The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-30

Sented themselves.
JUDGE ELLIOTTS VIEWS.
The chairman introduced Judge Elliott.
who said the matter had been called to his
attention only the night before and he felt
some diffdence about giving opinions with
out further study of the questions involved,
but he would endeavor to answer such
questions as might be asked of him. He
said he thought the decision in the fam
beau case went great way toward settling
their right to remedy by injunction and he
did not believe that common law right
could be taken away by the act of 1893. On
the contrary. he regarded that act as sim
ply cumulative remedy giving sum-
mary means of stopping the waste The
penalty law he regarded also as simply
cumulative remedy. There was a time
when the courts were divided on the ques-
tion of whether criminal or ouasi-crimlnal
remedy would prevent an injunction from
lying, but the Supreme Court had held in
the Roby case that the fact that the state
could prosecute under criminal statute
did not deprive it of the right to appeal to
an equity court for an injunction. This
same doctrine had been affirmed even more
emphatically in the Debs case. He further
stated that he had been inclined to think
State in general injunction suit to prevent
this waste of gas but on this point he was
not sure. not having given it much thought.
He asked if the attorney general had been
consulted on this point. Mr.. Leach replied
that he had and had not advised that the
State bring the suit Judge Elliott made
the point that the State could ask a tenn
porary injunction without giving bond
fact that had been settled in the Roby case.
He felt that the best remedy at hand lay
in injunction proceedings founded upon the
doctrine that no man can so use his prop
erty as to injure his neighbor's s. las Il
matter of fact" said he, there is no such
thing under this any other form of gov
ernment, as absolute ownership of property.
We all own our property subject to the
rights of the public and may not use it to
the injury of our neighbors."
In answer to further questions Judge Ell
lott said he thought the Legislature could
pass a law that would clear up questions
of doubt and by which this waste of gas
could be stopped beyond doubt, but he
called attention to the fact that it would
require much time to get such a law passed
and then more time to determine its va
lidity. He thought the best thing was to
push the injunction suit. and he felt sure
that the Supreme Court would give an early
hearing upon a matter of such public i'm
portance.
Mayor Cromer made two motions, both
of which were adopted. The first was that
in their home counties they should do all
they could to further prosecutions under
the penalty law and otherwise take advan-
tage of their legal rights to stop the waste
of gas The other was that the meeting
petition the attorney general to bring in
junction proceedings in the name of the
State.
Mayor Mckee asked If it was the under
standing that they would not ask for an
extra session of the Legislature, and 1t was
then that Mr. Edwards made his appeal,
declaring that while they We're trying the
other remedies they should also ask this.
He dwelt at length upon the damage that
was being done and said an extra session
was matter of small cost in comparison
with the interests thus endangered.
Mayor Mckee declared that the sentiment
of the State was agsdilst nm extra session,
and they could not ask it very well until
all remedies at hand had been exhausted.
Mayor Cromer spoke more emphatically
along this line, asking how the people of
the State would accept the statement that
nobody had been willing to assume the re-
sponsbility imposed by law in obtaining
an immediate restraining order. In his eff
forts to enforce criminal laws he had found
that the greatest difficulty was the hesi-
fancy of the people to assume the response
bility imposed by law in obtaining an inn
mediate restraining order. In his efforts to
enforce criminal laws he had found that
the greatest difficulty was the hesitancy of
the people to assume the responsibility of
making affidavits to their complaints.
PETITION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Judge Elliott had pointed out that imme-
diate restraining orders could be had by
presenting verified complaints and bonds
and this was the point Mr.. Cromer was
driving at. He was willing to ask for a
special session, if the meeting so decided,
but they could do it with better grace if
they first fought with the weapons in their
hands. He intended to call the meeting at
Muncie anyhow to stir UP public sentiment
on the subject Finally motion was made
by Mr.. Edwards and amended by Mr.. Net
terville that the meetings be held in the
various cities and each appoint commit
tee of three to confer with the Governor
upon some date to be agreed upon later.
This was carried and the meeting adjourned
after the mayors present had signed the
following petition addressed ITO the Hon.
Attorney General of Indiana
I'VE, the undersigned citizens, in mass
meeting assembled hereby implore your
aid and assistance in seeing that the in
junction suit now pending at Anderson,
Ind, wherein Lippincott is plaintiff and the
Ohio Oil Company is defendant, is speedily
(and at once) brought before the Supreme
Court for determination; and that you give
to the state gas inspector all the further
assistance in your power to prevent the
further waste of gas in this State and that
you further, If the same be possible, bring
a suit in the name of the State on relation
of the said gas inspector to enjoin the fur
ther waste occasioned by the operations for
oils in said State"
After the adjournment the subject was
discussed in groups and in one of these
Messrs. Kelly and Lppincott agreed that
they would take steps to procure temporary
restraining orders.
State VIII Probably Act.
The attorney general was informed last
night of the petitions signed at Alexandria.
Il have thought for several days" he re-
marked, that l would probably have to
bring an injunction srit.'