The Birmingham age-herald., 1923-03-20

National Committee for the Defense of the Federal Waterpower act, Representative Kearns of Ohio, Sen ator Norris of Nebraska, and others. Attacks Power Commissioa.
 Inasmuch as the national commit tee of the defense of the federal waterpower act is composed of some of the distinguished men of the United States. including Clifford Pin chot, governor of Pennsylvania, John l.. Parker, governor of Louisiana, as well as all former cabinet officers (save John Barton Payne) who were directors of the federal power com- commission, MT. Oliver's connection of chat organization with the Ala bama Power company will, 1t is re- garded as probable, attract more at tion than any other feature of his statement.
 Tt came with poor grace" said Mir Oliver. from the secretary of the national committee, MT. Wells, when in his interview with the Wall Street Journal, November 13, he is quoted as saying: The Alabama Power com- pany's proposals comply fully with the waterpower act and are much better than the Ford offer.
 Allied With Power Company.
 This statement by Secretary Wells
 
 this statement will also justify the conclusion by members of this house that the committee is not now en- gagged in an organized effort to de- fend the waterpower act but is all lied with and engaged by the Ala bama Power company and it's allies to defeat the Ford offer."
 At thls juncture, MT. Oliver in- cludes 8 letter alleged to have been written by the committee to power companies asking for financial aid to meet necessary expenses.
 Do the members of the commit tee." asks MT. Oliver, think that the under the preteXt of defending the national power act? No, indeed. The farmers will understand that when such power interests and companies as the Electric Bond and Share com pany of New York. whose president is MT. g. z. Mitchell-and who is the dominant director Of the Alabama Power company--contribute to 'nec- essary expenses that contribution will be a part of the necessary ex- penses' to defeat the Ford offer" Charge. PartiaIits.
 Referring to the fact that Secre- tary Weeks considered the Ford of- fer for nearly seven months before sending it to Congress, and sent the offer of tho Alabama Power company within a few days after he had re- ceived it. Mir. Oliver said: The par tiality of the Secretary of War to the Alabama Power company is well un- derstood, but it is difficult to under stand at all how the secretary could withhold MT. Ford's offer for seven months whom MT. Ford proposed to make 10000 tons of fixed nitrogen, and send the Alabama Power compa- ny's offer to Congress in six days when that company did not propose to produce any fertilizer at all."
 MT. Oliver vehemently denied that the acceptance of the Ford offer would result in the giving of a sub- sidy to Ford, and attempted to point out differences he held to exist in the subsidy as provided for In the shipping program of the administra- tion. which he, his colleagues, and nearly all other democrats opposed. In conclusion, MT. Oliver declared that the delay in the adoption of a policy respecting Muscle Shoals had cost taxpayers $5.000,000. In this connection he said;
 Costs Taxpayers S5,OOO.00o.
 T measure my words after care- ful consideration and declare that the failure of the administration and Congress to adopt policy at Muscle Shoals. now nearly five years after the armistice, has cost the taxpayers s5,000.000. and the farmers of the country have gained nothing, but have been denied vote on the Ford offer and its acceptance
 The Alabamian aggressively de- tended the action of the Alabama delegation in leading the successful fight to postpone the availability of an appropriation of $7.5Oo,ooo. for the resumption of work on the Wilson dam from last July to last October. That effort at postponement which army engineers testified might re- suit in 8 years loss of work, MT. structive" fnasmuch as, he stated, it had for its object the furtherance of the Ford offer, and the forcing of Congress to adopt a definite policy.
 Immediate availability of subse- quent appropriations for the comple- ton of the dam was not opposed by the Alabama delegation, although no definite policy in the meantime had been adopted. It Is known. how ever, that had MT. Oliver been present at tho meeting of the ap- committee which decided to report such appropriation mea- sures, he would have voted in the negative.
 In an interview, contained in . dispatch by this bureau at that time. MT. Oliver expressed tho opinion that the enactment of appropriations guaranteeing the completion of the Wilson dam without the adoption of a permanent policy. would defeat the Ford offer until the dam had been