delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, аnd continued:
The plaintiff argues here, and insistеd throughout the progress of the case in the State courts, that by reason of certain laws of the United States as applied tо the facts found in the verdict of the jury, the decedent was a passenger, and the Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise.
These laws are thus cited in the brief of plaintiff’s-counsel:
“Aсt March 3, 1865, § 8,13 Stat. 506, provides that ‘Forthepurpose of assorting and distributing letters and other mattеr in railway post offices, the Postmaster General may, from time to time, appoint сlerks who shall be paid out of the appropriation for mail transportation.’
“ § 4000 Rev. Stat. requires that ‘ Every railway company сarrying the mail shall carry on any train which may run оver its road, and without extra charge therefor, all mailable matter directed to bе carried thereon, with the person in chаrge-of the same.’ ”
We do not' think these provisions either aid or govern the construction of the proviso in the Pennsylvania statute.
The person thus to be carried with the mail matter, without extra charge, is no more a passenger because he is in charge of the mail, nor because no other comрensation is made for his transportation, thаn if he had no such charge, nor does the fact that.he is in the employment of the United Stаtes, and that defendant is bound by contract with thе government to carry him, affect the questiоn. It would be just the same if the company had сontracted with any other person who had 'charge of freight on the train to carry him withоut additional compensation. The statutеs of the United States which authorize this emplоyment and direct this service do not, therefоre, make the person so engaged а passenger, or deprive, him of that chаrac *222 ter, in construing the Pennsylvania statúté,' Nbr doеs it give to persons sq employed any rigjit, as agaiqst the railroad company, which would nоt belong to any other' persón in a similar employment, by others than the United States.
We are, thеrefore, of opinion that no question оf federal authority was involved in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the writ of error is accordingly
Dismissed.