Representative WOLVERTON. May I ask at that point, Mr. Biddle, what provision of our resolution charges the committee with inquiring into this particular thing?

Mr. BIDDLE. I read it a moment ago. I will read it again.

What activities there have been, if any, on the part of any private power company or other private interest in attempting by the expenditure of money or otherwise, the institution of legal proceedings or other means or methods to affect the action or decisions of municipalities or farm organizations in the Tennessee Valley Authority with respect to the purchase of electric power from the Authority. What efforts, if any, have been made by private power companies or other private interests to affect the decisions or actions of municipalities or farm organizations with respect to the purchase of power from the Authority or acquiring title to their distributing systems.

Whether and to what extent, if any, have the public interests been injured or jeopardized by the activities of any private power companies or other private interests in attempting to prevent the Board from executing the provisions of said act.

Whether, and if so what, suits have been instigated by any private power company or other private interest seeking injunctions against the activities of the Board; and what effect, if any, such injunctions or suits have had upon the administration of the act

and so forth. The portions of the resolution run from section 2 (d) roughly through section 2 (h) or 2 (i).

Senator FRAZIER. What was the total amount?

Mr. BIDDLE. $126,125.76. I beg your pardon, I am using the wrong schedule. That is another payment. Will you withdraw that, please? The total amount paid in the Ashwander case, and of course this has no bearing on the fees paid to counsel in the Ashwander case for the companies, this is an addition, the fees paid by the complainant to the counsel for the complainant companies.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. These figures you are giving us now are sums paid by the Edison Electric?

Mr. WEADOCK. This is only the contribution of the Edison Electric, $103,231.94, and the opinion, the fee paid for the opinion was $35,272.13.

Answering your question, I am referring to a statement to the press, as issued by Mr. McCarter, who was then president, and if I may I would like to read it.

Mr. BIDDLE. I will be very glad.

The Edison Electrical Institute is not a political organization, it is the trade association of the industry. It is a research and fact-finding body, existing for the information it can render to its memberships. When, however, the crisis above described

which I have outlined previously to you

became apparent, beliving that the whole plan of the Government was unconstitutional, it determined that it owed to its membership the obligation to test out these principles of constitutional law. It therefore authorized the employment of Messrs. Baker and Beck, constitutional lawyers of national reputation to pass upon the constitutionality of the proposed governmental projects such as that inaugurated in the Tennessee Valley, and other governmental loans and grants to municipalities for the purposes above set forth.

Mr. BIDDLE. That, of course, explains the reason, and I don't think it was quite responsive. What I asked you was if you would be good enough to point to that portion of your charter which authorizes the expenditures?

Mr. WEADOCK. I would say that it is by virtue of section 3 of article. II.

Mr. BIDDLE. Section 3 of article II?

Mr. WEADOCK. Yes, sir; which provides that "the institute, to aid its operating companies to generate and sell electric energy at the lowest possible rates"-and the need as explained by Mr. McCarter here was that if this program continued, the private companies would no longer be able to sell any.

Mr. BIDDLE. Let us be very clear on the answer. As I understand it, you say that the expenditure of this $103,000, and $35,000, the amount paid to Mr. Baker and Beck, that this expenditure was justified by a clause which says that the institute-"the objects of the institute are to aid its operating company members to generate and sell electric energy at the lowest possible price commensurate with a safe and adequate service, giving due regard to the interests of the consumer, investor, and employee," and that that payment was made to aid the operating companies to generate and sell electrical energy, is that right?

Mr. WEADOCK. My own reaction to that is that if this program as outlined here continued, the private companies wouldn't be selling any. Mr. BIDDLE. I have your reaction

Mr. WEADOCK. Let me give you another proposition; it is in line with the contribution that this institute made to the World Power Conference that amounted to about $75,000 to aid the Government in its power conference, and I question, Mr. Biddle, whether you will find an express authority in the Constitution.

Mr. BIDDLE. I am not questioning the propriety of it, but I was just wondering what authorized you to do it?

Mr. WEADOCK. That was the general purpose, plus our publicity release of the dire situation existing.

Mr. BIDDLE. Have you paid other counsel fees in litigating cases— is it a usual practice?

Mr. WEADOCK. No.

THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION TEST CASES

Mr. BIDDLE. Any others?

Mr. WEADOCK. Yes.

Mr. BIDDLE. In what?

Mr. WEADOCK. In the P. W. A. cases.

