be written into the Natural Gas Act directing the Federal Power Commission, in crystal-clear terms, as to the methods it should employ in administering the act. I have incorporated such provisions in the bill, Without them the future of the natural gas industry would be jeopardized, and this could easily result in areas such as your own being unable to obtain any natural gas service whatever. If you still feel that I have misinterpreted the purport of your testimony, please be assured that it was unintentional, and please accept my most sincere apologies. Very truly yours,

Ross RIZLEY, M. C.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Mr. W. VINCENT NASH,

City Attorney, Saginaw, Mich.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., June 20, 1947.

DEAR MR. NASH: Your letter of June 11 addressed to Mr. Herman C. Wilson, president of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, was transmitted to Chairman Wolverton, of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, who called my attention to it.

In that letter you protest that no official of your city had endorsed H. R. 2185, of which I am the author. I presume, from other correspondence Mr. Wilson has sent to the committee, that you were advised that I had testified before the committee that your city had endorsed the bill.

First, may I emphasize that I did not state to the committee that your city had endorsed my bill. I listed your city among those whose spokesmen had endorsed "the principles" of the bill. I certainly felt that I was making a fair statement concerning the position of Saginaw, in view of the testimony of your city manager, Mr. Carl H. Peterson, before the Federal Power Commission in the docket No. G-580 hearings at Chicago on February 26, 1946. After reading the transcript of the testimony in that proceeding, I concluded that Mr. Peterson, on behalf of Saginaw, was vitally interested in obtaining ample and dependable supplies of natural gas for domestic and industrial use in Saginaw, at prices comparable to those paid in comparable communities. I also noticed in those hearings that no one speaking for Saginaw took exception to Mr. Peterson's position.

My basis for this interpretation of the purport of Mr. Peterson's testimony is taken from the following quatations from his statement:

(a) "The importance of an adequate supply of natural gas to the convenience, cleanliness, comfort, and health of the community (Saginaw) can scarcely be evaluated in terms of dollars and cents."

(b) "Failure of an adequate supply of gas would set the community back to a point akin to the horse-and-buggy days. The economic effect of failure to obtain adequate supplies of (natural) gas would be chaotic."

(c) "The steady expansion in Saginaw's growth has closely followed the increase in gas consumption. To stop the flow of gas is to impede progress. The effect of a severe limitation of supply of natural gas upon rates to domestic customers is bound to be adverse to the interests of the customers. Operating economics based upon volume sales would be unfavorable to a large reduction in total gas usage. The large change in revenue occasioned by a drop in sales to other classes would of necessity be reflected in the gas rates to the domestic consumer."

(d) "If we are going to be selfish about not letting gas come up in Michigan and other parts of the United States, then we might just as weil do the same with our iron ore, and if we did that, the rest of the United States would probably be in a predicament."

The underlying and primary objective of H. R. 2185 is to bring about the precise results which Mr. Peterson said in his testimony were desired by the people of Saginaw, The bill is designedly aimed at making adequate and continuous supplies of natural gas available to all markets where there is a sufficient demand for this fuel and for whatever use the purchasers desire to make of it. You undoubtedly must realize that in order to make possible the results which Mr. Peterson said in his testimony were to be desired it is necessary that provisions be written into the Natural Gas Act directing the Federal Power Commission, in crystal-clear terms, as to the methods it should employ in administering the Natural Gas Act. I have incorporated such provisions in the 61167-47-47

bill. Without them the future of the natural gas industry would be in jeopardy, and this could easily result in areas such as your own being unable to obtain any natural gas service whatever.

If you still feel that I have misinterpreted the purport of Mr. Peterson's testimony, in docket G-580, please be assured that it was unintentional, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

Very truly yours,

Ross RIZLEY, Member of Congress.

Mr. WILLIAM A. EWART,

City Attorney, Pontiac, Mich.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., June 20, 1947.

DEAR MR. EWART: Your letter of June 11, addressed to Mr. Herman C. Wilson, president of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, was transmitted to Chairman Wolverton, of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, who called it to my attention.

In that letter you protest that I incorrectly stated to the committee that Mr. George E. Bean, city manager of Pontiac, had endorsed H. R. 2185, of which I am the author.

First, may I emphasize that I did not state to the committee that your city had endorsed my bill. I listed your city among those whose spokesman had endorsed "the principles" of the bill. I certainly felt that I was making a fair statement concerning the position of your city, in view of the testimony which Mr. Bean gave before the Federal Power Commission in the docket No. G-580 hearings at Chicago on February 26, 1946. After reading the transcript of the testimony in that proceeding, I concluded that Mr. Bean, on behalf of Pontiac, was vitally interested in obtaining ample and dependable supplies of natural gas for domestic and industrial use in Pontiac, at prices comparable to those paid in comparable communities. I also noticed in those hearings that no one speaking for Pontiac took exception to Mr. Bean's position.

My basis for this interpretation of the purport of Mr. Bean's testimony is taken from the following quotations from his statement:

"In an industrial community of this type (Pontiac) it is increasingly important that adequate supplies of natural gas be allocated for both industrial and domestic use A limitation of supply would retard industrial activity and would also tend to raise the price of the products manufactured here by substitution of other more expensive types of fuel.

"From the standpoint of the city of Pontiac, it is increasingly important that as an industrial community we have the advantages of convenience and cleanliness, with the corresponding protection to health of the citizens, that may be obtained by a larger use of natural gas.

"In the event of limitation of supplies, this area would have to resort to other fuels, which not only are more costly, as measured by the final product, but lack the flexibility and convenience desirable to maintain the proper economic and social life of the community."

The underlying and primary objective of H. R. 2185 is to bring about the precise results which Mr. Bean states were desired by the people of Pontiac. The bill is designedly aimed at making adequate and continuous supplies of natural gas available to all markets where there is a sufficient demand for this fuel and for whatever use the purchasers desire to make of it.

You undoubtedly must realize that in order to make possible the results which Mr. Bean said in his testimony were to be desired, it is necessary that provisions be written into the Natural Gas Act directing the Federal Power Commission as to the methods it should employ in administering the Natural Gas Act. I have incorporated such provisions in the bill. Without them the future of the natural gas industry would be in jeopardy, and this could easily result in areas such as your own being unable to obtain any natural gas service whatever.

If you still feel that I have misinterpreted the purport of Mr. Bean's testimony in docket G-580, please be assured that it was unintentional, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

Very truly yours,

Ross RIZLEY, M. C

Mr. ORPH C. HOLMES,

City Attorney, Ferndale, Mich.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., June 20, 1947.

MY DEAR MR. HOLMES: Your letter of June 11, addressed to Mr. Herman C. Wilson, president of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, was transmitted to Chairman Wolverton, of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, who called it to my attention.

In that letter you protest that you had never endorsed the principles contained in H. R. 2185, of which I am the author. I presume, from other correspondence Mr. Wilson has sent to the committee, that you were advised I had testified before the committee to that effect.

Bearing in mind that I testified that you had endorsed "the principles" of the bill-not the bill itself—I certainly felt that I was making a fair statement concerning your position, in view of the testimony which you gave before the Federal Power Commission in the docket No. G-580 hearings at Chicago on February 26, 1946. After reading the transcript of the testimony in that proceeding, I concluded that you, on behalf of the city of Ferndale, were vitally interested in obtaining ample and dependable supplies of natural gas for domestic and commercial use in Ferndale, at prices comparable to those paid in comparable communities. I also noticed in those hearings that no one speaking for the city of Ferndale took exception to your position.

My basis for this interpretation of the purport of your testimony is taken from the following quotations from your statement:

(a) "A loss of (natural) gas as a source of space heating would result in considerable hardship to the residents of the city of Ferndale."

(b) "It is my opinion that if natural gas is not available or is limited in the supply that manufacturing in our city may be interfered with and may well result in the loss of some of the industries now located there."

