"God of Justice, is this right, that so many should be sacrificed because a few men want more millions? Our family is one of the many who have suffered so much. Oh! so much! And all to what end? For what? Ah!

the same answer again, because a few heartless men want more millions,"

said she, with her face bathed in tears.

Dona Josefa evidently did not believe that because "_misery there must always be in the world, no matter who causes it_," that she was called upon to stoically submit to unmerited infliction. In a mild and dignified way, her mind rebelled. She regarded the acts of the men who caused her husband's ruin and death with genuine abhorrence. To her, rectitude and equity had a clear meaning impossible to pervert. No subtle sophistry could blur in her mind the clear line dividing right from wrong. She knew that among men the word business means inhumanity to one another; it means justification of rapacity; it means the freedom of man to crowd and crush his fellow-man; it means the sanction of the Shylockian principle of exacting the pound of flesh. She knew all this, but the illustration, the ocular demonstration, had never been before her until now in that gay house, in that brightly illuminated mansion, and she sadly contrasted her sorrow with their gayety, and continued her soliloquy: "No doubt those people think they have a right to rejoice and feast with the money extorted in crushing so many people-the killing of my darling. Doubtless they say that they earned the money in *BUSINESS*, and that allegation is all-sufficient; that one word justifies in the pursuit of riches everything mean, dishonest, rapacious, unfair, treacherous, unjust, and fraudulent. After a man makes his money no one cares how he made it, and so those people dance while I mourn for my beloved."

For hours Dona Josefa sat at that window, weeping sadly, while the others danced gayly.

Afterwards, when she had been for some time in San Francisco, she had yet stronger demonstrations, and her sense of justice and her ideas of moral adjustment of men's actions with principle, received additional shocks, quite as painful as seeing the millionaire's palace illuminated, while the humble houses he had desolated must remain dark.

Dona Josefa frankly spoke to the ladies who had called on her, of the cause of her husband's death. She did so in answer to their inquiries.

She, on two or three occasions, mentioned how painful it had been to sit by the window looking at that house of rejoicing, while thinking that if those rich men had had more sense of justice and less greed of money, that her husband could have been spared to her.

"Don't say that, my dear lady, for you will give great offense," said an old friend, who having heard that Clarence was worth twelve million dollars, had called on her, suddenly remembering that she used to know the Alamares years ago.

"Why should I give offense? It is the truth," Dona Josefa replied.

"That may be, but you cannot speak against such rich people; San Francisco society will turn against you," was the rejoinder.

"Then it is a crime _to speak_ of the wrongs we have suffered, but it is not a crime _to commit_ those wrongs."

"I don't know. I am not a moralist. But this I do know, that if you accuse those rich men of having done wrong, the society people will give you the cold shoulder."

"Oh, very well, let it be so. Let the guilty rejoice and go unpunished, and the innocent suffer ruin and desolation. I slander no one, but shall speak the truth."

CONCLUSION.-_Out with the Invader._

"Let infamy be that man's portion who uses his power to corrupt, to ruin, to debase," says Channing, in righteous indignation, speaking of the atrocities perpetrated by Napoleon the First to gratify his vanity and ambition. Further on, with increasing earnestness, Channing adds: "In anguish of spirit we exclaim: 'How long will an abject world kiss the foot that tramples it? How long shall crime find shelter in its very aggravations and excess?'"

If Channing lived now, his 'anguish of spirit' would be far greater to find in his own country, firmly enthroned, _a power that corrupts, ruins and debases_ as utterly as that which he so eloquently deplored, and his own fellow-citizens-the free-born Americans-ready and willing to _kiss the foot that tramples them_!

Not infamy, but honor and wealth, is the portion of the men who corrupt and ruin and debase in this country. Honor and wealth for the Napoleons of this land, whose power the sons of California can neither check, nor thwart, nor escape, nor withstand. And in California, as in France, "crime finds shelter in its very aggravations and excess," for after ten years of fighting in Congress against legislation that would have given to the people of the Southern States and the Pacific Coast a competing railway; and after fighting against creating a sinking fund to re-imburse moneys due to the Government, and fighting against laws to regulate freights and fares on a fair basis, they (the Napoleons) refuse to pay taxes on their gigantic property, thus making it necessary for the Governor of California to call an extra session of the Legislature to devise some new laws which will compel those defiant millionaires to pay taxes, and not leave upon the shoulders of poor people the onerous duty of defraying public expenses.

