|
<br />..,
<br />
<br />001'10'3
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />(10-12) The bill further alleges that the "recital
<br />purpose thereof is the improvement of naviga*tion * *
<br />
<br />in said act that the
<br />*
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />*455
<br />is a mere subterfuge and false pretense." It quotes a passage in article IV
<br />of the compact, to which the act is subject, which declares that: "InasJmlch as
<br />the Colorado River has ceased to be navigable for commerce and the reservation
<br />of its waters for navigation would seriously limit the development of its
<br />basin, the use of its waters for purposes of navigation shall be subservient
<br />to the uses of suoh waters for domestic, agricultural, and power purposes;" and
<br />alleges that "even if said river were navigable, the diversion, sale and
<br />delivery of water therefrom, as authorized in said act, would not improve, but
<br />would destroy, its navigable capacity."
<br />
<br />,
<br />j
<br />
<br />,)
<br />
<br />Into the motives which induoed members of Congress to enact the Boulder
<br />Canyon Project Aot, this court may not inquire. MoCray v. United States, 195
<br />U.s. 27, 53-59, 24 s.ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Weber v. Freed,
<br />239 U.s. 325, 329, 330, 36 S. ct. 131, 60 L. Ed. 308, Ann Cas. 1916C, 317;
<br />Wilson v. N~i, 243 U.s. 332, 358, 359, 37 s.Ct. 298, 61 L.Ed. 755, L.R.A. 19l7E,
<br />938, Ann.Cas 1918A, 1024; United States v. Doremus, 249 U.s. 86, 93, 94, 39 S.
<br />Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493; Dakota Central Telephone v. South Dakota, 250 U.s. 163,
<br />187, 39 S. Ct. 507. 63 L.Ed. 910, 4 A. L.R. '1623; Hamilton v. Kentuoky Distiller-
<br />ies. Co., 251 U.S. l46, 161, 40 S. Ct. 106, 64 L. Ed. 194; Smith v. Kansas City
<br />Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 210, 41 S. Ct. 243, 65 L. Ed. 577. The act
<br />deolares that the authority to oonstruct the dam and reservoir is conferred,
<br />among other things, for the purpose of "improving navigation o.nd regulating
<br />the flovt of the COlorado River." As the river is navigable and the means whioh
<br />the act provides are not unrelated
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />*456
<br />*to the oontrol of navigation, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co., 269
<br />u. S. 411, 419, 46 S. Ct. 144, 70 L. Ed. 339, the ereotion and mainteno.nce of
<br />such dam and reservoir are clearly within the pavrers conferred upon Congress.
<br />~:hether the particular structures proposed are reasonably necessary, is not for
<br />this court to determine. Compare Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S.
<br />698, 712-714, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905; Oceanic Stream Navigation Co. v.
<br />Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 340, 29 S. Ct. 671, 53 L. Ed. 1013; United States
<br />v. Chandler-Dunbar TIater Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 65. 72, 73, 33 S. Ct. 667, 57
<br />L. Ed. 1063; Everard's Breweries v. Day, 265 U. s. 545, 559. 44 S. Ct. 628. 68
<br />L. Ed. 1174. And the faot that purposes other than navigation will also be
<br />served could not invalidate the exercise of the authority conferred, even if
<br />those other purposes would not alone have justified an exercise of Congressional
<br />povrer. Compare Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Tlall. 533, 5L~8, 19 L. Ed. 482; Kaukauna
<br />Water POVier Co. v. Green 275, 12 -So Ct. 173, 35 L. Ed. 1004; In re Kollock, 165
<br />U. s. 526, 536, 17 S. Ct. 444. 41 L. Ed. 813; Tleber v. Freed, supra; United
<br />States v. Doremus, supra.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />(13, 14) It is urged that the court is not bound by the recital of purposes
<br />in the act; that We shall determine the purpose from its probable effect; and
<br />that. the effect of the project will be.to take out of the river, now non-
<br />navigable through lack of water, the last half of its remaining average flow.
<br />But the act specifies that the dam shall be useds "First, for river regulation,
<br />improvement of navigation, and flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic
<br />
<br />)
<br />
<br />-4-
<br />
|