WSP09503 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. call it such, he was asked why, if that was put in there for that particular purpose, we had not been open and frank enough to put in a provision "without regard to quality", so that you could interpret on the face of the treaty a definite guarantee upon the part of Mexico to take that water regardless of its quality. I am not going to pretend that I can give you the exact words, but I am going to pretend that I can give you the correct substance of his statement. He first made the statement, in answer to why "without regard to quality" had not been put in there, to the effect that if it had been written in there the Mexican Congress might not have approved the treaty. THE CHAIRMAN. Does not the language of the treaty go over everybody's testimony? MR. HORTON. Yes; but it does not say "without regard to quality". THE CHAIRMAN. Yes, I know; but it says not more than 1,500,000 acre-feet from any source whatsoever or for any use whatever. MR. HORTON. The treaty reads what it reads; but there is nothing in there that requires Mexico to take water that is unfit for use. To go a little further on this proposition of salt water, after that statement was made by Mr. Tipton he backed up to this extent, that the reason that the Sena- tors in Mexico might not take the treaty if it had the provision in there "without regard to quality", was the fact that they did not know enough about the proposition to pass on it and might turn it down. I want to go back to January, 1944, in Salt Lake City, when Mr. Timm of the state Department appeared before the Committee of Fourteen and Sixteen and for the first time made known in generalities the terms of this treaty. The specific question was asked of Mr. Timm--and the meeting was taken down in shorthand and it has been written up, and edited by Mr. Giles-- and the transcript contains this question of Mr. Timm, in substance: -35-