Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1903-06-20
B. & 0. ANSWERS TO w. VI.
pENiEs rsoN oF TRarEac
AenEA-a sSr wITH LATTER.
shippers Act Voluntarily ia Reatlae
Their Freight Thsoash Ths.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
comuanv, BY their attorneys John G.
Wilson and WI. Cross, filed ananswer
in circuit court No. ?, Baltimore Mon
dav, to the bill fled by the Western
MARYLAND company, on June 4 last.
TO restrain the Baltimore aud Ohio
from ceasing and refusing to use the
branch of the Western MARYLAND rail-
road between Cherry Run and Ship
nensburg, for the shipment Of goods.
etc, under the traffic agreement Of
December. 1889.
The answer states that in 1898 the
Baltimore and Ohio and Philadelphia
and Reading companies entered into
an agreement for the establishment
and operation of the Shippensburg
route and for complete provision fo-a
all traffic passing via Shippensburg
and Cherry Run between the line Of
the Philadelphia and Reading and the
Baltimore and Ohio, and that as to-
such traffic superseded entirely the
agreement of December, 1889. 1t also
greatly increased the volume of traffic
passing via said points by redniring
the Baltimore and Ohio to forward by
shat route all traffic requiring the use
of the Reading company's terminal
tracks aud other facilities for delivery
and track shipment; also that between
june /, 1898. and August 81, 1902. all
traffic interchanged at Cherry Run
between the Western MARYLAND and
Baltimore aud Ohio was under the
agreement of 1898 and not OF that Of
1889. The answer alleges that the
Western Maryland. by making All
agreement with the PHILADELPHIA and
Reading, in February, 1898, violated
the agreement of 1889 with the Balti.
more and Ohio, and that the latter
was not constrained BIZ the Pennsyl-
vania company to viola Q the agree
mept of 1884, The answer also denies
that the controlling Interest OF the
Baltimore and Ohio in the Consolida-
ton coal company has been used to III.
vert the coal traffic OF that ccmrans
from the Western Maryland.
The answer cites the mercer CT the
Western Maryland and the West Vir-
ginia Central and Pittsburg company,
"a ccmretitor in the coal carrying
LEsiness, and on this account the min-
ers aud operators along the Baltimore
and Ohio deemd it urwise and against
their interests to shin via the Western
Maryland, and as socn as shipse-s
found they could route tier ship
ments by way of Martinsbhrg and the
Cumberland Valley railroad many OF
them, particularly shippers OF coal
and coke, did so route their shipnents,
aud have continued to SO, goinnta lily
aud without solicitation on the part
Of the Baltimo1e 4 Ohio. The Bal
timore and Ohio xlso claims to have
Inverted thousands Of cars to the
Western Mar> land Via Cherry Eun to
ayoit congestion and Gelay, AID ssre
by the Interchange with the Ccn be~-
land Valley in this city. t'ia I4sti-
more and Ohio h violated 20 pTcv,-
ION of tile agreement OF 1889. evcl u
he agreement Il effective: aud Il ct-
fectlve the circuit court has no bower
to enforce il.
The Baltimore ana Ohio contends
that it CAN net be required to foreSo
its right to so route traffic as to make
| it's own lines furnish as great part OF
the through route as possible, but has
not ayailed of the qualifying provi-
sion of the agreement to DO so, and
does not intend toHdo so so long as the
Baltimore and Ohio and the Western
Maryland are operated as friendly
connecting lines.