United States v. Fletcher

8 F. Supp. 238, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1347
District Court, D. Idaho·Decided September 18, 1934·No. Nos. 1872, 1873·Published

Opinion

CAVANAH, District Judge.

After the motions to dismiss and to strike having been denied, on the orders to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue during the pendency of the actions, numerous affidavits and testimony were presented by the respective parties.

The issues now to be determined are of fact, and go to the question of whether the plaintiffs have made out such a prima facie case showing the right to final relief and if temporary injunction is necessary to preserve the right asserted by the plaintiff during the pendency of the actions.

Analysis of the bills was made by the court when the motions were disposed of, and it becomes unnecessary now to repeat them. The principal controlling issues of fact appear to be:

(A) Was the commodity loaded on board the tankers Papoose and Republic an illegal one at the time of shipment from the state of Texas under the National Industrial Recovery Act, the executive order of the President, and the laws of the state of Texas and the regulations of the Railroad Commission?

(B) Were the cargoes illegally produced and loaded aboard the tankers Papoose and Republic, and, if so, did they move in interstate commerce, and were they such as Congress had power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to prohibit ?

The bill in case 1872 relating to the shipment in the tanker Papoose alleges that during May, June, and July, 1934, the Railroad Commission of the State of Texas prescribed total quotas of allowable production from the East Texas Oil Field of 14,518.467; 15,-148.913; and 14,521,557 barrels, respectively, and divided such total allowable to the field proportionately among the wells in the field, and that during these months there was illegally produced crude petroleum in this field, represented hy oil moved and refined without tender or certificate of clearance as required by the regulations of the state commission; that some of such oil produced and withdrawn from storage was represented by certain number of refineries located in the fields were by them shipped to tidewater terminals of the American Petroleum Company located near Houston, Tex., and some of which was loaded aboard the tanker Papoose on July 31, 1934, in the amount of 70,000 barrels for transportation from Texas to Pacific Coast states and consigned to the defendant Fletcher Oil Company.

The bill in case 1873 relating to the shipment in the tanker Republic alleges that about August 11, 1934, the Harbor Terminal Company at Texas City, Tex., received from the Roeo Refining Company of Kilgore, Tex., four tank cars containing gasoline, aggregating 31,656 gallons and discharged into either Tank 1 or Tank 4 of the Harbor Terminal Company’s storage facilities. That there was from August 1 to August 12,1934, 54,619.67 barrels of gasoline from various sources collected in Tanks 1 and 4 of the storage facilities of the Harbor Terminal Company for the cargo for the tanker Republic and which was loaded on August 12, 1934, from Tanks 1 and 4, 51,621.24 barrels of gasoline; that between August 1 and 12, 1934, no gasoline was withdrawn from either of Tanks 1 and 4 save for the cargo of the tanker Republic; that during May, June, and July, 1934, the Roco Refining Company was not granted any approved tender, for movement of crude petroleum to its plant, which is required by Statute and regulations of Texas; that some of the petroleum and products thereof, so produced and withdrawn from storage, constituted a portion of the cargo of the tanker Republic transported from Texas to the states of Washington and Idaho for the Fletcher Oil Company; and it is further alleged that neither the consignors nor consignees, nor any other person, ever received any tender or certificate of clearance covering the crude oil from which the cargo of the vessel was refined or manufactured.

In answer to'those allegations which relate to the issue “A,” it is alleged that the proof fails to establish: First. That the gasoline constituting the cargo of the tanker Papoose and the tanker Republic was not at the time of the shipment prohibited from being withdrawn from storage and transported in interstate commerce under either section 9 (e) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (15 USCA § 709 (e) or the Executive Order of the President of July 11, 1933 .(15 USCA § 709 note), or the laws of Texas or regulations of its Railroad Commission, as the national law and executive order related only to petroleum and products thereof, and the laws of Texas and its regn[240] lations only prohibit such production and withdrawal from storage of petroleum and not gasoline.

Section 9 (e) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (15 USCA § 709 (c) reads: “The President is authorized to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder, by any board, commission, officer, or other duly authorized agency of a State. Any violation of any order of the President issued under the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by fine of not to exceed $1,000, or imprisonment for not to exceed six months, or both.”

The Executive Order of the President of July 11, 1933 (see 15 USCA § 709 note), reads: “By virtue of the authority vested in me by the act of Congress entitled ‘An Act To encourage national industrial recovery, to foster fair competition, and to provide for the construction of certain useful publie works, and for other purposes,’ approved June 16,1933 (Public No. 67, 73d Congress), the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder, by any board, commission, officer, or other duly authorized agency of a State, is hereby prohibited.”

The provisions of the law of Texas (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Tex. art. 6049c, § 5) read:

“The Railroad Commission shall have the power, and it shall be its duty from time to time, to inquire into the production, storage, transportation, refining, reclaiming, treating, marketing, or processing of crude oil and/or natural gas, and the reasonable market or consumer demand therefor, in order to determine whether or not waste exists or is imminent, or whether the conservation laws .of Texas or the orders of the Railroad Commission are being violated. It shall be the duty of all persons, companies, or corporations producing, storing, transporting, refining, reclaiming, treating, marketing, or processing crude oil or natural gas, to_ keep accurate records as to the amount of such products produced, stored, transported, refined, reclaimed, treated, marketed, or processed by such person, company, or corporation; and as to the source from which such person, company, or corporation has produced, obtained, or received crude oil, natural gas, or the products of either, and the disposition made of same.”

The Railroad Commission of Texas shall have authority to make rules and regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this act.

“It shall be the duty of all parties producing, storing or transporting crude petroleum oil or natural gas within this State, to make and to keep in this State a permanent record or copies of records of the quantity or amount of all such oil or gas so produced, stored or transported within this State.” Section 6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Fletcher, 8 F. Supp. 238, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1347 (D. Idaho 1934).

8 F. Supp. 238 (United States v. Fletcher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 709
15 U.S.C. § 709(e)