*1 opinion Mb. Justice RobeRTS delivered the n Court. in presents question This case as that same involved 328, Co., ante, No. R. Helvering Reynolds v. J. Tobacco p. 110. Certiorari was a in granted because of conflict statutory provision below. The which under decisions . 22 (a) this case is 1932, § arises the Revenue Act of which the same as the .corresponding section Act regulations, original Revenue of 1928. The amended, controversy have the same relation to this as that No. 328. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained deficiency of a for petitioner’s determination tax year calendar 1933 and the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.1 the Board’s affirm'ed given judgment For the reasons No. 328 the must be
Reversed. ELECTRIC POWER TENNESSEE CO. et al. v. VALLEY AUTHORITY et TENNESSEE al. Argued 14, 15, January November 1938. Decided 1939. No. 27. 2d 1 97 F. 22. *2 T. Raymond Weadock, Jackson and John
Messrs. C. Messrs. C. Trábue whom Charles with' Charles M. brief,'for Seymour appellants. were on the { O <NT—
CN r*H *8 O’Brian, John Lord Fly and James Lawrence Messrs. Jackson, A. and Mr. Paul General with whom Solicitor Margolin Fitts, Jr., and Bessie Freund, Mr. William C. brief, appellees. for were on *13 CO *14 delivered the opinion of
Mr. Justice Roberts Court. Valley
The Tennessee Authority Act1 erects a corpora- tion, instrumentality an of the United States, develop aby series of dams on the Tennessee River and its tribu- system taries navigation and flood control and to sell the power created Eighteen dams. corporations which generate and distribute electricity in Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and one 1 May 18, 1933, 58, Act of 4S Stat. as amended August Act of seq. 31, 1935, et 1075; Stat. U. S. C. §
CO T—d lO Alabama, m electricity Tennessee and which transmits Knox Chancery Court equity, a bill filed its three against Authority County, Tennessee, The prayers directors. were officers and executive that electricity generating restrained from be the defendants created, created, or to be pursuant of water out Authority’s of construction plan to the Act or distributing, transmitting, supplying from operation; generated, be generated, or to selling electricity so con- from complainants; any with competition hydro- of, steam or the construction structing, financing or means iines or stations, transmission generating electric any compete with distribution, duplicate will which their, rates their from retail services; regulating sub- device; and from any contract, scheme or through *15 local regulation regulation federal for state stituting service, by incorporating more especially for electric rates retail fixing sale of terms electricity in for the contracts cause to the United The defendants removed the rates. there for District Eastern Tennessee States Court 24, August Act of required by the bill. As the answered judges which, after a of three was convened 1937,2 court trial, bill.3 a dismissed the as appellants.4 are here complainants
Fourteen the constitutionally water cannot They power contend that Tennessee conformity to terms of the created be the will, States there- Valley United Authority Act, the it, produced it will not be fore, acquire title to because no im- power exercise federal an incident of the as 2 751-,752, S. C. 380a. 50 Stat. 2S U. § 3 Supp. F. 947. 21 4 enjoined maintaining action. Company was from Georgia Power Georgia Valley Authority, F. v. 17 Power Tennessee Co. See complainants 302 Four other 769; F. 2d U. S. 692. Supp. litigation to withdraw from the without permitted been have since remaining appellants. prosecution prejudice to its CO H-i
prove navigation and control floods in navigable wa- ters of They the nation. the statutory plan affirm that plain attempt, guise of exerting granted pow- ers, to exercise a granted States, not to the United namely, generation and sale of electric energy; that the execution of the plan contravenes the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, since the sale of electricity on the proposed scale will deprive the appellants their property without law, due process will result federal regulation of the internal affairs of the states, will deprive the people of the states of their guaranteed liberty to earn a livelihood and to ac- quire and subject use property only to regulation. state appellees The contest these contentions. For reasons about to be stated we do not consider or decide the issues thus mooted. Authority’s acts, which appellants give claim
rise to a cause of action, comprise (1) the sale of electric energy at wholesale municipalities empowered by state law to maintain and operate their own sys- distribution tems; (2) the sale of energy such at wholesale to mem- bership corporations organized under state law pur- chase and distribute their electricity to members without profit; (3) sale of firm and secondary power at whole- sale to industrial plants.
