New-York tribune., 1879-01-14
States. they will flush with an excitement very
different from triumph.
QUESTIONING rHt OPERATOR.

ulIierpDI from
--------------
QUESTIONING THt OPERATOR.
II is sometime, said that correspondence by
telegraph ought to be IA sacred and rs fully
EXEMPT from examination and disclosure as
are letters hy mail. There is as good reason to
say thai il cannot claim, in the present condition
of law, any more extreme protection. The iree-
dom and security accorded to letters in the mails
amount only Ia this that they snail ho'
he stopped on the way; Transmission 10
the address shall not be hindcred; there
shall be no censorship OF the mails, no OPEN
inc and examining of letters on susplcion'
instead OF delivering them. But II, aIter
letters have been delivered their contents be-
come material in an investigation or suit, no
rule of law prevents their being called Tor
and their production enforced, merely because
they are Driyatc letters If what is IN letter
is not pcrtinrnt, doubtless the courts W"uld
refuse to take trouble to compel an eXhl'liioh'
Bnt subpoena runs to whoever mas III
charge private letters, which nave become
material to a judicial inquiry, to compci
him TO bring them forward; or i'll lack
of the original any copy which may have
been made before or after sending can be de-
memory of it's contents. There is no privilege
of letters as such only OF carriage by mail.
Tclrgraphing has been in use long enough
now to bring forth several decisions on the
pioduction of telegrams. and the course OF
judicial decision undoubtedly Is, and such is
the tenor of legislation on the subject, that
dispatches have no privilege of secrecy be-
yond that accorded to letters. Probably the
comparison has not been made in terms. But
the view enforced in the courts Is the same.
The operator receives dispatch under high
Official duty to transmit 1t, and the
company is liable IN damages for his neglect
or delay. His duty Is not liable to be inter
fcred with by any censorship, nor can he law
fully disclose his suspicious OF I'M
proper matter to the authorities, or
promote any investigation of the sendrrS
motives. 1t has been held that a company
cannot Justify a refusal of their operator
to transmit a message which is not in
decent or unlawful in terms, by proof
that the purposes Of the sender
were in violation Of law. But after
q message has been transmitted, it, whole his
tory is Opcu, 50 the courts consider, 10 judicial
inquiry. Either the sender, or the OPP
orator, or the TcClpicnt may hc QucS-
toned as witnesses, and whoever has the
original or copy may be required to produce
it just as the writer of letter, or his clerk
who copied it, or the receiver, may be called
on for like information.
An Atlantic Cable Company was chartered by
Act of Parliament, with provision in is char
ter that every operator shcuid take an oath
that he would not divulge any message, and
that any one who should violate tins oath
should be- punished b, tiue and Imprisonment.
An operator wa- sUhpmnaej in a NcwGound-
land court. and refused to answer because OF his
oath; bat the court held there WAS no privilege
when the person was called upon to testify
in a judicial inquiry. And such is the glst
of q number Of decisions in the States and
in England. We believe all courts concur
in sustaining the doctrine that tclcgiams are
not to be deemed any more confidential
than other communications. They are to be
transmitted promptly, and free of censor
ship; and after transmission is completed,
whoever has them, or 4 knowledge of them, is
liable TO be called upon, rs a witness, for the
production or disclosure Of whatever lawful
tribunal may see t. be material to a cause.