Year: 1867

/ a<VWcA tVuiN ncfcfhtus


SUPREME COURT.


Philadelphia West Chester Eastern District


Railroad Company Error c. P.


NJ vs., vs. , Of Philadelphia


Opinion of the Court. Agnew, ]


1t. is admitted no one can be exclu.
ded from carriage by public carrier
on account OF color, religious belief,
political relations or prejudice. But
the defendants asked the Court to
say, that, if the jury find that the seat
which the plaintiff was directed 10
take was IN all respects a comfortable,
safe and convenient seat, not inferior
in any Of these respects to the one
she WAS directed to leave, she could
not recover. The case, therefore, in
wolves no assertion of the inferority
OF the negro 10 the white passenger
but conceding bis right TO be carried
precisely on the same footing with u
white man, it assumes ii to be not
unreasonable TO assign places in the
cars TO passengers of each color. The
simple question is, whether a public
carrier may, in the exercise of his
private right of property, and in the
due performance of his public duty,
separate passengers by any other we'll
defined characteris ic than that of sex.
Tue ladies car, 1t is known upon every
well-reguIated railroad, implies no loss
of equal right on part Of the excluded
sex, and its propriety is doubted by
none.


This question must be decided upon
reasonable grounds. Ii there be no
clear and reasonable difference TO base
it upon, separation cannot be justified
by mere prejudice. Nor is merit a
test The negro may be proud OF his
service in the field as defender OF
his country. But it was not thought
indefensible to separate even white
soldiers from other passengers. There
is clear aud wellfounded difference
between the civil and military char
acter, and the separation of soldiers
from citizens implied no want OF
equality, but sound regulation OF
the right of transit.


The right of the carrier to separate
his passengers is founded upon two
grounds-his right of private proper
ty in the means OF conveyance, and
the public interest. The private means
he uses belongs wholly TO himself, and
implies the right of control for the
protection of his own interests, as
well as the performance Of his public
duty. He may use his property there
fore in reasonable m inner 1t is
not an unreasonable regulation to seat
passengers so as TO preserve order aud
decoruin, and to prevent contacts and
collisions arising from natural or well
known customary repugnancies, which
are likely TO breed disturbances by a
promi.cuous sitting. This is prop
er use OF the right of private property,
because it tends 20 protect the inter
ests of the carrier, AS well As the inter
ests OF those he carries. If the ground
of regulation be reasonable, courts OF
Justice cannot interfere with his right
of property. The right of the pas
senger is only that of being carried
safely, and with due regard TO his
personal comfort and convenience,
which are promoted by sound and
well regulated separation of passen
gers. An analogy and an illustration
are found in the case of an innkeeper,
who, If he have room, is bound 10
entertain proper guests; and so a car.
rier is bound 10 receive passengers
But guest in an inn cannot select
his room or bis bed at pleasure; nor
can a voyager take possession of .
cabin or a berth at will, or refuse "a
obey the reasonable orders of the cap.
tain of vessel. But, on the other
hand. who would maintain that it is a
reasonable regulation, either OF an int
or vessel, to compel the passengers
black and white, TO room or bed TO
getherl If a right of private prop
erty confer no right of control, who
shall decide a contest between pas
sengers for seats or berthsi Courts
of Justice may interfere to compe
those who perform u business concern
ing the public by the use Of private
means, to fulfill their duty to tn,
public, but not whit beyond.


The public also has an interest IL
the proper regulations Of public con
veyances for the preservation Of th'
public peace. A railroad company
; bias the right and is bound to nuke
reasonable regulations to preserve
order in their cars. 1t is the duty o
the conductor to repress tumnlts a.
far as he reasonably can, and he may
on extraordinary occasions stop hli
train and eject the unruly and tumul
tuous. But he has not the authority
ofa peace officer TO arrest and detair
offenders. He cannot Interfere in tn
ouarrels of others at will merely. IL
order to preserve and enforce hi
authority as the servant of the com
pany il inust have power TO cstao
iish proper regulations for the car
riage of passengers 1t is much casie
10 prevent diffic1l.ies among passen
gers by regulations for their prope
separation than il is TO qnell them
The danger 10 the peace engendere'
by this feeling OF aversion betweel
individuals OF the different races can
, not be denied. IL is the fact wit
which the company must deal If


neVro take his seat beside whit
man, or his wife, or daughter, the la'
cannot repress the anger or conque
the aversion which some will fee
However unwise il may be TO indalg
!, the feeling, human infrmity is no
always proof against il. IL is muo