William Searight, Commissioner and Superintendent of the Cumberland Road, within the State of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff in error, v. William B. Stokes and Lucius W. Stockton, who have survived Richard C. Stockton, Defendants in error

William Searight, Commissioner and Superintendent of the Cumberland Road, within the State of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff in error, v. William B. Stokes and Lucius W. Stockton, who have survived Richard C. Stockton, Defendants in error. tinder the acts of Congress ceding to Pennsylvania that part of the Cumberland road which is within that state, and the acts of Pennsylvania accepting the surrender, a carriage, whenever it is carrying the mail, must be held to be . laden \vith the property of the United States, within the true meaning of the compact, and consequently exempted from the payment of tolls. But this exemption does not apply to any other property conveyed in the same ■ vehicle, nor to any person travelling in it, unless he is in the service of the United States and passing along in pursuance of orders from the proper authority. Nor can the United States claim an exemption for more carriages than are necessary for the safe, speedy, and convenient conveyance of the mail. This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, and involved the right of the plaintiff in error, acting under the authority of the state of Pennsylvania,.to collect tolls from the stage-coaches; which carried the mail of the United States. The circumstances under which the arose, were these:. On the 30th of April, 1802, and 3d of March, 1803, acts of Congress were passed, the effect of both of which taken together was, that three per cent, of the amount received for the sales of public land in Ohio, should be expended in making roads within the said state, and two. per cent, of said fund be also expended in making public'.roads leading from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic to the Ohio river, upon certain conditions, which were accepted by Ohio. On the '29th of March, 1806, Congress passed an act to provide for laying out the road by commissioners, and directed the President to pursue such measures as in his opinion should be proper to obtain the consent for making the road, of the state or states through which the same, may have been laid out; the expense of the road to be charged to the two per cent. fund. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland all gave their assent. Pennsylvania passed hér law on the 9th of April, 1807, and gave power to those who were to make the road to enter upon land, dig, cut, and carry away materials, &c. The road was laid out from Cumberland, in Maryland, to Wheeling, on the Ohio river, and made; but a great difficulty having arisen, on the part of the United States, in keeping it in repair, the road fell into decay, and a new sj'stem of legislation was adopted to attain this object. . On the 4th of February, 1S31, the state of Ohio passed a law for the preservation and repair of the United States road. It provided, that whenever the consent of Congress should be obtained, the governor of the state should take the road under his care, erect gates and toll-house», appoint a superintendent, collectors: of tolls, &c., with this proviso amongst others : “ Provided, also,-That no toll shall be received or collected for the passage of any stage or coach conveying the United States mail, or horses bearing the same, or-any wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States, or any cavalry or other troops,- arms, or -military stores belonging to the same, ..or to any of the states comprising this union, or any person' or persons on duty in the military service of the United States or of the militia of any of the states.” The law contained the necessary provisions for the preservation of good order upon the road, and also a stipulation that the -tolls should be neither below nor above a sum necessary to defray the expenses incident to the preservation and repair of .the same. On the 2d of March, 1831, Congress assented to this act. ■On the 4th of April, 1831, Pennsylvania passed an act “for .the preservation and repair of the Cumberland road.” ■ It provided for the appointment of commissioners, who were directed to build toll-hbuses and erect toll-gates, to collect tolls, with the following exceptions : “And provided, also, That nothing in this act shall be construed - so as to authorize any tolls to be received or collected -from any per- ■ son or persons passing ' or repassing from one part of his farm to another, or to or. from a mill, or to or from any place of public'worship, funeral, .militia training, elections, dr from any student or child going to or from any school or seminary of learning, or from persons and witnesses going to and returning from courts: and provided,further,-that no toll-shall be received or collected for the passage of any wagon or carriage laden with the. property of the'.United States, or any cannon .or-military stores belonging to the-United States or to any of the states composing this union.” The 4th section directed the amount of tolls, after deducting expenses, to be applied.to the repairs and preservation of the road, and gave the commissioners power to increase or diminish the rates of tolls, provided that they should at no time be increased beyopd the rates of toll established by an act incorporating a company to make-a road from Harrisburg to Pittsburg, passed in 1806. The toll fixed-by this act upon a coach and four horses was twenty cents for every five miles. The 10th section was as follows: “ And be it enacted, &e., That this act shall not have any force or effect until the Congress of the United States shall assent to the same, and until so much of the said road as passes through the state, of Pennsylvania be first put in a good state of repair, and an appropriation madé by Congress for erecting toll-houses and toll-gates thereon, to be expended under the authority of the commissioners- appointed by this act: Provided, the legislature of this state may, at any future session thereof, change, alter, or amend this act, provided- that the same shall not be so altered or amended as to reduce or increase the rates of toll hereby established below or above a sum necessary to defray the expenses. incident to the preservation and repair of said road, for the payment of the fees or. salaries of the commissioners, .the. collectors of tolls, and other ágents. And provided, further, that no change, alteration, or amendment shall' ever be adopted, that will in any wise defeat or affect the true intent and meaning of this act.” On the 23d of Jánuary, 1832, Maryland passed an act, which, in its -essential provisions, was the ^ame with that of Pennsylvania} and on the 7th of February, 1832, Virginia passed a similar law. On the 3d of July, 1832, Congress declared its assent to the above mentioned laws of Pennsylvania and Maryland in these words, £< to which acts the assent of the United States is hereby given,- to remain in forte during the pleasure of Congress,” and appropriated $150^000 to carry into effect the provisions of said acts; and on the 2d of March, 1833, assented to the act- of Virginia, with a similar' limitation. . ' On. the 24th of June, 1834, Congress passed an act for the continuation and repair of the Cumberland road, appropriating $300,000 to that object. The 4th. section was as fohows: “ And-be it further enacted, That as soon as the sum by this act appropriated, or so much thereof as is necessary, shall be expended in. the repair of said road, agreeably to the provisions of this act, the same shall be surrendered to the states respectively-through which said road passes; and the United States shall not thereafter be subject to any expense for repairing said road.” ■ On the 1st of April, 1835, Pennsylvania passed a supplement to the act above mentioned, accepting the surrender by tibie United States, &c., See. On the 13th of June, 1836, Pennsylvania passed another act “ relating to the tolls on that part of the Cumberland road which passes through Pennsylvania, and for other purposes,” the 1st section of which was as follows: “ That all wagons, carriages, or other modes of conveyance, passing upon that part of the Cumberland road which passes through Pennsylvania, carrying goods, cannon, or military stores. belonging to the United Statés, or to any individual state Of the union, which are excepted from the payment of toll by the 2d section of an act passed the fourth of April, anno Domini eighteen hundred and thirty-one, shall extend only so far as to relieve such wagons, carriages, and other modes of conveyance from the payment of toll to the proportional amount of such goods so carried belonging to the United States or to any of the individual states of the union; and that in all cases of wagons, carriages, stages, :qr other modes of conveyance, carrying the United States’ mail, with passengers or goods, such wagon, stage, or other mode of conveyance, shall pay half toll upon such modes of conveyance.” ' On the 5th of April, 1843, another act was passed by Pennsylvania, the 39th section of which, was as follows: “ That from and after the passage of this act, the commissioner of the Cumberland road shall have power to increase the. rate o,f tolls on all stagecoaches drawn by four or more horses, to- any sum not exceeding. one dollar, at each gate upon said road within the state of Pennsylvania; ánd the said commissioner shall have the .same power to enforce the payment and collection of tolls authorized by the act of thirteenth of June, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, relating to tolls on that part, óf the Cumberland road passing through Pennsylvania, by stopping such coach or coaches, as' is provided by the act of fourth of April, eighteen hundred and thirty-one, for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland road.; and to- exercise all the means and remedies authorized by said acts for the collection ofo tolls and prevention of fraud on said road; reserving also to the said com-missipner the. right. to sue or maintain ar.y action therefor, as .he might, or could do at commpn law, in addition to tire remedies herein provided.” A suit was brought on the 29th November, 1842, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, by agreement of parties, and a statement of facts, signed by the/ respective counsel, in,the nature of a special verdict,.as follows: “ It is agreed that this case be submitted to the court on the following statements of facts, as if found by a jury., ' “ The plaintiff is the commissioner and superintendent of so much of the Cumberland or National road as lies within, the state of Pennsylvania, duly appointed under and by virtue of the laws' of that state .in such case provided, and is a citizen of said state. The*, defendants and Richard C. Stockton, whom they'have survived, are and- wTere citizens of Maryland. The defendants, together with the said Richard, whom they have survived, were joint' partners in cer-. tain contracts for carrying the mail of the United States hereiinto annexed. - The route described in said contracts extended over so much of the road failed' the Cumberland or National- road as-, lies within the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Said. contracts -were duly executed between the postmaster-general of the United States thereto lawfully authorized by the laws of the United States, and said contractors in conformity with law. The -mail of the United , States was transported by said , contractors in accordance .with the provisions of said contracts, during the time' therein, stipulated, in. carriages constructed in confprmity with the directions and requirements of the postmaster-general; said carriages were constructed- and accommodated as well for the transportation of the mail, as for carrying passengers and their baggage, but the number of said passengers was limited so as not to interfere with or impede the transportation' of the mail, and in no case was. any passenger carried when the transportation of the niail would be thereby retarded' or interfered with. ■ The said National road within the territorial limits of Pennsylvania was, so far and to such extent as the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the'state of Pennsylvania,, vested the same, the property of the United States, and had been construcfed under the authority of said laws by the United States. -The Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bearing upon this subject, and the executive proceedings of the same respectively, are to be deemed and com sidered part of this agreed case. No tolls were paid by said con- . tractors'for or upon any vehicle or carriages employed or .used by them for the transportation- of said mail during the period of- the existence of said contracts, notwithstanding said carriages ordinarily a$ aforesaid carried passengers, and said contractors received the passage money therefor for their own use. ' “ Under the laws of the United States and of the state of Pehn- - sylvania, so much of. said Cumberland or National- road as lies within the limits of the state of Pennsylvania, was ceded by the United- States, and accepted by Pennsylvania,- upon the. terms- and conditions expressed and contained in said statutes. • Since the year 1835, the-state-of Pennsylvania has held said road under and by virtue of said' laws, and has performed the terms and conditions therein prescribed in eyery- respect, unless the imposition and claim of tolls as herein stated is so'far an infraction of the compact created by said laws; Payment of tolls imposed by and under- the laws of1 Pennsylvania, has been demanded of said contractors by the plaintiff • and his predecessors in office, for and on account -of their carriages so as aforesaid employed in the transportation of the mail with passengers so- carried as • aforesaid; such payment of tolls has been resisted and refused by said contractors.