Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1370 <br />00 ' WOOIF &: SHUTE <br />Phoenix. Arizona <br /> <br />September 16. 1939 <br /> <br />Hon. Clifford H. Stone <br />l008 Patterson Building <br />Denver, Colorado <br /> <br />Dear Judge Stone: <br /> <br />I have your letter of September 11, 1939, and in compliance <br />with your request I have had made exact copies of Senate Bill No. 112 <br />creating the Colora.do Rivor Commission of Arizona. whioh I think you <br />oan depend upon, and in order to reduoe it to a oertainty I enolose you <br />one engrossed copy which oan be used to prove the others. Your <br />interpretation of 'this act is as good, if not better than my own, but I <br />think it well to get in accord on its meaning if possible. <br /> <br />The Federal Power Commission has been requested to pennit us to <br />a.mond our application for the preliminary pennit. whioh has been <br />granted, and it now stands in the name of the Colorado River Connnissian <br />of Arizona. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Your question No.2, it seems to me, depends entirely upon the <br />interpretation that may be givon Senate Bill 112. It is my opinion <br />that tho Commission under the terms of this act 1$ a separate depar'bnent <br />of state, created by thE> legislature of the state, through whioh it <br />rrw.y carry on its business in connection with the Colorado river work, <br />and that anything that the Connnission might do that fails within <br />the scope of this bill would bo as binding upon Arizona as any other act <br />it might legally aoc~plish (See, 25 R.C.L. 393. Sec. 26). <br /> <br />That this is my opinion, howevor. does not change what to my mind <br />is the real question, namely. tho val idity and application of the Boulder <br />Canyon PrOject Act~ As I pointed out in my brief and as indicated by <br />you in your letter, the provisions of this act applios regardless of <br />whether it would be Il. state or an individual or a corporation who might <br />be maki~g an application under the Foderal Power Act, and it is my <br />opiniOl:1, in view of the intorpretation which the Supreme' Court of 'the <br />United States put upon the Boulder Canyon Act in Arizona-California case <br />the.'\o it cannot now be questionod so far as its constitutionali'by is <br />con~erned. and so far as the povror of the nation to oontrol a utility <br />af:t:''Elcting the interests of so =y states would be concerned. <br /> <br />I am enclosing a sufficient number of oopies of tho bill for Mr. <br />S1a1aw. Mr. Giles and Mr. Hannett. I believe I would prefer that you sond <br />1;~hem to these men yourself. You can check them with the engrossed copy <br />Etmd forward them with an opinion of their corrections. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />We arc desirous of getting in a. position of reasonableness, as we <br />1'eel in such a position only can we properly represent our people. <br /> <br />GWS : dh <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br />G, W. Shute, <br />Attornc) for the Colo. River Connnission <br />of Arizona <br /> <br />. <br />