wires from one State to another State.23 But a distinction exists between a statute imposing a penalty for failure to transmit within a reasonable time, etc., and an enactment which plainly limits the penalty as to transmission to transmitting incorrectly.' § 120. "24 - Commerce Federal Constitution - Penalty statutes - Telegraphic despatches - Missouri. In Missouri a penal statute required the receipt and transmission of telegraph dispatches promptly, and with impartiality and good faith, on payment or tender of the usual charges. The message was sent from Missouri to another State, and the action was brought by the sender to recover the penalty upon the allegation that defendant did not transmit and deliver said message promptly, but negligently and carelessly failed to deliver said message to the addressee. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the court declared that the statute could have no extra-territorial force, and it must be presumed that. the legislature did not intend that it should so operate; that the failure to deliver the message, as alleged in the complaint, was not a failure of duty for which the statute imposed a penalty, and that the whole force of the statute was spent within the State limits in requiring the performance of a duty owed by the telegraph company, as a citizen, to the State, to commerce, and to the conduct of its business within the State. "It imposes no burden upon this branch of commerce, throws no impediment in its way, and does not seek to regulate the transmission and delivery of interstate telegrams in any manner, either within or without its borders. The whole scope of the provision is to foster this branch of commerce within the borders of the State, by stimulating those engaged in its conduct to the discharge of their duty to the world of commerce, in which it has become such an important factor. It does not enter the field of regulation, but leaves that field where the Constitution places it 23 Marshall V. Western Union Teleg. Co., 79 Miss. 154, 161, 162, 27 So. 614, 89 Am. St. Rep. 585, Code 1892, § 4326; Fed. Const., 8, art. 1. § 24 Hilley v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 85 Miss. 67, 37 So. 556, following Marshall V. Western Union Teleg. Co., 79 Miss. 154, 27 So. 614, 89 Am. St. Rep. 585; Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Hall, 79 Miss. 623, 31 So. 202. under the operation of such laws of Congress as may be enacted regulating the transmission and delivery of interstate telegrams, and in no way encroaches upon its power in that behalf. The State in this enactment neither taxes, restricts, nor regulates the transmission of interstate telegrams, but it simply attempts, so far as its own citizens are concerned, to secure their transmission. This law may aid and support, but it never can conflict with, any law that Congress or any State may pass upon the subject in the interest of commerce." 25 $121. Commerce Federal Constitution - Penalty statutes -Telegraphic despatches-Oklahoma.- In Oklahoma a penalty statute related to the receipt and transmission of messages, but did not attempt to regulate the mode, means, or time of their delivery. It also prescribed a certain order of their transmission, messages from public agents of the United States or of Oklahoma on public business being placed first, and precedence being given to certain other despatches. An action was brought by the sendee to recover the penalty for negligent nondelivery of a message sent from another State. Demurrer was sustained by the court below, and judgment was affirmed. The court held that the statute did not attempt to interfere with or regulate the delivery of messages sent to another State, but simply prescribed the order of transmission, and compelled the acceptance of messages in the order specified. Therefore, it was not an interference with interstate commerce, and was a proper exercise of the legislative authority. The court also held that the message did not import, nor was it alleged, for whose benefit the message was sent.26 25 Connell v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 108 Mo. 459, 39 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 594, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 743, 18 S. W. 883; Mo Rev. Stat. 1889, § 2725. Distinguishing Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. 1126, 18 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 18, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 49. See Dudley v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 54 Mo. App. 491, under penalty statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, § 2725; Brashears v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 45 Mo. App. 433, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 701, under penalty statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 1879, § 883, and under the same statute see Burnett v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 39 Mo. App. 599, holding that neglect applies to failure to transmit with impartiality and good faith. 26 Butner v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 2 Okla. 234, 37 Pac. 1087, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 758. § 122. Commerce - Federal Constitution Penalty statutes - Telegraphic despatches-South Dakota.- In South Dakota the penalty statute relating to the transmission of telegraphic messages has no extra-territorial force.27 $123. Commerce Federal Constitution - Penalty statutes - Telegraphic despatches - Tennessee.- In Tennessee the statute making it obligatory to deliver messages without unreasonable delay, and providing for liability to the party aggrieved, does not interfere with interstate commerce, although the despatch is sent from without to a point within the State.28 The statute also provides for transmission of messages without discrimination. 