-on the ground'.that the carriages employed in the transportation -of the maij- of the United States, on said road, were,not under the said compact and laws legally liable to the payment of said tolls. “The said carriages employed in the transportation-of the mail-were four-wheel carriages drawn .by four horses each, and they ran over said route and through the six gates which are upon said road within the said state of Pennsylvania,- twice daily, being their eastern and western routes. The. full- fates of toll established by law upon ■ said-road in Pennsylvania, for a daily line of four-horse post notches or stages, were, at each of the said six gates* including the eastern and Western routes, daily .Prom 1 January, 1836, to 1 April, 1837, - - - 40 cents. ■ April, 1837, to. ,1839,. - - - 60 cents. After 1839, to present time,. . - 100 cents, “ If, upon the foregoing state of facts, the Court shall be- of opinion that, the defendants are liable fo pay .tolls for their carriages so- employed in the transportation’of the mail of the United States, judgment to be entered for the plaintiff for the sum of $6000. If it shall be of . opinion that the said carriages so employed are not subject to the paymerit of said tolls, then judgment to be entered for the R. P. Flenniken, for Rich’d, S. Cox, for Defendants.” Upon this statement óf facts the court below, directed, judgment to be entered in favour of the defendant, arid to review this decision of the court the writ of error was brought. Veech and Wal/cer, for the plaintiffs in error. Coxe and JYelson, attorney-general, for the defendants in error. (This case1 was argued at the preceding term.of the court by FlenniMn and Walker, for the plaintiffs in error, and Coxe, for defendants, but the court ordered a re-argument, at the present term.) Veech, for plaintiffs in error,* After reciting the history of the road, said, that if the road was the property of the United States, it might be considered a hardship that the mail could not pass free. But Pennsylvania had only granted the right of way. She was the last of the three states who argued that it should be made, and* then stipulated that it should pass certain points. • The United States had no jurisdiction over the soil, and no more power over it than state officers had when they were making state roads. No one thought of making any provision for keeping the road in repair.; As soon as ten miles were made, a difficulty arose upon this point.. 1 Collection of Surveys, &c., published in 1839, by order of the Senate. Report of Shriver, communicated to Congress by Mr. Gallatin. Mr. Gallatin said, that “ tolls were suggested, but that could'only be done by authority of the state.” Same book, 133, 639. Mr. Dallas, when secretary of the Treasury, made a report on the subject, in which he said that provision ought to.be made for keeping the road in repair, but that Congress, of itself, had no power in the premises. . Doc. No.-59, page 653. The road continued to decay until 1822, when a bill was passed' to erect gates and collect tolls, which was vetoed by the President of the United States. Congress then appropriated a small sum for repairs. Mr. Buchanan moved an amendment, providing for a cession of .the road to the states through which it passed, on condition that they would collect tolls and keep it in repair. There was-no reservation, in favour of the mail. In 1823 the same, amendment was offered, without .any reservation. Between 1828 and 1832, the road became so much out of repair, that another movement was made. (The .counsel here referred to the several acts which were passed by state legislatures and by Congress.) In the mean time, Pennsylvania had constructed roads leading from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, and the question was, whether she should turn the travel off her own roads to one which passed through only a small portion of the state. The Pennsylvania legislature struck out .a part of the Ohio bill-, which they'had before them.' When the Ohio bill was before Congress, Mr. Burnet, a senator.from that state, said, that care was taken that the mail of the United States should ■ pass free.' 7 Reg. Deb. 287. There are other differences between the laws of Pennsylvania and Ohio. ‘ The Virginia law is almost a copy of that of Ohio, although, in the spirit of old-fashioned Virginia hospitality, ,one who is visiting his neighbour is not allowed to be charged with any toll. . Maryland copies the law of Pennsylvania. Maryland and Pennsylvania said, that the United'States should first put the road in‘repair and erect toll-houses, whilst Virginiá imposed no such restriction. ' The cost to Congress was about $750,000 in repairing the road and erecting gates. Before this time, the mail was carried in one line of coaches. The contract with the defendants for carrying, it in 1835 was to pay them $9708. In 1837, they were paid $27,600. ' Under the present, law,, half toll is charged upon the- coaches which carry the mail arid passengers; if there is.nothing but the mail they go free. Suppose we admit, that the mail' is the property of the United States, can a coach be said to be .“ laden with the property of the United States” when it has nine passengers in it and only a small mail bag? Or, could this be affirmed óf a)..wagon laden with flour and one musket?" .Such a construction forces .words from their '-true import.- Brit the mail cannot be properly called the property of the United States. All carriers have á special property.in their load to prótéct it from depredations. Brit'what the -law means is, that the United States' must ha've am unqualified right óf property in the subject matter. It will be necessary for the other áde to make, out two ■ propositions: • . 1. That the mail is the property of the United States. 2. That, a' vehicle can be said to be laden with the mail when-it has a single bag in it.' Coxe, for - defendants in error. (Mr. Coxe traced the. history of the road as.it is found in the laws' ánd in 1 State .Papers, tit. Miscellaneous, 432, 474,714, 718. 940, 947.)’- . ’ _. The error of the argument on the other-side is in supposing, that Ohio was the only -party interested in the original construction of the road. The United States was- a large landed proprietor, and wished to open an easy access to the. lands in the west, in order that sales •might .be increased. Pennsylvania, it is true, did riot cede the land .over winch .the road passed, but 'she was deeply interested in the general result. The United' State's .did not -claim sovereign power over .it. Still they'have some interest in it, and we do not claim 'more than all incorporated companies have over the roads which they! make. The Pennsylvania act is different from that of Ohio. But the reason is, that' the road was completed ip the former state and not in the latter. (Mr. Coxe here reviewed,the particular provisions of the several acts.) Is there any ground to suppose, that Congress intended to make a different contract with different states ? The conditions are essentially the same: one exempts the property of the United' States, and the other, the mail.. The act of Pennsylvania speaks of “vehicles carrying the United States mail,” thus recognis-ing the mail as belonging to the government.- The mail is one of the most valuable branches of the government; connecting itself closely with the business of the people, and á proportion of the mail matter is absolutely the property of the government, being communications from' one public officer to another. The mail' is fenced round with protection, bylaw, from robbery and depredation, and the bags and-locks are public property. The act of Congress of 1831, throughout, recognises the mail as being the property of the government. Unless passengers were to go in the coaches, there would have to be a guard; but they are the best guard. The contracts require, that stages shall be suitable for passengers. The right of altering the contract is. always reserved to the government, and although there may- be three lines now instead of one formerly, yet the letter of the. postmaster-general to the governor of Pennsylvania shows, that the mail could not now be carried in one coach. If there can be a toll imposed upon carriages when there are • passengers, why not 'also when there are no passengers ? and such an amount may.be taxed as -will prevent the running of the mail. A question of power' cannot be' decided by the greater or lesser exercise.of it: 4 Wheat; 327, 351, 387, 417, 426, 429. . Nelson, attorney-general, on the same side. The question lies in a narrow compass. . It is, whether there is a contract between the United States on the one hand and Pennsylvania on the other; and if so, what is its nature ? The act of 4th April, 1831, is the foundation of the compact. It proposed to provide for the repair -of the road. Commissioners were appointed on condition,, .that the United States.would repair the road and;erect gates. The. act was to have no force until Congress assented to itj and appropriated money for toll-houses and gates. . Here is a .proposal, an offer for a contract. The 10th section says, that it shall'not go into operation until, -an appropriation is made, but there is nothing said about ceding jurisdiction. Congress, in 1832, assented, on condition that Pennsylvania would execute her part of the contract and keep the road in repair. The. power of Congress over internal improvements is not drawn into the case at all..' The United States have a right to purchase the privilege of transporting the mail .over any road. If Pennsylvania had said, give us $750,000, and your mail shall pass, free, would not such a contract have been within the competency of the parties to make, and have been good ? The consideration was a valuable one to Pennsylvania. She cannot now deny the right of. the United States to make the road, because she accepted the cession, and actually " holds title under the United States. 9 La v: U. S. 232, 233, act of surrender by United States. There was a power reserved to Pennsylvania to change the regulations of the road, provided the compact was not infringed. But the act of 1836 asserts the authority of the legislature to vary the • original terms, and levies half tolls.. It cannot he said by the other side, that the two acts do not clash with’ each other, because the legislature says they do. That the mail is property is too plain to be argued. - What were the circumstances under which the act's were passed ? The road had been ía use for twelve or fourteen years before 1831. The mail was carried, in stages, without paying any toll, in the same description of vehicle as that now taxed. There never was any other species of property of the United States carried on it; at least, the record does not show that there was. '■ Was it a lure, then, to the government to spend $800,000 for the .privilege of passing-property free which.it had never transported on the road, and was not likely to transport ? It has been said, that because Ohio was more specific in her legislation, therefore Pennsylvania did not mean to exempt the mail. But of what authority is thc act of another state ? . The object was the same with them all. ’ We have the opinion of the executive and judicial departments of Pennsylvania, 2 Watts & Sergeant, 1133. . But suppose there was no compact. The act of 1836 would still have been invalid. It is not a general law to collect tolls, but directed specifically against the mail. The property of the contractors is, no doubt, subject to taxation by a state; but a law levelled exclusively against the mail is a different.thing. A power to destroy the means implies a power to destroy the thing itself. The case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, was an attempt'to tax the means.-by which the bank carried on its operations. In Weston.v. City of Charleston, 2 Peters, 449, Hie same principle was established. It was held that loans were means to execute the powers of Con-' gress, and to tax the stock would impair the means. So, 15 Peters, 435, 448. It has been said, that if these tolls a're not collected the road will go out of repair. But can this be so ? The whole amount charged is only $1200 a year, upon a road on which $800,000 were' expended as late as 1835, built at the request of Pennsylvania, and which she pledged her faith to keep in repair. It has been said also that the privilege of passing free may be abused; that 100 stages may be run upon the road. But the record presents no such case. The stages are used bona fide by the contractors under their, contract with the postmaSter-general. Walker y for plaintiffs in error, in'reply, and conclusion. If the court shall be against us on the interpretation of the compact, we shall -have to invite their attention tó the following grave questions: 1. That the federal government has no power, under the Constitution, to construct a road within the limits of a state. • 2. That the consent of a single state cannot enlarge-the powers of the federal government, even within its' own limits, and much less within the limits of another state. 