| OCR Text |
Show 92 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER Another amendment would have required the states to bring action within a year after the passage of the court resolutions. Ford's letter brought up a question which through the years would be a main bone of contention: Was there a justiciable controversy to permit litigation in the Supreme Court? Those two words-justiciable contro- versy - were to create long and bitter arguments on Capitol Hill and were to bring lawyers from many states into fierce clashes in hearings. "It has been suggested," said the Ford letter, "that there is some question as to the existence of a justici- able controversy." The letter did not say who had made the suggestion, but there could be no doubt about that. One of the chief contentions of Charles A. Carson, Arizona's chief water attorney, was that no justiciable controversy existed. "But," Ford went on, "that ques- tion itself can be determined authoritatively only by the Supreme Court." That also was California's position. SJR 145, the joint court resolution, had been intro- duced in July 1947, following the Senate hearings on S. 1175. On July 9, 1947, the Senate committee had asked the Interior Department for a report on SJR. 145. Months passed, a new session of Congress convened, and in May 1948, when hearings began on the resolu- tion, no reply had come from the Interior Department. California Assistant Attorney-general Shaw quietly asked Chairman Millikin: "Will it be in order to inquire whether the Department of Interior has filed a report?" Anger flashed in Millikin's eyes, not anger caused by the question, but anger at the defiance of the Interior Department. Millikin replied that he had made the same inquiry, and had been informed that a report would arrive that morning. |
