The Coconino sun., 1927-03-11
NEEDLESS TO CHANGE
STATE CONSTITUTION

The defeat of two proposed amend
nents to our constitution, canceling
Arizona's acquiescence in those para
graphs of the enabling act reserving
to the federal government water pow
er sites on the Colorado and other
streams of the state, was long ago
forecast.
The amendments were proposed
only to give us better standing IN
court in the event of litigation over
the Colorado question; that is to leave
US in position in which our own con-
stitution could not be drawn upon us
by our adversaries, as it had already
been directed against us in the Swing
Johnson bill.
But the amendments would, we
think, only have relieved US of an
appearance of inconsistency without
in any way strengthening our posi-
ton. To adopt the amendments, we
believe, would have amounted to a
confession of the weakness of our
position, something that we have not
admitted, under the constitution as
it now stands.
1t is by no means conceded by us,
VI N1~A1uC0 ny btAC LCNAIA GA ENt@A
that by the reservation of the power
sites our rights in the river were with
held from us. Our rights are recog-
nized in the Federal Power Act, not
withstanding the enabling act, and
our constitutional acquiescence in it..
1t is pointed out that other states
have found themselves restricted in
somewhat similar circumstances of
litigation by their constitutions and
have found it advisable to amend
them. That is true. A recent case
is that of California in whose legis-
lation a resolution was offered to
settle the conflict between doctrines
of prior appropriation and riparian
rights. But that was controversy
which did not concern any other state
or the federal government. Nobody
but the citizens of California was dis
turbed by the conflict.
The fact that. would be determined
! by any litigation in which we might
find ourselves involved over the Colo
RADIO would be whether we are bound
by our acceptance of the enabling
act, but rather what that agreement
means.
It may be conceded that the con-
tract was invalid from the beginning
and that congress had no right to
| impose such a condition upon the new
state; that the state, once formed,
had a right to repeal it's acceptance
of the condition. Yet the question
would remain, whether congress could
not have done what it attempted to
do by the compact, by the exercise of
it's constitutional power.
In the Coyle case from Oklahoma,
the court said: 1T may well happen
that congress should embrace in an
enactment introducing new state
into the Union, legislation intended as
| regulation of commerce among the
states or with Indian tribes situated
within the limits of such new states,
! or regulations touching the sale,
care and disposition of public lands,
or reservations therein which might
be upheld as legislation within the
sphere of the plain power of congress.
| But in every such case legislation
would derive it's force from any agree
ment or compact with the proposed
lneW state nor by reason of its ac-
ceptance of such enactment as term
of admission, but solely because the
power Of congress extended to the
subject, and, therefore, would not
operate to restrict the states legisla-
tive power in respect of any matter
which was not plainly within the
regulating power of congress"
So, if congress had no such power
to accomplish by direct legislation
what it sought to accomplish by a
compact with Arizona, the condition
| it imposed was futile, the acceptance
of itequally so, and the repeal Of the
acceptance Manifestations Re-
publican.