contract the railroad company agreed, solely upon the considerations
and terms hereinafter mentioned, to furnish for the exclusive use of
such express company, in the conduct of its said express business over
said railway company's lines, certain privileges, facilities and express
cars to be used and employed exclusively by said express company in
the conduct of such express business; and to transport said cars and
contents, consisting of express matter, in its fast passenger trains,
together with one or more persons in charge of said express matter,
known as express messengers, for that purpose to be allowed to ride
in said express cars; to transport such express messengers for the pur-
poses and under the circumstances aforesaid free of charge. And by
said contract it was agreed on the part of said express company to
pay said railroad company for such privileges and facilities and for
the furnishing and use of said express car or cars, and for such trans-
portation thereof, a compensation named in said contract; and by
which contract it was further agreed by the express company to pro-
tect the railroad company and hold it harmless from all liability it
might be under to employés of the express company for any injuries
sustained by them while being so transported by said railroad com-
pany, whether the injuries were caused by negligence of the railroad
company or its employés or otherwise. Voigt made application to
said express company in writing to be employed by it as express mes-
senger on the railroad of a company, between which and such express
company a contract as aforesaid existed, and such applicant, pursuant
to his application, was employed by the express company under a con-
tract in writing signed by him and it, whereby it was agreed between
him and the express company that he did assume the risk of all acci-
dent or injury he might sustain in the course of said employment,
whether occasioned by negligence or otherwise, and did undertake
and agree to indemnify and hold harmless said express company from
any and all claims that might be made against it arising out of any
claim or recovery on his part for any damages sustained by him by
reason of any injury, whether such damage resulted from negligence
or otherwise, and to pay said express company on demand any sum
which it might be compelled to pay in consequence of any such claim,
and to execute and deliver to said railroad company a good and suffi-
cient release under his hand and seal of all claims and demands and
causes of action arising out of or in any manner connected with said
employment, and expressly ratified the agreement aforesaid between
said express company and said railroad company. Held, that Voigt,
occupying an express car as a messenger in charge of express matter, in
pursuance of the contract between the companies, was not a passenger
within the meaning of the case of Railroad Company v. Lockwood, 17
Wall. 357; that he was not constrained to enter into the contract
whereby the railroad company was exonerated from liability to him,
but entered into the same freely and voluntarily, and obtained the ben-

efit of it by securing his appointment as such messenger; and that
such a contract did not contravene public policy. Baltimore & Ohio
Southwestern Railway Co. v. Voigt, 498.

16. The charter of the Illinois Central Railroad Company authorized it to
"enter upon and take possession of and use all and singular any lands,
streams and materials of every kind for the location of depots and
stopping stages for the
complete operation of said road;"
and granted to it "all such lands, waters, materials and privileges
belonging to the State." A subsequent ordinance of the city of Chi-
cago, passed in pursuance of authority granted by the legislature, for-
bade the driving or placing of any piles, stones, timber or other
obstruction in the harbor of the city, without the permission of the
commissioner of public works. Held, that a Federal question was
presented whether this ordinance impaired or interfered with the char-
ter of the railroad company. Held, further, that, under its charter,
the railroad company had no right to take possession of lands sub-
merged beneath the waters of Lake Michigan. Held, also, that the
"waters" granted to the railroad company in the second part of
the granting clause, were restricted to the "streams " mentioned in
the first part, and did not include the waters of Lake Michigan. Illi-
nois Central Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 646.

17. Under another section of the charter, providing that the corporation
should not locate its tracks within any city without the consent of the
common council, held, that this proviso was not confined to the main
track of the road, but includes its depots, engine houses and necessary
track approaches to the same. Ib.

18. This restriction was not limited to the city as bounded at the date of
the charter, but applied also to territory subsequently included within
the city limits. Ib.

See PUBLIC Land, 1.

SALARY.

Extra compensation received by a District Judge for holding court outside
of his own district is no part of his official salary, or recoverable as
such under the provisions of the retiring act. Benedict v. United
States, 357.

STATUTE.

A. STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.

See CHINESE IMMIGRANTS;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8;
CUSTOMS DUTIES, 1, 2;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1, 2;

JURISDICTION, B, 3, 4, 5;
INJUNCTION, 2;
JURISDICTION, C, 2, 3, 4;
PUBLIC LAND, 1, 2, 3, 11.