The underlying and primary objective of H. R. 2185 is to bring about the precise results which you said in your testimony were desired by the people of Ferndale. The bill is designedly aimed at making adequate and continuous supplies of natural gas available to all markets where there is a sufficient demand for this fuel and for whatever uses the purchasers desire to make of it.

You undoubtedly must realize that in order to make possible the results which you said in your testimony were to be desired it is necessary that provisions be written into the Natural Gas Act directing the Federal Power Commission, in crystal-clear terms, as to the methods it should employ in administering the Natural Gas Act. I have incorporated such provisions in the bill. Without them the future of the natural gas industry would be in jeopardy, and this could easily result in areas such as your own being unable to obtain any natural gas service whatever.

If you still feel that I have misinterpreted the purport of your testimony in docket G-580, please be assured that it was unintentional, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

Very truly yours,

Ross RIZLEY, Member of Congress.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Mr. GILBERT BURNETT,

Director of Law, Louisville, Ky.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE, Washington, D. C., June 20, 1947.

MY DEAR MR. BURNETT: Your letter of June 12 addressed to the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers (attention, Mr. Charles S. Rhyne) was transmitted to Chairman Wolverton, of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who called my attention to it.

In 'that letter you say that you were advised that "Congressman Rizley, of Oklahoma, had proclaimed endorsement of his amendment to the bill by the Louisville Industrial Foundation."

As to that, may I emphasize that I did not state that the foundation had "endorsed" any amendment to any bill. What I did testify to before the committee was that the foundation had endorsed "the principles" of H. R. 2185, which is a bill to amend the Natural Gas Act, and of which I am the author.

You further state in your letter that "I have today talked to him (Mr. William B. Harrison, president of the foundation) and learned that he appeared in Charleston, W. Va., in opposition to the amendment."

Regarding that statement, I do not see how that could have been possible, because when Mr. Harrison testified before the Federal Power Commission at Charleston in the docket No. G-580 hearings, there was no amendment or other legislation concerning this matter pending before the Congress. Mr. Harrison's testimony in that proceeding, however, certainly, it seems to me, had no meaning if it did not support the objectives sought by H. R. 2185, which, as I pointed out above, was introduced subsequent to Mr. Harrison's testimony.

Therefore, I felt that I was making a fair statement when I testified before the committee to the effect that the foundation endorsed "the principles" of my bill. I concluded that he, on behalf of the foundation, was vitally interested in obtaining ample and adequate supplies of natural gas for industrial and domestic use in Louisville, with no restrictions on what use would be made of the gas, and at prices comparable to those paid in comparable communities.

I also noticed that while another witness from Louisville, Mr. Louis J. Bosse, managing director of the Associated Industries of Kentucky, endorsed the position taken by Mr. Harrison, there was no one at those hearings speaking for Louisville who took exception to the position of these two men.

My basis for the interpretation of the purport of Mr. Harrison's testimony was formed from such remarks as these, which run throughout his testimony in the docket G-580 hearings:

"Taking a long view, it is not fantastic to predict these results of the proposed Federal control of the end use of natural gas:

"1. Those industries which are based upon the use of gas in processing will find their operations handicapped or curtailed and the pay rolls reduced.

"2. The unfortunate employees will find themselves either without jobs and unable to pay for gas, or find the price of domestic gas so stepped up as to make it too expensive for their use."

"We got along for an awful long time in difficult situations with local solutions of local problems. I may as well admit that I am allergic to Federal controls."

"We look with considerable concern upon the proposal that the end use of natural gas shall be controlled by Federal authorities.

"In our area we are content to leave the direction and control of the use of gas to the long-established State public service commission and to the municipality, both of whom are thoroughly familiar with local needs and conditions and who are promptly responsive to any change in these.

"We are particularly concerned with the possible results of arbitrary restrictions, arising out of broad national aims, upon the local use of gas by industry."

