W. V, TELEGBAPH CO. V. V. P. EY, 00. 425 �not recognîzed by the above-mentioned act of congress, of July 2, 1864, and that by that act the United States Tele- graph Company, and that company only, was authorized to construct its telegraph along the line of the railway. It is said that this was a personal privilege granted to that com- pany, and that, therefore, it could not assign it. Ordinarily, when property, or rights of any kind, are acquired by a cor- poration, they are to be enjoyed or disposed of in any mau- ner not inconsistent with the law of its being, Unless, there- fore, there is something in the act of congress to indicate a different purpose, it must be presumed that the right to remove its line to the railway, and to operate it there, was given to the United States Telegraph Company, to be enjoyed or disposed of under its charter as its other property and rights. By reference to the act of congress it will be seen that nothing is said about the assignment of the rights con- ferred upon the United States Telegraph Company. The transfer of those rights is neither authorized nor prohibited in terms. We must, therefore, consider the spirit and the purpose of the act to ascertain whether it was the intent of congress to confine the privilege to that company, and to pro- hibit its transfer. There is nothing to indicate any intent to require the construction of the telegraph line by the United States Company. The evident purpose of the act was to save that company from pecuniary loss by reason of the construc- tion of a rival line by the railway company, It was intended to confer a favor upon the telegraph company by placing it in a position to protect itself from the ruinons competition likely to be established by the construction of another line of telegraph under the Pacifie Eailway acts. This purpose was more effectually aceomplished by leaving its charter right to assign its franchises and transfer its property unrepealed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the United States Tele- graph Company was authorized to assign the rights conferred upon it by the act of July 2, 1864. �I am àlso of the opinion that the amended bill, taken as true, shows a transfer of those rights to the plaintiff. It fol- lows from this that the plaintifE bas rights in respect to tho ����
