New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-08-13
an well afford to save it's other parks from the
harmonious effect Of these neglected docks.
THE RIGHTS or RAILROAD COMPANIES.

THE RIGHIS OF fiILhOiD cO"f "''H''
The British House of Lords has decided an
interesting case, in which the point at issue
was as TO the right Of railroad companies 10
exclude any person from their stations. AZ the
General Station in Perth. Scotland, the railroad
company has a hotel. and the company natural
~ wished 10 divert as much of the trade AS
possible 10 this establishment. From time I'M
memorial il had been the custom Of other hotel
owners 10 send 10 the station pOrters wearing
a badge The porter. or boots, of the Royal
British Hotel forcibly expelled from inc
station because lie insisted wearing the
badge and the courts were appealed to.
The Scottish courts sustained the hotel-kcep-
crs contention that he was entitled 10 have his
employees meet expected guests or TO escort to
the station those who We're leaving his place
The railroad company carried the ease up TO
the House Of Lords the highest judicial tr
bunal in Great Britain. and there final lie
cision has been given in favor of the company
I'm annolln ring the decision the Lord Chancellor
said:
| am of opinion that the station is absolutely
the property Of the railway company, and that
the rights Of the railway company are Just as
absolute i'm the first instance as those or any
other proprietor That by appeal to the APP
propriate tribunal they may he compelled I"
permit passengers ana traffic under variety
Of conditions under proper order of Court Is true;
but that against their Will any member OF the
public has right to force himself upon the plat
form into the booking office cannot agree.
The public has a right To go. and has a right
To- enter into q contract with them. and the rail-
way company may he compelled If they refuse
either 10y action at the suit of the complaining
party by an application to the Railway Com
mission. But I should he sorry to throw any
doubt on the absolute right Of the railway com
pany, in the first instance, To regulate their own
traffic in their way, and to refuse access
to their station under the circumstances stated
in this case. OF course il would he represented
AZ a ludcrous exercise Of authority to prescribe
the dress In which persons may approach TINS
station; but | can quite understand the incOn-
Venience which might result To the passengers
that is to say. to the pubc-if. apart nom the
annoyance OF actual solicitation Of custom for
various hotels outside. the persons who rush
to solicit custom should do II by conspicuous
badges describing the hotel to which they be-
long. | do not believe that any actual incon-
Vcniencr to the public can result from tn" rpcOg
milton "f the right Of the railway company to
carry on their business In their own way.
That decision ha. net met with unqualified
approval. In Scotland especially it has been
criticised freely. "Thr Dundee Advertiser" for
example. which says:
Ii cannot Dee said that TIA. final decision is Il
satisfactory one. The effect OF ii IL 10 declare
a railway station "A private place. into which
the owners 81 hotels cannot send their rrprt-
s"hldtiNcS. rms would matter little to any
body were il Of universal Application. Railway
companies however, do not confinr themselves
{" their proper business as carriers. They
also hotrl-ow ners. and where other hotr-pNncrs
may not send representatives. to solicit business
they may. They are thus in position Ia lls.
their State-sranted carrying monopoly as "a
means 81 building up another monopoly 1t may
SEEM Il small advantage. but the pelsistrncy
with which this ease has been fought on both
sides is sufficient evidence hat those who should
know best believe the booty right of entry 10
the stations Ia be very valuable considera ton
indeed