The Glenwood post., 1916-01-15

ny. The latter states that the case is
to be carried to the supreme court nf
the United States.
The attorneys state that the govern.
ment's victory does not mean that The
plant of the Colorado Power company
is to be confiscated or closed down. The
company will pay all of the back
charges on the basis of 800 month
from the date it started work on its
plant near Glenwood Springs, appeal
and if it wins in the highest court, r..
cover the fees it has paid. The COM
pany provides the bulk of the power
used by the Denver Gas and Electric
Light company to light Denver.
The Colorado Power company, sue
cessor to the Central Colorado Power
company, obtained its rights at Sho.
shone from ]. R. DeRemer, who made
the original filing on the public domain
in 1902 1t also took over the rights of
the Grand River Power and Transmis.
sion company. n 1905 the shoshone
site was withdrawn by the secretary of
agriculture as part of the Holy Cross
forest reserve. The presidents 8 proc
lamation making it reserve was issued
in 1907. The withdrawal was made be.
fore the power company spent any
money building plant.
In 1909 the secretaries of agriculture
and interior revoked the permit of the
company to use government land be-
cause it defied the government reguIa.
tions and refused to pay the fee or
take out permit.
The Colorado Power company spent
$3,000,000 on its plant at Shoshone and
100000 at Nederland, above Boulder
The Shoshone plant is in Garfield coun.
ty The secretary of agriculture main
tanned the right under the act of Feb.
Is, 1901, to impose certain sums as an
nual charges against the defendant
company, based upon the amount Of
current generated. The company said
the secretary lacked authority under
the act of 1901 to impose the charge
and that its right to conduct its plant
was based on perpetual easement IN
der the act of July 26, 1886.
Judge Lewis said in his opinion tina:
congress did not give the secretaries of
agriculture or the interior the right to
acquire an interest in the defendant s
business, directly or indirectly, nor to
lay tax on its product He added:
ITO put the defendants business un.
der public surveillance and thus sub.
ject it to examination as to the amount
of electrical energy produced and dis
posed of, for the purpose of laying
tribute thereon as basis of charge
to be fixed by the secretary, is to ca.
ry the power granted to him to doubt
full length and further than, I think,
is given by the act.'
Judge Lewis said that the law left u
doubtful field of action for both sides,
and the course taken by the power
company should not be taken as risk
Of all 1t had. He said that there was
no proof that the tax Of 800 month
levied by the government was un1sas-
enable nor excessive, nor more than
necessary in the protection Of the conf
plainant's rights.
The court says that the power given
the secretary should not and cannot bs
exercised arbitrarily or without just
cause. Tho Law, says the court, con-
templates that the user Of public DC.
main shall be protected as long as he
complies with reasonable regulations.
The decision establishes . precedent
In Colorado and will force all pcwcr
and similar concerns using the national
forests or the public domain TO take
out permit and pay the governnent
tAs fee demanded for the right TO do
4 |I.4s.r 10