The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-03-10
ANSWER TO
INJUNCTION.
Sweeping Denial Of Charges
Made by the Company.
.AFFlDAylrs WE'RE FILED LEI,
Judge Adams Viii To-Day Set q Date Pate
for tho Argument at Eleven O'clock
Wabash Coun .se
Preparing for Legal Battle
AFFlDAvlTS WE'RE FlLEE
INV Arsocia tod prcss.)

sT, LOUIS, MO-, Mnroh 0.---A sweep
ing denial OF nil tho charges naoo ~ t"o ;
Wabash Railway Company IN It's olll OF
complaint. upon which was 1851 INC ~ 9
Injunction to prevent strike among .ts
employees, was contained IN tho nnsw ''it'
"a tho Injunction suit flied to-day IN the
United states District Court.
In support OF the answer werc NEG the
I . hldnytts OF MI those named In tho In In
junction against tho brotherhood OF
Trninmon nnd Firemen.
At II o'clock tomorrow Judge Adams
viii got n day for arguments
Tha motion to dissolve tho lnjunction
briefly stated, Is bnsod on the grounds
that tho writ OF Injunction wnD improp-
erly granted TINT charges OF illegal con-
splrncy contained rk tho bill OF complaint
are unfounded and dsproved; that there
Is no equity in the bill OF complaint; that
the Injunction was Issued without notice,
and that NIL material charges IN the pl!!
are denied. TX. III
President Ramsey, OF tho Wabash md
the company's legal COUNSEL begun the
preparation Of their arguments against
the answer Immediately after It was filed
and continued busIly at work al day.
None Of the Brotherhood officials nave
fled with the answer as filed. fsG
3 NO Rl1STRICT1ON.
The answer denies that the Wabash
flrernen or tralnmen brotherhood ever
placed any restriction on tho employees.
The answer states that the Wabash EN- :,
ployes have frequently presented the1r
grievances to the Wabash officials for
adjustment, and the officials OF said COM
pany have pcrsistently refused to take up
and settle such grievances The defend
ants deny that they IN any way unlnW-
fully or maliciously attempted to induce
or compel fremen or sWitchmon TO quit
tho Wabash service in violation OF any
contract or. agreement OF employment or
that tho defendants at any time or IN
any way conspired to Interfere with or
prevent tho operation ofFfWabash trains
or to prevent that railway from carry
Ing out any OF its contracts with ship
pers for the transportation OF property
or in any way 70 prevent the complainant
from affording reasonable, proper and
equal facilities for the interchange OF
traffic between its railroads and other
lines of railroads connecting Herewith.
It is denied that the defendants combined
to compel the Wabash and It's connecting
lines or their employees to violate the In
terstate commerce act or TO prevent that
road from carrying the mails
The defendants deny that any invita-
ton to Wabash employees to become mem-
bers OIL their organization was unlawful
or malicious or the result Of any con-
.splracy to injure the complainant or It's
employees, They also deny that they
combined or agreed that In case the Wa
bash refused to operate Its road as an
exclusively Brotherhood road the Broth
crhood would order a strike.
\ The defendants further deny that they
ever malicousy threatened to order q
strike, but say that they represented to
the Wabash that many Of It's employees
Intended to withdraw from Its employ
ment unless 1t acceded to the reasonable
demands and requests made by the de-
PENDANTS in their behalf In the payment
Of wages and changes in rules, but that
IL strike shall occur it would be n vol
untary act on the part OF the employees,
The defendants deny that the Wabash Is
entitled to the relief prayed for, and that
they have made reasonable effort to
adjust their differences with the road
and ask for dismissal Of complaint.