Laserfiche WebLink
m <br /> lf►3 <br /> 0 <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> the state of Kansas, for all practical purposes; and that m; <br /> the river in the lower states presents an entirely different <br /> problem than it does in the lower Kansas and Colorado. There <br /> is no question of that. The tact remains, however, that this <br /> m <br /> is as interstate stream which goes beyond the borders of <br /> Sanaas below, quite the same way that it extends from the <br /> borders of Colorado above. And in some fora, it seems to me,a <br /> *one eventual recognition is in order in such compact as this, <br /> to merely put the cards on the table, we have considered and <br /> know what we are talking about when we disregard Oklahoma <br /> and Arkansas in our ocapaot rather than our silence on the <br /> subject. <br /> In reading the very instructive Oompilatient of mem <br /> Oriel on interest compact* prepared under the direction of <br /> Judge Stone, I was struck in two places by reterenoe to en <br /> attattthorisailon by Congress in years pail—and I haven't taken <br /> the trouble to look up that record.-to the waking of a ocnpact <br /> for the waters of the Arkansas River between the >states of <br /> Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma. so at a previous time there <br /> suet have been some legal recognition of the fact that that <br /> river extended and that Oklahoma had some interests, whatever <br /> they may be. <br /> I feel, therefore, that some further research for <br /> consideration of this subject is in order, in order that we <br /> nay adequately cover it. I do not have in mind any home. <br />