, 1870-03-13

Ae' SAto Pcok''o "4o AAoPeooA t4A4S hulSsQQ-
1n.nt affirmed that they did not propose to
unite Church knd State; they only wiahsd
70 declare by Law that the religion Of the
majority, being the true religion, the whole
nation should unite in declaring it to be
such, whether they belieys Il Of d. not:
AaRow11G GRIEVANCE.
AZ the time is rapidly approaching"
says the Last number of Harpa's Wee3lr,
!" When the great railway companies will be
oos absotute masters, it is worth while for
the public to consider what right it still has
tn travelling BY rail-" The renark is called
forth BY the oase Of M1. Coleman against
The Nev Haven Railroad, still pending in
Massachusetts, court, the facts Of which the
Rse17s proceeds to state and comment Up
on. They are briefly these: About two
years ago Mr. Coleman purchased at ProEi-
dence ticket Tor New York, which I1s
used only ns far as New Haven, preferrine
to make the remainder Of the journey from
that point by steam boat. Having retained
the coupon, he presented It, few days H.
ter, as entitling him to a return passage
to New Hayeo, on the ground that
the railroad company had agreed
to csny him given number Of miles, and
that be was entitled, n fulAiment of thst
agreement, either to go or CONS that dis
tAnce, and On such day 81 suited his con.
venience. The gate-keeper at the New
York station, however, refused to let h1r.
Coleman pass in On that coupon, and was
sustained by the conductor of the train
when be WIS appealed to. Mr. OolcmAu
thereupon purchased fresh ticket and &C.
cured an entrance to the CIR but whan
the conductor came around Mr.. Coleman
presented, not tic new ticket, but the old
coupon. His object was, he said, to test
ths question Of right that be travelled
Rreat mzuy Thousand nniles in the course Of
a year. md, being often obliged to deviase
from thropgh-routes, WIS allowed, on other
roads, to use coupons like this, as good
either way, ,as. his convenience required.
The conductors reply was TINT 1t was con-
trary to the rule Of the road; that it was
as much as his place was worth to deviate
from it; and that Alr. Coleman must give
him regular tckst, OF it would be his
duty to put him off the train ut the next
Station. Alteration followed, into which
bystanders entorcd, no doubt with thst xeal
md warmth which so many people display
in affairs which are none Of their business;
warnings presesuy grew into threats
threads were met with defiance, and the
natural, il not inevitable, result Of all was
a forcible attempt to remove Mr.. Coleman
ct The next station, which M1. Coleman met,
first passire1y, then actively, all culmfnat-
ing finally in struggle, in which that gen
tleman wes severely and permanently in.
jured-
On this ttato Of facts Nj. Coleman suei
the railroad company for $40, 900 damages
Tho Judge FIRST ohnrged against him, "hoid
ing that the ticket gns contract that tt.
company could mike It's own rules, and thu
il any Of them were broken by pas
) senger he was bespasser; to refust
to show the proper ticket was I
t1espass. and, being tsespasser In the com
pany's ca1 us in q private house, it Ind tht
right to remove him, il necessary by force
avoiding IN excess" The jury returned
$4,000 damages On the point Of excess ol
force. The Judge act aside the re1alct. OF
the ground Of excessive damages, and, or
seeond trial, in tie same court, the jury
disngreed, there beirg eleven for damages
and, one opposed. Here the 1nattel
rests till the next term Of the court
when there is to be another trial.
Now, whether Mr.. Coleman is right o
not in the position lie assumes, that rail
road ticket is, like baggage check, an evl
depcesmerely Of property in possession
which the holder is bound to return, or it
equivalent; that it IS as absurd for con-
. pany 10 relass ita tickets as good eithe
way rs it would be for tho government t
isaue postage stanps that would pay post
age only in one direction; that ticket
: carry passenger by steam should be goo
both waya, Ike ticket on hozse-car or
+ ferE-bont; md that, therefore, srailroa
, company has no right to make an a.bit1ar
3 rule which constitutes conductor hot
q Judge and e1aootioner; that a railway CT
: Is not q private hoaae, hut a public svuSel
l. ance, in which the public hive ce1tai
h rishte,-wbether Mr. Coleman be right G
+ wrong in these positions, ha certainly va
wrong, inasmuch as the peint Was unset
- .a-a b. any judicial desision, in so fer at
Stunning that he WIS right IS to taxa til
. law into his own hsrds aud to resist b
. violence the enforcement Of the rules {
! the company by tho companyis official.
j certainly is 4 question, and one that ou1t
Z to be judicially decided, whether rail
+ road company, having sold to an ludividu
J. the privilege OF being carried = given di.
l. t&nce on lis cara, can saddle that prlvilee
q with provision that ths distance must a
' b travelled st one time and in ono diret
lion, in accordance with the COZ
/. venience Of the company; OF whcthe
;" the privilege being bought for
It given distance, 1t may not |
y used, within reasonable time, in ao:or
!, auce With the purchasers-i. e., the public,
II convenience. To have brough: this que
,e ton to test in n court Of Justice uou
te hare been good thing for Mr.. Coleman
ID do. But, in the absence OF apy Law up:
1, the subject, it vas his place to submit
v the rules Of the company, under protest
t. for unquessionab1y tbs company must ha
J. rules to which passengers must submit t
ut a higher authority pronounces them to
n Illegal and oppressive. 1t should have be-
J. enough for Mr. Coleman to hayo assert
+ his rights, to have been denied their reco
niiion, md then, Is he Ind Io Law to appt
to in his justification, to have quietly yiel
7. ed and sought his remedy where alone
3 could be found, if at nll-in a court Of j,
IN hce. As tho case now stands, the OF
as point decided, probably, will be wheta
es unnecessary violence WAS used to eject y
Oolemrn from the cars, and not whett
ICE the company had estabinhed an arbihs
z nle which is not good N Law aud is m
bic fringement OF the rights Of passengers.
All placcs Of pnblic resort must hz
Ia their ruler, and these, If duly consider
he and properly carried cut, should be not /
ter for the convenience and protection Of
public than for the companies thenselv
na- They fail in their purpose and become
AIS Just md burdcnaome just SO for rs Il
ID fail TO meet both requirements. Unjust
. On either side 1arely proepers, and
I've obvious re1sors. II travellers Insist "
ich too much, the inevitable result is that Il