“It is his duty to receive _all passengers_ who offer; to
carry them the whole route; to demand no more than the usual
and established compensation; _to treat all his passengers
alike_; to behave to all with civility and propriety; to
provide suitable carriages and means of transport; … and
for the default of his servants or agents in any of the
above particulars, or generally in any other points of duty,
the carrier is directly responsible, _as well as for any
circumstance of aggravation which attended the wrong_.”[195]
The same rule, in its application to railroads, has been presented by a
learned writer with singular force:--
“The company is under a public duty, as a common carrier of
passengers, to receive all who offer themselves as such and
are ready to pay the usual fare, and is liable in damages to
a party whom it refuses to carry without a reasonable excuse.
It may decline to carry persons after its means of conveyance
have been exhausted, and refuse such as persist in not
complying with its reasonable regulations, or whose improper
behaviour--as by their drunkenness, obscene language, or vulgar
conduct--renders them an annoyance to other passengers. _But
it cannot make unreasonable discriminations between persons
soliciting its means of conveyance, as by refusing them on
account of personal dislike, their occupation, condition in
life_, COMPLEXION, RACE, _nativity, political or ecclesiastical
relations_.”[196]
It has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, where,
on account of color, a person had been excluded from a street car in
Philadelphia.[197]
The pending bill simply reinforces this rule, which, without Congress,
ought to be sufficient. But since it is set at nought by an odious
discrimination, Congress must interfere.