Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP), brought this action in the District Court to enjoin the announced discontinuance of certain passenger trains that had previously been operated by the Central of Georgia Railway Co. (Central). Named as defendants were Central, its parent, Southern Railway Co. (Southern), and the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), all of which are the petitioners in this Court. The question before us is whether this action is maintainable under applicable federal law.
After the enactment of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Amtrak Act), 84 Stat. 1327, 45 U. S. C. § 501 et seq., Central contracted with Amtrak for the latter to assume Central's intercity rail passenger service responsibilities. Southern has not entered into any contract with Amtrak. The train discontinuances that precipitated this action were announced by Amtrak pursuant to § 404 (b)(2) of the Amtrak Act, 45 U. S. C. § 564 (b)(2). The gravamen of the respondent’s complaint was that these discontinuances are not authorized by, and in fact are prohibited by, the Amtrak Act. The District Court concluded that the respondent lacks standing under § 307 of the Amtrak Act, 45 U. S. C. § 547, and accordingly dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the respondent has standing and that § 307 does not otherwise bar such a suit by a private party who is allegedly aggrieved. We granted certiorari to decide whether such a private cause of action can be maintained in light of § 307 (a) of the Amtrak Act. 411 U. S. 981 (1973).
In this Court and in the Court of Appeals, the parties have approached the question from several perspectives. The issue has been variously stated to be whether the Amtrak Act can be read to create a private right of action to enforce compliance with its provisions; whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under the terms of the Act to entertain such a suit; and whether the respondent has standing to bring such a suit. Because the reference in each instance is to § 307 (a) of the Act and the legislative history behind that provision, these questions overlap in the context of this case even more than they ordinarily would. But, however phrased, the threshold question clearly is whether the Amtrak Act or any other provision of law creates a cause of action whereby a private party such as the respondent can enforce duties and obligations imposed by the Act; for it is only if such a right of action exists that we need consider whether the respondent had standing to bring the action and whether the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain it.
The respondent has pointed to no provision of law outside the Amtrak Act itself that can be read to create or imply the cause of action that it seeks to bring against the petitioners. It follows that support for the bringing of this action must be found, if at all, within the four corners of that Act. The only section of the Act that authorizes any suits to enforce duties and obligations is § 307 (a), which provides:
“If the Corporation or any railroad engages in or adheres to any action, practice, or policy inconsistent with the policies and purposes of this chapter, obstructs or interferes with any activities authorized by this chapter, refuses, fails, or neglects to discharge its duties and responsibilities under this chapter, or threatens any such violation, obstruction, interference, refusal, failure, or neglect, the district court of the United States for any district in which the Corporation or other person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction, except as otherwise prohibited by law, upon petition of the Attorney General of the United States or, in a case involving a labor agreement, upon petition of any employee affected thereby, including duly authorized employee representatives, to grant such equitable relief as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or terminate any violation, conduct, or threat.” 45 U. S. C. § 547 (a).
In terms, § 307 (a) purports only to confer jurisdiction, not to create a cause of action. The legislative history, however, makes clear that the congressional purpose was to authorize certain types of suits for the enforcement of the Act’s provisions. The House Report explained the section as follows:
“Section 307 authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to sue the corporation or any railroad to prevent acts of omission or commission in violation of this legislation. In the case of labor agreements, individual employees or duly authorized employee representatives may sue for equitable relief.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1580, p. 9 (1970).
In light of the language and legislative history of § 307 (a), we read it as creating a public cause of action, maintainable by the Attorney General, to enforce the duties and responsibilities imposed by the Act: The only private cause of action created by that provision, however, is explicitly limited to “a case involving a labor agreement.” Thus, no authority for the action the respondent has brought can be found in the language of §307 (a). The argument is made, however, that § 307 (a) serves only to authorize certain suits against Amtrak and that it should not be read to preclude other private causes of action for the enforcement of obligations imposed by the Act. The respondent claims that railroad passengers are the intended beneficiaries of the Act and that the courts should therefore imply a private cause of action whereby they can enforce compliance with the Act’s provisions. See J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 431-432 (1964). It goes without saying, however, that the inference of such a private cause of action not otherwise authorized by the statute must be consistent with the evident legislative intent and, of course, with the effectuation of the purposes intended to be served by the Act.
