OCR Text |
Show In 639 days Herbert B. Maw and Gus P. Backman will retire to private life The lig Search ee a a NN A Specialist in Neglected Truth SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, APRIL 2, 1943 VOL. III, No. 25. —— — eR EES eee Published every alternate Friday F. L. Jensen, Publisher 72 T Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Dial 5-3989 $2.00 a year ne ee ae eee a 10c PER COPY ee “Little Short of I vedason’”’ Stripped of all charges and counter-charges, there is only one issue involved in the proposed strike of Copper Company employees belonging to the company union. ‘hat issue is whether the threat of a strike can force a Government tribunal to override another Government tribunal and extend status previously official recognition of a denied. Representatives of the company union and of the Copper Company expressly assert that the strike vote was not taken quest for an increase in pay. that there is no strike to back up a re- They also agree against Company. The principals in the are the company union and the Metals Commission. the Copper controversy Nonferrous In view of that situation we believe the stand taken by Charles A. Graham, chairman of the Nonferrous Metals Commission is eminently proper, and necessary to guarantee the Government against arbitrary private action. To strike before the complainants have exhausted their remedy at law, under present conditions, is little short of open rebellion. The Copper Company and its company union have an orderly remedy at hand without resorting to violence and disruption of a vital war industry. | They may go to the Cireuit Court of Appeals for an immediate writ of review of the refusal of the Nonferrous Metals Commission (Continued on following page) Gadsby Seeks Kilowatt Mergers Securities & Exchange Commission to Hear Application of Utah Power & Light Company to Merge With Western Colorado Power Company and Utah Light & Traction Company On Monday, April 5, in Philadelphia, the Securities & Exchange Commission will begin hearings on the application of Utah Power & Light Company to merge its properties with those and of Western Utah Colorado Power Company Light & Traction Company. At present Utah Power & Light Company holds the stock of the other two concerns. It now proposes to bring them into the corporate structure of the Power Company and continue them as operating divisions of Utah Power & Light Company. The Power Company is putting forward its merger proposal as its conception of compli- ance with the Holding Company act, and the order of the Securities & Exchange Commission to electric utilities to divest themselves of subsidiary concerns and confine their business to operating electric properties. We have observed previously that there is no more reason why Utah Power & Light Company should own and operate a ‘bus transportation business than for it to own and operate a chop suey joint in San Francisco, or a cheese factory in Wisconsin. In the mass transportation business at least, it is clear that the application of the Power Company consitutes a mere kilowatt subterfuge, with which the public and regulatory commissions are already quite familiar. There is no sound reason why Utah Power & Light Company should be permitted to oper- ate any business besides the one it is engaged: (Continued on page 4) |