3.- That the two per cent, fund referred to in the several acts of appropriation, was exhausted, before the road reached the Pennsylvania line. 4. That the consent of Pennsylvania, under the law of 9th of April, 1807, was based upon the. appropriation of the two per cent, fund, and that alone, to the construction, of said road within her limits. 5. That 'Congress possessed no power', under, the Constitution, to collect toll upon said road in the state of Pennsylvania. 6. That the state of Pennsylvania had jurisdiction of-said, road, and the right to collect toll, and possessed this power as one. of the rights not delegated in formingt the Constitution -of the union,' and which could only be relinquished by an amendment of the Constitution. 7. That the right to collect toll in this case was never surrendered ; by the state of Pennsylvania. , .The power of the federal government'to construct roads has been abandoned for eight years past.. .The authority to establish -post-roads, is merely to designate the road from point to point; and if the. United States have no constitutional power, an act of one of the states cannot confer it. If there was no power to make the road, there was none to repair it or collect tolls; and an agreement to re-pah it was null and void, as being repugnant-to the: Constitution. -The jurisdiction which Pennsylvania had, originally, over the soil of the road,. was never surrendered; and if it had been.'her legislature had no power .to surrender it. The speech of Mr. Burnet gives the history of this matter. The. road was going to ruin, and Congress refused to appropriate. The friends of the road' in Ohio obtained the passage qf an act there. ' It was a favourite in that state,- but not in Pennsylvania.. The latter state had commenced- a large systém of improvement from Philadelphia to.Pittsburgh and knew that this Cumberland road would draw off the travel from her own works. ' The law of .Pennsylvania was, therefore, dissimilar from that of Ohio. • Ohio did not require "the road to be put in repair before accepting the cession, but Pennsylvania did. There are many other important differences between the. two. laws. Congress Hastened to-accept the Ohio law before. Pennsylvania acted... What reason is there to think that Pennsylvania intended to imitate Ohio ? ' There is none. If so, why was the phraseology changed? Some words must have been intentionally omitted, and yet this court is now asked to insert them, to change places with the legislature' at Harrisburg, ■ and do what it refused to do. Although, in general, the mail may be property, can it be considered so here,, where there is a special exclusio/i ? .Every word of a statute must receive a meaning, unless the court are compelled to consider some words synonymous. In the Ohio law, the words “ mail” and “property” are not synonymous: it exempts a “-stage or coach, carrying the mail,” and a “ wagon or carriage, carrying «property of the United Statesreferring to different vehicles, carrying different things.' The “ mail” is never carried in wagons. The government recently brought a. large copper rock from 'Lake Superior. This could hot have passed free unless under the head of property; Ohio, had, therefore,, two distinct, provisions in her law; .Pennsylvania adopted only one of them. The toll on “ stages” included the coach carrying the mail, in words and letters. The Ohio law" asked her to exempt the mail, but she refused. But does “property” include the mail? Does a department, when making a schedule of its property, include the contents of the mail? The -United States. is.only a Common carrier, and paid as such. If not, then postage is exacted for carrying the property of the United States. ' It is the property of the persons interested; they can recover it at law. .It has been said that because a common carrier has a special property in what he carries, therefore the United States have á property in the mail. But this technical principle was unknown to the farmers and mechanics who passed the act of 1831. Again, what is the meaning of “laden?” it is .the bulk of the load. If an officer of the United States puts a single box in a wagon, and the rest of the load is private property, could it be said with any propriety that the wagon, was “laden” with the property of the government ? To justify this, other wrords must be interpolated into the law, viz,, “ in whole or in part.” Buirthey are. noUthere. If “property” means the “mail,” then the section must read, “.'laden with the mail;” and if this be so, a single mail-bag will not exempt the coach from tolls. If the contractors had a. steam-wagon conveying 100 passengers and. a small mail-bag, would they all go free? It is said that we attack the mail, but we do not The government pays turnpike gates everywhere else. When companies make roads with their own money, they, allow the government to use them on the same terms .with every one else. If it can seize upon roads, the postmaster-general would soon get rid of all difficulties with rail-road companies. But we deny the right. But upon whom does the tax fall in this case ? The record says that stages conveying nothing.but the mail pass free. It is then' die passengers who pay the tax. The contractors must increase the fare. The government is not a party upon the record, and the postmaster-general has no. business to come here by counsel. The whole difficulty has arisen from an effort.of contractors to draw custom to their own line, from .roads where tolls are charged. ' All opposition stages, too,, must be broken down on this road, because those stages will be charged with toll. It is said that passengers arc a guard to the mail. They do not consider themselves as paying their passage money for the privilege of guarding the mail. But, upon this theory, the contractors ought to be bound to carry some always'; whereas the stages frequently run without any passengers. ■ Pennsylvania has been charged with violating her faith. But how can this be? She derives no revenue from the road; the whole of the tolls are expended upon repairs, and that too in a case where her own pecuniary interests suffer, because the travel is drawn away from her own roads. The true interest of the United States is to maintain our view of the case; because, if tolls enough are not collected to keep' the road in repair", it must go. to ruin, and then the contractors will charge a higher price for carrying the mail, even at a slower pace. The act of. 1836 ds only declaratory of that of 1831, and not inconsistent with it., The latter exempts wagons when laden with the property .of the United States in the. whole; .and the former proportions the exemption to the amount of. property thus .owned. The imposition of half-toll is, in fact, a privilege granted. The whole of the Pennsylvania legislation is one continued: series, instead of being separate and inconsistent acts. The law of 1831 accepted the road, when it should be put in repair and toll-houses erected. The act of Congress, making the appropriation, did not pass till 1834; and in April, 1835, Pennsylvania accepted the surrender, and appointed commissioners. " Between that time and the first Of January, 1836, gates were erected, and the act of 1836, now under con--sideration, was passed without'any loss of time. The case in Watts & Sergeant, has been referred to, but here is a certified copy of the record, showing that, from 1836 to 1839, bills were, made out quar-. terly. Before the act of 18§6, all the stages, except the fast line, paid tolls. These, were therefore collected under the act of 1831. There were only two lines, and the -commissioners agreed to excuse one, on condition that the other paid. This was half-toll, and was the foundátion of-the law. [MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice TANEY] Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered die opinion of the court. The-question in this case is, whether the state of .Pennsylvania can lawfully impose a toll on carriages employed in transporting the ■ mail of the United States over that part of the Cumberland road which passes through the territory of that state? The dispute has arisen from an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, passed in 1836, wnereby wagons, carriages', stages, and other modes of conveyance, carrying the United States mail, with passengers or the goods of other persons, are charged with half the toll levied upon other vehicles of the like description. The plaintiff in error is tíre commissioner and superintendent of the road, appointed by the state. The defendants are contractors, for carrying the' mail,- and they insist that their carriages,' when engaged in this service, aré entitled to pass along the road free from, toll, although they are' conveying passengers and their baggage at the same time. ' -In order to obtain the opinión of this court upon, the subject, an afnicable action was instituted by the 'plaintiff in the Circuit Court of the United States for .the western district of Pennsylvania, for the tolls directed to be collected by the law- above mentioned, and ■ the facts in the case stated by consent. The judgment óf the Circuit Court was against the' plaintiff, and it is now brought here for revision by writ of error. The Cumberland road has been so often-the subject of public discussion,, and the ■ circumstances under which it-was’constructed and afterwards surrendered to the several state.?'through which it. passes, are so generally known, that we shall forbear to state-them further than may be necessary for the purpose - of. showing the' character of the present controversy ¿ and'explaining the principles upon which .the opinion -of' this court is founded. The road in question is the principal, line off communication between the seat of government and the great valley of the Mississippi. It passes through Maryland,. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio,.and was constructed at an immense expense'by the United States, under the authority of different and .successive acts of Con-.' gress’: the states contributing nothing either to the máking of the road'of to the purchase of land over which it passes. They'did' nothing inore than enact laws authorizing the United. States to construct the'road within their respective limits, and to obtain the land •necessary for that purpose from the individual proprietors upon the payment of its value'. ‘ After the ro.ad 'had thus been made — although it was constructed with the utmost’cáre, sparing'no efforts to make it durable — it was .still found to be incapable of withstanding the' wear and tear produced by the number of carriages continually passing .over it, engaged in transporting passengers, or heavily laden- with agricultural produce or merchandise; and that either a very great expénse must •be annually incurred in repairs, of the road, in a short time, would be entirely broken up and become unfit for use. As no permanent provision had been made for these repairs, applications were made to Congress for the necessary funds; and as these demands upon the public treasury unavoidably increased, as the road was extended or longer in use, they naturally produced a strong feeling of dissat-isfaetion and.opposition in those portions of the union which had no immediate' interest in the road; and- the constitutional power of .Congress to make these appropriations was also earnestly, and upon many applications, contested by many of the eminent statesmen of the country. It therefore became evident," that unless some, other means than appropriations from the public treasury could be devised, a work which every one felt to be a great public convenience, in which a large, portion of'the unión was directly and deeply interested, and. which had been constructed at so much cost, must soon become a total ruin. ' In this condition of things, the state of Ohio, on the 4th of February, 1831, passed an act, proposing, with the assent of Congress, to take under its care immediately the portion of the road within its limits which was then finished, and the residue from time to time as different parts of it should be ■ completed, and to erect toll gates thereon^. and to apply the tolls to. the repair and preservation of the road, specifying in .the law the tolls it proposed to demand, and con- ’ taining a proviso in relation to the property of the United.States, and to persons in its service, in the following words: “That no toll shall be received or collected for' the' passage of any stage or coach conveying the United States mail, or horses bearing the same; or any wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States, .or aiiy cavalry or other troops, arms, or military stores, belonging to the same, or to any of the states comprising this union, or any .person or persons on duty in the military service of the United, States, or of the militia of .any of the states.” • On the 2d of March, in the same year, Congress passed a law assenting to this act of Ohio, which is recited at-'' large in the act of Congress, with all its provisions' and stipulations. . The measure proposed by the state of. Ohio seems to' have been' received with general approbation; and on the 4th of April, 1831, Pennsylvania, about twp months after the passage of the law of Ohio, passed an,act similar in its principles, but varying from it in some respects on