text:
Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1941. [313 U.S. 450, 451] Messrs. Blake A. Williamson, of Kansas City, Kan., for appellant Kansas City, Kan.
Messrs. Henry N. Ess, of Kansas City, Mo., Thomas W. Bockes, of Omaha, Neb., and Robert F. Maguire, of Portland, Or., for appellant Union Pac. R. Co.
Mr. James C. Wilson and Burt L. Smelker, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee United States.
Mr. Jonathan C. Gibson, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees, Atchison, T . & S.F. Ry. Co. and others.
Mr. William E. Kemp, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee Kansas City, Mo.
Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.
Union Pacific also caused its officers, employees and agents, and those of its subsidiary, the Kansas City Industrial Land Company, and its affiliate, the Pacific Fruit Express Company, to render various ervices related to the promotional, leasing and financing activities; it advanced money for financing preliminary expenses; and together with the City it supervised the actual construction. The terminal as completed consists of railroad facilities, owned by Union Pacific, for which it spent $603,000; and the City's wholesale produce market, with a cold storage plant, produce dealers' buildings, a farmers' market, and some terminal trackage, all constructed with [313 U.S. 450, 457] funds derived from the PWA grant and the revenue bonds sold to Union Pacific. 4 The Food Terminal is a unitary enterprise, with the market and the railroad facilities integral parts of a unified whole. Union Pacific has the only tracks reaching the terminal, except that the Missouri Pacific jointly serves the cold-storage plant.
Active solicitation of the Missouri dealers to move to Kansas began in June, 1937. As early as August, 1937, Union Pacific contemplated the necessity of giving inducements to dealers, either by making direct payments or by buying from them 'unwanted properties.' In the summer and fall of that year, DeOreo and Fean induced five of the Missouri dealers to serve on a committee for the promotion of the Kansas terminal, agreeing to pay each of them $5000 'in consideration of the services rendered ... and the occupancy of the food terminal' as tenant. By August, 1938, Union Pacific's employees and agents had negotiated with other dealers with respect to cash payments and other inducements. As opposition developed on the Missouri side, the district court found that the campaign for enlistment of the Missouri dealers became 'open and intense.' Union Pacific, however, was anxious to avoid violating the Elkins Act, and sought the advice of its legal department, which rendered an opinion that payments made by the City to dealers would be lawful. With the assistance of a committee of prominent citizens, the City was persuaded to undertake such payments; in December, 1939, it passed Resolution 11275 authorizing use of the Public Levee Revenue Fund for settlements either with cash or credits on rental, or both, to cover costs incurred by prospective tenants, 'due to rental obligations on present places of business and costs due to abandonment of equipment and facilities [313 U.S. 450, 458] now located in, and the good will of said established places of business.' The legality under state law of such payments by the City was promptly established in a test suit at least partially directed by Union Pacific. State ex rel. Parker v. Kansas City, 151 Kan. 1, 97 P.2d 104 and 151 Kan. 2, 98 P.2d 101.
The City, although now willing to make payments to prospective tenants where necessary, was lacking funds. In arranging for refrigerator service at the market, Union Pacific contracted to buy its entire Kansas City and Omaha ice requirements from the City Ice & Fuel Company. This company leased the market's cold-storage unit for fifteen years at $37,500 per year; Union Pacific now urged the company to pay the City $80,000 as advance rent. The City Ice & Fuel Company did this and also, at Union Pacific's and the City's suggestion, deposited $25,000 with a bank as collateral for proposed unsecured and inadequately secured loans to Missouri produce dealers, although such loans, while offered, were never actually made.
The record fully supports the trial court's conclusion that the concessions offered were not confined to fair compensation for the costs of removal, as a brief review of the instances specified by the judge will show. Mallin Produce Company, the largest apple concern in the market, claimed $17,300 as its costs of removal, $7,300 for moving its apples, and $ 10,000 as the 'value of existing lease to be abandoned.' However, Mallin made no claim that he had any obligations under his Missouri lease;5 he merely said that he had been assured by his landlord that he could continue the lease as long as he lived, and that he would continue to lease the property 'in order to keep a competitor from securing it.' Union Pacific's representative nevertheless offered him $15,000 from the City, and then raised the offer to $20,000 when Mallin agreed to take two units instead of one at the terminal. The O. C. Evans, Company, which made no statement of the amount of its Missouri investment, was offered $5,000; when it demanded $10,000, the offer was increased to $7,000. The negotiators increased Cherrito's claim from $900 to $1,450 by raising the cost figures for his Missouri fixtures above the amounts he had specified. Garrett-Holmes & Company, which had claimed only about $20,000 in the summer of 1939 without presenting definite figures, in December demanded an adjustment of $35,000, and accepted $30,500 in cash and one year's free refrigeration. Settlement was reached on a claim for unexpired rentals of $ 15,000 and cost of irremovable business fixtures, $20,000. Litman Produce Company was given $15,000 in [313 U.S. 450, 460] case and advance rent after asserting an obligation to pay six years' rent on an unexpired Missouri lease, when in fact the lease was to expire in a few months and merely contained an option to renew for four years; Litman had not exercised the option, though after the injunction he entered into a new lease with his Missouri lessor. Robinson was allowed to put in a claim for $600 for several unexpired months of an asserted six months' lease, when the tenancy was in fact on a month-to-month basis. Winnick Brothers, a banana firm, was allowed more than $7,000 as the unamortized cost of fixtures and equipment that had apparently cost them less than a thousand dollars.
The proposed cash payments to dealers totalled $111,000, and the proposed credits on rent more than $30,000. When negotiations with a dealer resulted in a tentative understanding or agreement, he would be told that Union Pacific could not pay him but that the matter would be submitted to the City. The district court's injunction intervened before more than one of the adjustments had been formally agreed to by the City Board and none of these payments had actually been made.
In addition to these circumstances, the standard form lease contained express provisions for free rents and reduced rents. The standard rental adopted was $150 per month per unit, but for the first three months after the official completion date only $50 was charged. Moreover, the terminal opened for business on December 4, 1939; dealers began moving in then and enjoyed rent-free occupation until February 1, 1940, which was announced as the official completion date.
Union Pacific also made available a certain amount of free advertising by interviewing the terminal's tenant on its radio program and allowing them to describe the kind and quality of their produce.
Throughout all phases of these activities, Union Pacific's principal and compelling motive has been to divert produce [313 U.S. 450, 461] traffic from other railroads to its own. By tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, charges for handling are collected by the Union Pacific for cars originating on or destined to other lines. If the market shifts from Missouri to Kansas, it is estimated that Union Pacific stands to gain traffic revenues of several hundred thousand dollars annually from the development of the market, due largely to the fact that a railroad on whose line a shipper is located enjoys a substantial advantage in soliciting competitive traffic, and comparable losses may be reasonably expected by the railroads now serving the Missouri market.
The Applicable Statutes. The Elkins Act is a part of the federal statutory system for the regulation of interstate carriers of commerce. As with other portions of that system a chief purpose for its enactment was to eliminate rebates, concessions or discriminations from the handling of commerce, to the end that persons and places might carry on their activities on an equal basis. With the adoption of prohibition against open rate cutting, various devices were resorted to.6 The railroads sought control over competitors to escape rate wars and, despite abhorrence of monopolies even in the utility field, strong in the early years of this century, such concentrations of carrier control were thought to have one advantage at least, the reduction of discriminatory practices. 7 Concealment of the receipt or payment of rebates was made manifest. Strengthening of the enforcement provisions was sought. This effort finally culminated in the legislative authorization of the injunction as the simplest and most summary legal instrument to destroy discrimination. 8 The courts have found the statutes effective to accomplish the destruction [313 U.S. 450, 462] of discriminatory practices, whatever their form. Violation of the commerce acts through receipt of advantages is to be tested by actual results not by intention. 9 Any and all means to accomplish the prohibited end are banned. 10 We recently said that under competitive conditions existing in the New York area the action of the Commission in attacking discrimination by an order against furnishing non-transportation services below cost to the carrier was valid, although there was no showing that the charges were below fair value. 11 Contribution to a shipper's construction cost is forbidden. 12 In fact favoritism which destroys equality between shippers, however brought about, is not tolerated. Of course, no party to this appeal disputes this broad principle.
Difficulties in statutory construction arise upon further analysis of the statute. Section 1, quoted in note 1, has a provision making it unlawful for any person to give or receive any concession in respect to transportation. A subsequent clause makes the act of giving or receiving a concession a misdemeanor and punishes its violation by 'every person or corporation, whether carrier or shipper.' Obviously a bonus paid by a railway to induce a prospective shipper to locate along its line would be as much a concession under the statute as a reduction in tariff applicable only to the favored shipper. We are of the opinion that such a payment by a person who is not a carrier, if it is a payment 'in respect to ... transportat on,' would be equally violative of the section in question.
The first prohibition makes it unlawful 'for any person ... or corporation' to give or receive the concession. [313 U.S. 450, 463] The appellants' argument that only carriers or shippers are covered is based on the clause stating the punishment to be applicable whether the alleged violator is 'carrier or shipper.' Such an argument assumes that the carrier and shipper clause restricts the ordinary meaning of 'any person.' No reason is advanced for such a restriction. As has been set out, there has been a well defined and continuous purpose to eliminate preferences to shippers from our system of transportation for reasons of fairness and to avoid rate wars, detrimental to the efficiency of the carriers. The words stressed by appellants as restrictive were added by the Hepburn Act as an amendment to Section 1 of the Elkins Act to make clear that the earlier phrase 'any person, persons, or corporation' included shippers as well as carriers. 13 In our view, action by any person to bring about discriminations in respect to the transportation of property is rendered unlawful by the Elkins Act. Any other conclusion would do violence to a dominant purpose of carrier legislation.
This conclusion is buttressed by other language in the Elkins Act and by decisions in other courts which have dealt with the question. Section 3 authorizes such suits as this against a carrier and such other persons 'as the court may deem necessary' when a carrier is 'committing any discriminations' and the court may enforce its orders 'as well against the parties interested in the traffic' as against the carrier. For example, in Spencer Kellogg & Sons v. United States, 2 Cir., 20 F.2d 459, a grain elevator owner, without carrier affiliation or cooperation, was convicted for sharing its allowance for elevation service with a shipper. 14 [313 U.S. 450, 464] The statute specifically requires that the concession given or received shall be 'in respect to the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier.' As the language of the section covers indisputably the carrier and the freight involved in movement into and out of a metropolitan terminal market,15 only the phrase 'in respect to the transportation' requires analysis. What has been said shows its meaning connotes more than discrimination in payment of tariffs. Offering or soliciting the concessions explicitly violates the section. So does a building bonus granted on condition that the favored industry use the carrier's facilities. 16 The concessions are none the less illegal, if made for non-transportation services,17 as long as they result in lowering directly or indirectly transportation costs to a shipper. That other inducements may also have influenced the concessions is not important when a materially effective purpose is the securing of traffic for an interstate carrier. Where traffic is an object and discriminatory advantage the means employed in attempting to obtain or actually obtaining it, there is a violation of the section in respect to transportation.
Validity of the Plan. Appellants urge that the City's action in making rrangements for payments to dealers located in the Missouri city was taken solely in furtherance of its municipal interests and without intention to influence traffic and consequently not 'in respect to the transportation of any property.' It is pointed out that it is quite permissible and indeed desirable for a railroad, [313 U.S. 450, 465] largely dependent as its prosperity is upon the prosperity of the communities reached by its tracks, to take part in furthering civic development. Certainly there can be no objection on the score of illegality under federal transportation acts for a city, anxious to make its market house profitable, to adopt business practices, normal for real estate operators, if the practices do not involve discriminations 'in respect to ... transportation' by interstate carriers. Thus it is understandable that city and railroad might individually and even cooperatively work hand in hand to promote the city's economic welfare without violating the Elkins Act. But the promotion of civic advancement may not be used as a cloak to screen the granting of discriminatory advantages to shippers. Consequently in the present case the things done are to be appraised by the standards of the statutes, heretofore examined. For this purpose we may lay aside as of small importance the action of the Union Pacific in advancing funds for the expenses of an inspection tour to other cities by the Missouri merchants who were thus made familiar with markets similar to the proposed market on the Kansas side of the Missouri River. The use of the railroad's radio time to advertise shippers' available stock in trade, while unlawful, seems too minor for further comment in a suit to enjoin discriminations through cash bonuses and free rent. Further, while it would be a violation of the Elkins Act for a carrier to offer a shipper a concession to be paid to the shipper by a non- carrier, we do not find it necessary to rest the decision here upon the carrier's alleged action in offering payments to shippers by the City. For in this case invalidity of the carrier's action would follow a fortiori from the invalidity of the City's action. Therefore we examine the City's situation.
Enough has heretofore been stated to support fully the conclusion that some shippers obtained agreements from [313 U.S. 450, 466] the City committee on negotiations for concessions in return for moving into the new market. In determining whether the concessions were in respect to transportation, the cooperative functioning of railway and City, transportation and municipal officers become significant. The phrase 'in respect to ... transportation' has not a technical connotation. It differs from intent or purpose to affect transportation. It is broader than 'in reduction of tariffs' though, as appears from the act, it is such a discrimination as results in transportation 'at a less rate than that named in the tariffs ... or whereby any other advantage is given ....' Our attention is not called to any legislative history as to the purpose of the inclusion of the words in the Elkins Act or as to their meaning. We have found none. We are of the view that the phrase limits the 'rebate, concession, or discrimination' to advantages or disadvantages in transportation but has no further effect. As the discrimination is limited to transportation matters, normally one would find involved in the discrimination not only a user or prospective user of the facilities of the carrier but also the carrier itself. This is true in this instance. Carrier and City, through a committee of employees of each and through DeOreo and Fean and their aides, worked together to bring into the terminal tenants whose business as found below was 'shipping into and out of the Food Terminal products transported in interstate commerce upon which the dealers pay the freight.' Where concessions are offered to such dealers by the City in a plan worked out cooperatively by the City and carrier, as here, these concessions are necessarily in respect to transportation. The Union Paci ic is charged with the public duty of and is interested in transportation. The promoters brought the scheme for the market first to the railway company. It was impressed with the possibilities and worked earnestly to convince first a few city officials and then the Board of the desirability of action [313 U.S. 450, 467] by the City. Money for the preliminary expenses was advanced by the Union Pacific. No objection was made to the use by the City of prepaid rents from the City Ice & Fuel Company to further the removal of the dealers in the manner 'conceived and devised,' in the words of a finding, by the Union Pacific. The railroad was the 'leading and dominant' influence in the entire transaction. If the City was not completely 'subservient to the competitive needs' of the carrier, as we said of the warehousing corporations in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 507, 516 , 517 S., 59 S.Ct. 284, 287, at least the encouragement and cooperation given by the railroad was of a kind to make it plain that the City's action looked specifically towards gaining traffic for the road. While, as has been stated, it is the result and not the purpose which determines the illegal character of advantages granted shippers, when there is a purpose or plan for securing traffic, developed cooperatively by a carrier and others, the purpose makes clear that the concessions offered are in respect to transportation.
The power of the City to make the concessions and the question of whether any money to be used by the City was contributed directly or indirectly by the Union Pacific do not affect this conclusion. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas in State ex rel. Parker v. Kansas City,18 that the City, in its proprietary capacity, under Kansas law has 'authority to pay such sums as are necessary ... to carry out ... such policies and transactions as may be to the best interest of said City in securing tenants ... for said Terminal' is not reviewable here. But the opinions in these Kansas cases do not consider or decide whether the proposed payments are a part of a plan to grant advantages to shippers contrary to the Elkins Act. Even if the City's action had [313 U.S. 450, 468] been discussed from that standpoint, the result would not conclude this Court. It is our duty to determine finally the effect of acts or plans plainly under that federal statute. 19 It is impossible, and in our view immaterial, to determine from the evidence and findings whether the Union Pacific contributed indirectly to the fund for making payments to shippers. The railroad owned a three million dollar bond issue which carries a covenant to apply all revenues of the properties involved, after operating expenses, to the bond liquidation. By acquiescing in the application of the revenues to secure tenants, the railway did contribute financially, if there was a failure to earn enough to meet expenses. The estimates as to earnings are necessarily uncertain. From its finding that the projected net return was compensatory, the district court was apparently of the view that the Terminal would pay out. 20 [313 U.S. 450, 469] Injunction. One provision of the permanent injunction entered by the district court enjoined the Union Pacific and Kansas City, Kansas, and their officers or agents from giving cash or rental credits to produce dealers to move into or remain in quarters in the Kansas City Food Terminal. 21 The appellants assign as error the action of the district court in entering any prohibition against payments 'in such amounts as its ( the City's) governing body may determine' and 'against use of its Public Levee revenues' for the payment of 'damages sustained by produce dealers moving' to the Terminal.
Resolution 11275 was construed by the Supreme Court of Kansas to authorize disbursements of available market funds for such purposes 'as in the judgment of said governing body will be to the best interest(s) of ( the) city.' 22 By the resolution these expenditures were limited to the dealers' actual costs of removal, including loss of good will.
