Douglas daily dispatch., 1927-05-29
RIVER VRANCLE AMENDMENTS
TO BE BALLOTED ON MAY 81

power resources Of the Colorado nv,
er The reason Tor this view may
be briefly sta5ed.
'Tncre is little division OF opinion
1 iii Arizona regarding the elementary
proposition that the power posi-
bilities OF the Colorado river within
this state constitute a natural re-
source tho benefits OF Which should
accrue to the state BY whatever
agency, private or public, the de-
velopment of these resources may be
accomplished, Arizona is entitled to
an equitable revenue, by taxation,
therefrom AS the matter now stands,
however, Arizona would appear to be
/ precludeC by its own constitution
from the imposition OF a tax upon
/ property situated in the state be-
longing to g T" the United States.
| The purpose Of the amendment OF
paragraph five is to correct this sit
uation. There is no thought Of an
attempt to impose tax upon Ied-
/ eral property, such as public build
! ingS, used in the performance OF
! the governments ordinary, regular
/ and proper functions That could
not be done in any event. the
purpose is merely to remove the pro-
/ hlbition against valid legislation un
Idel which Al4Eona might derive an
! equitable revenue from the develop
inent OF tbs most valuable natural
i resource, even though sucn develop
! lnent, which in its nature is a pri-
/ Vate enterprise, might be by the
federal government on property be-
I,N1a fn TTf0itnd StAtnC
':.3.he supreme court OF the United
States has definitely held that the
federal government may not enter
I q state and improve by irrigation Or
Otherwise even government land With
| IN its boundaries except by COM
pliance With the laws OF such state.
! Unfortunately, i'll the light OF net
constitutional acqtliescence III the
broad reservations to the United
states, Arizona would likely be pre- !
| GUIDED from taking advantage or
ithis Just rule, and until her con-
atitutional acquiescence is repealed
no valid law could be enacted in
! conflict WITH it. On the otller nand,
with the provision in question eliln-
mated. the federal government would
! have no right under the reclanla-
ton law to ignore or override the
! laws OF Arizona, which in conform
ity with the states sovereign polit1~
cal powers, provide method for the
appropriation OF the waters OF the
i state.
"Anothe, phase OF the situation
practical ii not legal-is that, mas
much as Is sis The California beliez
that Arizona is bound by the re-
stricting provisions of her sconstibI-
ton, and That the Swing Johnson
bill embodying these provisions will
be driven through congress, it is
altogether unlikely that her repre-
! sentatives will consent to any Just
agreement relating to the Colorado
river until one OF two things, OF
both, occur-Viz, the striking from
the Arizona constitution OF the pro-
visions relied upon, or the definite
1 and final defeat of the Swing-Jonn-
son bill.
.The provisions proposed to be
repealed constitute, in the Arizona
view, ilfringements upon Arizona's
powers of sovereignty and jurisdic-
ton Congress has no right or pow
or to impose these conditions. As
a state of the American union 'ad-
mitted upon an equal footing ano
possessing all Of the SOVEREIGN pigt
4 and powers OF the other states, we
have the right to reject them, with
out any charge Of bad faith. 1t would