Spokesman Review, August 1, 1935, p. 1. See Copyright permissions, posted earlier today.
At least 90 per cent of the testimony in the suit of the government to place a value upon 1104 acres at Grand Coulee dam site was ruled out of consideration by Judge J. Stanley Webster in federal court yesterday. The judge gave it as his opinion that the only value of the land is its fair market value apart from any possible use as a dam site.
Copyright 1935. Reproduced with permission of The Spokesman Review
Lawyers on both sides interpreted the opinion as meaning that all the testimony about the possibility of private capital developing the Grand Coulee project and proof regarding market for the power is taken out of the case. Most of the 13 days of the trial has been occupied with attempts by the government to prove that private capital could not build the dam and efforts by the defense to prove private capital could and would have built it if the government had not stepped in.
The defense sought to show that if the government had kept out, the dam site would have been sold to private parties for a large amount. The land owners place upon their land a value of $5,000,000, which has almost entirely a value as a prospective dam site. The government appraisers placed a value of about $15,000 on the land, taking into consideration only its value for agricultural and other uses not connected with development of electric power.
Judge Webster read from numerous decisions of the United States supreme court, including United States versus Chandler Dunbar Water Power company, a decision handed down May 26, 1913. In that opinion the supreme court said "that the property (referring to property such as is being valued at Grand Coulee dam site) may have to the public a greater value than its fair market value affords no just criterion for estimating what the owner should receive. "It is not proper to attribute. . . any part of the value which might result from a consideration of its value. As a necessary part of a comprehensive system of river improvement, which should include the river and the upland upon the shore adjacent."
United States Rules Stream
The United States Supreme Court also said in the Chandler Dunbar case and other cases that the power of congress to control navigable streams (of which the Columbia River is one) is virtually unlimited. In other words, no private party could step in and build a dam at Grand Coulee without government authority. The issue that the lands have no value as a dam site to private landowners was raised by the government early in the trial. It came up again yesterday . . . . . . permit for construction of a dam at Grand Coulee issued by the government to the Columbia basin commission as agent of the state of Washington. The defense objected to its admission. Arguments then were made, the government contending that private capital, if willing and able, could not construct Grand Coulee dam because the permit for such a dam had been issued to the state.
Sustains Government View
Judge Webster sustained the view taken by the government as to the irrelevancy of evidence that private capital might be able to build the dam, but rejected the copy of the permit as an exhibit. Immediately after making his statement, the court recessed and Attorney I.K. Lewis for the defense asked Mr. Stoutenmeyer to accompany him to the judge's chambers, which he did. Upon reconvening of court, Judge Webster recalled the jury, which had been absent during the arguments, and told them he would give his instructions this morning.
My great grandfather was an amazing man. My father, Charles, told us of this story often, and it was always bittersweet. It seems the judge acted as if Sam had been a land prospector, who purchased it knowing full well what it was for. While this may often be the case with the railroads, I doubt it was here, considering he owned the land long before its viability as a power source came to light.
ReplyDeleteAn additional travesty is that there is no recognition of the landholders in the Dam's visitor center. I was just there again and while they love to extol the virtues of efficient power and irrigation, they downplay the displacement forced upon the unwilling locals and natives. Those were simpler times...
ReplyDelete