The inference from this letter is, of course, that the Reese suit was brought at Stanford’s own instance.

[164] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3936-42, testimony L. E. Chittenden.

[165] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3614, testimony Leland Stanford.

[166] On December 2, 1865. United States v. Southern Pacific, transcript of testimony, p. 1284. Hereafter referred to as “United States v. Southern Pacific.” This company was organized under the general California statute relating to incorporations approved May 20, 1861.

[167] 14 United States Statutes 292 (1866). An act granting lands to aid in the construction of railroad and telegraph line from the states of Missouri and Arkansas to the Pacific Ocean. The provisions of this act were promptly accepted by the Southern Pacific. See United States v. Southern Pacific, pp. 1672-73.

[168] 15 United States Statutes 187 (1868).

[169] San Francisco Bulletin, March 14, 1868.

[170] United States v. Southern Pacific, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 23. Neither Huntington nor Stanford signed the articles of association of 1870 as holders of stock of the consolidating companies. This may merely mean, however, that the stock of these companies was placed under other names for purposes of convenience.

[171] The change of route was authorized by Congressional resolution, dated June 28, 1870 (16 United States Statutes 382 [1870].) It should be observed that the so-called Mussel Slough “massacre” resulted from a dispute over the ownership of land south of Hanford, Tulare County, which lay along the line of railroad as designated in 1867, but not along that proposed in 1865. It appears that a number of persons settled upon and improved tracts near Hanford before the railroad applied for patent to land in this vicinity, but after the Southern Pacific had filed the map showing its intended route with the Commissioner of the General Land Office in 1867, and after lands along this route had been withdrawn.

When the railroad secured title it offered to sell this occupied land to the parties who had settled upon it, but at prices which were much above those current for unimproved farm land. That is to say, the railroad asked from $11 to $35 an acre, instead of the customary $2.50 to $5 an acre. The settlers understood from this that the company was trying to make them pay for improvements which they themselves had made, and resorted to active opposition. In 1876 the settlers petitioned Congress to restore a portion of the land grant in question to the public domain, on the ground that no railroad had ever been constructed along it.

In 1881 the railroad attempted to take forcible possession of two pieces of the disputed land. There was resistance, and in the shooting which followed, eight men were killed, including six settlers. This was the “massacre.” There seems to be no question but that the railroad possessed legal title to the Tulare County property. The weakness of its position lay in the fact that it was attempting to build a railroad in one place and to secure a land grant in another—a procedure never contemplated by Congress, and one not unlikely to lead to hostile legislation. Eventually the railroad title was sustained, and the land sold by the company, though at reduced prices.

[172] 16 United States Statutes 573 (1871).

[173] See on this matter Colton case, p. 1621, Crocker to Colton, February 12, 1875.

[174] Guinn, “A History of California,” pp. 254, 276.

[175] Ninth Census of the United States, 1870.

[176] Newmark, “Sixty Years in Southern California.” The Los Angeles and San Pedro was built to Wilmington only in 1869. It was not extended to San Pedro until 1881.

[177] Ranchers near Los Angeles feared lest the construction of the railroad would do away with horses and the demand for barley.

[178] “Illustrated History of Los Angeles County” (Chicago, 1889), p. 136.

[179] Newmark, “Sixty Years in Southern California,” pp. 496-97.

[180] Articles of incorporation are printed in Colton case, pp. 5475-77, testimony F. S. Douty. See also ibid., pp. 2993-95, testimony Reynolds. The material and accounts for repairs possessed by the Contract and Finance Company were turned over to the Western Development Company at this time at a valuation of $431,530.53.

[181] Colton case, pp. 362-65, 7806-22, testimony F. S. Douty. The actual payments were, as the result of certain adjustments, slightly less.

[182] United Slates Railway Commission, p. 2701, testimony F. S. Douty.

[183] United States v. Southern Pacific, pp. 553-55, testimony Redington.

[184] Ibid., pp. 533-35, testimony Luckett.

