Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/140

120 I20 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. purpose of the journey, must be considered as personal luggage." They then at some length show that the term " bicycle " is treated " as convertible by the lexicographers, and is (are) defined as ' a light vehicle or carriage,' " and " so in cases involving the use of streets, the payment of tolls, and liabihty for negligence, bicycles are uni- formly held to be vehicles or carriages." The reasoning is hardly conclusive, for while for certain purposes a bicycle may be classed as a vehicle, yet for other distinct purposes it may belong to an- other general class. The court are like the old woman who remon- strated with the railroad guard about the tariff to be paid on her domestic menagerie with which she travelled, when the only rule of the railroad was that a shilling should be charged for the trans- portation of dogs, and the guard explained, " You see, mum, cats is dogs, and parrots is dogs, but a tortoise is a h'insect." The court add that mere utility or convenience at the end of the journey is not sufficient to induce them to call bicycles baggage, and that " our opinion is that, from their nature, structure, and classification, bicycles belong to those things which are properly the subjects of freight contracts, and not embraced in the class of things denoted by the words ' personal or ordinary baggage.' " They then support their conclusion with the observation that " they have been in much use both here and in England for some years. We have been wholly unable to find any precedent for a different conclusion. As a matter of general learning we do know that bills have been introduced into the legislative bodies of the different States to make it the duty of carriers to transport them as ordinary or personal baggage. This demonstrates that, in the judgment of the profession at large, they have no right to be so considered, in the absence of express statutes." But may not these statutes be merely declaratory of a principle of common law which would be clear only after an express decision of a law court, and as no person has sufficient interest at stake to resort to the court for their deci- sion, may not the legislatures have taken upon themselves the duty of settling the rights of the travelling public? An English decision of a lower court has taken this same view. It is true that this decision is of no great weight, but it is interesting as illustrating the general tendency.^ Just what is to be included within the term " baggage " has never been considered capable of strict judicial definition. The term has 1 The Law Journal, London, Oct. 9, 1897, page 484.