Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />reconsideration. <br /> <br />MR. S. B. DAVIS: That is very true, but on the other <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />hand, if anyone of the states, in such position, refused to <br /> <br />appoint a commissioner, lJithout the provision in the compact, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />probably the sanB state might refuse to ratify the compact. <br /> <br />I would not say it is of no use, but I am inclined to think <br /> <br />there are matters of far more moment to consider. <br /> <br />MR. HOOVER: On the other hand, conditions might have <br /> <br />developed Hhereby certain states might find they could not use <br /> <br />the water. It might be found that the upper states could use <br /> <br />more Hater, and the upper "tates Hould thus be forced into the <br /> <br />position whereby they Here compelled to furnish certain <br /> <br />minimum amolmts of Hater, and at the same time it would be <br /> <br />obvious to all parties that an investigation and revision <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />should be made. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. S. B. D!,VIS: I have no doubt Hhatever in my mind that <br /> <br />at some time a revision of the compact would be necessary, and <br /> <br />,lhen that time comes it Hill be revised. <br /> <br />MR. HOOVER: Provision for revision would carry conviction <br /> <br />before anyone of the seven legislatures in considering the <br /> <br />compact, because the technical considerations of the pact are <br /> <br />at best difficult to explain and a provision for revieH stands <br /> <br />as an evident correction to error. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. CALO~.;r:LL: I ,lOlUd like to add to "hat I said before <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />that we Sh01Ud not provide a definite time at which the <br /> <br />reVision should take place. <br /> <br /> <br />MR. CARPEl'lTER: You understand, Hr. CaldHell, my objection, <br /> <br />14th-S.P. <br />13 <br /> <br />159 <br /> <br /> <br />159 <br />