[185] Colton case, p. 7637, Colton to Huntington.

[186] Colton case, pp. 231-32, testimony F. S. Douty; United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3626—27, testimony F. S. Douty.

[187] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2832, testimony Leland Stanford.

[188] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2994, testimony C. F. Crocker.

[189] Colton case, pp. 7646-54, 1586.

[190] Ibid., pp. 9669-73, testimony Charles Crocker.

[191] San Francisco Examiner, October 8, 1889.

[192] Jay Gould once testified that Huntington had offered an interest in the Southern Pacific to himself and his Union Pacific associates, and that they had offered to take an interest, provided that Huntington would cut the Southern Pacific bonds outstanding from $40,000 to $25,000 per mile, and throw the stock in. Gould thought that $25,000 per mile was all that the road had cost. (Colton case, deposition Jay Gould, pp. 8, 23-24.)

It should be observed that a great deal of the mileage now owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad was not originally built by that company, but by or for small separate companies, most of them organized by the Huntington group, which were later consolidated with the parent corporation. The complete list of these consolidations is as follows:

October 12, 1870. Consolidation of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the San Francisco and San José Railroad Company, the Santa Clara and Pajaro Valley Railroad Company, and the California Southern Railroad Company.

August 19, 1873. Consolidation of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the Southern Pacific Branch Railroad Company.

December 18, 1874. Consolidation of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the Los Angeles and San Pedro Railroad Company.

May 14, 1888. Consolidation of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the San José and Almaden Railroad Company, the Pajaro and Santa Cruz Railroad Company, the Monterey Railroad Company, the Monterey Extension Railroad Company, the Southern Pacific Branch Railway Company, the San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Company, the San Pablo and Tulare Extension Railroad Company, the San Ramon Valley Railroad Company, the Stockton and Copperopolis Railroad Company, the Stockton and Tulare Railroad Company, the San Joaquin Valley and Yosemite Railroad Company, the Los Angeles and San Diego Railroad Company, the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad Company, the Long Beach, Whittier and Los Angeles County Railroad Company, the Long Beach Railroad Company, the Southern Pacific Railroad Extension Company, and the Ramona and San Bernardino Railroad Company.

April 13,1898. Consolidation of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Northern Railway Company, the Northern California Railway Company, and the California Pacific Railroad Company.

March 7, 1902. Consolidation of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company (of California), the Southern Pacific Railroad Company (of Arizona), and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company of New Mexico.

[193] Colton case, pp. 1522-24, 1529.

[194] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 2791-92, testimony Leland Stanford.

[195] Colton case, pp. 1524-29.

[196] Ibid., pp. 1510-13.

[197] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3445, testimony E. H. Miller, Jr.

[198] For terms of leases see especially United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3443-53, testimony of E. H. Miller. Jr.

[199] United States v. Southern Pacific, p. 708, testimony Julius Kruttschnitt. This was a case brought in 1915 before the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah in order to compel the separation of the Central Pacific from the Southern Pacific railroad. The suit was brought under the Anti-Trust Law of 1890, and in the course of the testimony the history of the Southern Pacific was very fully brought out.

[200] Colton case, pp. 814-26.

[201] Colton case, pp. 1643-44, Huntington to Colton, May 28, 1875.

[202] Ibid., pp. 1615-16, Huntington to Colton, December 10, 1874.

[203] United States v. Southern Pacific, p. 655, testimony Timothy Hopkins.

[204] United States v. Southern Pacific, pp. 1191-96, testimony James Speyer.

[205] Ibid., pp. 613-18, testimony George T. Klink.

[206] Ibid., p. 645, testimony George R. Jackson.

[207] Ibid., p. 1695, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 21.

[208] Ibid., p. 871, inventory of Charles Crocker estate, filed July 12, 1889.

[209] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2657, testimony Leland Stanford.

[210] United States v. Southern Pacific, pp. 615, 645, testimony George T. Klink.

[211] United States v. Southern Pacific, p. 666, testimony Timothy Hopkins.

