concurring.
I concur in the judgments in these cases but do so distinctly on the ground that the questions have been settled in prior cases. If the matter was res integra the views expressed by Mr. Justice Harlan would be very persuasive. Pensacola Telegraph Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 96 U. S. 1, and Western Union Telegraph Company v. Ann Arbor Railroad Company, 178 U. S. 239, seem tó me controlling. ' In the first of these cases, the scope of the power and authority granted by the act of-1866 was distinctly presented. It was within the proper limits of inquiry, and the opinion of the court shows that it was fully considered. The declarations in that opinion are clear and precise, and cannot be considered in any just sense obiter dicta. The decision was announced in 1877, and was reaffirmed in 1890 in the Ann Arbor case. If the court erred in its construction of the act, Congress has had twenty-seven years in which to correct the mistake. Its •> omission to take any action must be considered as an acquiescence on its part in that construction. And I’ am of the opinion that when this court has construed a statute of Congress, and that construction has remained for more than a *594quarter of a century, neither changed by any judicial decisions or set aside by any Congressional legislation, it ought not to be disturbed except for the most cogent reasons.