The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-01-29

The minority then proceeds to challengs
tile majority to show a single support of
their contentious by laws on the statute
looks or decisions by the supreme court,
end declares. t''rhe principle invoked is a
rev departure and exceedingly danger
oIr. 1t is an attempt under the guise
OF regulating commerce, to invade the set
tled rights of the states for commercial
purposes"
Companies Secondary Condition
Senator Bankhead declares that the
power company in Connecticut or the Ala
bama Power company, which seeks to
build a dam at lock IS, are secondary
considerations. 1t is a fight for the right
Oh the states to control that which of right
Belongs to them.
The senator and those senators who
agree with him contend that the only au-
thority the government has in the water
uf navigable streams is for the purpose
of navigation alone, as provided in the
commerce clause of the constitution, and
that the water not necessary for naviga-
ton, including the water power that may
lie created thereby, is soley the property
OF the states, and the riparian owners
and in support of their contention they
point to numerous decisions of the su-
preme court covering a period of over 6t
years, laying down the principle that the
state alone owns and can control and
regulate the surplus water in navigable
streams, subject only to the paramount
right of navigation vested in the fedora
government.
They contend that the state of Alabama
should regulate and control water power
companies when they become public SER
vice corporations to the same extent as
they do railroads. In other words the gov
render this right is to permit the gov
ernment to usurp another right of a
state and to appropriate a revenue which
properly belongs to the state. There Is
not member of the Alabama delega-
tor but who declares that the state OF
Alabama should see to 1t that the Ala
hama Power company, or any other cor
poration developing the water power OF
tie state, should be regulated and con-
trolled, and have the proper safeguards
II the public provided, but they contend
that Alabama is fully competent to per-
form these duties herself, and will moi
ST rrender that right to the federal gov.
eminent.
Conservation Argument
In their argument against the bill grant
ing the Alabama Power company the
right to build dam at lock Is. which was
vetoed by the President, the National
Conservation congress takes the position
that the grantees are a part of an i'm
meEse water power trust which is COB
bi;ng up the water power resources OF
the country, and through Congress ia
gradually getting valuable rights to tho
great undeveloped resources of such pow
er in Alabama. and that the charter
granted to this company by the state OF
Alabama is as wide open as bootjack
and provides for no regulation or pro
lection to the public, or compensation te
the state. -
They declare that Alabama in her anx
iety to procure development of her won
derful gifts in water power has over
locked the necessity of providing protec.
ton for her citizens against a monopoly
This may be true. But it is contended
that even should Alabama elect to follow
such a course, II vests no right In the
federal government to interfere, and fur
ther that the state can regulate and con-
troll the power company. Just as they reg
u,ate and control other public service
corporations, the railroads, for instance
through the medium of the railroad COM
mission. And 1t matters little what the
charter itself provides the company can
not escape regulation and a fixed maxi
mum of rates.
Many Projects Involved
Various water power projects in practi-
cally every state of the union are involved
N--~
Is the one on Long Sault river, in the
state of New York. which II is stated
will develop sufficient power to run one
third of the industries of the state. A bill
Is pending before q subcommittee of the
foreign relations committee of the House
containing similar provision to the one
in the Connecticut river dam bill, and
similar to the amendment which the Sec
re1ary of War sought to have drafted In
the Coosa river bill
Governor Sulzer last week telegraphed
MI Flood. who Is chairman of the COM
r,ittee, protesting against the legislation
and directed his attorney general TO al
once arrange for a hearing before the
subcommittee TO protest against the pro-
vision for government control, and In his
telegram to Mr.. Flood said:
81 protest against the nrinciDle of this
bill, and ask that the state be not only
permitted to fix the rates by the public
service commission, but also be permitted
| to control the development and distrlbn-
ton of power, subject to federal contro
only for purposes of navigation.
Governor O'Neal, however, refused e
! take any part in the controversy over tht
water powers of Alabama, and 1t may bt
| because the governor saw that state reg
u.ation and control was impossible undei
tile charter already granted to the Ala
bama Power company, and preferred e
sacrifice the principle of the states righ
TO control to entering into contest witt
| the alleged monopoly which has the ad
vantage of an unwisely granted charter.
Reduce Cost of Fertilizer
| 1t is further pointed out by repre-
sentative of the National Conservation as
sociation that the Alabama Power com
Tdny does not propose to engage IN the
commercial sale of electric current, but
will utilize the power developed for the
purpose of manufacturing air nitrates fol
| fertilizers. And they claim to come as Q
great benefactor to the agricultural inter-
| ests of Alabama, and point out thai
| through them the cost of fertilizers VII
be greatly reduced. and use this as al
argument In support of their demand foi
| exemption of tolls and in the securing
| from the state exemption from taxation
| for a long number of years.
Yet. declares this same representative
ether branches or subsidiaries of this
same trust have under the same pre-
lenses secured valuable rights in Other
sections, and are now engaged in opera
ticn. and have not reduced the price OF
given any benefit of cheaper production tc
the ultimate consumer, and that their dec
laration of good faith is worthless with
cut a guarantee. This may be true, and
at any rate is worthy of investigation By
tte state of Alabama. through its au'
thorities, but does not alter the situation
with reference TO the federal government