The underlying and primary objective of H. R. 2185 is to bring about the precise results which Mr. Harrison said in his testimony were desired by the people he represented. The bill is designedly aimed at making adequate and continuous supplies of natural gas available to all markets where there is a sufficient demand for this fuel for whatever uses the purchasers desire to make of it and at prices comparable to those paid in comparable communities.

You undoubtedly must realize that in order to make possible the results which Mr. Harrison said in his testimony were to be desired, it is necessary that provisions be written into the Natural Gas Act directing the Federal Power Commission, in crystal-clear terms, as to the methods it should employ in administering the Natural Gas Act. I have incorporated such provisions in the bill. Without them the future of the natural gas industry would be in jeopardy, and this could easily result in areas such as your own being unable to obtain any natural gas service whatever.

If Mr. Harrison or you still feel that I have misinterpreted the purport of his testimony in the docket G-580 hearings, please be assured it was unintentional, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

Very truly yours,

Ross RIZLEY, M. C.

Mr. KENNETH L. GREENQUIST,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

City Attorney, Racine, Wis.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., June 20, 1947.

MY DEAR MR. GREENQUIST: Your letter of June 12, addressed to the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers (attention, Mr. Charles S. Rhyne), was transmitted to Chairman Wolverton, of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who called my attention to it.

In that letter you state that the city of Racine has never taken any position on the principles involved in H. R. 2185, of which I am the author. I presume, from other correspondence sent to the committee by the institute, that you were advised that I had testified before the committee to the effect that Mayor Wendt had endorsed the principles of my bill.

Bearing in mind that I testified that Mayor Wendt had endorsed "the principles" of the bill not the bill itself-I certainly felt that I was making a fair statement concerning his position, in view of his testimony before the Federal Power Commission at Chicago on March 2, 1946, in the docket No. G-580 hearings. --After reading the transcript of the testimony in that proceeding, I concluded that Mayor Wendt, on behalf of the people of Racine, was vitally interested in obtaining ample and dependable supplies of natural gas for domestic and industrial use in Racine, at prices comparable to those paid in comparable communities. Of course, in order to do this I realize that certain, State laws in your State had to be amended or repealed, but unless the mayor also was interested in seeing to it that no actions of the Federal Power Commission would prevent gas getting into your State, I take it that he would not have appeared at the FPC hearing.

My basis for this interpretation of the purport of Mayor Wendt's testimony is taken from the following quotations from his statement at the FPC hearings in Chicago:

* *

"I have been informed that natural gas would be somewhat cheaper than manufactured gas, and if it could be piped into Racine it would be plentiful enough that it could heat the city and we could all have the advantages of it. "I feel it (natural gas) would also mean cleaner homes *. I feel it would be a great advantage to burn a clean fuel that could be regulated by thermostat, which would not necessitate my running to the basement numerous times in the day to shovel coal."

The underlying and primary objecive of H. R. 2185 is to bring about the precise results which Mayor Wendt said in his testimony were desired by the people of Racine, except, of course, that it could have no effect on your State statutes. The bill is designedly aimed at making adequate and continuous supplies of natural gas available to all markets where there is a sufficient demand for this fuel and for whatever uses the purchasers desire to make of it.

You undoubtedly must realize that in order to make possible the results which Mayor Wendt said in his testimony were to be desired, it is necessary that provisions be written into the Natural Gas Act directing the Federal Power Commission, in crystal-clear terms, as to the methods it should employ in administering the Natural Gas Act. I have incorporated such provisions in the bill. Without them the future of the natural gas industry would be in jeopardy, and this could easily result in areas such as the Racine area being unable to obtain any natural gas service whatever, regardless of what your State laws might be. If you still feel that I have misinterpreted the purport of Mayor Wendt's testimony in docket G-580, please be assured that it was unintentional, and please accept my most sincere apologies.

DEAR MR. WILSON: We have at hand the letter of Mr. Charles S. Rhyne, dated June 9, 1947, expressing surprise at Congressman's Rizley's testimony that our municipality had endorsed, principles included in H. R. 2185. This writer is familiar with Miss Alpern's testimony as submitted to the members of the institute on prior occasions.