TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE. Meth od of Operation and General Characteristics. In the United States all telegraph lines are operated by companies, either under the au thority of general laws, or by express char ter ; • Scott & J. Telgr. § 3. The telegraph is an instrument of commerce ; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. 1126, 30 L. Ed. 1187 ; and telegraphic commu nication between states is interstate com merce ; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 8 Sup. Ct. 1383, 32 L. Ed. 311; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Mobile, 179 Fed. 955 ; and so is communication by telegraph or tele phone between points in different states ; Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Eureka, 172 Fed. 755.
Telegraph companies are quasi-public agen cies, and their rights, duties, and obligations are matters arising under the general law. Questions arising in connection with them are not controlled in the federal courts by state decisions; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Baltimore, 156 U. S. 210, 15 Sup. Ct. 356, 39 L. Ed. 399. An indictment of a telegraph operator in Connecticut who transmitted a message to New Jersey directing a bet on a horse-race, was upheld under a statute prohibiting betting on horse races, and the statute was held not to be in violation of the commerce clause in the constitution ; State v. Harbourne, 70 Conn. 484, 40 Atl. 179, 40 L. R. A. 607, 66 Am. St. Rep. 126. Exclu sive franchises may be granted, but will not be implied ; Charles River Bridge v. Bridge,
11 Pet. (U. S.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773. By a feder al statute, companies are authorized to con struct their lines upon any public road or highway, and across navigable streams, but so as not to interfere with their public use or navigation; Dickey v. Tel. Co., 46 Me. 483. The telegraph is a public use authorizing the exercise of a right of eminent domain; State v. Commercial News Co., 43 N. J. L. 381; Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v. Tel. Co., 66 Md. 399, 410, 7 Atl. 809, 59 Am. Rep. 167; State v. Tel. Co., 53 N. J. L. 341, 21 Atl. 460, 11 L. A. 664; Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. R. Co., 42 Fed. 273, 12 L. R. A. 544.
Telephone Companies Usually Embraced in Telegraph Legislation. In law the owners and operators of telephones are in much the same position as telegraph companies. There appears to be no distinction between tele phonic and telegraphic communication.
It is generally held that where, by statute, rights, duties or obligations are imposed upon telegraph companies, no others being men tioned, telephone companies are also embrac ed unless there is some special reason why they should be excluded. An extreme il lustration of this is to be found in the fact that where telegraph companies are author ized by statute to exercise the right of emi nent domain, the power is also held to be given to telephone companies ; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Tel. Co., 93 Tex. 313, 55