The appellants are incorporated for the purpose and with the authority to conduct business public as utilities. Several only do so within the states of their incorpora- *16 tion; those chartered qualified elsewhere have as foreign corporations under the of laws the they states which manufacture, transmit, or distribute electricity. Most licenses, of them have local franchises, or easements granted by municipalities or governmental subdivisions but it is admitted that none of these franchises confers an privilege. exclusive
137 ' any or has not built authorized Authority While the of or authorized the sale has not sold line, transmission any contract for, or authorized or contracted electricity, by by others, territory served electricity the of for, sale of has some all these it done or appellants, nine of the by five susceptible or of service things in areas served way enter in the same plans it companies; and therefore, clear, It is appellants. territory of other and will estab- have resulted result that its acts sys- cooperative distribution municipal of lishment of or all of the appel- those with some competing tems reasonably ex- serve, or territory^which they now lants in systems, existing of their by extension pect serve enterprises appellants’ with the competition in direct in areas to industries now through the sale of of they expansion serve by them can by served which this appellants competi- The assert that their facilities. ap- The damage upon substantial them. tion will inflict result, contend damage that such will but admit pellees it is of since it not the of a cause action that is basis damage consequent upon injuria, not absque damnum —a recognized law. any right the violation that one threatened invoke doctrine appellants The injury agent of an special the act with direct but for for which, statutory authority government a of his legal rights, would be violation its performance, against in a validity the statute suit challenge may is unless The without agent.5 application principle legal one right, property, invaded a right —one against in- contract, protected -one tortious arising out of on a which vasion, priv- statute confers or one founded 5 605, Stimson, 619; 223 Philadelphia v. S. v. Co. U. Wal Stafford Mellon, 495, 512; 447, v. S. 488. Massachusetts U. lace, 258 U. S. against applies suits state officers: Osborn v. The same rule 738, 859; Thompson, 197, v. Bank, Terrace 263 U. S. Wheat. Constantin, 378, 393. 214; Sterling 287 U. v. S. *17 138
ilege.6 The appellants urge that Valley the Tennessee by Authority, competing with them in of the sale electric energy, is destroying property their rights without and warrant, since the claimed authorization of its transac- tions is an unconstitutional statute. pith The complaint is the Authority’s competition. But ap- pellants realize that competition natural persons between is They stigmatize lawful. seek to Authority’s pres- ent proposed competition “illegal” as by reliance on their franchises which they say are property protected from or injury destruction competition. They classify question of sorts, franchises as two involved —those in the grant state’s incorporation or of domestication and those arising grant by from the the state or its sub- divisions tó use and public occupy prop- privilege erty and for public places public. the service of the
The charters of companies which operate states of incorporation give their legal them existence and power to function public as utilities. The like ex- istence powers of those chartered in other states recognized have been by the laws of the states which they do business permitting domestication of foreign corporations. appellants say that the franchise to be a public utility corporation function as such, with incidental powers, is a species property which is di- rectly injured taken or by the Authority’s competition. They urge further that, though non-exclusive, the local franchises which easements, grant them the privilege within given municipal serve subdivisions, and