| OCR Text |
Show -33- as against a judgment from speculation. "121 But the range of experimenta- tion must not exclude the capacity for cooperation between States. An ef- fective response to the complex of forces loosed by electric power must adapt or devise legal instruments and safeguards adequate to cope with the phenomenon as an entirety. And while electric power development does not present a nation-wide system, it does break through the confines of individ- ual states. ¦ Here, as elsewhere in the domain of public law, the legal -mechanism should evolve from actualities. Despite all mechanical invention and de- pressing forces for standardization., the United States, by virtue of its size reveals distinct regions with differences of climate, geography, econ- omic specialization, and social habits. The integration of the power in- dustry is likewise assuming regional forms. Secretary Hoover has thus drawn the picture* "There is a phase of this whole public relationship that seems to me to be slowly emerging and that is that the United States will naturally divide itself into several power areas. For instance, the barren areas of power consumption formed by the Adirondacks on the east and the character of natur- alr esources along the llason Dixon line on the South create a natural dis- trict in the New England and Mid-Atlantic States. Another power district lies to the west of the Alleghanies and east of the Mississippi River. Still another district lies in the Southeastern States, again in the Southwestern States, and still another in the Northwestern States. The problems in each of these power districts are essentially different as to the origins of power, the character of their industries, and are affected by the rate of probable industrial development in some States. And if we are to make a rightful solution of national problems we should consider their development as essentially separate problems".122 of power sites and the maintenance of dams. See e.g. His. Sts., 1923-ch. 31, secs. 31.01-31.33; N. Y. Laws, 1921, oh. 579; Pa. Sts. 1920, secs. 5940, 5943; Pa. Sts. Supp. 192I+, sec. 11130a; Neb. Const. 1875, Art XV. sec. 7. Quebec has dealt with the problem in the same fashion. Quebec Rev. Sts. 1909, sec. 7291, as amended by (1920) 10 Ge. V, c. 7I4. For the Ontario solution of the problem, see Beck (1921+) h Survey Graphic, 5^5* See also Qnt. Rev. Sts. 1911;, c. J9; (191I4) h Geo. V, c. 16; (I9li|) 5 Geo. V, c. 19? (1916) 6 Geo* V, c. 19, 21; (1917> 7' Geo. V, c. 20, 22; (1918) 8 Geo. V, c. 20; (1918) 9 Geo. V, 0. 16; (1920) 10-11 Geo. V, c. 18, 19? (1922) 12- 13 Geo. V, c. 31» The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario has be- come the subject of controversy. V'yer, Niagara Falls: Its Power Possibil- ities and Preservation (1925); Reply by Sir Adam Beck, Re Wyer-Walcott Re- port (1925); the Beck pamphlet, in turn, has elicited rejoinders from the Smithsonian Institution and Dr. V/yer. 67 Cong. Reo. 338 ff. 121Tanner v. Little (1916) 2^0 U« S. 369, 386, 36 Sup. Ct. 379* 38U» 122statement of Secretary Hoover to the Super Power Conference, New York, Oct. 13/ 1923« See also Hoover, Government Policies in Relation to Power Development and Distribution, address before Wor-ld Power Conference (London, July I92I4). • |
