United States v. Erie Railroad Company

Citation35 S.Ct. 193,59 L.Ed. 335,235 U.S. 513
Decision Date05 January 1915
Docket NumberNo. 552,552
PartiesUNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Assistant Attorney General Wallace and Solicitor General Davis for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 513-515 intentionally omitted] Mr. Rush Taggart for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Indictment in two counts against the railroad company for carrying, otherwise than in the mails, certain letters in violation of § 184 of the Penal Code of the United States. The section is as follows:

'Sec. 184. Whoever, being the owner, driver, conductor, master, or other person having charge of any stagecoach, railway car, steamboat, or conveyance of any kind which regularly performs trips at stated periods on any post route, or from any city, town, or place to any other city, town, or place between which the mail is regularly carried, and which shall carry, otherwise than in the mail, any letters or packets except such as relate to some part of the cargo of such steamboat or other vessel, to the current business of the carrier, or to some article carried at the same time by the same stagecoach, railway car, or other vehicle, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars.' [35 Stat. at L. 1124, chap. 321, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 10,354.]

The counts are similar except as to the letter carried. The indictment alleged that the railroad between designated points (Jersey City, New Jersey, and Montgomery, New York) regularly made trips; that it had made a contract with the Western Union Telegraph Company by which provision was made for a joint operation of telegraph lines over the right of way of the railroad company; that the business was under the supervision of a joint superintendent named E. P. Griffith, and that the telegraph office at Montgomery—both for railroad and commercial business—was in charge of G. A. Osborne, the station agent of the railroad; that on June 27, 1912, the railroad carried otherwise than in the mails the following letter:

June 27, 1912.

Mr. G. A. Osborne,

Agent Erie Railroad and Manager W. U. T. Co., Montgomery, N. Y.

Dear Sir:——

The revenue of the W. U. T. Co's. receipts at Montgomery, N. Y., would indicate that the new telegraph service, such as day and night letters, had not been thoroughly presented to the people of Montgomery. At many of the Erie Railroad stations similar to Montgomery very handsome increases in telegraph receipts have been shown on account of this new service and as the Erie Railroad participates in the telegraph revenues from its railroad stations it is desired that their revenue from the telegraph company shall increase as well as the revenue from its freight and passenger traffic, and I hope you will do everything to make such showing.

Yours truly,

(Sd.) E. P. Griffith,

Supt. of Telgh.

The letter upon which the second count is based was as follows:

June 27, 1912.

Mr. G. A. Osborne,

Agent Erie Railroad Co. and Manager W. U. Tel. Co., Montgomery, Orange County, N. Y.

Dear Sir:——

I forwarded to you by train mail on June 20th a copy of the new Western Union Telegraph Company's tariff book, which shows a considerable number of changes in telegraph rates, particularly with respect to the old 40-cent rate having been reduced to 30 cents to a considerable number of points, and I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the new rates in order to avoid check errors. The misquoting of rates creates a large number of error sheets and correspondence, and not only confuses the auditing department of the W. U. Tel. Co., but also delays settlements between the Telegraph Company and the Erie Railroad.

As you are aware, the Erie Railroad receives a percentage of the W. U. Tel. Co.'s telegraph receipts at all Erie railroad stations, where the agent of the railroad, under contract with the telegraph company, also acts as the agent or manager of the telegraph company, and that the handling of Western Union telegrams, in making up of Western Union reports, from which the railroad company's proportion of receipts are figured, and all of the accounting and correspondence relative to Western Union matters, are as much the current business of the railroad as handling accounts or reports made in connection with the freight shipments or sale of tickets for the railroad, the railroad company receiving a revenue from all.

Your attention is specially called to modification of rule No. 8 for the instructions to all New York state offices only, and to be used instead of rule 8, printed in the tariff book, printed copy of which I inclose herewith.

Yours truly,

(Sd.) E. P. Griffith,

Supt. of Telgh.

The indictment was demurred to by the railroad company on the ground that the matters set forth therein were not sufficient in law to constitute a crime. The demurrer was sustained, the court expressing itself to be 'clearly of the opinion that the 'current business of the carrier,' referred to in § 184, is the kind of business in which it appears from the indictment the carrier was engaged, and that the sending of the letters in question was in accordance with law.'

The opinion of the court exhibits the point in the case, to which, though a short one, considerable argument has been addressed by counsel. The solution of it is in the contract between the companies.

It is a very elaborate document, regulating the relations of the railroad and telegraph companies by a variety of provisions and details. By it the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1988
    ...contend, which view is consistent with this Court's only previous decision concerning the exception, United States v. Erie R. Co., 235 U.S. 513, 35 S.Ct. 193, 59 L.Ed. 335. Pp. (b) Nor does the private-hands exception apply, since delivery of the union's letters would violate the exception'......
  • Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Fort Wayne Educ. Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 22, 1993
    ...Court has twice dealt directly with the application of the "letters of the carrier" exception. In United States v. Erie Railroad Co., 235 U.S. 513, 35 S.Ct. 193, 59 L.Ed. 335 (1915), the Court considered letters, carried by a railroad, which related to the railroad's joint operation with We......
  • Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1986
    ...Code section 3560, we find strong support for our view from the United States Supreme Court. In United States v. Erie Railroad (1915) 235 U.S. 513, 35 S.Ct. 193, 59 L.Ed. 335, the high court held that the letters-of-the-carrier exception applied to the carriage of letters for a telegraph co......
  • Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 19, 1917
    ... ... CO. v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 19, 1917 ... plaintiff (hereinafter called 'Railroad') ... (2) ... Enumerated by reference to a ... telegraph company (including in that term 'telephone, ... telegraph and ... indicated by United States v. Erie Railroad, 235 ... U.S. 513, 35 Sup.Ct. 193, 59 L.Ed. 335, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT