Western Carolina Democrat and French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1913-1915, 1915-11-11
BIG FIGHT OVER WATER
POWER SITE is RENEWED.
Supreme Court Grants Rehearinx:
Associate Judges Appear Dissat-
iaffnd With NlnrA1r AASkrni.,m

Supreme sCOurt Grants Rehearinx;
Associate Judges appear DisSat-
istied With Glarks OpInb.H.
The Democrat recently gave the de-
cision of the Supreme court RELATIVES
to the suit for control of a water pow
er site on Green River. The follow
ing from the Greensboro News of last
Wednesday will be of interest in this
connection:
CBy w. T. Bost.)
Raleigh, Nov. 2-The Supreme
courts decision to rehear the Blue
Ridge Interurban Railways suit
against the He~ndersonyille Light and
Power and I~nterurban Railway COM
pany has renewed the fight for control
of a water power twice in litigation.
The. first decision in the case con-
tained. some of the sharpest things in
the vocabulary OF Chief Justice Clark
The facts as they addressed them
seIves to his mind justified his belief
that the Blue Ridge I~nterurban is
chiefly owned by the Southern Power
company which is chiefly owned by
the old American Tobacco company
interests. The smaller or local COM
pany in Henderson had been condemn
ed by the greater company. After re-
4SAA NAS ia In d40G1O0O0 1
that the local company had offered the |
greater one $40,0 % for its interest in
the river which furnishes the power,
and that the bigger or I~nterurban com
pany had refused this offer and made
L of $1,000 for the smaller COM
pany's interests, Chief Justice Clark !
picturesquely described the Interur-
bans conduct as that of David, the
theft of a single eve lamb.
This caustic description of the com
made his brethren on the bench
for moderation and he censored
that portion of his decision. The case
went back and before it reached a jury
it was again non-Suited. The local
company appealed and a unanimous
court sent it back for trial.
Four Different Opinions
The court wrote four different opin-
ions. All agreed that the smaller COM
and the defendant in the original
dealing with the right to coz
denim properties for water power a.
velopments, had the right to prCsI
its facts to the jury, Judge Cha.
reared" He warned the pea
pie that one of the great dangers -
North Carolina is the wafer power
and again he charged the SouC-
ELI Power company with large owner
in this enterprise. The company
denies any such control ard Charles
w. Tlllett appearing for it having
something of a reputation for trust
busting and a fine faculty for getting
everybody after him, has repeatedly
d1sclaimed any service fot 8 company
engaged in u throat methods. Mr..
T1llett was here IL days ago and pre-
scented anew the petition fer rehear-
ing. Again he denied the facts alleg-
ed by Judge Clark, His company re-
sents the ascriDtion of ownership TO
big water power trust, ii it is one.
Judge Clark wrote the opinion and
three others were written. Not >one
handed down the law as the chief JUS
tice did. Judge Clark held tuat If the
river is not available for water power
the big company has no use for lt'and
cannot develop it and that lf II is avail
able and the He~ndersonville company
to develop it that just because
the local company is smaller It does
yield its rights. The two corpor
atoms appear to have joint control CT,
the waters. The chief justice contends
that condemnation cannot be Justified
the stream Is to be used for WI
to- power.
1t just gets out in spite of the Sec
recy that generally ~pervadcs the SUI
preme court deliberations that the
court isn't satisfied with the opinion 1
of the chief justice, that il is written
so far away from what II regards as
the real issue that a new opinion is
necessary. Whether it al rever-
sal of the decision of several weeks I
ago ia another thing Certainty the |
majority in the c%oncurring opinions
does not appear to have read the chief
Justices passionate protest against
the trend of things unless the con-
curing judges decided to get as far
away from Clark as possible.
CAIN TWO cENTs A po1rND