New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1879-04-23
Politeness in Hotel Clerks.

a CONDUCTOR on one OF our street
railway lines was recently discharged
because he "talked too much.'' The
young man thought it very unfair to
be cut off for such cause, but q hum
dred passengers more or less, who had
been annoyed by the mans familiarity,
banter and smart insolence, knew that
the punishment was richly merited. It
wasn't the quantity but the quality and
tone of his remarks that made him dis
agreeable; and many, who disliked to
complain of one who was working
hard for his living, doubtless felt re-
lieved when he stepped down and out.
There are certain places where pa
tienco and p0liteness are matter Of
necessity if one would succeed. The
clerks in q retail dry-goods store, the
officials of our railways, the employees
of hotels and, indeed, all whose business
depends on the patronage of those
who come in constant contact with
them, must be affable if they would
succeed.
The Importance of this is well ex-
pressed in q recent decision of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court where
clerk of q hotel sued his employers for
breach of contract, they having dis
charged him before the period covered
by the contract had expired. Some of
the points may seem strained, but the
evidence was before the Court, and,
probably showed that the familiarity
spoken of was observed toward those
to whom it was disagreeable and who
did nothing toinviteit. The Court said:
In this case the plaintiff was en-.
gagged for the term OF one year to act
the expiry of one month he was dis
charged, on the ground that his man
ner Of address to guests and others was
discourteous and insulting. He pleads
competency to discharge the duties;
that he never meant to be discourteous
or insulting; that his manner of adj
'1ress was customary, and he now seeks
to recover damages for breach of con.
tract.
ut is admitted that he was in the
habit of addressing guests and others
either by their Christian or surnames
only. To address q person by his
Christian name, unless the parties have
been intimately connected, socially and
otherwise, is uncalled-for familiarity,
and, therefore, insulting to the party so
addressed. 70 address party by his
surname only, shows awant of respect,
and would imply that the party SO adj
dressed was beneath the party address,
ing; therefore. it is discourteous, and
would be considered insulting. To
speak of employers by their surnames
only. shows great want of respect
on the part of the employee toward
the employer. As for custom, it has
not been proven; on the contrary, it
has been shown that it is not custom.
airy among people having any preten-
sions to gentility; itsmay be customary
for a person to address his junior
clerks. or under servants, by their
Christian or surnames, but to address
others so, shows want of respect,
and the party so addressed would nat
urally evade contact in the future with
anyone who had previously so adj
dressed him. The chief requirements
of clerk are to forward his employers
interests; that the plaintiffs action in
this case tended to injure them has
been clearly shown, no matter how un-
Intentional it might have been on his
part. 1t is just as easy to say Mr..
Smith or Mr.. Jones, as Smith, Jones,
Sam or Jack; politeness costs nothing.
In this case the want of it has cost the
plaintiff the loss of his situation. Case
dismissed with costs. - Chicago Inter-
Ocean.