The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-12-12
PHNNSY'S CASE A SHAM
Arguments Of Counsel in the
Point Of Rocks Dispute.

ment before Vice Chancellor Van Fleet in
Chancery Chambers, Newark, this morning
in the matter between the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company and the National Docks
and New Jersey Junction Connecting Rail-
ways Company.
The suit is brought by the 2. R. R. Com
pany to remove to the Federal Court a bill
filed in Chancery by the National Docks
Company to restrain the P. R. R. Company
from interfering with the former corporation
in building tunnel under P. R. R. tracks
at the Point of Rocks, Jersey City The
counsel In the case, which is but another
phase OF long continued fight between
the rival corporations, are: Ex-Governor
Bedle and James B. Vredenburg for the p.
X. K. Co.; Counsellors Chas. l.. Corbin, j.
Emory and Chas. d. Thompson for the Ma
tional Docks Company.
Two weeks ago the counsel for the National
Docks Company presented their side of the
case as to the right of removal, III Chancery
Chambers, Jersey City.
RIVAL CONTENTIOUS.
On that occasion they contended that the
p. r. r. Co. were in error in seeking to
detach the United Railways from the suit;
that the controversy is between citizens
of the same State, and, finally, that the
Federal Court has no jurisdiction in a matter
of a local nature until the courts of tine
States have been exhausted.
To meet these propositions last week Mr..
James B. Vredenburg, for the P. R. R. Co.,
detailed the facts and lawin the case and
contended that the United Railways are
mere nominal parties; that the controversy
involves a dispute between citizens of diff
ferent States, and that the Federal Court has
ample jurisdiction in the matter The argrl-
ment was then taken up by Ex-Governor
Bedle on the same side, and he cited long
list of cases bearing on the right of removal.
WHAT FEDERAL LAW SAYS
This morning counsel confined himself to
the construction of the Act of Congress of
1888, which has special reference to causes
for removal to Federal Court. The first
provision of that act declares that the Circuit
Courts of the United States may take
cognizance of all suits at common law and
equity arising under the Constitution of the
United States. Among these res adjudicata
by the Federal Court is that of suit at com.
mon law where the matter at issue is be-
tween citizens of different states over any
sum of $4,000.
REASONS FOR REMOVAL.
There are three grounds, counsel argued,
upon which the application for a removal is
based. In the first place the United Rail
being a settled law that where nominal
party is concerned in a dispute be-
tween citizens of one State and citi-
zens of another the cause is remov-
able. Secondly, Whether thhe United
Railways are or are not party in con-
troversy between such citizens, the action is
without any reference to the nom
inal party Lastly, the Federal question in
volved is in itself sufficient cause for re-
moval without reference to the location of
the nominal party
The Federal question involved is that
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States which pro-
vides that no person or persons shall be de
priyed of life or property without the pro-
cess of law; and that no person or persons
shall be deprived of the equal benefits of the
law.
Ex-Governor Bedle then put his brief in
the hands of the Vice Chancellor
MR.. CoRBIV REPLIES.
Counsellor Charles L. Corbin, for the
National Docks Company, read Counsellor
Emory's brief on the same side citing authori-
ties on the principle that the bill IS merely
treated as demurrer and where there exists
doubt the State jurisdiction is sustained
Counsel cited other cases to the point that
where the cause of removal is in doubt, if so
removed, the Federal Court will remand it
to the courts below on that very ground A
cause cannot be removed unless the OBJ
jections of "being deprived of property
without due process of law" is real and
not trivial. The question Sits itself down
to this issue: "Can your Honor review de-
eision by Judge Lippincott in the Hudson
Circuit Court upon a matter named, with
too much flatterv I think, a Fed
eral question 3" The decision of that
State Court, counsel insisted, is final
PENNSY's ARGUMENT A SHAM
Tho fallacy which under6es the arguments
of the Pennsylvania Railroad Compadys
counsel is that they can proceed by two pro
cesses of law. Mr. Corbin, in supporting the
instanced the FsMosquiton
Railway crossing case and the case of
the Bergen Neck Railway Company
against Packard, and in both
Of these suits the same delay, the same
meaningless objections of jurisdiction were
raised with the result that the Court of Last
Resort affirmed the decision of the lower
courts. Finally Mr.. Corbin rid
iculed the position that the Fed
sral question involved demanded
There was no Federal question
involved and unless the other side can es-
5ablish its substantially the objection is
frivolous and ia sham"
"That is the point" said the Vice Chan
sellor. II want you to show if there exists
1 Federal question in this cause.n
Counsel then, until the hour for adjourn
nent, dealt on this point, and loaded the
court with another batch of United States
St1praUln Co111.t aacac