Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 226 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> include an answer in that particular question, so until its <br /> m: <br /> receipt I think we had best mark time. <br /> . KITCX .a General, the recommendation of the 0 <br /> Legal Qommi tt ee was upon the premise that legally the War <br /> Department and any other agency could impose that affliction <br /> upen <br /> this reservoir. of course, we lawyers that cams to �I <br /> that ►alnsiod could be in error. I do not believe vs are. <br /> Our recommendation to the Gownission as a whole Was <br /> that as far as the Commission was concerned, a pool for wild <br /> life there was in conflict with the purpose for Which the <br /> moneys were expended. Analogue, maybe, to a port where moneys <br /> were expended for the purpose of making it a port, and so*e <br /> other public interest might be superimposed upon it, which <br /> was in conflict with the original purpose, and there are, <br /> in part, at least, destroy the reasons for which it was built, <br /> (Discussion off the record. ) <br /> ClidIRNAN KRAi i i I tight say this: I would like to <br /> say it for the record, gr. Kitchell; that it was not my under-- <br /> s tending, from the report as presented by Mr. Vidal,, that you <br /> had reached a conclusion as to the legality of such an alloaa• <br /> tion on water for wildlife purposes, though you had made a <br /> very definite recommendation as to policy on the part of this <br /> Commission. Far be it for me to change your expert legal <br /> judgment. It seems rather hard for me to believe that the <br /> United dtatee Government, acting through the War Department <br />