#### ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. B-74.

Decided June 9, 1924]

*On the Proofs*

*Railroad rates; free l>aggage.*— Where a railroad company presents its bills to the disbursing officer, or the Auditor for the War Department, payment is refused, and the disallowance is on the ground that the Government was entitled to have its military impedimenta transported at the rate of one baggage car free for every 25 men in the troop movement, the company may recover in this court upon the correct basis for the transportation furn'shed.

*The Reporters*statement of the case:

*21 r. Lawrence II. Gahe*for the plaintiff. *B-ritton <& Gray*were on the brief.

*Mr. Lisle A. Smith,*with whom was *-Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert E. Lovett,*for the defendant.

*834The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:

I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and at the different times hereinafter set forth in these findings of fact operated, and still operates, a system of railroads and railways in said State and other States as a common carrier of passengers and freight for hire and reward under tariffs duly published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission as required by law."

II. At the time of the transportation hereinafter described, there were in force on plaintiff’s lines and other railroad carriers with which it connected, being the carriers who furnished the said transportation, certain special baggage car tariffs covering the territory through which the said troops and military impedimenta were moved, which stated in substance and effect the terms and conditions upon which associated travelers traveling on one ticket might become entitled to a baggage car free for the transportation of certain of their effects, on the basis generally of one car free to each group of twenty-five passengers.

III. During 1916 and 1917, there were in effect certain agreements between the United States and ‘the railroad carriers, including the plaintiff, on the subject of fares and charges for the transportation of military traffic. One of these agreements was entitled Western Military Arrangement and was in effect from July 1, 1916, to December 31, 1916. Another was Inter territorial Military Arrangement, dated December 28, 1916, which was in effect from January 1, 1917, throughout the year 1917. Both of the said agreements provided, in substance, that for the transportation of officers and enlisted men and others connected with the United States Army and United States Navy and United States Marine Corps, ’ the Government would be charged lawful commercial fares as on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, from starting point to destination at time of movement, less lawful land-grant deductions properly established, less five per cent (5%) additional.

*835The Western Military Arrangement contained the following :

“ One hundred and fifty (150) pounds of personal effects of officers and men properly checkable as baggage will be transported without charge for each person, but- this does not include company, battalion, regimental or Government property. Personal baggage in excess of the weight stated, when provision for transportation of same is specifically made in U. S. Army, U. S. Navy, and U. S. Marine Corps transportation request, will be charged for at the excess baggage rates less lawful land-grant deductions.

“When company, battalion, regimental, or Government property is moved on passenger trains, it shall be subject to adjustment for each movement.”

The said Interterritorial Military .'Arrangements provided :

“ *Baggage*

“(1) One hundred and fifty (150) pounds of personal effects properly checkable as baggage, under the tariff of the initial carrier, will be transported without charge for each person. Personal baggage in excess of the free allowance stated when provision for the transportation of the excess baggage is especially made in United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps transportation requests and is paicl for by the United States Government, will be charged for at the regular excess baggage rate, based upon the net individual fare. When provision is not made in the transportation request for the transportation of excess baggage collection will be made from the traveler at the regular individual commercial rate for weight in excess of the free allowance stated. Excess baggage charges will not be subject to allowances applicable in connection with the fares for tickets under this arrangement. Baggage regulations in other respects than above will be in accordance with the tariff of the initial carrier checking the baggage in each case.

“(2) Company, battalion, regimental or Government property is not included in the above.”

IV. In pursuance of orders issued by competent authority the plaintiff and its connecting carriers, in the years 1916 and 1917, transported over its lines, in connection with the movement- of bodies of United States troops, on Government bills of lading issued by the proper officers of the *836United States Army, certain property belonging to United States appertaining to said troops, and generally known and described as military impedimenta.

V. For the transportation described above, tlie plaintiff, as the last carrier, presented its bills WM-6852-61, WQ-8606-8, WQ-877-3, and WQ-9015-16 on the basis of the commercial freight rates in force and applicable to said transportation, to the proper disbursing officer for $'762.60. Payment was refused by the said disbursing officer upon the ground that the said military impedimenta should have been transported free upon the basis of one baggage car free for every group of twenty-live (25) men in the troop movement. No further action was taken by plaintiff on said bills until this suit was filed April 21,1922.

Making the proper land-grant deductions from said bills and certain other corrections to conform to the agreements between plaintiff and its connecting carriers and the United States, the amount charged on said bills should have been $446.88.

YI. Bill WM-8589-8600 was presented by plaintiff to the disbursing quartermaster in the sum of $180.95, by whom it was paid in full to plaintiff. Subsequently the auditor deducted from other moneys due plaintiff by the Government the sum of $149.35, on April 30, 1921, upon the ground that the military impedimenta for which the charge of $180.95 was made should have been transported free to the amount of $149.35, according to the rate given to the general public of one baggage car free for every group of twenty-five travelers traveling on one ticket, and that the railroad company had been overpaid that amount. No further action was taken by the plaintiff on this bill until the filing of suit on April 21, 1922.

VII. The plaintiff, as the last carrier, presented its bills WM-9092, WM-9012-16, and WQ-11508-11-8, under tariffs in force applicable to said transportation, to the Auditor for the War Department for payment in the sum of $4,-450.95, by whom said bills were disallowed *in toto,*upon the ground that the Government was entitled to have had its military impedimenta transported free in that amount at *837the rate of one baggage car free for every group of twenty-five men in the troop movement. Bill WQ-9092 for $172.79 was disallowed on January 3, 1919; bill WM-9102-16 for $1,196.85 on June 28, 1918; and hill WM-11508-11-8, $81.31, on December 26, 1918. N> further action was taken on these bills by plaintiff until this suit was filed on April 21, 1922.

Making the proper land-grant deductions from said bills and certain other corrections to conform to the agreement between plaintiff and its connecting cariers and the United States the amount charged on said bills should have been $3,393.01.

MEMORANDUM BIT THE COURT

1. It has been held several times by this court that the free baggage car basis is not sustainable. See *Missouri Pacific R. R. Co.*Case, 56 C. Cls., 341.

2. The findings show the claims reduced to the correct freight basis with proper land-grant deductions.

Judgment for plaintiff under Findings V, VI, and YU in the sum of $3,989.24.