The herald., 1895-12-28
fighting THE REF|AfR|ES
The Matter Before the Board
of Public Works
SAID TO BE PERSECUTION
The Refiners are Making a Hard Fight
In Contesting
SAID TO BE PERSECUTION
Standard Oil Stated to Be Behind the Present
Agitation and A. p. Maginnis as a Result
Uses Some Vigorous Language

The problem of oil refineries inside the
city limits occupied large share of the
attention of the board of public works yes
terday. A large delegation of taxpayers
and householders from the Seventh ward
was before the board to protest against the
proposed removal of what is known as the
Edwards refinery in their midst. A. P.
Maginnis, on behalf of the refinery inter-
ests, in which he is large owner. fl ed the
following:
lam obliged to be in court this morning
and therefore cannot attend your meeting
lam not able to understand why the oil
men, who have done more for Los Angel es
than any other people, should be so contin-
ually prosecuted. We have paid out about
$4,000 in litigation and have never yet
lost a case, which shows that we have been
wrongfully accused and annoyed unjustly.
The oil mea have distributed in your
city over 100000 in an effort to give you
cheap fuei-wiat you have been walking
over and CRYING for ever since you have
been a city. We have been the means of
reducing the cost of fuel to a permanent
equivalent of $3.50 per ton for coal. while
during the present slump in the price of oil
it is a much greater reduction even than
shat: and IN return we have been met only
by lawsuits and injunctions, in the way of
encouragement.
The parties interested in the industry
now sought to be suppressed are also inter-
ested in the wells that produce the oil that
goes through the refinery. These wells pay
a monthly payroll to their laborers of over
$4,000. and represent capital invested of
over 100000.
With these facts in view I am quite
sure your honorable body will not recon-
mend the passage of any ordinance that
will prohibit an industry so useful to your
city's Interests as ours without knowing
whether or not we can operate 1t with
out "maintaining nuisance" I
am informed that there is now
in our city wealthy and influential
member of the Standard Oil company who
will come before your honorable board
this morning to state that we cannot. Will
he deny that his company's rehneries are
located and operating in $50 cities of the
United States? Can he call your attention
to a single city in the United States that
ever passed such an ordinance as these
prosecutors ask you to recommend?
don't know who the gentleman is, but if
he comes before you with any such state
ments as | have heen informed he will
make, can only say he must be some dis
gruntled competitor of ours, a jealous
busy body or consummate ass, and hope
that before you recommend any ordinance
that will cripple us, you will appoint a
committee to investigate the matter and
determine whether OF lOt tne )ertleS seek
ing to shut us out are not asking you to
step beyond the bounds of your jurisdiction
to recommend the passage of an uncon-
stitutional ordinance and the establish
ment of an unheard of precedent. Know
ing you all gentlemen, feel that you will
not make haste to take a misstep.
Supplemental to the above. Attorney w.
r. Bacon acting also for the refineries,
made an exhaustive argument to the
board, speaking in substance as follows:
1.-THE city proposes to enact an ordinance
prohibiting the erection of an oil refinery
within the city limits, without having first
secured permission of the city council of
Los Angeles.
''The only ground upon which such un-
usual action would be warranted would be
under the general powers vested in the
municipality TO secure the public health.
safety and convenience, and such action
as is hereby proposed can only be upheld
when the power is conferred by direct
legislative authority.
"And this power must not be COMPOUNDED
with the powers inherent in municipalities
to abate nuisance, which power we do not
deny, any it is well settled that muLi-
cipality cannot arbitrarily declare thing
a nuisance when such thing is not nui-
sance per ee until that fact has been law
fully ascertained.
''The passage of this ordinance would
be undignified on the part of the city, and
unjust to parties Interested in the business
Observation-Disclosures it is clearly in ex-
cess of the powers of the council to en-
force.
ut is established that city cannot de-
clare property a nuisance unless in fact it
is a nuisance, and no authority 20 remove
It is derived from the ordinance declaring
it to be such.
"In State VS.. Mott. 81 Nd, 297, it was
held that city ordinance declaring it to
be unlawful TO burn oyster shells in city
limits is void.
"a clause in a charter giving city pow
er ito declare what shall be nuisance,
and to prevent and remove the same does
not mean that city council may declare
anything to be nuisance which has not
Heretofore been pronounced by law to be
ouch, or SO adjudicaed by judicial deter
mination.
ut must be borne in mind that the only
reason for allowing the proposed legisla-
ton is that 1t is for the purpose of prevent
ing nuisance, for no one would seriously
contend that the council could prevent
trader going into the dry goods business in
Los Angeles without first obtaining per-
mission. etc. the reason being that the
dry goods business is not per Sc a nuisance,
or a business that has been judicially de-
termned as proper subject of police sur
VIGILANCE. An oil refinery stands in exactly
the same category as does dry goods
store. and for the same reason is not the
proper subject of such legisiation; it is
true that an oil refinery may be conducted
in such manner as to become nuisance,
so may dry goods business, but i'll the
case of either the remedy for its suppress
sion is adequate and plain and the same in
either case.
"a slaughter house comes nearer being a
nuisance per Sc that the business aimed
at; still, where the city Of New Orleans
passed an ordinance making it unlawful to
erect slaughter house without first secur-
Ing permission of the council the ord-
nance was held TO be void. See u Fed.
Rep. 563.
sit was held in State VS.. Mott. 81 Md,
297; Am. Rep, 100, that under power to
prevent and remove nuisances and regu-
late the places where offensive trades are
carried on, city may not prohibit the
operation of lime kilns.
The proposed ordinance as to be seen
in the light of the foregoing authorities is
not only unconstitutional, but it is also
mischievous in the highest degree, as it is
a clear attempt to interfere with the en-
Joyment OF property by citizens of this city
and in violation of the fourteenth amend
ment to the constitution of the United
States.
IF this ordinance can be made, then
any business or avocatIon may be made
the subject of legislation and all business
be made to depend on the caprice of a city
council.
"This, of course, is monstrous doc.
trine. and it canDot be supposed but that
the present city council, when the legal
phase of the matter is brought to its atten-
tinp will at Oncp abandon tho ottap,nt 4, =