to oc- cupy public streets and places, are also property which the Authority destroying by is its competition. Since 6 443; Ayers, 123 U. S. In re v. Walla Walla Co., Walla Walla Water 1; Magnetic 172 U. S. American School Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 94; 123; parte Young, U. S. Ex S. 209 U. Scully Bird, v. 209 U. S. 481; Philadelphia v. Stimson, supra; Watts, Lane v. Co. S.U. 625; 33; Raich, Lipke Truax v. 239 U. S. v. Lederer, 259 U. 557. S. ih‘e. Ten- justified reference to being done what is say they they have'stand- Authority Act, Valley nessee *18 constitutionality. ing challenge to its that their charters is neither position The vice of the of a grant monopoly the nor their local franchises involve as a franchise to exist The competition illegal. or render in the utility, a function as corporation, public and to subject, the cre contract on absence of charter specific a the affords competition,7 right ates no be free of of reason complaint by of no corporation legal cause enter and another authorizing subsequently state’s same, franchises, while field.8 The local operate in'the or contractual confer no property, of having elements in either from right of competition to be free property state or or the utility other dividuals, public corporations, may The grantor the franchise.9 municipality granting permitting from initiating contract or by itself preclude obligation contractual is no such but competition,10 such here asserted. that even if invasion of argue further appellants
The standing, they them not rights give does their franchise of the stat- constitutionality challenge the by suit, may, which com- exercise of results grant power the utory of commodify that if used say This but to petition.' cor- obtained it the lawfully not competitor a was may render it liable competes which it poration with 7 420, 548; 11 Pet. Bridge, Bridge v. Warren See Charles River Light 210, 213; Hamilton 3 State, Wall. Gets Co. Co. v. Turnpike 258, 268; Ry. 146 U. City, v. Great Northern S. Pearsall v. Hamilton 646, S. 664. 161 U. Co., 8 Easton, 121 Lehigh Compare v. U. S. 388. Water Co. 9 150; Light Co., 191 U. v. S. Joplin Helena Missouri Southwest 383, 393; v. 195 U. S. Helena, Madera Water Works Co. Water 233; Frazier, 454; Green 253 S. v. U. S. Madera, 228 U. Works v. 291 624. Seattle, U. S. Puget Light Co. v. Power & Sound Superior Water, Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., supra; Walla Superior, 125. v. 263 U. S. & L. P. Co. damages enjoin it from further because competition of illegal derivation of that which it sells. If the thesis sound, appellants enjoin were competing corpora- could a tion or agency that ground injurious competi- on its vires, tion is that grant ultra there is defect in the powers it, competition or that means were ac- quired by some violation of the Constitution. The con- by prior tention is foreclosed damage decisions that consequent competition, on otherwise lawful, is such injuria, circumstances damnum will absque sup- not port right a.cause action or a to sue.11 provisions
Certain
state
regulating public
statutes
utilities are
appellants
right
claimed to confer on the
to be
competition.
free of
Each of the
in which
states
*19
any of them operates, save Mississippi,12 has established
a commission to supervise
regulate
and
public utilities.
While the statutes13 differ in their provisions, all but that
of Virginia require
public utility
a
a
to obtain
certificate
and necessity
doing
convenience
aas
condition of
busi-
ness. The appellants commenced
business
the various
prior
adoption
states
the
of the requirement of such
and,
certificates
far
so
as appears, they have
cover-
none
ing their
operations.
entire
They have,
ob-
however,
tained certificates for extensions
passage
made since the
statutes;
the
and they claim that, in any event, these
11
Ellerman,
v.
166, 173;
Railroad
105
Co.
U. S.
Alabama Power
Ickes,
464, 479-483,
302
Co. v.
U. S.
cited;
and cases
Greenwood
County
Co.,
v. Duke
F. 2d
997;
Power
81
Duke Power
v.
Co.
