Wallowa chieftain. [volume] (Joseph, Union County, Or.) 1884-1909, 1902-06-26
LAW ON TELEGRAMS.
EXTENT TO WHICH COMPANY is
RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS.
Under Which Messages Are
Transmitted, and Which Are Printed
on Backs of Compauy's Blanks Fa-
vor the Carrier, of Course.

NOT thC VI NOdES
A very small percentage of the large
number of people who patronize the
telegraph companies stop to read the
conditions printed on the form blanks
used in sending a message. In fact
very few know that there are any con-
ditions connected with the transaction.
When loss occurs and they seek to re-
cover they sometimes find that these
rules, which, of course. favor the COM
pany, bar a recovery.
The telegraph blank usually an
nounces on its face that ''the company
transmits and delivers this message
subject to the terms and conditions
printed on the back of this blank" The
conditions mentioned provide. among
other things, that said company shall
not be liable for mistakes or delays in
the transmission or delivery or for non
delivery of any unrepeated message be-
yOnd the amount received for sending
the same" The company also dis
claims liability for damages in any case
where the claim is not presented in
writing within sixty days after the
message is filed for transmission.
At law telegraph companies are gen
orally regarded in the same light as
common carriers-such as express COM
panles-in their obligations to serve the
public in good faith and are responsible
only for want of proper care. While
they have the right to provide rules and
regulations to those employing their
services. such right is subject to the re-
striction that the rules and regulations
shall not be unreasonable The stipu
lation releasing the company from liza
bility unless a message is ordered re-
peated is not a reasonable regulation
and is invalid upon the ground of pub
lie policy; but the Supreme Court of
Illinois has held that the regulation is
void for want of consideration, as well
as being against public policy West
ern Union Telegraph Company VS.. Ty
Ter, "a ILL.,, 1863. On this question the
Supreme Court of Maine aptly said:
Telegraph companies are quasi-public
servants They receive from the pub
/ lie valuable franchises. They owe the
public care and diligence. They should
no more be allowed effectually to stip-
ulate for exemption from the duty than
should carrier of passengers. Having
taken the message and the pay, why
should they not do all things Including
repeating) necessary for correct trans
mission? Why should they insist on
special compensation for using any par
ticular mode or instrumentalty as
guard against their own negligence"
(Ayer VS.. Western Union Telegraph
Company, 20 Me-, 493l
But the other stipulation as to limit
ing the time for presentation of claims
has been held to be a reasonable regu-
lation.
The sender of 4 telegraph message
can always recover for actual damage
from failure of the company properly
to transmit or deliver the message The
addressee, also. may recover for mis-
take or delay in transmission If it has
caused him damage. The courts have
stated various grounds for allowing the
latter to maintain his action; some
holding that the sender acts as the
addressee's agent, Others basing his
right on the ground that the company
owes a duty to the public and is there
fore liable to anyone to whom this duty
is owing for damages as consequence
of its negligence. While Illinois and
some other States allow the addressee
to recover damages for failure of the
company to deliver at all, it is hard to
find satisfactory reason to support a
recovery unless it can be shown that
the sender acted as the addresses
agent.
Actual damage must be proved in or.
der to recover Mistakes or delays
which do not in themselves cause loss
will not be sufficient.-Chicago Daily
News.