The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1903-03-13
UNIONS MAKE A
GENERAL DENIAL
They Tell Judge Adams They
Meant No Harm to the
Wabash Road.
RECOUNT THE TROUBLES
Rep Gated Efforts to Induce the Com
pany to Consider Grievances of the
Men Have Utterly Failed
Injunction Argument.

St. LOUIS, NO., March LA mOLOn
for dissolution, and an answer to the
injunction secured last Tuesday by
President Ramsey Of the Wabash rail-
way, restraining the officers Of the
brotherhoods represented in the con-
~troversy, n the employees of the road
serving on the grievance committees,
from calling a strike, were filed with
Judge Adams in the United States dis
trict court at 1906 o'clock this morn
ing. The a~thdavits of many brother
hood officials We're simultaneously filed
with the answer. Until last night,
work on the important document had
been carried on unrcmittingly since
Friday last by Judge w. It. Irwin of
Peoria, e. j. Pinney of Cleveland, n
john II. Murphy of Denver, counsel
for the brotherhoods interested. 1t
contained about $1,000 words.
A General Denial.
The answer is a specific denial that the
Wabash was ever a union or brotherhood
roao, employing exclusively union or
brotherhood members, and also denying
that the brotherhoods involved ever made
any demand or attempt TO compel the
Wabash to restrict its employees as to
connection with brotherhoous or unions.
1t denies that such organization partici-
pated in the Pullman strike in 1894 as
charged y; the complaint, and admits that
the Wabash company never made any
distinction in selection of its employees, as
TO whether they were members OF broth
.erhoods, since or prior TO the Pullman
strike 1t denies All allegations that the
Wabash ever mad any complaint from
employees respecting wages ana rules since
1894. but states that the employees have
for years had grievances ana differences
with respect 10 wages and regulations,
and that this controversy arises not only
from complaints OF members of brother
hoods, but from employees not members
of brotherhoods, ana that the effort OF
the officers OF the brotherhoods are as
representatives OF over 200 switchmen,
brakcmen and iireInen upon its lines. The
employees in the train service have fire.
quently presented their grievances to the
oIflclalS FOR adjustment, and officers have
perslStently refused 10 consider such
grievances. and this continued policy
nnaliy eliminated in presenting the griev-
alces to the boards OF adjustment and
grievance committee of the Brotherhood
of Locomotive IfireInen and Brotherhood
OF Railway T~rainmen.
The First Grievances.
The first presentation of their COM
plants through the boards Of the organi-
cations was about four months ago, and
committees have been in st. Louis en-
~deaVoring to take the matters up with Mr..
Ramsey OF the Wabash during all that
period. They have been granted brief in
terviews only about three times, and at
each We're put off by alleged excuses and
compelled TO leave without satisfaction
or understanding.
The defendants deny that the organi-
cations have conspired TO force roads TO
recognize such organizations as repre-
seuting and controlling its employees in
that any demand o. attempt has been
made to compel the Wabash to become an
exclusively union or brotherhood road.
1t is denied that any attempt has been
made to prevent the Wabash to discrim-
mate against employees not members Of
said organizations 1t is denied that any
attempt has been made to employ eX-
clusively members of said organizations,
or to compel employees to quit its service
taent. or in violation of agreement, or
That any of the defendants conspired to
Interfere with the operation of trains or
prevent that railroad from carrying out
contracts with shippers for transporta-
tion of property, or to prevent 1t affording !
reasonable, proper and equal facilities for
lines of railroads.
1t is denied that the defendants tried to
compel the Wabash and its connecting
lines. or their employees. to violate the in
t%erstate commerce act, or any agreement
with reference thereto; or to prevent the
Wabash carrying mails, or 20 prevent the
Wabash in the discharge of its duty as !
common carrier.
Road viii Not Be Harmed.
It Is denied that the Wabash will be
subjected to suits and prosecution, result
Ing in irreparable loss, by reason OF any
act of defendants.
The defendants deny that W. G. Lee, P.
or any representative of the Brotherhood
OF Railway Trainnlen, and John j. Ham
nahan, Timothy Shea and +. w. Arnold,
or any representative of the Brotherhood
of FIremen within two years
past prior to the date of the filing of the
bill! of complaint, or at any other time
unlawfully and Inaliciously conspired to
induce several hundred employees of the
Wabash to become members of said or
.ganization, but state that they nave in
vited and requested certain any many Of
the employees to become members, for The |
purposes set out In the constitution. and
not any other. They deny that such invi-
fAffOn WAS Wtnl n1n1fointc Nv ~. -, !
suit of conspiracy to injury, and DENY
that they together with f. c. White, F.
+: 6: S Shepard Se' v. E. W" Ro Stao H.: Me q seli;
and William Mckay, Charles A l. wton I
Erederick Englehardt. r.; W. schafer,
Martin. ]. r. Courtney and A. e. Jordan, /
as employees of the Wabash, at any time
u~nlawtully agreed that in case the Wa
bash refused TO recognize said organiza-
ttonS they would order the employees to
strike, and tie up the railroad or prevent
employees from returning to work, or 9TH
connecting lines from in~terchanging trait
hc. Defendants deny all charges of I'M
erations or other unlawful continuing.
Acted for Men.
1t is denied that defendants reported to
Wabash employees that they would GET an
increase OF wages for them. but admit
that many employees We're dissatisfied
with the wages and rules, but state the
lact 10 De tnat AT the request of many of
the Wabash employees they had been en-
deavoring for a long time to have such
grievances settled and adjusted. and had
conferred together and agreed 10 present
their several grievances Jointly and in
sist upon a fair consideration thereof, and !
adjustment.
The defendants deny that the Wabash
cannot accede to the demands without yio- |
lating contracts with many employees and
without interfering with the operation of
Its lines, and deny that such concessions
as requested would interfere with the nar-
Torrance OF its duty as common carrier
In respect to the interstate commerce law !
or in operating mail trains.
The defendants deny they ever nalici- |
ously threatened to order a strike. but |
state that they did represent to the Wal
bash that many of its employees had de-
ment unless 1t accedcd to reasonable re
quests. but that If a strike should occur !
ployes.
II ia darina +bo+ ~, .o~.