OCR Text |
Show - 27 - law, a settlement that comprises legal rights instead of defining them. The Secretary is supposed to administer the Act not according to arbitration but according to law, and above all things, in point of interest to the Upper States, according to the law of the Compact. If controversies arise, let the law take its course with the right of the Upper States to intervene as to matters concerning them. Arbitration to which the Upper States do not themselves consent is a violation of their rights under the protective provisions of the Act. PARAGRAPH 18 OP THE ARIZONA CONTRACT: Arizona appears, but reluctantly, to concede that the Compact was imposed upon and became an integral part of the Project Act itself, and here inserts a paragraph to the effect that "this contract is made upon the express condition and with the express covenant that all rights hereunder shall be subject to and controlled by the Colorado River Compact, * * * approved by the Boulder Canyon Project Act." She might have added that Section 13 (c) of the Act is not the only one impressing the Compact upon the entire Colorado River Basin and upon her proposed Contract, but that Sections 1, 8 (a), 8 (b), 13 (c) and 13 (d) do the same thing, and that they impress it, not only upon contracts issued by the Secretary of the Interior, but upon the contract holder as well (See Section 8 (a) above quoted) and upon the United Stntes, and upon all persons claiming any interest of any kind under the United States, and upon all patents, grants, contracts and concessions, and upon the use of the very thing conceded or granted. Arizona cannot, for her own benefit, single out only one of the protective sections of the Act when there are so many others, all of which we have quoted at length earlier in this brief. Arizona however nullifies even the slight concession made by this paragraph in favor of the Compact by |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |