| OCR Text |
Show THE WESTERN WEB 113 Meanwhile, Commissioner Straus and other officials of the Reclamation Bureau had been busy in Congress promoting their program for revising basic reclamation laws and especially stumping for the 9-e Contract, which would make the Interior Department a virtual dictator- ship under law. Straus had spoken in favor of the con- tract and proposed amendments to the reclamation laws before the House Committee on Public Lands.113 M. J. Dowd, chief engineer of the Imperial Irrigation District, had appeared in opposition to him.114 If the hearing on SJR. 145 had been transferred from Room 224 of the Senate Office Building to the House Judiciary Committee room in the Old House Office Building, and the senators had been supplanted by con- gressmen, the performance would have been largely the same. With a few exceptions, it was as if the witnesses were on a road tour, making their statements and argu- ments as required by engagements arranged for them. "The rights of the government and those of the Lower Basin states are involved," said Rep. Phillips in opening the California presentation, "and only by a decision by the United States Supreme Court can those rights be fixed, and the controversy settled." 115 ** "Before us is a barrier which all the weapons of negotiation cannot move," Rep. Poulson testified.116 Numerous questions were asked of Rep. Gordon L. McDonough,117 which indicated the unfamiliarity of the committee members with either the vital importance of * Besides Chairman Case, members of the House Judiciary subcommittee were Reps. Frank Fellows of Maine, Edward J. Devitt of Minnesota, William T. Byrne of New York, Fadjo Cravens of Arkansas and Michael A. Feighan of Ohio. All were attorneys, a prerequisite to membership. ** All five of the House Supreme Court Resolutions were identical and were con- sidered as a unit, but the number HJR. 225 was used to designate the hearings. |
