[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.