self or by his deputies, and his and their respective servants and agents, shall, from and after the passing of this act, have the exclusive privilege of transmitting telegrams within the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, except as hereinafter provided; and shall also within that kingdom have the exclusive privilege of performing all the incidental services of receiving, collecting or delivering telegrams, except as hereinafter provided." That is, the "Postmaster-General is to have the exclusive privilege of transmitting messages or other communications by any wire or apparatus connected therewith, used for telegraphic communication, or by any other apparatus for transmitting messages or other communications by means of electric signals," and, as we have already stated, this includes the telephone.13 But notwithstanding the Telegraph Act, 1869, § 3, a telephone company registered under the Companies Act, 1862, and not incorporated under any special act, does not fall within the phrase "the company" used in the Telegraph Act, 1863, and therefore is not forbidden by section 12 of the last named act to erect its wires across a street, unless the consent of the body having the control of the street is obtained. 14 Vict. c. 1878." The Submarine Telegraph Act, 1886, 50 Vict. c. 3. The Telegraph Act, 1892, 55 and 56 Vict. c. 59. The Post Office and Telegraph Act, 1897, 60 and 61 Vict. c. 41. The Telegraph Act, 1899, 62 and 63 41. The Telegraph Act, 1899, 62 and 63 Vict. c. 38. "This Act may be cited as the Telegraph Act, 1899, and may be cited with the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1897." The above acts are given in the compilation entitled Chitty's Statutes, Vol. 12 and Supplement Vol. 14. See also the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, 4 Edw. 7, which "may be cited with the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1904." 13 Attorney-General v. The Edi son Teleph. Co. of London, Lim. (Exch. Div.), 43 Law Times, 697, 6 Q. B. D. 244, 50 L. J. Q. B. 145, 29 W. R. 428, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 440, 443. a 14 Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D. 904, 53 L. J. Q. B. 449, 51 L. T. 148, 32 W. R. 776, 48 J. P. 676. it was claimed in this case that 66 telephone is a telegraph within the meaning of the Telegraph Acts, 1863, 1869, as was decided in Attorney-General v. Edison Telephone Co. of London, 6 Q. B. D. 244, and therefore it was unlawful to put up a wire across the street within the plaintiffs' district without their consent. The Telegraph Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. c. 73), by § 2 incorporates the Telegraph Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vict. c. 73), and by § 3 the term 'telegraph company' is interpreted to mean any company, corporation or persons for the time § 14. Telegraph and telephone - Relation and duty to public. Both the telegraph and telephone have become not only necessary, but almost indispensable as a vehicle of public intelligence, and for the conduct of affairs, business and commerce. They are both instrumentalities of a public character, though they exist for private gain. Their operations in doing a general business is in the nature of a public employment, for they are public or quasi-public servants. They undertake for a consideration to transmit messages, intelligence or communications, not exclusively for particular persons, but for all, for their lines are open alike to everyone who pays their charges, subject to such contract limitations as may legally exist. These corporations have valuable franchises, conferred upon them. They exercise the right of eminent domain by reason solely of the public nature of their business. They must have suitable and approved instruments and appliances, employ competent servants and agents and skilled operators, and are held to a high degree of care, diligence and skill, adequate to, or commensurate with, their employment or undertaking. They are also subject to constitutional and legislative control, and lawful police regulations.15 Telegraph companies are "created being engaged in transmitting, or by any instrument incorporating the same authorized to transmit telegrams within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for money or other consideration.': The meaning of the word "street" was discussed at length by the court, and Brett, M. R., also said as to the above claim: "It seems to me to be an erroneous construction, when two Acts of Parliament are incorporated, to apply the interpretation in the one Act of Parliament of one phrase to the interpretation of another phrase occurring in the other Act of Parliament." 15 Some of the cases given in this note are authoritative only in so far as they are expressions of the court in discussing principles in 66 volved in certain cases and are not absolute decisions. United States: Is a servant of the public by reason of his employment, and bound to the exercise of care and diligence adequate to the discharge of the duties thereof." Abraham v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 23 Fed. 315, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 728, 731, per Deady, J., a case of the status of telegraph companies and of stipulation against own negligence. "They exercise a public employment and are, therefore, bound to serve all customers alike without discrimination. They have doubtless a duty to the public to receive, to the extent of their capacity, all messages clearly and intelligibly written and to transmit them upon reasonable terms." Primrose v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 154 U. S. 1, 38 L. ed. for public benefit, endowed with special privileges such as the right of eminent domain, and perform the most important functions of commerce, supplanting, in cases where celerity and 833, 14 Sup. Ct. 1098, 5 Am. Elec. held void. Illinois: "The fact is Cas. 809, 817, 844, per Mr. Justice Gray, a case as to the status of a telegraph company, their duties and liabilities and right to limit liability. See also Pacific Post Teleg. Cable Co. v. Fleischner, 66 Fed. 899, 907, 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 840, 844, per Knowles, Dist. J. Arkansas: "Telegraph companies are public agents and exercise a public employment. They are chartered for public purposes and are vested with the power of eminent domain, which they cannot lawfully exercise if they are not public agents. By virtue of their public employment it is their duty, for a reasonable consideration, to receive and transmit all messages over their wires with that integrity, skill and diligence which appertain to their business. They are a commercial necessity. Business can be transacted without them only at a great disadvantage. In most places there is no choice as to lines, and where there is, it is so limited that a virtual monopoly exists.' * * * Often the customer cannot afford to wait, and must submit to the terms of the telegraph company. They do not stand on an equality. The public is compelled to accept the services of the telegraph company and to rely upon its discharging its duty." Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Short, 53 Ark. 434, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 592, 596, 14 S. W. 649, per Battle, J. In this case a condition exempting the telegraph company from liability for mistakes, etc., caused by its own negligence, was conceded that a telegraph company 66 rapid transmission of intelligence is necessary, the postal service of the Government. Their business intimately concerns the public, and on this account the Government assumes and * * * * public. It has become as much a matter of public convenience and public necessity as were the stagecoach and sailing vessel a hundred years ago, or as the steamboat, the railroad and the telegraph in later years. All the instruments and appliances used by a telephone company in the prosecution of its business are in legal contemplation, devoted to public use." This was a case relating to the power of the State to control telephone rates and affecting the character of the telephone. See also Central Union Telephone Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N. E. 721, and §§ 233, 273-278 herein. In Central Un. Teleph. Co. V. Swoveland, 14 Ind. App. 341, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 679, 688, 689, 42 N. E. 1035, Reinhard, J., says: "The telegraph is an instrumentality of such a public character as to justify in its behalf the exercise of the right of eminent domain; and the same is true of the telephone, where it is not wholly a private affair, the use of which is denied to the public. Both telegraph and telephone companies are engaged in business connected with the public interest. gal duties and obligations devolving servants, 66 on other quasi-public whether such duties and obligations arise from the common law or are created by the statutes of the State, or both." In this case the duties of telephone companies, the nature of said companies, discrimination, and rules and regulations of the same, were involved. Kentucky: In Smith v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 83 Ky. 104, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 743, 748, Holt, J., declares that a telegraph company is a public agent, it exercises a quasi-public employment. Carefulness and fidelity are essentials to its character as a public servant. It is chartered for public purposes; extraordinary powers are, therefore, conferred upon it; it has the power of eminent domain; if it did not serve the public it could not constitutionally lay a wire over a man's land without his consent. They undertake to exercise a public employment, and they must, * * # * therefore, bring to it that degree of skill and care which a prudent man would, under the circumstances, exercise in his own affairs." This case was one relating to the nature and duties of telegraph companies and to a stipulation limiting liabil ity. In Chapman v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 90 Ky. 265, 3 Am. Elec. Cas. 670, 673, 13 S. W. 880, Holt, J., says: "The business of telegraphy, while yet in its infancy, is already of wonderful extent and importance to the public. A telegraph company is a quasi-public agent, and as such it should exer has the right to regulate their business so as to insure impartiality of service, and prevent the exaction of unreasonable tolls. Many and varied interests are dependent upon them. cise the extraordinary privileges accorded to it with diligence to the public." This case involved the duties of telegraph companies, and the obligation to deliver telegrams, and damages for failure so to do. That a telegraph company is a public agent and exercises a quasi-public employment and must exercise care and fidelity, see Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Eubank, 100 Ky. 591, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 995, 38 S. W. 1068, 36 L. R. A. 711, 6 Am. Elec. Cas. 770, 776, 777, per Guffy, J., a case relating to the status and nature of a telegraph company and its inability to stipulate against its commonlaw liabilities. Maine: That telegraph companies assume a public or quasi-public employment and are a commercial necessity, see Bartlett v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 62 Me. 209, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, per Danforth, J., a case relating to a rule granting immunity from negligence. That telegraph companies exercise public employment; that they are bound to care and diligence, adequate to business undertaken, and that they must have suitable instruments and competent servants, see Fowler v. Western Un. Teleg. Co., 80 Me. 381, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 607, 611, 613, 15 Atl. 29, per Foster, J. This case involved the nature and duties of telegraph companies and the unreasonableness of stipulations. Maryland: In Chesapeake & Potomac Teleph. Co., etc. v. The Baltimore & Ohio Teleg. Co., etc., 66 Md. 399, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 416, 421, 422, 7 Atl. 809, it was declared that telegraph and telephone companies exercise a public employment and serve the public; that whether a corporation or individual, the duty to the public was the same; that such companies are a public necessity and indispensable to commerce and business, and are public vehicles of intelligence, and that property thus devoted to public use must submit to have that use and employment regulated by public authority for the common good. Id., per Alvey, C. J. This case also involved the question of discrimination by telephone companies and their nature. Massachusetts: That telegraph companies exercise a public or quasi-public employment, are, to a certain extent, public servants or agents, and must exercise a high degree of diligence in their undertakings, see Ellis v. American Teleg. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 226, Allen's Teleg. Cas. 306, 312, 314, 315, per Bigelow, C. JJ., a case relating to the nature of telegraph companies and right to make reasonable rules, etc. As to the public nature of this business having been recognized by the legislature and decisions of the States and of the United States, see Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 571, 573, 574, per Devens, J., a case of public use, additional servitude, constitutional law and public control.. Michigan: That telegraph companies exercise a public employment and cannot discriminate, see Western Un. Teleg. Co. v. Carew, 15 Mich. 525, Allen's Teleg. Cas. 345, 352, 353, per Christiancy, J., a case relating to the na |