B-142697, AUG. 23, 1960

B-142697, AUG. 23, 1960

TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 4, 1960, FILE N-42348-G A, IN WHICH YOU ASK FOR A REVIEW OF THE HOLDING IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 28, 1960, B-142697, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $35.70, SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. N-42348-B-G-R-1219, ALLEGED TO BE DUE ON FREIGHT WHICH MOVED IN NOVEMBER 1945.

YOUR PRESENT CONTENTION APPEARS TO BE THAT LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS AT THE TIME INVOLVED WERE AUTHORIZED ONLY FOR SUPPLIES MOVING FOR THE MILITARY AND NAVAL USE OF THE UNITED STATES AND, AS THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED MOVED "NOT ONLY AFTER THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES BUT ALSO AFTER LEND-LEASE HAD EXPIRED" AND WERE CONSIGNED TO AN AGENCY OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, THEY COULD NOT BE MOVING FOR MILITARY AND NAVAL USE OF THE UNITED STATES.

AS YOU KNOW, LAND-GRANT RATES DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED WERE NOT SOLELY APPLICABLE TO SUPPLIES FOR USE IN THE WAR BUT TO "ALL MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR CIVIL USE.' THE LEND-LEASE ACT OF MARCH 11, 1941, WAS CREATED TO PROMOTE THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES. IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE TWO SHIPMENTS INVOLVED WERE TO BE EXPORTED TO GREAT BRITAIN, ONE OF OUR ALLIES, IN THE INTERESTS OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE REQUISITIONS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT 68.7 PERCENT AND 40 PERCENT RESPECTIVELY OF THE SUPPLIES INVOLVED IN THE SHIPMENTS WERE TO BE USED DIRECTLY BY THE MILITARY (OR MILITARY FORCES) AND THE FREIGHT CHARGES WERE PAID CONSISTENT WITH SUCH USES. LEND -LEASE HAD NOT TERMINATED AS CONTENDED BY YOU IN NOVEMBER 1945. SEE 22 U.S.C. 412 (C). AND IT IS EVIDENT THE SHIPMENTS WERE UNDER AUTHORITY OF THAT ACT. THE FACT THAT ACTUAL HOSTILITIES IN EUROPE MAY HAVE CEASED BY NOVEMBER 1945 IS NOT CONTROLLING, THE RIGHT TO LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS NOT BEING CONTINGENT UPON THE CONTINUANCE OF HOSTILITIES BUT WHETHER THE SUPPLIES WERE MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL USE. THE FACT THAT SUPPLIES MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHIPMENT AT LAND-GRANT RATES AFTER TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES SEEMS EVIDENT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN NORTHERN PACIFIC R.CO. V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 248, 254, WHERE IT WAS STATED:

"MILITARY OR NAVAL USE INCLUDES ALL PROPERTY CONSUMED BY THE ARMED FORCES OR BY THEIR ADJUNCTS, ALL PROPERTY WHICH THEY USE TO FURTHER THEIR PROJECTS, ALL PROPERTY WHICH SERVES THEIR MANY NEEDS OR WANTS IN TRAINING OR PREPARATION FOR WAR, IN COMBAT, IN MAINTAINING THEM AT HOME OR ABROAD, IN THEIR OCCUPATION AFTER VICTORY IS WON. IT IS THE RELATION OF THE SHIPMENT TO THE MILITARY OR NAVAL EFFORT THAT IS CONTROLLING UNDER 321 (A).'

ALSO, THE FACT THAT THE SUPPLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED FOR USE BY BRITISH ARMED FORCES ALLIED WITH THE UNITED STATES IN THE WAR EFFORT RATHER THAN BY THE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES WARRANTS NO DISTINCTION IN THE NATURE OF THE TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE LAND-GRANT ACT. SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. UNITED STATES, 107 CT.CL. 167 (1946).

ACCORDINGLY, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS REAFFIRMED.