The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1944-09-22

an indispensable party in that action
The Power Company had been expected to appea
to the u. S. Supreme Court but the appeal dat
passed without initiation of further action 1t became
apparent that the utility had abandoned hope o
victory in federal tribunals The completely of the
controversy (the record fills five printed volumes
and discreet obscurity of the stories in all blu
two Of the papers discouraged public interest
BESIDES many Montanans, including especially some
highly placed politicians, most unhappy abou
the whole affair Nevertheless the fact that the
Company had taken one of the worst lickings in its
thirty-year history could not be entirely concealed
Montana Senator James E. Murray, unpopular fol-
time with the Company issued jubilant state
ment in Washington; and SO broken was Company
spirit at least temporarily that it did not even
bother to point out that the senator's interview as
carried the news wire misquoted the circuit court
decsion-though this could hardly have been done
to be sure, without printing the interview too.
4 LMOST before there had been time for knowl
n edge of this setback to sink in, Montanans
learned that their" Company was under fire from
a formidable foe than any state agency-the
Federal Power Commission. Owners of Montana
Power preferred stock (the Company made strenu-
Gus efforts years ago. like other utilities to
obtain wide distribution on its home grounds OF its
preferred securties) received letters from stock
holders committees suggesting that they assess
themselves to hire attorneys to represent them as
"nterveners" in forthcoming Federal Power Com
mission hearing in Butte lin at least some instances
the letters named certain designated attorneys to
handle the "interveners interests This hearing
was called FPC order to the Company to
show why it should not be required to adopt
the Commissions system of accounting provided for
in the Federal Power Act of 1885, when Congress
directed the Commission to determine the legitimate
Original costs of utility properties Adoption OF
the accounting system in the form presented by the
FPC staff would result in elimination of about $780,
100000 alleged excess capitalization from the Com
pany's books. In the letters urging them to employ
counsel, the preferred stockholders were informed
that this would jeopardize the value OF their
holdings.
The hearing opened March T. 1914, and ended
seven weeks later By invitation of the FPC the
Montana Public Service Commission sat jointly with
the FPC trial examiner but maintained independence
rulings to acceptance of evidence. The mil
lionword transcript-nearly six thousand typewr1t-
ten pages, supplemented by 420 exhibits filling three
trunks is Illuminated by flaming outbursts from
from ''intervener' counsel, of whom at one time
said that the exhibits might have been prepared
by the Commission counsel typed to suit their par
ticuar needs for the purposes of their CASE, and
another, 1--WE do not propose to stand here and see
this company butchered by the Federal Power Com
mission (The Montana Standard, one of the two
Company-controlled Butte dailies, improved on the
record slightly when, in its subsequent summary OF
the hearing, it quoted this remark. The Standard
put it this way: Attorney E. G. Toomey of Helena
replied that he Directing because he did not
want to this company, in which so many Mon
phrase here blackfaced does not appear in the Off
cial Transcript
The trial examiner Edward B. Marsh, replied
sharply to the 'butchering" implication: "[t] is
the most uncalled-for and unjust statement | think
that has been made in any hearing with which
have had any connection" He then explained that
no more weight attached to evidence submitted by
the FPC staff than to that submitted by the Com
pany At the start of the proceedings the examiner
had attempted to reassure the "interveners' by this
Perhaps it is well also to call attention to the
fact, as expressed in many of its decisions that
the Federal Power Commission is just as much in
terested in the protection of the legitimate in
vestors in publicutility securities it is in any
other phase of its regulatory functions. TO me 1t
is obvious that contrary policy would ultimately
lead to defeat of the basic objective of regulation,
namely the protection of the public interest
think it not improbable, at least, that the Commits
sion had something like that in mind when
it granted the nterventions of preferred stock
holders
Counsel for the 'interveners" remained uncon
vinced however, and maintained throughout the
hearing the position that their clients interests were
eopardized by the FPC; toward the close of the
they put on the stand a number OF Mon
anans who testified that they thought Montana
Power good stock and worth the money and
hat the Companys properties were worth the sums
shown on its books.
TT was Montanas first experience with adminstra-
tive procedure, which, with judicial approval mas
ong been freed from the necessity of adhering to
he strict rules of evidence The novelty of it gave
Use to expressions of shocked horror in the Stand
rd, which reported, "Court rules regarding the TAX
ng of testimony and the introduction of evidence do
lot prevail and this departure provided source of
constant worry and protest on the part of several
widely experienced Montana attorneys engaged in
he hearing" 1t also brought objection from c. F.
Kelley, chairman of the board of the Anaconda Cop
yer Mining Company, who counsel for the late
ohm D. Ryan during the period when the latter was
uying and selling power properties and participant
ng in creation of the Montana Power Company.
Kelley said on the stand
1t may not be proper but l still licensed as
an attorney in the state of Montana, and am
in the Montana Power Company, and
have ideas about the rudimentary prin-
cples of evidence. In all my long experience, |
have things permitted to go into the
record as there have been in this hearing. That
is my opinion.
Have you had much experience before regulatory
the trial examiner asked.
THANK God, mol" retorted Kelley. mime has
cen before courts"
Company and Commissions counsel had agreed
ing before the hearing that each side could offer
hotostats of documents from certain Company and
Their files without proving" them by witnesses in
le usual "Interveners," who entered the
asa were NOT narties TO This agreement Never