St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-13
JUDGE GRESHAM.
Probabilities Are That He Will
Refuse to Issue the Order Asked

:, CHICAGO, March 12:-Judge Gresh-
ANS court room and the adjacent halls
were packed to suffocation this after
noon, when the application of the Chi
eago, Burlington IL Quincy railway for
an order on the receiver of the Wabash
railway, to compel him to receive and
handle their freight, came up for hear
ing. The bar, railroads and general
pnblic were represented, ,and all paid the
closest attention to the proceedings.
When the case was called Attorney
Henry Crawford, on behalf of the Wa
bash railway, said that before the other
side opened their case there was an affi-
davit filed by them which had not been
read, and which his side Of the case de-
sired to use. He then read the affidavit
of General Manager Stone, of the Bur-
.iington road, in which were set out at
length copies of a telegram alleged to
have been sent by Chief Engineer P NJ.
Arthur from Chicago, March 2,tO M. w.
Vernon, at Omaha, Neb., of the griev
ance committee of the brotherhood. and
reading as follows: ''Do not haul any
Chicago, Burlington IL Quincy
cars, or aid them in any way"
The affidavit alleged that similar dis
patches have been sent out by Arthur in
all directions to members of the brother
hood and among others te engineers in
the employ of the receiver, and that it
would be abundantly established that
the said Arthur was the main executive
officer of the brotherhood, and as such
had interfered with the property in the
custody of the court, and the engineers
in the employ of the court had Obeyed
his orders against the laws Of the state
ba of Init Il
the order of the court. Attorney Dexter
then opened the case for the Burlington
company by reading the petition and
affidavitS of the cOmplainantS as filed by
them on friday. He was followed by
Robert T. Lincoln, with the answer of
Receiver McNulta, of the Wabash.
THE ANSWER
admits that their agent declined to
undertake the handling of the Burling-
ton freight cars rendered them March &,
but denies that such refusal was as al
legged in the BurlingtOn's petition, made
under specific instructions originating
with the Wabash, whereby that COM
pany had directed that its agents and
employees should absolutely and uncon-
ditiOnally refuse to receive any loaded
cars from, or deliver any loaded cars to
the petitioner, or disregard its Obliga-
tionS as connecting carrier. The
Wabash issued no instructions concern
until March 2, when they issued the fol-
lowing:
1--WE cannot haul Chicago, Burlington
&oQuincy cars over this road at present.
We must decline to receive them.
Transfer all freight from their cars to
the Wabash cars" The answer then
SAYS that the orders not to handle 30"
freight were withdrawn Saturday last
and the following orders issued: ''All
orders and directions heretofore given
by me, or by any officer or agent of this
road, which have been understood as
limiting the interchange of cars or
traffic with the Chicago, Burlington &
Quincy railroad, or any of the roads in
that system
ARE HEREBY REsCINDED."
Respondent in conclusion further
says that he believes that the petition
at the time when filed by the petitioner
originated. not so much in the desire of
the petitioner to procure resumption
OF the insignificant and unimpOrtant
traffic whichit had given to the respond
ent before the petitioner had been dis
abled from transacting any business
whatever by the refusal of its employees
to continue in its services as aforesaid,
as in the hope that there would result
from the filing of the petition situa-
ton of affairs in which the respondent
might be rendered practically incapable
of transacting any of the business of the
Wabash railway whatever, so that, tenn
p0rarily, at least, a large amount of
such business now done by the re-
snOndent would be carried to the petit
toner, and it receive the profits thereof
rpart compensation for the losses sus-