A frequently stated principle of statutory construction is that when legislation expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies. “When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode.” Botany Mills v. United States, 278 U. S. 282, 289 (1929). This principle of statutory construction reflects an ancient maxim — expressio unius est exdusio alterius. Since the Act creates a public cause of action for the enforcement of its provisions and a private cause of action only under very limited circumstances, this maxim would clearly compel the conclusion that the remedies created in § 307 (a) are the exclusive means to enforce the duties and obligations imposed by the Act. But even the most basic general principles of statutory construction must yield to clear contrary evidence of legislative intent. Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U. S. 83, 88 (1940). Accordingly, we turn to the legislative history of § 307 (a).
The original draft of § 307 (a) differed from its present form in several respects. It conferred upon federal district courts jurisdiction to entertain suits against Amtrak (but not individual railroads) “upon petition of the Attorney General of the United States or, in a case involving a labor agreement, upon petition of any individual affected thereby . ...” At the hearings of the House Committee, representatives of organized labor took issue with certain aspects of the draft provision and proposed several changes. One of these proposals would have authorized suits against the railroads as well as Amtrak. Another would have authorized private suits by “any person adversely affected or aggrieved thereby, including the representatives of the employees of any railroad or of the Corporation.” In support of the latter proposal, one labor spokesman testified:
"The . . . amendment we propose would modify the language of section 307 (a) ... so as to provide that any aggrieved party, including employee representatives, could institute legal proceedings for violations of the law.
“As the hill now reads, only the Attorney General, except in cases involving a labor agreement, could bring such actions.” Supplemental Hearings on H. R. 17849 and S. 3706 before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., ser. 91-62, p. 134 (1970) (emphasis added).
The Secretary of Transportation, who was to be the primary administrative officer responsible for the implementation of the Act, sent a letter to the Subcommittee chairman commenting on these proposed changes. His letter stated that he did not object to allowing suits against railroads as well as Amtrak. As to the proposal to amend the bill to permit suits by any “aggrieved person,” however, he stated:
“Sanctions are normally imposed by the Government. Consequently, I would be opposed to permitting 'any person’ to seek enforcement of section 307. I would have no objection, however, if the section were revised to permit employee representatives, as well as employees adversely affected, to seek equitable relief.” Hearings, supra, at 85.
Thereafter, the Committee redrafted § 307 (a) in conformity with the Secretary’s recommendations. The Committee’s redraft and the bill as finally enacted authorized suits against railroads as well as Amtrak, and permitted suits involving labor agreements by “duly authorized employee representatives” as well as by affected employees, but did not authorize suits by “any person adversely affected or aggrieved.”
Both the Secretary of Transportation and the representatives of organized labor thus interpreted § 307 (a) in its present form as precluding private actions other than those specifically authorized therein. Although the transcript of the House Committee hearings does not indicate that any Committee member voiced explicit affirmative agreement with this interpretation, it is surely most unlikely that the members of the Committee would have stood mute if they had disagreed with it. Especially in light of the Secretary’s substantial role in the eventual implementation of the Act, we cannot conclude that his interpretation of its draft provisions was not accorded significant weight by the Committee.
The members of the Committee had before them a specific proposal that would have altered the interpretation that was being placed on § 307 (a), and would have explicitly permitted suit to enforce the Act’s provisions by “any person adversely affected or aggrieved.” The Committee’s deliberate failure to adopt that proposal, after learning of the Secretary’s views, cannot but give weight to the conclusion that the Committee agreed with the Secretary’s interpretation of the meaning and effect of the existing language, as well as with his opposition to the proposed change. These factors are substantial indicia that the legislators understood that § 307 (a) as written would preclude private causes of action to enforce compliance with the Act, other than in the limited area of cases “involving a labor agreement.” We have found no contrary indication in any of the hearings or committee reports. Thus, the explicit legislative history of § 307 (a), such as it is, serves to support the same interpretation of its language that would be accorded by settled rules of statutory construction.
