The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-02-17
NEW DEAL IS
VIGOROUSLY
8-T0-1 RULING
Every Issue in Power Prof.
eCt Held Legal by
Justices.
HUGHES READS VERDICT
ConCurring Opinion Given
by BrandeiS on Behalf
of Colleagues.
By United Press

WASHINGTON, Feb. IT,
The Supreme Court today up
held constitutionality of the
New Deals vast Tennessee
Valley Authority experiment
on all points placed in issue in
the present test.
The vote of the Supreme
Court to uphold the general
constitutionality of the IVA
was eight to one. The lone
dissenter was Justice James
McReynolds.
The opinion of the court,
read by Chief Justice Charles
Evans Hughes, was so sweep
ing that New Deal power and
legal experts Immediately as
serted it had given the right
of-way to the New Deals
other vast power experiments,
such as Grand Coulee, Bonnie
vile and Fort Peck.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, in
concurring opinion, said that he,
together with Justices Harlan F.
Stone and Owen J. Roberts and
Benjamin N. Cardozo concurred in
the opinion, but believed that the
Alabama Power Co. stockholders
had no right to sue.
New Deal Halls Ruling
1.-THE ruling" according to Ed
ward j. Foley Jr., chief PWA coun-
sci, upheld the right of the gov
eminent to improve streams for
navigation by dam projects.
"It declared constitutional the
governments program to sell the
power the projects created by wa
ter storage"
In succinct fashion, Hughes up
held the following rights of the
government:
l. The right to build Wilson Dam,
key structure of the IVA, under war
powers and powers of aiding navi-
cation.
2. The right to sell power pro-
duced at such dams
8. The right to build transmission
lines to transport such power to a
reasonable market.
The longawaited opinion, deliv-
cred on the siXtieth day since the
case was argued before the court,
was believed by Administration
leaders to clear the way to wide and
scattered little IVA" developments.
The Hughes opinion made clear
that the court found no merit in any
of the points raised by iva oppo-
nents
Certainly the Alabama Power Co.
has no constitutional right to insist
that it shall be the sole purchaser
of the energy generated at the Will
son DAM" said Hughes, that the
energy shall be sold to it or to go to
waste"
Argument Termed Irrelevant
Hughes described the picture
drawn by IVA opponents of the
prospect that the government might
use IVA power for factories that
would compete with private industry.
"The picture is eloquently drawn,
but we deem it to be irrelevant to
the issue here. The government is
not using the water power at Will
son Dam to establish any industry
or business" said Hughes.
ut is not using the energy gen.
Grated at the dam to manufacture
commodities Of any sort for the
public.
Uphold U. S. Contention
The government is disposing Of
the energy itself which simply is
the mechanical energy, incidental to
falling water at the dam, converted
into the electric energy which is
susceptible of transmission.
The question here is simply as to
the disposal of that energy. And
the government rightly conceded at
the bar, in substance, that it was
without constitutional authority to
acquire or dispose of such energy
except as it comes into being in the
operation Of works constructed in
the exercise of some power dele
gated to the United States.
'As we have said, these transmits
sion lines lead directly from the
dam, which has been lawfully con-
structed, and the question of the
constitutional right of the govern
ment to acquire or operate local or
urban distribution systems is not in
volved."
Future Tests Nay Come
The court did not go into the
authority Of the government TO
finance rural power lines and mu-
nicipal power lines, since this point
was not at issue in the present
case.
1t appeared from the opinion that
the possibility of future tests OF
some phase of the governments