# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — United States v. Jones > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0130%3A10 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1949 - **Citation:** 336 U.S. 641 ## Text SUPREME COURT. UF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1948 No..198 ALFRED W. JONES, Receiver ror Grorai & FLoKIDA. _ RAILROAD, * Petitioner. ie THE UNITED STATES | PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES Mow naonie Pere. "he tppsed Poop Pe latacone > INDEX ae as Supstecr INpex Page Opinion below 1 Opinions In ptier proceedings _ - —_' Jurisdietfon ie ais ae (Juest tous presented | - Statute invoived | - ) Statenjent , . Spec ‘fic ‘at iann of errors to be urged --% : ‘ Reasons why writ should be allowe, > 8 ~... . Appendix A:(Raifway Mail Pay Act) ; 12 Appendix B (Qpinions and Decrees of District ( ‘ourt) 17 iat or Cases Crrep William V. Griffin and Huah Willian Purvis, Re- ceivers for Georgia & Florida Railroad, U.S. Court of Claims, 77 Fed. Supp. 197 2 Inthe Mattér of the Application of Georgia & Florida : Railfoad for increased Rates of Pay, May 10, Sai br Re ON Be ye Dae ? WV. Griffin and H.W. Purvis, Receivers for Georgia & Florida Railroad, Petitioners, vs. U nited States of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal District, Court, January 23, 1933 (Ap- pend gs ®.: a In the Matter of the “Applic ation of Georgia & Pp lorida Railroad for increased pay, February 4,.1936, 214 I. C; 66 - ey WV. Griffin and WW, Purvis: necstnnin tov Gawtaln & Florida Railroad, Federal District Court, Feb- puary 23, 1937 (Xppendix a. a; United States v. Ciriffin, : 3058 v , && 22 26, 82 L, Kd. 764, . 2,4, 7,8 __ $9 Goltea, 12, S. 203, 85 L. Ia}. 776 - “10 a S.v. New York Central BR, Co. '279. v, S. 73, 73 Ed. G19 5 + . ee Ae Pe tet Air Line v0 nited State s, 26 a tt Ss. 302, 304, 67.L. Ed. 664 , sean eo ~7790 | a . a See - INDEX TAKLE OF Statues Railway Mail Pay Act of Jrily 28, 1916, 39 Stat. 412 et seq. (Appendix A) Review—-Section 3 of Act of Feb. 13, 15 as amended Title 2a U. S.C. IRS U rgent Deficiencies Act, Title 28 U. ‘Ss. (*, 41, 46 Section 177 of the Judicial Code, Title 28 U.S. Cl 284 Page SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1948 No. 196 AL PRED W. JONES, Rec EIVER FOR Georcia & Fonins | RaiLroap, . . Plaintiff, vs, | THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES : 3 ._ @ To the Honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate Jus- tices of the Supreme Court of the United States: “~_, The petitioner, Alfred W. Jones, sole and successive re- ceiver of Georgia & Florida Railroad, prays that a writ : certiorari | be issutd to review the judgment of the C ourt of Claims of United States entered April 5, 1948, in favor of William VGriffin and Hugh W illiaamn Purvis, _ Receivers for Georgia & Florida Railroad, plaintiffs, ‘Nof 3 45622, on the principal sum of their claim, but against them on the award of interest on said claim (Ct-ChR. 42). ‘Opinion Below The Opinion of the Court of Claims (R. 12) is-Reported at 77 Fed. Supp. 197. " le. ‘ot : ‘cial District of eee. January-2 3, 4935 (Trans. y- . ‘ . tar ed o% o ° Opinions In Prior Proceedings Previous opinion of the ‘Supreme Court of the United States in U. S. v. Griffin, | No.. 63 Octolgr, Term 1937, is reported at 303 U.S. 226, 82 L. Ed. 764... - Opinions in prior proceedings are set out ‘in transcript of | record in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 63, ’ October Term, 1937 (303 U. S. 226),. United’ States’ of -America and (Trans. No. 63 (1986, R. 5)) G, ") is reported at 192 L. C. C. 779. Opinion and Order of Three Judge United States Dis- (1937, R. 29) R.57)Q Laoag ae Opinion atid Order of the Interstate Comanites pase sion, Feb..4, 1936 (Traits. No. 63 (1987, R. 41) R. nk ‘ported at 214 L. ¢. C. 66. Opinion and Order of Three Judge United States Dis- trict Court for the Augusta Division of the Southern Judi- cial District of Georgia Feb, 23, 1937 (Trans, No. 63 (1937, R.55) R. 102). | ; Jurisiiction ! The judgment of the Court of- Claims was entered April >, 1948 (RL 50). The jurisdiction? of this Court is invoked under the Act of February 13, 1925, -C’. 2° 229, Section 3, 43 * Page references to Trans. in\No, 63 (1937) are to the wide folio num- 3 Stat. 939, as amended May. 23,. 1939, ©, 140, 53 Stat. 752, ‘Beis va ry S. C, A, 288. a a” ae Questions Presented 1. Whether the Court of Claims, should have allowed ; _i...-+-- rele upon the claim for a compulsory taking of property and services under statutory authority within the’ meaning of the Fifth Amendment, gis’ . Whether the € seaiat of ¢€ ‘aims should not have deter. alias compensation under the Fifth Amendment as well as to give effect to an authorized order of the/ Interstate Commerce Commission as properly construed. / a : a ee * The Statute Involved Is The Railway Mail Pay Act of July 28, 1916, 34 stat. 412 ~> et seq., 39 U.S. C. A. 523 et seq., as set out in appenes A. ? Statement: = The Special Findings of Fact-by the Court below constitute an excellent comprehensive statement of thé case, but, for the purpose of: this pe tition the matter: is staled more succine tly thus: e (1) This are was brought in the Court of Claims pur- suant to the express opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in a prior proceeding between the same par- \ ties and on the same cause of action, that, ¥ hile a three judge 22 Distriet Court did not have jurisdietion under ‘the Urgent Deficiericies Act; (a) Af the Commission makes the appro- | \er finding of reasonable cor Hpensation but fails because of an error of law to-order payment of the full amount whieh: the railroad believes is payable under the finding, the Court _ of € ‘laims has jurisdiction of an action for the: balance ; and (b) since the taal vice is compulsory the ( ourt of Claims. 4 oP would under the general provisions of the Tucker Act have jurisdiction also of an action for additional compensation if an order is confiseatory, U.S. v. Gfifin, 303 U.S. 226 (F inding 20, R. 26); and that 9 ° (2) The service seeiiatlioasl by the Post Office De- partment was ordered din a ‘space vente, and consisted of two minimum types ¢ or serviee, V1Z.: ay (a) The R. P.O. service, the n¥a jor part of the total Serv; ice so requisitioned, consisted of furnishing: the Post Office Department with.the exclusive use of fifteen linear feet of space in a passenger ‘car fitted and equipped, as specified by the Post Office Department, for a travelling post office (Pl. Ex, 19, R. 233), lighted, heated, cleaned and maintained (all at the railroad’s : expense), with postal clerks in charge, | to take on and sort in transit, and put off the mail at. stations along the’ route, together with the transportation thereof (Finding 4, R. 14) and (Finding 21, “R. 26). For this service the rate of compensation previously fixed, by force of arbitrary classification in an average with the larger carriers (Finding 10, R218) and (Finding 13, R:.21), was at the rate of only 1414 cents per mile (Finding 22, R. 27). } | (b) The eiose d pouch s service,.a minor part of the total, service so requisitioned, consisted of having the railroad’s _ passenger train employees take on, put off, and care for in transit, mail. pouches and parcek-pest packages of any quantity which would not.exceed a quantity which, if piled six feet high (with a passaze between), would oceupy not tt ad 5. / : more than three linear feet of the length of a passenger far (Finding 4, R. 14. land’; Finding “18, Ro“ 19). For this ‘closed pouch: serv jee: the rite of compensation pre ‘viously aad by force of arbitrary classification i in an aver age with _- larger: carriers (Finding.15, R. 21), was at the rate of only 442 cents per mile (I inding 22, R..27)- (3) On April 1, 1931, the carriei to escape the evil of an arbitrary classification with other lines, instituted a new separate proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Com. mission, as provided*for by the Railway, Mail Pay Act -(R. 53). In. that new proceeding. that Commission made a finding that the joint cost study after adjustmenfs to which the carrier consented to satisfy the Post Office Department ; that it would be entirely fair, indice ited that an increase of 87.4% would be necessary to overcome the deficiency in net railway operating income under thie respective-rates of (a) 141% cents and (hk) 414 cents per mile, and te provinle respec- tively, a return on that part of the carriers’ investment’ allocable to mail. service at the rdte of 5.75% per annum - (Finding 23, R. 27) . $. ste fare : (4) The Post Office Department admitted that the plain- tiffs were underpaid (Trans. in No. 63 (1937) R. 144), but, “nevertheless insisted, for administrative convenience, that. the compensation for plaintiffs be held down te not more than. the rate previously preseribed on an average basis * for lines over 100 miles in length Chains. in No. 63, R. 142,- 143, 144, and Pl. Ex. l, R. 59, 60, 63). (5) The © ommission, despite its own finding thatthe cost study showed that‘an increase of 87.4% was necessary, and - without genuine justifiedtion decided as the Post Master . General desired, hy ordering that.the compensation for the. applicant shoald continue at the same rates averag® which had been prescribed ina prior case (144 1. C. C. 675) for all 9, oe * a 4 : .\ a ; . : . : ‘ = a / “% 6. - ¥ ‘ " . Me , ee ‘ raifmonds ever cae tiles In length (Finding ‘16; soe anal | inding Is, I. ), eas. Im OG rons (6) For relief Trom the Commission's. arbitrary action’ “the claimant twice sought, hy procedures under the Urgent o Defictencies Act and after hearings, arguments and briefs, obtained from a three judge United States. District Court for the Augusta Division of the Southern District of Georgia decrees for injusctions against the Commission's orders as nof being ‘in‘compliance with the duty an the. United St: ites to pay ‘‘fairand reasonable _comp@nsation” and as not being ‘just and equitable’ (Finding 17, R..24; and Finding. 19, R. 19). (See Appendix B hereto, from Trans.in No. 63, R. 57, 102. (47) The Commission prosecuted an appeal from thé said second deer ee and this Court held thereon that the three . judge District Court did not have jnrisdiction, but that there Wasa proper reniedy through the Court of Claims | (Finding. 20, CR, 26). (8) In the Court of Claims the plaintiffs introduced evi- dence to support their claim under both heads, viz. ; Pe . i 4 . (a) That the Comission had made an error of law; (b) and that its order was bay oupoel (Findings 15 to 28, -R. 2leand Minding 24 to 3 t. 28). ee a (9) ‘The, lower Court inde an award for. the principal "sur of 98186,707.06 (R. 50); but denied interest on the erdtnd that te do se was forbidden by Section 177 Judicial Code as amended, because they. were giving ‘effect ‘to an order of the Interstate. Cominerce Commission as properly construed, and not determining compensation in an original proceeding under the i th Amendment (R49). (10) The - plaintit?. is satisfied with the. amount of the 7*prineipal sum of the Court’s award as being proper under \ ~ , -headsf(a)/ . z if i | : - - aoa 3 4. Jd: ‘ ‘ee re e. : . either head, but it respectfully, sulynits that upider® both ‘teruiimation “ifthi Amend- or the taking of property: hy statutbry. authority, of the jst compensation required by: the ment hence Mterest is necessary bo tnake just-comNensation fulf and complete. _ Specification of Etrors To Be Urged “The ‘ourt of C faim erred in’ respect to the following: (1)xdn failing to award interest to make just. ‘compensa- ‘tion full and complete since the claim wastor the compulsory taking of property and services (U.S. v. Griffin, 303 U.S. ? : 226, g2 L. Kd. T64). (2) .In failing to hold that: it was determining a claim for just compensation required hy the constitution, whether it Was (a) giving effect to an order of the Inte ‘rstyite Com- ~ merce Commission as properly construed, or was (b) deter- mining just compensation ‘hecause the order of the Com- Inission was confiseatory (U. Sov. New Sage Central R. Co., 297 U.S. 73, 73 L. Ed. 619); and (U’, Vv. Griffin, 303 UL S 226, a? L. Rd. 164). . Summary The statement of the case sd sets out the facts, and, like wise, the specification of errors so sets out the issues—that a any further summarization would’ be repetitious... If the. judgment of the Court of Claims in the award of the prin cipal sum.is sustained, the’substantial issue to the plaintiffs ; is. the failure of the lower Court to award an. additional “amount for interest so. as to make just compensation full ‘and complete. , cate ; . _ Reasons for Granting the Writ a ‘Specification of Error 1 (1) In failing to award interest to make Just compensa- tion full and complete since the claim was for the compulsory taking of property and services (UL Sey. Grifin, 303 U.S. . 296, 82 LB 4). @ * The plaintit? respectfully submits that this Court hae already decided that the requisitioning of mail transporta-- tion under the Railway “Mail Pay Act is a taking for which j just-compensation -is a constitutional right. In construing Pea Act, this Court said in U.S. v. New York. Central R. . 279 U.S. 77, 78, 73 L. Ed: 619, that ** the Government . sacle as it must, that.reasonable compensation for ssuch - _ ‘required sérvices is a constitutional right’’ (Italics sup- plied). Again, in U.S. v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 226, 238, 82 L. Ed. 764, when this same cause of action between een same . parties was before it, this Court reiterated the proposition that railway mail service is compulsory. The plaimtift further respectfully submits that for a-com- , pulsory taking by statutory authority the requirement of the ‘Constitution that ‘just compensation’ shall be pvid is _coinprehensive, and one of the essential elements of just - compensation is that of interest when the taking precedes the paymeygt; hence the general rnle that the United States avill not Ke held liable for interest on unpaid accounts and elaiims does not apply. “This Court’ said as much’ : the ease of ‘‘Seaboard Air Line v. Unite d States, 261 U.S. 302, 405, 67 L. Ed. 664, 670, Wt se a va ; “The Constitution safe quards the right and . 10 of the Lever Aet directs panment (Ttalies supplied). The rule above referred io that, in the absenee of agree ment to’ pay or statute allowing it; the *Jnited States will not be held liable for interest on unpaid accounts and claims, does not apply -here. The requirement. that . : ‘> . +] “just compensation’? shall be jrtaiel $s comprehensive, “and includes all elements, and no-Apecifie command to ‘inelude interest “is ‘necessary owhen. interest or its equiv alent is a a of sel compgnsdfion. x r is true that in the siitd Seaboard Ais Lins case, the property invelved was in the form of fanad, but it was not -a.case of condemiation. In that ifistance there, as here, there were statutory provisions tor payment, in which nothing Was said about interest, and the C ourt fur ther sald: »” ‘ ‘Section 10. of the “Lever Net authorizes the tak- ing of property for the public. USSG, on payment of just compensation, There+is no’ provision in respect of interest. Just compensation is provided for by the. Constitution, and the right to it cannot be-taken aw ay by statute. -Its aseerts: wegeng is © Judicial function, Monongahahela Nav. Co. United yong 148 U. S. - 312, 327, 37-L. Ed. 463, 468, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622" (Italics supplied). ° See : More recently in U.S. v..Goltra,*342 U.S S. 203, 208, 8d L¢ Kd. 776, 781, this Cour explain the principle further when it said: . ; “Tr the Seabourd Air Line &: #0. case $10 of the Lever Act’ (August 10, 1917, 40 Sat. at 1, 276, 279. chap. 53) authorizing the taking-by eminént domain. e property for the public use oi payme nt of ‘just com- ' pettsation was under éxaminatiow.:. dt contains np. spe -cifie provision ‘fer interest. This ‘Court held that a taking under the authority of S4@ re@iiired the just compensation ‘‘pravided for by the Constitution’ and that such compensation ts paval te ‘tas of the time when the owners. were daprived of their property”? This case, howexe rand the others cited in the preced- . ig paragraph, involve the. Jroqnisit ronin ¢ or taking of property by eminent domain tinder anthority of legis- lation. | Thi distine fron between wrap. rfy taken-under authorization of Conaress and b dics rey appropriated Aer ° ° ; 10 : without such authority has long been vecognized-’ (Italics supplied). : The Constitution sets up no rule for discrimination be. | tween real property Ald) property of other kinds where property is taken under authority of a statute, and there- fore, the petitioner-plaintiff respeetfully submits that this ‘taking of. property, duly authorized hy a statute, is within the protection of the constitutional requirement for just compensation which must necessarily include interest from the time of taking in order for it to be full and complete. ee Specification of Error 2 In failing to hold that it was determining,a claim for just compensation required by the Constitution, whether it. was (a) giving effect to an order of the Interstate Com- merce Commission as propérly congtrued, or was (b) deter- mining just eompensation because the order of the Com- mission was confisoatory (U.S. vo New York Cegtral lf. Co., 279 U.S. 73, 734. Ed. 619); and (U..S. v. Origin 303-ULS. 296, 85 L. Ed. 776). Specification of Error 2 is intended both to supplement specification of Hrror 1 sand also to preserve points of law in ease the defendant, should make anyContention that the decision in the ¢ ‘ourt below was not rested upon either of — the ( (a)-and (b) hends of jurisdiction of = Court as ex- pressly determined “by this Court in U.S. v. Griffin, 303° U.S. 226, 85 L. Kd. 776. he : 1 Se fe Witererone, it is respectfully prasid: that this petition for a Writ-of Certiorari he wranted, . - Le . Respectfully submitted, 3 ; Movuctrris Horr, ‘Alorney for Alfred W. Jones, Receiver for Ge orgia & Florida Radewad, Petitioner: * 601 Towe r Biiliding, . . Se Washinaton, D.C. Filed: August 5, 1948, ‘ . ar l2 : APPENDIX A » RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT OF JULY 2s, 1916. Sec. 0. That the Postmaster General is authorized and directed to readjust the compensation to be paid to railroad companies from and after the thirtieth day of June, nine- teen hupdred and sixteen, or as soon thereafter as maybe practicable, for the transportation “and handling: ‘of the mails and furnishing facilities and services in connection therewith — the conditions and at the rates hereinafter provided. (28 U.S. C.°524) : — The Postmaster General may state railroad mail routes and authorize mail service thereon of: the following four ciesses, namely: Fult railway post-office car service, apart- thent railway post-office car service, storage-car service, and closed-pouch serviee, (28 UL S. C. 525) : Full railway post-office car mail service shall be service by cars forty feet or more in length, constructed, fitted up, and maintained for the distribution of mails on trains. The adthorization of full railway post-office cars shall. be for standard-size cars sixty feet in length, inside measurement, except as hereinafter provided, (28 U.S. C. 526) Apartment railway post-office car nrail service, shall be service by apartments less than forty feet in length in ears constructed, fitted up, and m: aintained: for the distribution of matls on trains, Twe standard sizes of apartment ratl- way post-office curs may be authorized’and paid fer, namely, - apartments fifteen feet and thirts feet in length, inside measurement, except as he reinafter prov ded. (28 U.S. ¢€. 920) ; ars ee 7 . oo : . * : * ; - a Service by ‘full and apartment: railway post-office cars and storage cars shall inehide the carriage therein of all mail matter, oqulpme nt, and Supplies for the mail service cand the ¢ inployees Witte: Postal Service or Post Offer De’ _ partment, as shall he dirested by the Postmaster General to he so carried, (28 UL S.€. 529) Closed-pouch mail service shall, he the transportation “13 and handling by railroad employees of mails on trains ou which full or apartment gaiiway post-oltice cars are not authorized, except as hereinbefore provided. The authori- zations for closed-pouch service shail be for units of seven feet und three feet in length, both sides of ear, (25-U. S. C. O30) | , esky . . o . . . ee Where authorizations are made for cars of the standard lengths of sixty, thirty, and fifteen feet, as provided by this” section, and the railroad company is unable to furnish such cars of the length authorized, but furnishes cars of lesser. length than those authorized, but which are determined by the department to be sufficient for the service. the Fost. inaster General may accept the same and pay only for the actual space furnished and used, the compensation to be nat exceeding pro rata of that pravided by this section for r=) the standard length so authorized : Provided. That thy Post- aster General may accept cars and apartinents of greater length than those of the standard requested, but tio com- pensation shall be allowed. for such excess lengths. (28 U.S.C. 532) . . . . . . * In computing the car miles of the full railway post-office ears nnd apartnient railway post-ofce cars, the ma in the order, for, the triinsportation of.mail matter and the- service connected therewith and during the continuance of the order the Postmaster Genera) shall pay-the cartier from the appropriation herein made such rate or compensa- tion. - (28 UL S.C. 551) ae ee . ithe® the Postmaster General or any such carrier may at any time. after the lapse of six months from .the entry of the order assailed apply for a re-examination, and. * thereupon, substantially similar proceedings shall be had with respeet to th? rate or rates for service covered by said application, provided said carrier or carriers have. an interest therein. (28 U2 S.C: 553) « - For the purposes of this section the Interstate Commerce” Commission is hereby vested with all the powers which it is now anthorized by law to exercise in the investigation and ascertainment of the justness and reasonahleness ot tre ight, passenger, atid express rates to be paid by private shippers. (28 ULS. C. 554) » c . an i . °/ «a . + fae) «sou + > 17 ’ That it shall be unlawful for any railroad company to - refuse, to perform mail service at te rates or methods of vompensation provided’. by law when -required by. the Mistinaster General so to do, and for such offense. sheath be fined $1,000. Each ‘day of refusal shall constitate ‘separate offense. (28 US. 0.563) | > APPENDIX B - - . >. © Ovinions anp Decrees or THE Tureg Juuoe UNrtrep States f AMistrict Court ror Tur Aveusra Division oF THE. Sov TH- / BERN District oF GEORGEA - (Copied from Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1, the aid Exhibit being the transeript of record, Supreme Court of the United States, OQetober Term, 1937 No. 638; the United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission vs: W. V. Griff and IH. W. Purvis, Receivers for Georgia & Florida Railroad, Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia.) OPINION AND Decizt—Filed ‘January 23, 1935 (Trans. in } No. 63 (1947) R. 29) ts Unrrep/Srates District Court ‘In Equity, No. 207 : ear W. V. Giueri and H. W. Purvis, Receivers for Georgia’ & Florida Railroad, Petitioners . v. Tit Univep States or America anp Lx tTerstare . ComMERCE COMMISSION -Oprsion anv Decrer—Filed Jannary 22, 1935 ° ? ‘ > " . : " Te ~—s This is a suit by W. V. Griffin.and H; W. Purvis, Re- 7) ceivers of the, Georgia & Florida Railroad, against the «, United States of America and the Interstate Cemmerce ~~“ : Paste ts 18 * Commission to-enjoin, set aside, amend, and suspend an oy der of such Commission of -May 10, 1933, denying an applix cation for increased compensation for the ‘transportation of mail. The suit is brought under U.S. C. A. Title 28, See tions 41 (27 and 28) and 43-48, . No other fagts were established or sought te be estab- lished than those set forth in such ‘order of sald Commis- sion, a copy of which is annexed to. petitioners’ complaint; and it is therefore considered unnecessary and redunant to. restate ‘*Findings of Fact’? as provided by - Equity Rule) 70%. Theechallenge is to the conclusion drawn from un- ‘disputed facts. The facts developed in the ‘cost study”? fully set forth j in such order of the Commission were ascertained by the application of rules preseribed*by the Commission. — All parties to this controversy agree that a ‘‘cost study”’ is not and cannot be tnathematically correct. but is 4n approxima-: tion. Such ‘‘cost study’’ discloses among other facts that ‘*There was (1)-a deficit in net railway operating income from mail of $4,945.00 based upon 1931 operations’’. It’ further disclosed that as regards revenue: ‘‘The distribu- tion of expense upon the space ratios shows that the ratio | for mail service’was 102.79” or that for every dollar appli-- cants received for transporting mails they ‘expended one dollars and 2.79 cents. . g. The fact that this railroad lost more money on other ‘services rendered by it or that other railroads transported 7 under similar, if not identical conditions, at a profit, hat this railroad belonged if a certain classifi¢: ition pe blished by such Commission, known as Class 1 railroads and that therefore it should be in aceord with other rail- roads of such ¢‘lass’ as to compensation as to mail, do ‘not refute or impair the fact that-the compensation.aiiowed this railroad for the transportation of mail does not equal the _cdst of so doing. ; : (7790) 4." e . - 4 i i wait ee . : a . eal Fe * - “ee Te : Ys ‘ “4 A é ” ; ee ¢° get : : ey , Lm o te é es --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0130%3A10. Public record. Not legal advice.