County,
665, 676;
Greenwood
F. 2d
91
affirmed
1—l laws afford them protection Authority’s competi- from the any tion since now utility seeking to serve in their terri- tory must certificate, they obtain a hence have stand- and ing to maintain which has against Authority suit the this position The none. cannot be maintained. Whether regu- competition prohibited, between utilities be shall That policy. or forbidden state lated is matter of subject policy legisla- will of to alteration at the creates no specific policy ture.14 declaration of a engaged right vested in utilities then its maintenance embarking in thereafter business or it. Authority in which the is now Moreover, the states respect ac their of its policy declared functioning have in- agencies, federal has enacted that Alabama tivities. not be under the corporations shall strumentalities, or that Commission;15 Public Service of its jurisdiction may own improvement municipalities and authorities distributing systems generating electric operate Authority as agency federal such with a may contract as use of stipulate to the energy, and the purchase for nonprofit resale;16 that including rates of energy, formed for the distri may be corporations membership like with electricity members of among their bution required for Authority with to contract Code, § amended of its has Tennessee energy.17 cor federal to exclude utilities, so as public which defines jurisdiction of from Authority such as the *20 porations munici has authorized Commission;18 Utilities State generating transmis operate electric own and to palities contract power for systems, and distribution and sion 14 Wheeling Bridge Co., Bridge Wheeling B. 138 & Co. v. Compare Wingo, 601, 604. v. 177 U. S. 287, 292; Williams S.U. 1935, No. 1. Acts, Regular Session 15 Alabama 16 1935, 155. Regular No. Acts, Session Alabama 17 1935, 45. No. Regular Session Acts, Alabama 18 42, 1935, p. 98. ch. Public Acts Tennessee
142 includ appropriate, deemed terms Authority on with the forma authorized has prices;19 resale ing fixing with corporations electric membership nonprofit tion of authorized Kentucky has to contract.20 powers like and heat, fight, maintain and to establish municipalities organization for the provided and has power plants;21 may which corporations electric cooperative nonprofit and energy purchase of Authority for with the contract no which has Mississippi, prices.22 to resale stipulate as empowered has utilities, regulation for state law main governments to establish county municipal and buy may power which systems distribution tain electric prices;23 resale Authority and contract as to from the authorized authority and creatéd a rural electrical has competitives, nonprofit formation of districts Authority and energy from the competent purchase all Authority as to it contract with the distribute and to Authority’s action in consumers.24 The resale rates to been law, with but, these states is consonant state as has would shown, otherwise, appellants if the fací were standing its have no to restrain continuance. Authority any As the. has not inway acted North . Carolina, Carolina, South or .West Virginia Virginia, its appellant’s contention that into proposed entry some right for injunction all of them confers a sue an against injury thereby threatened has even support.25 less
19 28; p. 1935, 32, Public Acts ch. Tennessee Public Acts Tennessee 37, 1935, p. ch. 78. 20 1937, 231, p. Tennessee Public Acts ch. 882. 21 (1936) Kentucky Carroll’s Statutes 3480 d-1 to 3480 d-22. §§ 22 6, Kentucky Acts, Extraordinary Session, 1936-1937, Fourth ch. p. 25. 23 185, 354; Mississippi Laws, 1936, p. 271, ch. p. ch. 531. ph. 184, Mississippi Laws, 183, p. 334; 187, 370; p. ch. ch. p. 342. question In fact several of the states in have statutes which extent, circumstances, pur- permit would to in some some *21 may any question not raise of discrimi appellants Amendment in the Fourteenth by nation forbidden Authority from commis of exemption in state the volved v. Corporation For Frost regulation. this reason sion they rely, inap Commission, which 278 U. S. on of challenge the no Manifestly there can be plicable. in this of action suit. validity state to maintain the standing which upon A distinct ground cannot Authority the of the to rest is that acts suit is said regulation purely of permitting without federal upheld be the by the states or the people matters reserved to local sanctioning destruction Amendment and Tenth Ninth Amendment guaranteed by the liberty said be and em- acquire property states to to the people mean business. The can proposition it in a lawful ploy Authority sells at rates electricity that since the only by appel- maintained heretofore lower than those regulation appellants’ indirect sale is an lants such com- privately of a owned competition But rates. served territory the state to enter pany authorized sense, in the same consti- would, appellants one of rates. The contention amounts regulation tute a cor- by an individual a state that competition saying competition by but a federal regulation is not poration contracting municipalities In and non- is. with agency stipulated Authority respect- has corporations profit Authority. them by the In all of use of created power chase and sys operate their own distribution may municipalities establish 2807; Code (1935) South Carolina North Code Carolin tems: § Virginia (1936) 3031; West 7278-7280, 8262; Code (1932) § §§ Virginia (86). 494, 591 North Carolina and Virginia (1937) Code §§ may cooperatives which permitting the formation statutes have fixing rates: Authority under contracts buy power from the resale 312; Virginia Code Carolina, 291, p. 1935, ch. Public Laws of North Electri created a State Rural (1936) ch. 159 A. has South Carolina electricity any federal Authority buy from fication with (1936 Supplement) 6010-2 ff. agency: Code §§ South Carolina n supplied energy at which the shall be resold
ing price *22 regulation vendees. That is to be a by ap- its said the nothing But it is more than an pellant’s business. inci- but a competition; seeking dent of it is and method assuring Authority a for the which the power market has sale, for a lawful means to that end.26 and The sale of in government property competition with others not a is of the Tenth Amendment. As violation we have seen objection Authority’s operations by there is no to the the if states, and, so, this were not the appellants, absent the officers, states.or their have no in this suit standing question raise under amendment.27 any the These con- answer argument appellants siderations also* that alleged have a cause action for infractions of the Ninth Amendment.
