New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-08-11
D.. /. & W. LOSES CASE
ANTI TRUST OIL WINS
Must SerUe STANDARD RiUaI- Inter
state Commerce Precedent.

A decision which lawyers say is Of great i'm
poTtance. far precedent goes. was handed
down yesterday by Judge Lacombe in the
United States Circuit Court. denying an injunc-
ton to the Delaware. Lackawanna & Western
Railway Company against the Interstate Com
Tnerce Commission The company sought to re-
strain the commission from enforcing the provi-
sions of order made last winter in favor Of
Preston & Davis, an independent oil concern, at
No. 294 Flushing avenue. Brooklyn 1t is held
by Preston & Davis, which is the chief rival of
the Standard OH Company in Brooklyn. that
the real complainant in the action was the
Standard. which trying III that way TO pre-
vent the independent company from getting its
supply Of crude oil from the Pennsylvania fields.
According to the facts set forth in the pa
pers il was alleged that Preston & Davis orig
inally bought its supply Of oil from the Standard
Later, however, because OF local opposition from
q subsidiary Standard Oil company. II pur-
chased oil from independent concerns in Penn
sylvania, having it sent in tank cars ana delV-
cred at the Delaware, Lackawanna & western
terminal in South Brooklyn This went an
right until the Standard finally called the at
tention OF the Delaware. LackaWanna & west
ern Railway Company TO an old agreement with
the Trunk Line Traffic Association that all oil
for New York and Brooklyn should be dellv-
cred through the Standards big terminal on the
XIII Won Kull at Constable Hook thereby Civ
ing the Standard terminal charges The road
then declined TO supply Preston & Davis with
oil in tank cars at its Brooklyn terminal.
ROAD ORDERED TO SUPPLY OIL.
a complaint was made the Interstate Com
rnerce Commission. which, after a series Of
hearings, ordered the LackaWanna to continue,
as common carriers, 10 supply Preston & Davis
with oil from Independent Pennsylvania ship
pers-
The LackaHanna promptly went into the Fed
eral Court and asked for an injunction against
the Interstate Commerce Commission holding
u1 the order pending final hearing in the case
The road said its terminal facilities were eN-
ceelngly limited. and that to continue the Pres
Ton & Davis unlimited supply would cut short
the shipping TO other local Brooklyn merchants
especially those engaged in the produce trade
This Preston & Davis denied. and offered
figures 70 show that at time had the terminal
been taxed because Of the oil tank cars The
rrircipal objection. however. TO the oil cars
continued the road. was the great danger of fire
because Of oil drippings- AfHdavits were offered
IN substantiation. which told Of a fire several
years ago directly traceable to oil drpplngs.
Preston & Davis. in answer TO this insisted
that such conditions were due to carelessness
presumably the part of the road 1t also
insisted that the railroad, as a common carrier
must handle and deliver its cars whether the
Standard company wished Il or not
Counsel for the Interstate Commerce Com
mission was present in court and urged Judge
r.acombe TO deny the application for the injInc-
ton.
In his opinion Judge LacoTnbe says:
Al questions as 70 the propriety Of the order
made BY the commission and its power and juris-
diction may be- conveniently disposed Of at hnal
status quo by preliminary injunction is The risk OF
IRE which would irnperil not only the property OF
she defendant (the Preston & Davis company ana
other shippers by II. but also buildings owned by
others in the neighborhood Of the terminal
The oourt then says that the order in question
provided that the railway company might de-
rnand that ali precautions should be taken
against 2 fire: that il could require the con-
~, F7r7Icz
-or7 cocks and valves with efficient ones; that.
n unloading the tanks from the bottom by
gravity was dangerous. perhaps another method
coul6 be substituted. and also that the ROAD
rou,d insist that the unloading be done py
proper and careful employees
.,T-nop the nroof" writes Judge Lacombe
there seems TO be no sufficient reason for any
action by this court tn advance Of hnal near
ing and the motion is denied
The question Of the commissions power ana
Jurisdiction was raised by the plalntiir
n stz anoIics4fon for the restraining order. and
81 Was expected that the court would IN some
way at least touch upon these important Issues
hut gudge I,acombe neglected them, Simply
stating that they might be more properly pasSeu
upon At the final hearing Of the case WHICH VIII
he reached in October next
rx-s+ate Senator Davis. one Of the members
20 the firm Of Preston & Davis. said al the tifle
Of the application that it was simply an at
tempt OF the Standard OH company 10 oiiN MS
Germany out Of business
.yva have TO shin On cars" said Mr. Davis
while The Standard has pipe Hines direct from
its oil fields. This fact alone gives it a great
advantage, but not satisfied with lhat' II u
now attenptinE through, forcing the Delaware
l.sckawanna & Western TO bring this action 10
put an end 10 us"
Attorneys for the Delaware. Lackawafna q
Western and the Standard OH Company de-
eiined 20 discuss the decision or its effect as
Precedent