OCR Text |
Show 114 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER all water matters in the West or the issues of the contro- versy. This situation was welcomed by California pro- ponents, for it gave further rise to their hope that a de- cision might be rendered on judicial merits, rather than on political considerations. Testified Rep. Willis W. Bradley: "We are not asking you gentlemen to determine the merits [of the contro- versy] . . . or to settle it in any way except to make it possible for us to put it before a court where it can be settled. . . One of us is right and one of us is wrong. . ." 118 Rep. Fletcher pleaded for permission to litigate, and presented a statement from G. E. Arnold of San Diego.119 A new witness for California was Rep. Cecil R. King, who told the committee: 120 "I have not known of an instance where good, justifiable objections could be supported to having the courts decide a matter that could be as far-reaching and as important to several states as this." Rep. Chet Holifield had not been a witness, but he had made several speeches on the subject.120 "We be- lieve that after twenty-five years of dispute between two States . . . the only way we can get this matter settled is to have the Supreme Court give us a determi- nation," he said. Nor had Rep Richard M. Nixon previously ap- peared.120 He declared: "I have become convinced in my own mind, from having studied the principles and issues involved, that apart from the matter of regional interests, as well as whether California or Arizona should be given the decision in this particular matter, that |