, 1879-02-25
who says In hia Constitutional Limitations
{ad etl., pp. 3oG-3o7}:

'Tho case IA treatod Il no other combinations
vcre involved lhan thu,t which hriso in the ofa'*
nasy case Of voluntary disclosure hY ono private
pctson to another without nscesilty. Sach, however.
Ia mol tho natuts Of the communication nn'c to thc
operator Of tho to!curanh. Tint instrument =
nsea ar n means os correspondence, and a. val'.
ntIs and In many cases an Indispensable. aubstuse
for tho posmt fac'ifticssenl tho communication II
MAIDS. not because tic Spnrty desires 10 mt
the operator In possession OF facts, bnt
because transmission without It IL tn,posstblc.
It Is not sn9nntaty In anT othes sense tia" this;
Tint tho party makes II rather linn deprive him
solt Of tho bencat Of his great invention md int
proyemcnt Thu rcssona of public nature Tor
maintaining Tho secrecy of teitgsaphc commuHlca.
tim Are tho bame with those which psotect sosse.
spondcnco BY mail; ana though tho operator Is
not public officer, that circumstance appears to
In ih,natcrta1. III futaiis an important nhbtic
function, and tho proprlety Of hls preserving In
v{oahlc ecctccY In fcEard to communications u 10
obvious that Il ftcommon to proridd statutory pen
allse& for d;se'o,ures. II on grounda of public
policy tho operator should not voluntarily dsetoso.
why do not tho same conrldsratlopa forbid
tho Courts compelling him 10 do sot
Or, II Il be pEopor TO make LIN testify
to ths correspondence By telegraph, whal mod
reason ecu bo Rtson why Tho Postmaster
4houtd not be n,ado subject 10 tho process OF
su6nfrna for lks purpose, and compelled TO
bring the correspondence which passce through as
hands Into Conrt and open It for tho PURPOSES OF
cstdcncat We must maintain the opinion, mot.
wilhstandng tho decision VI eminent . tribunal
tSuprc.ne Court Of Mane} that the public hro mt
entitled to n n,an's private correspondence,
whether obainahlc by 4clzlny IL In tho mnils or by
compelling the operator OF tho telegraph tn testify
10 Il, OF By requiring his servants to aka from his
desks his psIsatn letters ana journals. and bring
| them into court on sHbraaa datfs team. Any
| tuch compulsory rfoeesA 10 obtain It would be
nothing short OF most arbitrary md unIussEaablc
teIzuro Of private paposs. such an mnredsonable
stisars as ts directly condemned oy tho Constitu.
tlon."
| 1tls probnblo that the Telegraph Company
would have ,nAdo tho iss,1o with Congress il
tho case Of tho ciplor dispatches Ind II no.
becn that both political parties unitel il
demanding tho messages, thus Representing
both parties in interest, bodauso neither wa
willing to rest under tho suspicion Of desirinl
to suppress tho correspondence. But it Il
necessary for tho Telegraph Company to TAXI
an independent atand in tho. Kansas case, ant
thus establish precedent which Bhall gover1
all others. II tho Courts shall sustain th'
Company In It's very proper refusal to cxpos
private correspondence whenever Legia
lntive Committee or Court ECO fit to make al
order to Tint effect, then it is to he hopc'
that Mr.. sM1rn will seek redress for tho por
sonal outrage put upon him by holding +
account tho individual legislators who votc'
for h,B committal through suits for damages
aud that tho Company will stand by him mn
assist him to The successful prosecution Q
s,tcL suits.