OCR Text |
Show - 22 - ing that, then through the decision of the United States Supreme Court. PARAGRAPH 11 (b) OF THE ARIZONA CONTRACT: Here again, and in the face of the same protective provisions of the Act, Arizona asserts in the very contract she tenders that there are all sorts of questions and all sorts of contentions on her part, although not making known what they are, as to the meaning of different parts of the Compact, and asserts with the same unwarranted insistence that the contract she submits for execution is "without prejudice" to any of her contentions, whatever they may be. Of course, the meaning and effect of the proposed contract, if executed would, in the event of dispute, necessarily be ultimately a matter for judicial ascertainment. But we respectfully submit that the Secretary of the Interior, before considering the acceptance of such a contract, should require the State of Arizona, as any other proposed contractee, to set forth in plain and unambiguous language in her proposal what her claims thereunder really are. On the contrary, she has submitted for approval and execution a contract which she not only admits but boldly avows to be of uncertain meaning in numerous vital particulars. It goes without saying that such a proposal merits nothing other than prompt rejection. Arizona cannot exempt as unprejudiced her contentions about the meaning of the Compact. The very purpose of the protective provisions of the Act is to prejudice any and all claims inconsistent with the Compact. The meaning of the Compact when it needs definition will be declared by the Courts and not by Arizona. Meanwhile, if Arizona wants water she must agree to subordinate all her contentions as to the meaning of the Compact in all its parts and leave the result to judicial ascertainment. |
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] : |