Daily Republican., 1882-12-08
FRIDAY. DECEMBER 8 1852!
Rights Of Telegraph @nd TeIe'
nhOme COMPANIES,

Rights Of Telegraph and TeIe'
phone Companies,
At last a streak of light is coming
out of darkness in regard to the vexed
question of the right of telegraph and
telephone corporations to erect poles
wherever it suits their convenience
without the consent of the owner OF tile
property, on which or near which the
poles are erected. Telegraphs and tele'
phones are becoming a necessity and
there is nobody who would causelessly
and needlessly interfere to deprive tele'
graph and telephone companies OF the
privilege of erecting poles for the &C
commodation of the public, but at the
same time it should be distinctly un-
derstood that the right to erect poles
for one or the other is after all only q
privilege and not right. Even mu-
nicipal corporation has not the right to
give companies the privilege to ere ct
poles at the corners of streets, in front
of stores and private residences and
even in the commons or fields beyond
the confines of a city, without the con-
sent of the owner of the property. Tele-
graph and telephone companies have
no other rights than those belonging to
Railroad corporations, or public road
commissioners, who have to proceed In
a lawful manner and condemn lard
for the purpose of a telegraph and tele-
phone highway, allowing the owner of
the property thus condemned some com
pensation, even If 1t should be but the
proverbial and we might say customary
six cents. People whose homes and
grounds are damaged in appearance by
ugly poles with cross-bars, bearing
telegraph and telephone wires along the
highway, will, if they object to such
innovations, perhaps be able to get sat
iSfactory compensation one of these
DAYS. The court decisions in New York
are fast making law IN their favor and
1t may be hoped that justice in other
States will not be far behind. Justice
Dykeman, of the New York Supreme
Court, decided last Friday cast against
the Mutual Union Telegraph Company,
for having erected telegraph poles along
the roadside in front of a gentleman's
grounds and residence without making
compensation. The court held that
telegraph company is not a public cor
poration, hut a private com mercial cor
poration and is called public only by
an inconsiderate use of language. That
while the State or municipality has the
the power to appropriate land for pub
lie purposes before compensation is
made, 1t had not the power TO allow II
to be appropriated by private corpora
tions without antecedent compensation.
''The gulf between governmental corpo-
rations and commercial companies, is
nowhere wider than at the question OF
eminent domain. and the gulf is not
bridged by clothing the latter with a
public character by the courts to enable
them to make the exercise OF the right
of eminent domain"
The suit was brought for a removal
Of the poles. The decision was that
the defendant must make payment Of
compensation precedent to appropria,
tion," and Judgment was given for the
plaintiff. This appears to be common
sense. What right has private trad
ing company, carrying on a business
for the profit of Its members, to occupy
the pavement or roadside in front OF
any mans premises against the owners
will and without compensation? We
believe in telegrapbs and telephones
and would give them every facility
within our power to increase their fa-
cilities for business, for the more tele-
graph and telephone lines are est&b-
lished, the more the business public is
accommodated, but we will not give
our assent to system which may
eventually become a grinding monopo'
ly and override our reserved right.
&-Ap-%-
Tru Priau1a of Mr Tvnch are on the