Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 June 1912
• Docket Number: No. 716,716
• Citation: 225 U.S. 640,56 L.Ed. 1236,32 S.Ct. 702
• Parties: ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

225 U.S. 640

32 S.Ct. 702

56 L.Ed. 1236

ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v UNITED STATES.

No. 716.

Argued April 30, 1912.

Decided June 7, 1912.

Messrs. Robert Dunlap, William R. Smith, Lee F. English, and James L. Coleman for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 641-643 intentionally omitted] Mr. John Q. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, and Messrs. Joseph Stewart and S. S. Ashbaugh for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 643-646 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

The Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railroad had a four-year contract with the Postoffice Department to carry the mail between Chicago and Kansas City. Payment was made on the basis of weight hauled and the speed with which the service was performed. The company also furnished sufficient 'railway postoffice cars,' 60 feet in length, to make three round trips each twenty-four hours. This constituted three 'car lines,' for which the plaintiff received the maximum additional compensation then allowed by Rev. Stat. § 4004 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2721), under which the pay varied in proportion to the length of the car.

This contract was to expire June 30, 1907, by limitation; and, with a view of obtaining data, and proposing terms for a new arrangement to begin July 1st, 1907, the postal authorities, in February, mailed to the company a 'Distance Circular,' which, among other things, stated that the company was 'to accept and perform mail service under the conditions prescribed by law and the regulations of the Department.' The form was filled out and signed by an agent of the company. He, however, noted exceptions to certain postal orders previously promulgated, and 'future regulations which, in the company's opinion, might be unjust or unfairly reduce its compensation for services.' The circular, with these objections, was not received by the Department until July 24th, but the company, in the meantime, and without any express contract, continued to carry the mails and to furnish the three car lines. Payment therefor was made at the maximum rate allowed by the act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. at L. 1212, chap. 2513, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1148), which declared:

'Additional pay allowed for every line comprising a daily trip each way of railway postoffice cars shall be at a rate not exceeding $25 per mile per annum for cars forty feet in length . . . $32.50 per mile per annum for fifty-foot cars, and $40 per mile per annum for cars fifty-five feet or more in length.'

The reports and returns as to the amount of mail car- ried over plaintiff's road during the spring of 1907 indicated that the quantity of east-bound matter was less than that going west from Chicago to Kansas City. Accordingly the Department, on July 18, 1907, 'authorized 'three half lines' R. P. O. cars 50 feet in length . . . to supersede three 'half lines' of such cars 60 feet in length over route 135,098, Chicago to Kansas City.' As the distance between the two cities was about 450 miles this change would largely reduce the rate of pay, and the company at once objected, claiming in the lengthy correspondence and subsequent suit which followed, that the statute did not authorize 'half car lines;' that the order would require the company to furnish 60-foot cars in one direction and 50-foot cars on the return, thus involving an empty haul one way, or forcing the company to furnish 60-foot cars both ways, without corresponding or adequate compensation.

The Department, on the other hand, insisted that under the statute, regulations, and long-continued practice it had the right to establish 'half lines;' that 'no contract would be made with any railroad by which it could be excepted from the postal laws and regulations,' and that compensation would only be made in accordance with the orders of the Department establishing the three half lines.

The warrant in settlement of the September quarter was made out on this basis. It was accepted by the Company, but...