Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/609

 580

THE GREEN BAG

able time for the purpose of sustaining life by means of food and necessary refresh ments. Hence it is that on all such roads arrangements are made to enable passen gers to obtain at least two meals a day, and that announcement is made in every passenger train by employés of the road of the approach of a train to a station where, under arrangements with the company, meals are prepared for the convenience of passengers." There may be seen in this again, the con flict of opinion between the two schools of thought, the first finding 110 duty in respect to food supply, the second insisting that there is a duty. If the prices charged for food should be outrageous there ought to be redress; and it should be pointed out again that any monopolistic arrangement tends toward higher prices.

XI Another case of the public duty of car riers of passengers, is the admitting of bag gage-transfer men to stations. There is, upon this issue, therefore, the same bitter contro versy; some jurisdictions would permit the exclusion of all but the favored line, while others would allow equal access to all. The history of the New Hampshire case of Hedding v. Gallagher, shows in how delicate a balance public opinion is upon the question. In that case the Boston & Maine Railroad granted to plaintiff for valuable considera tion, the exclusive right to solicit business from passengers within the station grounds at Manchester. When Hedding first as serted his right, the Supreme Court finally decided against him ( 69 N. H. 650 S. C. 70 N. H. 631) but a little later Hedding re vived his suit, joining the railroad as a party, and the Supreme Court then gave judgment for plaintiff upon demurrer. (72 N. H. 377.) The opinion of Walker, J.,is a most com prehensive argument for the conservative view, that there is no public duty involved

which prevents discrimination such as this is. He elaborately disposes of the argu ments for the progressive view and con cludes as follows: "As the corporation does not claim it has the right to exclude job teamsters employed by its passengers to bring baggage to the station for transporta tion on the cars or to meet them on their arrival, and as it is admitted that, under its contract with Hedding, its passengers will receive better service at the station, with reference to opportunities for the removal of their baggage, than could be afforded by the presence there of an unnecessary num ber of unemployed truckmen engaged in the solicitation of passengers for the carriage of their baggage, its right to exclude the de fendants from its station when there on their private business is as broad and un limited as that of any owner of real estate to expel persons trespassing upon his prem ises. If its duty to its passengers is fully and satisfactorily discharged by other in strumentalities, there is no reason, arising from considerations of public convenience or necessity, why the additional burden should be imposed upon it, as a property owner, to furnish, standing-room in its sta tion for other people to render the perfor mance of that duty less efficient and more disagreeable to the traveling public." This question, whether access to the sta tion may be granted exclusively to one bag gage-transfer line and altogether denied to others, is another case under the general problem. On one side it may be said, as before, that there is no direct duty owed by the company to the baggage-transfer lines or any of them; and that, therefore. the railroad may make any discriminations that it pleases. For, as is pointed out in the principal case just quoted, if there is no public duty in the matter, a public-service company may bestow its favors as it pleases; and to many courts it seems that the rail ways may deal as they please with the bag gage-transfer people. This is undoubtedly law in Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts,