The times., 1899-06-11
LITIGATION over
A GASOLINE TANK
Standard Oil Company May
Be in Contempt of Court.
Accused of Disregarding an Order
of Justice Hagner.
Residents of South Washington Seek
to Compel the Corporation to
Obey IA judicial Decree.

1t was stated yesterday by a person in
position to know, that the Standard Oil
Company is about to be called to account
by the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia. 1t is said that the great corpo-
ration, in defiance of the mandate of one
of the justices of the court, has continued
to operate a certain part of its plant in
South Washington. and for this. it is stat
ed, the local courts will on Tuesday next,
require the Standard Oil Company TO show
cause why it shall not be ruled for con-
tempt.
The cause for this action by the Su-
preme Court of the District is the alleged
violation of the order of the court made
by Justice Hagner about two and half
years ago, which prohibited the use by
the Standard Oil people of a certain new
oil tank which had just been erected. The
decree OF the court was issued in suit
in equity brought by large number of
the residents and the property owners in
the section Of the city in which the tank
is located.
The matter was heard by Justice Hag-
ner, Messrs. c. Maurice Smith and Ed
win Forrest representing the residents
ONHtT5. anu MGSSTS. A. =.
Worthington and Clarence a Branden-
burg the Standard Oil Company
In an elaborate opinion Justice Hagner
granted restraining order enjoining the
defendant company from using a certain
new oil tank which it had recently con-
structed in connection with its plant at
South Capitol Half, I, and K Streets The
Standard Oil Company took the matter to
the Court of Appeals for the District,
which tribunal, however, affirmed the de-
cision of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict.
The complainants In the original pro-
ceedings, which were begun at the April
term Of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict in 1897, were John G. Oeser and
William j. Downey. Accompanying the
complaint were a number of affidavits
made by residents living near the Stand
ard Oil plant and also of the owners of
property in that vicinity. AS exhibits in
the case, the following records were filed:
Application of the defendant under date OF
November II, 1896. addressed to the Commits
sioners, d. c., for permit TO erect an oil tank: :
consent OF three property holders under date OF
September D. 1886 to granting OF permit; report
Of fire marshal under date OF January s, 1891 on
said application; communication of property OWL
ers under date Of November 30, 1896 addressed to
the Commissioners, d. c., protesting against is
suance OF permit, "as il would be dangerous to
life and property, as well a nuisance in tine
neighborhoOd and detrimental to the value OF real
estate in that section by retarding other proposed
improvements; report OF inspector OF buildings
under date of january 6, 1897, recommending the
granting of the permit for the erection OF the oil
tank to which objection had been raised by the
residents in the neighborhood and the owners OF
the adjacent property.
The following affidavit was fled:
The affidavit of E F. Sweeney states that Re
fc tho ~ f,,a Irlf
southeast consisting of a two-story frame DWELL
ing at the southeast corner of Half and Streets
southeast; that One-haf Street separates his
property nom that of the oil company, street
OF the width OF eighty feet; that the warehouse
of said company faces on ! Street and from out
of the warehouse oils are conveyed or trans
mitted by means Of pipes to wagons for de-
| livery in the District, and the wagons receiving
such oil stand or are placed upon a wooden
| foundation or platform upon which the oils are
! allowed to and do leak and run; that its office
| is next to the warehouse, to the east, and in.
mediately in the OF said Office steam railroaC
tracks enter the oil company's property, through
| gateway or entrance, for the purpose OF con
| yeying and actually do convey into the company
| yard enclosure, by means Of and il
| tanks, OIL gasoline. and other infammable ma
| teTial; that from fifty to sixty locomotives ol
engines and operated the tracks o
| the railroad company within 4 distance OF On
| TO ll5 feet of the oil company's property, anC
| that while so running the engines and LOCOMOTIVES
| frequently emit sparks Of fire, and have done 81
| since the oil company has been using the prop
erty and when the wind prevails from tn,
| north or northwest he has frequently seen spark
| OF fire pass toward and portions of III,
| property Of the oil company improved and usct
| as stated; that the said oil company has erectet
| on its property two gasoline oil tanks and i'm
| mcdiately south OF the two-stogy hricl
| stable, in the second story of which large quan
titles Of hay are stored that in said second stor,
| of the stable and on the west side thereof arr
| windows opening toward the iron oil tank coy
| which is from thirty TO thirty five feet in heigh
and about TWENTY-FIVE feet in diameter; that sait
tank contains almost continuously from 25,OOO t,
1000 gallons of oil, fronts on Street within
| three or four feet Of n wooden or board tenc,
eight feet high, forming the southern boundary
| of the oil companys property and the nurti
| building line OF Street; that said tank is place.
| or supported upon wooden foundation and tn
| oil from the tank leaks therefrom and run
down TO and upon the wooden foundation and i
there allowed TO remain; that near 10 and il
| direction west Of the oil tank has been place.
and allowed to remain by the oil company abou
1000 empty oil barrels standing Al 4 height from
twenty-five to thirty feet from the ground. an,
extending in length on the surface OF the ground
In its answer to the complaint tn
Standard Oil Company stated that if ther
was leakage. as alleged in the bill, it wa
no greater than would be incident to tn
most prudent and careful conduct of bust
ness, and not dangerous. II denied that /
had permitted or allowed twenty or NOR
barrels of oil or gasoline to remain abov
the cellar of its warehouse, but if it did
was not against the law; that If ii did kee
the barrels referred TO on its premises
there was no danger; that the old barrel
were only used occasionally, and it wa
contemplated some time in the near futur
TO remove the barrels.
In support of its answer the defendan
filed large number of affidavits, princi
| mol pF f,e VIZ hot Df IL
railroad company, which do not in thei
contents materially differ from alleging tn
defences, or some of them, set up by tn
answer. Upon hearing upon the BILL an
swer, and affidayits the court decreed:
First-An injunction against the erection of
new tank under the Permit of January O. 1897
and if the same was constructed before the pas
ing of the decree, then from storing or keepin
therein kerosene oils, gasoline, or other product
of petroleum; and,
Second-From and after the first day of june
1897, the defendant was restrained and enjoine
from using its said property for the storage an
delivery thcrefrom OF oil, gasoline, &c.
1t is stated that within the last fe,
weeks testimony has been taken by tn
original petitioners to show that tn
Standard Oil Company has violated tn
decree of the court. in that it has bee
using the oil tank which it was specific
in the order of Justice Hagner should nc
be used. The evidence on this matter,
is said is complete and sufficient TO sus
tain the allegation that the order of tn
court has been violated, and that nothin
now remains TO be done but to petitio
the Supreme Court of the District TO com
pei the Standard Oil Company to sho'
cause why it shall not be ruled for con
tempt.
This step, it is understood, will be take
on Tuesday next by Messrs. Smith an
| Eorrest counsel for the comnlainants