The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-01-03

Of ninety-nihe years, and compel the
term Of ten years to, build at its own
co-t telegraph lines along eli extensions
of the "a threads, u large amount OF
,rhich l,as actually butt bat a Very
short time before the T.: 10, of TIC
term, when, according - ~ ylaiin OF
the complainant, all the telegraph prop
crty would PASS Immediately to tho COM
plain2nt by reason of the lapse OF tie e
contracts, and of the rights of the tele-
9rarh co,n~-"ny under thcn at the end of
tic ten yt.tTs.
But, sUpposinS that en- July ], 1892. in
stead of entering into the contract of
that GATE, the parties lad simply by
writing, under seal Of the two companies,
ties. anl entered into no new or fu.tEef
contract. What would be the condition
IN which that would leave each of there
parties lii respect to the right of proper
ty In these telegraph lines? Would they
Immediately pass to the railroad com
panY, or would the telegraph company
remain the owner of the lines? The
lines We're built by the telegraph com
pan!, or by its lessons, and the Ri roa1
company had perhaps some rights in re-
spect to wires strung by it for its sepa-
rate use under the contracts. The tele-
graph lines We're built upon the right OF
way which was granted by S.Ie railroad
company ana its predecessors to tGe
Predecessors of the telegraph company.
That right of way is an interest in land
AbroSatfng the contracts would not be a
feconVGyance Of the tie which had been
granted to the telegraph companies. 1t
seems to me that the only effect OF such
abFoSation would be TO put an end to toe
particular stipulatlons in relation to re-
pairs and TO the cost of construction of
new telegraph lines, and in relation to
the use of the telegraph as between Tie
companies: Til railroad would be 10
longer obliged to carry free the material
h15iIa Of
the telegraph lines, or TO supply labor in
the repair of them, and the TELEGRAPH
company would be no longer obliged TO
send messages free for the railroad com
pahN. None Of those executory provi-
sions would remain obligatory after the
contract Was abrogated But the a5r- a,a-
uon OF the contract would not affect the
provisions which had been executed. a~d
which had already vest ed property right
IN the one party OF the other SO that my
impression is that it would leave the
ownership Of the right of way Of the
telegraph lines in the telegraph com
p&nles 1t does not matter whather tie
title would be In the Northwestern com
panH or the Western ITn'on COM
P tt5.nsi, as aa there Is no contest Re
I"eeh those two companies Besides the
o*tefn Mon company could not by any
contract affect the property right Of IFS
ieSSofs' the Northwestern company.
1t docs not seem to me, therefore that
need conside" the effect of the acts of
congress with respect to the rights of the
railway and telegraph companies. neither
the act of July q, 1866. OF. any OtEt,, of
me acts Oh congress referred to ON the
argument. he case may be disposed of
SIMPLY upon tie contracts between the
Pal ties themselves.
iris contract OF july ! 1882 while il
pulpo@ts to supersede ell previous con-
tracts, and cancel especially the contract
OF oct. IS, 1879, does not seem 10 cnntain
S9E provision THAT can affect the rights
or property rs they We're vested at that
llrne dEu before that last cont;act [-,9s
entered into. There is no conyeyance.
5nd there Is Ito provision that there shall
t nc az! cLa9Se OF ute or possession at
the end OF the ten yea term There is a
provision Which grants the telegraph com
pany during the existence of that con
uact Tor those ten years, an exclusive
I!BHS Oh way on, along and upon or I'M
der lines and bridges of the railway and
on any extensions or branches tharn1f
curing tndt ten year term; but that does
not seem tc be Inconsistent with tho facf
II a it had right of way before Or or tai tai
ltS-He*sof had right of way not excl;,-
siNe before: This grant is something ad-
d!uoh&l and rot inconsistent with the 9th
ef; ana as both would be of the
benefit TO the grantee, it would be nre.
Sumed that it would retain both of them
Ihtfe is nowhere III thar contract any Dra-
Vision thar at the end of ten years the
Telegraph company shall abandon the line.
OF tele graph, or It's use, or turn over Che
pCss ession of it to The railway company.
Now, looking at that contract carefully.
lT,S.I
me 0pef" ting and eXecurOry provisions Of
the previous contracts; and that r,Ist ho
IT'S only effect, unless It operates as n
- eNahcv 81 property rights; and that
~ SteS- EOt dc. There are nc words in
1t from which any such intention c27 h.
inferred, nor can it be from ANYTHING
k ,t1a appears outside Of the contract.
When we consider tho SitIatior If fbo
parties. and their interests. tharn M
pears to be nothing, either IN the laDy1Iafra
OF the contract or in the Surrounding ciT-
SulnStahceS from which that intention can
ne HltcffeG; and, as | have said baf0ra
tlefe IS 80 provision that at the en.l az
Inc term the existing rights OF proDarf1-
small rot continue. This particular COZ
, ~ e. thofl%es the pull ling OF extensions
aau ihe operation Of tho same by tho 1cIe-
El3pA oirpahE like the telegraph Ilnes
peiQEc constructed and as part Of the sren-
eLdI system OF the telegraph company.
VISIONS from those contained in the nrn-
Nion& contracts as TO many other mat{;,rs
ms contract gives the railroad conIn:,n,-
ne i-snl TO 4Se the entire telegraph syS-
TEN Oh the Western Union company. a
system which extends according 10 inc
statement OF counsel throughout ali The
Std!eS' or at any rate. far beyond The
units OF these telegraph lines -hof ,re,C
being built in connection with thie ali
ROAD. II relieves the railroad company
from paying half Of the cCst or eXnaneas
Oh hullcing the extensions of the lines of
telegraph that We're u be constructed
90, this contract for it's term of -en
y ears, While II contains some conditions
lndt are more favorable to the teJa-
Sfaph company than these Contained in
INC previous contract, leads me to think
tnaI Inc changes are far more consider
ABLY IN favor Of The IaiirCad companv
man OF the telegraph company. ard that
1t contains nothing that can be regard
"a as a consideration for the giving up
or the &bardonment OF this valuable
property.
The facts that under the last contract
the telegraph lines We're operated sub
stahtially as befole. While the entira cost
Oh All new construction was tQ be borne
by the telegraph company, and that the
the Intention now claimed by the com
plalnant can be inferred, lead me to the
conclusion thai tie telegraph companies
sun own the telegraph property the same
as they did before the contract vas
made; and have the same interests in
mat prt perty which they had at any
pIioE time; and the railroad company
mas the same Interests therein which t
had before that contract was made. and
no greater.
4 decree may be drawn to conform
with the conclusions indicated. This
seems TO have been IN amicable action,
c0mnenced with the consent of all the
partles ana for the purpose of determin-
ing the rights Of the parties; and there
fGfe it is an action in which no costs
SHOULD be allowed [ think that perhaps
have stated enough to enable COUNSEL.
to draw the proper decree in the Ease.
Its terms If rot agreed to may be settled
upon two Gays notice.