Evening star., 1936-02-18
The II. v. A. Decision.

uC 1s We As DCClSlOAs
Through its Tennessee Valley Author
fly the United States Government can
dispose of the surplus electric power,
generated at the Wilson Dam at Muscle
Shoals, through transmission lines
acquired for the purpose from the Ala
bama Power Co. That was decided
yesterday by the United States Supreme
Court, clearly and beyond the shadow
OF doubt.
Can the Government, through T. v. A.,
construct other dams on the Tennessee
River or other rivers for the announced
purpose of national defense and naviga-
ton control, and in the process generate
electric current for sale to the public
at rates low in comparison with the cost
Of privately generated electric current?
Can the Government set up other
subsidiary corporations for the purpose
of drumming up trade in electric re-
friserators, electric stoves, electric farm
equipment and other machinery, thus
increasing the demand for the sale of
its power?
Is 1t a legitimate function of the Ma
tional Government to undertake a ma
tional power policy" designed to bring
about a more effective protection Of the
public interest by setting up measure
of public operation of power as yard
stick'?"
These are some of the questions which
the decision of the Supreme Court has
left unanswered.
A part of the unusual interest at
tached to the courts decision yesterday
resulted from public anticipation that
the court would decide not only the
validity of existing contracts between T.
VA. and the Alabama Power Co, but IN
its decision set at rest the question OF
validity of the T. v. A. act itself and OF
the Governments power policy, which
has been described as aimed toward "the
electriication of America" But the de-
cision was narrowed to the case at issue.
1t attempted no wide exploration of other
fields. In the words Of Chief Justice
Hughes it specifically avoided discussion
of such related issues as, "the constitu-
tional right of the Government to ac-
ouire or operate local or urban distribu-
ton systems" or "the validity OF such
an effort, as to the status OF any
other dam or power development in the
Tennessee Valley, whether connected
with or apart from Wilson Dam, or as to
the validity of the Tennessee Valley
Authority act"
The result of the decision, though mar
rowed to the specific case at issue, will
be distinctly beneficial. 1t should quiet
some Of the current loose tall talk re-
garding the "obstructionism" of the court
as related to the New Deal. 1t lends en-
couragement to the theory that dams
constructed in the Governments pursu-
ance of such functions as flood control
and prevention of soil erosion may dis
pose Of the power incidentally generated.
It warns that when power is 50 disposed
of the measures adopted must be adapt
ed in the public interest as distinguished
from personal or private ends" and "con-
sistent with the foundation principles Of
our dual system of government, and must
not be contrived to govern the concerns
reserved to the States" It clearly leaves
the way open for later tests Of specific
questions.
And the decision may be held as a
warning to private utility interests, whose
selfish and short-sighted desire for profit
at the expense Of poor service and high
cost to the consuming public has brought
about the Governments entry into this
field of business. If the T. " A. decision
does not show them the writing on the
wall they will never learn to read.