those are represented by the 102 major and 316 minor project licenses now outstanding, 54 preliminary permits now outstanding, and pending cases 189, and including all others consisting of those that were withdrawn, canceled, surrendered, and otherwise disposed of but are closed.

Senator DILL. I notice the first one is No. 3, Washington Irrigation Development Co., at the Columbia River. You have the date of the application for the license, but they had a preliminary permit, had they not?

Mr. BONNER. They had a preliminary permit, and then that was followed by a license, and that license was canceled about a year ago. That was conceled through the fault of the company in not beginning construction within the statutory period. And now they have filed another application for a license.

Senator DILL. Are they entitled to another license after they have a permit and a license but did not go ahead?

Mr. BONNER. They have sought to qualify if certain requirements can be met.

Senator DILL. But are they able to tie up this power site indefinitely by that means?

Mr. BONNER. Oh, no. And as a matter of fact we often have license applications where the party does not make a proper showing, and we have to serve notice on the applicant that they will be required to make a showing, and in this case it must be done by May 1, or a rejection will follow.

Senator DILL. And unless that is done these people could continue applying and nobody else could get the power site, is that it?

Mr. BONNER. Oh, of course, that would be a very unsatisfactory situation. But you understand that right now that company has acquired no rights whatever by filing the application. They acquired no rights by reason of the time when the filing was made. That is not acquired until some definite action is taken by the commission. Senator DILL. Suppose some other company came in and filed an application and made a better showing.

Mr. BONNER. They would be given preference. For instance, if a municipality were to come in and file an application they would have preference under section 7 of the act.

Senator DILL. We have a great deal of complaint in my State about this situation.

Mr. BONNER. Yes; I know something of that situation.

Senator DILL. Have you any more of a summary there before you than that you have been reading?

Mr. BONNER. I do not know whether you want any more of this. The CHAIRMAN. If you have it, you may put it in the record.

Mr. BONNER. It is simply a summary showing the classification of

the cases awaiting action at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. You may put it in the record.

Mr. BONNER. If I put it in the record, I should like to make a brief explanation.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

It shows that there are 189 cases pending action. That of those 72 are in suspended status, due to various reasons. In the Colorado River Basin we have 43. You gentlemen are probably familiar with the fact that these cases were under legislative embargo by Congress until the Boulder Canyon act was declared operative last June, and since that time the governors of the upper basin States have protested any action being taken until agreement is reached on the interstate water-right questions. There are 3 on the Tennessee River. There are 7 suspended because of international complications. There are 3 suspended due to miscellaneous causes. There are also various applications held up for additional data, 3 for rejection, 13 awaiting acceptance, and so on.

I think if you care to go into the details you will find that that part of the work which is handled by the engineering division is practically in a current condition.

Senator DILL. There are some conditions where they ought to be help up. For instance, Congress has authorized $600,000 on the Columbia River, and there should be no action there until that report is made, otherwise they might grant the applications in advance of the report of the engineers.

Mr. BONNER. Do you mean the War Department investigations? Senator DILL. Yes; the War Department investigations; $600,000 being spent there.

Mr. BONNER. Yes, sir.

Senator DILL. And especially on the upper Columbia.

Mr. BONNER. Any action to be taken on that river, Senator, would be handled only through investigation and recommendation of the War Department, which is making that investigation. Necessarily if they found any project that had any appearance of being in conflict with the comprehensive plan for development, why no action would be taken on it.

Senator DILL. I know they granted one last summer for a low-water dam on the Columbia, but it is the high-power dam that I am speaking about.

Mr. BONNER. I think we have only two pending. One is the Kettle Falls.

Senator DILL. Yes; and I passed a resolution through the Senate forbidding the commission to grant that, and I understand the Secretary of War has written a letter to my colleague that no permit will be recommended there until after this investigation is completed, for the reason that they do not know what they will do on the Grand Coulee Dam site.

Mr. BONNER. I do not recall exactly what was in that letter.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you that list of projects in which are disputed items?

Mr. BONNER. Yes. The second part of the order of the committee. I would like to submit this report which was prepared by Mr. King, together with a brief summary which I have prepared for your information, just showing briefly how the cases line up.

(The summary prepared by Mr. Bonner and the report prepared by Mr. King are here printed in the record in full, as follows:)

Summary of project accounts regarding which items are questioned by accounting division

Action

Formal claim to be filed Mar. 1, 1930.
Formal claim to be filed Mar. 2, 1930.
Formal claim to be filed Apr. 1, 1930.
Formal claim requested.

Proposed disallowance protested and hearing set
tentatively for Apr. 2, 1930.

Company advised of proposed disallowance and action suspended pending opinion of Attorney General.

82, 319. 02 Proposed disallowance protested and now awaiting legal opinions.

456, 007. 12
769, 105. 05

1,500,000.00

1 1,050, 000. 00

16

16

do.

173

Northern Connecticut Power

Co.

108

Proposed disallowance protested and hearing set tentatively for Mar. 27, 1930.

Claim filed Dec. 18, 1929, now being investigated by auditor.

Hearing before commission arranged for immediate future.

Adjustments deferred pending fair value deter-
mination.

Awaiting early hearing by commission.
Awaiting specific recommendation by accounting
division.

Cost statement recently audited and proposed
disallowance not yet served on licensee.
Cost claim recently filed; valid amount of ques-
tioned item will be investigated.

Awaiting formal cost statement from company.
No specific action as yet by accounting division.

