upr000298 7

\N I / n / I caasot construe this correspondence to be an agreement upon the part of Mr. Suit that there should be no readjustment of the charges made by the Santa F© prior to September, 1817. Rather it seems to me the subject discussed was wholly with respect to charge® that should obtain after that date* Furthermore, there was no agreement that an arbitrary charge should be substituted for the actuhl cost* What was agreed upon was that instead of figur­ing the actual cost each month such actual cost should be determined from time to time and a figure approximating this actual cost should be adopted for accounting purposes* Xn other words, the “arbitrary* figure of 110 spoken of by Mr. fells and accepted by Mr. Nutt was understood to be a figure approximating the actual cost figure. That thi.: is the proper construction to be placed upon the corres­pondence is ?•admitted by the Santa Fe in its offer to readjust bills rendered us for the period subsequent to September 1st, 1917, upon the basis of actual cost rather than the "arbitrary* sum of 110 accepted by Mr. Butt* (See Mr. Hitchcock1® letter of November 28th, 1921 above re fe rre d t o ) • It is my conclusion that sq far as the correspondence itself is concerned there is no justification for the claim of estoppel against our company in demanding that a correction be mad© ift lili# ob&rgf® in socox&sfcso® wi'fefe *feh@ &otu&l fstoiss fox th© full covered by the present contract* Furthermore, it seems to me fro® the statement of facts made by Mr. Perkins that w© should succeed In establishing our ease before a board of arbitrators* return fill feist! ENC* . ASH EJ