[212] United States v. Southern Pacific, pp. 1688-1702, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 21.

[213] United States v. Southern Pacific, pp. 621-22, testimony George T. Klink. It has been suggested that Huntington had the charter of the Southern Pacific Company taken out in Kentucky, in order to enable the company to conduct its suits in California in the federal and not in the state courts.

[214] J. M. Bassett said of the action of Kentucky in granting a charter to the Southern Pacific Company, that it amounted to granting a letter of marque to that company on the condition that it make no reprisals in Kentucky. He argued that the lease of the Central Pacific was defective because its duration was to be greater than the life of the Central Pacific under its articles of incorporation, because the liability of Southern Pacific stockholders was not unlimited as in the case of California corporations, and because the rule of comity under which foreign corporations operated in California could not be expected to apply to a corporation which was forbidden to do business in the state of its nativity. None of these objections, however, proved to have any practical importance.

[215] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 2812-13, testimony Leland Stanford.

[216] The following table shows the result of operation under the lease for each year from 1885 to 1893:

Net Profits and Rentals Central Pacific Railroad, 1885-93

Period	Net Profits Central Pacific Railroad Company	Rental Paid to Central Pacific Railroad Company	Excess of Rental over Net Profit
April to December, 1885	$1,482,033	$1,482,033	..........
1886	1,324,998	1,324,998	..........
1887	1,086,733	1,200,000	$113,267
1888	962,830	1,360,000	397,170
1889	1,035,418	1,360,000	324,582
1890	999,223	1,360,000	360,777
1891	2,144,425	2,144,425	...........
1892	861,874	1,360,000	498,127
1893	784,717	1,360,000	575,283
	—————	—————	—————
Totals	$10,682,251	$12,951,456	$2,269,206
	═══════	═══════	═══════

Brice Report, 53d Congress, 3d Session, January 28, 1895 (Senate Report, No. 830, Serial No. 3288).

[217] Colton case, pp. 8839-42, testimony Charles Crocker. A discussion of the relations between Colton and the Huntington group which differs from that given in the text is presented in Russell, “Stories of the Great Railroads,” 1914.

[218] Colton case, pp. 2446-50, testimony Mrs. Colton.

[219] Ibid., pp. 172-73, deposition C. P. Huntington.

[220] Colton case, pp. 5872-74. See also Colton manuscript, pp. 36-40. It was stipulated that either party might cancel the agreement at any time within two years, upon which stock and promissory note were to be mutually returned, and the parties placed in the same position relative to each other as before the agreement was made.

[221] Colton case, pp. 7018-19.

[222] Ibid., p. 6529, testimony H. K. White.

[223] Colton case, p. 8869, testimony Charles Crocker.

[224] Ibid., pp. 1058, 1064-66, testimony E. H. Miller, Jr.; p. 8957, testimony Charles Crocker.

[225] Colton case, pp. 2711-12, 478-81, testimony F. S. Douty.

[226] Newell Beeman, superintendent of the Rocky Mountain Coal and Iron Company, says that Colton knew nothing about the practical working of the mine. (Colton case, pp. 3849-50, testimony Newell Beeman.)

[227] Colton case, pp. 7612-13, Colton to Huntington, January 31, 1878.

[228] Colton case, p. 8915, testimony Charles Crocker.

[229] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3255, testimony F. S. Douty; Colton case, pp. 423-24, testimony F. S. Douty.

[230] Colton case, pp. 8883, 8887, testimony Charles Crocker.

[231] Colton case, pp. 8881-82, testimony Charles Crocker; pp. 36-37, deposition C. P. Huntington.

[232] Colton case, pp. 2335-46, testimony Gunn; pp. 3127-29, 3227, testimony W. G. Fullerton.

[233] Colton case, pp. 7187-92, testimony Madden; pp. 7217-24, testimony N. T. Smith.

[234] Colton case, pp. 2436-39, Huntington to Mrs. Colton, November 15, 1878, and November 21, 1878.

