EDITORIAL 



77' 



The case went to the supreme court 

 of the state, where the state main- 

 tained : 



1. That it owned the bed of the river 

 at the point where the dam was built ; 



2. That the river is a navigable 

 stream, and that the proposed dam 

 would constitute an obstruction to navi- 

 gation ; and, 



3. That certain contracts executed by 

 the canal commissioners, under which 

 the Economy Company claimed certain 

 rights, were void and offered no justi- 

 fication for the construction of the dam. 



At every point, however, the supreme 

 court has decided in favor of the corpo- 

 ration. The river, it holds, is not navi- 

 gable ; the bed, therefore, belongs to 

 the riparian owners, including the Econ- 

 omy Company ; the contracts referred 

 to are valid and the corporation is en- 

 titled to build its dam. 



If, now, the state is to proceed with 

 its waterways project it must institute 

 condemnation proceedings, get posses- 

 sion of the property owned by the com- 

 pany, and, for this property, make 

 "just compensation," which, it is 

 claimed, will amount to the tidy sum 

 of some $12,000,000. 



Naturally, friends of the waterways 

 project are disappointed. One Chicago 

 paper, hostile to the governor, sharply 

 criticises him for appointing commis- 

 sioners who would thus alienate the 

 state's property and embarass his own 

 policy. 



The water-power question, it may be 

 observed, is involved. 



Governor Deneen has been proposing 

 to utilize the water-power of the state of 

 Illinois for the benefit of the state. In 

 explaining his project to the governors 

 on the trip down the Mississippi, he 

 said : 



"The state proposes to connect all 

 navigable streams by a series of canals, 

 to be paid for by the revenue from the 

 sale of the water-power afforded." 



A portion of this waterway, however, 

 is now in the hands of the Economy 

 Company at Dresden Heights, and this 

 company evidently does' not propose 

 that it shall pass again into the hands of 

 the state. 



The counsel for the corporation is 

 ([noted as saying that the company, if 

 so disposed, could force the condemna- 

 tion of the property involved before al- 

 lowing the construction of a Federal 

 waterway ; but that the company would 

 grant the right of way without com- 

 pensation if no attempt were made by 

 tlic state to take over the water-pozver, 

 and would also allow a Government 

 lock on the dam. 



All of which is interesting for sev- 

 eral reasons. 



It shows, for one thing, how a pri- 

 vate corporation can get in the way of 

 a great state or national enterprise. 



It shows, again, how public officials, 

 from lack, either of judgment and dis- 

 cernment, or of loyalty to the public 

 interests, can permit a corporation to 

 get the whip-hand over government, 

 state and national. 



And, finally, it shows how the courts 

 can support the corporation in so doing. 



The reader may be interested in 

 placing this case along with some others 

 that have occurred in Illinois in recent 

 years. 



One of these is that of the Beef Trust, 

 in which, to the disgust of the President, 

 Federal Judge Humphrey decided in 

 favor of the trust and against the Gov- 

 ment. 



Another, and more recent case, is 

 that of Standard Oil, where Judge 

 Grosscup decided that the fine of $29,- 

 240,000 against the trust could not 

 hold. 



And there are others several of 

 them. 



Up to date, corporations and trusts 



in Illinois not to mention other states 



have fared reasonably well at the 



hands of the courts. Perhaps, some 



da, the tide will turn. 



The Cost of Waterways Improvement 



TO PROVIDE a nation with water- 

 wax's is a task for statesmen. Un- 

 happily. statesmen do not grow on 

 trees, nor descend by night like manna 

 in the wilderness. 



