The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1951-05-04
Montana Power Company Has No
"Lnherent Rights"

rivers but just as we DelleVe
that the government ought not tC
take over the business of transpor-
tation in navigable rivers merely
because it OWNS the waters, so we
believe that the government ought
not to go into the business of power
distribution merely because it
OWNS the waters which produce the
power"
1t should be noted that in two in
stances Mr.. Fisher has stated in the
above quotation that the government
(meaning the United States) owns
the. waters of navigable rivers. This
is a great mistake The United
States does not claim, and it has new
er claimed that it owns such waters.
1t does claim the right to control the
navigable waters for the purpose of
regulating, in the interests of COM
merce, such waters under the power
granted by the Constitution of such
United States. Waters in navigable
rivers are subject to distribution by
the various states and the use there
of, is obtained by individuals and
corporations under state laws, by APP
preparation, or by licenses to approp-
riate the same within a reasonable
time for useful purposes.
Certainly, Mr.. Fisher is not ac-
curate in his statement in this re-
sect. | am surprised that the Mon i
tana Power Co. should have sent an
article of this kind to its customers,
and that the Readers Digest should
publish any such article containing
therein, so many inaccuracies, and in
consistent statements relative to the |
POWER problem.
Another erroneous statement of |
Mr. Fishers is as follows:
"And it (the government is
striking blow at the whole struc-
ture of our system of free enter
prise when it seeks to limit distri-
button of power. to publicly owned
power companies"
There is no evidence anywhere
that the government is seeking to en-
force such limit 1t is true that the
government is in few large prof.
ects in competition with privately
owned plants, but the government
has such right whether or not the
of such right is best for the
people is another question which-may
be discussed within proper limits. To
this | have no objection because
lean toward private enterprise, if
utility corporations may be consider
ed as privately owned
Ny general objection is, that the
Montana Power Co. is in its propa- ;
yanda trying to convince the people
If Montana that it has inherent
lights. 1t is fictitious being Great
ID either by the federal laws or the
avs of Montana and it is subject
o such laws for limited periods.
P. J. O'BRIEN,
345 So 4th st West,
Missoula, Montana ]
BY way of postscript, | desire to :
tate, that the union president, Mr.. ]
Usher erred greatly by asserting as
ollows:
"Our union calls for curtailment +
of government encroachment into .
private enterprise" =
/ am not familiar with any instance
where the government has en- Z
reached unlawfully or wrongly on =
ny private enterprise. 1t has as q
erted rights given to it by lawful y
cts of Congress. AS an instance, 4
r example of this: it's compulsion ;; Z
the American Power & Light Co. Z
, surrender it's ownership of com y =
on stock of Montana Power Co. by =
hich it controlled the operations of = =
ontana Power Co., and the profits 9
lereof, for many years previously. q
Y understanding is that the Ameri- q
N Power & Light Co. held or own ID
nearly all such common stock GER ~
ficates. In view of what / have s
ated above | do not consider that 81
merican Power & Light is a priv q
e enterprise. 1t is at least a semi 81
Iblic corporation subject to control n
.asdelegated agency of the federal 9
vernment, known as the Securities Il
$