Mr. BIDDLE. Let us get to those. What was the total amount paid in the P. W. A. test cases, which incidentally involved the constitutionality of the T. V. A. Act?

Mr. WEADOCK. I didn't think so.

Mr. BIDDLE. Well, let us see whether they did or not.

Mr. WEADOCK. The total amount paid for counsel on the P. W. A. is derived from payments made to Mr. Baker's firm, to counsel retained to complete the argument after the death of Mr. Baker, as you will recall.

Mr. BIDDLE. Which argument?

Mr. WEADOCK. On the P. W. A. case.

Mr. BIDDLE. Is that a P. W. A. case?

Mr. WEADOCK. Yes. Mr. Baker died while the case was pending, and it was necessary to get other counsel, which I think increased the cost. The total amount paid was $126,125.76.

Mr. BIDDLE. Now, have you got the vouchers there? There are very few of them.

Mr. WEADOCK. Yes, sir.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. Was that additional to the sum paid by Mr. Baker prior to his passing?

Mr. WEADOCK. Yes, sir.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. Thank you.

Mr. BIDDLE. And, of course, in addition to any counsel fee paid by the complainant companies to their counsel.

Mr. WEADOCK. Let me explain. We did not actively engage in each individual suit-you will recall that throughout the width and breadth of the land there were these P. W. A. cases, and Mr. Baker's firm was "of counsel" in those matters, and every member company had access to Mr. Baker for his opinion, advice, and counsel.

Mr. BIDDLE. My question was not that, Mr. Weadock; if you will listen very carefully, the amounts that you have testified to were in addition to counsel fee paid to counsel by those operating companies, in the litigation, were they not?

Mr. WEADOCK. Oh, surely; each company bore its own expense. We didn't undertake to furnish counsel for individual companies. All we did was have Mr. Baker act as sort of a general counsel—and he did argue the case.

Representative JENKINS. And your participation in these cases was not vital. In other words, you didn't have what we lawyers call the laboring oar in any of these cases, did you?

Mr. WEADOCK. No, sir.

Representative JENKINS. And you were not, or the persons that you employed, weren't necessarily collaborating with the other attorneys, were they?

Mr. WEADOCK. They were cooperating upon questions of pleadings, and things of that type.

Representative JENKINS. They were only looking after the matters that you were interested in?

Mr. WEADOCK. That is right.

Representative JENKINS. And I presume that the counsel for theindividual company had the full authority over the case, and they could have dismissed the case or prosecuted the case whenever they pleased. regardless of your activity?

Mr. WEADOCK. Absolutely, that was the main point, because we did not want to wish counsel upon an individual company. All we tendered was Mr. Baker's services to the individual companies.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. As a general proposition, Mr. Baker and his assistants were directing the course of the boat, and the local attorneys were pulling the oar?

Mr. WEADOCK. The local attorney had complete charge of each individual case, but had the advantage of the advice and counsel of Mr. Baker's firm, and Mr. Baker's firm was scheduled to argue several cases in the circuit court of appeals, and in the district courts, and were prepared to argue in the Supreme Court when Mr. Baker died.

Mr. BIDDLE. Now, these P. W. A. suits involved the legal and constitutional questions with respect to the operation of electrical plants by cities or by T. V. A. in connection with cities, and nothing else, they didn't involve grants for other purposes, of course.

Mr. WEADOCK. Oh, yes; they did. They involved the Greenwood County case, which was a P. W. A. case.

Mr. BIDDLE. But you were interested in that on account of the legal question, as to whether or not it would affect electrical operation,

in other words, your money was paid to lawyers in suits to determine the constitutionality of electrical operations, although the suit itself may not have involved specifically that question.

Mr. WEADOCK. I think, Mr. Biddle, every suit with which I am familiar, I was close to all of them-involved the sale and distribution of electric power.

Mr. BIDDLE. Right

Representative JENKINS. Just one question there, Mr. Chairman. These cases you have been talking about had nothing to do with T. V. A., did they?

Mr. WEADOCK. No, sir; separate and distinct.

Representative JENKINS. Why are we injecting them in here?

Mr. BIDDLE. Because many of these questions did involve the question of legality of the T. V. A.

Mr. WEADOCK. They involved the constitutionality of whatever name they had for the act.

Mr. BIDDLE. But also the constitutionality of the T. V. A., many of them.

Mr. WEADOCK. But there is a segregation as between our P. W. A. case, and T. V. A. case, there were more legal questions in the T. V. A. than there were in the P. W. A.

