances, the directors of the California Pacific loaded their staggering trust with a new debt of $1,600,000, on which interest should commence at once, to pay for a second track, not to be finished until about two years, at the small end of their railroad where there was no need of it, at a point where it was doubtful if one track would stand—and contracted with their hereditary enemies to do it—all without the remotest reference to any purchase of, or intended future control of the corporation!”

[162] Colton case, pp. 3214-15.

[163] San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 1874. According to A. A. Cohen, a San Francisco lawyer one time in the employ of the Central Pacific and intimately acquainted with its policies, Stanford told Latham that he, Stanford, was extremely sorry that the Reese suit had been commenced, and that it would not have been if he had known anything at all about it. Cohen, however, made public the following letter, written by Stanford the day before the suit was brought, which puts an altogether different face upon the matter. Stanford wrote as follows: