OCR Text |
Show __2__ Work on said dam was interrupted on the 13th day of November, 1934, by action of the State of Arizona, and in a suit brought by the United States in the Supreme Court, against the State of Arizona, seeking to enjoin said State from interfering with the construction of said dam, it was held by said court, in a decision rendered April 29, 1935, that the Congress of the United States had not authorized said dam, and that the United States was not entitled to injunction as prayed for, and Subsequent thereto, in an act entitled "An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," approved August 30, 1935, the Congress of the United States specifically authorized said dam and, on the part of the United States, ratified all contracts made with reference thereto, and The Company has not heretofore ratified said contract, but, without fault on its part, has incurred loss and expense due to delay caused by the action of the State of Arizona, and is unwilling to ratify or proceed under said contract except in consideration of moneys herein agreed to be paid, and The District is bound to pay the costs of said dam, and if the contract for the construction thereof be not ratified by the Company, and should the contract therefor be re-submitted to public bidding, such costs would, in the opinion of the directors and General Manager and Chief Engineer of the District, be greatly increased, and increased in an amount exceeding the amount of moneys herein agreed to be paid, and it is deemed greatly to the financial advantage of the District that the Company ratify said contract and proceed with the construction of said dam thereunder, and the benefits accruing to the District here- |
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. |