The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-07-22

IeQeTai NdLGf-pOWer act, IN erect,
"a scrap of paper"
"There is very little, if any. diff
ference, sthe document declares,
between giving a deed outright to
this property and giving lease for
one hundred years." In the event
the 100 year lease should be given
Mr.: Ford, the report says, it is
practically certain that every cor
poration that has made lease
under the Water Power Act twill
be elamoring at the doors of con-
gress for a modification of their
| leases and the extension of the
time from SO to 100 years. If
we make a 100. years lease to Mr..
Ford's corporation, are we not in
! honor bound to make. 400 year
lease to Mr.. Rockefeller's corpora
ton? It cannot be claimed in de-
fense that we cannot afford to- do
this because of the confidence
which the American people have in
! Mr.. Ford, and the lack of conf
dence they have in some of his
o-multimillionaires We are not
dealing with men, we are dealing
with "a corporation as unrestrained
and as unlimited and as unregulat-
ed as any, pirate that ever sailed
! the seas. Mr.. Ford. will have at
best but very few years Of con-
! nection with this corporation, but
notwithstanding this fact, why
should we be more lepient with a
corporation organized by one man
than another?'
The document asserts that Mr..
Ford is not claiming any things
claimed in his, behalf by many of
those who are spreading the
wonderful propaganda over the
country demanding that congress
shall accept his offer"
eff there were, no other reason
for rejecting this offer" the docu-
ment adds, "it ought to be rejected
for this one provision alone and
! if it is. accepted with this provis-
/ ion init, then congress ought to lay
| down the bars. and permit any or
ganization organized by any other
person to have the same privilege
and the same right of lease for
100 years Of complete and unregu-
lated control Of power developed
from our naxigable streams.
1t is estimated that a total
amount paid by the Ford corpora
ton by amortization during the
| 100 year period would be only s4.-
S68.39S. and the rate Of interest
paid by Mr.. Ford on the money
provided by the treasury is shown
| to be 2.79 per cent rather than 4
per cent.
The statement is made that the
! government cannot afford to enter
into "the leaning business at the
expense Of the tax payers and for
| the enrichment Of a great corpor-
alton that under the very terms of
, its offer will be beyond the regula-
ton of either federal or state au-
!. .thority.'
On the question as to whether the
steam plant at Gorgas, Alabama,
should be - included among the
properties to. be disposed Of at
Muscle: Shoals, the report says, IN
part:
eIt is quite apparent that since
ample power now exists at Mus
Gle Shoals there is no object in the
government retaining its interest
in the steam plant at Gorgas. It
has no connection whatever with
the permanent use and cper-
alton of the plant at Muscle
Shoals. e It would be wise
for the government to reclaim that
part Of the transmission line that
runs from Waco Quarry to Muscle
Shoals, in order that power may
be transmitted from Muscle Shoals
to the Quarry for the operation Of
the machinery there. Outside of
this, there mas. been no reason CIV
en- by anyone why the Gorgas
plant should be retained by the
government. It ought to sell its
interest in that plant and it is quite
apparent that the Alabama Power
company can afford to pay more
for the governments interest in
this plant than any other concern,
and it is inlmaterial whether that
part of the contract with the
Alabama Power Company. proyid-
ing for a sale to that company. is
illegal or not. The government
should make the sale and should
insist on securing a fair price for
the value of its interest"
Regarding Senator Norris bill
proposing government development
and operation for the Muscle
Shoals projects, the report con-
tains reference to the attitude
of senator's who, it says, are seem
ingly determined to turn this
property over to Mr.. Ford or alb
solutely prevent its development
by. anyone Seven members OF
the agricultural committee who
voted for. the favorable report OF
the Ford offer and opposed ia
vorable report on the Norris bill
are mentioned in this connection.
with them," the report says. lit
seems to be Ford or nothing. When
we take into consideration the
wonderful development that it pro-
yided in S. 1920 (The Norris bilD,
particularly for the South, it is diff
ficuIt to understand how senator's
from that section can assume sucn
an attitude.
I'm this bill there is offered to
the country and particularly to the