OCR Text |
Show -77- and dryest of all the territories in the arid west came into the Union as the States of Few Mexico and Arizona under a joint enabling act requiring each of these States to embody in its state constitution-as each did-an ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States, agreeing to a reserva- tion by the United States of "all rights and powers" for carrying out the provisions of the Reclamation Act within each State "to the same extent as if said State had remained a Territory."159 Needless to say, this impossible provision of the enabling act--although accepted by both States and written in the constitution of each-is inoperative and void in so far as it attempts to impose upon these States any inequality of status as members of the American Union. Consequently, the "rights and powers" of the United States in New Mexico and Arizona under the Reclamation Act are the same as in the other States of the arid west--no more, no less. There is no constitutional power in Congress, nor anywhere, under which any State may become or remain one of the United States without being equal, in rank and standing, to every other State.-^-^ it is evident from the decisions of the Supreme Court re- viewed in the foregoing pages that the powers of the United States within a State, under the Reclamation Act, are very limited; but are nearly unlimited in a Territory where-the sovereignty of the United States is complete. Such Fed- eral power, therefore, cannot be the same within any State as if it "had re- mained a Territory. ft By its first constitution New Mexico assumed sovereign ownership of all the unappropriated waters of every natural stream and unqualifiedly adopted ., priority of appropriation for beneficial uses as the policy of that State.-^1 33 Sup. Ct. 449, 57 L. Ed. 620, Ann. Gas. 1913E, 710 (1913), rehearing denied, 228 U.S. 708, 33 Sup. Ct. 1024, 57 L. Ed. 1O35 (1913) (Klamath River). 1^9 Act of June 20, 1910, c. 310, 36 Stat. at L. 557. Paragraph "Seventh" of Par. 2, and Par. 20, of this joint enabling act contain the provisions re- lating to State consent to federal reclamation projects. Congress subsequent- ly required the two States to make certain amendments in their first consti- tutions as a condition precedent to admission. Joint Res. of Aug. 21, 1911 * 37 Stat. at L. 39. ' l60 Coyle v. Smith, Secretary of State of Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 31 Sup. Ct. 688, 55 L. Ed. 853 (1911)5 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. I46, 27 S. Ct. 655* 51 L. Ed. 956, (1907). In the Coyle case, the Supreme Court held invalid a stipulation in the enabling act, Act of June 16, I906, o. 3335 > Par# 2, J>h Stat. at L. 267, 268, 5 Thorpe's Constitutions, 296O, 2962, expressly accep-ted by the Oklahoma constitution, 7 Thorpe's Constitutions, U3U2, that the capital of the State should remain at Guthrie until the year 1913. The Court, after disucssing Pollard's Leesee v. Hagan, 3 How. (U.S.) 212, 11 L. Ed. 565 (I8lj_5), said: "The plain deduction from this case is that when a new State is admitted into the Union, it is so admitted with all the powers of sovereignty and juris- diction which pertain to the original States, and that such powers-may not "be constitutionally diminished, impaired or shorn away by any conditions, com- pacts or stipulations embraced in the act under which the new State came into the Union, which would .not be valid and effectual if the subject of congress- ional legislation after admission." |