Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1888-03-23


Judge Gresham's court ct this afternoon
and fled an answer to the petition Of the
Chicago. Burlington q Quincy railway re-
questlng the court to compel Its receiver to
comply with LheEeguiatilns Of the interstate
commerce law etc. La the answer the re-
spondent admits that he, in his official capiCi-
~, IS subject to the orders of the court, and
holds himself out to the public as a common
carrier of persons and property, and subject
% al tns obligations duties and limitations
imposed upon such carriers engaged In state
and Interstate traffic, either by common
law or statutes Of Illinois or act of congress
/ thereto pertaining and further admits the
truth Of the allegations Of the petition re-
spect1ng the usages and practice Of inter
changing loaded cars between petitioner and
this respondent IN his official capacity as
receiver but denies that such interchange Of
loaded cars have been large at the city Of
chicago or elsewhere, as stated IN this petit
ton. On the contrary, the respondent says
that, IN fact, such interchange with the petit
tlOner have been very small and UnimpOr-
Gant part of the business of respondent, such
business having amounted In the month of
January, being the last month for which
complete returns have been compiled, to a
value not exceeding $500, being less than
One-sI1Le6uUn OF 1 per cent OF the railway
business under the management of respond
ent for thatmonJh. This respondent, further
answering, says that the Chicago, Burlington
q Quincy Railroad company Is not engaged
In the operating or railroads which forms,
with that operated by your respondent, con-
tinuous or trunk line or lines leading from
one or more sections of country to others
but, on the contrary, IS operating a system
which enters and occupies much Of the ter
r1tOry tributary to the railroads operated by
respondent and It's associated lines, and
which Is a rival system to that Of respondent
and Is directly competitive at many points.
The answer admits that their agent de-
ci1ned TO haul Burlington freight cars ten
dered them on March 6, but denies that
such refusal was as alleged in the Burling-
L +ew - -l4 do 90
tiOns, originating with the Wabash,
[ whereby that company had directed
| that their agents and employees should
absolutely and Internationally refuse to
! receive any loaded cars from, or deliver any
| loaded cars to petitioner, or disregard its
obligations as a connecting carrier. The
Wabash issued no instructions concerning
| the handling Of Burlington freight until
March z, when they issued the following;
/ ''We cannot haul Chicago, Burlington q
! Quincy cars over this road at present. We
/ must decline to receive them. Transfer all
/ freight from their cars to Wabash cars. y
! Their reason for this order was, according
| to the answer, that the Burlington, since Its
! engineers and hremen struck, had succeed
/ ed in filing their places in very considerable
numbers. That road has gradually but
! slowly come in to renewed partial opera
/ lions. That IN so doing, said petitioner has
| absorbed and taken into its employment
substantially all the competent unemployed
/ locomotive engineers in the United States.
]
/ munity of feeling, are IN sympathy with
| the locomotive engine men who so left the
/ employ Of said petitioner.
| The answer then goes on to state that the
! relations betWeenI the Wabash and their engi-
/ neers and hremen were harmonious, and
/ that they, being sOIcitOus that their traffic
! should not be interrupted Shy reason of any
! complication growing out of utilization and
| friendly feeling Of the engine men IN their
! employ toward the engine men who had left
! the employ of the petitioner, and for that
| reason the orders were issued for a tempo
/ rary measure The answer then says that
i the orders not to handle ''C'' freight were
/ Withdrawn on Sat srday last, and the fol-
/ lowing orders issued: f'All orders and di-
rectiOns heretofore given by me or by any
! officers or agent of this road which have
| been understood as limiting the interchange
| of cars or traffic with the Chicago, Bur-
/ lingtOn q Quincy railroad, or any roads
] in that system are hereby rescinded."
| Business of receiving and interchanging
/ cars and traffic by this road with the Chi
| cRgO, Burlington q Quincy, and all the
! roads of that system Will go on upon the
/ same basis and the same conditions as those
upon which similar business is done by this
road with other connecting railroads. The
! above order, the answer says, has been IN
/ full force since its issuance, and viii be con-
/ tinued and executed. In conclusion, the
! Wabash denies having had any business
| transactions or communications with p. M.
| Arthur, or any one representing him, and
| praysithRt the petition bed is missed at the Pc
/ titiOner's cost.
After the WabashE answer had been re-
ceived showing that the receiver had. on
! Saturday, the 10th inst, revoked his previous
| instructions and ordered former business
| relations with the ''Q'' road resumed, Judge
! Gresham asked the representative of the
/ 20" what position that left them IN in the
! suit, and they replied that they still desired
! the order from the court which was original
] ~ asked for. They desired this that they
! might feel assured that the Wabash would
/ not again refuse to receive their freight. as
| they had already done. They still asked, fur
| Their, that the court issue the desired order re-
| straining Chief Arthur and the brotherhood
from ordering or causing a strike on the
| Wabash or any other road In consequence OF
/ the action of these roads in hauling CO..
! freight. Arguments were made at length Ia
| support of the so" position, end
| were answered at equal length by the attOr-
/ neys for the Wabash.
At the close of the arguments Judge
] Gresham practically gave his decision when
! he said that he did not think the ''Q'' had
! any case in court. ''Ihe Wabash has granted
] you all you ask said the Judge. SIT has
promised to receive your freight. and now
/ the Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers
/ for an alleged crime which they deny and
/ against wishes of the general manager Ofssthe
/ road, who is an officer of this court" While
| the Judge thus indicated what his decision
! would probably be, ne announced that he
! would take the matter under adYisement
( The prevailing opinion IN the court room
J after the decision, was that the judge would
! refuse to issue any order touching the action
/ of Chief Arthur or the brotherhood on the
/ ground that it Is beyond his jurisdiction and
/ properly regulated by the state laws.
Prohibitionists in Convention.
Ho1roN, KAN, March ia delegate
| convention of the prohibition party of this
/ confessional district met in this city to-
! dav Rev II. Shumaker was nominated