Finally,
it
right
is asserted that
to maintain This
suit
allegations
is sustained
certain
of concerted action
Authority
the officials of the
and the Public Works
alleges
Administrator. The bill
that having adopted an
unlawful plan the
Have cooperated,
defendants
and
threaten to continue to
in its
cooperate
execution, with'
L. Ickes,
Harold
as Administrator of the Federal Admin-
istration
in
Works,
systematic
of Public
a
campaign
coerce and intimidate the complainants into
their
selling
existing systems in municipalities or
territory
which
Authority
desires
seize the
for electricity;
market
that,
order to make this coercion effective,
has,
Ickes
in cooperation with, or
request of,
on
Authority,
an-
loans
grants
nounced
of federal funds to municipali-
ties; that
Authority
and Ickes have
cooperated,
so,
continue to do
to force municipalities to purchase the
26 Oregon &
v.
States,
R.
393;
238 U. S.
Co.
United
California
12, 13-14;
v.
Gratiot,
26 Fed. Cas.
United States
affirmed
The remaining assignments of error directed the ex- cooperation of clusion evidence between the two fed- rejection agencies go eral the of evidence consisting largely correspondence between them and press re- by leases officers of announcements one or the other. The contains all a rejected record but few of these docu-
merits, apparently those not being thought omitted importance. Scrutiny compels them the conclusion if rejected admitted, the evidence had been that the trial court’s holding conspiracy that a not been proved had should not be overruled. only subject on findings requested by this ap- the
pellants were to the effect that the Public Admin- Works istration has with and cooperated assisted the Tennessee Valley in Authority the furtherance of the latter’s program and that the former al- has made contracts and for grants lotments loans and twenty-three municipali- ties Alabama, states of Mississippi, Tennessee, amounting to fourteen dollars, pur- about for the million pose of constructing municipal systems to distribute the Authority’s power competition appellants; with the that the for applications grant loan and in some instances specify municipal system that duplicate pri- will vately' system; owned others large that a business will be done plants municipal because of the low pro- motional Authority; rates of the that some of appli- state they cations were filed advantage to take low rates offered Authority and that, with few exceptions, they state that electricity to be distrib- city uted\in the will purchased be from Authority. A further requested finding is that the applications of certain Alabama cities recite they that have secured writ- ten contracts from practically all consumers; that these *24 contracts refer to lower rates to be secured, provided the rates charged by city the shall be thus prescribed by the Authority for resale at retail. The court refused to make requested the findings and error is assigned to this re- fusal. It apparent is if that the court had made the findings no conclusion of confederation or conspiracy, with malicious intent to harm the appellants or to destroy business, their thereby would have been required. Cooperation by two federal officials, one acting under a statute whereby funds are provided for the of erection under a statute and the other authoriz- municipal plants, and its sale to such electricity the ing production not appellants, does plants, competition spell with injure As court their business. below conspiracy to concert, does involve unlawful held, cooperation not such or commit an unlawful act plan, design, cooperation or lawful with the intent to vio- or to acts otherwise commit late statute. appellants standing
In of the case have the aspect no the suit bill was dismissed. properly to maintain and the The is decree
Affirmed. Reed no MR. took the consideration or part Justice this decision of case. Butler. Justice
Mr. just far. It goes The announced too excludes decision seeking complainants from courts constitutional pro- against as tection their defendants property acting, governmental invalid au- alleged, under claim it setting on a up carrying program calcu- thority destroy complainants’ business. issues lated to below joined by parties, fully presented tried whether, when question include the construed Court, this done things and threatened defend- to authorize challenged is authorized the Con- ants, enactment Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth repugnant to the stitution question also include the The issues Amendments. the Act is because the applied, as void whether, being deprive complain- will program defendants’ execution of of law in process without due con- property ants their This Court Fifth Amendment. holds travention challenge validity standing no complainants have immaterial claim as their that puts aside of the Act are properties acts their unauthorized by defendants’ being destroyed.
