The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-02-03

(Q0ntlnueu kLOm EH80 AV iature in Longs fight with Louisiana publishers.
 The right of e state to tax pre- ferred stock holdings acquired by the REQ in its attempts to aid bank rec organizations.
 The plea of J. Edward Jones, New York promoter, that the court de- eide the constitutIonality of the se- curities act of l033.
 Tn the courtroom every seat was taken and scores stood. Outside, sev- eral hundred more stood in line.
 The audience included James M. Beck, attorney for the group chal. longing IVA, and Solicitor General Stanley Reed and John Lord O'Brian, who defended the law.
 The ornate, gold eInbellished ceiling of the chamber was covered with white cotton cloth to difuse the light which shone down on the court.
 Justice Louis D. Hrandeis, dean of the court, was absent today.
 National Power Policy
 Directly or indirectly, the decision may affect the administrators na. tional power policy which Is federal financing of hydroelectric projects to provide all areas with cheap cur- rent. :. But the court can narrowly limit its decision in the IVA case 30 that 1t will have little or no bearing on the general policy.
 The possibilities were: 1. Denial that the government hai power to dispose in competition with private industry of power generated at any and all dams built as an aid to navigation or to control floods.
 2. Affirmation of such power.
 3. A decision holding that the the Alabama Power company had nc non-voting preferred stockholders oi right to institute the present suit.
 {. A ruling that the government could sell and transmit for sale the power generated at Wilson dam but limiting the decision to that one question. The court would thus leave undetermined the future authority of IVA to generate power at other contemplated projects.
 6. A ruling upholding the sale of wilson dam power but restricting future development of power projects and sale of the energy.
 Lawyers Uncertain
 Public works experts and other lawyers appeared to be uncertain oi the extent to which an unqualified decision against the government would effect power dam projects outside the IVA area. Some lawyers contended 1t would end federal spending for construction of power dams, reservoirs, generators and transmission lines.
 Conversely, Q decision favorable to IVA probably would encourage ex- tension of the IVA plan of opera ton into other areas.
 Power officials awaited the courts ruling to determine what effect, fl any, the decision would possibly have on status of "Little IVA rlans proposed for five large federal dams now under construction. The projects, their cost and potential power production, are:
 Fort Peck dam on Missouri river Montana: $84,000000 development on which the war department has spent $56, ,000, ,000; 67,000 horsepower
 Grand Coulee dam on Columbie river, Washintgon: S680, 900, 900 un. dertawing with $i5,000,000 already allocated reclamation bureau; 420,. 900 horsepower.
 Bonneville dam on Columbia river oregon, Reclamation bureau has been allotted $32,600,0O0 of 66,000,- 900 cost; 1iB,000 horsepower.
 Passamaquoddy, Maine, tidal ba- sin: War department is spending $7,000,000 on $366,000,000 project; power production not estimated.
 Santee-Coper project in South Carolina: S500,000 allotted war de. partment on $37,600,000 undertake Ing; power production note stimat- cd.
 Other "Little IVA" developments have been held up by the adminis- tration until 1t can complete lta original IVA "yardstick".
 Following It's decisions today the court will hear argument on the sugar institute antitrust law prose- cution which centers its defense on the need for elimination of unfair trade practices through Q "code oi ethics" promulgated in 1928. Then the court will hear arguments of va- lidity of the Bankead cotton control act.