Omaha daily bee., 1888-03-18
JUDGE DUNDY'S DECISION.
He Forbids Union Pacific Engineers
to Boycott Burlington Cars.
BUT THEY GAN QUIT THE ROAD.
The Case Reviewed at length and
the Legal Relations ofuhe Brother
hood to the Company Fully
Explained.
The Case.

A court room full of legal luminarieS, rail-
road officials and members of the brother
hood of engineers and fremen yes
terday afternoon to listen to the decision of
Judge Dundy in the injunction asked for
against the Union Pacific ct al. Before read
ing the document the judge first said;
81 find that one newspaper has charged the
Chicago, Burlington g. Quincy with bribing
me, and with my taking that bride. 1t has
also been said that the Union Pacific has a
mortgage on me. Now 1 viii say to every
body connected with newspapers that what
ever they may say will have no influence at
all on me. What l do IL from the standpoint
of my official duties. / do not ask any office,
and | don't want even the Office | now hold"
A to the matter now in hand / will say
that | nave been pressed for a decision and
/ have made one without as much research
as under different circumstances l would have
done.r
He then proceeded TO read his decision,
which is IN substance as follows:
This suit is brought for the purpose Of
compelling the Union Pacific railroad COM
pany, its officers, managers, agents and en-
ployes to discharge the duties enioined on
them by law, duties which, it is claimed,
they owe alike to the public and the plaintiff
in this suit
1t is stated in the bill that the plaintiff is a
common carrier, and is now engaged in inter-
state commerce, and is subject u the law OF
the United States that was recently passed
TO regulate this sort of traffic; that the Union
Pacific railroad company was organized
under a law of the United States, and is also
a common carrier and engaged in Interstate
commerce; that the defendant road has de-
clined and still refuses to transport and carry
over its lines at least a portion of plaintiffs
cars, without just, reasonable or lawful
cause or excuse therefor, thereby discrimi-
mating against the plaintiff in the operation
of its road and the transaction of its bust
have facilities for interchanging of freight
and cars, and that the plaintiff is
not afforded the same opportunities for
moving its cars and Transporting
affords to other lines of railroad similarly
situated. The bill further shows that the
other defendants are servants or employees
of the defendant engaged in operating the
road, some or all of them being locomotive
engineers that they have declined and still
refuse to take and receive aud transport over
the defendant road at least q portion of PLAIN
tiff's cars without valid reason or lawful ex-
cuse, thereby discriminating against the
plaintiff and its business, and solely because
the cars SO refused belong TO the pla.ntin II
this suit. 1t is further alleged that the said
defendants, with others, have combined, con.
federated and conspired together for the pur
pose of preventing the interchange OF traftiC
between the said roads and especially 10 pre-
vent the plaintiffs cars from being trans
ported and hauled over any part OF the Unior
Pacific systems of roads, thereby violating
the provisions of the interstate commerce
law, etc. Some of those statements are de
MED by the answer to the bill, but ! base my
Judgment mainly on propositions OF law abou
which there Is less dispute. Railroad com
panies as common carriers are subject TO thu
same privileges and liabilities as individuals
Now whatever doubts there may be witt
reference TO the condition and efficacy of tn
common law, so FAR as IT relates 10 an'
bears upon the question under consideration
certainly there can be none with r~eference I