verted to Federal leases; and oppose any proposed legislation which will permit the Department of Interior or any other Federal agency to lease, to private interests, lands beneath navigable waters.

3. That the president of this association immediately appoint a committee of seven attorneys general to seek accomplishment of this association's legislative objective aforesaid, and to draft such legislation which it deems advisable to be presented to Congress for consideration on the subject matter herein mentioned; that said committee be authorized to receive and expend in the name of the association voluntary contributions from the public funds of the several States to cover the expenses of presenting this legislative program to the committees of Congress.

4. That the association offer its cooperation to the Governors' Conference and urge the Council of State Governments to continue full use of its facilities for the accomplishment of the purposes of this resolution.

5. That all such activities of this association shall remain entirely independent of private interests and shall be financed solely from public funds voluntarily contributed by the States as aforesaid.

Mr. HAMMOND. I should also like to offer a copy of a resolution passed by the Legislature of Maryland at its 1949 session. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8

JOINT RESOLUTION Requesting the Congress of the United States to enact a Bill confirming the title of the several States of the Union to submerged lands within their borders and requesting the Senate Committee on Armed Services to hold hearings to obtain information and to recommend to the Senate appropriate legislation defining and delimiting territorial waters of the United States

Whereas the State of Maryland is the owner of approximately 1,600,000 acres of submerged lands covered by the tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, as well as some 61,000 acres of submerged lands of the Atlantic coastal shelf within three miles from the shore, subject only to Federal powers of navigation, commerce, and national defense; and

Whereas in 1775 the State of Maryland succeeded to all rights of Lord Balti more, and, as a sovereign, the State also became entitled to the recognized public law rights of a sovereign to land within its borders under navigable waters; and Whereas by virtue of the Federal Constitution, ratified by Maryland on April 28, 1788, the State of Maryland's rights to these submerged lands under navi. gable waters were recognized and forever formalized, subject only to delegated Federal powers of navigation, commerce, and national defense; and

Whereas for more than one hundred and seventy years the United States government, Congress, and the Supreme Court have uniformly, unanimously, and consistently recognized that title and the rights which accompany it; and

Whereas in 1937, for the first time and as an original proposition, the Federal government began to assert, through the agency of Secretary Ickes, claim tɔ the marginal seas by reason of the fact that oil was being extracted in those areas by the States; and

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1947, in a suit instituted by the Department of Justice entitled U. S. v. California (332 U. S. 19), overthrew more than a hundred years of established precedents in a might-makesright decision and held that the United States had paramount rights over the submerged lands adjacent to the shores of California, while not deciding the question of ownership; and

Whereas in a subsequent decision, entitled Toomer v. Witsell (334 U. S. 385), decided in 1948, the Supreme Court held that the power of South Carolina to regulate fishing in the marginal sea area within its boundaries may be exercised only "in the absence of a conflicting Federal claim," citing U. S. v. California; and

Whereas the President of the United States has heretofore issued an Executive order authorizing the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Interior to recommend establishment of zones for Federal regulation and control of "fishery resources" and "fishing activities" in "those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coast of the United States," and the Department of State in December 1948 notified coastal State officials that it will begin to put this program into effect; and

Whereas said Federal executive agencies have introduced in Congress and will attempt to speed the passage of a bill bestowing Federal ownership and control of the marginal seas of all the coastal States; and

Whereas the Department of Justice in the proceeding above referred to entitled U. 8. v. California is attempting to persuade the Supreme Court to declare that the San Pedro Bay off the coast of California is a marginal sea and so a Federal area, except as to points within headlands which are within six miles of each other; and

Whereas the headlands of the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay are more than six miles apart; and

Whereas the Department of Justice has publicly expressed the belief that the Chesapeake Bay, like Delaware Bay, is an "historic exception" to the six miles headland rule; and

Whereas while the Department of Justice and the Executive Branch of the Federal government have stated that the marginal sea rule did not apply to navigable waters within the boundaries of the State and that its extension would not be sought, there are many in office in the Federal government who believe and strive to the contrary; and

Whereas if the Department of Justice and the Executive Branch of the Federal government could persuade the Supreme Court to overthrow more than a hundred years of established precedent and to rewrite the Constitution of the United States in the case of the marginal sea, there is no reason to believe that they cannot, in the near future, similarly persuade that Court to extend that doctrine to the Chesapeake Bay and the inland waters of Maryland and all other States, and from there to all public lands and natural resources, and so destroy our present system of dual sovereignty and constitutional government; and

Whereas the claims of those who would extend the Federal power are sought to be plausibly and immediately masked under the needs for defense of natural resources, including oil, and the necessity of Federal power over marginal seas for national defense; and

Whereas actually the establishment of the open seas at a point within three miles of the shore line may, in many cases, if not all, materially weaken the position of the United States in international law and thus hinder national defense; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States has heretofore passed a bill (which was vetoed by the President of the United States) to retain in the States their formerly undisputed sovereignty and rights with the saving provision as follows: "Provided, however, That nothing in this Act shall affect the use, development. improvement, and control by or under the authority of the United States of said lands and waters for the purposes of navigation or flood control or the production or distribution of power, or be construed as the release or relinquishment of any rights of the United States arising under the authority of Congress to regulate or improve navigation or to provide for flood control or the production or distribution of power."; and

