Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1936-02-21
T.V.A.|SEXPECTED
TO STAY IN LIMITS
Legal Staff Held Likely to
Use Care in Abiding by
Court Ruling.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

The T. v. A. is not likely to attempt
to abuse the scope of the Supreme
Court decision, but to observe its limits
at least so far as the law department
of that Government agency Is an in
fuence in shaping policy.
This implication as to the future
arises out of study of the manner in
which the T. V. A. case was fought
and won by the Government. It
turns out that James Lawrence Fly,
general solicitor in charge of the law
division of the T. v. A., played domi-
nant role in limiting the scope Of the
case very early in the proceedings.
Since he remains in charge of legal
matters for the T. v. A, whereas John
Lord O'Brian was special counsel only
for this particular litigation, this dis
pels any impression that the T. V. A.
legal approach may now be changed.
In other words, there remains con-
tinuity about the legal strategy of the
T. v. A. which is due to the basic con-
victions held by Fly.
It is interesting to note that Fly.
Democrat, served from 1929 to 1888 in
the Department of Justice under the
Hoover regime and was retained by
Attorney General Cummings as special
assistant to fight some Of the cases in
the Federal courts involving the nu-
merous injunction suits growing out Of
New Deal laws.
Argument Is Significant.
What Fly did however, in his argu-
ment before Judge Grub in the Dis
trict Court OF Alabama and before the
Circuit Court of Appeals is of far
reaching significance, not only be-
cause Chief Justice Hughes accepted
the finding of fact made in the lower
court, but because the whole future
of power development by the Govern
ment is by no means as definitely es-
tablished as some members of Con-
gress who have been interpreting the
T. v. A. decision in relation to their
pet projects would have the public
believe.
What most outsiders do not know is
that the T. v. A. really has bril-
liant legal staff and that, whatever
may be the hopes or ambitions of the
policy-making side of the T. v. A.,
whenever the matter of what can or
cannot be done constitutionally arises,
it is safe to say there are not going
to be any chances taken that are not
justified by the Supreme Court deci-
sion.
Ruling Limited to One Dam.
Thus, all the Supreme Court has
decided is that Wilson Dam has been
constitutionally constructed, and that's
all O'Brien and Fly asked the court
to decide So far as any other dam
Is concerned, the question is still con-
jectural as to whether the principle
laid down by the court can be made
to apply. Every case will have to be
fought on the facts as they arise and
it is a proper assumption that nc
lawyers at this moment are probably
more familiar with what can or can
not be done by T. " A. than the legal
staff of the T. v. A.
ALI this is not in any way to detract
from the large consequences that may
flow from the application Of the prin.
ciple laid down by the Supreme Cour
decision. This in many respects is fal
more powerful as Qualification az
well as justification of the Fedora
Governments conservation policies Of
the past 40 years than it is as set
Element of special question affecting
the T. v. A. development.
Future Up to Congress.
In brief, the Federal Governments
right to develop its own natural re-
sources has been affirmed. But does
this mean inevitable competition with
business? Congress must decide first
how far it wishes to go, as matter OF
practical government, in introducing
elements Of government competition
with industry When a statute has
been passed involving direct competi-
ton or when, under the T. V. A. law
itself, for instance, anything uncon-
stitutional is attempted in the method
Of disposing of the surplus power. all
sorts of questions are opened up fol-
further adjudication.
The Federal Government may dis
pose Of its surplus power; may acquire
transmission lines to carry the power
to fair market" but it presumably
cannot use its funds or its govern
mental authority to violate the "due
process" clause of the Constitution.