The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-13
Attorney Crawford Produces 6
Rather Sensational Document.
All About the Refusal OF the Wa
bash to Accept 20" Freight.
Some Very Neat Interstate Com
morce Questions Brought Up.
Robert Lincoln Represents the Wa
bash Company in Opposition to
Mr. Crawford--The Answer
Filed Given In Full.

CHICAGO, Ill.,, March l2.--Judge Gres-
hams courtroom and the adjacent halls
were packed to suiiocation this afternoon
when the application Of the Chicago, Bur
lington 4 Quincy railway for an order on
the receiver OF the Wabash railway TO
compel him to receive and handle their
freight came for hearing. The bar, rail-
roads and general public were represented,
and all paid the closest attention TO the
proceedings.
When the case was called, Attorney
Henry Crawford, on behalf OF the Wabash
railway, said that before the other side
opened their case there was an affidavit
filed by them which had not been read,
and which his side OF the case desired TO
use. He then read the affidavit OF Gen.
eral Manager Stone, of the Burlington
road, in which was set out at length copies
Of telegram alleged to have been sent by
Chief Engineer p. NJ. Arthur from Chi
cago, March 2, 10 Master Workman Yer
non, at Omaha, Neb., OF the grievance
committee OF the brotherhood, and read
ing rs follows
"Do not haul any Chicago, Burlington
4 Quincy cars or aid them in any way.
''P. NJ. ARTHUR"
The affidavit alleged that similar dis
patches had been sent out by Arthur in
all directions 10 members Of the brother
hood, and among others to engineers in
the employ OF the receiver, and that II
.,.,,ll r.. aA.,, ,laatl,. l,liahaI that oatI
Arthur was the main executive officer Of
the brotherhood, and as such had inter
iered with the property in the custody Of
the court, and the engineers in the employ
OF the court had obeycd his orders against
the laws OF the State and the laws Of the
United States and the order Of the court.
Attorney Dexter then opened the case
for the Burlington company by reading the
petition and afidayiis OF the complainant
as filed by them on Friday. lie was fol-
lowed by Robert 4. lincoln, with the
answer Of Receiver McNulta, Of the
Wabash.
Robert Lincoln, the attorney for the
Wabash railway, appeared In Judge
Gresham's court at 2 o'clock this nftcr-
noon, and filed an answer TO tho petition
OF the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy rail-
way, requesting the court TO compel lis re-
ceiver tocomply with the regulations Of the
interstate commerce law, etc.
In the answer, the respondent admits
that he, in his official capacity, Is subject
10 the orders OF the court, and "holds him
self out TO the public as q common carrier
of persons and property and subject 10 all
the obligations, duties and limitation inn
posed upon such carriers engaged In State
and interstate traffic, either by the COM
mon law or the statutes Of Illinois, or the
acts OF Congress thereto pertaining" and
further admits the truth Of the allegations
OF the petition respecting the usage and
pmctice Of interchanging loaded cars be-
tween the petitioner and this respondent
In his official capacity as receiver; but de-
mics that such interchange Of loaded cars
has been large nj the city OF Chicago, or
elsewhere, az stated in this petition; on
the contrary the respondent says that In
fact such interchange OF cars with the pc.
titioner has been very small and an un-
important part Of the business Of
the respondent, such business hav-
ing amounted In the month
Of January, 1898, being the last
month for which complete returns have
been compiled, 10 value not exceeding
500, being less than one-dxth Of | per
cent. Of the railway business under the
management Of the respondent for that
month; this respondent, further answering
says that the Chicago, Burlington q
Quincy Railway company Is not engaged
In operating on railways which forms,
with that operated by your respondent, O
continuous or trunk line or lines leading
from one or moro sections Of the country
10 others, but on the contrary II operating
n system which enters and occupies much
| OF the territory tributary 10 the railway
operated by the respondent and its associ
aied lines, and which is a rival system q
that OF respondent and Is directly com
pcltive at many points. The answer adj
mits that their agent declined 10 updcrtak,
the hauling OF the Burlington freight car
rendered them March q, bat denies tha
such refusal was m alleged In tho Burling
toms petition, made under specific In
siructions originating with the Wabash
whereby that company had directed tha
his agents and employees should absolutcl,
and Internationally refuse 10 receive an,
loaded cars from or deliver any loadet
cans 10 the petitioner, or disregard its oh
legations ~ connecting carrier.
| The Wabash issued no instructions con
Nfnlng the handingoi burlington frcigh
until March Z, whom they Issued the FOL
| lowing
owe cannot haul @. II. 4 q. cans owe
this road at present We must decline 4
receive them. Transfer all freight from
their cans 10 the Wabash cans.
Their reason for this order was, accord
Ing 10 tho answer, that the Burlington
since the engineers and nrcmen struck
had succeeded In filing their places, ''in |
very considerable number that tho roaS
has gradually, but slowly, come into rc
newed partial operation; that In 10 doinI
said petitioner has absorbed and taken int
lis employment substantially all the com
potent unemployed locomotive engineer
In the United States except those who's
association and continuity Of feeling ar
In sympathy with the locomotive engineer
who lett the employ Of said petitioner"
1 The answer then goes on 70 state tha
the relations between the Wabash an'
their engineers and fremen were harmo
nious, and that they, being solicitor! tina
their traffic should not be interrupted "b
reason OF any complication growing out
affiliation and friendly feeling Of the en-
gincmen In his employ toward the engine
men who had left the employ Of the pet
TONER" and for that reason the order
| = =. x.anefsF~