OCR Text |
Show 160 WAR FOR THE COLORADO RIVER Yet, even in such a situation, California would have an advantage. The Supreme Court resolutions might be blocked in the Senate, but if the House passed them that action would, in turn, block the Central Arizona Project bill. It was highly unlikely that the House would vote to send the fight to the Supreme Court and at the same time vote for a project for which there might well be no water supply. The California congressmen, attorneys and engineers were not naive. They were, however, guilty of per- mitting themselves to become excessively optimistic. The fact that a man was both legally and morally right in a contention did not mean that Congress would support him. Congress simply did not operate on such a basis. The factors of politics, log-rolling and other expedients more often than not pushed other considerations aside. Not many days would pass before the irrefutability of this premise was amply demonstrated. In the beginning, however, the attitude of several members of the Judiciary subcommittee indicated they, as lawyers, favored the position of California. Rep. Thomas J. Lane was acting as temporary chairman in the absence of Rep. William T. Byrne, and he recog- nized the first Arizona witness, Rep. Murdock.200 Oddly, Murdock announced that he was not appearing in opposition to the resolutions, but merely wished to make a statement. He then proceeded vigorously to op- pose not only the resolutions but every contention Cali- fornia had advanced. The members of the committee, all attorneys, looked puzzled, if not a little put out. Asked Rep. Kenneth B. Keating: "Do I correctly understand that all of these resolutions simply ask for the consent of Congress to be |