The Detroit times., 1913-10-27

department, joins in the denial.
AS this charge was never made,
the denial Is not significant. The
charge that was made. and which
stands uncontroverted, Is that con
gress on Feb. 5. 1905. granted a per-
petual franchise TO this power COM
pany TO construct dam across the
Mississippi. with no restrictions OF
consequence. except proviso that
locks should be constructed TO keep
open navigation and that these locks
and their appurtenances, when com
pleted, should become the property OF
the government. The joker came in
the provision concerning operation OF
the locks after completion. II was
pointed out that the United States
government would haXe to pay for
the operation and maintenance OF
these locks and their accessories Tor
ever In other words. congress grants
away In perpetuity franchise worth
millions OF dollars TO the Stone-WeD-
! ster water power interests, and then
the federal government must pay TO
keen open navigation INSTRUCTED by
this private dam.
The question of whether the com
pany furnishes power TO operate the
locks Is not material The fact is
that the company Is not compelled
to furnish any such power. and 1t is
safe assumption that this corpora
ton will not give away something for
nothing for any very extended period.
The act of Feb 3, 1905, provides
THAT when the said dam, lock. dry
dock and appurtenant works shall
have been completed to the satisfac-
ton OF the secretary of war. the Uni
ted States shall have the ownership
and control Of the said lock, dry dock,
and their appurtenances. and operate
and maintain the same. Here Is
specific provision in the act which
compels the government to pay for
ope ration and maintenance OF these
works which 1t has allowed privata
corporation to place In the way OF
navigation.
Further than that. another provision
OF the act reads: Provided. That
the United States shall bear the cost
of the supervision of the work by an
yided for In section one OF this act.
and also the cost OF maintaining and
operating the lock and dry dock
with their appurtenances. after
their completion and due acceptance
by the secretary OF war on behalf Of
the United States" n there could be
any more plain provision of law than
this, it does not appear how.
II this were not enough, the state
ments of the company itself would be
sufficient to show that these eminent
water-power grabbers have no inten-
ton OF being burdened with main
tanning any government locks and dry
dock. In Moody's Manual (the blue
book of finance) for July. 1913. In the
information furnished about the Mis-
sissippi River Power Co.. appears the
following significant sentences:
Under an arrangement with the
United States government the new
lock and dry dock will upon compile
ton become the property OF the gov
eminent, which will relieve the com
pany from any liability for their oper-
alton and up-keep. This amounts to
very plain statement that not the
company. but the government Is liable
for the maintenance and Ip-keep OF
the dock and locks built into the dam.
The power company has already
made a contract for 800 years with
distributing company in st. Louis
to furnish 0,000-horsepower per an
mum at a contract price Of $1,000. 900
per annum. Poors Manual (another
financial authority for January. 1913
(the latest issue) states that the pro-
iect is capitalized at $21 200, 000-six-
teen million common and six million
preferred stock. Without going into
the question Of how much of this may
or may not be water" II is apparent
that the above contract will pay the