account of-the different condition of the road in the two states. In Ohio it.was new and unworn, and therefore needed no repair; while in' Pennsylvania, where it had been in use for several years, it Was in a state of great dilapidation. While proposing, therefore, to take it under the care of the state, and to charge, the tolls specified in the act, it.annexed a condition that the United States should first put iso much of it as- passed through that state in good repair, and an appropriation be also made by Congress for erecting toll-houses and toll-gates upon it. The clause in relation to the passage of the property of the United States over the road;’also varies from the language of the, Ohio law, and is in the following words: “ That no toll shall be received or collected for the passage of any wagon, or carriage laden with the property of the United States, or any cannon or military stores belonging to the United States, or. to any of the states composing this union.” The example of Pennsylvania was followed by Maryland and Virginia,-at-the next succeeding sessions of .their respective legislatures : the law-of Maryland being passed on the 23d of January, 1832, and the Virginia law on the 7th of February following. The proviso in relation to the property of the • United 'States, in the Maryland act, is precisely the same with that-of Pennsylvania, arid would seem to.have been copied from it, while the proviso in the Virginia law, upon this subject, follows almost literally the law of Ohio. With -these several acts of Assembly before them, Congress, on.. the 3d of July, 1832, passed a law declaring the assent of the United States to the laws of Pennsylvania and Maryland, to remain in force during the pleasure of Congress; and the sum of $150,000 was appropriated to repair the.road east of the Ohio river, and to riaake the other needful improvements required by the laws of these, two states. No mention is made of Virginia in this,act of Congress, because in her law the previous reparation of the road, and the erection of toll-houses and gates, at the expense of the United States, was not in express terms made the condition upon which ’ she accepted the surrender of the road; but the assent-of Congress was' afterwards given to her law by the act of March 2d, 1833, which, like the contract with the two other states, was to remain in force during-the pleasure of'Congress! The sum appropriated, as above mentioned, was, however, found insufficient for the purposes for which it was intended, and by an act of June 24th, 1834,-the further sum of $300,000 was appropriated ; and this act states the appropriation to be made for the, entire completion of the road east 6f the Ohio,- and other needfiil improvements, to carry into effect the laws of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia', each, of which is particularly referred to in the act of Congress; and 'further directs that as far as that sum is. expended, or so much of it as shall be necessary, the road should be surrendered to the states respectively through which it- passed. But so greatly had the rqad-become dilapidated, that even these large suriis were found inadequate to place it in a proper condition, ana by the act.of March 3d, 1835, the further sum of $346,188-^3-, was appropriated; but this law directed that no part ofi it should be paid or expended until the three states should respectively accept' the surrender; and that the United States “should not thereafter be subject to any expense, in relation to the said road.” • Under this act of Congress the surrender was accordingly-accepted, im.1835, and thé money applied as directed by the’act of Congress, and from that time the road has been in the. possession of and under the'Control of the several states, with toll-gates upon it. This is ihe history of the road, and of the legislation of Congress and the states upon that subject, (so far as it is necessary now to state it,) up to the time when the road passed into 'the bands of the states. We shall have occasion hereafter to speak more particularly of the act of Congress last mentioned, because it is the act under which the states finally took possession of the road.' When the new arrangement first w-ent into operation no toll was charged in any of the states upon carriages transporting the mail of the United States; and no toll upon such carriages, has ever yet'been claimed in Ohio, Maryland, or Virginia. But on the- 13th of June, 1836, the state of Pennsylvania..passed a law, declaring that carriages, &c.,- carrying the property of the United States or of a state, which were exempted from the payment of toll by the act of-1831, should thereafter be exempted- only in proportion to the amount of property in such parriage belonging to the United States dr a state, and, “ that in all cases of wagons,' carriages, stages, or other modes of conveyance, carrying the United States mail, With- passengers or goods, such wagon, stage, or other mode of conveyance shall pay half-toll upon such modes of conveyancé.” • 'And we. are now to inquire whether this half-toll can be imposed upon carriages carrying the. mail- under the compact between the United States and Pennsylvania. • ¡ " It will, be seen from this statement, that the constitutional power of. the general government to construct this road is not involved in the case before us; nor is this court called upon to express any opi-' nio.n upon -that subject; nor to inquire what were thé'rights of the United States in the road previous to the compacts hereinbefore mentioned. The road had in fact been made at the- expense ’of the general government. It w-Us the great line of connection between the seat of government and the Western states and territories, affording a convenient and safe channel for-the conveyance of the mails,- and enabling the government thereby to communicate more promptly vtith. its- numerous officers and agents in that part of the United-States west of the Alleghany mountains; The. object of the compacts was to preserve, the road for the purposes for which it had been made.- The right-of the several states to enter into these agreements will hardly be'questioned .by any one. A state may undoubtedly grant to an-individual or a corporation a right of way-through its territory upon such terms and conditions as it thinks proper; and we see no reason why it may not deal m like manner with the United , States, when -the latter have the porver to enter into the contract. Neither do we see any just ground for questioning the power of Congress. The "Constitution gives'1 it the power to establish post-offices and posfroads; and charged, as it thus is, with the transportation of the mails, it would hardly have performed its duty to the country, if it had suffered this, important line of communication to fell into utter rain, and sought out, as it-must have done, some circuitous or tardy and difficulffroute, when by the, immediate payment of an equivalent it obtained in .perpetuity the means -of performing efficiently a great public duty, which the Constitution has imposed, upon the general government. Large- as the sum was which it paid for repairs, it was evidently a wise economy to make the expenditure. It secured .this convenient and important road- for its mails, where the cost of t> ansporting them is comparatively moderate, instead of being compelled to incur a far heavier annual- expense, as they must have done, if, % the destruction of this road-, they had been forced upon routes more circuitous or difficult, when much' higher charges must have been demanded by the contractors. Certainly, neither Ohio, nor Pennsylvania,- nor Maryland, nor Virginia, appear from their -laws to have doubted, their own power or the power of Congress. But we do not understand, ’that Pennsylvania now upon any ground disputes the validity of the compact or denies her obligation to perform it; on the contrary, she asserts her readiness to fulfil it in all its' parts, according to its true meaning; but denies the construction placed upon it by the United States. It is to that part of die case, therefore, that it becomes the duty, of -the court to turn its particular attention. It is true, that in the law of Pennsylvania, -and of Maryland also, assented to by Congress, the exemption of carriages engaged in carrying the mail is not so clearly and specifically provided- for as in the laws of Ohio and Virginia. But in interpreting these contracts the character of the parties, the relation in which they stand to one another, and the objects they evidently had in view, must all be considered. ' And wp should hardly carry -out their true meaning and intention if w7e treated the contract as one between, individuals, bargaining wdth each other with adverse interests, and should apply to it the same strict and technical rules of construction that are appropriate to cases of that description. This, on the contrary, is a contract between two governments deeply concerned in the welfare of each other'; whose dearest interests and' happiness are closely and inseparably bound up together, and where an injury to one cannot fail-to be felt by the other. Pennsylvania, most undoubtedly,’was anxious to give to the general government every aid and facility, in its power, consistent with justice to-its own citizens, arid the government of the -United States was actuated by a like spirit. This was the character of the parties and the relation in which they stood. -Besides, a considerable number of the citizens of the state ha'd a direct interest in the preservation of the road; and the state had manifested its sense of the importance of the work by the act of Assembly of 1807, which authorized'the construction of the road within its limits; and again in the resolution passed in 1828, by which it proposed to confer upon Congress the power of erecting gates and charging toll. ’' Yet the only value of. this road to the general government worth- considering is for the transportation of the- mails; and in ¡that point of view it is far more important than any other pest-road in' the union. Occasionally, indeed, arms, or' military stores may be transported over it; and sometimes a portion . of the military force may pass along it. But these occasions for its' use, especially in time of peace, but' rarely occur; the daily and necessary use of the road by the United States is as a post-road, forming ail almost indispensable'link in the chain of communication from the seat of government to its western'bordeis. Now, as this was well known to the parties, can it be supposed that when Pennsylvania, by her act of 1831, proposed to take the road, and keep it .in repair from the tolls collected upon it, and .exempted from toll carriages laden with the property of the United' States, she yet intended to charge it upon the mails ? That in re- ■ turn for the large' expenditure she required to be made, before she' would receive the road, she confined her exemption to matters of no importance,, and reserved the right to tax all that was of real value ? And when Congress assented to.the proposition, and incurred, such, heavy expenses for repairs, did they mean to leave their mails through Maryland and Pennsylvania still liable to the toll out of which the road was to be kept in repair ? Upon this point the act of Congress of March 3d, 1835, is entitled to great consideration. For it was under this law that the states finally took possession of the road and proceeded to collect the tolls. By so doing they assented to all the provisions contained in this act of Congress; and one of them is an express condition, that the United States should not thereafter be subject to. any expense in' relation to the road. Yet. under the argument, the expenses of the road are to be defrayed opt of the tolls. ■ collected upon it. And if the mails in Pennsylvania and Maryland may be charged, it will be found, that instead of the entire exemp- ' tion, for which the United States so expressly stipulated, and to ■which Pennsylvania agreed, a very large proportion of the expenses of repair will be annually thrown upon them. We do not think that ■either party could have- intended, when the contract was made, to burden the United States in this indirect way for the cost of repairs. So far as the general government is concerned, it might as well be paid directly from the Treasury. For nobody, we suppose, will doubt that this toll, although in form it is paid by the contractors, is in fact paid by the Post-office Department. It is not a contingent expense, which may or may not be incurred, and about which a contractor may speculate; but a certain and fixed amount, for which-he must provide, and which, therefore, in his bid for the pontract, he must add'to the sum he would be otherwise willing to take. It is of no consequence -to the United States whether charges for repairs are cast upon it through its Treasury or Post-office Department. ' In either case it is not free from expense in relation to the road, according to the compact upon which it was surrendered to and accepted by the states. " " Neither do-the words of the law of Pennsylvania of 1831 require a different construction. The United States have unquestionably a property in thé mails. They are not mere common carriers, but a government, performing a high official duty in holding and- guards ing its own property as well as that of its citizens committed to its care; for a very large portion of the letters and packages conveyed on this road, especially