OCR Text |
Show -44- a maximum amount beyond which California can not go. I say to the gentlemen from Arizona, though I think it is a wicked amendment, though I think it is an amendment that harnesses the State of California and its people as they never should be harnessed in the days to come, though I believe it to be an injustice against those who reside in California and in its southern part to-day and those who may reside there in the future-I say to you that if 200,000 acre-feet of water will settle this controversy with them, whatever the wrong, whatever the injustice, whatever may be the yoke that is put upon our people, I will take that as a compromise and a settlement of the differences that exist. But unless it be by compromise, this injustice ought not to be put upon us and the compromise should be that the amendment as written, with the permanent amount of water that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bratton] offers, shall be adopted, and then that the bill shall be passed without further delay and without any filibuster at all. If we can compromise, let it be done upon that basis, but do not require us to do what [386] is unnecessary and what ought not to be crowded down our throats unless it be actually by way of compromse. Mr. Pittman. Mr. President, I want to say that the amendment of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Phipps] now offered is substantially recommended by the committee. The bill as originally introduced by the Senator from California [Mr. Johnson] had no reference in it to water at all, but it became evident to the committee that there had to be some reference with regard to water because not only were the States of California and Arizona interested in this larger supply of water but the four upper States were interested as well. This amendment was of- |
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. |