Indeed,  if  the  rule  laid  down  at  the  trial  be  correct,  then  it  would
follow  that  passengers  in  pul)lic  vehicles  must  be  subjected  to  a  cer-
U.u  amount  or  degree  of  discomfort  or  insult  from  evil  disposed
jxTsons  before  the  right  to  expel  tliem  would  accrue  to  a  carrier  or


PUBLIC   CALLING.  519

his  servant.  There  wouhl  be  no  authority  to  restrain  or  prevent
profaneness,  indecency,  or  other  breaches  of  decorum  in  speech  or
behavior,  until  it  had  continued  long  enough  to  become  manifest  to
the  eyes  or  ears  of  other  passengers.  It  is  obvious  that  any  such
restriction  on  the  operation  of  the  rule  of  law  would  greatly  diminish
its  practical  value.  Nor  can  we  see  that  there  is  any  good  reason
for  giving  so  narrow  a  scope  to  the  authority  of  carriers  of  passen-
gers and  their  agents  as  was  indicated  in  the  rulings  at  the  trial.
The  only  objection  suggested  is,  that  it  is  liable  to  abuse  and  may
become  the  instrument  of  oppression.  But  the  same  is  true  of  many
other  salutary  rules  of  law.  The  safeguard  against  an  unjust  or
unauthorized  use  of  the  power  is  to  be  found  in  the  consideration
that  it  can  never  be  properly  exercised  except  in  cases  where  it  can
be  satisfactorily  proved  that  the  condition  or  conduct  of  a  person
was  such  as  to  render  it  reasonably  certain  that  he  would  occasion
discomfort  or  annoyance  to  other  passengers,  if  he  was  admitted
into  a  public  vehicle  or  allowed  longer  to  remain  within  it.
ExcejHions  sustained.
JENCKS   V.    COLEMAN.
2  Sumner  (U.  S.  C.  C),  221.     1835.
Case  for  refusing  to  take  the  plaintiff  on  board  of  the  steamboat
"Benjamin  Franklin"  (of  which  the  defendant  was  commander)  as
a  passenger  from  Providence  to  Newport.  Plea,  the  general  issue.
