of any such company to transact any new business under this Act whenever in his judgment such company is not solvent or is conducting its business in violation of this Act. He may institute inquiry at any time into the solvency of said company and may require that additional security be given at any time by any principal when he deems such company no longer sufficient security. [28 Stat. L. 279.] SEC. 5. [Jurisdiction of suits on bonds, etc.] That any surety company doing business under the provisions of this Act may be sued in respect thereof in any court of the United States which has now or hereafter may have jurisdiction of actions or suits upon such recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking, in the district in which such recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking was made or guaranteed, or in the district in which the principal office of such company is located. And for the purposes of this Act such recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking shall be treated as made or guaranteed in the district in which the office is located, to which it is returnable, or in which it is filed, or in the district in which the principal in such recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking resided when it was made or guaranteed. [28 Stat. L. 279.] ernment work under this Act, is not one in which the United States is plaintiff within the meaning of the Judiciary Act of 1875, and where jurisdiction is based on the ground of diverse citizenship the amount in controversy must exceed the sum of two thousand dollars besides interest and costs. U. S. v. Sheridan, (1902) 119 Fed. Rep. 236; U. S. v. Henderlong, (1900) 102 Fed. Rep. 2. The privilege of a defendant of being sued only in the state of which it is an inhabitant is waived by the giving of a bond under the provisions of this Act. U. S. v. Sheridan, (1902) 119 Fed. Rep. 236. SEC. 6. [Rights forfeited if judgments not paid.] That if any such company shall neglect or refuse to pay any final judgment or decree rendered against it upon any such recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking made or guaranteed by it under the provisions of this Act, from which no appeal, writ of error, or supersedeas has been taken, for thirty days after the rendition of such judgment or decree, it shall forfeit all right to do business under this Act. [28 Stat. L. 279.] SEC. 7. [Companies estopped from denying power.] That any company which shall execute or guarantee any recognizance, stipulation, bond, or undertaking under the provisions of this Act shall be estopped in any proceeding to enforce the liability which it shall have assumed to incur, to deny its corporate power to execute or guarantee such instrument or assume such liability. [28 Stat. L. 279.] SEC. 8. [Penalty for failing to comply with provisions.] That any company doing business under the provisions of this Act which shall fail to comply with any of its provisions shall forfeit to the United States for every such failure not less than five hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, to be recovered by suit in the name of the United States in the same courts in which suit may be brought against such company under the provisions of this Act, and such failure shall not affect the validity of any contract entered into by such company. [28 Stat. L. 279.] SURGEONS-SURGEON-GENERAL. See HEALTH AND QUARANTINE, vol. 3, p. 213; HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS, vol. 3, p. 238; PENSIONS, vol. 5, p. 606; NAVY, vol. 5, p. 225; WAR DEPARTMENT AND MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. SURVEYS AND SURVEYORS. See CUSTOMS DUTIES, vol. 2, p. 372; GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, vol. 3, p. 155; INDIANS, vol. 3, p. 321; INTERNAL REVENUE, vol. 3, P. 540; LIGHTS AND BUOYS, vol. 4, p. 829; MINERAL LANDS, MINES, AND MINING, vol. 5, p. 1; PUBLIC LANDS, vol. 6, p. 188; RIVERS, HARBORS, AND CANALS, vol. 6, p. 783; SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION, ante, p. 3. SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED LANDS. See PUBLIC LANDS, vol. 6, p. 188. TAXES AND TAXATION. See CURRENCY, vol. 2, p. 366; CUSTOMS DUTIES, vol. 2, p. 372; INTERNAL REVENUE, vol. 3, p. 540; NATIONAL BANKS, vol. 5, p. 75; PUBLIC DEBT, vol. 6, p. 137; PUBLIC LANDS, vol. 6, p. 188. TEA. See FOOD AND DRUGS, vol. 3, p. 117. R. 8. 5263. Use of Public Domain, etc., 205. 5264. Use of Materials from Public Lands, 212. 5266. Government to Have Priority in Transmission of Messages, 212. 5268. Acceptance of Obligation to Be Filed, 212. 5269. Penalty for Refusal to Transmit Dispatches, 213. Act of June 23, 1874, ch. 455, 213. Sec. 1. Military Telegraph Lines in Arizona, 213. Act of March 3, 1875, ch. 130, 213. Sec. 1. Military Telegraph Lines on Indian and Mexican Frontiers, 213. Act of Fune 20, 1878, ch. 359, 214. Sec. 1. Military Telegraph Line from Bismarck to Fort Ellis, 214. Military Telegraph and Cable Lines in Alaska - No Foreign Lines in Act of June 23, 1874, ch. 461, 214. Sec. 1. Wilful or Malicious Injury to or Obstruction of Government Telegraph Lines, 214. Act of March 3, 1883, ch. 143, 215. Receipts from Private Dispatches over Government Lines, 215. Act of Fune 23, 1879, ch. 35, 215. Sec. 1. Telegrams Transmitted by Certain Railroad Companies, 215. Act of Aug. 7, 1888, ch. 772 —Telegraph Lines of Subsidized Railroad and Telegraph Companies, 215. Sec. 1. Subsidized Railroad and Telegraph Companies to Maintain Telegraph Lines, 215. 2. Equal Facilities, etc., to Be Given to Connecting Lines, 216. 3. Interstate Commerce Commission to Compel Compliance Investigation, 216. 4. Attorney-General to Prevent Interference with Rights of Government, 217. 5. Penalty for Violating Law-Actions for Damages, 217. 6. Contracts to Be Filed with Interstate Commerce Commission — Duty to Make Reports and Penalty for Failure, 218. 