[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.