Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/235/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:52:00+00:00

Document:
which had been changed by the amendment of 1864, and requires the Treasury to withhold all payment for services performed on the roads constructed by the aid of government grants, but not on roads owned or operated by the same companies which were not constructed with such aid. When a contract is open to two constructions, the one lawful and the other unlawful, the former must be adopted. Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567, affirmed.
The appellee, the Central Pacific Railroad Company, brought this suit in the Court of Claims against the United States, to recover compensation for services rendered the United States in transporting persons and freight over those parts of its railroad in the building of which it had not been aided by the government. The United States demurred to the petition on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and judgment rendered in favor of the claimant for the sum demanded. From that judgment the United States have brought this appeal.
States under the said acts of Congress. The petition demanded pay for service of transportation rendered the United States over the 2,175.02 miles of railroad which had been so constructed without their aid.
The contention of the United States was that they were justified in withholding the compensation sued for by virtue of the provisions of § 2 of the Act of May 7, 1878, c. 96, 20 Stat. 56, commonly known as the "Thurman Act." We do not think this contention is well founded.
"in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes."
"SEC. 5. . . . The issue of said bonds, and delivery to the company, shall ipso facto constitute a first mortgage on the whole line of the railroad and telegraph,"
until said bonds and interest are paid at least five percent of the net earnings of said road shall also be annually applied to the payment thereof."
"SEC. 5. . . . Only one-half of the compensation for services rendered for the government by said companies shall be required to be applied to the payment of the bonds issued by the government in aid of the construction of said roads."
These sections, taken together, constitute the contract between the United States and the appellee. United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 91 U. S. 72; Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 99 U. S. 718; Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 104 U. S. 662. This contract is binding on the United States, and they cannot, without the consent of the company, change its terms by any subsequent legislation. Sinking-Fund Cases, ubi supra.
"That the whole amount of compensation which may, from time to time, be due to said several railroad companies respectively for services rendered for the government shall be retained by the United States, one-half thereof to be presently applied to the liquidation of the interest paid and to be paid by the United States upon the bonds so issued by it as aforesaid to each of said corporations severally and the other half thereof to be turned into the sinking fund hereinafter provided, for the uses therein mentioned."
and the appellee contending that the compensation referred to was that earned by transportation over that part only of its lines which had been assisted by the government subsidy. The Acts of July 1, 1862, July 2, 1864, and May 7, 1878, all relate to the same subject. The latter act is declared by its title to be amendatory of the first two, and its last section provides that each and every of its provisions shall be "held as in alteration and amendment" of the two acts first mentioned. The three acts are therefore to be construed together as one act, and one part to be interpreted by another. United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556, 44 U. S. 564; Crespigny v. Wittenoom, 4 T.R. 793; Commonwealth v. Slack, 19 Pick. 304.
"We are of opinion . . . that the subsidy bonds granted to the company, being granted only in respect of the original road, . . . are a lien on that portion only, and that the five percent of the net earnings is only demandable on the net earnings of said portion."
With this decision in view, it would be impossible to hold with any show of reason that the compensation for services rendered the United States, which by the same section was required to be applied to the payment of the same bonds, included compensation for services rendered by a road the construction of which had not been aided by the issue to the company of government bonds.
In the case of United States v. Denver Pacific Railway Co., 99 U. S. 460, decided at the same term, and in which the judgment was delivered by the same Justice, it was held that the United States had no right, under the sixth section of the act of 1862, to retain compensation for services rendered upon a road the construction of which it had not aided by its bonds. The ground upon which the Court placed its decision was that the government had no lien except upon a road which it had so aided, and could retain neither the five percent of the earnings of a road to which it had issued no bonds nor compensation for transportation services thereon.
This Court having thus interpreted the Act of July 1, 1862, we cannot, consistently with the established rules of construction, give a different meaning to substantially the same words in the Act of May 7, 1878. Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162. In the Act of July 1, 1862, the provision is that "all compensation for services rendered for the government shall be applied to the payment of said bonds." In the Act of May 7, 1878, the words are that "the whole amount of compensation . . . for service rendered for the government shall be retained by the United States," one-half to pay interest and the other half to be turned into the sinking fund. If the two acts are to be construed together and as one act, we must give the same meaning to like expressions in both. We cannot say in one case that the compensation mentioned means compensation only for services on aided roads and in the other that it includes compensation for services on roads not aided.
open to neither of these objections. Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266; Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596; Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567, decided at the present term, and cases there cited; United States v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72. The construction contended for by the appellee preserves the good faith of the government, and frees the act from the imputation of impairing rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.
In our view, the construction of the second section of the Act of May 7, 1878, is plain, and not fairly open to controversy. By the Act of July 1, 1862, "all compensation for services rendered for the government" was to be applied to the payment of the bonds issued by the United States to aid in building the road. By the Act of July 2, 1864, only "one-half of the compensation for services rendered for the government" by said company was required to be applied to the payment of the bonds. The Act of May 7, 1878, merely restored the provisions of the Act of July 1, 1862, and again required all compensation for services rendered the government to be applied to the payment of the bonds. This compensation, as we have seen, has been limited by the decisions of this Court to compensation for services rendered by the aided roads. The construction of the second section of the Act of May 7, 1878, contended for by the appellee is therefore right.

References: v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.