148 “The opinion Authority’s which the states: acts give claim rise to a cause of appellants action, comprise (1) energy the sale of electrical at wholesale munici- to empowered by operate state to maintain palities law and own systems; (2) their distribution sale of such en- ergy membership corporations organized at wholesale to law and distribute to purchase electricity under state and (3) the sale of firm profit; their members without secondary to industrial plants.” at .wholesale may complainants’
That of case not be the substance summary their bill compressed disclosed of so is n that follows: authorized Complainants public Each, utilities. are electricity by law, generating selling in and engaged political Some within subdivisions of various States. large long-term they have contracts under which furnish than able to quantities electricity. They are more operate fill in which they the needs of the territories may ready supply and are such additional as facilities Their modern properties be needed the future. are economically, operated possess great and value as yield no more than reason- concerns. Their rates going .a in which fully regulated by return the States able and are they serve. "ValleyAuthority, body
Defendants are Tennessee a 18, May the Act of with the corporate' created sued, charged three directors; sue be its right to exercising powers duty Authority. with the the Administrator of the Ickes, Harold L. Public Works has confederated with Administration, defendants "be charged illegal; he is not acts because some sued jurisdiction the court. From princi- its beyond Knoxville,' Tennessee, pal office at Authority car- public business as a proprietary a utility ries on for the transmission, distribution and generation, sale' elec- tricity Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama. purpose to authorize Act discloses face, the itsOn *26 for the works great number of indeterminate large and of electric creating supply vast a primary purpose of the United States power to establish power, to use this transmitting, selling and producing, in the business of manner in a power this dispose of power, electric and to system and so dual principles of our with the inconsistent Any the States. reserved to govern as to concerns con- any or to other navigation Act to references pre- mere unsubstantial objective are stitutional sought it to achieve which is under pretexts tenses or respect with Except to the States. object an reserved acts com- Dam to the prior Wilson available at power for creating an outlet is one of plained of, program enterprise commercial as a deliberately produced power with competition in unlawful and destructive be sold quantities. adequate now available in power development ultimately the contemplates program The all River and its the Tennessee power of all on sites system, power electric integrated an tributaries as at plants hydro-electric operation construction inter- plants, auxiliary steam the use of sites, these existing the elimination of plants, connection of all privately owned utilities. 40,000 miles, 149 square over there are
In the area of auxiliary with steam will which, plants, power water sites annually. consump- 25 billion k. w. h. Present produce that The quantity. the area is electric tion of 56% by only defendants can be produced to be sold complainants. displacement of the Execution through will all necessarily destroy a program of the or substan- property of the business and part tial each of the complainants. have taken
Defendants over Wilson Dam ni- and the plant and have commenced, trate or recommended to the construction of Congress, 10 other their dams; pro- 150 They 1943. July 1, for completed calls dams
gram high-tension for the construction prepared have plans to at least cities the dams transmission lines from They purchased area. have and indeed to the whole systems at distribution purchase attempting to are contracts to sell entered into They have least 15 cities. for. 20- and industries communities power to various firm power to agreed supply have period and year larger cities. other and program is to effect a fed- purpose
The avowed electric rates and service of intrastate regulation eral “regulation by com- method'or “yardstick” a so-called whole- for wholesale rates is the yardstick petition.” Authority. It unreasonable charged by rate sale *27 of complainants’ measure rates a confiscatory as in- major part the cost of the of the in that it excludes the service and excludes render necessary to vestment yardstick The for retail expenses. necessary operating wholesale rate and the amount the the sum of rates is add to the municipalities allows to Authority which the distribution; cost of local it ex- rate to cover wholesale necessary rendering of the many items of cludes .cost service. promulgated in plan a
