
    ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. D-150.
    Decided April 13, 1925]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Railroad rates; Rational Guard; camps of instruction; status en route; land-grant acts. — See Or eg on-Washmgton ease, ante, p. 458.
    
      The Reporter's statement of the case:
    
      Mr. La/uyrence H. Oalce for the plaintiff. Britton <& Gray were on the briefs.
    
      Mr. Joseph H. Sheppard, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General William J. Donovan, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The plaintiff, a corporation, is a common carrier by railroad of freight and passengers.
    II. Under the acts of Congress granting lands in aid of railroads and appropriating money for the War Department and for Army transportation the land-grant railroads have been required to transport “ troops of the United States” at reduced fares, being less than those charged other persons for similar transportation. The plaintiff is one of the land-grant railroads under certain acts of Congress granting lands in aid of the construction of its road, namely, the act of September 20, 1850, 9 Stat. 466; the act of May 15, 1856, 11 Stat. 9; and the act of June 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 95. Each of the said acts contained a provision as follows:
    “And the said railroad shall be and remain a public highway for the use of the Government of the United States, free from toll or other charge upon the transportation of any property or troops of the United States.”
    III. Prior to the performance of the service hereinafter mentioned the railroads of the United States generally, including the plaintiff, entered into certain agreements with the Quartermaster General of the Army which provided that the railroads generally, whether land .grant or nonland grant, would accept “ for transportation of persons for whom the United States Government is lawfully entitled to reduced fares over land-grant roads ” the lowest net fare lawfully available, as derived through deductions, account land-grant distance via a usually traveled route for military traffic, from a lawful fare filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission as applying from point of origin to destination via such route at time of movement when the movements were made under Government transportation requests of the issue of the War Department, Navy Department, or Marine Corps. The said agreements, known as “land-grant equalization agreements,” were in force when the service hereinafter mentioned was performed.
    IY. During 1921, 1922, and 1923 the plaintiff performed certain service for the United States in the transportation of members of the National Guard to and from camps.of instruction authorized by the acts of Congress making appropriation for the Army and by the national defense act of June 3, 1916.
    Y. The said members of" the National Guard had subscribed to the dual oath or enlistment contract provided by the national defense act of-June'3, 1916, and they and their organizations had been recognized by the Secretary of War as having fully complied with the provisions of the said act as to organization, qualification, and training.
    VI. At the time the transportation service was rendered the said members of the National Guard had not been called as such into the service of the- United States for the purposes mentioned in Article I, section 8, paragraph 15, of the Federal Constitution, namely, to (secute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, or repel invasion, and they had not been drafted into the military service of the United States as authorized by section 111 of the national defense act of June 3, 1916. The organizations in which they were enlisted had been ordered to encampment for training purposes in accordance with the provisions of sections 92, 94, and 97 of the national defense act of June 3, 1916.
    VII. For a part of the said transportation, being that performed during 1921, the plaintiff rendered its bills on the basis of the full tariff fares without any deduction for land grant. The said bills were originally paid as rendered on the basis of full tariff fares without land-grant deductions, but subsequently the payments so made were disallowed in part and deductions were thereupon made from other accounts due the plaintiff to recover what the General Accounting Office calculated were proper land-grant deductions in connection with the service performed on the original bills. Thus the payments made to the plaintiff ,on the bills originally rendered for the service in question were reduced to the land-grant basis. The following is a statement of the amounts so originally billed and paid at full tariff fares and the amounts later disallowed and deducted from other accounts.
    BUI Later deducted Billed and paid on account of at tariff fares land grant
    86056 $1,407. 63 $316.54
    86097 18. 52 .91
    46229 15.14 2. 94
    56228 6. 68 1.40
    66025 511. 84 141. 60
    76040 72.84 21.96
    86096 473. 62 82. 32
    96056 2, 381. 24 236.12
    803. 79
    
      VIII. For the following of the said transportation, being that performed in 1922 and 1923, the plaintiff rendered its bills at net land-grant fares, endorsing on each bill so rendered a protest against the application of land-grant fares. The plaintiff also filed and presented with each original or principal bill so rendered a supplemental bill for the difference between the net land-grant fare and the full tariff fare. In each instance the amount allowed was the net land-grant fare. The following is a statement of the differences between the payments made at land-grant fares and the amounts which would be due at full tariff fares:
    
      Difference between amount billed and paid and amount due at full tariff fares
    
    Bill
    66043-$266. 57
    66220-87. 97
    76024-1, 062. 67
    86015-274. 37
    86016-264. 46
    86037-157. 43
    86065-114. 53
    106025 22. 50
    106026 54. 90
    106027. 970. 23
    116209. 3.59
    26203-2. 03
    46210-1. 56
    3, 882. 81
    IX. For the transportation furnished on T/R 3166892. July 11, 1922, from Monroe, Wis., to Camp Douglas, Wis., the plaintiff billed at the full tariff fare the bill 76031 amounting to $296.14. The General Accounting Office made a settlement March 10, 1923, on the basis of a net land-grant fare, the amount allowed being $249.91, and the amount disallowed, $46.23.
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
   MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The case is decided upon the same reasons which governed us in the case of Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. v. United, States, ante, p. 458. In that case it was pointed out that the encampment and maneuvers of the National Guard were a part of the general scheme for the training of the National Guard provided for in the national defense act; and that the National Guard of the States were not United States troops while being so encamped and maneuvered, nor while being transported for that purpose. They were in no sense in the service of the United States, and not being in such service could not be regarded as troops of the United States.  