New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-03-13
AN ANSWER FROM TIE WABASH
REFUSAL TO HANDLE CARS WITHDRAWN.
NO srcH ORDER MADE on THE DATE NAMED BY THE
BURIIyGToS-THE LATTER STILL DEMAND
ING An INJUNCTION AGAINST

ING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
CHIEy ARTHUR.
CUrCAf O. March f1-When The petition OF the
Burlington came up before Judge Gresham the road
presented number of afIdavits showing how the
WABASH had refused to handle Is freight, after which
the answer of the Wabash 10 the petition read
In the answer respondent admits that In his
official capacity he Is subject to the orders OF tho
court holds himself out to the public As common
carrier of persons and property and subject 10 all
the oblig cations, duties and limitations imposed upon
such carriers engaged IN the State and Interstate
traffic. either by the COMMON Law the statutes OF
Illinois or tho acts OF Congress thereto pertaining
and further admits the truth Of the allegations OF the
petition respecting this practice Of intcrchansfnS
loaded car between the spondcnt, I'm hs official ca
paclty receiver and the petitioner, but denies that
such interchange of loaded been largo at the
City OF Chicago eisew here, stated In this petit
tion On rhe contrary tho respondent says that In
fact such Interchange of With the petitioner has
been small and unlmportant part Of the business OF
the respondent, such business having amounted In
rho mon Of January 1893, being the last month for
which complete returns have BEEN compiled, To value
exceeding $780, being less than one-siXih OF
per of the railway business under the manage
mcnt Of the respondent for that month.
This res pendent says thai The Chicago, lufins-
ton and Quincy Railroad Company IS not engaged In
operating system Of railways which forms Win
that operated by the respondent continuous or trunk
the country Others but, the contrary, Is opcraf
ing a system which enters and occupies mnch Oh the
territory tributary to the railway operated by ic
pondcnt and its associated lines. and Is rVa system
10 that of respondents aud Is directly competitive al
many points.
Tho answer admits that their agent declined TO
undertake the hauling OF the Burlington freight cars
rendered March g. but denied that such refusal was
alleged In tho burlington petition. made under the
specified instructions originating with the Wabash
whereby that company had directed that its agents
employees should absolutely and Internationally refuse
ears TO- the petitioner or disregard It's obligations a.
q connecting carfcr. The Wabash issHed fnstruc
tons concerning the handling OF burlington freight
until March Z when they issued the following; We
ears over this road a. present. We must decline to
receive them. Transfer all freight from their ears
to the Wabash cars
Tho reason for this orlsr that the Burlington
since It's engineers anil iremcn went on tho strike had
succeeded in filing their places. had gradually but
slowly into renewed partial operation but In
doing hal absorbed and taken into it, employment
substantially all the omlefcnt unemployed locomotive
engineers in the United - afes except these who By az
ISOLATION and community of hsssing are In sympathy
With the locomotive cngtnemcn who left the employ
iii answer then goes on to state that the relations
between tbe wabash and its engineers and frcmen
harmonious and that they being so!lctous that
their traffic should not be Interrupted BY reason Of
any complication growing out OF aIliiatl9n and
friendly feeling Of the engnrpsn in his employ toward
the cnginomen who n vi lest the employ OF the perl
TONER and for that reason the orders were issued
as a temporary measure.
The answer then says that the order; not TO handle
orders issued All orders and directions hcrctofore
given by or by any Officer or acent of This road
which have been understood as Hmting the inter-
change Of cars or traffic with the Chicago. Burlington
and Quincy railroad or any Of the roads In that system
arc hereby rcscindrf Thn business of receiving and
Infercbanging cars and traffic by this road With the
Chicago. Burlington and Quincy Railroad and all Of
the roads OF that system win go on upon the same
terms and conditions as those upon which similar
business s done by this road With other connecting
railroads"
The above order. the has been I'm
full force since IT, issue and will he continued and
executed IL conclusion the Wabash denrs having
hal any business transactions or Communications
from T. W. Arthur. any ing him. AMI
prays that the petition be dismissed at petitioners
cost
Aher the Wabash answer had been read. showing
that Receiver McNulf1 Saturday reVOkerl his pre-
vious instructions and ordered former business rela
tOus with the I" o. road resumed. Judge Gresham
asked the representatives OF tho Q" road what posi-
tor that left them IN the suit. and Writ Dexter replied
that the road still desPe the order from the court
which originally asked for and still aslped that the
Issue the desired order restraining Chief Arthur
and the Brotherhood from ordering causing srr@
rho Wabash. any other rnad. In consequence OF
tho actinn OF lhcSo roads IN hauling o. frcIght.