Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/236/318
Timestamp: 2018-04-22 18:17:17
Document Index: 777700033

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 20', '§ 8563', '§ 6', '§ 20', '§ 12', '§ 8592']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by James C. McReynolds, Attorney General, Plff. in Err., Appt., v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by James C. McReynolds, Attorney General, Plff. in Err., Appt., v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY.
236 U.S. 318 (35 S.Ct. 363, 59 L.Ed. 598)
Argued: January 5 and 6, 1915.
Argument of Counsel from pages 319-322 intentionally omitted
This is an appeal from and writ of error to the district court of the United States for the western district of Kentucky, refusing a writ of mandamus which the United States undertook to obtain under authority of § 20 of the act to regulate commerce 24 Stat. at L. 386, chap. 104, as amended, 34 Stat. at L. 584, 594, 595, chap. 3591, Comp. Stat. 1913, §§ 8563, 8592. In view of the character of an action in mandamus, we are of opinion that the review is by writ of error. Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelright, 7 Wheat. 534, 5 L. ed. 516; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 97, 16 L. ed. 717, 725; High, Extr. Leg. Rem. §§ 6, 557. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
The petition sets forth the authority conferred upon the Commission by § 20 of the act, and also § 12, and embodies a copy of a resolution passed by the Senate of the United States, which is given in the margin. 1 It further states that for the purpose of enabling the Commission to perform its duties, it appointed two special agents and duly authorized them to inspect and examine the accounts, records, and memoranda of the defendant railway company; that on February 4, 1914, one of said agents demanded of the vice president of the defendant, the officer in charge and control of the accounts, records, and memoranda of the company, and to and of other officers, access to and opportunity to examine the accounts, records, and memoranda kept by the defendant prior to August 28, 1906 the Hepburn act took effect August 29, 1906, and that the same was refused by the officers of the company; that on February 4, 1914, a demand was made for an opportunity to examine the accounts, records, and memoranda of the defendant on and subsequent to August 28th, 1906, which was refused; and a writ of mandamus was asked against the company, requiring it to give access to its accounts, records, and memoranda, and its correspondence and copies of correspondence, and indexes thereto, and to afford opportunity to examine the same to the commission and its agents and examiners, and to give such access to and opportunity to examine the said accounts, records, and memoranda made and kept by and for said defendant both before, on, and subsequent to August 28, 1906, including correspondence, copies of correspondence, and indexes thereto, and other indexes to said accounts, records, and memoranda.
Reading these provisions of the act, there is nothing to suggest that they were intended to include correspondence relative to the railroad's business. In recommending the passage of the act, the Commission did not suggest that it was essential to its purpose to have an inspection of the correspondence of the railroad. And, with its expert consideration of the questions involved, and having clearly in mind the authority it was intended to secure, it can scarcely be supposed that the Commission would have confined its proposed amendment to the carefully chosen words 'accounts, records, or memoranda,' and would have omitted the word 'correspondence,' if it had intended to include the latter. If we apply the rule of construction,noscitur a sociis,we find that all the provisions of the act as to the inspection of accounts have relation to such as are kept in the system of bookkeeping to be prescribed by the Commission. It would be a great stretch of the meaning of the term as here used, to make 'memoranda' include correspondence. The 'records' of a corporation import the transcript of its charter and by-laws, the minutes of its meetings the books containing the accounts of its official doings and the written evidence of its contracts and business transactions. Certainly it was not intended that the Commission should prescribe the forms of correspondence, although it was given the power to prescribe the forms of all accounts, records, and memoranda subject to the provisions of the act.
'Any person who shall wilfully make any false entry in the accounts of any book of accounts, or in any record or memoranda kept by a carrier, or who shall wilfully destroy, mutilate, alter, or by any other means or device falsify the record of any such account, record, or memoranda, or who shall wilfully neglect or fail to make full, true, and correct entries in such accounts, records, or memoranda of all facts and transactions appertaining to the carrier's business, or shall keep any other accounts, records, or memoranda than those prescribed or approved by the Commission, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subject, upon conviction in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, or imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor more than three years, or both such fine and imprisonment: Provided, that the Commission may, in its discretion, issue orders specifying such operating, accounting, or financial papers, records, books, blanks, tickets, stubs, or documents of carriers which may, after a reasonable time, be destroyed, and prescribing the length of time such books, papers, or documents shall be preserved.' 35 Stat. at L. 649, chap. 193, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8592.
'Resolved, That the Interstate Commerce Commission be, and the same is hereby, directed to investigate, taking proof and employing counsel if necessary, and report to the Senate as soon as practicable
SINCLAIR v. UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES and Interstate Commerce Commission, Appts., v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. UNITED STATES, Interstate Commerce Commission, and Crew-Levick Company, Appts., v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.
OKLAHOMA PRESS PUB. CO. v. WALLING, Adm'r, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor. NEWS PRINTING CO., Inc., v. SAME.