THE FARMER'S WAR AGAINST MONOPOLIES. 117 



points that could be turned against me. It will be re- 

 membered that he told me in the cars that the directors 

 had made a * rule ' forbidding him to take tickets back- 

 ward. On cross-examination, my counsel asked' him 

 where he was accustomed to turn in his tickets to the 

 company. He attempted to evade the question again 

 and again, but finally answered, with painful reluctance, 

 ' in New York.' It was further extorted from him that 

 the tickets were turned in at New York whether taken 

 in going to or from that city ; that it made no difference 

 which way my coupon was used ; and, finally, that the 

 directors of the road had never given him (as he as- 

 serted to me) a rule against taking coupons l backward,' 

 but that the superintendent had verbally ordered him 

 not to take them, about three years before ! This 

 superintendent, who, with his son, wrenched me from 

 the train at Stamford when I attempted to re-enter it 

 after my ejection, was obliged to swear that it was the 

 exclusive right of the directors to make 'rules,' and, 

 further, that they never had made a ' rule ' touching 

 the ticket question; he himself having verbally in- 

 structed the conductors not to take tickets ' backward,' 

 which he had no shadow of authority to do. Thus it 

 seems that the l rule ' for the violation of which I had 

 been mildly rebuked by the servants of the railroad a 

 violation which was the soul of the defence, its single 

 excuse and answer to my allegations was not a ' rule' 

 at all, but a mere verbal order given by an unauthorized 

 person. Yet, in the face of the declaration, by one of 

 the highest officers of the road, that there was no * rule,' 

 the judge charged the jury that a 'rule' had been 

 broken, that I was a trespasser, and that the railroad 

 company had a right to eject me from the train, em- 



