AZ vs. CA:13 California Exhibits, Vol. XIII; Nos. 1800-1842; 1901-1906; 2000-2044

page 77

-77- agreement that was executed. As I understand, the proposal of the Senator from Nevada is twofold; first, to consent in advance that the three States may enter into this agreement, and to provide that it shall become effective when it has been entered into and the States have ratified the compact. Mr. Hayden. If the Senator will pardon me, I think on reflection the Senator from Nevada will agree that the point made by the Senator from New Mexico is sound. The Constitution of the United States provides that States may not make compacts without the consent of Congress. Congress must necessarily, then, have the compact before it in order to consent to it. Mr. Pittman. That is just exactly the reason why I put the exact terms in the measure, because it might be held, as the Senator is now arguing, that if they did not know what the compact was going to be, they might have to come back for approval. But when you put the exact terms in it-which I have attempted to do, because I have put the exact language in, and if the terms are not sufficiently clear they should be made so by the Senator from Arizona-when you authorize two States to enter into a contract to divide 7,500,000 acre-feet of water, "as follows, to wit," and mention the amount, you can not say that the Congress of the United States has not consented to that agreement. Mr. Bratton. There might arise some controversy as to the interpretation of the agreement when and as it is executed. [470] Mr. Pittman. That would be a matter for the courts and not for Congress. When Congress uses certain language, there may be a vast difference of opinion among