Omaha daily bee., 1883-06-28
~clProfanity

tlnclnnatl letter.
Mr.. Pugh, a job printer, had a tele-
phone in his office. He desired to be
put in communication with the Cincin-
natl type foundry, and so informed the
exchange. Through some misunder-
standing he was put in communication
with the Cincinnati transfer company.
Thereupon Mr.. Pugh got mad, and said
to the exchange: "lf you can't give me
the person l want, shut up your damn
telephonel" Whereupon it was shut
up and so remained, and Mr..
Pugh brought suit to compel the
telephone company to restore him
the use of the instrument. There was
judgment for the company in the superior
court, and it was affirmed on error in the
district court. The company set forth a
contract by which it had a right to with
draw the telephone at its option, and for
the use of profane and improper Ian
guage. And the company also claimed
that Mr.. Pugh's language was more of
fensive than that above quoted; but the
court decided the case on the assumption
that those were his words, and he admit
ted that he made that remark. The
majority of the court were of the opinion
that the word ''damn," whether it
was to be regarded as a profane or i'm
proper expression, was in violation of the
contract. 1t was scarcely necessary to
inquire whether the word damn" is pro-
fame or improper. Although not obscene,
or in violation of the statutes, it was
coarse, unbecoming and profane; or, if
not profane, is an improper word, and
the name and occasion of its use was
low and insulting. The court was also of
The opinion that the rule of the company
was reasonable, because this association
includes not only the business cir
Giles of the community, but
a great many family circles, and
that the manner of opening the instru-
ments makes it possible for a message in
tended for one person to be sent to an
other and received by some family under
very Notifying circumstances. Many of
the operators at the exchange, also, are
females, and they have a right to be pro-
tected from insolence. Besides, the in
ventors have a right to protection, for if
language of this kind were permitted it
would operate to the disadvantage of the
inventors.
Judge Smith, however, dissented from
the judgment. He said there was no
doubt that the company had a right to
establish reasonable regulations, but he
was of the opinion that i. had acted with
too great haste. The testimony clearly
showed to his mind that the telephone
was cut off for the use Of language,
which Mr.. Pugh never did use, and that
this exclusion was made permanent
because he refused never to use
again language which he never used at
all. ''It is said the word damn is a pro-
fame expression. Now what is profanity
If we take the ~decalogue it says taking
the name of God in vain. If we look at
our statute it is swearing or cursing, or
using irreverently the name of God,
Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost. Pro.
family is an irreverent expression towards
God. If we look for the word damn
in the dictionary we do not find il
among the terms Of profane expressions,
n The question is whether, in
business communication, where a party is
somewhat excited, having failed to get
proper communication and uses the
words, damn your telephone that is q
sufficient ground for cutting off perma,
nently the use of the telephone fol-
which he had paid, and depriving him o.
a vested rightl Mr.. Pugh languishel
without his telephone, but he will, l be.
lieve, take the case to the supreme court