The words of the injunction, however, go farther and forbid payments even though the payments are in all fairness and strictness limited to actual and necessary expenses and losses in moving an establishment. Consequently, in deciding the form of the injunction, we need to determine the breadth of language necessary 'to suppress the unlawful practices' and preclude their revival. 23 The district court summarized in findings of fact and conclusions of law the constant activity of the Union Pacific in pressing forward the idea of the Terminal. It has before it the testimony that the road sought, meticulously, to avoid conflict wit the Elkins Act and yet gain the installation of the market; that the railway representatives acted with the City committees and talked with prospective tenants. Railroad influence pervaded each City action and in those circumstances, the decree must be molded to meet the danger of subtle moves against the equality between shippers guaranteed by the Elkins Act.
Where, as here, the action of the City in giving cash and rental credits is, as we have decided, a part of a plan in re- [313 U.S. 450, 471] spect to transportation resulting in an advantage to shippers, we conclude that the giving of any cash, rental credit, free or reduced rents to induce leasing of space in the Terminal is contrary to the Elkins Act. Even if we assume that nothing will be given except the actual costs of removal, the receipt of those costs would put the shipper in a preferred position to all other shippers using the facilities of an interstate carrier who did not receive such concessions. The act condemns any device 'whereby any other advantage (than lower tariffs) is given ....' The wording of paragraph (1) is approved.
Another prohibition of the injunction determines that the rates for space shall be such 'which will yield a proper rate of return upon the full value of the market facilities as a whole, after making provision for all expenses of operation, including maintenance and depreciation.' 24 Identical language in paragraph Third (2) of the injunc- [313 U.S. 450, 472] tion forbids produce dealers, of whom many were parties to this proceeding, and their agents from being tenants of the Terminal at rental rates which are not adequate to yield the required amount. The inclusion of this requirement is in our opinion erroneous. The words quoted in the text should be stricken and the injunction amended by inserting in lieu of the stricken words the following: 'which is a fair rental value for the facilities occupied.' The reasons for the deletion follow.
The preliminary injunction referred to in the excerpt from the final injunction quoted in note 24 set the rentals at not less than certain definite amounts per month and per annum for operating units and office space. There were allowances for uncompleted facilities not now important. No issue is raised here as to whether the sums fixed were or were not a fair rental value. Adequate findings determined the values of the facilities, the estimated gross and net revenues and rates of return. W th these findings before it, the district court further found in its final order that the rates fixed in the preliminary injunction were compensatory and did not amount 'to a gift of any part of the value of the use of the Food Terminal to the tenant shippers.' 25 This result is not [313 U.S. 450, 473] questioned. It may therefore be concluded that this scale of charges meets the requirements of the decree for aggregate rates which do not amount to concessions. Since the adequacy of these rates was reached in considering the full value of the properties, including the land furnished by the City and the grant from the Public Works Administration, it may be assumed that they are not less than a fair rental value. The last paragraph of the order provides a method for modification by application to the court should either side be of opinion that this assumption is incorrect. As will immediately appear from this opinion, it is unnecessary to give consideration to the contention that the district court erred in adding the value of the City's land and the amount of the grant to the cost of the facilities. If the correct test is fair rental value, cost of facility is only persuasive, not determinative. Consequently it may be shown as a material factor in determining the fair rental value of the properties but the rates are not required to be upon a level which will give a return upon the value of the investment as a whole.
This is not the case for a rigid rule that aggregate rentals are to equal costs, such as was applied i Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 507, 523 , 524 S., 59 S.Ct. 284, 290, where this Court approved an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission designed to root out competitive evils in discriminatory warehousing indulged in by carriers in an effort to acquire traffic. The City is entitled to develop its properties and location in accordance with the laws of Kansas for civic advantage, so long as it does not utilize its facilities in furtherance of a scheme to obtain customers for a carrier by the offering of concessions, contrary to the Elkins Act. It was recognized in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States that a charge of fair rental value for services accessorial to transportation would adequately protect even a carrier under proper circumstances. We are of the view that rental charges fixed upon that concept will avoid the discriminatory evils proscribed by the Elkins Act.
With the modifications directed in this opinion, the order of the district court is affirmed.
I cannot agree with the judgment in this case. In last analysis the question presented is whether the Elkins Act proscribes financial transactions by a city with proposed occupants of a city-owned building because those occupants will be shippers in interstate commerce from such building, where the city is to furnish no facilities or services of transportation, where the transactions involve no payments, concessions or discriminations on the part of any interstate carrier, are authorized by State law and are for the city's benefit. A subsidiary question is whether in fact the proposed transactions amount to discriminations in favor of such occupants. A further question is presented with respect to the decree to be entered.
I find it unnecessary to discuss the evidence in detail, or narrowly to examine the findings. I shall endeavor, for the purpose of reaching the legal questions, to consider the case in the light most favorable to the appellees.
The defendants De Oreo and Fean are not philanthropists but promoters who had more or less successfully promoted produce terminals in various cities. They conceived the plan of establishing one in Kansas City, Kansas. They expected a profit out of the venture. Their original idea was that they should become lessees of the terminal and make their profit by subrenting space in it. When this purpose was abandoned they sought to be made exclusive rental agents. Objection by the P.W.A. rendered this proposal impracticable. They have received considerable payments from Union Pacific for their efforts in connection with the establishment of the terminal.
De Oreo and Fean presented their plan to Union Pacific. That company took an interest, not eleemosynary but practical, in the project. Inasmuch as its tracks would serve the proposed terminal the railroad naturally desired that the plan go through so that it might get in- [313 U.S. 450, 476] creased business and obtain a competitive advantage over other railroads serving the area known as Greater Kansas City and particularly the food terminal at Kansas City, Missouri. But the railroad did not desire to erect the terminal. It sought to interest the officials of Kansas City, Kansas, in the scheme, and succeeded in doing so.
Some years ago Kansas City, Kansas, had been given a large tract of water front land which, until recently, had been unused. Through a P.W.A. grant and a loan from Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the city had made some improvements and had erected a grain elevator and docks on the tract which were served by the lines of Union Pacific and Missouri Pacific. The balance of the tract was available for a produce terminal. The establishment of such an instrumentality would obviously be of great benefit to the city in both financial and civic aspects. The plan evolved was that the city should erect such a terminal; that Union Pacific would construct a arge team track and switching yard on the ground adjacent to the terminal to be leased by Union Pacific from the city and that the terminal should be financed by the city through a P.W.A. grant and income bonds.
De Oreo and Fean, Union Pacific, and the city officials all struggled earnestly to obtain a grant from P.W.A. An investigation by the Department of Agriculture disclosed that the terminal would be highly beneficial to the producers tributary to the Kansas City market. Investigation by the P. W.A. disclosed that the scheme was desirable and practicable. A grant of not to exceed $1,700,000 was made conditioned on the financing of the remainder of the project.
The condition precedent to the P.W.A. grant having been fulfilled, the city proceeded with the erection of the terminal with the fullest aid and cooperation of Union Pacific. That company had advanced some $22,000 for preliminary expenses, which the city proposed to repay it. Under a ruling of P.W.A. the city could not do so with funds procured for construction and if the sum is repaid, the funds must come out of income. The railroad, not unnaturally, retained an architect to collaborate with the city's architect respecting the construction and exerted every effort to bring the plan to fruition.
As was expected, tenants of the old market in Missouri, when solicited to move to the new, raised questions of losses due to unexpired leases, abandonment of fixtures, etc. Everybody interested in the new terminal, including De Oreo and Fean, employes of Union Pacific, and representatives of the city, negotiated with these prospective tenants with respect of what would be a fair recompense for their losses due to removal and reestablishment. None of these negotiators had authority to do more than ascertain the claims of such proposed tenants which were to be submitted to, and adjusted by, a committee representing and acting for Kansas City, Kansas. The evidence is uncontradicted and overwhelming that Union Pacific's employes, and everyone else concerned, made it clear that any adjustment of these losses would have to be made by the city, and by the city only; that the railroad could not, and would not, pay a cent towards any such expense. [313 U.S. 450, 479] When this suit was brought nothing had been paid to any claimant. One claim had been approved by the committee. It turns out that although that claim was supported by affidavit it was in an unjustifiably large amount with respect to the cancellation of an existing lease but there is no evidence that the city officials, in approving the claim, knew this or would have approved the claim had they known it, and there is no finding that the claim was made in bad faith. Moreover, neither with respect to this claim nor to any other which was under consideration at the time suit was instituted is there evidence, and there is no finding by the court below or by this court, except by innuendo, that if the claims made were paid any payee would have even been made whole for losses consequent on moving and establishing himself in the new location, or that he would thereby have had any preference or advantage over other tenants to whom no such payments were made.
At an early day in the development of the project Union Pacific expressed its willingness to switch all consignments in and out of the terminal to and from other railroads at a uniform and fair charge. It filed a switching tariff with the Interstate Commerce Commission which has been accepted and is concurred in by the other railroads. The tariff is the same as that which has been in force for similar service in Kansas City, Missouri. Thus all railroads and shippers are to be served indifferently and at a uniform and fair rate for the transportation services involved.