during the session of Congress, consists of communications to or from the officers of the executive department, or members of the legislature, on public service or in relation to matters of public concern.' - Nor- can the word laden, be construed to mean fully laden, for that would in effect .destroy the whole value of.the exemption, and compel the United States to pay a toll even on its military stores and other, property, unless every wagon or carriage employed in transporting it was as heavily laden as it could conveniently bear. We think that a carriage, whenever it is carrying the mail, is laden with the property of the United States within the true meaning of the compact: and that the act of Congress of which we have spoken, and to which the state assented, must be taken in connection with, the state law of 1831 in expounding this agreement. Consequently, the half-toll imposed by the act of 1836 cannot be recovered. • The acts of assembly of Ohio and Virginia have been relied on in the argument by the. plaintiff in error; and it has been urged that, inasmuch as the.laws, of these states, in so many words, exempt carriages carrying the mail of -the United States, the omission of these words in .the law in: question shows that Pennsylvania intended to reserve the right to charge them with toll. And it is moreover insisted that, as the law of Ohio which contains, this provision passed some time before the act of Pennsylvania,’ it ought to be presumed that the law of the latter was drawn and passed with á full knowledge of what had been done by the former, and that the stipulation .in favour of the mail was designedly and intentionally omitted, because the state of Pennsylvania meant to reserve the right to charge it. The court think otherwise. Even if the law of Ohio is supposed to have been before the legislature of Pennsylvania, it does not by any. means follow that the omission of some of its words w.ould .justify the inference urged in the argument, where the words retained, by their fair construction,, convéy. the same meaning. Indeed, if it appeared that the Ohio law was in fact before the legislature of Pennsylvania when it framed its own act upon -the subject,.it would rather seem-to lead to a. contrary conclusion. For 'it cannot be supposed that in .the compact-which’ the United' States was about to form with -four'different states, and when the agreement with one'would’.have been of no value without the others, Pennsylvania would have desired or asked, for any. privileges to herself which were not extended to the other states, nor that she would be less anxious to give every facility in her power to the general government when carrying out' ’through' her territory the important and necessary operations of the Post-office Department. Nor could she have supposed that Congress would give privileges to one state which were denied to others; and, after having done equal justice to all in the repair and preparation of the road wherever needed, make different contracts with the different states; and, while it bargained for the exemption of its mails in one or more of then!, consent to pay toll in another. The fact that they are- clearly and explicitly exempted from toll in Ohio and Virginia is a strong argument to show that it was intended to exempt them in all, and that the compacts with Pennsylvania and Maryland were understood and believed to mean the same thing; and tó accomplish’the same objects. And this conclusion is greatly strengthened by the fact that Maryland, where’ the words of the law. are-precisely the same with those of Pennsylvania, has never claimed the right to exact toll from carriages carrying the mail; nor did Pennsylvania claim it in the first instance, and they were always allowed to pass free-until the act of 1836. Indeed that law itself.appears to recognise the right of the mail'and other property of the United States to go free, and the imposition of only half-toll would seem to/imply that the state intended to reach other objects, and did not desire to lay the burden upon any thing that' properly belonged to the United States. And so-far as we "CcOT judgeffrom its legislation^ Pennsylvania has never to this day placed any other construction upon its compact than the one we have given, and has never desired to depart from it.' If we -are right in this view of the subject, the’ error consists in the mode by which the state endeavoured to attain its object. ’ Unquestionably the exemption of carriages béaring the mail is no exemption of any other property conveyed in the same vehicle, nor of any person travelling in it, unless he is in the service of the United States, and passing along in pursuance of orders from the proper authority. Upon all other persons, although travelling in the mail-stage, and upon their baggage, or any other property, although conveyed in the same carriage with the mail, -the state of Pennsylvania may lawfully collect the same- toll that she charges ■either upon passengers or similar property in other vehicles. If the state had made this road herself, and had not entered into any compact upon the subject with the United States, she might undoubtedly have erected toll-gates thereon, and if the United States afterwards adopted it as a post-road, the carriages engaged in their service in transporting the .mail, or otherwise, would have been liable to pay the same charges that were imposed by the state on'other vehicles of the same kind. And as any rights which the United States might be supposed to have acquired in this road have been surrendered to the state, the power of the fatter is as extensive in collecting toll as if the road had been made by herself,.except in so far as she is restricted by her compact; and that compact does nothing more than exempt the carriages laden with the property of the United States, and the persons and baggage of those who are engaged in their service! Toll may therefore be imposed upon every thing else in any manner passing over the road; restricting, however, the application of .the money collected to the repair of the road, and to the salaries and compensation of the persons employed by the state in that duty. It has been -strongly pressed in the argument, that the1 construction placed upon the compact by the court would enable the contractors to drive every other line of stages from the road, by dividing, the mail-bags among a multitude of carriages, each of which would be entitled to pass toll free, while the rival carriages would be compelled- to pay it: And that by this means the contractors for carrying the mail would in effect obtain a monopoly in the conveyance of passengers throughout the entire length of the road, gréatly injurious to the public, by lessening .that disposition to accommodate which competition is sure to produce, and enhancing the cost of travelling beyond the limits of a fair compensation; The answer to this argument is, that under the agreement they have made, according to its just import, the. United States cannot claim an exemption for -more, carriages than are, necessary for the safe, speedy, and convenient conveyance of the mail. And if measures such as are suggested were adopted by .the contractors, it would be a violátion of the compact. The postmaster-general has unquestionably the right to' designate not only the character and description - of the vehicle, in which the mail is to be carried, but also the number of carriages to be employed on eveiy post-road.' And it can scarcely, we think, be supposed, that any one filling that high office, and acting on behalf of the'United States, would suffer the true spirit and meaning of the contract with the state to be violated or evaded by any contractor acting under the authority of his department. But undoubtedly, if such a case should ever occur, the contract, according to its true construction, could be enforced by the state in the courts of justice; and every, carriage-beyond thenumber reasonably sufficient for the safe, speedy, and convenient transportation of. the mail would be liable to the toll-imposed upon similar vehicles owned by other individuals. 'In a case where'an error in the post might be So injurious to the public, it would certainly be necessary that the abuse should be clearly shown before the remedy was applied. But there can be no doubt, that the compact in question, in the case supposed, would not shield the contractor, and. upon a case properly made out and established, it would be the duty of a court of justice to enforce the payment of the fells. No such fact, however, appears or is suggested in the case before us, and the judgment of the Cits. cuit Court is .therefore affirmed. [DISSENT — Mr. Justice McLEAN. Mr. Justice DANIEL.] Mr. Justice McLEAN. I dissent from the opinion of the court. And as the case involves high principles .and, to some extent, the action and powers of a sovereign state, I will express' my opinion. This was an amicable action to try whether the defendants, who are contractors for the transportation of the mail on the Cumberland road,- are liable, under the laws of Pennsylvania,- to pay- toll for stages in which the mail of the United Státes is conveyed. This road was constructed by the federal government through the state of Pennsylvania, with its consent. Whether this power was thus constitutionally exercised, is an inquiry not necessarily involved in the decision of-this case. The road was made, and for some years it was occasionally repaired by appropriations from the Treasury of the United States. These appropriations were made with reluctance at -all' times, and sometimes were defeated. • This, as a permanent system of keeping the road in repair, was,-of necessity,abandoned; .and, with the assent of Pennsylvania, Congress passed a-bill to construct toll-gates: and impose ¿ tax.-on those who used the road. This bill was vetoed- by the President, on. the ground that Congress had no constitutio; ,al- powerto .pass it. The plan was then adopted to cede the road, on certain conditions, to the states' through which it had been established. On -the 4th of April, 1831,' Pennsylvania passed “An act for the preservation of the Cumberland road.” By'the 1st section it -was-.provided, that as sdon as the consent of the government of the United States shall have been obtained, certain commissioners, who were named, were tó be appointed, whose duties.in regard to the road'were specially defined. . The 2d section enacted, that to keep so much of the road in repair as lies in' the state of Pennsylvania, and pay the expense .of collection, &c.,. the commissioners should cause six toll-gates to be erected, and certain rates of toll were established. To this section there was a proviso, that no toll shall be received or collected for the passage of any wagon dr. carriage -laden with the property of the United States, or any. cannon or military stores belonging to the-United States or to any of the-states composing the union.” By the 4th section the tolls were to be applied, after paying expenses of collection, &c., to the repairs of the road, the commissioners having. power to increase them, provided they shall not exceed-the rates of toll on the Harrisburg and Pittsburg road. The last section'provided that the toll" should not be altered below or above a' sum necessary to defray the expenses incident to the preservation and repair of said road, &c., and also, “that no change, alteration, or amendment shali-ever be adopted, that will in any wise defeat or affect the true intent and meaning of this act.” By the 10th section of the above aet it was declared to have no effect lintil Congress should assent to the same, “ and •until'so much of the' said road as passes through the state of Pennsylvania be first put in a good state'of repair, and an appropriation madehy Congress for erecting toll-houses and toll-gates thereon, to be expended under the autherity of the commissioners appointed by this act.” By their act of the 24th.of June, 1834, Congress appropriated $300,000 to repair the Cumberland road east of the Ohio river, which'referred to the above act of Pennsylvania; and also to similar acts passed by Virginia and Maryland. And in the 4th section of the aet it was provided, “that as soon as the sum by this act appro-priáted, or so much thereof as is necessary,' shall be expended in the repair of said road agreeably to the provisions of this act, the same shall be- surrendered to the states respectively through which said road passes; and the'United States shall not thereafter be subject to any expense-for repairing' said road.” This surrender of the road was accepted .by Pennsylvania, by an act of. the. 1st of April, 1835. ■ The above acts constitute the compact between the state of Penm-sylvania and the union, in regard to the surrender of this road. The nature .and extent of this compact ¿re pow to be considered: As before remarked; the constitutional power of Congress to -construct this road isr-not necessarily involved in 'this decision. By the act-of Congress of the-30th of April, -1802, to authorize the people-of ¡Ohio to'“form a constitution and state government,” among other propositions for- the acceptance of • thé state, it was proposed .that “ five-per-cent, of the net proceeds' of the-lands lying-withiu the said state, sold- by Congress, should be applied to the laying out and making public roads, leading from tire navigable waters falling into the. Atlantic, to the-.Ohio,.