Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-10
GREEN TO WANAMAKER.
A Reply to the Postmaster
Generals Letter.
THE WESTERN UNIONS DEFENSE
The Company Does Not Admit Being
the Pampered Child of the
Government.

Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD.
Following is the reply of DR.. Norvin
Green to Postmaster General Wana-
makers recent letter, reference to which
was made in yesterday mornings
HERALD:
Hon. John Wanamaker, Postmaster.
General.
DEAR SIR: Acknowledging the receipt
of your letter of the I'd, 1 beg to say that
/ much regret that the publication of my
letter to you, to which you refer, was
rendered necessary by the extraordinary
statement: "On information furnished
this (your) department contained IN
your letter of July 18th and extensively
printed in the newspapers on the follow
ing day"
You again refer to the privileges and
benefits derived by this company through
the acts OF Congress, and especially that
of 1856. You say: "Under these grants
the company has claimed the right to
use, without compensation of any kind as
to right-of-way, all the highways of the
country, on the ground of their being
post-roads. 1t has broadened this claim
to the extent that the streets of cities and
towns are also post-roads, and therefore
open and free to its occupancy and use.
The courts have sustained it in this
claim"
Either you or we are very badly in
formed by our respective legal advisers
as to what has been claimed by the tele
graph company and held by the courts
in respect to the scope and authority of
that grant. l have had occasion from
time to time to go through the post roads
in a great many cases, but do not recall
any instance in which such claim has
been made and sustained by the courts.
What we understood the Government
did give us in the act of 1866 was a
franchise and right to do tele-
graph business in all the States,
and this franchise was given alike to all
telegraph companies, or other parties
who might see fit to accept it, and subse-
'quently, by what was known as the
Butler amendment, it was especially ex-
tended to all railroad com panies but the
act never assumed to give us, and couli
not give US, the right to plant our poles
on any but lands actually belonging to
the Government, and that right we
have rarely exercised except where
the Government wanted us to
extend lines for the convenience of
the Government into its navy-yards and
military posts and stations, or to its de-
partment quarters in the city OF Wash
ington. Had you carefully read the
decision in the Pensacola telegraph case,
to which you refer, you would not have
fallen into such grievous error upon
this point.
~ all iv,f tho haIp ~ hse
opinion in the Pensacola case, thus des
fines the scope of the act of 1866 "There
is in this case no question as to the au-
thority of Congress to provide for the ap.
preparation of private property to the use
of the telegraph company, for no such an
attempt has been made. The use of pub-
lie property alone is granted. II private
Drop srty is used it must, so far as the
present legislation is concerned, be OBJ
tanned by private arrangement with its
owner. No compulsory proceedings are
authorized. Sovereignty under the Con-
stitution is not interfered with; only
national privileges are granted"
The decision in this case, therefore, was
that the State OF Florida could not pro.
hibit the Western Union Telegraph Com
pany from erecting and operating its lines
Of telegraph in that State, after it had
acquired a right of way for its plant from
q railroad company of that State, but did
not hold that it was exempt from the
obligation to buy or condemn under the
State statute the property necessary to
enable it to build its lines. The
railroads are postroads as well
as some of the highways, and
If the Government gives US
the right OF way on postroads why should
we have to pay the railroad companies
for it? We have to contract for and OBJ
tain our right of way from the parties
who own them, whether railroad COM
panies, turnpike or plankroad companies
or individual land owners, and in the
case of streets and highways, we have to
obtain license from the city, county or
State authorities, or condemn under au.
thority of the State law.
sincerely wish that your ideal OF the
law, that we are in fact occupying many
thousands OF miles of postroads and are
privileged to occupy all the highways in
the United States under the grants of
that act, may prove sound in law, but we
have relied upon that great jurist and
are satisfied that the courts would not
sustain your views. Our occupancy OF
the streets is always by license of the
local authorities, or OF the State, and in
the case of the elevated railroad COM
pany in the city of New York, to which
you refer, We pay the companies who
own the structure for the right to string
our wires thereon.
The act to which you refer gives the
telegraph companies accepting it the
right to take stone and timber from the
public lands, and to pre-empt and enter
not exceeding forty acres for each sta
ton. We have never needed to use any
stone, and since the passage OF that act
the railroads have afforded ample
facilities for transporting cedar for poles,
which is more durable and economical
than the native timber that might possi-
bly, be found accessible on unoccupied
Government land. AS to pre-empting
forty acres of land for stations,
we have found that whenever a tele-
graph station was needed there were no
unoccupied Government lands, and if
we we're to establish station on any
forty acres of unoccupied Government
land, it would be in locality that would
yield no revenue. 1t is true, therefore,
that we have never taken stone or stick
of timber, or appropriated foot of pub
lie land under that law.
The franchise granted this company in
common with other parties was not tc
be solely for our benefit, but to secure
convenient facilities to the public. The
affact nf aata hliahinp our rio ht to do bu6i.