The Coconino sun., 1923-03-30

IlOlIl age O1lS.
thereto. You have recently exercised
your veto power by cutting off the
salaries appertaining to the office Of
state water commissioner. AS this
would not affect the office until July
/, nevertheless, would have had an
opportunity to complete some mat
ters pending in my department of a
more or less judicial nature and of
great Importance which are now and
shortly will be submitted for deter
mination. In your impatience to re-
move me from the office, in order
that you may fill the position with
some political adherent, you have lost
sight of every principle of fairness,
not only to myself personally but to
the office itself, and in this sum-
mary way have attempted to obtain
the result you have been striving for
through demand for my resignation,
which was declined, as my term of
office began before you became gov
ernor and will legally terminate af-
ter your term of office, you had no
right to ask my resignation. You
have made charges in your letter
without any personal investigation of
my office, with an utter lack Of know
ledge of what has been done by me
and apparently with total ignorance
on your part of the duties of the state
water commissioner.
/ recognize that the act creating
the state water commissioner pro-
vides that the encumbent may be
removed for cause. That does not
mean a personal or political dislike
but it means a just cause based upon
misconduct or misfeasance in office.
If, upon a fair hearing you were able
to show any such just cause, then
could certainly make no valid objec-
tion to your order of removal; that
you have no just cause would GER
tainly appear if you should attempt
to sustain your order of removal by
an appeal to the facts. AS you have
given me no opportunity otherwise
to show the falsity of your charges,
/ must avail myself Of the opportunity
of doing so ID this reply to your let
ter.
|. The second paragraph of your let
ter, in which is included tabulation
of the expenditures of this office for
the years ending June 80, 1920, 1921
and 1922, and from which you draw
the conclusion that the figures indi-
cate situation of top-heavy over
head expense and little of a construc-
tive nature done in the way of field
work" While the figures you present
as to the total amount are correct of
the expenditures of the state water
commissioner as such, they do not in
clude any of the expenditures made
by me as representative on the Colo
RADIO River commission in the surveys
and Investigations made pertaining to
the Colorado River and reclamation of
lands therefrom. The appropriation
made in Senate Bill No. 81, to which
you refer, appropriating $25 900, hav-
ing been kept in separate account, as
required-no part of the expenditures
from that account are included in
your tabulation, although you purport
to have included the Colorado river in
vestigation, and you knew, or should
have known, that Mr.. Blake's field in
vestigation was made and his report
filed during the year 1921, for you
have copy of that report in your
office with letters and date attached,
or you should have the report, for 1t
was given you by myself.
This work was paid for out of the
fund appropriated for the purpose,
and the balance of that fund has been
drawn upon for the field work which
has been going on since the receipt
of Mr.. Blake's report.
Furthermore, your arrangement OF
the segregation of the moneys ex-
pended is not correct.
1t does not include any of the Col
orado river investigation, nor does it
include the stream gauging work
Both such activities were kept separ-
ate and apart, and the sums appro-
priated for these were kept in separ-
ate accounts, and not until the fiscal
year beginning 5uly /, 1922, were the
separate accounts done away with, and
all expenses of these several activ-
tiles paid from the general fund, ac-
cording to the change in the law.
The office of the state water com
missioner was not created as an en-
gineering office.
lnere Is engineering Ilelu 3 WOEh
necessary in the proper conduct of the
office, and all such work that has
become necessary in the work of the
office has been done. Aside from the
regular duties in the office and in
vestigation necessary in the granting
of new water rights, the real pains
taking, difficult work of the office
has been the determination of the rel
ative rights as required under the
law. This work up to this time has
covered the rights of the users of the
waters of Cave creek in Cochise
county; the rights Of the water users
of the Little Colorado river in Apache
county, and the rights of the water
users on the Gila river, now in course
of determination with the different
units or districts included in that de-
termination in various stages of adj
judication. All surveys have beer
made of irrigated lands on the streams
referred to, including those of the
Gila from the New Mexico line tC