[235] Ibid., pp. 2485-92, testimony Mrs. Colton; pp. 8892-99; testimony Charles Crocker.

[236] Colton case, pp. 16-32, deposition S. N. Wilson.

[237] Colton case, pp. 8931-32, testimony Charles Crocker.

[238] In the case of the Central Pacific claims, the qualification “so far as known at the time” was introduced.

[239] Colton case, pp. 2815-16, testimony Mrs. Colton; pp. 8943-44, testimony Charles Crocker.

[240] Crocker manuscript, pp. 40-41.

[241] Colton case, p. 248, testimony Douty; United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3494, testimony D. O. Mills.

[242] Colton case, p. 1662, Huntington to Colton, May 1, 1875.

[243] Ibid., pp. 1720-31, Huntington to Colton, June 24, 1875; pp. 1743-45, Huntington to Colton, December 4, 1875.

[244] Ibid., miscellaneous depositions, p. 41, depositions S. H. Thayer.

[245] Colton case, p. 33, deposition D. O. Mills.

[246] Ibid., p. 45, deposition S. H. Thayer.

[247] Colton case, pp. 1684-85, Huntington to Colton, November 13, 1875.

[248] Ibid., pp. 1747-48, Huntington to Colton, December 20, 1876.

[249] Colton case, pp. 1746-47, Huntington to Colton, December 8, 1870.

[250] Ibid., pp. 1768-70, Huntington to Colton, May 6, 1877.

[251] Ibid., pp. 1772-73, Huntington to Colton, May 9, 1877.

[252] Ibid., pp. 7517-18, Colton to Huntington, August 24, 1877.

[253] Ibid., p. 7523, Colton to Huntington, September 28, 1877.

[254] Colton case, pp. 7625-26, Colton to Huntington, March 13, 1878.

It is extraordinary that a man in Colton’s position with his intimate knowledge of the precarious condition of Central Pacific finance should have allowed that railroad to declare a 4 per cent dividend in October, 1877, great though his personal necessities may have been. This was, however, done. In reply to a letter from Huntington criticizing this action, Colton later wrote:

“I never had the least intimation of objecting to the dividend until some time after it was declared. Governor Stanford informed me that you had telegraphed him, advising relative to this October dividend. We discussed it some time afterward in the Board meeting and found the whole matter of dividend had been written up in the books, and had gone so far before it had been brought before the Board that it was considered best to let the matter stand as it was.... I did not give the matter any attention outside of the Board meeting, for I felt it was a matter that Governor Stanford was personally attending to.

“I do not, however, see the matter in just the light you do, and think so few will know of it that it cannot hurt us in Washington, for if you who are one of the largest stockholders, have not found it out, I do not see much show for outsiders. That there were ample surplus earnings to declare it there is no doubt. So it was a question of policy.... I would think in a business way the Government would be glad to see us doing well and prosperous, and evincing ability to pay dividends and all of our debts.” (Colton case, pp. 7533-34, Colton to Huntington, November 24, 1877.)

[255] Colton case, pp. 7608-14, Colton to Huntington, January 31, 1878.

[256] In 1885 the Central Pacific directors authorized the issue of $10,000,000 in bonds to pay off the floating debt. (United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3019, testimony C. F. Crocker.) There is some reason to suspect that Stanford was individually embarrassed in 1878, as a result of the financial stringency in California. Huntington telegraphed Colton in September of that year to let him know Stanford’s financial condition as near as he could ascertain it, and proposed to have the Western Development Company assume Stanford’s indebtedness, taking Southern Pacific bonds from Stanford in exchange, at 65. Colton replied that the Western Development Company would have to take about $3,000,000 in Southern Pacific bonds under such an arrangement to cover Stanford’s obligations. The French bank in San Francisco had just closed its doors, and he, Colton, was anxious about Stanford’s collaterals. He thought that Stanford had $800,000 of United States bonds in that institution. Michael Reese’s executors were calling for money. It does not appear what conclusion was finally reached.

[257] Colton case, pp. 704-705.

[258] Colton case, p. 112, deposition J. D. Probst.

[259] Ibid., pp. 146-47, deposition A. L. Thompson.

[260] Laws of California, 1875-76, Ch. 515. For a readable account of the history of the California Railroad Commission up to 1895, see Moffet, “The Railroad Commission of California—A Study in Irresponsible Government,” (Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March, 1895).

[261] Report of the Board of Commissioners of Transportation to the Legislature of the State of California, December, 1877.

[262] Laws of California, 1877-78, Ch. 641.

[263] Laws of California, 1877-78, Ch. 490.

[264] Colton case, p. 7646, Colton to Huntington, May 23, 1878.

[265] Laws of California, 1880, Ch. 59. Under the view that a clause in the Constitution merely amounted to a mandate to the legislature, an enactment such as that of 1880 was obviously necessary. It should be said, however, that in later years this conception has somewhat changed, and constitutional provisions have been held to be self-executing. This was not the case in 1870. (McMurray, “Some Tendencies in Constitution Making,” in California Law Review, March, 1914.)

[266] City and County of San Francisco v. L. Stanford, Charles Crocker, et al, argument in the Circuit Court of the United States, 9th Circuit, District of California.

[267] The Visalia Delta said of Stoneman, with unconscious humor: “France has her Napoleon; Italy her Garibaldi; America her Washington; Ireland her O’Connell; and the state of California her Stoneman.”

[268] Arguments and statements before the Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, 47th Congress, 1st Session, 1882, House Misc. Doc. 55, p. 262, Serial No. 2047.

[269] Report of the Committee on Corporations, 1883, testimony W. R. Andros, secretary to the commission (in appendix to journals of the Senate and Assembly of the Legislature of California, 25th Session, 1883).

[270] Report of the Committee on Corporations, 1883, p. 48, testimony C. J. Beerstecher.

[271] This schedule was prepared under the direction of Stoneman and was approved by Beerstecher on the understanding that the railroad companies were to be asked to show cause why it should not be adopted. (Report of the Committee on Corporations, 1883, testimony C. J. Beerstecher.)

[272] Ibid., p. 11, testimony G. B. Stoneman. Mr. Cone says that the freight schedule was not fully prepared till March, 1881.

[273] Ibid., testimony J. S. Cone.

[274] Report of the Committee on Corporations, 1883, testimony C. J. Beerstecher.

[275] When Beerstecher came up for re-election in 1882, the opposition press asserted that a railroad official handed every employee of the railroad in Beerstecher’s district a Republican ticket with Beerstecher’s name printed on it, with orders to vote it. (Mussel Slough Delta, May 12, 1882.)

[276] Report of the Committee on Corporations, 1883, testimony J. S. Cone.

[277] Letter to Senate Committee on Corporations, California Legislature, January 22, 1874; San Francisco Chronicle, January 23, 1874.

[278] Testimony before Senate Committee on Corporations, February 16, 1874 (in appendix to journals of Senate and Assembly, 20th Session California Legislature, Vol. 4); San Francisco Chronicle, February 17, 1874.

[279] Letter to Committee of the New York Chamber of Commerce, January 20, 1881.

[280] The following interview with Charles Crocker, reported in the Placerville Democrat for March 3, 1883, suggests how the doctrine described in the text was concretely applied:

“A gentleman of Placerville called upon Mr. Charles Crocker, of the railroad company, in San Francisco last Saturday, to ascertain just what we might calculate upon in reference to the extension of the railroad from Shingle Springs to Placerville. He reports that Mr. Crocker conversed freely on the subject, and with an appearance of perfect candor. He said emphatically that his company would not build or extend any branch roads under existing conditions as to uncertainty of action by the Railroad Commission, and the apparent state of public opinion as manifested in the Legislature and portions of the public press. He says that if the Commission intends to make sweeping reductions on the branch roads, such action would make these roads valueless, and he is not disposed to build roads to be thus destroyed. In answer to a direct question, with a full understanding that it was to be reported to our people, he said that if the Robinson suit were settled, and the position of the Commission ascertained as disposed to non-interference with the branch roads, his company was anxious to and would immediately extend the road to this place.”