7. Act May Be Altered, etc. Rights of Government Not Affected, 218. Act of Feb. 29, 1888, ch. 17 Protection of Submarine Cables, 219. Sec. 1. Wilful Injury, etc., to Submarine Cable, 219. 2. Breaking or Injuring Cables by Culpable Negligence, 219. 3. Breaking or Injuring to Save Life, Limb, or Vessel, 219. 4. Vessels Laying, etc., Cables to Observe Signal Rules - Duties of Other Vessels as to Telegraph Vessels, Buoys, etc.- Penalty, 219. 5. Duties of Fishing Vessels as to Nets and Implements, 219. 6. Authority of Commanders of War Vessels, etc., 220. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Show Papers, 220. 8. Penalty Not a Bar to Suits for Damages, 220. 9. Liability of Master of Vessel, 220. 10. Definition of Terms, 220. 11. Provisions for Summary Trials, 220. 12. Cables to Which Act Applies, 221. 13. Furisdiction of Offenses - Venue - Review, 221. CROSS-REFERENCES. Collision with Cable Vessels, see COLLISIONS, vol. 2, p. 150. Statistics, see CENSUS, vol. 1, p. 742. Right of Way over Indian Reservation, see INDIANS, vol. 3, p. 511. Right of Way through Public Lands, Parks, and Reservation, see PUBLIC LANDS, vol. 6, p. 513 Telegraph Lines Between Public Buildings in District of Columbia, see PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUILDINGS, AND GROUNDS, vol. 6, pp. 683, 684. Franchises, see PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, vol. 5, p. 709; PORTO RICO, vol. 5, p. 761. Telegraph Operators in Service of Army, see WAR DEPARTMENT AND MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. Disbursements for Military Telegraph Lines, see WAR DEPARTMENT AND MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. And see generally, RAILROADS, vol. 6, p. 720 et seq.; TREATIES. Sec. 5263. [Use of public domain, etc.] Any telegraph company now organized, or which may hereafter be organized, under the laws of any State, shall have the right to construct, maintain, and operate lines of telegraph through and over any portion of the public domain of the United States, over and along any of the military or post roads of the United States which have been or may hereafter be declared such by law, and over, under, or across the navigable streams or waters of the United States; but such lines of telegraph shall be so constructed and maintained as not to obstruct the navigation of such streams and waters, or interfere with the ordinary travel on such military or post roads. [R. S.] Act of July 24, 1866, ch. 230, 14 Stat. L. 221. Sections 5263-5269 constitute title 65 of the Revised Statutes entitled "Telegraphs.” Scope of notes. Sections 5263-5268 of the Revised Statutes were taken almost entirely from the Act of July 24, 1866, ch. 230. The notes of cases construing these sections and the Act of 1866 are for convenience grouped together here. Constitutionality. - Congress has the constitutional power to pass an Act giving to telegraph companies, organized under state laws, the right to construct and use lines of telegraph along any of the military or post roads of the United States. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1875) 2 Woods (U. S.) 643, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,960, affirmed (1877) 96 U. S. 1. This Act is constitutional so far as it declares that the erection of the telegraph wires should, as against state interference, be free to all who accepted its terms and conditions, and a telegraph company of one state, accepting them, could not be excluded by another state from prosecuting its business within her jurisdiction. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, (1887) 122 U. S. 357; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U. S. 1. Interstate commerce. Telegraph lines, when extending through different states, are instruments of commerce, which are protected by the commerce clause in the Federal Constitution, and messages passing over such lines from one state to another constitute a portion of commerce itself, Western Union Tel. Co. v. James, (1896) 162 U. S. 650; Western Telephone companies not included. The Act of 1866 and the sections of the Revised Statutes in which the provisions of that Act have been preserved, have no application to telephone companies whose business is that of electrically transmitting articulate speech between different points. Richmond v. Southern Bell Telephone, etc., Co., (1899) 174 U. S. 761, reversing (C. C. A. 1898) 85 Fed. Rep. 19, (1897) 78 Fed. Rep. 858; Wichita v. Old Colony Trust Co., (C. C. A. 1904) 132 Fed. Rep. 657; Cumberland Telephone, etc., Co. v. Evansville, (1903) 127 Fed. Kep. 188. Companies who have not accepted provisions of Act. A company chartered by the state of Oregon, subsequently to the Act of July 24, 1866, ch. 230, constructed a telegraph line over public domain of the United States within that state, but never filed a "written acceptance as required by that Act, and declined to comply with the provisions of that Act as to rates for Government telegrams. It was held that the company, in respect to the erection of its telegraph on the public lands, was a trespasser, and that the United States (without special legislation) were entitled to all ordinary remedies for trespass given at law, as well as to all extraordinary remedies given in equity, (1876) 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 554, A telegraph company claiming the privileges of the Act must show acceptance as therein provided. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., (1869) 5 Nev. 108. A telegraph company that has not accepted the provisions of this Act as therein stated has no right thereunder to construct its line along post roads, over navigable waters, etc., as therein provided. Chicago, etc., Bridge Co. v. Pacific Mut. Tel. Co., (1887) 36 Kan. 113. Limitations in charter. - A telegraph company notwithstanding it has accepted the provisions of this Act cannot do business in another state when its charter prohibits it. Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co. r. Delaware, etc., Tel. Co., (1885) 7 Houst. (Del.) 273. What companies included. The Act of 1866 is not limited in its operation to such telegraph lines as are located upon military and post roads upon the public domain. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U. S. 1. The Rights of individuals accepting Act. mere filing by an individual with the postmaster-general of an acceptance of the restrictions and obligations of the Act of July 24, 1866 (14 Stat. L. 221), "To aid in the construction of telegraph lines, etc.," and the Acts amendatory thereto, neither confers upon such person the benefits and privileges, nor subjects him to the burdens and restrictions, of that Act, because he is not a telegraph company organized under the laws of one of the states. The words "any telegraph company organized under the laws of any State," used in the Act of 1866, were used advisedly, and with a recognition that they did not include a person or an individual. (1903) 24 Op. Atty.-Gen. 603. 66 Oceanic lines. -The Act of July 24, 1866, ch. 230, was intended to apply to interior lines of telegraph that is to say, those established between points within the United States and not to exterior oceanic lines designed for communication with foreign lands. American Atlantic Cable Tel. Co., (1872) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 62. District of Columbia included. - This Act applies to the District of Columbia to the same extent as other portions of the United States. Hewett v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1886) 4 Mackey (D. C.) 433. Grants of exclusive rights by railroads. Since the Act of July 24, 1866, a railroad company cannot grant to a telegraph company the sole right to construct a line over its right of way, or grant to it the absolute control of all telegraphic business on the route of such railroad so as to exclude other telegraph companies which have accepted the provisions of said Act of Congress and whose lines would not disturb or materially obstruct the lines of the company to which the use has first been granted. Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Union Tel. Co., (1879) 9 Biss. (U. S.) 72, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,444; U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., (1895) 160 U. S. 1; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., (1884) 19 Fed. Rep. 660; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., (1882) 11 Fed. Rep. 1; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., (1880) 4 Fed. Rep. 284; Union Trust Co. r. Atchison, etc., R. Co., (1895) 8 N. Mex. 327; Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Union Tel. Co., (1880) 65 Ga. 160. A state law granting to a particular telegraph company the exclusive right of establishing and maintaining telegraph lines in the state or in certain counties of the state is in conflict with the Act of Congress and inoperative against a corporation of another state entitled to the privileges of the Act. Pensa cola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U. S. 1, affirming (1875) 2 Woods (U. S.) 643, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,960; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., (1869) 5 Nev. 108. Contracts for construction. A contract between a railroad company and a telegraph company to construct a line along its road, is not inoperative as against public policy. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co., (1877) 7 Biss. (U. S.) 367, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,445. Obstruction to navigation. A steamship while pushing her way through a mud bank in a navigable stream under her own power is engaged in navigation, and where her propeller picks up and injures a submarine cable the burden is upon the owner of the cable to show that it was constructed and maintained so as not to obstruct navigation under the provisions of this section. This burden is not sustained by proof that the cable was laid across such mud bank in the track of steamers using an adjoining pier, which at some conditions of the tide had to plow their way through such mud bank. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Inman, etc., Steamship Co., (C. C. A. 1894) 59 Fed. Rep. 365, affirming (1890) 43 Fed. Rep. 85. Right to take private property not granted. -The Act of 1866 does not confer on telegraph companies which have accepted the provisions of the Act, the right to build their lines over the right of way of a railroad or other private property without the consent of the owner or the condemnation of the right of way over such property in accordance with the laws of the state where situated, nor does it grant them the right of eminent domain. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1904) 195 U. S. 540, 594, (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. Rep. 849, (1903) 125 Fed. Rep. 67, (C. C. A.) 123 Fed. Rep. 34, 120 Fed. Rep. 362; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co.. (1900) 178 U. S. 239, (C. C. A. 1898) 90 Fed. Rep. 379; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U. S. 1; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., (1899) 94 Fed. Rep. 234; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Southern R. Co., (1898) 89 Fed. Rep. 190; Northwestern Telephone Exch. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (1899) 76 Minn. 335; Phillips . Postal Tel. Cable Co., (1902) 130 N. Car. 513; Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (1874) 6 Biss. (U. S.) 158, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 632. But it does provide that whenever the consent of the owner is obtained, no legislation shall prevent the occupation of post roads for telegraph purposes by such corporations as |