|
<br />was thought :j,clvisublc to include this pren.mble because of the rather
<br />noval problem presented and Lo assign the reaSOl1S fOT the measure.
<br />It Ims-somewhat of a precedent in the legislation of Congress look-
<br />ing La the s"Wement oJ the boundary dispute beL ween the United
<br />States and Texas, in which case the preamble not only was a part of
<br />the hill upon introduction bnt a part of the bill when finally enacted.
<br />Is Lhere any other phase of the subject t1mt I might be of aid on 1
<br />j"hl. GOODY KOONTZ. J. think, Mr. Carpenter, you have made a very
<br />clear and saLisIactory stat,ement, and one of the best I ever heard
<br />before this committee.
<br />JVIr, YATES, 'What sort of distribution would be unfair to the United
<br />StaLes!
<br />Mr. CARPlCNTER. In this case!
<br />Mr. YATES, Yes. It is a kind of hypothetical question, but suppose
<br />the States gaL together and agreed npon the future utilization and
<br />,listribution of the waters of this river, in what way could that be a
<br />danger or harmful to the rights of the United States! What might
<br />they do!
<br />NIl'. CARPENTER, It is very hard to conjecture.
<br />Mr, Y A'l'JOS. I suppose so. Well, I think that is a sufficient answer
<br />to the question,
<br />IVfr. CARPJONT"R. Yes; it would be a conjectural injury. It might
<br />pos:-;ibly cause injury in some minor degree, but, in other words, what
<br />in the main is good for the States is good for the Nation.
<br />I might slate, gentlemen, in conduding, that I not only appear
<br />here to-day as the personal representative of the governor of Colo-
<br />rado, he being unable to attend, but also as the representative of the
<br />governors of the six other States, they one by one having delegated
<br />their powers to me as they departed from the city. And I might
<br />state that the governors of the States are very serious and in dead
<br />~al'llest and that the legislatures of the States were serious and in
<br />~arnest when this legislation was enacted. I am familiar with the
<br />debates havi~'f\' to do with this legislation before the legislatures at
<br />foUl' of thc IV estern States, The question was thoroughly discussed,
<br />Yer]' deliberately considered both in committee and upon the floor,
<br />and passed suhstantially without any objection in each of the States
<br />after due deliberation, It is the outcomo of the solemn act, a8 it
<br />were--
<br />MI'. M,cm:NEll, Not of a solemn referendum!
<br />MI', C,u"'lON'l'ER, No, sir. It is the outcome of the solemn act of
<br />each of the seven States, followed by the signature of the govcrnor
<br />anil the approval of the bill by the governor, after being thoroughly
<br />advised upon the subject matter at hand, followed in turn by the gov-
<br />ernors meeting, next in turn by their appointing commissioners, pur-
<br />suant to the t",l'ms of .the legislation of each of tho States; again by
<br />the govcl'llol'S leaving their several capitals and meeting at Denver;
<br />thOll, in turn, by the governors in the majority, at least, of the
<br />States coming in person to Washington, and those not, attending in
<br />person r.omillg" by pCl'sonall'cprcsentative, and In,yi.ng the matter in the
<br />form of resolutions and personal interviews before the Secretary of
<br />the Interior, and 'particularly the President of the United States.' So
<br />that its preSl'utatlOn to CongTess at this time, although probably in a
<br />sense novel and somewhat unusual, is the result of a serious considera-
<br />tion of tho entire snbject by the seven States whose territory is to a
<br />gl'eater or less degree involved, and by the seven States upon whose
<br />
<br />..
<br />
|