Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />MR. NORVJEL: This condition might be fixed in the <br /> <br />agreement, that it might be subject to call by one state, and <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />unless the call is made, then it continues for another <br /> <br />definite period. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR, CARPENTER: Hhen thereafter rights go into abeyance <br /> <br />until-- <br /> <br />MR. NORVIEL: The contract might read after a certain <br /> <br />period the call for revision might be made, uhatever time i.t <br /> <br />might be, by one state, [md if no state calls, at the end of <br /> <br />that period then it automatically goes over for another de- <br /> <br />finite period, again subject to call by one state. I don't <br /> <br />think it oueht to be subject to call by four states. <br /> <br />HR. CAl1PENTER: I an thinking out loud along your line, <br /> <br />and my first impression, - wouldn't one state, out of ample pru- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />de nee or caution be tempted to call rather than let it go over <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />for a certain further definite period? So long as everything <br /> <br />is going alright <br /> <br />MR. HOOVER: Houldn I t it ra the r encourage the making of a <br /> <br />call, if another, say tuenty-five year, period uere to elapse <br /> <br />before a call could be made ? <br /> <br />~ffi. NORVIEL: It ought to be the privileee of the people <br /> <br />then to get together and to go over the compact. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. CAl1PEITTER: Under my suggestion they 1.rould have the <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />privilege of making it one day after the expiration. <br /> <br />MR. Ci,lJ:)\.n::LL: I "lOnder if 1,e may not approach this in the <br /> <br /> <br />same way we approached the other Dmtters, - find out, first, <br /> <br />uhether we can find some method of revising this compact? <br />14th-S.F. <br />17 <br /> <br />163 <br /> <br />< <br />