Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-03-14

20 oaSI ana one on the west side
=, .he river. there where the dam is.
I q. uuer the decision Of the court
IS Wen Known that water power ia
IN the bed OF the river and In Tho
oank. 1t Is not just the water. There
10 not any State ownership of water
as such, but the State OF Maine ham
pens--because Of the ordinance nre-
.a,llhg at the time Of separation
II happens to be trustee OF these re-
served lots. AS l understand II the
STATE or Maine acts as trustee for the
oenent or the first settled minister
ana hrst established church. l NAV
ne IN error but believe that at such
time as an organized town and
church are established there with =
minister established there in good
falth, the titles of the State of Maine
I would Immediately vanish. The state
I holos those lots in trust, the best
mil sites In the town, for that pur-
/; pose. Now the Legislature has con-
troll over those lots, which happen to
be where the dam wants to be To-
Gated. There has never been any
development. 1t is so far away that
there never would be any develop
nent' certainly under present. condi-
tions' there never would be any dam
! there for other than storage DUR
poses. or what value is that to the
State OF Maine up there today as
contrasted with the benefits that will
accrue to the public from the de-
velopment of this far down the line.
ana whatever the value is, gentle
! men, whether 1t be $4,000. 500. 600.
or s1.000.000. this act protects. in
every single aspect the rights of the
State. Nothing will pass to this COM
pany. nothing will pass. under this
a G no
state has been paid whatever IS the
assessed damage. whatever'is the as
! sessed value. And is the State part
ing with it forever: No. This bill it,
, sell contains this provision, that
| Whatever rights are given here are
given only for period of SO years,
and that then the State OF Maine has
a right to take over this development
proposition, if it sees fit. paying
therefor simply the capital cost,
nothing for this franchise. this in
tangible franchise which we hear so
much about and which is the third
objection. the objection of the public
| utility proposition. the objection Of
the location of the lots. and the OBJ
lection of the franchise values which
you are said to be giving away
, Now with reference to the public
| lots-1 think l have covered it. That
refers to the public utility aspect,
| that this company is not under the
control of the Public Utilities Com
mission. Gentlemen, it is not, and
for simple reason. The Commits
sion is regulatory Commission over
public rates. This is not a company
that is going into the business of
profit making. We have had this CO.
| operative aspect of business here this
session in another form and we have
given just as careful attention in
, that committee to the cooperative
! aspect of farming as we have to the
cooperative aspect of the develop
ment of power. And the principle
is not one whit different. And when
the gentlemen came up with a CO.
operative marketing bill. we gave
that just as careful and conscientious
consideration as we have given this
| Are the two measures alike? Quite
similar. And the reason therefor is
the reason for no public utility
location. because this company is
not to charge rates. 1t is not
to be profit making. Every sin
! gle cent that comes to this
| corporation comes by contract with
| the people up and down the river
| who elect to become the incorpora-
tors.
Now. who are these incorporators?
Here is the Edwards Company of Au-
| gusta. the Lockwood Company of
| Waterville. The Hollingsworth-
. Whitney Company Of Waterville. The
! Shawmut Manufacturing Company.
! The Great Northern of Madison. The
| Hollingsworth- Whitney Company of
Madison. The International at Scion.
! The Central Maine Power with its
|
! the incorporators and these incor-
| porators are going to pay every cent
| of the expense of the building of this
| storage reservoir. And how are the
| people going ito get their money
| back" BY charging rates" No; they
| will get their money back by con-
| tracts with the companies they rep
! resent, and which have filed these
| propositions.
| Now supposing there is somebody
| on the river who does not want to
go in and be an incorporation, or con-
tribute. or pay anything for the wa
ter that is flowing by. They can
benefit by it just the same as the
| others. That water, rolling down to
| the sea, that water benefits every
| single industrial enterprise on that
! river. and whether they go into their
| pockets and take chance on the
| development of this power or not.
| they are equally participants, and
| they are participants, if they see fit,
without paying a cent
Now the franchise value. We have
| heard it talked that it was worth five
| million dollars. Let us see! The
| State of Maine has perfect right to-
| day to go up there and develop that
storage reservoir without any con-
! stitutional amendments whatever for
! the purposes set /forth in this bill
and pay for it by public taxation.
] That has been answered by the JUS
| tees of the Supreme Court in their
answer to Question One which was
/ submitted to them two years ago.
Then there comes the second
| question; has the State of Maine
! right to charge the power owners.
| those who are benefited down the
river? That is the second question
which was submitted to the Justices;
| has the State any right to recover
! bv rentals or by taxations. the cost
! OF the big development? And the
| cunreme Court said No" The, SUI
| irene Court said that it knew of no
! power of taxation which the state
possessed that could make any sim
| gle power owner down the river who
! was benefited. pay a cent for the in
creased flow which came by his
power site. There is a distinction
! which the gentlemen in the other
! branch and the gentlemen here have
t not appreciated. They talk about
| franchise of tremendous value that
Is being given to this corporation for
! nothing. This corporation is getting
a franchise. it is getting franchise
to be a corporation. and in doing