Where the company issue excursion tickets, stipulating to run trains in a particular manner, they cannot excuse themselves, by showing that the carriages are all filled.[373] In England, in ordinary cases, the ticket is issued subject to the condition that there is room in the train; otherwise those who are booked for the greatest distance have the preference.[374] And a carriage must not be suffered to become, or at least to continue overcrowded.[375] A considerable discussion has taken place in some of the States of the Republic as to how far railway companies can require colored persons to sit in a particular place or car. The right to do so was maintained by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,[376] but other tribunals have denied it. In Illinois it was decided that a company could not from caprice, wantonness, or prejudice, exclude a black woman from the ladies’ car on account of her negro blood; although it might not be an unreasonable rule to require colored persons to occupy seats in a separate car, furnished as comfortably as the others.[377]
The duties of common carriers include the doing of everything calculated to render the transportation most comfortable and least annoying to passengers.[378] Their contract with their patrons is a stipulation for respectful treatment, that decency of demeanor which constitutes the charm of social life, that attention which mitigates evils without reluctance, and that promptitude which administers aid to distress. And in respect to women it proceeds still further; it includes an implied stipulation against general obscenity, that immodesty of approach which borders on lasciviousness, and against that wanton disregard of the feelings which aggravates every evil.[379]
As men of all sorts and conditions are so constantly travelling on trains, it is not only a reasonable regulation, but almost a humane duty, to have on every train a ladies’ car for women and men accompanying them, from which creatures wearing exposed bifurcated garments, unblessed by the companionship of the fair sex, and women of offensive habits and character may be excluded, so that all the good ladies may be together as they will be in heaven.[380] And even though persons not admissible under the letter of the regulation are occasionally permitted within the charmed precincts the rule is still binding, and a male in trowsers has no right to enter without license or reasonable excuse. If passengers excluded, by regulations, from the ladies’ car cannot find seats in the regular coaches and there is room in the privileged place, they must not be kept standing; but it is the officers of the train who must determine who shall, or who shall not, be allowed to enter the presence of the ladies; one has no right to enter or attempt an entrance by force. If one being unable to find a seat elsewhere go peaceably into the ladies’ car without being forbidden, he cannot then be removed by violence, unless a seat in another carriage is offered to him and he refuses to move. But under no circumstances will a brakesman be authorized in forcibly ejecting such an intruder by throwing him on to the platform while the train is crossing a river. A man is not bound to stay in a smoking-car.[381]
It is said to have been held by some court, in a case of Toland against The Hudson River Railway, that a passenger who is not provided with a seat is not obliged to pay any fare, and if expelled from the cars for refusing such payment may sustain an action against the company. But this doctrine must be taken cum grano salis. If a passenger is not accommodated as he should be, he may decline any compromise, and sue the company for refusing to carry him as their contract by the ticket or their duty required; and he doubtless will succeed unless the company prove some just excuse. But if one chooses to accept a passage without a seat, the general understanding undoubtedly is that he must pay. If, however, he goes upon the cars expecting proper accommodation, and is put off because he declines going without, he may still sue.[382] So much by way of parenthesis and digression.
“Well, what have you got to say about ejectment?” I asked my chum.
“Oh, that it is deuced hard that every dunderhead of a conductor may put a poor wayfaring-man off, even at the noon of night, near any dwelling-house he may choose. In one case the night was dark and cloudy; from where the ejected man was placed, the lights of the last station were visible, although no house was nigh, yet the court held that the servants of the company had not exceeded their authority.[383] The law in some States is that one can only be put out at a station.”[384]
“How would it be, old boy, if the poor wretch was short-sighted?” I inquired.
“That defect in one’s optics would impose no additional obligation on the company; at least so it would appear from the authorities.”[385]
“What would be the consequences if a fellow was to mislay his ticket, and find it again after he had been ignominiously expelled; could he recover against the company?”
“I remember where one Curtis was travelling between St. Mary’s and London, and had put his ticket away so safely—lest he should lose it—that he could not find it. The conductor called upon him to produce it; in vain Curtis ransacked pocket after pocket in coat, waistcoat, and trowsers, pulling out papers, letters, newspapers, wool, and all that precious olio to be found in a man’s pockets. The other travellers were greatly edified and delighted at the exhibition of this omnium gatherum, and their laughs and jests added not a little to the confusion of the poor wretch searching for his little talismanic piece of pasteboard. At length the conductor stopped the train and turned C. off, though while being put off he offered to pay his fare. He sued the company, and got $300 out of them, the court holding the company liable for the acts of their officers duly authorized and styled (under the Act) conductors, when not committed in excess of authority, which in this case had not been overstepped. The company applied for a new trial, but the court declined to disturb the verdict (it being the second one recovered by Curtis), although it considered the damages excessive.”[386]