[281] Colton case, pp. 1717-19, Huntington to Colton, April 27, 1876.

[282] Ibid., p. 1754, Huntington to Colton, January 22, 1877.

[283] Ibid., p. 1814, Huntington to Colton, December 7, 1875.

[284] Ibid., pp. 1684-85, Huntington to Colton, November 13, 1875.

[285] Cotton case, pp. 1642-43, Huntington to Colton, April 26, 1875.

[286] Ibid., pp. 1676-77, Huntington to Colton, October 19, 1875.

[287] Ibid., pp. 1624-25, Crocker to Colton, February 8, 1875.

[288] Tom Scott was president of the Pennsylvania Railroad at one time and an active opponent of Huntington before Congress.

[289] Cotton case, p. 1735, Huntington to Colton, July 26, 1876.

[290] Ibid., pp. 1736-37, Huntington to Colton, August 7, 1876.

[291] Ibid., pp. 1756-58, Huntington to Colton, March 7, 1877.

[292] Ibid., pp. 1763-65, Huntington to Colton, March 31, 1877.

[293] Ibid., pp. 1776-77, Huntington to Colton, May 15, 1877.

[294] Huntington manuscript, p. 17.

[295] Colton case, pp. 1622-23, Huntington to Colton, March 3, 1875.

[296] Colton case, p. 1728, Huntington to Colton, June 21, 1876.

[297] Ibid., pp. 1731-32, Huntington to Colton, July 16, 1876.

[298] Ibid., p. 7669, Huntington to Colton, August 1, 1876.

[299] Colton case, p. 1756, Huntington to Colton, March 7, 1877.

[300] Ibid., p. 1758, Huntington to Colton, March 14, 1877; pp. 1812-13, Huntington to Colton, December 5, 1877.

[301] Ibid., pp. 7776-77, Huntington to Colton, January 11, 1878.

[302] Ibid., pp. 1847-48, Huntington to Colton, February 9, 1878.

[303] Ibid., p. 1833, Huntington to Colton, New York, June 15, 1878.

[304] Colton case, pp. 833-34, Huntington to Colton, New York, June 20, 1878.

[305] Ibid., p. 1822, Huntington to Colton, New York, April 19, 1878.

[306] Ibid., pp., 1823-24, Huntington to Colton, New York, April 23, 1878.

[307] Colton case, pp. 1828-29, Huntington to Colton, New York, May 24, 1878.

[308] Colton case, pp. 1673-74, Huntington to Colton, October 9, 1875.

[309] Ibid., pp. 1679-81, Huntington to Colton, October 29, 1875.

[310] Ibid., pp. 1669-70, Huntington to Colton, September 27, 1875.

[311] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3276, testimony S. T. Gage.

[312] Ibid., pp. 3287-88, testimony S. T. Gage.

[313] Ibid., pp. 4174-75, testimony Leland Stanford.

[314] Huntington manuscript, p. 80.

[315] Colton Case, pp. 1802-3, Huntington to Colton, November 9, 1877.

[316] Ibid., pp. 1843-45, Huntington to Colton, January 28, 1878. J. M. Bassett declared that Huntington paid out $1,700,000 to prevent Scott from securing a subsidy for the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad.

[317] Ibid., p. 1840, Huntington to Colton, January 12, 1878.

[318] Colton case, p. 1803, Huntington to Colton, November 15, 1877.

[319] Ibid., pp. 1700-1, Huntington to Colton, January 14, 1876.

[320] Ibid., pp. 1712-13, Huntington to Colton, March 23, 1876.

[321] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3738, testimony C. P. Huntington.

[322] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 35-36, testimony C. P. Huntington.

[323] Ibid., p. 3869, testimony I. E. Gates.

[324] Ibid., p. 3697, testimony C. P. Huntington.

