The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1956-07-27


those who can. The preference clause
is only a preference statement thai
says in the final analysis the people
are the owners, based on the ele.
mental philosophy Of our country.
POWER COMPANIES NOT
FREE ENTERPRISES
Potamkin says "private companies
say the preference clause is harmful
to its customers and it's companies.
Full competition is our free enter
prise system. Power companies are
not part of the free enterprise econ
omy, there is no connection with any
other free enterprise business. This
they can not have. By being a monop-
oily they lose their rights to the free
enterprise privileges.
Is any government activity a
form of socialism? Public schools,
city water, sewerage systems, postal
system The socialism issue doesn't
exist. The tax issue doesn't exist,
either. Since they do not pay taxes
-. They question the entire gov
eminent system. Unless they are
ready to propose an entire new sys-
tenn of government they might as
well stop singing out the power
field for attack, he asserted.
Because the taxes they collect are
no benefit for the customer, Potam-
kin asked, could it be the real rea-
son is that the power companies would
like to eliminate these municipalities
and co-operatives?" "The destruc-
ton of the preference clause would
be the most important single step
in the elimination of these people,
it would mean complete monopoly,
higher prices and poorer services" he
added.
The preference clause means the
right of the people to serve them
selves through their government and
their own facilities. If these facilities
were given to the private utilities
they would make you pay toll to
your private utility on your own in
;tallation. If private utilities give
The best service at the lowest cost
hen they have no fear of their fu-
,ure. If they fail to do that they in
yite disaster, Potamlin said.
He concluded, many small CO.
operatives would not exist without
the preference clause and there
would still be many rural people
without electricity.
The arguments of the private pow
r companies were the same from all
peakers who, besides Mr.. Hill were
.dwin Vennard, vice president and
managing director, Edison Electric
institute, and A. J. G. Priest, former
.eneral counsel for Electric Bond
nd Share, and Idaho Power Co., New
york, and presently Dean of Law at
yirginia University.
They argued that they spoke for
he 500 of the people of the nation
Tho are serviced for power from pri-
ate utilities. They contend all of
he people of the nation should not
ay for power facilities for the 20@o
f our citizens who benefit from the
reference clause.
They admit the private utilities are
monopoly and agree with everyone
lse they can not be otherwise, but |
hey insist they are regulated" by |
tate public service commissions and
eny heartily any charges that they
regulate the regulators.
The private monopoly speakers
aid, they do not pay taxes, but col
sct them from the people, and add
Or that reason the 500 of the people
-ho pay the taxes for the private
tilities should not also have to pay,
trough their taxes for power for
he 2O@o who otherwise would not
ave it.
A. G. Priest spoke in scornful terms
{ the men who caused disrepute to
ome to power monopolies in the days
efore public competition entered the
ED. but announced firmly the vir-
les of present utilities people, when
e said, "Time has run out on the
wills of the utilities, and a number
{ years ago-a man may turn from