This construction of § 307 (a) is also completely consistent with the Act as a whole and with its more generalized legislative history. In outlining the purpose of the Amtrak Act, the House Report, referring to a comment by the Secretary of Transportation, noted that “[i]n order to achieve economic viability in a basic rail passenger system, . . . there will have to be a 'paring of uneconomic routes.’” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1580, p. 3 (1970). Thus, Congress concluded that “a rational reduction of present service will be required in order to save any passenger service.” Ibid, (emphasis in original). In § 404 of the Act, Congress provided an efficient means whereby Amtrak could eliminate uneconomic routes (other than a “basic system” designated and from time to time augmented by the Secretary of Transportation) without the necessity of submitting to the time-consuming proceedings of state regulatory bodies or the Interstate Commerce Commission that had been required before the Act’s passage. If, however, § 307 (a) were to be interpreted as permitting private lawsuits to prevent the discontinuance of passenger trains, then the only-effect of the Act in this regard would have been to substitute the federal district courts for the state or federal administrative bodies formerly required to pass upon proposed discontinuances.
If the respondent's view of the Act were to prevail, a private plaintiff could secure injunctive process to prevent the discontinuance of an “uneconomic” passenger train pendente lite, which would force Amtrak to continue the train’s operation and to incur the resulting deficits and dislocations within its entire system while the court considered the propriety of the proposed discontinuance. Since suits could be brought in any district through which Amtrak trains pass and since there would be a myriad of possible plaintiffs, the potential would exist for a barrage of lawsuits that, either individually or collectively, could frustrate or severely delay any proposed passenger train discontinuance. Even if one court eventually upheld the discontinuance, its judgment would not control a suit brought in another district and would not, in any event, obviate the loss in the interim of substantial sums and the diversion of rolling stock from more heavily traveled routes. This would completely undercut the efficient apparatus that Congress sought to provide for Amtrak to use in the “paring of uneconomic routes.” It would also produce the anomalous result of a discontinú-anee procedure under the Act considerably less efficient than that which existed before, since there would no longer be a single forum that could finally determine the permissibility of a proposed discontinuance. In the place of the state or federal regulatory bodies, the Congress would have substituted any and all federal district courts through whose jurisdictions an Amtrak train might run.
Congress clearly did not intend to replace the delays often inherent in the administrative proceedings contemplated by §13a of the Interstate Commerce Act with the probably even greater delays inherent in multiple federal court proceedings. Instead, it clothed the Attorney General with the exclusive (except in cases involving labor agreements) authority to police the Amtrak system and to enforce the various duties and obligations imposed by the Act. In light of the substantial scrutiny to which Amtrak operations are subject by both Congress and the Executive, Congress could quite rationally suppose that this remedy will effectively prevent and correct any Amtrak breaches of obligations under the Act.
For these reasons we hold that § 307 (a) provides the exclusive remedies for breaches of any duties or obligations imposed by the Amtrak Act, and that no additional private cause of action to enforce compliance with the Act's provisions can properly be inferred. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 401 of the Act, 45 U. S. C. § 561, authorizes Amtrak to contract with any railroad to undertake its entire responsibility for intercity rail passenger service. Upon entering such a contract, a railroad can discontinue any intercity passenger train by merely filing a 30-day notice of intent with the Interstate Commerce Commission, in accordance with the notice requirements of § 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 13a.
Except in certain limited situations not here pertinent, 45 U. S. C. § 564 (b) (2) authorizes Amtrak to discontinue any passenger service, other than that contained in a “basic system” designated by the Secretary of Transportation, upon its own initiative.
The respondent’s position on the merits is based on the fact that Central, which entered a contract with Amtrak, is a subsidiary of Southern, which did not enter a contract with Amtrak. The respondent contends that the contract between Amtrak and Central does not comply with § 401 (a) (1) of the Amtrak Act because Southern, the parent company, has not contracted with Amtrak. Since § 401 (a) (1) authorizes only a contract for Amtrak to undertake a railroad’s entire responsibility for intercity rail passenger service, the respondent contends that Southern cannot relieve itself of only part of this responsibility by allowing a subsidiary to contract with Amtrak while declining itself to do so. Accordingly, the respondent argues that Southern and Central, having entered no statutorily authorized contract with Amtrak, are prohibited by § 404 (a), 45 U. S. C. § 564 (a), from discontinuing any passenger train before January 1, 1975.
