The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1911-09-20
CONGRESSMAN SPEER LENDS HAND
Writes Strong Protest Against
Water Rights MOnepOly,

and turning over the water rights of Tio-
nests creek and Clarion river to monop-
ally and has written a powerful and most
comprehensive protest against such grant
on the part ofthe State Water Commission
at Harrisburg, which we publish in full.
Congressman Speer assures his people
that he is with them in this fight to a
finish, and holds himself in readiness to
oppose this monopolistic grab at every
turn. Following is his letter:
OIL CITY, Pa, SEPT. IA, 1911.
To the Water Supply Commission Of
Pennsylvania.
GENTLEMEN: citizen OF Western
Pennsylvania, in the territory to be af-
fected thereby, desire earnestly to pro-
test against the approval by your Com
mission OF the application now pending
for charters to dam, store and use for
power and other purposes the waters OF
Tionests creek and Clarion river.
The effect OF these charters, If their pur-
pose can be carried out, is TO grant to the
incorporstors an absolute monopoly of
the waters OF these two streams for prac-
tically all purposes; and If the project is
feasible, the franchise in the end would
be worth millions of dollars to its owners;
this would be taking from the people the
benefits which they are entitled to from
these natural resources, and placing them
in the hands of the owners of these char
ters.
The Commission, as 1 understand 1t,
was created in pursuance ofs widespread
demand, recently developed, that the
natural resources of the country should
be conserved for the public, and not per-
mitted to be monopolized for the benefit
of few individuals, and that the waters
of our state especially should be so con-
served and kept uncontaminsted so as to
be suitable for public use. In further
snce of this advanced governmental idea,
at the same session of the legislature
which created your Commission, an act
was passed taking away from water COM
respects the appropriation of the streams,
rivers, or waters fthis Common wealth,
or any Of them and the land governed
thereby" Your Commission also must
approve under the legislation creating it
and subsequent legislation enlarging its
powers, of all charters which in any way
apply TO or effect the waters of the Com
monwealth. This power no doubt was
given for the very purpose of enabling
your Commission to aid in this work OF
our natural resources.
Water is as much public necessity as
air Hnd to grant to few individuals the
of the water of these two i'm
portant streams, especially without any
public benefit from said grant, would be
an outrage upon the communities which |
are entitled to the use and benefit OF
these waters.
1t would seem sufficiently clear that
the intention of the legislature of 1905 was
to prevent any such monopoly by taxi
ing away the right of eminent domain as
already stated, and if it is possible under
the law for those who may obtain these
charters applied for to monopolize the
streams under them, it will be on account |
of some defect in the wording of the law |
rather than in the intent of those making |
it.
Personally l am of the opinion that no |
charters can be legally granted to enable
the incorporators to accomplish what |
they desire, but if it were believed they |
could do so then the capitalization is en-.
tirely inadequate, and to grant charters OF
this character is a violation Of the rule |
which has been adopted in this Common
wealth of requiring those applying for a
charter to show a capitalization fairly |
for the purposes for which the |
is made. If these charters
when granted are valid and if the project |
is feasible 1t gives to these incorporstors
a most valuable franchise which they
have thus acquired for practically moth
ing and which they can exploit to their
own financial advantage by turning these
valuable franchises over to persons who
may have and are willing to furnish the
money to do the work. The Common
wealth should not grant valuable fran
chises for that purpose and therefore in
all cases of this character the capitaliza-
tion should be ample for the purposes of
charters. believe it would be the clear
duty of the Commission to take into con-
sideration all phases of the question and
especially the rights of the citizens in the
localities of these streams and entitled to
advantages thereof; and since our legisla-
tion appears to have been intended TO pre-
vent such monopolization of our
streams, it should not be permitted by
the Commission even if by some legal
tecbnicality the right to grant such char
tiers may exist. Such grant is clearly
antsgonistic to the intent if not the word
ing of our statutes and, as 1 believe, a
violation of the common law rights of the
citizens. Respectfully yours,
p. NJ. SPEER.
N.II.