Imagini ale paginilor

throughout the United States to produce cheap electric power which will be distributed at retail to consumers in one section of the country by private agencies for profit. Congress should not make the first appropriation to commence construction of Boulder Dam until this question has been thoroughly considered. Haste should be avoided. because Congress has no power to abrogate a contract once made.

3. Section 4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon project act authorizes an agreement or compact among the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada for an equitable division of the waters of the lower basin. of the Colorado River. Arizona has in good faith diligently and earnestly endeavored to enter into such a compact. The commissioners representing that State have at no time sought to depart from the expressed intent of Congress with respect to the division of water which the act proposed.

California has consistently and persistently refused to divide the waters of the Colorado River Basin with Arizona. It is the intention of that State to avoid any agreement whatsoever with Arizona respecting an apportionment of water. Through the use of the money and the power of the Federal Government that State hopes to gain control of all the waters of the Colorado River which can possibly be used in California and hold the same by right of prior appropriation. If the Federal Government will only keep out of this controversy Arizona has no fear that California can gain any advantage over her. There is not water enough in the Colorado River to completely serve the needs of both States. Water is the chief factor which limits the growth of population and wealth in both Arizona and southern California. Arizona asks to be assured of a fair share of the water in the manner proposed by Congress in the Boulder Canyon project act. Until California is willing to do what Congress has thus indicated should be done, no appropriation should be made to commence construction of the Boulder Canyon Dam. Federal funds and Federal influence should not be used to confer benefits on one State to the detriment of another.

Respectfully submitted.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

JUNE 18 (calendar day, JUNE 23), 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. McNARY, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, submitted the following


[To accompany S. 4708]

The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4708) to amend the act entitled "An act providing for a study regarding the construction of a highway to connect the northwestern part of the United States with British Columbia, Yukon Territory, and Alaska in cooperation with the Dominion of Canada," approved May 15, 1930, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. Under the act approved May 15, 1930, the President is authorized to appoint three commissioners to cooperate with representatives of the Dominion of Canada in a study to determine the feasibility and practicability of constructing a highway to connect the northwestern part of the United States with British Columbia, Yukon Territory, and Alaska.

The purpose of this bill is to amend above act by also directing the commissioners appointed under its provisions, without undertaking an actual survey, to report as near as they can on the feasibility of a highway from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Point Barrow on the Arctic coast, or some other point at which the midnight sun is visible.

The Department of Agriculture has no objection to the amendment provided in this bill, as expressed in the letter of R. W. Dunlap, Acting Secretary, to the chairman of the committee under date of June 20, 1930, which reads as follows and is made a part of this report:


JUNE 20, 1930.

United States Senate.

Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

DEAR SENATOR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of June 14, transmitting a copy of a bill (S. 4708) with request that the committee be furnished with my comments thereon.

This bill would amend section 1 of the act approved May 15, 1930 (Public No. 228, 71st Cong.), which authorizes the President to appoint three commissione s to cooperate with representatives of the Dominion of Canada in an investigation of the feasibility of a highway to connect the northwestern part of the United States with British Columbia, Yukon Territory, and Alaska. The amendment proposed by the bill would direct the commissioners to report on the feasibility of a highway from Fairbanks to Point Barrow on the Arctic coast or some other point at which the midnight sun is visible. The department can see no objection to the proposed amendment. R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary.


[ocr errors]


JUNE 18 (calendar day, JUNE 23), 1930.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. SHIPSTEAD, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following


[To accompany Executive I]


On June 12, 1930, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations adopted the following resolution:

Whereas this committee has requested the Secretary of State to send to it the letters, minutes, memoranda, instructions, and dispatches which were made use of in the negotiations prior to and during the sessions of the recent conference of London; and

Whereas the committee has received only a part of such documents; and Whereas the Secretary of State, by direction of the President, has denied a second request from this committee for the papers above described, and in his letter to the chairman of this committee has apparently attempted to establish the doctrime that the treaty of London must be considered by the Senate "from the language of the document itself and not from extraneous matter"; Therefore be it

Resolved, That this committee dissents from such doctrine and regards all facts which enter into the antecedent or attendant negotiations of any treaty as relevant and pertinent when the Senate is considering a treaty for the purpose of ratification, and that this committee hereby asserts its right, as the designated agent of the Senate, to have full and free access to all records, files, and other information touching the negotiations of the treaty, this right being based on the constitutional prerogative of the Senate in the treaty-making process; and be it further

Resolved, That the chairman of this committee transmit a copy of these resolutions to the President and the Secretary of State.

On June 12 the Secretary of State transmitted the following reply to Senator Borah, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations: THE SECRETARY OF STATE, Washington, June 12, 1930.

DEAR SENATOR BORAH: I have received your favor of to-day transmitting a copy of a resolution of the Committee on Foreign Relations in respect to letters and documents in the recent negotiations of the naval treaty.

I did not, in my letter to you of June 6, attempt to define the duties of the Senate or the scope of its powers in passing upon treaties. My statement in

SR-71-2-VOL 2-80

that letter that "the question whether this treaty is or is not in the interest of the United States and should or should not be ratified by the Senate must in the last event be determined from the language of the document itself and not from extraneous matter" was intended to call attention to the fact that the obligations and rights arising from the treaty, as in the case of any other contract, must be measured by the language of the document itself.

Very respectfully,

HENRY L. STIMSON. Accordingly, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and in connection with the committee's action in reporting the treaty of London, I beg to call attention to certain clauses and implications in the letters of the Secretary of State declining to grant the request of the Committee on Foreign Relations for subject matter embraced in papers prior to and during negotiation of the proposed treaty of London, including "letters, minutes, memoranda, instructions, and dispatches" relevant and pertinent to the Senate's consideration of the proposed treaty for the purposes of ratification.

The Secretary of State takes the position that the needs of the Senate are satisfied by perusal of "the language of the document itself"; and he reaches the gratuitous conclusion that pertinent and relevant subject matter entering into or leading up to the negotiation is "extraneous matter" not necessary to the Senate's consideration. The Secretary further implies, in his words, "scope of its powers in passing upon treaties" that the Senate is not a component part of the coordinate treaty-making power, but is limited to "passing upon treaties."

His position, therefore, would seem to be that a proposed treaty, or treaty form, is per se a treaty, before the Senate, as coordinate and coequal treaty maker in conjunction with the Executive, and that the Senate has considered the document and given its "advice and consent" by two-thirds vote, as provided in the Constitution.

The Secretary of State rightly speaks of a treaty as a "contract". But, in his well-recognized position as an attorney at law, has he forgotten that well-known rule of law, that "suppressio veri", or concealment of material facts from the knowledge of one of the contracting parties, vitiates a contract?

The Supreme Court of the United States classifies a treaty as part of "The law of the land". Under the Constitution no "law of the land" is enacted solely by Executive action. "Advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate is required to make a treaty the "law of the land"; whereas, only a bare majority of the Senate suffices for the passage of an ordinary statute.

Treaty-making is a sovereign power. It is one of the highest sovereign powers which a nation can possess. No people having serious regard for the public safety, for national perpetuity, for the protection of their boundaries, or for the lives of their sons, can afford to misunderstand, forget, or regard lightly their treaty-making powers.

The present public need of a clear understanding of the treatymaking powers of the 120,000,000 people of the 48 States, especially with relation to powers entrusted to the Senators of the respective States, is well illustrated by an editorial leader of the Washington Post of June 18, 1930, which I beg herewith to reprint-the italics being mine:

« ÎnapoiContinuă »