[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: