Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1938-03-08
REMAINING W.P.A.
WR|TS DISSOLVED
Court Disposes of Cases
Involving Municipal
Power Financing.

The last Of some 40 preliminary in
functions, granted more than . year
ago to restrain the Public Works Ad-
ministration'from financing municipal
power developments, were dissolved
today.
A three judge statutory court held
that the four remaining cases could
not be distinguished from the Ala
bama Power Co. case and the Duke
Power Co. case, in which the Supreme
Court recently upheld the validity Of
this phase Of the administration 5
power program.
The Metropolitan Edison Co., the
Tennessee Electric Power Co. and the
Kentucky Tennessee Light & Power
Co. had contended injunction suits
brought by them should not be con-
trolled by the Alabama and Duke cases
since they possessed special franchise
rights.
Court Reviews History.
Arguments to this effect were pre-
sented about three weeks ago to 4
court composed Of Associate Justice
Justin Miller Of the United States
Court of Appeals and Chief Justice
Alfred A. Wheat and Justice Peyton
Gordon of the District Court.
The court reviewed the history Of
the cases. saying q large number Of
the injunction suits were brought here
and that temporary injunctions were
consented to with the understanding
that the defendant, P. w. A. Admins
traitor Ickes. might move to have them
dissolved following the decision Of
the Supreme Court in the Alabama
Power Co. case. All Of these cases
had been discontinued except those
acted upon today.
The action today concerned: four
suits. one by the Metropolitan-E Edison
to enjoin P. w. A. allotment to
Myerstown. Pa; another by the Ten
nessee Electric to enjoin IN allotment
to Chattanooga, Tenn, and tive by the
Kentucky-Tennesse Power Co. to IN.
join allotments to Newbern and Paris,
Tenn.
Contention Rejected.
They said their cases were different
from the Alabama Power Co. case
because, in the words Of the court,
while the competition which the
Alabama Power Co. anticipated was
legal competition, the competition to
which these plaintiffs will be SUBJ
jected Is illegal because in each case
the municipality Is without right to
distribute electricity in competition
with plaintiffs"
The court disagreed with this con-
tention and pointed out in each case
why the Alabama decision controlled.
1t said also that in all of the suits
the P. w. A. administrator was not q
proper party, since he had not inter-
est in the proposed power plants, and
that the municipalities involved should
have been named defendants instead
OF the administrator.
Claims Federal Franchise.
The claim Of the Tennessee Electric
Power Co. was that it has q franchise
from the Federal Government In adj
dition to one from the State Of Ten
nessee.
The Kentucky Tennessee company
said in its suit concerning Paris that
it had q contract with the city and
that competition by the city would vio-
late the contract. e.
In the suit involving the Newbern
the Kentucky Tennessee
company pointed out that it purchased
its plant from the city, and conse-
quently any competition by the city
would be Illegal.
The court held that none of these
arguments rendered the Alabama
Power Co. case inapplicable.