The Detroit tribune. (Detroit, Mich.) 1935-1966, 1945-07-07
CURRENT
NOTES
---- - BY --------------
CLosTER B. CURRENT

Ferry ompany that corpora
ton organized under Michigan
laws owning an island in the ii,-
en- which il operates rs an amuse.
mont park and 10 which it runs
steamers is not. as 70 the en-
terl,isc named. a common carrier.
and /, may refuse 10 carry 10 such
park any ono at rs pleasure This
decision is the basis OF contention
( OF tho Hoh-l.o Excursion company
in its pcrsisicnl denial of accom-
modaiii ms 20 Negro citizens
Nrl>ner purchased u ticket
frnm y society on two occasions
which had contracted With the
boat company 10 run an eNcur-
sion 10 Bots Ranc Island. ON n
prc,ions occasion he had been
disordcrly. according 10 the COM
pan,'> defense. - when he pre-
scntcd hI> ticket nj the gate In
exchange for passage. he was
refused. Neisner's suit alleged
the hoat compan,'s "hrcach OF
dniy ~ n common carrier ~
a>>engers. The court directed "
verdict Tor the defendant. except
N 10 the price Of the ticket
which The plaintiff Ncisncrl had
purchased"
In Other words Meisner got his
money back hut it was established
in Nhchsau law that tho Detroit
Belle Isle and Windsor Ferry COM
many couli exclude whomever II
chose on ito grounds II was 2 rr'-
waite carrier. In making tho ruling
Justice G J Grant raised INC ques-
ton Ne the defendant 'hoai com
nanyl IN It's business hc'nccn 10.
troit and r mark on Rois Blanc
Island pui common carrier ~
.asscnrcrs Obliged by l.w 10 nc
cept ans person who offers him-
sclf as passenger II il be an-
sworel in the affirmative, II fol
lows bat no person or corporation
can own private park rrivai"
decks Sounds. and control it-
TRANSFORMATION. and control us
pleasure grounds and means of
Transportation thereto witho'i;
heconing common carrier, OBJ
lieea 70 transport anyone who pre-
senis himself as q passcncor.
~ he sole business in which
the defendant Is engaged with
these two boats e olnmbla.
which went to Bots Blanc Is
land and the PapooSe, which rnn
between Amher>iburg and Bots
HIancl i carry ing passengers tn
and from It's private pleasure
grounds. II eaters 10 n particu-
lal class of people. II desires 10
keep oui those whom. for rea>-
onS oi It> own. II deems obiec-
tionabIe. Inlcs> II did this, i
would not secure The class of
patrons il desires. III II secures
The better class Of people. which
ils managers probably believe
would make the enterprise sue
cess. beneficial financially 10
themselves and attrnctifc 10 re-
spectacle people. II muSt exclude
the rough. boi>tcronS, and row
dyl>h element from It's boats and
grounds. II il not engaged in the
general carriage OF passengers
for business and pleasure. II IN
,itcs persons and parties aS II
rhoO>c>. and upon such terms
rs il choo>eS 20 make. 10 visit It's
own grounds. provided. as above
stated. with the means OF enter
tainmcntS. amusement and snort.
II Is In all essentials as private
an enterprise aS that of n theater.
circus. or race track.
Grant concluded that " has
becn settled by the authorities
"thai these are private enter
prIscs (refcrring 10 theatres. etc.
under the control Of private par
Ties. and that they may license
whometcr they will to enter. md
refuse admission 10 whome,er
they will. Their own Interest
prompt fair and Inst treatment
~ those whom they invite "a
their place Of pleasure. The right
10 enter such places i Nero
license. and after The right 10
enter Is granted. II may he re-.
,oked. So. also tho right 10 enter
may he refused 10 anyone"
Now as q layman and not as an
attorney. submit that in this de-
cision tho weight Of tho decision
vas placed on conduct which would
be detrimental to business There
was no mention Of denial of ac-
Communications ON account ~ race
creed or color 81 The time this de-
cision was made. therc was in ev-
isiencc civil right stature IN
Michigan. II may not have specified
theatres in The statute. hui the
wording did include "and al 9TH
Or places of public accommodate
ton" This contend would bring
theatres within The SCOPE NJ re
not Later tho Michigan lccisla-
.u~e did specify oreaircs Al'tourh
thoafers were considered 2 nfiva'e
cnierprlse in 1905 whom tho Meis-
ner decision was rendered to-day
they are specifically enumerated IN
orr ivii RIGHTS law as PLACES "
rublIc accommodation
Poh-Io Island IS me srn -or /