Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/14

 WESTEEN UNION TELEGBAPH CO. V. V. P. BY. CO. 7 �States Telegraph Company. An arrangement was author- ized between the railway and telegraph companies "so that the line of telegraph between the Missouri river and San Francisco may be made upon and along the line of said railroad and branches as fast as said road and branches are built." Made by whom? Evidently not by the railway Company, for it was already authorized to erect a line of tele- graph, and no arrangement was necessary for that purpose. It was, then, to be an arrangement by which the United States Telegraph Company should erect the telegraph line. It would seem that the transfer of an existing line over part or ail of the route was also contemplated, for it is further pro- vided in the same sentence as follows : "And if said arrange- ment be entered into, and the transfer of said telegraph line be made in accordance therewith to the line of said railroad and branches, such transfer shall, for ail purposes of the act referred to be held and considered, a fulfilment on the part of said railroad companies of the provisions of the act in regard to the construction of a telegraph line." I think it plain that under this act it would have been competent for the Kansas Pacific Eaiiroad Company, Eastern Division, to have made an arangement with the United States Telegraph Com- pany whereby the latter could have erected a line of tele- graph upon the line of the railroad, using for that purpose, in part or in whole, the pôles and wires used by it upon its then existing line. The same policy had been previously adopted by congress, (see section 19 of the original Pacific Eaiiroad charter.) It is, however, contended that the act of 1864, and said section 19 of the original charter, onlyrelated to the erection of the telegraph line, and did not authorize the railway companies to devolve the duty of operating such lines, after erection, upon the telegraph companies named. �This suggestion has received careful consideration, and my conclusion is that the act authorized something more than the employment of this partieular telegraph company to con- struot the line. No legislation was necessary for that pur- pose. Congress evidently intended to protect the interest of telegraph companies that had, at great cost, erected telegrapha ����