The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-26
NO RIGHT TO WASTE GAS
STATE FIGHTING OIL COMPANY In
SUPREME COURT.
Oral Argument on Both Sides Heard
observation-disclosures Made by
Mr.. Winter.

| Argument was heard by the Supreme
! Court yesterday in the cases that have been
brought to stop the waste of natural gas.
There are three cases, one brought by the
Lippincott Glass Company of Anderson, to
enjoin the Ohio Oil Company from wasting
gas from its oil wells. one by the State tc
enJoin the company from wasting gas any
place in the State, and another brought by
D. w. Scanlon, prosecutor Of Madison coun-
ty, to recover penalties for the violation of
the law.
Inc ONO Oil Company was represented
by M. f. Elliott, of Oil City, Pa: r. r.
Stevenson and George Shirts, of Noblesville
The other side, embracing the various in
terests of the State and the glass company,
was represented by C. c. Shirley, of Ko-
komo; Ferd Winter, of this city; Prosecutor
| Scanlon, Of Anderson, and Deputy Attorney
! General Moores. Mr.. Shirley spoke first
he discussed the right of an individual
manufacturer to enjoin any person from
wasting gas from the great lake, or natural
reservoir which he assumed TO underlie ex-
| tensve districts held by numerous land
owners. His argument was that all enjoy
the gas lake in common and that while each
land owner may have the right to drill into
1t, his use of the gas has been properly
regulated by the State so that it may not
to enjoy it. The case of an owner Of land
bordering a lake or river, he argued. was
analogous. While the owner would have
the right to use water from the lake or
stream, he must do it in such way as not
to injure the rights of others. Since the
natural gas field is we'll Defined he said,
and since it has been demonstrated that it
can be exhausted, any one who uses it must
be guided by similar restrictions and regu-
latlons as the common law regulations of
the rights TO benefit from streams and
waterways Laws have been passed to pro-
tect the fish in the streams and the game
in the forests. Until they have been re-
duced to actual possession by capture, they
are not the exclusive property of man,
even though they be in his forests or
streams running through his land, but be-
long to the State and laws regulating their
reduction to possession have been passed
Gas was not exclusive property, he said, I'M
til it had been reduced to possession, and so
long as it remained the property of the
State. laws might be passed by the Legis-
lature to provide against its waste.
Merrill Moores spoke OF the right of the
State to prevent, by injunction, any public
nuisance. In discussing the question of
nuisance, he showed that anything which
is against the public good may be regarded
as nuisance and the State may invoke the
courts to stop it. There was case in Cali
Iornla, where the State enjoined a hydraulic
mining company from pursuing it's bust
ness, inasmuch as the streams were polluted
ana IN some cases navigation stopped by
the operations of the hydraulic miners
Even though the invocation of the States
power to stop that which was against the
public good infrnged on the right to use
the water for hydraulic mining it was held
TO be proper remedy. Another case Mr.
Moores cited was that where the King of
Hungary enjoined Louis Kossuth from
printing paper money in London for circu-
lation in Hungary as the bills of the re-
public.
OIL COMPANY'S SIDE OF IT.
M. f. Elliott spoke first on behalf of the
oil company. He denied that there was a
great lake of gas underlying the country,
saying that if any one could say just where
wells should be drilled to prove productive
his fortune would be made in a short time.
He argued that it would be unconstitutional
to enjoin the owner of oii-producing land
from developing its resources merely be-
cause the owners of gas-bearing land might
be incidentally injured. This would be class
legislation. He contended that the police
power Of the State could not be invoked
in favor Of one industry at the damage of
another equally as important.
In the afternoon r. r. Stevenson and
| George Shirts, of Noblesville, continued the
argument on behalf of the oil company Mr..
Stevenson commended that there was a diff
| fambeau law. That law was simply intend
| ed to regulate the use of gas. Here, he said,
the contention is that the oil company is
not to have it's use in any way. There is
no way in which the oil can be used except
| the gas is used to force it up. He denied
/ the States ownership of all the gas.
Mr.. Shirts answered the contention that
| game and fish laws are analogous. Such
laws We're based on the theory that game
| might be prOpagated and preserved forever.
| In this case counsel has admitted that gas
must ultimately be completely exhausted.
| Who shall exhaust it?" he asked. 'They
| exhaust it? For individual profit They
| contend the glass company has the right
to go on manufacturing glass with a cheap
| er fuel. They do not say that this is the
only only fuel that the States supply of fuel is
! tect any rights of the whole people, but
have their own profit in view"
He went on to say that the Legislature
against the waste of gas. The law is not
entitled An act TO prevent the waste of
simply purports TO be an act to regulate its
use. No effort has been made to show the
! waste of gas was negligent or wanton.
! Nothing wrong is charged against the de-
| PENDANTS, save that the gas is permitted to
| escape, he said. Before any penalties could
be recovered, he said, the plaintiffs should
! have shown in their complaint how much
| gas was being wasted, if any-whether an
ounce or million feet. AS a matter of
| the oil company showed that there was
really no unnecessary waste. The gas is
| uSeU as the power TO raise the oil. There
| is no such thing, he said, as flowing oil
| well, in the sense of an artesian We'll and
| that in all cases where there was not suffi-
cient gas pressure to raise II, pumps had to
/ be used. Here the oil company relies upon
| the gas in lieu of machinery He said that
| there was no scheme known by which the
! oil could be saved. Mr. Shirts read at length
from the oil company's answer when he was
! questioned by the court to whether the
| gas might not be saved after it had been
utilized TO raise the oil. Prompted by Mr..
| Elliott, Mr.. Shirts explained that if there
was any immediate use to which the gas
| might be put it could be utilized, but that
! after forcing up the oil it's pressure was
| practically exhausted and there was no
means of transporting it. 1t was admitted
| he said, that the oil was worth more than
| the gas and that it cannot be produced by
| the highest skill known without allowing
| the gas TO waste. He questioned whether
| the court would undertake TO measure the
| relative value of oil and gas by simply taxi
ing into consideration the rights of the peo-
| pie regardless of the interests of the man
on whose land IL is being produced.
| No matter what argument was made he
| said, the other side was always driven back
to the law of the State. which in itself pro-