OCR Text |
Show 10 United States vs. State of Arizona. directs the making of these examinations and surveys12 and prohibits any which it has not authorized.13 "As a general rule, where the legislation dealing with a particular subject consists of a system of related general provisions indicative of a settled policy, new enactments of a fragmentary nature on that subject are to be taken as intended to fit into the existing system and to be carried into effect conformably to it, excepting as a different purpose is clearly shown''. United States v. Jefferson Electric Co., 291 U. S. 386, 396. In the light of that rule it is clear the general language of the Recovery Act on which plaintiff relies does not evidence intention on the part of Congress to change its well established policy. In respect of the required recommendation by the Chief of Engineers there is no inconsistency between the proviso and the statutes upon which rests the practice of his office. The Recovery Act may, and therefore it must, be read in harmony with the purposes evidenced by the provisions of the Rivers and Harbors Acts to which reference has been made. When so read the proviso requires that the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers be based on examinations, surveys and reports made in pursuance of these Acts and submitted to the Congress for its consideration when determining whether the project should 1010; $ 9, September 22, 1922, 42 Stat. 1043. 33 TJ. S. C, $$ 541, 542, 545, 546, 547, 568. Preliminary examinations are first made, unless Congress expressly directs a survey and estimate, and if, upon such examination, the improvement is not1 thought advisable, no further action may be taken unless Congress so directs. 33 U. S. C, § 545. The subsequent detailed survey report is made by the district engineer, it is reviewed by the division engineer, by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and finally by the Chief of Engineers who submits to Congress a report containing information of a character specified by the above statutes, together with his recommendation. As shown in footnote 10, a congressional committee may not consider a project with a view to its adoption if five years have elapsed since submission of a report on a survey. See 79 Cong. Rec, p. 5439, et seq. 1922 Report of Chief of Engineers, pp. 99, 100. izSince September 22, 1922, the Acts authorizing preliminary examinations and surveys employ the following language: "The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys to be made at the following-named localities. . . ." $ 12, 42 Stat. 1043. is" That no preliminary examination, survey, project, or estimate for new works other than those designated in this or some prior Act or joint resolution shall be made''. § 12, Act of September 22, 1922, 42 Stat. 1043. Typical language in the Acts appropriating for rivers and haTbors is: '' That no funds shall be expended for any preliminary examination, survey, project, or estimate not authorized by law." It is found, for example, in the Act of April 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 639-640, making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1935. |
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] : California exhibits. |