Is not this "aggravation of excess?" Excess of defiance? Excess of lawlessness? How insidiously these monopolists began their work of accumulation, which has culminated in a power that not only eludes the law of the land, but defies, derides it! They were poor men. They came before the Government at Washington, and before the people of California, as suppliant petitioners, humbly begging for aid to construct a railroad. The aid was granted most liberally, and as soon as they accumulated sufficient capital to feel rich they began their work of eluding and defying the law. They became insolent, flinging defiance, as if daring the law to touch them, and truly, the law thus far has been powerless with them. At Washington they won their first victories against the American people; and now California has the shame of seeing that she has not the power to enforce her laws upon the men she made rich. The Legislature convened and adjourned, and there is no way yet of compelling the insolent millionaires to pay their taxes or regulate their rates on freights and fares!

It seems now that unless _the people of California take the law in their own hands_, and seize the property of those men, and confiscate it, to re-imburse the money due _the people_, the arrogant corporation will never pay. They are so accustomed to appropriate to themselves what rightfully belongs to others, and have so long stood before the world in defiant attitude, that they have become utterly insensible to those sentiments of fairness animating law-abiding men of probity and sense of justice.

These monopolists are essentially dangerous citizens in the fullest acceptance of the word. They are dangerous citizens, not only in being guilty of violation of the law, in subverting the fundamental principles of public morality, but they are dangerous citizens, because they _lead others_ into the commission of the same crimes. Their example is deadly to honorable sentiments; it is poison to Californians, because it allures men with the glamour of success; it incites the unwary to imitate the conduct of men who have become immensely rich by such culpable means.

Mr. Huntington in his letters (made public in the Colton suit), shows the truth of all this; shows how bribing and corrupting seemed to him perfectly correct. He speaks of "the men that can be _convinced_"

(meaning the men that will take bribes), as naturally as if no one need blush for it. And with the same frankness he discloses his maneuvering to defeat the Texas Pacific Railroad, and elude the payment of moneys due the Government. It is surprising, as well as unpleasant, to read in Mr. Huntington's letters the names of men in high positions whom he reckons in his list as "men who can _be convinced_" and he speaks of them in a cool way and off-hand manner, which shows how little respect he has for those whom he can _convince_. Perhaps there are some in his list who never did take a bribe from him, but then those gentlemen are in the position of "Old Dog Tray," who suffered for being in bad company.

"I have set matters to work in the South that I think will switch most of the South from Tom Scott's Texas and Pacific bill," etc., etc., Mr.

Huntington wrote in April, '75, and in November of the same year he concluded to send Dr. Gwin to work on the credulity of the Southerners, to switch them off.

"I think the doctor can do us some good if he can work under cover. * *

* He must not come to the surface as _our man_. * * * Not as our agent, but as an anti-subsidy Democrat and a Southern man," etc. When the deceiver returned, Mr. Huntington wrote: "I notice what you say about the interest that Dr. Gwin should have. I have no doubt that we shall agree about what his interest should be," says Mr. Huntington, speaking of the price to be paid the ex-Senator for his work of helping to "_switch off the South_!"

In another letter Mr. Huntington says: "I had a talk with Bristow, Secretary of the Treasury. He will be likely to help us fix up our matters with the Government on a fair basis."

Another letter says: "I am doing all I can to have the Government take six million acres of land, and give the railroad company credit for fifteen million dollars, etc. I wish you would have the newspapers take the ground that this land ought to be taken by the Government and held for the people, etc. Something that the demagogues can vote and work for," etc.

Mr. Huntington also says: "I think there should be a bridge company organized (that we are not in) to build over the Colorado River, etc. In this way we could tax the through business on this line should we so desire," etc.

In another letter, dated March 7th, 1877, he says: "I stayed in Washington two days to fix up a Railroad Committee in the Senate. * * *

The Committee is just as we want it, which is a very important thing for us." * * *

He again says: "The Committees are made up for the Forty-fifth Congress.

I think the Railroad Committee is right, but the Committees on Territories I do not like. A different one was promised me. Sherrel has just telegraphed me to come to Washington," etc.

Mr. Huntington mentions in other letters the fact of bills being submitted to him before being put to vote; and also about being consulted concerning the formation of Committees and other Congressional matters, much as if Congress really wished to keep on the good side of Mr. Huntington. But it looked also as if he did not have everything his own way always, for at times he loses patience and calls Congress a "set of the worst strikers," and "the hungriest set" he ever saw.

In his letter to his friend Colton, of June 20th, '78, he exclaims: "I think in the world's history never before was such a wild set of demagogues honored by the name of Congress. We have been hurt some, but some of the worst bills have been defeated, but we cannot stand many such Congresses," etc.

The thing that annoyed Mr. Huntington the most was that he could not persuade Governor Stanford to tell the bare-faced falsehood, that the Southern Pacific did not belong to the owners of the Central Pacific.

