The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1913-09-08
CUT THE CLAWS
OF WATERPOWER
TRUST FOREVER
DECISION BY SUPREME COURT
MAY CARRY CONTROL OF FED
ERAL GOVERNMENT OVER WA
TERWAYs CLEAR TO SPRING
HOUSE.
SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL.

] SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL
Washington, Sept. "a supreme
court decision which will cut the
claws Of any water power trust, wheth-
er present or prospective, and may
finally carry the control Of the fed
era1 government over waterways clear
ito the spring house on the farm and
/ the trout brook in the mountains
decision which with one stroke Of the
/ pen wiped out ali title to property for
which value of So 450, 900 was claim
ed and an award of $3.50, 900 had been
made by lower court--seems to have
/ press OF the country.
Not since the far-reachfng and
| epoch making opinion Of Chief Justice
Marshall, delivered nearly ninety years
ago in the case OF Gibbons vs.. Ogden,
which has come to be considered by
bench and bar the leading case on the
powers granted by the commerce
clause of the constitution, has q more
important opinion relating to water
! ways been handed down by the SUI
preme court than the one rendered in
| the case of the United States VS..
Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.
Property Condemned.
The government found it necessary
to condemn the property of the water
power company IN order to provide for
the astounding growth Of commerce
az the outlet Of Lake Superior. Three
locks are already in use, two on the
American side and one on the Cana
dian. During 1912 there were carried
through these locks 72,472,6T6 tons of
freight, and the indications are that
this amount win be largely exceeded
this year. To provide for the further
increase OF tonnage which is certain
to come, a third American lock, 1850
feet long and so feet wide, is now
under construction and will be opened
for traffic in 1914, and fourth lock
OF the same dimensions has already
been authorized.
Senator Theodore e. Burton, who for
years was chairman of the rivers and
harbors committee of the house of rep
yesentatsves, and is now a member Of
the commerce committee of the upper
branch OF the national legislat ure and
an authority upon the navigable wa
terVtays of the country, believes that
the decision of the supreme court
'sustains the views OF the most ad-
vanced advocates of federal control Of
| water power. Tt establishes not mere
| ~ the paramount control of the federal
government for purposes OF navigation
but also the right OF congress 20 con-
troll and dispose of such water power
as may be developed In the improve
ment of navigation. In view Of other
decisions it would seem beyond ques-
ton that sfoh control extends not
only to the navigable portion of rivers
but to every reach OF stream and it's
tributaries, even to their source"
THE decision will undoubtedly afford
the strongest impulse to the movement
Gx@wa 1.l~~wN -
and that, too under conditions such
that this invaluable asset will not be-
come monopolized, but be retained for
the use of the people in the industrial
and domestic life of the country
1t was Senator Buroon's further
opinion that the decision makes the
federal government supreme in the
harmonious development of water
courses. especially when they form or
cross the boundaries of states, to pre-
vent monopoly OF water power enter
prises and to exercise control over
rates OF service when necessary. par
tfcularly when the business becomes
interstate in character.
A Powerful Asset.
The water power OF the country
said Senator Burton, 'is an asset of a |
value beyond the dreams of avarice |
ard 1t may be confidently expected |
that. as the coal supply which liz |
readily available Is diminished, 1t will |
assume it's naturally potential place in |
the industrial and domestic life OF the |
country"
The case Of the United States vs..
Chandler Dunbar Water Power Co. |
turned upon the question whether the /
Chandler Dunbar company had any
private property in the water power
capacity OF the rapids ard falls of the
st .Mary's river in the state OF Mich I
igan. Justice LuTton, in delivering the |
unanimous opinion OF the court. which
is believed by many eminent lawyers
to be as vital in its way as was the /
opinion OF Chief Justice Marshall in /
the case OF Gibbons against Ogden, /
held that the Chandler Dunbar COM
pany, as riparian owners. had no west
ed property right In the water power
inherent In the falls and rapids OF the /
river, and no right to place in the II
river the works essential to any prac-
teal use Of the flow Of the river, and II
the government cannot be justly re- H
duired to pay for an element OF value Il
which did not inhere In these parcels /
as upland The government had do Il
n1inion over the water power Of the Il
rapids ana falls and cannot be re-
Quired to pay any hypothetical addi- 1
GonaA value to riparian owner who II
had no right to appropriate the cur
rent to his own use"
Further along in the opinion, and 1
this Is the crux OF the decision. Justice Il
Iurton said:
The Justices Opinion.
The title OF the owner of fast land |!
upon the shore of a navigabIe river to &
the bed OF the river is at best quail II
fed one It is q title which inheres In Il
the ownership OF the shore and. unless
reserved or excluded by implication, H
passed with il as shadow follows a Il
substance. although capable OF distinct II