The situation at the end of October, 1895, was as follows: in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota there were two receivers, Messrs. McHenry and Bigelow; in Montana there were three receivers, Messrs. Mills, Bonner, and Burleigh; and in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon there was one receiver, Andrew F. Burleigh. It was a condition of affairs which could not be endured. In each of the Western States orders were made compelling all agents or persons connected with the road to deposit all money collected in that state, and it was at any time in the power of the receivers in any state to appoint operating officers distinct from those managing traffic over the other parts of the line. On January 9, 1896, Judge Gilbert simplified the situation by retiring Messrs. Mills and Bonner, and by appointing Andrew F. Burleigh sole receiver for the district of Montana. This reduced the number of receivers to three, and left Burleigh in control of the road west of North Dakota, and McHenry and Bigelow in control of the rest. Application was now made to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on January 28, 1896, four justices of this tribunal, acting as justices assigned to the several districts in which the Northern Pacific Railroad Company had property,[626] decided that Judge Jenkins’s court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin should be considered the court of primary jurisdiction, and issued each an order to this effect to take effect in his particular circuit.[627] The various circuit judges hastened to conform. On February 21 Judge Lacombe confirmed the appointment of F. G. Bigelow and E. H. McHenry as receivers for the Second Judicial District, and similar action had by then been taken by the judges of the other districts except that of the state of Washington. There Judges Gilbert and Hanford refused to discharge Burleigh, although recognizing that the general orders for the management and control of the railroad property were henceforth to issue from Judge Jenkins’s court.[628] The judicial strife was thus at an end. President Ives obtained the removal of the receivers to whom he particularly objected, but did not overthrow the authority of the Milwaukee court, nor secure any material gain to compensate for the great trouble which he caused. With the receivership tangle straightened out it became possible to proceed again with the work of reorganization, and on March 16, 1896, the final plan was published, endorsed not only by the Adams Committee, but by President Ives and his Stockholders’ Protective Committee, and by other important interests as well. The feeling had become general that some action should speedily be taken, and that it was in the interest of all parties that the factional conflicts which had raged so long and with so little result should cease. Reorganization was proposed on the following basis: