Statement of the Case. On September 26, 1884, W. W. McIlvain, a special agent of the land department of the United States, reported to the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington, as the result of his investigations, that the preëmption entry of Simpkins had been fraudulently and unlawfully made. Proceedings for an investigation of this charge were ordered before the local land officers. Notice was duly given by publication. Simpkins made no appearance, but the plaintiff in error appeared by attorneys. The investigation was carried on in the local land office and thereafter in the General Land Office at Washington, and the proceedings reviewed by the Secretary of the Interior, the plaintiff in error being a party to all those proceedings. They resulted in a cancellation of the entry on the ground that it had been fraudulently and unlawfully made; and the land was restored to the public domain. Thereafter Venzke took the proceedings which culminated in the patent; whereupon the plaintiff in error commenced this suit in the District Court of Richland County, North Dakota, to have him charged as trustee of the legal title for her benefit. In that court a decree was entered in favor of the defendants, which, having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, has been brought here on writ of error. On March 3, 1891, Congress passed an act, c. 561, 26 Stat. 1095, 1098, § 7 of which contains this provision: "And all entries made under the preemption, homestead, desert-land or timber culture laws, in which final proof and payment may have been made and certificates issued, and to which there are no adverse claims originating prior to final entry and which have been sold or incumbered prior to the first day of March, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, and after final entry, to bona fide purchasers, or incumbrancers, for a valuable consideration, shall, unless, upon an investigation by a government agent, fraud on the part of the purchaser has been found, be confirmed and patented upon presentation of satisfactory proof to the land department of such sale or incumbrance." Opinion of the Court. Mr. Seth Newman for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. B. Pinney and Mr. J. E. Robinson were on his brief. Mr. W. II. Standish for defendants in error. Mr. S. H. Snyder and Mr. Curtiss Sweigle were on his brief. MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. Counsel for plaintiff in error challenge the power of the Commissioner of the General Land Office or the Secretary of the Interior to cancel and set aside a preëmption entry after the local land officers have approved the evidences offered of settlement and improvement, received the purchase money and issued the receiver's final receipt. They contend that except in certain specified cases, which are not material for consideration here, the action of the local land officers concludes the government, and the General Land Office has no jurisdiction to supervise such action or correct any wrongs done in the entry. Subsequently to the issuing of the writ of error in this case this precise question was presented to this court, Orchard v. Alexander, 157 U. S. 372, and the jurisdiction of the land department was affirmed; a jurisdiction not arbitrary or unlimited, nor to be exercised without notice to the parties interested, nor one beyond judicial review under the same conditions as other orders and rulings of the land department. In this case the entryman was brought in by due publication of notice, and the real party in interest appeared. The contest was carried through the land department, from the lowest to the highest officer, and there is nothing in the record which brings the case within the rules so often laid down for a judicial reversal of the decisions of that department. Much reliance is placed upon the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1891, supra, and it is contended that before any adverse rights were created Congress ratified and confirmed the entry made by Simpkins. We think that statute inapplicable. It was passed long after the action of the land department in cancelling the entry and restoring the land to the Opinion of the Court. public domain, and when there was no subsisting entry to be confirmed. The theory of the plaintiff in error is that the act applies to all entries which had ever been made prior thereto, whether subsisting or cancelled. But clearly it refers to only subsisting entries. An entry is a contract. Whenever the local land officers approve the evidences of settlement and improvement and receive the cash price they issue a receiver's receipt. Thereby a contract is entered into between the United States and the preemptor, and that contract is known as an entry. It may be, like other contracts, voidable; and is voidable if fraudulently and unlawfully made. The effect of the entry is to segregate the land entered from the public. domain, and while subject to such entry it cannot be appropriated to any other person, or for any other purposes. It would not pass under a land grant, no matter how irregular or fraudulent the entry. When by due proceedings in the proper tribunal the entry is set aside and cancelled, the contract is also terminated. The voidable contract has been avoided. There is no longer a contract, no longer an entry, and the land is as free for disposal by the land department as though no entry had ever been attempted. The term used in the section, "confirmed," implies existing contracts which, though voidable, have not been avoided, and not contracts which once existed but have long since ceased to be. If the act is not limited to existing entries, existing contracts, then it must apply to all entries, all contracts, no matter when made or how long since cancelled, or what rights have been acquired by others since the cancellation. It would apply to an entry cancelled years before, although the land had since been entered and patented to another; and would carry a mandate to the land department to execute a patent to one whose claims had been adjudged fraudulent, and in disregard of the rights created in reliance upon that adjudication. No such intention can be imputed to Congress. The statute, as its language implies, refers only to existing entries, and does not reach a case like the present. The judgment is Affirmed. For several years in succession before the commencement of this action the Central Pacific Railroad Company transported the mails of the United States on its roads. During the same period post office inspectors, commissioned by the department, under regulations which required the railroads" to extend facilities of free travel" to them, were also transported by the company over its roads. During all this period the railroad company presented to the department its claim for the transportation of the mail without setting up any claim for the transportation of the inspectors, and the said claims for mail transportation were, after such presentation, from time to time, and regularly, adjusted and paid on that basis. This action was then brought in the Court of Claims to recover for the transportation of the inspectors. Until it was commenced no claim for such transportation had ever been made on the United States. Held, that, without deciding whether the claim of the department that its inspectors were entitled to free transportation was or was not well founded, the silence of the company, and its acquiescence in the demand of the government for such free transportation operated as a waiver of any such right of action. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Joseph K. McCammon and Mr. Charles II. Tweed for appellant submitted on their brief. Mr. Solicitor General for appellees. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court. The Central Pacific Railroad Company owned or leased, and operated numerous railroad lines, which may be generally described as, (1) those which were constructed by the aid of bonds from the United States; (2) lines of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to which lands were granted by the acts of Congress of July 27, 1866, c. 278, § 18, 14 Stat. 292, and of March 3, 1871, c. 22, 23, 16 Stat. 573, and the act of July Opinion of the Court. 25, 1866, c. 242, 14 Stat. 239; (3) other railroads constructed without the aid of bonds from the government. All the subsidized portions of claimant's railroads transported for a number of years prior to the filing of this claim many post office inspectors, formerly designated as special agents, travelling on government business, for which services the company has received no pay from the government and never demanded any before making and filing the claim in suit. If the claimant is entitled to be paid therefor, the amount is between twentyfive and twenty-six thousand dollars. The post office inspectors for whose transportation the claimant now asks compensation were commissioned by the Postmaster General, travelled on the business of the Post Office Department as such inspectors, and were furnished transportation by the claimant upon the production of their commissions, which were in the following form: "To whom it may concern: "POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, "The bearer hereof (name of special or inspector) is hereby designated a post office inspector of this department, and travels by my direction on its business. He will be obeyed and respected accordingly by mail contractors, postmasters, steamboats, stages and others connected with the postal service. Railroads, steamboats, stages and other mail contractors are required to extend facilities of free travel to the holder of this commission. "Postmaster General. "Washington, 188-." The regulations of the department were during the time such transportation was furnished as follows: "On routes where the mode of conveyance admits of it the special agents of the Post Office Department, also post office blanks, mail bags, locks and keys, are to be conveyed without extra charge. "Railroad companies are required to convey, without spe |