St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-03-04
THE OIL INSPECTION LAW.
An interpretation Asked With Re
Iation to Tank Inspection.

latIOn TO rank inspection.
The state inspection of oil was sub
mitted to Judge Otis yesterday for an
Interpretation of the law. The matter
was presented upon a stipulation of
facts in cause entitled Fl. B. Willis, as
state oil inspector, against The Stand
ard Oil Company, The Northwestern
Star Company, and The Independent
Oil Company. The principal points
raised are the constitutionality of the
law providing for an inspection, and the
amount of fees to be paid for inspection
in case the law should be declared valid.
The inspector claims 10 cents barrel
for oil in barrels, and 20 cents per bar
Irekfor inspecting oil in storage or rail
road tanks of over ten barrel capacity.
He claims fees for services done as
tfeiIOwS: For the Standard Oil Com
lpany, 1890 barrels, of which 1855 bar
IrefS were in storage tanks and 6,705
barrels in railroad tanks; for the North
western Star Oil company, 1850 barrels,
ofsWhich 211 were in storage tanks and
l $3.50 barrels i'll railroad tanks; for the
Independent Oil company, 1884 barrels,
of which 1876 barrels were in storage
tanks and 5,1S8 i'll railroad tanks. The
inspector demands 40 cents a barrel for
as that is the maximum
allewed by law. The oil of the Stand
lard, company was inspected in five iu-
iSpectionS.
Assistant Attorney General Childs
and G. w. Bum appeared for Inspector
Willis, JohnD. O'Brien for the Standard
Oil company, ex-Attorney General
Hahn, of Minneapolis, for the North
western Star Oil company. and
E. G. Stringer for the Independent
Oil company. The argument was
technical, but took up most of the day.
The counsel for the inspector took the
ground that the inspection in tanks is
for the convenience of the companies,
and it is his duty to inspect all of the
oil i'll the state, and that 1t is reasonable
to require the companies to pay the ex-
pepse of inspection throughout the
state. He also maintained that the
owner or inspector has no right under
the law to transfer oil before inspection.
Mr.. Stringer, for the Independent Oil
company, argued that the law is uncon-
stitutional. He also commended that the
oil in any event is not subject to in
spectlon until offered for sale in the
state, and this, Notwithstanding the fact
that the oil may be stored in
?
the purpose of sale. The law. he ar
gned, was meant to apply only to oil
sold for use in the state, and would not
apply to oil brought in the state by any
one for his own use.
Mr.. O'Brien, for the Standard Oil
company, surprised the attorneys of the
other companies by taking the position
that his company favored the inspection
of oil, and is willing to pay inspection
fees in case all companies are treated
alike. He said the Standard Oil COM
pany is willing to obey the law, and
raises no objection to its validity. He
also said that he held the view that any
Oil brought into the state is brought
here for the purposes of sale, as in
tended by the statute, and should be
inspected.
Judge Otis has the matter under con-
slderation. He intimated that he would
render speedy decision SO that the
matter may go on the April calendar of
the supreme court for review.