29 Again, where a State statute is intended to enforce the prompt and correct delivery of messages and provides no penalty for its infraction, but its violation is declared a misdemeanor, and the offending company is subjected thereby to prosecution and a right of action is given to the injured person for all damages sustained by the breach of public duty, such statute is not an obstruction but an aid to interstate com- . merce and it is immaterial that the message was sent from another State for delivery in the State wherein the statute was enacted, nor is it for that reason objectionable as an interference with interstate commerce.30 Commerce - Federal Constitution § 124. Penalty statutes - Telegraphic despatches - Virginia.-In Virginia the Code provides a penalty for failure to transmit, and for failure to deliver promptly telegraphic messages. 31 And said statute was held not to violate the interstate commerce provisions of the Federal Constitution. The section as to delivery provided that 27 Taylor v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 95 Iowa, 740, 64 N. W. 660. See Rev. Codes S. Dak. 1903, p. 788, Civ. Code, § 1606. 28 Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. MelJon, 100 Tenn. 429, 45 S. W. 443. Distinguishing Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. 1126. 29 Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Mellon, 96 Tenn. 66, 33 S. W. 725, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 835; Tenn. Stat., 30 Gray v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 108 Tenn. 39, 91 Am. St. Rep. 706, 64 S. W. 1063, construing Shannon's Code, §§ 1837, 1838. 31 Va. Code, §§ 1291, 1292. Pollard's Annot. Code, Va. 1904, § 1294h. (5) p. 696. (6) p. 697. Acts 1906, p. 545, c. 310, approved March 17, 1906. 32 the telegraph company should deliver the message promptly after its arrival at the point to which it is to be transmitted, where the regulations of the company required such delivery. The message in this case was, however, a domestic message.* But in a prior case it was held that the Code was a valid provision, so far as it applied to a telegram to be delivered within the State, though sent from another State.33 In a comparatively recent case in the same State it is held that the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution is not violated by a State legislative enactment imposing a penalty for failure of a telegraph company to impartially and faithfully transmit a message since, in the absence of legislation by Congress, a State has authority, in the exercise of its police power, to impose a penalty for failure to transmit a message addressed to a person in another State. This rule does not encroach upon the doctrines that a telegraph line is an instrument of commerce, that telegraph companies are subject to the regulating power of Congress in respect to foreign and interstate business, and that a State's authority does not extend to the delivery of messages in other States. 34 In a case decided in 1905 in that State it is held that not only a failure to despatch a message as promptly as practicable, but also the forwarding another and different despatch, or the failure to transmit a despatch accurately warranted a recovery of the statutory penalty.35 32 Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Powell, 94 Va. 268, 26 S. E. 828, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 853. The court relied upon Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 16 Sup. Ct. 934, 40 L. Ed. 1105, noted under §§ 125-127, herein; also upon Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Bright, 90 Va. 778, 5 Am. Eec. Cas. 797, 20 S. E. 146, and Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Tyler, 90 Va. 297, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 816, 18 S. E. 280. 33 Western Un. Teleg. Co. V. Tyler, 90 Va. 297, 4 Am. Elec. Cas. 816, 18 S. E. 280. 34 Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Umstadter, 103 Va. 742, 50 S. E. 259, 11 Va. Law Reg. 20; Code § 1291. The court, per Buchanan, J. said: "While the requirement that telegraph companies shall transmit messages faithfully and impartially, under a penalty, may incidentally af fect, it is an aid to commerce, and stimulates such companies to discharge the duty which the general law has imposed upon them." This case is distinguished in dissenting opinion, per Cardwell, J., in Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Hughes, 104 Va. 240, 247, 51 S. E. 225, 11 Va. Law Reg. 312. For later statute see first note to this section. 35 Hubbard & Co. V. Western Union Teleg. Co. (Ct. of Law & Chancery of City of Norfolk), 11 § 124a. Interstate commerce Continuous message 66 ' re layed" in another State - Penalty statute.- It is held in Virginia that a contract for the transmission of a message is entire and possesses no element of interstate commerce where the initial and terminal points of the telegram are both in the same State, even though the line over which the transmission is made passes into another State, between the two points, and the company has established a relay office in such other State, the message being transmitted over the wires of the same company. In such a case the message is a domestic message and concerns only citizens of the same State, and although layed" in another State, the telegraph company is liable for the statutory penalty for failure to forward it from the relay office. This is not a penal amercement for the violation of the criminal laws of the State.36 The doctrine of this decision was reaffirmed in a later case in the same State in which the "In Va. Law Reg. 129, under Va. Code 30 Western Union Teleg. Co. v. * * tract to * re tract was with the company and not |