OCR Text |
Show -108- Mr. English summarized his testimony as follows: Second, the contention that ... the United States can properly refuse to arbitrate a demand by Mexico for additional waters of the Colorado is, to say the least, extremely doubtful, particularly when the Harmon opinion is viewed in the light of the following: (a) The practice of states as evidenced by treaties between various countries, including the United States, providing for the equitable apportionment of waters of international rivers. (b) The decisions of domestic courts giving effect to the doctrine of equitable apportionment, and rejecting, as between the States, the Harmon doctrine. (c) The writing of authorities on international law in opposition to the Harmon doctrine. (d) The Trail smelter arbitration, to which we referred. Assistant Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, testified in part as follows: ...The logical conclusion of the legal argument of the opponents of the treaty appears to be that an upstream nation by unilateral act in its own territory can impinge upon the rights of a downstream nation; this is hardly the kind,of legal doctrine that can be seriously urged in these times.^ Kr. Frank Clayton, Counsel for the United States section of the International Boundary Commission, testified in part as follows: ...Attorney-General Harmon's opinion has never been followed either by the United States or by any other country of which I am aware. ... I have made an attempt to digest the international treaties on this subject...in all those I have been able to find, the starting point seemed to be the protection of the existing uses in both the upper riparian country and the lower riparian country, without regard to asserting the doctrine of exclusive territorial sovereignty, post of them endeavor to go further than that and to make provision for expansion in both countries, both upper and lower, within the limits of the available supply.3 3. Sweden-Norway 1. Ibid., p. 1?51. 2. Ibid., p. 1762. '.¦¦3. Hearings, supra, Part 1, at 97-96. |
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] : |