Again and again Mr. Huntington urged the necessity of this falsehood being told, childishly forgetting the fact that such prevarications would have been useless, as all Californians knew the truth.

In the Congressional Committees, however, he himself attempted to pass off that misstatement. It is not likely that he was believed, but he succeeded in killing the Texas Pacific, and in "seeing the grass grow over Tom Scott." The subterfuge no doubt was useful.

Mr. Huntington having buried the Texas Pacific, and also Colonel Scott, as well as other worthy people (of whom no mention has been made in this book), now proceeded to demand that the Government surrender to him and associates, the land subsidy granted by Congress to the Texas Pacific.

This, surely, is an "_aggravation of excess_!"

The House Committee on Public Lands in their report on the "_forfeiture of the Texas Pacific land grant_" reviewed Mr. Huntington's acts with merited severity. Amongst many other truths the report says: "The Southern Pacific claims to 'stand in _the shoes_' of the Texas Pacific.

Your committee agree that 'standing in the shoes' would do if the Southern Pacific _filled the shoes_." But it does not. It never had authority or recognition by Congress east of Yuma. For its own purpose, by _methods which honest men have denounced_, greedy to embrace all land within its net-work of rails, to secure monopoly of transportation, surmounting opposition and beating down all obstacles in its way, and in doing so, crushing the agent Congress had selected as instrument to build a road there, _doing nothing, absolutely nothing, by governmental authority or assent even, and having succeeded in defeating a necessary work and rendering absolutely abortive the attempt to have one competing transportation route to the Pacific built, it coolly asks to bestow upon it fifteen millions of acres of lands; to give it the ownership of an area sufficient for perhaps one hundred thousand homes, as a reward for that result_.

And the committee (with one dissenting voice only) reported their opinion that the Southern Pacific Railroad Company had _neither legal nor equitable_ claim to the lands of the Texas Pacific which Mr.

Huntington wished to appropriate.

But is it not a painful admission that these few men should have thwarted and defeated the purpose and intent of the Government of the United States of having a competing railway in the Texas Pacific? Not only Colonel Scott, and Hon. John C. Brown, and Mr. Frank T. Bond, the President and Vice President of this road, but also Senator Lamar, Mr.

J. W. Throckmorton, Mr. House, Mr. Chandler, of Mississippi, and many, many other able speakers, honorable, upright men, all endeavored faithfully to aid the construction of the Texas Pacific. All failed. The falsehoods disseminated by ex-Senator Gwin, which Senator Gordon and others believed, and thus in good faith reproduced, had more effect when backed by the monopoly's money.

But Tom Scott is laid low, and so is the Texas Pacific; now the fight for greedy accumulation is transferred to California. The monopoly is confident of getting the land subsidy of the Texas Pacific-after killing it; of getting every scrap that might be clutched under pretext of having belonged to the decapitated road. Thus the lands that the City of San Diego donated to Tom Scott _on condition_ that the Texas Pacific should be built, even these, the monopoly has by some means seized upon.

No Texas Pacific was built, but nevertheless, though clearly specified stipulations be violated, San Diego's lands must go into the voracious jaws of the monster. Poor San Diego! After being ruined by the greed of the heartless monopolists, she is made to contribute her widow's mite to swell the volume of their riches! This is cruel irony indeed.

And now those pampered millionaires have carried their defiance of the law to the point of forcing the Governor of California to call an extra session of the Legislature to compel them to obey the law. Speaking of these matters a very able orator said in one of his speeches in the extra session:

"It is stated in the proclamation of the Governor to convene this Legislature, that for three or four years past the principal railroads in this State have set at defiance the laws of the people; that they have refused to pay their taxes; that they had set up within our borders an _imperium in imperio_; that they had avowed and declared themselves free from the laws of the State under which they hold their organization; that there were no laws in this State to which they were bound to submit and pay such taxes as would have fallen to them had they been subject to the laws of the State, etc., etc. It has not occurred before in the United States that a great Commonwealth has been defied successfully by its own creatures."

Other speakers followed, and we of California have now, at least, the satisfaction of knowing that faithful hearts and bright intellects have been aroused and are watching the strides of the monster power.

The Spanish population of the State are proud of their countryman, Reginaldo del Valle, who was one of the first to take a bold stand against the monopoly. This young orator with great ability and indomitable energy, has never flagged in his eloquent denunciations of the power which has so trampled the laws of California and the rights of her children.

Mr. Breckinridge, another brilliant orator, speaking of the pertinacious defiance of the law exhibited by the monopolists, said: "Nothing but a shock, a violent shock, a rude lesson-such as the old French noblesse got when they saw their chateaux fired and their sons guillotined-will awaken them from their dream of security."