In the case of Pensacola Telegraph Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the Pensacola Telegraph Company had the right to use the telegraph lines of the Western Union Telegraph Company. The Pensacola Telegraph Company had been granted a charter by the state of Florida to construct and operate a telegraph line, but the company was unable to build its own line due to the prohibitive cost. As a result, the company sought to use the existing lines of the Western Union Telegraph Company. The Western Union Telegraph Company refused to allow the Pensacola Telegraph Company to use its lines, and the Pensacola Telegraph Company sued. The Supreme Court held that the Pensacola Telegraph Company had the right to use the lines of the Western Union Telegraph Company. The Court reasoned that the Pensacola Telegraph Company had been granted a charter by the state of Florida, and that the charter gave the company the right to use the lines of the Western Union Telegraph Company. The Court also held that the Western Union Telegraph Company had a duty to provide reasonable access to its lines, and that the refusal to do so was a violation of the Pensacola Telegraph Company's rights. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Pensacola Telegraph Company.

In the case of Pensacola Telegraph Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider certain facts and principles of law when deciding on their ruling. He noted that while it was true that Congress had granted exclusive rights to Western Union for telegraph service between certain points, this did not necessarily mean they were given an absolute monopoly over all other services within those areas as well. Furthermore, he argued that if such a monopoly was intended by Congress then they would have explicitly stated so in their legislation rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting how granting such an expansive right could potentially lead to abuse and stifle competition among companies providing similar services throughout the country.