Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-03-09
TRA|NMEN'S ANSWER
General Denial of Wabash
Injunction Complaint.
VERY LONG DOCUMENT
MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE Re-
STRAINING ORDER.
Alleged That Non-Union Employees
Are Acting With the Broth
erhoods.
VERY LONG DOCUMENT

|
ST. LOUIS, Mo-, March "a motion for
the dissolution of, with an answer to. the
injunction secured last Tuesday by Presi-
dent Joseph Ramsey of the Wabash rail-
way, restraining the officers of brother
hoods represented in the controversy and
the employees OF the road serving on griev-
ance committees from calling a strike, was
filed with Judge Elmer B. Adams in the
United States district court here this morn
ing. Affidavits of many brotherhood off,
cials were simultaneously filed with the
answer.
Until last night work on the important
document had been carried on unremitting-
ly since Friday last by Judge w. r. Irwin
Of Peoria, ILL.,; E. J. Pinney of Cleveland,
and John H. Murphy Of Denver, counsel
for the brotherhoods interested. 1t con-
tained about $4,000 words. A synopsis fol-
lows:
Court was in session but three minutes,
during which the answer was filed, and
then an indefinite recess was taken. 1t
was later agreed between the attorneys for
both sides that they will appear before
Judge Adams at o'clock this afternoon
for hearing.
the following Brotherhood officials were
filed In its support: w. G. Lee, H. Nc
Manus, F. G. Shepard, George Bradley,
VIM. Mckay, w: E.. Rowe. F: H: Hecox
JOS. Sell, ]. r. Courtney, E. c. White, =.
H. Morissey, Fred. Englehardt, B. w.
Schafer, c. ]. Anger, A. H. Martin, H. Z.
Niemeyer, Charles A. Lewton and John ].
Hannahan. There was also filed as an
exhibit in the answer copy of a circular,
which. on February 20 last, was submitted
by the joint grievances committees of the
two brotherhoods to each of their organtza-
tions and employees not members who had
petitioned their committees to represent
them in securing different rates of wages
and modification of rules and regulations
governing their employment.
Copies Of all the papers filed were then
handed to the legal counsel for the Wabash
Railway Company.
Answer to Injunction Complaint.
The answer as filed is joint and several
answer Of all the defendants named in the
bill Of complaint and against which the in
junction issued. 1t is specific denial that
the Wabash railway was ever a union or
brotherhood road employing exclusively
union or brotherhood members in It's serv-
ice and also denying that the Brotherhood
Of Railway Trainmen and the Brotherhood
of Locomotive Firemen, the organizations
involved in this proceeding, ever made any
demand or attempt to compel the Wabash
railway to place any restrictions upon its
employees as to their connection with any
brotherhood or union. 1t specifically denies
that such organization ever participated
in any way in the Pullman palace car en-
ployes strike in 1894 as charged in the bill
Of complaint, and admits that the Wabash
Railway Company never made any distinc-
tion in the selection Of it's employees as to
whether they were members of any broth
erhood or union, since or prior to the Pull
man Palace Car Company employees strike
of 1894. 1t specifically denies all allega
tions in the bill Of complaint that the Wa
bash Railway Company ever had any COM
wages and rules regulating their employ
ment in their respective service since 1894,
but states the facts to be that the employees
in the several lines Of service of the Wa
bash Company have for years had griev-
ances and differences with respect TO the
amount of wages paid and the rules and
regulations governing the service of their
employees in their respective lines of en-
ployment.
Non-Union Men Also Complain.
This controversy arises not only from
complaints of members Of the respective
brotheroods, but from the ranks Of the en-
ployes not members of the respective broth
erhoods involved in the injunction proceed
ings and that the effort on the part of the
grievance committees and the officers Of
the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and
the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
are as representative of over twelve hun
dred employees of the Wabash Railway
Company, engaged as switchmen, brake
men and firemen upon its several lines of
railway in the United States. The answer
states that the several employees engaged
in the train service of the Wabash Rail
way Company have frequently presented
their grievances to the Wabash officials for
adjustment and a settlement, and that the
officers Of said company have persistently
refused to take up and consider or discuss
such grievances with its several employees
from time to time during the past few
years, or make any reasonable permanent
rules or regulations governing the service
of their respective employees and that this
continued vacillating policy on the part of
the officials of the company finally culmi-
mated in presenting the grievances and
complaints to the several boards of adjust
ment and grievance committees OF the two
labor organizations, known as the Brother
hood Of Locomotive Firemen and the
Brotherhood Of Railway Trainmen.
When the Trouble Began.
The first presentation Of their complaints
and grievance, through the respective COM
n.ittees and boards, was about four months
ago, and committees have been in St Louis
endeavoring to take these matters Of COM
plant up with President Joseph Ramsey,
jr., of the Wabash Railway Company, dur
ing all that period, and have been granted
brief interviews only on three different
times and at each interview they were put
off by some alleged excuse or other, and
were compelled to leave without any satis-
faction or definite understanding as to what
the officers Of the road would do with refer
ence to such complaints.
The defendants deny that the labor or
ganizations named in the bill of complaint
have unlawfully or maliciously conspired.
combined or confederated together to force
the complainant to recognize such organi-
nations as representing and controlling its
said employees in all their relations with the
complainant, and deny that any demand oil
any attempt has been made by said organf-
zations to compel the Wabash railroad lines
within the United States to become and be
operated as exclusively union or bother
hood roads, as therein alleged. It is denied
that any attempt or demand has ever been
made by said labor organizations or any of
its officers, to prevent the Wabash from
dealing with its employees In respect to any
difference or controversy or from adjusting
any differences or controversy directly with
its employees. or in any way compel the
complainant to-discharge, to discriminate
against or keep out of Its employ any per-
son or employees whatsoever not members
of either of said organizations, as alleged
In the bill Of complaint. It is denied that
any demand or attempt has been made by
either of the labor organizations upon the
Wabash to employ exclusively In Its SER