1. It has always been understood that one of the purposes of the interstate commerce law was to prevent a [313 U.S. 450, 480] carrier from giving, and a shipper from receiving, transportation services at less than the published tariff rates, and to preclude what is equivalent, namely, the furnishing of a service at tariff rates to one shipper which is withheld from others. The sections of the Elkins Act here relied upon were merely intended to implement this Congressional aim and more efficiently to provide against evasion. Thus it is made unlawful for any person or corporation to offer, to grant, to give, or to solicit, to accept, or to receive, any rebate, concession or discrimination in respect of the transportation of any property in interstate commerce by any common carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq., whereby any such property shall by any device whatever be transported at a less rate than the published tariff rate, or whereby any other advantage is given or discrimination is practiced. The language seems too clear to be misunderstood. It is only the carrier, or someone acting in its behalf, who can give or grant a concession. It is only the shipper, or someone acting in his behalf, who can receive or solicit one. The section as originally enacted, 32 Stat. 847, goes on to provide: 'Every person or corporation who shall offer, grant, or give or solicit, accept or receive any such rebates, concession, or discrimination' shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by fine. As a ended, it imposes a further punishment by fine or imprisonment upon any officer of a corporation or any person 'acting for or employed by' any corporation, who is convicted of violating the provisions of the Act. Until the present time no one has supposed that a third party who is neither carrier nor shipper and neither furnishes nor receives transportation service, in making a business deal with a man who happens to be a shipper over an interstate carrier's line, may render himself liable criminally if, and merely because, the result of his transaction will be beneficial when reckoned up in the year's profit and loss statement of the other party to the transaction. [313 U.S. 450, 481] There seems to have been some question, although it is hard to understand why, whether the penal provisions of the Act applied to a shipper or his agents. When the Act was amended by the Hepburn Act the phrase 'every person or corporation' was supplemented by an epexegetical clause 'whether carrier or shipper'. The legislative record shows that the amendment was intended to make sure that shippers who received rebates should be guilty equally with carriers who gave them. It had no other purpose.
Every decision applying the relevant provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Elkins Act has turned upon the fact that someone furnishing a service of transportation covered by a tariff has remitted a part of the tariff charge, or has rendered a free service, or a service below cost to some shippers which others did not enjoy; and where one not a carrier has been held guilty of a violation of the Act it has been because he returned to the shipper through one performing a part of the transportation service covered by the carrier's tariff part of the published rate or has induced the carrier to perform a service for the shipper covered by the tariff at less than the published rate, or has induced the carrier to perform a transportation service for a shipper to which the shipper was not entitled under the published tariff and which, therefore, the carrier failed to perform for others.
The District Court, sensible of this unbroken line of authority, thought it necessary to attribute the proposed payments in some way to Union Pacific. To reach this result, it held that in the terminal enterprise Union Pacific and Kansas City were joint adventurers. Obviously the conclusion is incorrect. Union Pacific was in no sense a partner and did not stand to make a profit from the conduct of the enterprise. It was a lessee of a part of the property for its frieght yard at an adequate rental. It [313 U.S. 450, 482] was the owner of bonds lawfully acquired, and, as such, dealt at arm's length with the city. Although the Government seeks to sustain the conclusion of the District Court this court apparently discards it as unjustifiable.
In the second place, the District Court held that Union Pacific and the city were in a conspiracy to grant compensation to prospective tenants. But this is not equivalent to finding that the purpose of the conspiracy was to grant transportation to these tenants at less than the tariff rates of Union Pacific. Inasmuch as it is conceded that there was no purpose to grant any shipper any service not granted to others, or to give any shipper a rebate from the published tariff rates, it seems plain that the latter sort of conspiracy is not made out.
Finally, the District Court sought to spell out a financial contribution by Union Pacific for the benefit of proposed tenants by what it denominated the waiver of the lien of the bonds held by the railroad on the terminal property. An examination of the decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas4 makes it clear that, under the law of that State, the railroad had no lien, in any proper sense of the term. The state court held that the obligation of the city under the bonds was to devote the net profits of the enterprise to the payment of the principal and interest, but that it was at liberty to pay all necessary operating expenses, including he expenses of obtaining tenants. I do not understand that the opinion of this court approves the finding and conclusion of the District Court in this respect.
The ruling here is much broader, and does not condition violation of the law on any payment or concession by Union Pacific. It is that if the city, which is not a shipper, nor a carrier, and not a furnisher of any transportation service, in dealing with its own property not [313 U.S. 450, 483] devoted to any service of transportation, sees fit to make an advantageous financial arrangement with a proposed tenant of its property that transaction, otherwise legal, at once becomes illegal and subjects the city, or its officers, to criminal penalties and to an injunction if it happens that the party with whom it deals becomes, in virtue of the transaction, a shipper over the lines of an interstate carrier, and is benefited by the transaction. The distinction sought to be made between benefits applicable to transportation and benefits generally seems to me illusory. The court expressly holds that intent is immaterial; that if the result is advantageous to the shipper a rebate, concession, or discrimination from the tariffs of the carrier has been accomplished within the meaning of the Elkins Act.
I venture to think that no one will be more surprised than the members of the Congress at the attribution to the statutory phrase 'every person' who gives or receives, grants or solicits rebates or discriminatory service to states and municipal corporations and their officers who, in promoting lawful municipal purposes, incidentally bring additional business to an interstate carrier. We know that it is a common practice for chambers of commerce and city authorities to offer to manufacturing and business concerns lands and sites on favorable terms, such as low purchase price, reduced rentals, exemption from taxation for a given period, in an effort to induce such concerns to locate within the limits of a municipality.
We know that, in order to induce men to move their plants from one location to another, it is a practical necessity to offer them some recompense for the expense involved and for the loss which may result from doing business in a new location. Under the decision now announced, citizens or city officials connected with such a transaction, though their purpose be wholly remote from any benefit to a railroad, are guilty of a criminal offense. [313 U.S. 450, 484] We also know that in the competitive effort of railroads to obtain business they have assisted municipalities to establish industries along their lines. It has never been thought that such activity on the part of the railroad, where it gave nothing in money and rebated nothing from its published tariffs in service or rates, constituted a violation of the Elkins Act. To hold that, by this statute, Congress intended to paralyze lawful effort, well within the powers conferred by the states on their municipalities, in the view that such effort constitutes a rebate from a carrier's tariff rate, seems to me to place a forced and unreasonable construction upon the words of the Act.
The opinions of the court below and of this court point out that, as a result of the consummation of the plan for a terminal, Union Pacific expected to carry greatly increased traffic into and out of Kansas City and that this increase necessarily would inflict losses upon its competitors. But the Elkins Act and the Interstate Commerce Act, were aimed at specific abuses, and were not general prohibitions of all forms of competition between carriers or limitations on the increase of a carrier's traffic by any sort of competition. In fact the Congressional policy is to foster and encourage competition between railroads, and to prohibit agreements or conspiracies to suppress it. 5 It is common knowledge that carriers customarily advertise the advantages of sites lying along their lines in the hope of encouraging shippers to locate thereon. It seems to me that the circumstanc so pointedly noticed is irrelevant to any question involved in this case. Of course, Union Pacific was actuated by the legitimate desire of increased traffic in all its efforts towards the establishment of the terminal. That avowed motive was, in my judgment, innocent and lawful. Moreover, [313 U.S. 450, 485] in truth, this controversy has its roots in the competition of two cities, rather than that of railroads.
2. Assuming, as the opinion does, that the city and its officers were, within the meaning of the Act, persons 'acting for' Union Pacific, the proof fails to disclose that the sum proposed to be paid to any produce merchant in connection with his moving to the new terminal was in fact more than fair compensation for loss or was a discrimination against any other tenant. There is no proof, and indeed it would be very difficult to furnish any, that at the end of one, two, or three years of business at the new terminal,-considering the attendant expense of moving and reestablishing the business at the new location, the incident loss of good will and custom, and the necessity of finding new custom to take the place of that lost,-the balance sheet of any of the tenants would disclose that he was better off than if he had stayed in his old location. And it would be even more difficult to determine that a sum paid him to cover such loss and damage is reflected upon his books in the transportation charges paid by him, rather than in the other items of expense connected with his business. How shall any such allocation be made? None such is necessary where the carrier itself, or someone representing it, grants a concession from the published rate or renders a service not comprehended in its tariff. In such case the fact speaks for itself. In this case the court assumes the fact and, by a blanket and sweeping decree, bans any compensation, however just, to anyone for removing from an old location to the new terminal on the suspicion that the payee may have some advantage over another tenant who did not incur any such expense. Thus the decree will render it impossible for Kansas City to make what it deems legitimate and proper arrangements for the prosecution of a business enterprise in no sense consisting of the service of transportation. It seems clear that Congress never had any such intent in adopting the [313 U.S. 450, 486] Elkins Act. This is to reach into the peculiarly local affairs of the states and to lay the dead hand upon the otherwise lawful activities of states and their subdivisions. Certainly a far more specific mandate should be required to persuade us that Congress had any such purpose.
