The Coconino sun., 1927-05-27

admitted into the union could not be
bound by stipulations seeking in any
way TO nullify its sovereignty. 1t
was clearly decided that Oklahoma
had the right to ignore the provision
in the enabling act even though she
had made it so-called irrevocable
part of her state constitution. This
principle and precedent once set down
will, of course, apply to our own case
when we amend our so-called un-
amendable irrevocable ordinance in
our own constitution.
There is this on record in the his
tory of our own state. Our own state
constitution as first adopted contained
a provision applying the recall to all
elective and appointive officers. When
| it reached the president (Taftl it met
his disapproval and congress directed
that Arizona insert in and adopt the
amendment in the proper section:
Except to members of the judiciary. !"
The people of Arizona adopted and
/ inserted the amendment as directed
precedent to her admission. Our
constitution was then accepted and
| the boon of statehood was acquired.
Very shortly thereafter the people by
regular amendment of the constitu-
/ ton again removed the amendment
inserted at the command of congress
and the fundamental law Of our state
now includes and enforces the recall
against members of the judiciary as
well as other officers.
Arizona at the present time is con-
| fronted with the possible situation
where she may have to defend under
| the law in the courts her rights IN
| the Colorado. IF congress sees fit by
i a huge federal investment to go into
| the water-power business which at
most can be only quasi governmental
need, Arizona supported by an agree
| ment with the lower basin states OF
/ the Colorado should have no constltu-
tional fetters preventing her from
levving and collecting tax for reve-
4 nus purposes on water-poWer pro-
il duced by the government investment.
Truly the potential water-poWer IN
our state is as much an asset OF our
state as are the fertile black pralrles
taxable assets of the state OF Iowa.
Il We are also informed that In a South
Carolina case in the supreme court II
was also decided that property OF
the government not used Tor govern
mental purposes stands upon an en-
tirely different basis with respect &c
being exempt from taxation.
II By striking out the other section
giving Arizona's consent to the U. 5
Exclamation act, will then require Ari-
zona signing a compact before the Y
8. government can proceed with de-
yelopment of the Colorado river
with The section retained in oul
state constitution it can be maintained
bv congress that Arizona's consent il
already given.
The repeal Of these two sections car
do no harm. There is no question Q.
morals involved. We are not break
ing faith with the II. S. government
Every provision in Ordinance 20 O.
our state constitution which is no
supported by the constitution of th'
| United States or laws in conformlt.
is unconstitutional and not binding
and we are under no moral obligation
to carry them out.
California is furthering her Swing
Johnson Boulder Canyon dam bill b,
taking advantage Of the present stu
alton we are in with reference to Sec
1 tion 10 of Ordinance 20, and is usini
the fact that such provision is i
our constitution to advance her inter
ests.
The state senate passed the pro
posed amendments unanimously; tn
lower house passed them by an over
whelming majority and the newl
Il created Colorado river comnlissio
/ feel that they should be free fror
such possible restraints as are ind
II Gated in the two present provisions
our constitution and that they migl
be invoked against them to the ser
Gus disadvantage of making prope
protection to our rights in the Colt
rado river.
------O--------
HI The Sun does all kinds of con
mercial and society printing at res