Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
The proposal drew quite a blast from Del. W. Ward Teel. R-Montgomery, and Vepco lobbyist E. R. Crump.
“This country,” said Teel in a rather remarkable rebuttal, “did not get where it is today by conserving!”
His comment was probably accurate, although not quite in the sense he intended.
Asked what he meant, Teel explained.
"Since the beginning by our founding fathers,” he said, “they went out and clawed out and did the things necessary, and conservation was not a part of their philosophy. Growth was their philosophy, and that is the way growth came about; by doing the things that had to be done when they had to be done.” So much for the conservative ethic.
Crump attacked the lifeline concept by saying it would help those who did not need help, and as for the rest, the government could do a better job of providing them with any assistance they might need.
“I'm sure you are familiar,” he said, “with people who have summer homes, beach cottages and that sort of thing. They don’t use hardly any electricity in the winter, except a minimum amount to keep the water pipes from freezing, so this proposal would just give them very cheap electricity, and we don’t think that’s fair. The benefit ought to be addressed to the people who need it, such as people on fixed income and low-income people.
“We feel like the state has provided for that through Gov. Dalton’s assistance program, and also through the federal programs just passed by Congress,” he said.
Thus, if we understand this
94.8%