-to: the. said state,land through the samé; such roads to be laid under the authority of Congress, with the consent of the several states through which'the roads shall pass: provided the state shall agree not to tax land sold by the government until after the- expiration of five years from the time of such sale.”’ - - By the'2d section of the act of thé 3d March, 1803, three .per. cent, of thembove- fund was placed' at the disposition of the state, tp be “ applied -to .the laying out, opening, and- making roads, within the state.” ' . The above conditions, having been accepted by Ohio, constituted the compact under which .the Cumberland .road.was laid' out and.constructed by the authority of Congress. - And of this work it ttfay be. said, however great has been the expenditure through .the inexperience ór unfaithfulness cf public agents, that no public wrork has been so diffusive in its benefits to the • country. It opened a new avenue of commerce between the eastern and western states. Since its completion, and while it whs kept in repair, the annual transportation of goods and travel on it saved an expense equal to no inconsiderable part of the cost of the road. But its cession to the - states through which it was established was found necessáry to raise, by tolls, an annual revenue for its repair. Whatever expenditure was incurred in the construction of this road beyond the two per cent, reserved by the compact with Ohio, was amply repaid by the beneficial results of the work; and this was the main object of Congress. It was a munificent object, and worthy of the legislature of a great nation. The road was surrendered to Pennsylvania and .the other states through which it had been constructed. But what was ceded' to Pennsylvania ? All the right of the United States which was not reserved by the compact of cession. This right may be supposed to arise from the compact' with Ohio; the consent of Pennsylvania to the construction of .the road, and the expense of its. construction, including the sums paid to individuals for the right of way. These, and whatever jurisdiction over the road, if any, might be exercised by the United States, were surrendered to Pennsylvania.- The road then .must be considered as much within the jurisdiction' and control of Pennsylvania, excepting the rights reserved in the compact, as if it had been constructed by the funds of that state. It is, therefore, important to ascertain die extent of the rights reserved by the United States. ■ In the closing paragraph of the 2d section of the act of 1831, above cited, it is provided, “ that no toll shall be received or collected for the passage of any wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States, or any cannon or military stores belonging to the United States, or to any of the states composing this union.” In addition to this, there were certain limitations imposed, as to the amount of tolls, on the state of Pennsylvania, which need not now be considered. Some light may be cast on the import of the above reservation by a reference to somewhat similar compacts made in regard to the same subject between the .United States and the states of Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia. The Ohio act of the 2d of March, 1831, provides, in thé 4th section, “ that no toll shall be received or collected for the passage of any stage or coach conveying the United States mail, or horses bearing the same., or any wagon' or carriage laden with the property of the United States, or any cavalry or other hoops, arms, or military stores, belonging to the same, or.to any of the states .comprising this union, or any person or persons on duty in the military service of tire United States, or of the militia of any of the states.” The 4tlr section of .the Maryland act of the 23d of January, 1832, provided, “ that no tells shall be received or col-lectéd for the passage of any wagon or carriage laden with the. property of the United States, on any cannon or military stores belonging to the United States, or to any of the stale's, composing this union.” In the Virginia -act of thé 7th of February, 1832, it is provided, “that no toll shall be received or collected for the passage, of any stage or coach conveying the United States mail, or horses bearing the same,' or any wagon or carriage laden with property of the United States, or any cavalry ..orAother troops, army or military stores, belonging to- the feme, or to any*of the states comprising this union, 'or any person or persons on duly in the military service of the United States, or of the militia of any of the,states.” The reservations in tire Pennsylvania and Maryland' acts are the same, and differ materially from those contained in-the acts of Ohio and Virginia. In the latter acts the mail-stage is excepted, but not in the former. - Pennsylvania and Maryland exempt from toll “ any .wagon or carriage ltulen with the property of the United States;” but the same exemption is contained in the Ohio and Virginia laws in addition to 'that of the-mail-stage. Now, can the reservations in these respective acts be construed to mean the same thing ? Is there no difference between the-acts of Ohio and Pennsylvania? Their language is different, and must not their meaning be ¿sought from the words in the respective acts ? They are separate and distinct compacts. The -Ohio law was first enacted, and was, probably, before the legislature of Pennsylvania when their .act was passed. But whether this be the fact -or not, they were both sanctioned, by Congress; and the-question-is, whether both compacts are substantially the same ? That .the legislature's did hot mean the same thing seems to me to be clear of all doubt.' Did Congress,' in acceding to these acts, consider that they were of the same import ? Such a presumption cannot.be sustained,Jwithout doing'violence to the language of the respective acts. In both acts wagons laden with the property of the United States are exempted. In the Ohio act the mail-stage is exempted from toll, but not in the' act of Pennsylvania. Now, is the mail-stage exempted from toll by both acts- or by neither ? Is not either of these positions equally unsustainable ? The -exemption of the mail-stage must be struck out of.the Ohio-law to sustain on.e- of these positions, and to sustain the other it must be inserted in the' act of Pennsylvania. Does not the only difference consist in striking out in the one case and inserting in the other ? This must be admitted unless the words, “ wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States,” mean one thing in the Ohio law, and quite a different thing 'in the law of Pennsylvania. These words have a sensible and obvious application in both acts, without including the mail-stage. In the Ohio law the words “ no toll shall be received or collected for the- passage of any stage or coach conveying the United-States mail,” cannot,-by any sound construction, be considered as surplusage; and yet they must be so considered if the Pennsylvania, act- exempt the mail-stage. When one speaks of transporting the property of the United States, the meaning of the terms “ property of the United States,” is never mistaken. They mean munitions of war, provisions purchased for the support of the army, and any other property purchased for the public revenue.- They do not mean the mail of the-United States. A wagon laden with property is understood to be á wagon used for the transportation of property,, in the ordinary sense of such terms. A wagon or carriage being laden is understood to-have a full or usual load. The mail-stage of the United States is never spoken of in this sense. It is used for the transportation of passengers as well as the. mail, and in this view it is undoubtedly considered when spoken of in conversation,, and especially when referred to-in a legislative.act. In no. sense can the mail-stage be considered a “ carriage laden with the property of the-United States.” The same exception applies to a wagon' or carriage' laden with- the property of'a state. Now no one -can' doubt _the meaning of the exception -thus applied. And can a different meaning be given to the same words when applied to the United, States ?' Certainly not, unless the -mail can' be denominated the "property of the United States. The mail of the United States is. not the- property of the United States. What constitutes the mail ? Not the leathern bag, but its contents. A stage load of mail-bags coul'd not be called -the mail. They might be denominated the property of the United States, but not the -mail. The mail consists of packets of letters made up with post-bills, and directed to certain' post-offices for distribution or delivery ; and whether these be conveyed in a bag o.r out of it, they are equally the máil; but no bag without them is. or can be called the mail. Can these packets- be said to be the property of .the United States ? The" letters and their contents belong to individuals. No officer in the “government can abstract a letter, from the mail, not directed to him, without -incurring the penalty of. the law. And can these letters or mailed pamphlets or newspapers be called the property of the United States ? They in no sense, belong to the United States, and are never so denominated. If a letter be stolen ’ from the mail which contains a bank-note, the property in the note ,is laid in the person who wrote the letter in which the note is enclosed. From these views I am brought to the conclusion that, neither party to the compact under consideration could have understood “ a wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States,” as including the mail-stage of the United States. Are there any considerations connected with this subject which lead to a different conclusion from-that stated. The fact that four distinct compacts wrere entered into with four states to keep this road in repair, cannot have this effect. We must judge of the intention of the parties to the compact by their language. I know of no other rule of construction. Two of these compacts exempt the mail-stage from toll, and two of them do. not exempt it. Now, if the'same construction, in this-respect,must be.given to all of them," which of the alternatives .shall be adopted? Shall the mail-stage be exempted by all of them, or not exempted by any .of them ? What effect can the expenditures of the United States, in -the construction of this road, have Upon this question? In my judgment,'none whatever. The reservation must be construed by its terms, and not by looking behind it. The federal government has been amply repaid for the expenditures in the construction of this road, great and wasteful as they may have been, by the resulting benefits to the nation.. It is now the road of Pennsylvania, subject only to the terms of the compact. In the act surrendering this road to the states respectively, through which it passes, Congress say, -ft and .the United States shall not thereafter be subject to any expense for repairing said road.” To. get clear of this expense was the object of the cession of it to the states. But does this affect the question under consideration. The repairs of the road are provided for, by the tolls which the state of Pennsylvania is authorized to impose. And this is the meaning of the above provision. It is supposed, that the exaction of toll’on the mail-stage' would conflict with that provision. -But how does it conflict with it? The toll on the mail-stage is not paid by the government, but by the contractor. And whether this toll will increase the price paid by the.government for the transportation of the mail, is a matter that cannot be detérmined. Competition is invited and.bids are made for this service, and the price to be'paid depends upon 'contingent circumstances. The toll would be paid, in' part, if not in whole, by a small increase of price for the transportation of passengers. The profits of the contractor might, perhaps, be somewhat lessened by the toll, or it might increase, somewhat, the cost of Conveying the mail. But this, is indirect and contingent; • so that in no sense can it be considered as repugnant to the above' provision. “ The United States are not to be subject to any expense for repairing this roadand they are not, in the sense of the law, should the Post-office Department have to pay, under the contingencies named, a part of the toll stated. Whether it does pay it or- not, under future contracts, Cannot be known ; and what-' ’ ever expense it may pay, will be for the use, and not the repain, of the road. The act of the 13th of June, 1836, which is supposed to be in violation of the compact, I will now consider. That act provides, That all wagons, carriages, or. other modes of conveyance, pass-^ upon that part of the Cumberland road which passes through Pennsylvania, carrying goods, cannon, or military stores belonging the United States, or to any individual state of the union, which excepted from the payment of toll by tire second section of an passed the 4th of April, 1831, shall extend only so far as to relieve such wagons, carriage's, and other inodes of conveyance, the payment of - toll to the proportional amount of such goods so carried belonging to the United States, or to any of the individual states of the union ; and that in all cases of wagons, carriages. stages, or other modes .of conveyance, carrying the United States mail, with passengers or goods, such wagon, stage, or other. modo oí conveyance, shall pay half-toll upon such modes of conveyance.” By the act of 1831,- “every chariot, coach, coachee, stage, wagon, phaeton, or chaise, with two horses and four wheels, were •to- be charged at each gate twelve cents; for either of the carriages last mentioned, with four horses, eighteen cents.” Is the act of 1836, which imposes half-toll on “the mail-stage, with passengers or goods,” repugnant to the above provision ? I think it is not, in any respect. , If the mail be. not the property of the United States, then the stage in which it is conveyed is not within the exception of the act of 1831, and it is liable to pay toll. That only which is within the exception is exempted. That the mail is in no sense the property of the United States, and was not so understood by the parties to the compact, has already been shown. 