Arizona republican., 1921-06-27
The Watsrs of the color.da

The Watsrs of the Colorado
 There Is some misunderstanding in Arizona as to the Mondel bill Ito permit compact or agreement between the states of Arizona California Colorado Nevada, New Mexico. Utah and Wyoming respecting the disposition and of the waters of the Colorado river and for other purposes"
 The bill merely authorizes states mentioned 4 to meet and negotiate and provides the appoint ment by the president of commissioner to represent the interests of the federal in the nego- tation
 There is.an impression but an erroneous one that the republic of Mexico would be represented in the compact. But there is no such provision though no doubt the claims of Mexico would be asserted not in the negotiations but to the government, through diplomatic channels There Is large tract of land in Mexico which h6wever is owned by Amer residents Southern California about 1000 900 acres. which the owners hope may be watered from the Colorado These would doubt seek to have the claims of Mexico presented.
 In the course of the debate in the house this bill the representative from Nevada asked if it would not be well enlarge the commissions powers so that 1t could consider Mexican claims
 To that Representative Hayden replied
 decidedly in favor of enacting any legis- ation by congress containing acknowledgement that the Republic Mexico has any rights in the waters of the Colorado river. If anything that kind is done. 1t should accomplished through diplomatic channels treaty with Mexico to be negotiated by the secretary of state ratified by the senate.
 Previously on this subject Mr. Hayden said that if it should be found give consideration to claim made by Mexico share of the of the Colorado. the commissioner authorized be appointed by the president would qualified to advise the state department
 It the belief Hayden that Mexico rights in the waters of the Colorado other than which the United might voluntarily grant This belief was based opinion rendered by Judson Harmon. attorney general of the United States the Rio case. n which he held that diversion of water for irrigation in the United States be cause of complaint by the Republic of Mexico to which serious considera- tion need be given by the United States In that opinion MT Harmon said:
 The Fundamental principle of international law the absolute sovereignty of nation against all others within territory. the scope of sovereignty respect judicial jurisdic tion which is of its clements, Chief Justice Mar shall said:
 ..The jurisdiction of the nation within it's own territory necessarily exclusive and absolute susceptible of limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it. deriving validity from an source. would imply diminution it's eregnty the extent Of the restriction, and vestment sovereignty the in that power which could impose such restriction
 "All exceptions, therefore to the full complete power O nation within territories mus be traced up o the nation They can flow other legitimate source"
 It would be entirely useless multiply authorities So strongly is the principle of general and absolute sovereignty maintained that 1t has by high authority admitted tudes when they necessities o servent state (Buntsch, D. ZIP; see criticism by Greasy. p. 25s) Whether this be not. its assertion serves to emphasize the truth that self preservation is of the first laws of nations. Nc believer in the doctrine natural servudes has suggested which would interfere with enjoy ment by nation within its territory of what necessary to the development of its the comfort of its people.
 It will be recalled MT. George H. Maxwell interview in The Republican. and later al address before the Kiwanis club, warned Arizon against compact in which to our might prevail While there might be and probabl would conflict of Arizona interests with thos of the five states lying above there was the eve present that the influence of the Californian would prevail in of Mexican claims to lands in Mexico by American citizens. Tha such an influence is already at work may be sus pected though the suspicion be groundless, froI the suggestion the Nevada representative for tn enlargement of the commissions powers consds Mexican claims
 But there is such power and 1t Is unike that the federal government would depart from tf ruling of Judge Harmon in the Rio Grande cas Furthermore, to meet the objection of Mir. Maxwell ,hs danger of Arizona being bound by dsadvar taoaous compact-there is provision in the Monde h,I, that no compact shall be binding sta
 t,, if has been ratified by the legislature of of the affected states and by congress
 It was urged against the bill in the nesinniI that it was unnecessary; that the interior departme - aIreadv clotred with power to adjust the righ ., the states in waters of the Colorado MT Ha
 ,,.a,s at first entertained that opinion; tn s irrigation development along the Colorado mig
 oceed as had been done along other streams al That inasmuch the prncipai use or the wat
 nst of necessity be along the io"er ieaes oA Hu9' V .na california; he could nead for an agreement with the states aooNe nu heeu ioi ~ ..t. r,ore I studied the question saio MT i' a,a that this legislation should