The Washington times., 1935-03-14


LOWS nancy utility "operat.
ing" companies to Federal con-
troll. And therefore l do not like
Mr.. Roosevelt's propaganda on
behalf of that bill.
I suppose his attack is a favor
able sign, since it shows that he
realizes the growing opposition.
and fears for the passage of the
bill. This is what forces him out
into the open, and brings him to
the defense of his pet measure.
But his political power is still
great, and it behooves believers
in sound economics and in con-
stitutional government, as well
as all investors in utilities to
redouble their efforts to let Con"
gresSmen and Senators know
what they feel.
A little while ago, Mr.. Roose-
velt retired from Washington and
besought the country to express
itself on the work relief bill.
Well, why not let the country
express itself on this utility issue?
The bill is bad in a dozen
ways.
(I 1t picks upon holding
companies in one industry and
not in others. If the holding
company is bad, why limit the
attack to utility holding COM
panies only?
CD It seeks to destroy a thing
because it is sometimes misused.
Why not prevent the misuse by
regulation? (He didn't destroy
the Stock Exchange, but merely
regulated its use)
3. 1t sets up Federal machinery
for minute and drastic regulation
of practically all operating" util-
ity companies.
4. 1t proposes to extend Fed"
eral regulation and increase Fed"
eral power, thus giving the CEN
tral government control over
State and local business, which
would be revolutionary. Gust read
what Mr.. Roosevelt's smart young
lawyers have put into the bill
in the way of making almost
everything interstate commerce.D
1 think the act as drawn
would certainly be declared un-
constitutional. That, however,
is cold comfort for the hun
dreds of thousands of small in
vestOrc whose savings are mean
while robbed of their value by
this threat.
The thing would be funny if
it were not so sad. The President
says that in this case regulation
by government cannot be etfec-
tive. Yet this bill proposes, after
destroying holding companies, to
have the Government regulate
practically the whole utility busi'
ness! What sense does that make?
He says that the holding COM
pany is inherently bad, yet he
presents some vague twaddle
about allowing geographically in
tegrated" holding companies to
survive. And (for the present, at
least) he would leave thousands
of holding companies in other
businesses unmolested. Does that
make sense?
Evidently in rivalry with Long
and Coughlin, Mr.. Roosevelt adds
a TRADE about American citizens"
being made dependant for their
daily bread" upon "the few"
Well, do you want to be dependent
for your daily bread upon the
politicians who run the Federal
Government?
He appeals to american ira
ditiOn." That sounds funny on
the lips of a New Dealer. I'm
der the guise of "experimenta-
tion," we have been taught that
the new and the different are
virtues. But what a mOckery
it is to overthrow the powers Of
the States, destroy private pro
perty without compensation and
aSSail the pleas of helpless in
vestOrS and employees as "prO.
paganda"-aIl in the name of
"tradition" American indepen-
dence!
Certainly, the holding company
and corporations in general, car
be improved. Further regulation
of a wise sort would be construc
tive. But when the President an
nounces that the utility holding
company must go"-he goes toe
far. Tell him so.