Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-06-11

there witnou' p,nrnpriated. Although the
| ktotyeb99use Grounds be property de.9ts1
% public uses ~ , - p spate. and property
III hpsa ownersbip and control are III the
| state and IL IS not within tne coinpe..nes
| Of the National Government 70 uispvsSo -,
the state of such control anu .., u heneat fr
nronTiate the same TO It's own penent 81
| ~ Phaneif of any OF its corporations or
srontees. without suitable compensatio,.ii
| % the State This rule extends 10 streeIs
a anp,y Of the State. While for the pur-
| noses of travel and common use tney ale
| oven TO the citizens of every state aHhe'
and no State can by Its legis aton ue-
prive citizen OF another STATE neoo vi s Ton
of any part of this public properly 70 "i'
| exclusive use is sought, whether py a
| citizen or a corporation or the sanie pl
| another State, or n corporation or tile
National Government, 1t Is WITHIN ine
| competency OF the State, representing the
| sovereignty Of that local pubnc, 70 e~1.e
| for its benefit compensation lot lhls -
elusive appropriation IL matters 10, TO- ia ia
what the exclusive Appropriation 10
taken whether for steam rallroaus OF
| for street railroads, telegraphs, or tele-
/ phones. the State may. II Il chooses, cAaTe
from the party or corporation sive IL sut ~
| exclusive use pecuniary compensation y
the general public for being deprived OF
the common use Of the portion thus APP
| prOpriated." l..
But Independently OF any question as 10
| the extent Of the authority grained ~
telegraph" companies ~ the act or io1o,
| we are Of opinion that the courts pelo"
! erred in holding that the piaIntiH' H.-re
| spect OF the particular business IL was
conducting, could iny0ke me roteT'iy IT.
is true describes it as a telephone anu
| telegraph company. stu, as ulscloseu
b. the bin and the evidence IN the cause,
the business in which II was ehBassu III
. a. II which
local action IL invoked the ala OF lne
Federal court, was the business transact
cd by using what Is commonly calieG
telephone" which is described IN an
agreement between the Western Union
Telegraph Company and the National Bell
Telephone Company. in 1879, as AN In
strument for electrically transmitting OF
receiving articulate speech
OTHER CASES IN CITY.
Our attention is called TO several ad-
judged cases, In some Of which II wa
said that communication by telephoh
was communication by telegraph. Attor-
ney-General vs.. Edison Ialephlne tom-
pany, q. b. Div. 2H, 80; chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone COMPANY vs.; IS.
x q. Telegraph Company, 90 Mo 3gy; WIS
consin Telephone Company vs.. City oil
Oshkosh q Wis. 81; Duke IS. Contra
New Jersey Telephone Company, So y. J.
l.. 3fl: Cumberland Telephone and Iele-
graph Company VS.. United Electric KAN
way Company. Il Fed. Rep. zI5. upon
the authority of those cases II Is con-
tended that the act OF Congress should
be construed as embracing both Telephone
and telegraph companies.
The English case was an information
filed for the purpose Of testing the queS-
ton whether the use of certain apparatus
was an infringement OF the exclusive
privilege given to the POstma ster-General
by certain acts Of Parliament as 10 the
transmission Of kilograms The Court
III De-
titled, looking a the manifest objects Of
those acts and under a reasonable IN
depreciation of their words, 10 the eXclu-
siye privilege Of transmitting messages
or other communications by any wire ana
apparatus connected Herewith used for
telegraphic communication. or by any
other apparatus for communicating infor-
nation by the action OF electricity upon
wires. The Maryland case involved the
question whether a company org MED
under a general Incorporation law or
Maryland was authorized 20 DO general
telephone business. In the Wisconsin
case some observations were made tOucn-
ing the question whether telephone COM
panies. although not specifically men
toned in a certain general law or that
State, could be Incorporated with the
powers given TO telegraph companies ~
that statute which. as the report of the
case shows. authorized the formation or
corporations for the purpOse or buidlnS
and operating telegraph lines or conduct
ing the business OF teiegraphng in any
way, cor for any lawful business or pur-
pose whatever" The New Jersey case
involved the question whether a company
organized UNDER the act Of that SAFE
70 incorporate ana regulate telegraph
companies was entitled TO operate and
condemn a route for a telephone line.
The last case involved the rights Of a tele
phone company. under statutes OF Ten
nessee, one OF which related in terms TO
telegraph companies. and the other au-
thOrlzed foreign and domestic corpora
lions 10 construct. operate, and maintain
such telegraph. telephone, and other lines
necessary for the speedy transmission Of !
intelligence along and over the public
ways and streets Of the cities and towns
OF that STATE. II was held in that case
that a telephone company. under its right
10 construct and operate telegraph was |
empowered by statute 10 establish tele- |
phone service. None Of those cases In |
VOlVed q construction OF the act OF CON
gross. and the general language employed |
i'm some Of them cannot be regarded as |
decisive in respect OF the scope and erect |
Of that act. however pertinent IL may |
have been as TO the meaning Of the par
ticular statutes under examination.
THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.
Ii may be thar The public policy intend |
ed 90 be promoted by the act Of Congress |
OF 1896 would suggest the granting 10 /
telephone companies Of the rights and |
privileges accorded 10 telegraph COM
pauies. And IL may be that if the teie-
phone had been known and i'm use when
that act was passed Congress would !
have embraced In It's provisions com |
panies employing Instruments Tor elec-
trcally transmitting artculate speech
But the question is, not what Congress
might have done In 1866, nor what IT may
or ought now 10 DO. but what was. In
its mind when enactlng the statute IN
question. Nothing was then distinctly
known Of any device by which aruculate
speech could be electrically transmitted
or received between different points, more
or less distant from each other, nor or
organized for transmitting
messages in thar mode Bells invention
was not made public until 1870. o. the
different modes now employed TO cleo
trically transmit messages between dis
tant' points Congress In 1866 knew only
OF the invention then and now popularity
called the telegraph. When, therefore, :
the act of 1850 speaks OF telegraph COM
panies il could have meant only such
companies as employed me means men
used or embraced by existing inventions
for the purpose Of transmitting mes
sages merely by sounds OF instruments !
and by signs or writings.
In 1887 the Postmaster-General submit
ted to the Attorney the question |
whether a telephone company or line, or
fering to accept the conditions prescribed !
(beine the act OF 1865. could obtain the
privileges therein specified. Attorney
General Garland replied: THE subject OF
TITLE LXV OF Revised Statutes Is teie-
graphs In all its sections the words |
.teIegraph' telegraph company, and |
Telegram define and limit the subject OF
AAA AE, AENA>A a