I
Missoum mc. RYL co. v. Texas & Pac. RY. co. 3
ing, andin a court of equity; and they ask to have the same benent of defense
thereto as if they had demurred to said petition. ·
Second. These respondents admit the adoption and existence of the various
statutes and constitutional provisions set forth in the said intervening peti-
tion, but, for greater certainty as to the specinc language of said organic and
statutory laws, they pray leave to refer to the same, as the same have been
from time to time duly promulgated. But they specially deny that the pro-
visions quoted from the constitution and statutes of the state of Texas have
any application to the issue now existing between these respondents and the
petitioners in the said intervening petition, or can take away any right con-
ferred by the acts of congress with reference to the Texas & Pacino Railway
Company. They do not admit the allegations of said petitioners with respect
to the spirit and intent of the acts of congress and various other statutes and
constitutional provisions quoted in said petition, but, so far as the same may
apply to this controversy, they pray the court to interpret the same.
Third. Respondents admit that the Texas & Pacino Railway operates its
lines to Shreveport, where it connects with petitioners" lines, and that the
Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacino Railroad was opened for general trainc about
August, 1884. They admit that the same person is president of the Missouri,
Kansas Su Texas Railway Company and of the Texas & Pacino Railway Com-
pany, but they submit that this fact has no relevancy to the issues in this
proceeding, since the Texas & Pacino Railway is being managed by respond-
ents under the orders of the court. They aver that since their appointment
as receivers the transportation department of the Texas 8a Pacino Railway has
been distinct from that of any Missouri Pacino line; and since July, 1886, the
freight tradic department has been under the sole charge of your respondents’
general freight agent.
Fourth. They respectfully submit that it is unnecessaryand would be irrel-
evant to inquire, in such a proceeding as this, into the details of the freight
business of the Texas do Pacino Railway Company prior to the appointment
of respondents as receivers. They admit their appointment and qualification,
but they specially deny that, in managing the lines of railway under their
charge, they have, as charged in said intervening petition, at all times or at any
time, in violation of law and their duty, discriminated against said petition-
ers as set forth in said petition, and that they are still so discriminating, and
will so continue unless prevented by this honorable court. They ad mit that
certain correspondence was had, set forth as Exhibits A, B, C, and D of said
petition; butsubmit that said letters must be considered in connection with
the other facts of this case. They do not admit the correctness of the Memo-
randum E, annexed as an exhibit of said petition, and they submit that its
date, in June, 1884, shows that it has no relevancy to the issues herein, but,
if it should be decreed relevant by the court, they leave the petitioners to
make such proof of its correctness as they may be advised.
Fifth. They aver that in March, 1886, they made, with the lines repre-
sented by petitioners, through respective trahic agents, such trainc arrange-
ments as would enable petitioners’ said lines to compete on equal terms with
all other lines for freight business to points on the Texas St Pacino Railway.
Said arrangement was amended or modined from time to time, and nnally, on
the twenty-eighth of September, 1886, was put inthe form of the memoran-
dum hereto annexed as Exhibit R A of this answer. This was still further
modined October 2, 1886, by the letter made parthereof as Exhibit R B. ,
They aver that the arrangement set forth in said Exhibits R A and R B was
acceptable to the tranic agents ofrpetitioners’ lines, and has been and is now
in operation, without prejudice, however, to the hearing and decision of the
issues in this matter. They aver that through rates from Cincinnati, and
from other points tributary to petitioners’ lines, to points on the Texas dt