Deferred pending decision as to whether license
will be issued to this company.

Suspensions awaiting explanation by company; project barely started."

Determination deferred pending completion of project.

Statement of proposed disallowance served on company Feb. 8, 1930.

This is merely an application for license which has been held for rejection if applicant fails to comply with requirements by May 1, 1930.

I This project has not been started and may be postponed for some time.

Statement of items of prelicense cost or construction cost appearing in accounts of water power projects or in cost statements of licensees and applicants questioned in whole or in part by the accounting division, February 23, 1920

Project No. 82: State of Alabama. Cost of original project. Licensee of applicant, Alabama Power Co. (Mitchell Dam project):

Total claimed....

Items questioned

1. Charges by Alabama Traction, Light & Power Co.,
Montreal, Canada, for alleged services, expenses,
etc...

2. J. T. Newcomb for alleged services and expenses of
which $12,775 can be identified as charged
to Mitchell Dam___.

3. Henry J. Pierce, services at Washington, D. C.,
during pendency of Federal water power legis-
lation.

4. Traveling expenses of various officers and employees
of Alabama Power Co., mostly to Washington,
D. C., and eastern points, part questioned....

5. General administration, Alabama Power Co., and
Dixie Construction Co., part questioned...

6. Fee paid Dixie Construction Co..
7. Water rights and other alleged values.

Total____

Administrative action taken: Licensee has never filed sworn statement of investment in project. Accounts for Mitchell Dam project have been formally investigated by Alabama Public Service Commission, but no decision rendered. Licensee has been directed to file sworn statement of cost of project with Federal Power Commission. report is due March 1, 1930.

Such

Project No. 432: State of North Carolina. Prelicense cost. Licensee or applicant, Carolina Power & Light Co. (Waterville project):

Total claimed..

Items questioned

1. Payments to an engineer and a financier associated
with the original promoters. Seems to repre-
sent promotion fees or fees for services which
were never performed due to change in control.
2. Additional item of same character understood to
have been made to one of these parties after
license was issued..

3. Cash payment made in 1924 by Pigeon River Power
Co. to 3 corporations controlled by original pro-
moters; under this contract present licensee is
liable for large additional payments and costs.
Further information desired..

4. Payment to Great Mountain Co. for lands and
water rights ($27,000).

5. Payment_to individual, an officer of Great Moun-
tain Power Co., to see that the deal with that
corporation for purchase of lands and water
rights went through__

6. Payments to Electric Bond & Share Co.

For salaries and bonuses of its employees at
New York and Washington ($32,243.68).
Added as overheads and fees, ranging from
80 per cent to 130 per cent of monthly
salary charges__.

$10, 968, 364. 19

122, 000. 00

21, 731. 00

7,000.00

17, 000. 00

561, 124. 69 186, 177. 89 3, 500, 000. 00

4, 415, 033. 58

917, 500. 26

76, 750. 00

40, 000. 00

275, 000. 00

20, 000. 00

31, 856. 90

Project No. 432-Continued.

Items questioned-Continued.

7. Payments to Phoenix Utility Co.

Field expenditures for preliminary surveys
of lands, locations for structures, etc.
($97,061.58).

Added, fee of 15 per cent._
Steam shovel purchased
($13,590).

Added, fee of 4 per cent______

$14, 559. 24

543. 60

$15, 102. 84

8. Attorneys' fees, telegraph and telephone tolls, and
other expenses incurred by Electric Bond &
Share Co. interests in connection with joint
resolution (S. J. Res. 35) introduced in Senate
by Senator Norris on Jan. 4, 1926.

9. Interest prior to beginning of construction_

Total....

Administrative action taken: Accounts and records examined on basis of informal claim presented by licensee. Request has been made upon licensee for a sworn statement of prelicense cost or further information concerning several items appearing in the project accounts. Such statement

is due on Mar. 2, 1930.

Project No. 637: State of Washington. Prelicense cost. Licensee or applicant, Chelan Electric Co. (Chelan Lake project):

Total claimed.

Item questioned—

1. Interest charges on cost of lands ($262,197.97) ac-
quired in 1907 by licensee company for which
stock was issued, and on advances of $858,-
991.57 by Great Northern Railway Co. through-
out period from 1907 to May 7, 1926...

Administrative action taken: Prelicense claim investigated by correspondence only. Agreement on item of interest could not be reached. Licensee has been requested to file sworn statement of total cost of project (now completed). Such statement is due Apr. 1, 1930.

Project No. 309: State of Pennsylvania. Cost of original project. Licensee or applicant, the Clarion River Power Co. (Piney project):

Total claimed..

Items questioned

1. Par value of stock issued to J. R. Paull in payment
for services and expenses of organized corpora-
tion, preliminary investigations, studies, etc.
(inflated at least to the extent that the par value
of stock exceeded the money value thereof)

Charges by R. D. Walbridge & Co., paid
in securities of Clarion River Power Co.;
charges represent par value of securities-
2. Engineering surveys and exploration work, includ-
ing drilling to disclose foundation conditions.
Charges applicable to constructed plant and
the two proposed developments on which active
work has not yet been started, part questioned..
3. Services securing contract with General Construc-
tion Corporation (which Walbridge & Co. con-
trolled) for construction of plant____

1, 988. 94 62, 828. 06

522, 919. 84

2, 266, 547. 49

852, 167. 64

11, 032, 816. 57

451, 000. 00

1, 119, 897. 20

200, 000. 00