The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-10

The Montpelier Leader, which represents
the oil interests. says that oil producers of
that town who have been prospecting for
oil near Alexandria are confident tina the
State authorities and gas companies Will
not be able to enforce the law against the
waste of gas. 1t is said the oil producers
are taunting the gas men and inviting them
to test the matter in the courts. Tie Lead
er reports one of the former as saying:
The whole difficulty has or will resolve
itself into one question, which Of the raw
products is worth the most money to the
farmer at the well, the gas or the oil. The
producers can very easily show that ii is
not the farmer who has been getting any
thing like the worth of his gas. The one
who has been making the profit on ii has
been the mpa which piped ii out of the
field and sold it to consumers in the cities.
one indianapolis company has been making
over S4UO,00O on its gas, and it has been pay
ing, the farmers 500 a year in rentals on
each well, has been providing the line and
has been on the make right along. Then
the gas men argue that the so cents or 81 a
day which a farmer gets in rentals is equal
to the royalties he gets from a thirty or
1orty-barrel oil well. They can't convince
the Madison county land owner that gas is
the most valuable to a farmer, and they
won't be able to convince the courts. The
farmers have to be taken into consideration
first, because they own the gas and oil until
it is taken out of the wells. There are
other reasons why the Carver well. cannot
be shut down by law-the constitutional
right which allows a man to do as he
pleases with his property.
This is a frank statement of the conten-
ton on the part of the oil producers and
farmers, though so far as the latter are
concerned it is not a fair one. No doubt a
farmer who has both gas and oil under his
farm would get the most immediate profit
by marketing the oil and letting the gas go
to waste, but he would get the greatest
profit in the long run by marketing the
gas first and the oil afterwards. One nun
dred dollars a year royalty on a gas we'll
is not a princely income, but it is too much
to throw away for a larger profit on oil
when the latter can be utilized after the
gas is zone. Besides, in addition to the
royalty which the farmer receives on gas,
he is helping to maintain factories, which
make a home market not only for himself
but for hundreds of other farmers who do
not enjoy a royalty. A man should be will
ing to do something for the general good.
The oil producer above quoted probably
repeats what some lawyer has told him
when he says the oil wells cannot be closed
by law because a man has a constitutional
right to do as he pleases with his property.
That is a question to be tested in the
courts. 1t is true in a sense that the owner
of a farm owns the gas and oil beneath
the surface, but it is not so certain that
his proprietorship is above the eminent do
main of the State. If every owner Of a
farm where gas and oil exist may waste
them at his pleasure, then a few hundreds
OF land owners might waste gas that would
give employment and comfort to hundreds
OF thousands. Even admitting that a farmer
owns the gas beneath his farm, a mans
right to do as he pleases with his own
property is subject to limitations. 1t is q
maxim OF law that a man cannot use his
own property to the injury or detriment of
another. A farmer is not permitted to kill
or seine the fish in a stream that runs
through his farm, even though he own the
land on both sides of it. Neither would he
be permitted to divert or dam the stream
to the injury of his neighbors below him.
There are many restrictions on the right
or a man to do as he pleases with his own
property. In this particular case the Legis-
lature has forbidden the wanton waste of
natural gas for any purpose whatever.
without making any exception in favor of
those who want to realize the larger profit
on oil. This is the law, and it should be en-
forced.