The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-13
LAW FOR SAVING THE GAS
QUESTION OF It VALIDITY ARGUED
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
Decision VIII Determine the Fight
Between the Gas and Oil Men
Got $1,000 Damages.

that has been given a vast amount or IN
terest by the agitation of the gas people
against the oil inspectors, was argued in
the Supreme Court yesterday, not on a case
made by prosecution since the oil prospect
ing began, but upon one of some months
standing, that of Andrew j. Townsend
against the state. The states side of the
case in support of the law was briefed by
c. c. Shirley, of Kokomo, and argued yes
terday by Deputy Attorney General Merrill
Moores. The argument for Townsend was
made by /. b. Simmons, of Hartford city.
Anderson, the appellant, was tried ana
convicted, first, by a justice of the peace
and afterward in the Circuit Court of
Blackford county, for having burned nat
ural gas in what is known as a flambeau
light, in violation of Section 1 of the act
of June 3, 1891, which is as follows:
THE use of natural gas for illuminating
purposes in what are known as hambeau
lights, is a Wasteful and eXtraVagant use
thereof, and is dangerous to the public
good, and it shall therefore be unlawful for
any company, corporation, or person, Tor
hire, pay, or otherwise, TO use natural gas
for Illuminating purposes in what are
known as tlambeau lights, in cities, towns,
highways, or elseWhere: Provided, that
nothing herein contained shall be construed
as to prohibit any such company, corpora
ton, or person from the necessary use OF
such gas in what are known as jumbo
burners, inclOsed in glass globe, or amps
or by the Use of other burners OF similar
character so inclosed as will consume no
more gas than said jumbo burners
Anderson's defense was an attack upon
the constitutionality of the act. Mr.. Sim
mons, in his argument, maintained that the
whole act is unconstitutional, because it in
vades the constitutional guarantee of life,
property and the pursuit of happiness en-
braced within the Constitution of the State
of Indiana and the fifth and fourteenth
amendments of the Constitution Of the
United States. The particular sections of
the Indiana Constitution referred to by
q and % of the Bill of Rights He also
said, Incidentally, that the act violates
Section of Article VII of the Constitution
of Indiana.
The burden of Mr.. Simmons's argument
VS. that Anderson owned the land. the well,
and it was a w~ell-establisfied principle Of
law that the landowner owns all beneath
the land and it is mis- to do as he pleases
with.
STATS POLICE POWER.
Mr.. Moores, in defending the law, main
tanned that it was clearly within the police
power of the State to prevent the waste of
a commodity in which the general public is
deeply concerned. In discussing the valid
ity of the act Mr.. Shirley said in his brief:
'Of course, the act of 1891 was passed by
the Legislature under what we call the po-
lice power. 1t is not commended by US that
the police power of the State is absolutely
without limitation; but within its legitimate
domain it would be difficult to imagine a
power more plenary or comprehensive. The
thing to be determined is whether the sub
ject is one of police regulation. If not, any
act in relation TO it which seriously impairs
or restricts the use of private property is
void under the constitutional guarantees
enumerated In appellants brief. On the
other hand, If the subject be one upon
which the police power of the State may
rightfully operate, then practically the Con-
stitution has set no bounds TO the legisla-
tive will. For it is indisputable that within
its legitimate domain the Legislature is as
supreme as are the courts within theirs.
The Legislature, as we have heretofore
seen, possesses all legislative power, and
police power is undoubtedly legislative.
The guarantee of life, liberty, property,
is impaired, or it's use greatly restricted,
are matters absolutely of no consequence
in determining the constitutionality of an
act of the Legislature relating to any sub
ject of police regulation. While not wholly
without limitation, the police power of the
State is not circumscrlbed by any provision
of the Bill of Rights.
The guarantees of life, liberty, property,
and the pursuit Of happiness therein con-
tanned were not intended to, and do not
affect the exercise of police power by the
Legislature of the State. because in the eX-
erclse OF that power over subjects within it,
P ProeeFs Of NAY 9sy Be Sc TAX taken NAV without nIonertv due be
taken without just compensation, and in
a variety Of ways the pursuit of happiness
be interrupted,
I'm the taking of property under the
police power there is. no implication that
the owner will be compensated for it. In
determining, therefore, the constitutional
ity of an act, like that under consideration,
we inquire not whether the act is an un-
warranted exercise of police power, but
whether or not 1t is an exercise of police
power at all. If. in passing the act, the
Legislature is exercising police power, its
judgment as to the wisdom of the act is
supreme. In other words, there is, strictly
speaking, no such thing as an unwar-
ranted exercise of police power by the
Legislature"
This contention was supported by numer-
Gus authorities, as was the next one, that
the constitution is not against the exercise
of the police power except where abso-
property Mr.. Shirley said:
CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY.
Property in natural gas is subject to
police regulations on far surer ground than
milling property, warehouses, bakeries and
similar private investments in which the
public have an interest only because a con-
siderable number of people are likely to
patronize them. 1t is not denied by counsel
for appellant, and indeed that question is
at rest everywhere, that the use of natural
gas is a legitimate subject of police regula-
tion. But it is claimed that such regulation
can have no relation to the waste or even
Wanton destruction of the substance,
though it should result in incalculable dim
mutton Of the aggregate wealth of the
State, and breed idleness, want and des-
titution in large communities made pros
porous by the influence of this great nat
ural resource.
take it that this court will notice,
judicially, the well known historical fact
that the discovery of natural gas, under
lying a large portion Of the States terri
tory, has during the past few years at
tracted hundreds of industrial enterprises,
in which thousands of skilled mechanics
find employment; transformed small viii
lagos to thriving cities; carried comfort
to the homes of thousands in cities remote
from what is known as the gas belt; and
made practically a necessity, to rich and
poor alike, what was formerly a luxury
only possible to the opulent,
These are some of the direct benefits
that have resulted from the discovery of
natural gas What influences these aggre-
gate forces, set in motion by that diScoV-
cry. ave already eXerted, and will here
social life of our people it is impossible
even to conjecture; how far it has con-
tributed, and will hereafter contribute to
their wealth cannot possibly be estimated.
but are likely to go on multiplying as long
as the supply of natural gas continues.
When that supply is exhausted no one can
measure the loss, the Inconvenience, the
enforced idleness and consequent destitu-
ton that are sure to follow. That it is
possible, even certain, to be exhausted we
know as Well as we know of its discovery.
This the Legislature knew when the act of
1891 became a law. It knew, as the discus
sions attending the passage of the bill
already been consumed through careless
ness and Wantonness: that unless restricted
the life of the States supply of gas fuel
would be greatly shortened
A large number of citations were sub
mitted, but the one that seemed to impress
the court most was a Massachusetts case,