page 59

Metadata

Title
page 59
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
59laws are driving the Japanese out of the United States. All they have to do is to walk across an invisible line into Mexico, and in Mexico they are welcomed with open arms and invited to become citizens, to own land, and to intermarry. The land below the line in Mexico, I understand, is just as good as the land on the American side. Some say it is better.That new Japanese-Mexican treaty is something that has happened entirely since the last hearing on this subject before this committee.Another thing that has occurred since the last hearing is the persistent effort to place Arizona in the attitude of the dog in the manger-endeavoring to prevent things being done which are necessary for other States and not necessary or impracticable for the State of Arizona.Now, gentlemen, neither of these propositions is correct. Arizona is not in the position of a dog in the manger. The State of Arizona is not objecting to something without proposing a very specific alternative which-and I can not emphasize this statement too strongly-guarantees to every other interest every advantage and every benefit which would be brought about by the building of the Black Canyon or the Boulder Canyon Dam, but the plan of Arizona does not permit the water to go to Mexico. It provides for using it in the United States of America.Gentlemen of the committee, I have talked with a great many men on the subject of whether this water should go to Mexico, and I have yet to find a single disinterested man, or one who does not have to enter into this conflict in order to save his face, who does not say instantly that this water should be used in the United States to the fullest extent. We have a perfect right to so use it. Under the Rio Grande opinion, written by Judson Harmon, we have the right to use all the waters of the Colorado River.The utmost that could be claimed for the interests below the line is that under the comity of nations-not under international law- as a pure matter of moral good faith, we ought not to take from them the water which they have already been using; but remember, that is a claim under the comity of nations, and it certainly ought not to extend beyond the area stated in the Davis-Fall report as being the area irrigated in Mexico, comprising about 190,000 acres. I. absolutely deny, as a matter of law or as a matter of good faith or good will between the two nations, that a group of American citizens in Mexico after having exerted their influence to prevent us from getting things done and prevent us from getting facts and information with reference to the Colorado River, can be allowed to take advantage of the increased area that they are irrigating while that conflict goes on. However, that is not a question I desire to argue at this time.Mr. SINNOTT. If you stated your conclusion, I did not catch it. I take it that you intended to give us something about the treaty between Mexico and Japan.Mr. MAXWELL. The conclusion is that that treaty is equivalent to an invitation to the Japanese to go into Mexico and there do the identical and exact things which we have denied them the right to do in the United States of America, and that under the treaty just

Cite this Item

When linking to this object, please use the following URL:

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,2349

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment below!

Comment on this object