Evening star., 1941-07-07
Mr.. Ickes Defends
His AIcou Action
Answers Criticism by Dovid
Lawrence in Aluminium
Company Cose
To the Editor of The Star:

| To the Editor of The Star:
In writing. in his column OF June 80,
that I am responsible for the delay in
the production of ALUMINIUM Mr..
Lawrence, as usual. exercised his lmagi-
nation. So far as Mr. Lawrence Is con-
cerned. this is no more news than
story that a man has been bitten by
| dog.
| I do claim credit for having refused an
additional contract for Bonneville power
to the Aluminium Company of America.
But at the precise time that l did this
I approved a contract with the Rey-
nolds Metals Co If I had yielded to
the representations of the Aluminium
Company of America. the latter would
have had to put up a plant capable of
producing so million tons OF aluminium.
Under the contract with the Reynolds
Metals Co, that concern will produce
60 million tons of aluminium. This
REYNOLDS plant is well under way and
will be in production in two or three
weeks. The Aluminium Company OF
America did not even promise 10 DO any
better than this. In fact, its estimate Of
time was longer.
This is the way that l have slowed
up" aluminium production.
Last February wrote an urgent letter
to O. P. NJ suggesting that we speed
up the production Of aluminium and
increase our estimate of the amount
required. Once again. as Mr.. Lawrence
would doubtless see it, was delaying
production.
On April 81, o. P M. wrote me letter
about another aluminium plant at Bonne-
| Vile After conferring with the president,
I replied, on April "a, that we would be
| prepared to discuss with o. P. M. at its
convenience the building Of an aluminium
| plant with Government funds, TO be
operated under a management contract
with Alcoa or anyone else. That was
about ten weeks ago and l have heard
nothing officially from o. P. M. since,
although have learned from the news
| papers that it is about TO proceed to
negotiate contracts
Here also the fanciful Mr.. Lawrence
would doubtless discover that I was
delaying aluminium production.
In connection with contracting for
power at Bonneville for the production
of aluminium, I would like Mr.. Lawrence
to consider the language in Section tb)
Of the Bonneville Act. This section pro-
vides the authority for the Bonneville
construction program: IN order TO
encourage the widest possible use of all
electric energy that can be generated
and marketed and to provide reasonable
outlets therefor, and to prevent the
monopolization thereof by limited
| groups " ."
Doubtless, your imaginative columnist
| has never read this statute
II he were Secretary of the Interior
and jealous crusader for monopolistic
practices that he is, would have given
Alcoa the power that it wanted last
February at Bonneville in view of the
foregoing language or is his zeal for
Alcoa so great that he would even have
violated his oath of office? Alcoa now
has contract rights to 471eo of the power
ultimately to be produced at Bonneville
If We had given it the additional amount
asked Tor, this percentage would have
been raised to $751;. AS I see it. this
would have come pretty close TO a
monopolization of Bonneville power, and
Therefore, would have been against the
! law.
Mr.. Lawrence justifieS his structures
upon the Secretary of the Interior By
a report of the House Military Affairs
Committee. He says: The report, written
as it was. after comprehensive investi-
CATION of what was going on behind the
scenes in official Washington, blames
among others Secretary of the Interior
Ickes for putting petty quarrels above
the national interest"
I do not know what Mr.. Lawrence
regards as a comprehensive investi-
CATION" but so far as the Secretary of
the Interior is concerned, the hearing
upon which the report was based was
purely ex parte. Neither the Secretary
OF the Interior nor any member of his
staff was called as a witness, and no
one in the Department of the Interior
was given an opportunity to meet the
self-serving statements of the Alcoa
representatives even by written
memorandum Nevertheless this type of
hearing meets with unqualified praise
by your discredited columnist, while the
Senate Committee, which did hear both
sides, and gave everyone an opportunity
to be heard. is unqualihedly condemned,
apparently because it did not feel that,
on the evidence. Mr. Lawrence's pet
monopoly. the Aluminium Company of
America, was entitled to a whitewash
In your own editorial of July |, with
commendable fairness you pointed out
that the Senate Defense Committee had
made one finding with respect to the
Aluminium Company of America while
the House Committee had made an
entirely different one. You say that
neither the House Committees state
ment nor Secretary Ickes charge can
be accepted as a conclusive settle
ment of the pros and cons of the
aluminium dispute" However, in your
final sentence you seem inclined to ac-
cept at its face value the report of the
Military Affairs Committee and to inti-
mate that perhaps I had been hasty
and ill-advised in the charge that I
have made with respect to IAN industrial
concern whose activities have been of
nature to command such extraordinary
commendation as that given by the
Military Affairs Committee ="
l am willing to wager that the writer