The Washington times., 1911-01-21

the only chance for its restoration to
the bill is in the Senate.
What Tawney Says.
Chairman Tawney. of the Appropria
tions Committee, made the following
additional explanation of the situation
today:
''All 1 have to say is that after care
fully considering this request, in con-
nection with the activities of the Dis
trict authorities along other manufact-
uring lines, as recommended in the
bill, the committee evidently considered
that the District was going into the
manufacturing business too rapidly.
Also the committee felt that 1t
would be better policy to defer action
upon the Great Falls project until the
opportunity Is presented to note the
experience of the District in other
projects, and whether or not municipal
activities of that character can be car
ried on under the authority of the Com
missiOnerS as effectively and at no
greater expense than by private indus
tries.
Tells of Other Reports.
Furthermore, the expenditure for the
investigation of the Great Falls project
would be unwise, because, as I under
stand it, unoffiCially, the project has
already been investigated by some of
the best engineers in the country to as
certain whether there would be any
profit in the utilization of this power,
and, I understand, the report of the en-
gineers will show that there is not suf-
tiCient water to make possible the pro-
duCtiOn of the necessary current, the
utilization Of which is necessary to the
economical operation of the plant"
Representative BuTlesOn, one of the
Democratic members of the SubCommit-
tee, which included the item knocked
out by the full committee, said it was
decided in the full committee that in
aSmuch as the provision concerning
Great Falls was subject to a point of
order, the committee deemed it useless
TO include it.
There would have been sufficient op-
position to have stricken out the 1tem
on the floor" said Mr.. Burleson.
Easily Stricken Out
Amy one man could have brought up
a point of order against it and the
item would have gone out. The COM
mittee, therefore, decided that 10 was
unnecessary to put it in the bill at
sll. There is a possibility it could be
inserted in the Senate, but such action,
doubtless, would be thwarted in the
House. This may not mean the aban-
dOnment of the project entirely, but 1t
WAS uSeItSS u put IIlt IltllI III liS cur
rent bill"
Representative Heflin. whose resolu-
Is somewhat related to the project,
took note of the fact that it recently
developed that the electric power com
pany had, for ten years, been furnish
ing arc lamps of only 700-candlepOwer
in lieu of the 1,OOO-candlepower called
for.
Company's Explanation.
The explanation of the company was
that the change in the system of arc
lighting had been authorized by the
Commissioners, and that the 7O0-candle-
power lamps give a better light than
the old-fashioned 1,OOO-candlepower arcs.
This fact, the company states, was
known to the Commissioners.
Mr.. Heflin said today:
The Government is paying out too
much money on contracts of this kind,
and the Democrats are going to begin
right now to have a house cleaning. l
intend to push my resolution, and | be-
lieve the Attorney General can recover
If the facts are as stated l am now
making an investigation of the entire