OCR Text |
Show SUPREME COURT TO TIE EARLY ACTION Litigation Against Power Companies Is Set For ward in Washington Poss b 1 ty of an early dec s on m the content on of the r ght of the state of Utah to grant perm ss on to power conipan es to de elop hydro electr c power s tes that m olve the occupancy of federal forest reser e g ound s re fleeted in a mot on made n the s preme court of the Un tel States yesterday by the sol c tor general for the ad anco mcnt of s x cases n which the right of occupa cv by three convran es operat ng n Utah has been quest one 1 in the cou ts by the federal government The s x eases actually rep esent three or ginal su ts having reached the su preme court of the nat on n the forn of appeals by the defendant com ran es and cross appeals by the depart ment of just ce The defendants con cerned are the Utah L ght & Power company the Beave E er Power com panv and L L 'Sunn The motion for the ad ancement of the cases was made at the sol c tat on of W W Kay. Un t ed States d str t attorney for the dis tnct of Utah, that a dec s on m ght be earlj obta ned upon a quest on. that has exed some of the foremost legal 1 ghts of th s state for the past several ears The cases n quest on or ginally brought n the federal cou t n th s city, have traversed the c rcu tous route to the supreme court, and s nee the last legal sk rnush poss ble has been fought the government and the power interests are equally ready for the fin sh battle For th s reason there was no objection entered vesterday at Wash ngton to the mot on of the attorney general Action of the supreme court on the mot on is jet to be taken The case of the defendant companies s based upon r ghts granted in a fed eral act of 1866 perm tt ng the occ pancy of s ghts such as are in quest on for the de elopment of power for m dustr al purposes The government 8 case is based upon a later a t 1896 wh ch it a contended bv the prosec t on was an amendment to the earl er act mod f) ng the law so that occ pancy without formal permiss on of the federal government could not be legally accomplished Just when the quest on v 11 come up for f nal deci. on in con sequence of esterday s motion s not vith n the knowledge of an j one bes des the supreme court |