be proved — Ladd v. Cotton Press, 5 3 Tex. 172. In this same way must fail every at tempt to enforce public duties in respect to the operation of a private business, although those that conduct it may have held them selves out to serve the public. No man can of himself make his business public or private in its nature. Profession does not make pub lic calling; the law does that. It seems, then, that the case which Mr. Chaplin makes for the public against the coal operators would have been more fair in its presentation if it had been squarely stated that the issue was whether the business of the mining of coal was public calling or private calling. As the law stands, what ever form of remedy be sought the whole case must stand or fall by the decision upon that issue; for if the business be public calling, then the coal companies may be compelled by appropriate remedies to serve all that apply with adequate facilities for reasonable compensation and without dis crimination; whilst if the business be private calling the owners may refuse all, provide what supply it pleases them, charge their own price, make any terms; and in so doing stand upon their legal rights, however much thereby they may defy public opinion. Argu ment is needed to establish the premise, ex position only to the conclusion set forth. For upon all these principal points the law governing public service is recognized, if the public calling be shown. To use one of Mr. Chaplin's best examples, the obligation of a public service company goes even to this extent, that if the employees of a railroad quit work, such a strike furnishes no justifi cation to the railroad for a failure to run. Mandamus should be granted, nevertheless. People v. New York Central, 28 Hun. 543. When you find an electric light company with its wires along the streets, you may be sure that they must make proper connections with
your house if you make proper application, be cause this is a public calling — Gould v. Elec tric Light Co., 60 N. Y. Supp. 559. By the same principle, the railroad bridge company at Niagara cannot stand off in its dealing with the railroads and charge any price; since this is a public utility it may make only rea sonable rates — Canada Railways. Interna tional Bridge Company, 8 App. Cas. 723. Nor can a water company lay its pipes through a street in a city and then declare that they will supply water to applicants above Four teenth Street, but that they will refuse all applications from below Fourteenth Street; as these are public works, all applicants must be taken — Haugen v. Albina Water Com pany, 2 1 Ore. in. Not only, then, upon these principal points is the law settled, but in many instances the details are worked out, so that what the wrongs are in public calling it is well estab lished; and, what is of more importance in case of need, what remedies are appropriate it is well known. For example, nothing is more usual than the use of mandamus to com pel the performance of its duties by a public service company, as Mr. Chaplin points out (pp. 48-5 1). The only issue, again, is, there fore, whether the coal mines are in public calling or not. For if this be a public call ing there can be no doubt of the obligation to provide a supply to all that apply, no hes itation on the award of a prompt remedy. It is along these lines, then, that any criti cism of Mr. Chaplin's position that the mines may be opened by legal process must proceed. Already many examples have come up of the sort of business that is held to be public; perhaps it would be well to add more, in order that a clearer understand ing of the conditions may be had. The telephone, for instance; why has that been put down as a public employment from the day of its introduction by every court upon
