THE BICYCLE AND THE COMMON CARRIER. 1 23 ience, comfort, taste, pleasure, and protection " during his journey. Having this in mind, $i,4CXD worth of jewelry has been held prop- erly part of the baggage of a person of wealth,^ while the Supreme Court of the United States has said that two hundred and seventy- five yards of lace worth $10,000 is essential to the convenience and comfort of a Russian lady of fortune, when a traveller in America, as part of her baggage.^ Likewise feather-beds, pillows, towels, blankets, table-covers, etc., repeatedly have been held properly to be part of the baggage of an emigrant.^ As it is quite as necessary for the traveller to provide for his needs at the end of his journey as well as for those while he is actually travelling, the principle has generally been recognized that a traveller is entitled to have carried with him whatever is essential to the ultimate purposes of his journey. That is, in this second group it is always imperative to consider what is this " ulti- mate purpose of the journey" in order to arrive at a full under- standing of what is, under all the circumstances of the case, baggage. The traveller must not only reach his destination in comfort, but he must reach it with such materials and implements that he will be enabled to perform the functions or do the work for the performing of which at a particular place he has taken his journey. As it is somewhere tersely put, " the traveller is entitled to carry with him as baggage the peculiar implements of his profession, the taking of which has arisen from the fact of his journey." The courts have repeatedly emphasized this principle. In the United States Supreme Court we have a decision that the surgeon travelling to his patient is entitled to have his surgical instruments carried as baggage.* And again, for the mechanic going to work, the carrier must trans- port his tools ; ^ for the student, his books ; * for the pleasure- seeker, his opera-glasses ; "^ for the barrister, his wig and gown, and possibly his reports ; ^ and for the sportsman, his gun.* 1 Coward v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. R. Co., 16 Lea (Teiin.), 225. « New York, etc. R. R. Qo.v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24. ' Parmelee v. Fischer, 22 111. 212 ; Ouimitz'. Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605. But see Macrow V. Great Western Ry. Co., L R. 6 Q. B. 612.
- Hamibal Railroad z/. Swift, 12 Wall. 262.
6 Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co. v. Morrison, 34 Kan. 502 ; Porter v. Hildebrand, 14 Pa. St. 129, and 2 Harris (Pa.), 129; Davis v. Cayuga & S. R. R. Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 330. ^ Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatch. 64. "^ Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Hammond, 33 Ind. 379. 8 Munster v. South Eastera Ry. Co., 4 C. B. N. s. 676. » Van Horn v. Kermit, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 454.
