The San Francisco agitation in 1894 and 1895 was addressed to the comparatively moderate provisions of the Reilly bill, proposing the refunding of the government debt for fifty years at 3 per cent. In 1896, when the more liberal Powers bill was under discussion, the agitation revived. At this time Mayor Sutro, of San Francisco, made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the people of Kentucky to repeal the charter of the Southern Pacific Company. Although this particular move met with no success, a state anti-funding convention was held at the Metropolitan Temple in San Francisco on January 18, 1896, a new committee was appointed, and a new memorial was framed. This memorial reiterated and reinforced most of the arguments presented in the memorial of the committee of fifty. It dwelt on the alleged frauds of the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific companies, the uncertainty as to the extent of the property of these corporations, and as to the validity of certain liens against them. The whole matter, the memorial urged, was distinctly one for judicial investigation. It urged that the government let foreclosure take its course. The Central Pacific should not be allowed to confirm possession of money it might have stolen. It was sound policy, the memorial agreed, to make sure that the company really had not enough to pay its debts, and to this end to see that transferred, withdrawn, and stolen assets were restored. Agitation along these same lines continued through 1896, and in January of the following year the legislature adopted a resolution opposing refunding and calling for foreclosure if necessary.[564] Different Points of View The fundamental difference between the sentiment in Congress in 1897 and that on the Pacific Coast was that the legislature at Washington addressed itself to Pacific railroad legislation with the object of recovering as much of the government’s advances to the Pacific railroads as was possible under the circumstances. The gains sought were primarily financial. In California, on the other hand, public sentiment was more concerned with railroad service and railroad rates than with finance. And this was a principal reason for the insistence upon foreclosure and the equanimity with which government operation was regarded. That the difference between the two points of view was not more fully appreciated was doubtless because the necessity of shaping its arguments so as to influence Congress led the Pacific Coast to talk in terms of finance, even when they thought in terms of monopoly. So much must be understood in order that the animus behind the San Francisco agitation may be clear.