3. Another feature of the decree seems to me to be equally unjustified. The record discloses that the city adopted a standard form of lease which fixed a uniform rental per unit of space. In order to fill the building promptly this lease provided that for the first three months the monthly rental should be one-third of the standard monthly rental. Thus a tenant who, after the three months, would pay $150 a unit would get the use of that unit for the first three months for $50. It is again common knowledge that, in a competitive situation, the owner often has to make rental concessions for a brief time at the beginning of the lease term. There is nothing unlawful about this and the decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas sanctions it. The court below swept aside all these arrangements and, although it found 'the present rental rates and the consequent return to the City are not so low that the use of the Food Terminal by tenants in interstate commerce at those rentals will amount to a gift of any part of the value of the use of the Food Terminal to the tenant shippers', it nevertheless required that the rentals must be such as to allow a fair return to the city on the total value of the premises including the product of the money granted by P.W.A. and the land acquired by free gift. Under the law, the city was at liberty to turn this land to account in such manner and at such rate of return as it might see fit. While the opinion of the court holds this provision of the decree erroneous, it substitutes what I think an equally improper rule. The city is to be prohibited from leasing its own publicly owned property, in the prosecution of an enterprise which it deems beneficial to the community, at rates it deems proper and rates [313 U.S. 450, 487] which are otherwise within its lawful power. It is told that it must get a fair rental value and various criteria of fairness are suggested. Thus, the court holds, that Congress intended in such a situation to shackle the municipal arm of a sovereign state, for the indefinite future, and compel it to conduct its business contrary to what the law of its own state permits. This result cannot be justified in the guise of preventing an alleged rebate of tariff rates by a carrier unconnected with, and neither controlled by the city nor exerting any legal control over the city, whose only function is that of serving those who use the city's facilities.
I am of opinion that the bill should have been dismissed.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS join in this opinion.
[ Footnote 3 ] Cf. United States v. Chicago North Shore R. Co., 288 U.S. 1 , 53 S. Ct. 245, an appeal from a one-judge court from decree on a petition under section 12(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, 49 U.S.C. 12(1), 49 U.S.C.A. 12(1); Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 446 , 60 S.Ct. 618, 620.
[ Footnote 4 ] The City spent an additional $149,000 from its general revenues for street and sewer improvements in the terminal area.
[ Footnote 5 ] Further, Mallin had sublet part of the property, and at the time had a net rental expense of no more than $25 per month.
[ Footnote 6 ] 1897 Annual Report, I.C.C., 47.
[ Footnote 7 ] 1900 Annual Report, I.C.C., 13.
[ Footnote 8 ] 1902 Annual Report, I.C.C., 8-10; 32 Stat. 848.
[ Footnote 9 ] New York, New Haven R.R. v. I.C.C., 200 U.S. 361, 398 , 26 S.Ct. 272, 279.
[ Footnote 10 ] Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 72 , 28 S.Ct. 428, 431.
[ Footnote 11 ] Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 507, 524 , 59 S. Ct. 284, 290.
[ Footnote 12 ] United States v. Union Stock Yard Co., 226 U.S. 286 , 33 S.Ct. 83.
[ Footnote 13 ] 34 Stat. 584, 588, 49 U.S.C.A. 41; 40 Cong.Rec. 7022.
[ Footnote 14 ] See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Reichmann, C.C., 145 F. 235, 240, rebate by non-carrier private car company to shipper, decided prior to the addition of the clause 'whether carrier or shipper' by the act of June 29, 1906; United States v. Milwaukee Refrigerator Co., C.C., 145 F. 1007, 1012, likewise decided before the amendment; Dye v. United States, 4 Cir., 262 F. 6; United States v. Koenig Coal Co., 270 U.S. 512, 520 , 46 S. Ct. 392, 394.
[ Footnote 15 ] Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498 , 31 S.Ct. 279.
[ Footnote 16 ] United States v. Union Stock Yard, 226 U.S. 286, 308 , 33 S.Ct. 83, 89.
[ Footnote 17 ] Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 507 , 59 S.Ct. 284.
[ Footnote 18 ] 151 Kan. 1, 97 P.2d 104, 105 and 151 Kan. 2, 8, 98 P.2d 101.
[ Footnote 19 ] Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342, 351 , 34 S.Ct. 833, 836; United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175 , 56 S. Ct. 421; Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U.S. 79, 84 , 60 S.Ct. 34, 36; New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 600 , 601 S., 42 S.Ct. 239, 240; United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55 , 56 S., 46 S.Ct. 197, 199; Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 80 , 81 S., 60 S.Ct. 424, 425, 426; Chicago Board of Trade v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 1, 10 , 44 S.Ct. 232, 234; City of New York v. Feiring, 313 U.S. 283 , 61 S.Ct. 1028, 85 L.Ed. --, decided May 26, 1941.
'The City's forecast of its ability to pay off the bonds in twenty- two years is based upon a n nety percent occupancy of the market facilities as compared with an actual percentage of occupancy of less than thirty-five percent at the present time, and there is assumed an ability to exact the same leval of rentals when the market buildings become twenty- five or thirty years old as at the present time when they are new. The City's estimate of operating expenses is unduly low by reason of the omission of any sums to cover the annual loss due to depreciation and obsolescence not made good by current maintenance.
[ Footnote 22 ] State ex rel. Parker v. Kansas City, 151 Kan. 2, 8, 98 P.2d 101, 105.
[ Footnote 23 ] Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 461 , 60 S.Ct. 618, 627. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426 , 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. --, decided March 3, 1941.
'41. The uniform or standard rates of rental adopted and approved by Kansas City, Kansas, for lease of warehouse space and office space at the Kansas City Food Terminal are $150.00 per month per unit and $1.10 per square foot per annum, respectively, and the average rate of rental adopted or approved by Kansas City, Kansas, for lease of the cold storage plant and appurtenant facilities at said Food Terminal is $38,497 per annum. Such rentals are intended to provide sufficient funds to amortize the principal and pay the interest on the Public Levee Revenue Bonds purchased by the defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company, representing 55 percent of the total cost of construction of the said Food Terminal, and to compensate the City for the use of the facilities for the purpose to which they are dedicated.
[ Footnote 26 ] Cf. Palmer v. Connecticut Ry. & Lighting Co., 311 U.S. 544, 559 , 61 S.Ct. 379, 384, and cases cited.
[ Footnote 1 ] State ex rel. Beck v. Kansas City, 149 Kan. 252, 86 P.2d 476.
[ Footnote 2 ] State ex rel. Parker v. Kansas City, 151 Kan. 2, 98 P.2d 101.
[ Footnote 3 ] 49 U.S.C. 41(1), 49 U.S.C.A. 41(1).
[ Footnote 4 ] Note 2, supra.
[ Footnote 5 ] United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 312 , 325 S., 17 S.Ct. 540, 547, 552.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


See 469 U.S. 1230, 105 S.Ct. 1235.
For assaulting an undercover Secret Service agent with a loaded pistol, in an attempt to rob him of $1,800 of Government "flash money" that the agent was using to buy counterfeit currency from them, petitioners were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 2114, which proscribes the assault and robbery of any custodian of "mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States." The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions over petitioners' contention that § 2114 is limited to crimes involving the Postal Service.
Held: The language "any money or other property of the United States" in § 2114 includes the $1,800 belonging to the United States and entrusted to the Secret Service agent as "flash money," and thus by using a pistol in an effort to rob the agent petitioners fell squarely within the prohibitions of the statute. Pp. 73-80.
(a) "Mail matter," "money," and "other property" are separated from one another in § 2114 by use of the disjunctive "or." This means that the word "money" must be given its ordinary, separate meaning and does not mean "postal money" or "money in the custody of postal employees." P. 73.
(b) There is no ambiguity in the language of the statute. But even if there were, the particular language here does not lend itself to application of the ejusdem generis rule so as to require reading the general terms "money" and "other property" following "mail matter" in a specific, restricted postal context. The term "mail matter" is no more a specific termand is probably less specificthan "money." Pp. 75-78.
(c) The legislative history shows no intent by Congress to limit the statute to postal crimes. Pp. 78-79.
(d) The fact that the Solicitor General in a prior case presenting the identical issue conceded that § 2114 only applied to postal crimes, a concession he now states was unwarranted, does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to interpret Congress' intent in enacting § 2114. Pp. 78-79.
718 F.2d 1528 (CA 11, 1983) affirmed.
Charles G. White, for petitioners, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
Jerrold J. Ganzfried, for respondent.
Petitioners assaulted an undercover United States Secret Service agent with a loaded pistol, in an attempt to rob him of $1,800 of Government "flash money" that the agent was using to buy counterfeit currency from them. They were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 2114, which proscribes the assault and robbery of any custodian of "mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States." The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed petitioners' convictions, over their contention that § 2114 is limited to crimes involving the Postal Service. 718 F.2d 1528 (CA 11, 1983). We granted certiorari, 466 U.S. 926, 104 S.Ct. 1706, 80 L.Ed.2d 180 (1984), to resolve a split in the Circuits concerning the reach of § 2114, 1 and we affirm.
Agent K. David Holmes of the United States Secret Service posed as someone interested in purchasing counterfeit currency. He met petitioners Jose and Francisco Garcia in a park in Miami, Fla. Petitioners agreed to sell Holmes a large quantity of counterfeit currency, and asked that he show them the genuine currency he intended to give in exchange. He "flashed" the $1,800 of money to which he had been entrusted by the United States, and they showed him a sample of their waresa counterfeit $50 bill.
Wrangling over the terms of the agreement began, and Jose Garcia leapt in front of Holmes brandishing a semi-automatic pistol. He pointed the pistol at Holmes, assumed a combat stance, chambered a round into the pistol, and demanded the money. While Holmes slowly raised his hands over his head, three Secret Service agents who had been watching from afar raced to the scene on foot. Jose Garcia dropped the pistol and surrendered, but Francisco Garcia seized the money belonging to the United States and fled. The agents arrested Jose Garcia on the spot, and pursued and later arrested Francisco Garcia as well.
"Whoever assaults any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter, money, or other property of the United States, or robs any such person of mail matter, or of any money, or other property of the United States, shall for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery he wounds the person having custody of such mail, money, or other property of the United States, or puts his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned twenty-five years."
Both petitioners were sentenced to the 25-year prison term mandated by § 2114 when the assault puts the custodian's life in jeopardy by use of a dangerous weapon. 2 On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction. The only issue before us on certiorari is whether the language "any money, or other property of the United States" in § 2114 includes the $1,800 belonging to the United States and entrusted to Agent Holmes as "flash money" in this case.
Section 2114 prohibits the assault with intent to rob of "any person having lawful charge, control or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States. . . ." (emphasis supplied). Petitioners contend that notwithstanding the reach of this language, Congress intended that only the robbery of "postal" money or property was to be covered by the statute.
The enacted language of the statute is contrary to petitioners' argument. The language protects custodians of any mail matter, custodians of any United States money, and, in a catchall phrase, custodians of any other United States property. As in our recent case of Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 915, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980), "nothing on the face of the statute suggests a congressional intent to limit its coverage to persons employed by the Postal Service." Id., at 60, 100 S.Ct., at 918.
The three classes of property protected by § 2114 are each separated by the conjunction "or." Canons of construction indicate that terms connected in the disjunctive in this manner be given separate meanings. See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 739-740, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 3035, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978). In Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979), we refused to ignore the statutory meaning which would be presumed from similar disjunctive language, stating that the use of the term "or" indicates an intent to give the nouns their separate, normal meanings. Id., at 339, 99 S.Ct., at 2331. In our case, Congress separated "mail matter," "money," and "other property" from one another by use of a disjunctive, and we think this means that the word "money" must be given its ordinary, separate meaning; it does not mean "postal money" or "money in the custody of postal employees."
Petitioners contend that the language of the statute is ambiguous, and in support of this contention offer what seems to us a rather labyrinthine explanation of the statutory language. Petitioners first claim that the conjunction "or" cannot properly be read to totally separate the three types of property listed in the prohibition; for if the word "or" indeed strictly separates the three types of property, the statute would proscribe assaults on custodians of any "money," whether or not it was money belonging to the United States, because the term "money" would not be modified or restricted by the term "of the United States" which follows the word "property." Thus Congress would have enacted a law, say petitioners, proscribing assaults on custodians of money by whomever owned, and "Congress would then have enacted a Federal robbery statute without any jurisdictional basis." Reply Brief for Petitioners 3. Because Congress could not have intended this absurd result, petitioners contend, there is an ambiguity in the statutory language. This contention, however, totally ignores the word "other" which follows "money" and shows that the money referred to, like the property referred to, is money belonging to the United States.
Petitioners then develop their argument by invoking the principle of ejusdem generis to resolve the ambiguity which their analysis creates. Under that principle, of course, where general words follow an enumeration of specific terms, the general words are read to apply only to other items like those specifically enumerated. See Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U.S. 578, 588, 100 S.Ct. 1889, 1895, 64 L.Ed.2d 525 (1980). Petitioners thus urge that "mail matter" is a specific term, and therefore the general terms "money" and "other property" which follow it must be read in the specific, restricted postal context. They conclude that "money" was intended to mean "postal money" and "other property of the United States" was intended to mean "other postal property."
We said in Harrison that " ' "the rule of ejusdem generis, while firmly established, is only an instrumentality for ascertaining the correct meaning of words when there is uncertainty." ' " Ibid., quoting United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 91, 96 S.Ct. 316, 319, 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975), in turn quoting Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 128, 56 S.Ct. 395, 397, 80 L.Ed. 522 (1936). We are not persuaded that petitioners' analysis of the statutory language creates any ambiguity in the plain meaning of the words, and even if it did we do not think that the particular language here lends itself to the application of the ejusdem generis rule. We have previously noted that the terms in question are made separate and distinct from one another by Congress' use of the disjunctive; in addition, the term "mail matter" is no more specific a termand is probably less specificthan "money."
Notwithstanding petitioners' argument to the contrary, we are satisfied that the statutory language with which we deal has a plain and unambiguous meaning. While we now turn to the legislative history as an additional tool of analysis, we do so with the recognition that only the most extraordinary showing of contrary intentions from those data would justify a limitation on the "plain meaning" of the statutory language. When we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete, except in " 'rare and exceptional circumstances,' " TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 187, n. 33, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2298, n. 33, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978), quoting Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60, 51 S.Ct. 49, 50, 75 L.Ed. 156 (1930).
Section 2114 had its genesis as a law to protect mail carriers from assault and robbery of mail matter. The forerunner to § 2114 was 18 U.S.C. 320 (1934 ed., Supp. V). It proscribed assault and robbery of "any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter." Section 320 had been placed in Chapter 8 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Chapter 8 was entitled "Offenses Against Postal Service." In 1935, however, the 74th Congress amended § 320 by appending after the term "mail matter" the clause "or of any money or other property of the United States." Section 320 as amended retained its place in Chapter 8 of Title 18 until 1948, when it was transferred to Chapter 103, which is entitled "Robbery and Burglary" and contains all of the federal statutes covering those crimes. Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 797. Section 320 was then renumbered as § 2114; with the exception of minor particulars the text of the statute has remained unchanged since the 1935 amendment.
Petitioners contend that the 1935 amendment to § 320 was not intended to expand the reach of that statute beyond postal crimes. In support of this they rely on some short colloquies from the House floor which they describe as "snippets."
The Committee Reports on this bill show no intent on the part of the 74th Congress to limit the amended § 320 to less than the normal reach of its words. The House Report on the bill to amend § 320 is entitled "SAFEGUARDING CUSTODIANS OF GOVERNMENT MONEYS AND PROPERTY" and states that "the purpose of the pending bill is to bring within the provisions of the Penal Code the crime of robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys." H.R.Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). The Senate Report on the 1935 amendment is entitled "PROVIDING FOR PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME OF ROBBING OR ATTEMPTING TO ROB CUSTODIANS OF GOVERNMENT MONEYS OR PROPERTY," and the Senate Report states the purpose of the bill exactly like the House Report. S.Rep. No. 1440, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). Nowhere do the Committee Reports state that the amended statute required a "postal nexus" or was limited to postal crimes.
Petitioners make a good deal of the fact that both Reports contain the letter from the Postmaster General, requesting enactment of the bill. That official's letter, however, says nothing about limiting the broad language of the bill to postal crimes, but instead speaks simply of "custodians of Government funds," not of Government "mail." H.R.Rep. No. 582, supra, at 1; S.Rep. No. 1440, supra at 1. In two places the Postmaster General's letter states that the bill was designed to punish the crime of "robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys." Ibid. Thus the Committee Reports show that the Postmaster, and the two Committees responsible for the legislation, gave no evidence of their belief that the statute was limited to postal crimes.
"The only purpose of the pending bill is to extend the protection of the present law to property of the United States in the custody of its postal officials. . . . Let me say there are many custodians of postal stations who have a great amount of money in their custody but little mail. . . ." 79 Cong.Rec. 8205 (1935).
We find a number of flaws in petitioners' argument that Representative Dobbins' statement is clear proof of Congress' intent. First, this snippet quotes Representative Dobbins out of context. The above-quoted statement was made in response to an objection from another Member concerning the mandatory 25-year penalty in the proposed statute. As one in favor of the bill, Representative Dobbins' attempt to limit the scope of the statute is best read in light of this objection. See ibid. To permit such colloquies to alter the clear language of the statute undermines the intent of Congress. Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222, 237, 104 S.Ct. 3026, 3035, 82 L.Ed.2d 171 (1984). See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983). Isolated statements such as Representative Dobbins' are "not impressive legislative history." Zuber, supra, 396 U.S. at 187, 90 S.Ct., at 325. If they were, a statement of Representative Wolcott earlier in the same colloquy to the effect that "this bill is confined to assaults on Federal law-enforcement officers," 79 Cong.Rec., at 8205, would seem to counterbalance the import of Representative Dobbins' statement. Thus petitioners would lose even if we were to adopt some type of reverse parol evidence rule, where oral statements were elevated above enacted language in determining the meaning of the statute.
We think probably the strongest argument that may be made for limitation on the coverage of § 2114, although petitioners do not themselves make it as such, is that set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Reid, 517 F.2d 953 (1975), and amplified by our dissenting colleagues today. This argument is certainly not without persuasive power, and it would perhaps be controlling if there were substantial ambiguity in the language Congress had enacted. But there is no such ambiguity. We are not willing to narrow the plain meaning of even a criminal statute on the basis of a gestalt judgment as to what Congress probably intended.
As a final argument petitioners assert that they are vindicated by the Solicitor General's earlier stipulation in United States v. Hanahan, 442 F.2d 649 (CA7 1971), vacated and remanded, 414 U.S. 807, 94 S.Ct. 169, 38 L.Ed.2d 43 (1973). In that case we were faced with the identical issue presented here, but we vacated and remanded in light of the Solicitor General's concession that § 2114 only applied to postal crimes. 4 The Solicitor General now states that his concession in Hanahan was unwarranted. As we noted in NLRB v. Iron Workers, 434 U.S. 335, 351, 98 S.Ct. 651, 660, 54 L.Ed.2d 586 (1978), a governmental agency "is not disqualified from changing its mind" concerning the construction of a statute. See also Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212, 222, 96 S.Ct. 498, 503, 46 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). Moreover, private agreements between litigants, especially those disowned, cannot relieve this Court of performance of its judicial function. It is our responsibility to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting § 2114, irrespective of petitioners' or respondent's prior or present views. "The proper administration of the criminal law cannot be left merely to the stipulation of the parties." Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 259, 62 S.Ct. 510, 511, 86 L.Ed. 832 (1942). We agree that the Solicitor General's prior concession was ill-advised, but it does not control this case.
Petitioners seek to clip § 2114 despite its plain terms, but "the short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way." Russello, 464 U.S., at 23, 104 S.Ct., at 300. 5 Instead, Congress selected language that penalized assaults or robberies of anyone who is a custodian of "any money or other property of the United States." It is beyond question that by using a pistol in an effort to rob Agent Holmes, petitioners fell squarely within the prohibitions of the statute.
When the literal application of a statute would produce a result "demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters," the actual legislative intent must control our disposition. See Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 102 S.Ct. 3245, 3250, 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982). I believe a similar rule should apply to the literal application of a federal criminal statute that is dramatically broader than the coverage that its draftsmen intended.
* A fair reading of the entire history of 18 U.S.C. 2114 convinces me that Congress never intended it to apply outside of the postal context. As the Court correctly notes, ante, at 483, § 2114 "had its genesis as a law to protect mail carriers from assault and robbery of mail matter." The deterrent purpose of such a law justifies the imposition of especially severe sanctions. For that reason, heavy penalties have always been authorized, and sometimes mandated, for assaults upon mail carriers.
The history through the 1909 codification and in the immediate years thereafter unequivocally demonstrates that § 2114's predecessors were always intended for postal offenses. This case, of course, involves an interpretation of the amendment of § 320 of Title 18 that Congress adopted in 1935. The question is whether Congress intended to abandon the postal nexus that had characterized this legislation throughout its long history.
A review of the circumstances leading to the 1935 amendment persuades me that Congress merely intended to broaden the protection of postal workers. In 1934 two bills containing the amendatory language that was enacted in the following year were introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 11 Neither of those bills was reported out of that Committee which, of course, is the Committee that would normally process a significant change in the general coverage of the Criminal Code. In 1935, the highest postal official, the Postmaster General, wrote a letter to Representative James M. Mead, Chairman of the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, requesting an amendment to cover assaults on custodians of Government funds. 12 In both the House and the Senate it was the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads that processed the requested legislation. See H.R.Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935); S.Rep. No. 1440, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935).
The 1935 amendment that was referred to the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads was a noncontroversial measure that Congressman Dobbins, a Member of that Committee, managed on the floor of the House. In response to a query, he stated that "the only purpose of the pending bill is to extend the protection of the present law to property of the United States in the custody of its postal officials, the same as it now extends that protection to mail matter in the custody of its postal officials." 13 When a relatively minor piece of legislation of this sort is processed with almost no debate on the floor of either House, the unambiguous comment of a spokesman for the Committee that reported the bill is particularly illuminating. In my opinion it is entitled to greater weight than a general statement in the Committee Reports that is little more than a paraphrase of the statutory language itself.
"The 1935 amendment was to a statute which stood in the chapter of the Criminal Code dealing with offenses against the postal service. No Congressman could have supposed that, in passing an amendment to that section proposed by the Postmaster General and recommended by the committees dealing with the postal service, he was creating a new crime with respect to government property generally." Id., at 957, n. 3a.
"In 1935 Congress added the more encompassing phrase 'money or other property of the United States.' On its face the statute covers the crime for which petitioner was convicted, as one involving a 'person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any . . . money or other property of the United States . . . . We agree with petitioner, however, that the legislative history plainly shows that the statute was intended to apply only to postal crimes.
"The bill amending the statute was designed to remedy the anomalous situation which existed under the old statute. Before the amendments the statute imposed a severe penalty on one who robbed mail matter from the Postal Office but imposed no penalty on one who robbed money or other valuable property from the Post Office. . . .
Even if I am correct in my appraisal of the actual intent of Congress, it is arguable that the statutory language is sufficiently plain that it should nevertheless be given effect. There are, however, three special concerns that lead me to the contrary conclusion.
Second, the severity of the mandatory minimum sentences10 years if no actual or threatened violence is involved and 25 years in a case of this kindis rather plainly disproportionate to the offense if it covers every conceivable theft of Government propertyeven the attempted robbery of a Government-owned hammer. 20 The Government responds by noting that it is for Congress to decide if a penalty is too harsh. 21 This is quite true. But this response identifies my finaland most important concern.
It is Congress, rather than the Executive, that must define the dimensions of the federal law-enforcement program. Law enforcement remains, and should remain, the primary responsibility of the several States. Every increase in the power of the federal prosecutor moves us a step closer to a national police force with its attendant threats to individual liberty. For that reason, I believe we have a special obligation to make sure that Congress intended to authorize a novel assertion of federal criminal jurisdiction. Cf. Bell v. United States, 462 U.S. 356, 363, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 2402-2403, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); McElroy v. United States, 455 U.S. 642, 675, 102 S.Ct. 1332, 1349, 71 L.Ed.2d 522 (1982) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); United States v. Altobella, 442 F.2d 310, 316 (CA7 1971). There is, of course, no doubt that Congress has the authority to enact a law with the meaning the Court finds in § 2114 today. I am not, however, convinced that Congress actually intended to do so. I therefore respectfully dissent.
See United States v. Reid, 517 F.2d 953 (CA2 1975); United States v. Rivera, 513 F.2d 519 (CA2), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 367, 46 L.Ed.2d 284 (1975); United States v. Fernandez, 497 F.2d 730 (CA9 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 990, 95 S.Ct. 1423, 43 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975).
Petitioners were also convicted of other crimes. See 718 F.2d 1528 (1983).
"Resort to legislative history is only justified where the face of the Act is inescapably ambiguous, and then I think we should not go beyond Committee reports, which presumably are well considered and carefully prepared. . . . [T]o select casual statements from floor debates, not always distinguished for candor or accuracy, as a basis for making up our minds what law Congress intended to enact is to substitute ourselves for the Congress in one of its important functions." Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U.S. 384, 395-396, 71 S.Ct. 745, 751, 95 L.Ed. 1035 (1951) (concurring).
Despite the Solicitor General's view, Government prosecutors had relied on § 2114 outside of the postal context. See, e.g., United States v. O'Neil, 436 F.2d 571 (CA9 1970) (Customs Service employee); United States v. Sherman, 421 F.2d 198 (CA4) (military money custodian), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 1717, 26 L.Ed.2d 78 (1970); Peek v. United States, 321 F.2d 934 (CA9 1963) (same).
We disagree with petitioners' assertion that § 2114 as we have read it does not fit well with other federal statutes, especially § 2112. The statutes are related but not duplicitous. Section 2112 prohibits only consummated robberies of any person whether lawful custodian or notpossessing any type of personal property of the United States. The difference between § 2112 and § 2114 is that the latter is specifically directed to authorized custodians, and protects them against assaults accompanying both attempted and completed robberies. Thus the statutes complement each other.
Act of Feb. 20, 1792, ch. 7, § 1, 1 Stat. 232.
"That if any person or persons shall rob any carrier of the mail of the United States, of such mail, or if any person shall rob the mail, in which letters are sent to be conveyed by post, of any letter or packet, or shall steal such mail, or shall steal and take from or out of the same, or from or out of any post-office, any letter or packet, such offender or offenders shall, on conviction thereof, suffer death." § 17, 1 Stat. 237.
See ch. 23, § 17, 1 Stat. 361.
Act of Mar. 3, 1797, ch. 19, § 4, 1 Stat. 511.
Act of Mar. 2, 1799, ch. 43, § 15, 1 Stat. 736-737 (up to 40 lashes and imprisonment not exceeding 10 years for first mail-robbery conviction; death for first mail-robbery conviction, if wounding the carrier or placing his life in danger by the use of a dangerous weapon; death for second mail-robbery conviction; up to 30 lashes or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, for attempted robbery of the mails).
Act of Apr. 30, 1810, ch. 37, § 19, 2 Stat. 598 (up to three years' imprisonment for attempted robbery of the mails by assaulting, shooting, or threatening the custodian with a dangerous weapon).
Act of Mar. 3, 1825, ch. 64, § 22, 4 Stat. 108-109 (5 to 10 years' imprisonment for first mail-robbery conviction; death for first mail-robbery conviction if the carrier of the mails was wounded or had his life put in danger by a dangerous weapon; death for second mail-robbery conviction).
"That any person who shall rob any carrier, agent, or other person intrusted with the mail, of such mail, or any part thereof, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned at hard labor not less than five nor more than ten years; and if convicted a second time of a like offence, or if, in effecting such robbery the first time, the robber shall wound the person having custody of the mail, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, such offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor for the term of his natural life." 17 Stat. 320.
"That any person who shall attempt to rob the mail by assaulting the person having custody thereof, shooting at him or his horse, or threatening him with dangerous weapons, and shall not effect such robbery, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned at hard labor not less than two nor more than ten years." § 287, 17 Stat. 320.
The Revised Statutes of 1878 contained the separate mail-robbery-related provisions, as renumbered. Rev.Stat. §§ 5472, 5473.
"Whoever shall assault any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter or any part thereof, or shall rob any such person of such mail or any part thereof, shall, for a first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery, he shall wound the person having custody of the mail, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned for twenty-five years." Ibid.
See 18 U.S.C. 320 (1934 ed., Supp. V).
"This section is made up of two sections of the Revised Statutes. Under those sections, one committing robbery of the mails, or attempting to do so, and in doing or attempting to do which makes use of a dangerous weapon, is subject to imprisonment for life. This language has been omitted and the maximum imprisonment which may be imposed has been reduced to twenty-five years." S.Rep. No. 10, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., 21 (1908) (report of the Special Joint Committee on the Revision of the Laws).
Throughout the discussion on the provision, Congress had no doubt that it was concerned with the mails. Id., at 1906 ("The offense intended to be reached by this provision is interfering with a person having custody of the mail") (statement of Mr. Heyburn).
See H.R.Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1935).
"The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 16th instant, requesting a report on H.R. 5360, a bill providing for punishment for the crime of robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys or property.
"Assaults upon custodians of mail matter are punishable under section 197 of the Federal Penal Code ( 18 U.S.C. 320), which provides a penalty of 25 years' imprisonment if the custodian is wounded or his life is put in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon. If the person assaulted is a custodian of Government funds (not mail) the maximum punishment that can be imposed is imprisonment for not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $5,000; and no penalty is provided for attempts to commit such crimes. Recent years have witnessed a substantial increase in crimes of the latter type and it is believed that section 197 of the Penal Code should be amended so as to bring within its provisions the crime of robbing or attempting to rob custodians of Government moneys. Legislation to this effect was recommended in the Postmaster General's annual report for 1933 and two bills, H.R. 6546 and H.R. 7214, were introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee but neither bill was reported out by the committee. The recommendation for the passage of this legislation is renewed." H.R.Rep. No. 582, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1-2 (1935).
See also Hearings before Subcommittee No. 8 of the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads on H.R. 154, 3252, 5049, 5162, 5360, 5370, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 24 (1935) ("What we want to say about this bill is the fact that when a bandit, at the point of a gun, holds up our postal employees and takes mail, we have a 25-year penalty for it, but if he comes into the post office and does the same thing and takes away only cash, we are unable to give him such a sentence") (statement of K.P. Aldrich, Chief Post Office Inspector).
"Mr. DOBBINS. I do not believe that the recommittal of this bill would accomplish anything. It was rather thoroughly considered. It did not merely receive perfunctory consideration. I think the language to which objection was made the previous day when this bill was considered, while it may be unusual language, it has been in the statute a great many years. Since the objection was made the other day I have taken up the matter with the legal advisor and with the inspection force of the Post Office Department. They feel it would be extremely dangerous to change the language of the statute as it is now. As to new language being incorporated in the act, I see no objection to changing it in the manner suggested by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] at the last hearing of the Consent Calendar.
"Mr. WOLCOTT. I stated at that time that I thought it was a very poorly drafted bill, and I had hoped the committee would redraft it and report it out. I do not insist upon my amendment so far as the penalty is concerned. I think it is a very bad way to leave legislation, making it mandatory upon a judge to give a particular sentence, and no more or no less. If the committee want it that way, however, I have no objection. I think, however, for the purpose of safeguarding the integrity of our work here the language on page 1 should be amended.
"Mr. DOBBINS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio objects to the 25-year penalty provision provided in this bill. The penalty clause is not new legislation. If this bill is not passed, the statute will still contain the mandatory 25-year penalty.
"The only purpose of the pending bill is to extend the protection of the present law to property of the United States in the custody of its postal officials, the same as it now extends that protection to mail matter in the custody of postal officials. Aside from that it makes no change in the law. It just includes property of the United States in addition to mail matter which is protected; and let me say there are many custodians of postal stations who have a great amount of money in their custody but little mail; for instance in those substations where money orders are sold. If a bandit attacks those employees seeking that money, there is no way to prosecute the bandit under the present law, but if he is merely after a postal card or a letter he can be prosecuted.
"I think this makes a salutory change in the law. It is advocated by the Post Office Department and it seems to me there ought to be no objection to it." Ibid.
"Whoever shall assault any person having lawful charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any money or other property of the United States, with intent to rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter, money, or other property of the United States, or any part thereof, or shall rob any such person of such mail matter, or of any money, or other property of the United States, or any part thereof, shall, for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than ten years; and if in effecting or attempting to effect such robbery he shall wound the person having custody of such mail, money, or other property of the United States, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, or for a subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned twenty-five years." Act of Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 694, 49 Stat. 867.
The Court, ante, at 75-76, correctly states that § 320 was renumbered § 2114 and transferred to the section of Title 18 entitled "Robbery and Burglary" in 1948. Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 797.
The earliest appeal using § 2114 outside of a postal setting appears to be Peek v. United States, 321 F.2d 934 (CA9 1963); it arose almost three decades after the 1935 amendment.
Memorandum for United States in Hanahan v. United States, O.T.1972, No. 72-6454, pp. 2-3 (footnotes omitted).
"Whoever robs another of any kind or description of personal property belonging to the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than fifteen years."
The Government stated at oral argument that § 2114 was activated in this case instead of § 2112 because the former section covers attempted robbery. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. However, in its brief the Government concedes that it was not without statutory relief because 18 U.S.C. 111 prohibits assaults on Government employees or officials listed in 18 U.S.C. 1114, which includes "any officer or employee of the Secret Service." A conviction under § 111, if involving a deadly or dangerous weapon, carries a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment of 10 years, or both. Jose Garcia was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 111, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 718 F.2d 1528, 1530 (CA11 1983).
At oral argument, the Government stated that § 2114 covers the robbery of a hammer that is Government property. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25.
PARK 'N FLY, INC., Petitioner, v. DOLLAR PARK AND FLY, INC.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Petitioners v. John Cary SIMS and Sidney M. Wolfe. John Cary SIMS and Sidney M. Wolfe, Petitioners v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and William J. Casey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency.
LANDRETH TIMBER COMPANY, Petitioner v. Ivan K. LANDRETH et al.