CHECKMATE

Why and wherefore are again being asked by the courts, the legislatures, and individuals. It is a healthy sign of a nation's returning to a way of rational thinking, devoid of the supercharged emotionalism and propaganda that has characterized the past few years. On Friday, Judge Grubb, of the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, termed the sale of power by the T.V.A. illegal. Moreover, he granted a permanent injunction which will prevent 14 cities from borrowing P.W.A. funds "to provide a market for T.V.A. power."

In his decision, Judge Grubb trenchantly stated that the evident intention of the T.V.A. was "to pursue the business of a utility." At long last the root of the matter is unearthed. Although it has been clearly demonstrated that private utilities are fairly skillful jugglers of statistics and ideas, they have much to learn from the government. To obscure the issue, and to create a fantastically low rate-base, the Norrisses and Wheelers with the able assistance of Mr. Roosevelt, have written off huge sums as "sinking-fund expenditures" for work relief, navigation, flood-control, nitrate manufacture, and similar projects. This remarkable feat in bookkeeping enables the T.V.A. fathers to call the power created, estimated as enough for several states, just "surplus." Further, the "charging off" to unproductive uses permits a charmingly low rate base for which, apparently, nobody pays--except the whole body of taxpayers.

Magicians may create optical illusions, but somebody eventually finds them out. Judge Grubb has done just that. He could not see that "the United States had any right, to go into private business." The right, discreetly disguised, will ultimately be brought before the Supreme Court by government attorneys, and decided there. However, some protection of private property has been granted for the mean-time by Judge Grubb, before impetuous governmental authority completely crushed it. As has been demonstrated in the recent Gold Clause decisions, it is extremely difficult to decide a case negatively after a "fait accompli."