'It follows, therefore, that a law of Pennsylvania, imposing on such stage a half or full rate of toll, is no violation of the compact. ' -But, if the mail-stage were placed on a footing with á wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States, is the act of 1836, requiring it to pay toll, a violation of the compact ? I think it is not. A wagon or carriage laden with the property' of the United States, means a wagon or carriage having, as before remarked, a full or usual load. Such a vehicle is exempted from toll by the act of 1831. But suppose such wagon or carriage should have half its load, of the property of the United States,-and the other half of the property of individuals, for which the ordinary price for transportation was paid; is such a wagon, thus laden, exempted from toll? Surely-it is not. An exemption under such circumstances would be a fraud upon the compact. It should be required to pay half-toll; and this is what the law of Pennsylvania requires. The mail-stage by that law is only half-toll, when it conveys passengers with the mad.; There is, then, no legal objection to the exaction of this toll. It is in .every point of view just, and within the spirit of the compact. In. the argument for the United States, the broad ground was assumed, that no state had the power to impose a toll on a stage used' for the transportation of the mail. That it is a means of the federal government to cany into effect its constitutional powers, and, consequently, is not a subject of state taxation. To sustain this position the cases of McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, and Dobbins v. The Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Peters, 435, were cited. In the first case, this court held, “that a state government had no right to tax any of the constitutional means employed .by the. government of the union, to execute its constitutional- powers.” And the Bank of the United States was held to be a means of the government. In the second case, under a general law of Pennsylvania imposing a tax on all .officers, a tax was assessed on the office held by. the-plaintiff, as captain of a'revenue-cutter of the United'States,’ and this court held that such law, so far as it affected such an officer, was unconstitutional and void. ' The court say, “ there is. a concur? rent right of legislation in the states and the United States, except, as both are restrained by the Constitution of the .United-:States. Both are restrained by express prohibition^ in the Constitution; and the states by such as are reciprocally implied when the exercise of a right by a state conflicts with the perfect execution of another sovereign power delegated to the United States. That occurs when taxation by a state acts upon the instruments and emoluments • and persons which the United States may use and employ as .necessary and proper means to execute their sovereign power.” Neither of these cases reach or affect, the principle involved in the case under consideration. The officer .'of the United States was considered as a means or ’instrument of the government, and, therefore, could not be taxed by the state, as an officer. . To make that case the same in principle as .the ohe before us, 'the officer must claim exemption from toll as a means of the government, in passing. over a toll-bridge or turnpike-road constructed by. a state, or by-an association of individuals, under a state law.. 'The principle of the other case is equally inapplicable»' Maryland taxed, the' franchise of the Bank, of the United States, and if the law' establishing- that bank were constitutional, the franchise ivas- no -more liable 'to taxation by a state than rights and privileges' conferred on one or more individuals, under any law of the union. With the same .propriety a judge of the United States might be subjected to a tais .by- a'state for the exercise of his judicial functions. And so of every other officer and public agent. But the court held that the stock ip the bant owned by a citizen might be taxed. A toll exacted for the passage over a. bridge or on a.tumpike-roád is not, strictly speaking, a tax. - It is a. compensation for a benefit-conferred. Money has been expended in the’ construction of the road .or bridge, which adds greatly to- the comforts and facilities of travelling, and on this ground compensation is demanded. . Now, can the United States .claim the right to use such road or bridge free ■ from toll ? Can they place locomotives on the rail-roads of the states or of companies, and use them by virtue of their sovereignty ? Siich' acts, would appropriate private property for public purposes, without compensation; and this the Constitution of the union prohibits. It is said, in the argument; that as well might U, revenue-cutter be taxed by a state ag to impose a toll on the stage which conveys thé mail. The revenue-cutter plies on the thoroughfare of natiolis or of the. state, which is open to all vessels. But the stage passes over an artificial structure of great expense, which is only common to all who pay for its use a reasonable compensation- There can be no difficulty on this point. At no time, it is believed, has the Post-office Department asserted the right to use the turnpike-roads of a state, in the transmission of the mail, free from toll. Pennsylvania stands pledged to keep the road in repair, by the use of the means stipulated in the compact. And she has bound herself, “ that, no change, alteration, or amendment shall ever be adopted that will in any wise defeat or affect the true intent and meaning of the aót of 1831.” In my judgment, that state has in no respect violated the compact by the act of 1836. If the mail-stage can be included in the exemption by the terms, “ wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States,” still the half-toll on such stage, when it contains passengers, is within the compact. But, as has been shown, the mail-stage is not included in the exemption, and, consequently, it was liable to be charged with full toll. The state, therefore, instead of exceeding its powers under the compact, has not yet exercised them to the extent which the act of 1831 authorizes; Mr. Justice DANIEL. With the profoundest respect for the opinions of my brethren, I find myself constrained openly to differ from the decision'which, on behalf of the majority of the court, has just been pronounced. This case, although in form a contest between individuals, is in truth a question between the government of the United States and the government of Pennsylvania. It is, to a certain extent, a question of power between those two governments; and, indeed, so far as it is represented to be a question of compact, the very consideration on which the interests of the federal government are urged involves implications) affecting mediately or directly what are held to be great and fundamental principles in our state and federal systems. It brings necessarily into view the operation and effect of-the compact insisted upon as controlled and limited by the powers of both the contracting parties. In order to show more plainly the bearing of the principles above mentioned upon the case before us, they will here be more explicitly, though cursorily, referred to. I hold, then, that neither Congress nor the federal government in the exercise of all or any of its powers or attributes, possesses the power to construct roads, nor any.other description of what have been called internal improvements, within the' limits of the states. That the territory and soil of the several states appertain to them by’ title-paramount to the Constitution,.-and-cannot be taken, save with the exceptions of those portions ther.eof-which might be ceded for the seat; of the federal government and for sites permitted to be purchased for forts, arsenals, dock-yards, &c., &e. That the power of the federal government to acquire, and that of the states to cede to ■that government portions of their territory, are by the Constitution limited to the instances ■ above adverted to, and that these powers can neither be enlarged nor modified but in virtue of some new faculty to be imparted by amendments of the Constitution. I believe that the áuthority vested in Congress by the Constitution to establish post-roads, confers no right to open new roads, but implies nothing beyond a discretion in the government in the' regulations it may make for the Post-office Department for the selection amongst-various routes, whilst they continue in existence, of those along which it may deem it most juclicioüs to have the mails transported. I do not believe that this power given to Congress expresses or implies any thing peculiar in relation to the means or modes of transporting' the public mail, or refers to any .supposed means or modes of transportation beyond the usual manner existing and practised in the country, and certainly it cannot be understood to destroy or in any wise to affect the proprietary rights belonging to individuals or companies vested in those roads. It guaranties to' the government the right to avail itself of the facilities offered by those roads for the purposes of transportation, but imparts to it no exclusive rights — it puts the government upon the footing of others who would avail themselves of the same facilities. In accordance with the principles above stated, and which with me are fundamental, I am unable to perceive how the federal government could acquire any power over the Cumberland road by making appropriations, or by expending money to any amount for its construction or repair, though these appropriations and expenditures may have been made with the assentj and even with the solicitation of Pennsylvania. Neither the federal government separately,nor conjointly with the state of Pennsylvania, could have power .to repeal the Constitution. Arguments drawn from convenience or inconvenience can have no force with me in questions of constitutional power; indeed, they .cannot be admitted at all, for if once admitted, they sweep away every barrier erected by the Constitution against implied authority, and may cover every project which the human mind may conceive. It matters not, then, what or how great the advantage which the government of the United States may-have proposed to itself or to others in undertaking this road; such purposes or objects could legitimate no acts either expressly forbid--, den or not plainly authorized. If the mere, appropriation or disbursement of money can create rights in the government, they may-extend this principle indefinitely, and with the very worst tendencies — those tendencies would be the temptation to prodigality in the government and a dangerous influence with respect to others. In my view, then, the federal government could erect no tollgates nor make any exaction of tolls upon this road; nor could that government, in consideration of what it had done or contributed, constitutionally and legally demand of the state of Pennsylvania the regulation of tolls either as to the imposition of particular rates or the exemption of any species of transportation upon it. As a matter of constitutional and legal'power and authority, this appertained to the state of Pennsylvania exclusively. Independently, then, of any stipulations with respect to them, vehicles of the United States, or vehicles transporting the property of the United States, and that property itself, would, in passing over this road, be in the same situation precisely with Vehicles and property appertaining to all other persons; they would be subject to the- tolls regularly imposed by law. There can be no doubt if the road were vested in a company or in a state, that either the company or the state might stipulate for- any rate of toll within the maximum of their power, of might consent to an entire exemption; and such stipulation, if madexfor a valuable or a legal consideration, would be binding. The United States may contract with companies or with .communities for the transportation of their mi ils, or any of their property, as well as with carriers of a different description; and consequently could contract with the state of Pennsylvania. But Ifchat is meant to be insisted on here is, that the government could legally claim no power to collect tolls, no exemption from tolls, nor any diminution of tolls in their favour, purely in consequence of their having expended money on the road, and without the recognition by Pennsylvania of that expenditure, as a condition in any contract they might make with that state. Without such recognition, the federal government must occupy the same position 'with other travellers or carriers, and remain, subject to every regulation of her road laws .which the state could legally impose on others. This brings us to an examination of the statutes of Pennsylvania, and to an inquiry into any stipulations which the state is said' to have made with the federal government, as' declared in those statutes. That examination will, however, be premised by some observations, which seem to be called for on this occasion. These acts of the Pennsylvania legislature have been compared with the acts of other legislative bodies relative to this ro.