[325] Ibid., pp. 2995-99, testimony C. F. Crocker; p. 3200, testimony Leland Stanford.

[326] Ibid., pp. 4174-75, testimony Leland Stanford.

[327] Most of the so-called “Dear Pard letters” from which the above is taken, appeared in the San Francisco Daily Report after November, 1892. In the majority of cases the letters were printed in the Saturday edition. The correspondence continued with varying frequency until Bassett’s death in 1903. It was credited with a considerable share in preventing the refunding of the Central Pacific indebtedness to the United States government on terms favorable to the corporation, and Bassett himself believed that his “exposures” had seriously injured Southern Pacific credit in the financial markets.

[328] Colton case, p. 1661, Huntington to Colton, May 1, 1875.

[329] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 3721, testimony C. P. Huntington.

[330] Colton case, pp. 1726-27, Huntington to Colton, June 7, 1876.

[331] Ibid., pp. 1740-41, Huntington to Colton, November 11, 1876.

[332] Ibid., pp. 1765-66, Huntington to Colton, April 3, 1877.

[333] It has also been asserted that the failure of Mr. and Mrs. Stanford to attend one of the Huntington weddings was sharply resented by Mr. Huntington. J. M. Bassett, at one time secretary to Mr. Stanford, says that the latter came to regard Huntington as an individual of shady characteristics, and was not inclined to trust him further than he could throw Trinity Church up the side of Mt. Shasta. For his part, Huntington spoke of Stanford as a “blanked old fool.” (San Francisco Daily Report, July 21, 1894.)

[334] San Francisco Examiner, April 10, 1890.

[335] San Francisco Examiner, April 10, 1890.

[336] Ibid., April 13, 1890; April 18, 1890.

[337] United States Pacific Railway Commission, pp. 3697-98, testimony C. P. Huntington.

[338] Colton case, p. 1729, Huntington to Colton, June 24, 1876.

[339] Report of the chief engineer upon the preliminary survey, revenue, and cost of construction of the San Francisco and Sacramento Railroad, 1856.

[340] Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of California for the years ending December 31, 1877 and 1878.

[341] Hittell, “The Commerce and Industries of the Pacific Coast of North America,” 1882, Ch. XI; Sheppard. “F. F. Low, Ninth Governor of California” (in University of California Chronicle, April, 1917); San Francisco Argonaut, June 22, 1878.

[342] Sacramento Union, December 19, 1860.

[343] In 1869 a committee of the California legislature estimated the volume of California products annually arriving at and exported from the port of San Francisco as follows (in appendix to journal of Senate and Assembly, 18th session, California Legislature, Vol 2):

Products	Annual Receipts		Annual Exports
Wheat	225,000	tons	200,000	tons
Barley	30,000	”	10,000	”
Oats	15,000	”	2,500	”
Corn	5,000	”	1,000	”
Hay	40,000	”	1,000	”
Potatoes	37,500	”	10,000	”
Beans	3,600	”	1,000	”
Hops and broom corn	3,600	”	1,000	”
Beets, carrots, tomatoes, parsnips, peas, cabbages, melons, squashes, etc.	40,000	”	500	”
Butter and cheese	10,000	”	500	”
Brandy and wine	6,000,000	gals.	4,000,000	gals.
Fruits, dried and fresh	20,000	tons	500	tons
Beef, mutton, and pork	6,000	”	.........
Poultry and eggs	12,000	”	.........
Wool	7,500	”	4,000	”
Hides	168,000	”	one-half

[344] Hittell, “Commerce and Industries on the Pacific Coast,” Ch. 11.

[345] Hittell, “Commerce and Industries on the Pacific Coast,” Ch. 11.

[346] United States Pacific Railway Commission, p. 2924, testimony Leland Stanford.

[347] Colton case, pp. 981-83.

[348] Colton case, pp. 981-83, Huntington to Colton, November 9, 1874.

[349] Ibid., pp. 466, 495-96, testimony F. S. Douty.