THE HANNIBAL AND SAINT JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
No. 12967
February 26, 1883.
The facts in this case are substantially the same, so far as any contracted questions arise thereon, as those in the Illinois Central JR. JR. Company’s Case {ante, 118), to which reference is made.
Held:
The decision of the Supreme Court in the Railroad Cases (104 U. S. R., 680, 687), that the acts of Congress fixing the compensation of land-grant *214railroads at a price below tbe rates established by the Postmaster-General in contracts existing at the time of the passage of the acts does not affect those contracts during the period for which they were made, is binding upon this court as a guide and rule /or passing judgment in all other cases depending solely upon the determination of the same question.
The following are tbe facts as found by the court:
I. The contract annexed to and forming part of the petition was executed by the parties for the transportation of the United States mails as set forth in the petition.
[The contract was for carrying the mails for the term of four years, from July 1,1875, to and including June 30,1879, and each contained the following article, which is the material part involved in the present controversy:
9 th. That the Postmaster-General may discontinue or curtail the service, in whole or in part, whenever the public interests, in his judgment, shall require such discontinuance or curtailment for any cause; he allowing, as a full indemnity to the contra etor, one month’s extra pay on the amount of service dispensed with, and a pro rata compensation for the amount of service rotained and continued.
II. The service was performed, iu accordance with the provisions of the contract, on the above-described route from July 1,1875, to June 30,1879, with the exception of a casual failure in 1877, for which a fine of $5 was imposed; for all of which the claimant has been paid according to contract price, except the deductions set forth in finding IY.
III. The following circulars were sent on the days of their respective dates by the Second Assistant Postmaster-General to the claimants:
POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT,
Office of tiie 2nd Ass’t P. M. Gbn’l,
Washington, D. G.
Sir : Tho act of Congress entitled “An act making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for tho fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, and for other purposes,” approved July 12, 1876, section 1, contains the following proviso, namely:, Provided, That the Postmaster-General be, and he is hereby, -authorized and directed to readjust the conrpensation to be paid from and after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy-six, for- transportation of mails on railroad routes by reducing the compeusation to all railroad companies for the transportation of mails ten per centum per annum from the rates fixed and allowed by the first section of an act entitled “An act making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four, and for *215other purposes,” approved March third, eighteen, hundred and seventy-three, for the transportation of mails on the "basis of the average weight. The same act also contains the following section:
Seo. 13. That railroad companies whose railroad was constructed in whole or in part by a land grant made by Congress on the condition that the mails should be transported over their road at such price as Congress should by law direct shall receive only eighty per centum of the compensation authorized by this act.
Consequently, for mail service performed on and after July 1, 1876, on your road, route 28005, between Quincy and Saint Joseph and branch Palmyra to Hannibal, the compensation will be reduced from $>48,777.50 per annum (the amount warranted by the latest returns under the act of March 3, 1873) to $139,022 per annum, the reduction amounting to $9,755.50 per an-num, all of which is due to the thirteenth section of the act of July 12,1876, above quoted.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JNO. L. FRENCH,
Act’g Second Ass’t Postmaster-General.
Office of Second Ass’t P. M. .Gen’l,
Washington, July 30, 1878.
Sir; In making the-reductions required by the act of July 12, 1876, 80 per centum was allowed of the rates per mile fixed for the service under act of March 3, 1373, viz: $240, 171 miles reduced to $192 Jper mile; $215, 32-J- miles reduced to $172 per mile; and $50 reduced to $40 per mile for 15 miles. The law officer has since advised that the allowances for railway post-office cars are not subject to any reduction. This exempts $25 per mile for 171 miles on your road; and that a land-grant road, though performing service under the provisions of a formal contract, must be subjected to the abatement of 10 per cent, as well as the allowance of 80 per cent, under the 13th section of said act. The Auditor has therefore been authorized to revise the allowance to your company for the transportation of mails ou your road so as to pay from July 1, 1876, to June 30, 1878, at the rate of $36,316.80 per annum, being $179.80 per mile for 171 miles, $154.80 for 32Jmiles, and $36 per mile for 15 miles.' And from July 1,1878, the pay is decreased at the rate of $1,602.09 per annum, leaving the pay from that date $34,714.71 per annum, being $172.06 per mile for 171 miles, $147.06 per mile for 32-J miles, and $34.20 per mile for 15 miles, being a further abatement of 5 per cent, on the allowance for weight of mails in accordance with the act of June 17, 1878.
Very respectfully,
Thos. J. Brady,
Second Ass’t P. M. Gen’l.
IY. In paying the claimant corporation for the services mentioned in finding II, there was deducted from the amount claimed at contract prices, by order of the Postmaster-General, under the first and thirteenth sections of the Act of July 12, 1876, ch. 179 (1 Suppl. to Bev. Stat., 224, 226), from July 1, *2161876, to June 30, 1879, at the rate of $12,460.70 per annum; and under the Act of June 17, 1878, eh. 279 (1 Suppl. Eev. Stat., 358), from July 1, 1878, to June 30, 1879, at the rate of $1,602.09 per annum; making for the three years a total deduction under the two acts of $38,984.19, and this amount was retained and is still unpaid.
Mr. J. T. Farnsworth for the claimants.
Mr. John 8. Blair (with whom was Mr. Thomas Simons, Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.
OPINION.
Eichakdson, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The questions of law arising upon the facts in this case are identical with those which were decided by the Supreme Court m the cases of The Chicago and Saint Paul Railway Company and The Chicago Northwestern Railway Company (104 U. S. R., 680, 687).'
The present Postmaster-General being in doubt whether or not it had been considered by that court that under the statutes the Postmaster-General had no authority whatever to contract with any land-grant road, and that the law had made it the duty of that class of roads to carry the mails upon prices fixed by Congress, declined to accept thé conditions in those cases as establishing the rule for the guidance of his Department in other like claims.
Since then the case of The Illinois Central Eailroad Company v. The United States, has been tried in this court, at the present term, and the point raised by the Postmaster-General has been again presented and argued by counsel on both sides, and again reconsidered by us (ante, p. 118). We were unable to discover that the Supreme Court had not reached its conclusions in the former cases wi th a full understanding of the point raised by the Postmaster-General, and although their opinion differed from that of all the judges of this court, we were bound to accept the decision of that court of last resort as binding and conclusive upon us. We cannot do differently in this present case.
The full and exhaustive opinion of our brother Davis, in the *217recent case, makes it unnecessary again to review the arguments upon the point at issue.
The judgment of the court is that tbe claimant corporation rcover the sum of $38,984.19, and a decree to that effect will be entered accordingly.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.