ád, and it has been supposed that the Pennsylvania laws should be interpreted in conjunction with those other state laws, and farther, that all these separate state enactments should be taken, together with the acts of Congress passed as to them respectively, as forming one, or as parts of one entire compact with the federal government. I cannot concur in such a view of this case. On the contrary, I must consider each of the states that have legislated in respect to this road, as competent to 'speak for herself; as speaking in reference-to her own interests and policy, and independently of-all others; and unshackled by the proceedings of any others. By this rule of construction let us examine the statutes of Pennsylvania. The act of April 4th, 1831, Which may be called the compact law as it contains all that Pennsylvania professed to undertake. begins by stating the doubts , which were entertained upon the authority of the United States to erect toll-gates and to collect tolls on the Cumberland road; doubts which, with the government as well as with others,- seem to have ripened into certainties, inasmuch as, notwithstanding its large expenditures upon this road, the government had never exacted tolls for travelling or for transportation upon it. The statute goes on next to provide, that if. the government of the United States will make such farther expenditures as shall put the road lying within the limits of Pennsylvania in complete repair,. Pennsylvania will erect toll-gates and collect tolls upon the road, to be applied to the repairs and preservation of it. The same act invests the commissioners it appoints to superintend the road, with power to increase of diminish the tolls to be levied; limiting the increase by the rates which the state had authorized upon an artificial roád that she had established 'from the Susquehanna, opposite the borough of Harrisburg, to Pittsburg. Then in the act of 1831 are enumerated the subjects.of toll, and the rates prescribed as to each of'those subjects. Amongst the former are mentioned chariots,' coaches, coache.es, stages, wagons, phaetons, chaises. In the 3d pro- • viso to the 2d section it is declared, “that no toll shall be received or collected for the passage of any wagon or carriage laden with the property of the United States, or any cannon or military stores belonging to the United States, or to-any of the states belonging to this union.” On the 13th of June, 1836, was passed bythe legislature of Pennsylvania, ■“ An act relating to the tolls on that part of the Cumberland road which passes through Pennsylvania.” The 1st section of this act is in the following words:' “All wagons, carriages,.or other modes of conveyance, passing upon that part of the Cumberland road which passes through Pennsylvania, carrying goods, cannon, or military stores, belonging to the United States, or to any individual state of the union, which are excepted from the payment of toll by the second section of an act passed the fourth of April, qnno Domini eighteen hundred and thirty-one, shall extend only so far as to relieve such wagons, carriages, and other modes of . conveyance, from the payment -of toll to the proportional amount of such goods so carried, belonging to the United States, or to any of the individual states of the union; and that in all cases of wagons, carriages, stages, or other modes of conveyance, carrying the United States mail, with passengers or goods, such wagon, stage,, or other mode of conveyance, shall pay hall-toll upon such modes of conveyance,” . Upon the' construction to be given to the ist and 2d sections of the statute of 1831, and to the 1st section of the statute of 1836, depends the decision of the case-before us. By thé' defendant in error it is insisted that, by the sections of the act of 1831 above “Cited, stages or stage-coaches, transporting the mail of the United States, are wholly exempted by compact from the payment of tolls, although the mails may constitute but a small portion of their lading; and those vehicles'may be at the same time freighted for the exclusive profit of the rhail contractors, with any number of passengers, or with any quantity of baggage or goods, which can be transported in them, consistently with the transportation of the mail; and that the 1st section of the act of 1836, which declares that “ in all cases of wagons, carriages, stages, or other modes of conveyance, carrying the United States mail, with passengers or goods, such wagon, -stage, or other mode' of conveyance, shall pay half-toll upon such mode of conveyance,” is a violation of the compact. Let us pause here, and inquire what was the natural and probable purpose of the exemption contained in the act of 1831 ? Was that exemption designed as a privilege or facility to the government, or as a' donation for private and individual advantage ? Common sense would seem to dictate the reply, that the former only was intended by the law; and even if the privilege or facility to the government could be best secured by associating it with individual profit, Certainly that privilege or facility could, on no principle of reason or fairness, be so sunk, so lost sight of, so entirely perverted, as to make it a mean chiefly of imposition and gain on the part of individuals, and the cause of positive and serious public detriment; and such must be the result of the practice contended for by the defendants in error, as it would tend to impede the celerity of transportation, and to destroy the road itself, by withholding the natural and proper fund for its maintenance. Passing then from what is believed to be the natural design of these enactments, let their terms and language be considered. By those of the 2d section of the law of 183.1, every stage or wagon is made expressly liable to toll, without regard to the subjects it might transport, and without regard to the ownership of the vehicle itself. The terms of the law are universal; they comprehend all stages and all wagons; they would necessarily, therefore, embrace stages and wagons of the United State's, or the like vehicles of others carrying the property of the United States or of private persons. If, then, either the vehicles of the United States, or of others carrying the property of the United States, have been withdrawn from the operation of the act of 1831, this can have been done only by force of the 3d proviso of the 2d section'of that act. The proviso referred to declares that no toll shall “ be collected for the passage of any wagon or carriage laden with the property-of the United States,” &c., &c. Can tins proviso be understood as exempting stages, whether belonging to the government or to individuals, which were intended purposely to carry the mail? It is not deemed necessary, in interpreting this proviso., to discuss the question, whether the United States have a property in mails which they carry. ' It may be admitted that the United States and all their contractors have in the mails that-property which vests by law in all'common earners; it may be admitted that the. United States have an interest in the mails even beyond this. These admissions do not vary the real inquiry here, which is, whether by this proviso the mails of the United- States, or the carriages transporting them, were -intended to be exempted from tolls?. This law, like every other instrument, should be interpreted according to the common and received acceptation of its words; and artificial or technical significations of words or phrases shoüld not be resorted to, except when unavoidable, to give a sensible meaning to the instrument, interpreted; or when they may be considered as coming obviously within the understanding and conteinplation of the parties. According, to this rule of interpretation, what would be commonly understood by “ the property of the United' States,” or by the phrase “ wagons and carriages laden with the property of the United States?” Would common intendment apply those terms to the mail of the United States, or to vehicles carrying that mail ? The term “ mail” is perhaps universally comprehended as being that over which the government has the management for the purposes of conveyance and distribution; and it would strike the common understanding as something singular, to be told that the money or letters belonging to the citizen, and for-the transportation of which he pays,' was hot his property, but was the property of the United States. The term “mail,” tifien, having a meaning clearly defined and.universally understood, it is conclusive to my mind, that in a provision designed to exempt that mail, or the vehicle for its transportation, the general and equivocal term “property”-would not have been selected, but the terms “ mail,” and “ stages carrying the mail” — terms familiar to all — would have been expressly introduced. Farther illustration of the language and objects of the legislature of Pennsylvania may be derived from the circumstance, that, in the law of 1831, they couple the phrase “ property of the United States” with “ property of the states.” The same language is used in reference to both; they are both comprised-in the same sentence; the same exemption is extended to both. Now the states have no mails to be transported. It then can by no means follow, either by necessary or even plausible interpretation, that by “ property of the United States” was meant the “mails of the United States,” any more than by “ property of the states” was meant the “mails” of those states; on the contrary, it seems far more reasonable that the legislature designed to make no distinction with regard to either, but intended that the term “property” should have the same signification in reference both to the state and federal governments. In theacceptation of the term “property,” insisted on for the defendants in-error, the mails committed to the contractor are the property of that contractor also. Yet it would. hardly have been contended that in a provision for exempting the “ property” of a mail contractor from tolls, either a vehicle belonging to the United States, and in the use of such a contractor, or the mail which he carried in it, would be so considered as his property as to bring them within that exemption ; yet such is the conclusion to which the interpretation contended for by the defendants would inevitably lead. That construction I deem to be forced and artificial, and not the legitimate interpreta-tiqrrof the statute, especially when I consider that- there are various other subjects of property belonging to the United' States, and belonging to them absolutely and exclusively, which from their variety .could not well be- specifically enumerated, and which, at some pe-. riod or other, it might become convenient to the government and beneficial to the country to transport upon this road. But if, by -any interpretation,the words “wagon or carriage laden with the proper.ty of the United States,” can be made to embrace stages carrying the mail, and employed purposely for that service, they surely can-hot, by the most forced-construction, be. made to embrace stages laden with every thing else, by comparison, except the mail of the United States, and in which the mail was a mere pretext for the transportation of passengers and merchandise, or property of-every description and to any amount, free of toll. ' They must at all events be laden with the mail. The term laden cannot be taken here as a mere expletive, nor should it be wrested from its natural import — be made identical in signification with the terms ■■“carrying” or “transporting.” Such a departure would again be a violation of common intendment, and should not be resorted' to; and Hie abuses just shown, which such a departure would let in and protect, furnish another and most cogent reason- why the common acceptation of the phrase, “ property of -the United States,” should be adhered to. Fairness and equality with respect to all carriers and travellers upon this road,-and justice to the state which has undertaken to keep it in repair from the tolls collectable upon it, require this adherence. If the interpretation here given of the act of 1831 be correct, then admitting that act to be a compact between Pennsylvania and the United State's, the former has,- by the 1st section of the act of 1836, infracted no stipulation in that compact. Pennsylvania never did, according to my understanding of her law of 1831, agree to the exemption from, tolls for stages,"wagons, or vehicles of any kind, intended for carrying the mails of the United States. These stood upon the like footing with other carriages. If this be true, then by the act of 1836, in which she has- subjected to half-tolls only, stages, wagons, &c., carrying the mails, and at the same time transporting passengers or goods, so far from violating her compact,- or inflicting a wrong upon the government or upon mail contractors, that state has extended to. them a-privilege and an advantage which, under the 3d proviso of tire act of 1831, they did not possess. My opinion is, that 'the plaintiff in the court below had an undoubted right 'of recovery.