Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-02-24
SEEN
IN MUSCLE SHOALS
Current Measure Believed
Factor in Presidential
Race Next Year.

symbols are even more potent in poll
tics than in legislation.
If President Hoover should approve
the bill, its principal author, Senator
George w. Norris of Nebraska, would
be sincerely thrilled almost to the point
of reverent hosannaS. for he believes
with the passion of an evangelist cru
sader in the thing that the bill SYM
bolizes, which is Government ownership
and operation. At the same time, If
President Hoover should veto the bill
Senator Norris would be only slightly
less pleased, for in that case he would
make Muscle Shoals the symbol for an
issue in next years presidential election.
Symbol in Election.
For that matter, Muscle Shoals,
whether vetoed or approved, will be a
symbol in the election anyhow. 1t Is an
issue, said Representative Albert W.
johnson Of Washington, hostilely, that
is coming along like creeping paralysis
on old Uncle Sam"
Government ownership and operation
will be an issue next year equal to pro-
hibition, and in some possible outcomes
outweighing prohibition.
President Hoover. II he vetoeS the
Muscle Shoals bill, will be symbolized as
opposing Government ownership ard
operation. That much Of the symbol
will be quite accurate. In the looSeneSS
with which symbols are used, however.
and the vagueness OF the effect they
make on the public, effort will be made
to symbolic Mr.. Hoover as partisan
Of the power trust" That, OF course,
will be incorrect, though its Incorrect
ness may not abate its effect on the
public mind.
The true issue is Government owner
ship and operation versus strong Gov
eminent regulation of private operation.
President Hoover has often gone on rec
ord as advocating strong Government
regulation. In a presidential campaign,
however, the issue will be called, SYM
bolically, and therefore vaguely, "the
power trust" or, as Democratic Senator
Dill of Washington puts 1t, the power
octopus" Candidates in both parties
will be described, again symbolically, as
"for" the power trust or against" the
power trust
Injustice Is Expected.
In the Democratic party Gov. Roose-
welt and ex-Gov. Smith of New York
will be described as "anti-power." owen
D. Young, of course, and Gov. Richie
of Maryland as well as probably Sem
ator Robinson of Arkansas will be de-
scribed as "for" the power trust. 1t will
all be inexact and 1t will do much
injustice, but symbolism in politics
works that way.
In the event the Democratic nominee
should be one not approved by the more
radical as "anti-power," 1t is likely that
some leader, presumably Gov Pinchot
of Pennsylvania, will inaugurate third
ticket with the cause "anti-power." The
situation is easy to identify, for it is
a duplicate, speaking roughly, of what
went on in the 1905 and early 1900s.
with the railroads or other forms Of big
business filling the role now taken by
the public utility industry.
In the election next year, and in the
present maneuvers looking to next year,
the symbols almost certainly will 'be
interpreted, as Is usual in politics, as
broad contracts of white and black.
the power trust" Black will be every
body else.
Crowded With Refinements.
Actually the issue Is crowded with
reflnements, and intelligent understand
ing Of these distinctions could lead to
the wisest possible course. Many con-
servatives believe, for example, that 1t
is well for the Government to build
the dams for what sources Of water
power it owns, selling the power whole
u,
meal phrase Is. Senator Norris, how
build transmission lines to deliver the
power to the consumer. 1t is on this
point that the past three months of
struggle has ragged. Had Senator Norris
been willing to let Government oper-
alton stop with the manufacture of
power, emitting transmission of it, the
Muscle Shoals bill might have become
law some time ago. This same Ques-
ton, whether Government operation
shall stop with making the power or
shall include the building of trans
mission lines, is an issue In the agita-
ton about power in New York and other
States.
Another refinement within the broad
question makes a distinction between
Government operation and public
operation" The distinction Is between
operation by the Federal Government
and operation by local authorities.
Representative Albert w. johnson, for
example, speaking strongly against the
present Muscle Shoals bill for Govern
ment operation, implied that public
ownership OF power lines and plants by
cities, counties and States Is quite an
other thing" which he might not find
Objectionable.
Much fervOr Is Shown.
The present Muscle Shoals bill, not
only by its words, but by q kind of
passion that infuses the words, goes
the whole length of operation by the
! Federal Government with the specific
purpose Of making things as difncult
as possible for private corporations
competing in the same territory. If
the private corporations should be
driven out of business, that would be
ultimate satisfaction for Senator Norris.
Any one who feels as strongly opposed
| to that as Representative Charles A.
Eaton OF New JERSEY, may call 1t as he
did by the epithet "a hunk of sovietism ~
The fervor Senator Norris has In
| jected into his bill can be inferred from
his statutory specifications for persons
| appointed to manage Muscle Shoals.
He Is like a religious Zealot, or an eco
nomic autocrat of the type now familiar
In some European countries, writing a
water tight credo which shall be the
article, oath and test Of the true faith
and shall ban all heretics:
"All members of the board shall be
| persons that profess a belief in the
| feasibility and wisdom" etc, 50 that
| by reason thereof the corporation may
be a self-sustaining and continuing
| success"
Humor Seen as Antidote.
Any manager of Muscle Shoals who