Pursuant to defendants campaign purpose for the conducting systematic a of are business relations disrupting the established between com- customers, destroying good their the will plainants and seizing their by complainants, markets and in- up built of communities by residents served them citing the to in their defendants scheme to with an cooperate develop monopoly. absolute knowledge full of the noncompensatory
With and con- the yardstick fiscatory rates, they character repre- have of' inhabitants to sented the communities served com- “yardsticks” these that were fair measures plainants thereby attempted to, rates the reasonable have incite and. using systems power owned publicly build inhabitants to to that Authority, to lead them believe by the furnished to stir rates, up po- unreasonable charged being are they owned utilities and to against privately agitation litical and disfavor. disrepute into bring complainants complainants sell to coerce to attempt The defendants lines, in territories and transmission systems distribution prices at far be- appropriate, to intend defendants which threatening that, complainants unless fair low value construct, constructed, or to be will cause accede, they opera- construction and subsidized facilities duplicate complainants’ properties funds and render by federal tion Administrator of' Public the wholly valueless. cooperated has with defendants. Works Administration that, sell, unless they inform the owners Defendants will Authority build du- municipalities either with federal At re- funds. defendants’ systems plicate gift authorizes and announces Administrator quest, the municipality from the cost of to the 30% 45% agrees lend the re- duplicate system balance, any, if duplicate of the earnings, plant, out of payable agree will municipality that to use condition upon will, Authority as as soon possible, oust utility. utility agrees sell, If the al- existing without the will of regard to are canceled lotments already This has been policy applied municipality. The defendants and Administrator also cities. certain (cid:127) *28 municipalities agree purchase to to to force cooperate Authority by by threats that other- furnished for will public allotments works be canceled federal wise denied. have bills, designed caused to forward Defendants their legislatures to be submitted to of power program, in the area have lobbied for and and various States their passage. They have Au- brought about installed thority throughout area to disseminate personnel f—4 to
propaganda behalf of program. Electric Home and Farm Authority, a set as a corporation up gov- agency ernmental of which the are individual defendants directors, devices, finances sale electrical cir- prints and costly culates advertising praise of the Authority pro- gram. Defendants have offered to to supply electricity large complainants industrial customers of some at noncompensatory They and discriminatory rates. have attempted persuade complainants’ customers break existing Complainants contracts. cannot meet this competition because of the noncompensatory rates and they because by are forbidden state la^ to make dis- criminatory rates.
The bill prays invalidation of the Act as unconstitu- and tional injunction and relief other defendants. against Unquestionably, bill that complainants shows are not asserting right held, or an injury sus- complaining tained, in common general public. They allege with unmistakably facts that show that each has a valuable right as a public utility, it though is, non-exclusive in territory serve its franchise, covered that, in- evitably the its value of business property used will irreparable suffer diminution defendants’ program and If, acts of. complained because of with conflict the Con- stitution, the Act does not authorize the enterprise formu- lated and executed being by defendants,-then their con- duct is unlawful upon complainants inflicts direct and special injury great consequence. Therefore, they are entitled to this Court upon have decide the constitutional questions brought here. they have See Massachusetts v. 447, Mellon, 488; Frost Corporation U. S. v. Commis- sion, 278 U. S. 521. McReynolds
MR. joins Justice opinion. this