Mr. BIDDLE. Now, will you give us the segregation so that we can get that?

Mr. WEADOCK. Segregation of what?

Mr. BIDDLE. You just spoke of a segregation.

Would you give us the segregation? You said that there was a segregation of cases involving T. V. A.

Mr. WEADOCK. Perhaps that is wrong. I should have said different. Mr. BIDDLE. Well, have you got it worked out in any particular way?

Mr. WEADOCK. No; only in my head as a lawyer, I remember what the cases were, and what the constitutional questions were.

Mr. BIDDLE. You couldn't tell us how many of these P. W. A. cases specifically involved the T. V. A. Act?

Mr. WEADOCK. Oh, I would say none of them. The T. V. A. Act is separate from the Reconstruction Act which was involved in P. W. A. Mr. BIDDLE. What was the portion of the Reconstruction Act that you refer to?

Mr. WEADCOCK. Well, that part authorizing the giving or granting of money to construct competitive electric light plants throughout the Nation.

Mr. BIDDLE. For the purpose of obtaining money from P. W. A. Mr. WEADOCK. They didn't obtain it, they gave it to them.

Mr. BIDDLE. For the purpose of operating in connection with T. V. A.

Mr. WEADOCK. In competition with.

Mr. BIDDLE. What I am trying to get at, these P. W. A. cases were cases in which municipalities obtained allotments from P. W. A. for the purpose of T. V. A. operations.

Mr. WEADOCK. No, no, Mr. Biddle; I am talking now of P. W. A. separate from the T. V. A.

Mr. BIDDLE. I know that.

Mr. WEADOCK. The P. W. A. cases involved the granting and giving of money by the Federal Government to municipalities,

throughout the United States, and to power districts throughout the United States.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. Did the T. V. A. have a P. W. A. grant?

Mr. BIDDLE. Yes, but it is not involved here.

Mr. WEADOCK. The action under the T. V. A. case involved the constitutionality of the T. V. A. Act, separate and distinct from the other act.

Representative JENKINS. Let me ask you a question. Now, this $126,000 that you talk about, then, that represents the total fees that you have paid to Baker and Mr. Beck for their activities for you on behalf of your institute for all matters that related to your business, including P. W. A., and T. V. A., and everything else, all over the country, is that right?

Mr. WEADOCK. We did not pay Mr. Baker anything in connection with the T. V. A. case. Otherwise, your statement is correct.

Representative JENKINS. Well, then, let us just have this understanding, then, that as far as anything that you paid Baker's firm, it has no application whatever to T. V. A.

"THE ASHWANDER CASE"

Mr. WEADOCK. Except on the Ashwander case.
Representative JENKINS. The Ashwander case?
Mr. WEADOCK. In the Ashwander case.

Representative JENKINS. Did you ever have any litigation involving the T. V. A. at all except the Ashwander case, in which you were interested?

Mr. WEADOCK. No, sir.

Representative JENKINS. All the rest of these things that you are testifying about now, are your participation in litigation in which the T. V. A. was involved-the P. W. A. was involved-and some of those, I presume, were in different parts of the United States?

Mr. WEADOCK. Yes, some were in the Southern States, and some were in the far West, and some were immediately closeby.

Representative JENKINS. It had no connection with T. V. A.?
Mr. WEADOCK. Not at all.

Representative JENKINS. Can you tell us about how much of this $126,000 went directly for participation in the T. V. A. activities, and how much in matters that were not connected in T. V. A.?

Mr. WEADOCK. I don't think that I could break it down to that point except by the number of projects in that area as compared with the projects throughout the United States. I think that that would give you the nearest barometer. The projects in the T. V. A. area were 50 out of a total of 423 projects throughout the United States, and that would be 11.8 percent of the total in the T. V. A. area.

On the allotments, in the 45 States, the T. V. A. area constituted 8.8 percent of the whole, and on cost, 7.8 percent of the estimated cost of $281,456,207-that is, 7.8 percent were in the T. V. A. area. Mr. BIDDLE. I have before me one of the vouchers to Thompson & Rabb, of $37,500, to services in connection with preparation for argument in the case of the Alabama Power Co. against Ickes. That was a P. W. A. grant involving the cities of Decatur and Hartzell, was it not? Mr. WEADOCK. The history of that, Mr. Biddle, is this. Mr. BIDDLE. I didn't want the history.