| OCR Text |
Show 100 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER Arizona did not ratify the Colorado River Compact?" 84 Howard declared it was very possible Arizona was still not a party to the Compact, even though she went through the motions of ratifying it fifteen years after the other basin states had ratified. "It presents a very odd contractural situation," Howard said. "If you take the Compact to be a con- tract - and Justice Brandeis referred to it as a con- tract - it should be governed by the law of contract. And under contract law an offer rejected is an offer withdrawn. "That is - if a offers to sell blank acres to b at $25,000 for ten days, and on the second day b says: 'No, I reject this offer,' he could not come in and accept it on the ninth day." For an hour the argument continued. Senator Wat- kins, Ely and Shaw got into it, and several times Chair- man Millikin had difficulty maintaining order. Howard was not to be shaken from his stand, and a new issue had appeared in the old controversy. Although it was late in the afternoon when Howard concluded, Millikin insisted on continuing, and Shaw took the witness chair.85 Why did the United States have to be a party to the proposed Supreme Court litigation? That question had been asked numerous times by both newspapermen and members of Congress who were not versed in the law. Shaw answered it. The projects on the Colorado River were so large and costly that only the United States could undertake to finance them. The United States had assumed control over the river, an interstate stream, and had constructed great dams and power plants on it. The government, |