The decision of the District Court is unreported. The opinion of the Court of Appeals appears at 154 U. S. App. D. C. 214, 475 F. 2d 325 (1973).
Supplemental Hearings on H. R. 17849 and S. 3706 before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., ser. 91-62, p. 44 (1970).
Although the Secretary did not oppose this amendment, he expressed the opinion that it might be unnecessary to make sanctions applicable to any railroad in light of other, existing statutes and in light of Amtrak’s amenability to suit under § 307 (a) as it was then written.
See, e. g., 45 U. S. C. §§ 521, 522, 548 (c), 563 (a), 602, 621, and 645 (1970 ed. and Supp. II).
See n. 2, supra.
Before 1958, railroads desiring to discontinue uneconomic passenger routes were required to secure the permission of state regulatory commissions. In 1958, in an effort to reduce losses on passenger train operations, Congress enacted § 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 13a, which gave the railroads the option of bypassing state agencies and petitioning the Interstate Commerce Commission for permission to discontinue passenger trains. Under § 13a, after the railroad has filed a notice of discontinuance with the Commission, an aggrieved person may file a complaint. Either upon such complaint or on its own initiative, the Commission may institute an investigation of the proposed discontinuance. If the Commission does begin an investigation, it may delay the discontinuance for as long as four months. If it finds that the discontinuance is contrary to the public interest, the Commission may require the continuance of the route for a period of one year. Orders approving or disapproving proposed discontinuances are subject to judicial review. See, e. g., Southern B. Co. v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 93 (1964). If, on the other hand, the Commission decides that the discontinuance is clearly permissible under § 13a of the Act, and decides not to conduct an investigation or decides to terminate an investigation already begun, an aggrieved person has no recourse to the courts to review the Commission’s decision. New Jersey v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 324 (NJ 1958), aff’d, 359 U. S. 27 (1959); City of Chicago v. United States, 396 U. S. 162 (1969).
Thus, if the Commission takes no action on a complaint by a passenger, under § 13a there is no recourse to the courts. Only if the Commission conducts an investigation and issues an order, a procedure that Congress explicitly eliminated for routes subject to the Amtrak Act but outside the basic system, is judicial review available. It thus appears that the Amtrak Act has in effect substituted, in matters covered by that statute, the scrutiny of the Attorney General for that of the Commission under § 13a. Just as an aggrieved passenger has no access to the courts when the Commission, under § 13a, takes no action on a complaint, so likewise under the Amtrak Act an aggrieved passenger has no access to the courts when the Attorney General has refused to object to a proposed passenger train discontinuance by bringing an action under § 307 (a) to enjoin it. There is no reason apparent from the Amtrak Act, its legislative history, or its underlying purposes to think that Congress intended to create a private remedy substantially equivalent to one that had been eliminated under pre-existing federal law.
That this is a very real possibility is demonstrated by Amtrak’s experience in Wood v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 341 F. Supp. 908 (Conn. 1972), where the court granted and then extended a temporary restraining order while it considered the merits of a challenge to a proposed discontinuance. The restraining order was dissolved when Amtrak prevailed on the merits.
The Amtrak Act was in significant part a response to congressional dissatisfaction with the administrative delays inherent in passenger route discontinuances under existing legislation. As the Senate Report observed, “trains which clearly served no useful purpose were either required to be kept in operation or were allowed to be discontinued only after protracted administrative and judicial proceedings.” S. Rep. No. 91-765, p. 2 (1970). It is evident that Congress intended to eliminate the possibility of such “protracted proceedings” from the procedures it created in § 404 of the Act for efficient discontinuance of uneconomic routes.
See 45 U. S. C. § 644, authorizing the Comptroller General to audit Amtrak’s books and records, and § 548, requiring periodic reports to Congress and to the President concerning Amtrak’s operations.
Since we hold that no right of action exists, questions of standing and jurisdiction become immaterial. In finding that the respondent had standing, the Court of Appeals relied primarily upon Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970). In finding jurisdiction, the court relied upon 28 U. S. C. § 1337.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.