Summary

Louis Brandeis Western Union Telegraph Company v…

But it is contended that the proclamation, the order of the Postmaster General of August 1, 1918, and the contract between him and the company concerning compensation authorized suit against the company as the operating agent of the government in the same way that the Federal Control Act authorized suit against the Director General. We find in them no basis for such liability. [1] Obviously neither proclamation, order, nor contract could create a liability not authorized by the resolution of Congress on which they rest.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Western Union Telegraph Company v…

But the resolution also empowered him 'to take possession and assume control' of the systems; and this he did (Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, 250 U.S. 163, 183, 185, 39 Sup. Ct. 507, 508 [63 L. Ed. 910, 4 A. L. R. 1623] ) , the proclamation declaring:
'I * * * do hereby take possession and assume control and supervision of each and every telegraph and telephone system, and every part thereof, within the jurisdiction of the United States, including all equipment thereof and appurtenances thereto whatsoever and all materials and supplies.
Source: Wikisource

Louis Brandeis Western Union Telegraph Company v…

If Congress has omitted to provided adequately for the protection of rights of the public, Congress alone can provide the remedy.
Reversed.
Notes
↑ This view has been taken also by state courts. Canidate v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 203 Ala. 675, 85 South. 10; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Glover (Ala. App.) 86 South. 154; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Davis, 142 Ark. 304, 218 S. W. 833; Mitchell v. Cumberland Telephone Co., 188 Ky. 263, 221 S. W. 547, 10 A. L. R. 976; Foster v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (Mo. App.) 219 S. W. 107; Western Union Telegraph Co. v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature