New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-10-17
SJYJNDLIYG BY TELEGRAPH.

The success Of the great Geographic swindle
may well call public attention to the unthinking
confidence which most persons rcpose in tele-
gram. Every day goods are forwarded money
RENTED and important arrangements made
upon the faith of the ordinary Geographic dis
patch, yet in the majority of instances the recip-
lent has but the slightest guarantee that the mes
sage is genuine. But how little there is to pre-
vent a swindlcr from sending any word he
wishes. Operators make no inquiry when they
take Il message for transmission whether it Is
honest and genuine; they have no means OF
knowing this and are not in general bound to as
certain. Such has been the decision OF the
courts. An Alabama cheat in some way OBJ
tanned knowledge that a wealthy mans nephew
was travelling, and he sent a dispatch to the
uncle. signing the ncphcw's name, which stated
that the nephew had lost his railroad ticket and
money, and begged that funds might be sent to
him The uncle responded with a Geographic
money order, and the company paid the amount
to the .windlcr, not knowing but that hc was
the person intended. The uncle sued the COM
pany, but the Court said that it is not the duty Of
tccgIaphcrs to ascertain that persons sending
messages, even messages for money, are really
the individuals they represent themselves To be.
Whoever receives and acts upon dispatch Is
bound To inform himself of its gcnuincncsSs, or
he takes the risk that it may be a forgery. Men
of experience and large affairs have guards and
tests of various kinds to protect themselves from
these impOStiOns but the average citizen rcccly-
ing message seldom stops to question its au-
thcnticity, if there are 10 circumstances to sug-
gcst suspicion.
In some instances where specific neglect of
duty has been proved against operators the com
panics have been held liable for losscs by forgery
Such was a case in which n messenger boy in
trusted with a dispatch for delivery was induced
To allow a swindlcr to open the envelope and
substitute forged dispatch for the true one.
Such again was u case in which an operator re-
cciving a message repeated back for notification
allowed the swindcr himself to write the answer
instead of sending to the true party for the in
formation. If special circumstances like these
warrant charging the company with gross care
lcssncss damages are recoverable. In the 0rdi-
nary course of business, people who receive tcle-
grams take tho risk, and there Is more need
of care than many persons suppose.
I'm the case of the swindc lately pTaCtisCd
upon the booksellers the method employed is
supposed to have been that of tapping the
wires. This is u criminal offence, and the courts
would undoubtedly say that Il telegraph com
pany has the right to rely, to Unreasonable extent
ON the penalties Of the criminal law rs sufficient
ordinarily, TO prevent It. A secret, fraudulent
tapping could not be attributed to negligence ON
the part of the company without imposing the
duty of maintaining watchmcn all along the line
or using some other prccaution quite rs cxtraya-
CANT and impracticable. A company is bound to
keep its line in good order, to maintain skilful
and faithful operators and messengers, and to
take prompt precautions when there is any rca-
son to suspect interference, but Is not expected
To act all the time on the theory that somebody
may be tapping the wires.