Whereas a majority of both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress, since the decision of U. S. v. California, have always favored the passage of such a Bill; and

Whereas similar Bills are now pending in the Congress of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, (1) That the State of Maryland is emphatically in favor of continued State ownership and control, subject only to constitutionally delegated Federal powers, of lands and resources within and beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States and requests Congress to pass suitable legislation to that end;

That the Senators and Members of the House in Congress from Maryland are hereby requested to give active opposition to all pending and proposed measures which would create Federal ownership or control of lands, fish, or other resources beneath navigable waters within State boundaries, except such rights as are delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution of the United States, and that our Senators and Members of the House in Congress are hereby requested to give their active support to legislation which would recognize and confirm State ownership of such property; and

(2) That the Senate Committee on the Armed Services be requested to hold hearings at the earliest practicable date for the purpose of obtaining such information as may be necessary to enable that Committee to recommend to the Senate appropriate legislation defining and delimiting the territorial waters of the United States consistently with the sovereignty of the several States of the

Union, the international rights and obligations of the United States, and with due regard to the national defense, to commerce, and to the conservation, development, and utilization of the resources of the marginal seas and the constitutional relationship with national economy and national defense; and

(3) That a copy of these Resolutions be mailed to each Senator and to each Member of the House in Congress from Maryland and that Senator Millard E. Tydings, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Armed Services, be and he is hereby respectfully requested to introduce a resolution in the Senate substantially similar to Resolution (2) hereof and to expedite the hearings referred to in that Resolution.

Mr. HAMMOND. A bill, S. 1545, identical with the measure passed by the House last session was introduced in the Senate in this, the Eightyfirst Congress, by 31 Senators. A number of companion bills have been introduced in the House.

Before proceeding to discuss H. R. 5992 and H. R. 5991, which will presently be considered by this committee, I should like to make reference to the report of the House Judiciary Committee, No. 1778, made. April 21, 1948, after the extensive hearings to which I have referred, and to read to you the conclusions of that committee as to the problems we are all now attempting to solve.

At page 4, the House report says:

ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS OF UNCHALLENGED OWNERSHIP BY THE STATES

Throughout our Nation's history the States have been in possession of and exercising all the rights and attributes of ownership in the lands and resources beneath the navigable waters within their boundaries. During a period of more than 150 years of American jurisprudence the Supreme Court, in the words of Mr. Justice Black, had used language strong enough to indicate that the Court then believed that the States also owned soils under all navigable waters within their territorial jurisdiction, whether inland or not.

That same belief was expressed in scores of Supreme Court opinions and in hundreds of lower Federal courts' and State courts' opinions. Similar beliefs were expressed in rulings by Attorneys General of the United States, the Department of the Interior, the War Department, and the Navy Department. Lawyers, legal publicists, and those holding under State authority accepted this principle as the well-settled law of the land.

As late as 1933 the then Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickes, in refusing to grant a Federal oil lease on lands under the Pacific Ocean within the boundaries of California, recognized "title to the soil under the ocean within the 3-mile limit is in the State of California, and the land may not be appropriated except by authority of the State."

CLAIMS OF STATES FIRST CHALLENGED BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS IN 1937

It was not until a few applicants for Federal oil leases and their attorneys continued to insist that the United States owned the soil under navigable waters that, in the words of Mr. Ickes, “doubt" arose in his mind "as to which government owned the submerged lands."

At page 5 the House report says:

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT DENYING CALIFORNIA OWNERSHIP

On June 23, 1947, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in the case of United States v California, and on October 27, 1947, a decree was entered * * Mr. Justice Black, in the majority opinion, stated further:

As previously stated, this Court has followed and reasserted the basic doctrine of the Pollard case many times. And in doing so it has used language strong enough to indicate that the Court then believed that States not only owned tidelands and soil under navigable inland waters, but also owned soils under all navigable waters within their territorial jurisdiction, whether inland or not.

Thus, the Court by its decision not only established the law differently from what eminent jurists, lawyers, and public officials for more than a century had believed it to be, but also differently from what the Supreme Court apparently had believed it to be.

From pages 6 and 7 of the House report:

POWER OF CONGRESS TO REESTABLISH LONG-ACCEPTED POLICY OF STATE OWNERSHIP

The committee recognizes that it is within the province of the Supreme Court to define the law as the Court believes it to be at the time of its opinion. However, the Supreme Court does not pass upon the wisdom of the law. That is exclusively within the congressional area of national power. Congress has the power the change the law, just as the Supreme Court has the power to change its interpretation of the law by overruling pronouncements in its former opinions which have been accepted as the law of the land. Therefore, in full acceptance of what the Supreme Court has now found the law to be, Congress may nevertheless enact such legislation as in its wisdom it deems advisable to solve the problems arising out of the decision.

Indeed, the power of Congress to establish the law for the future as it was formerly believed to be, was, in effect, recognized by the Court in the California case for it held in connection with the lands in question that the power of Congress under article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution to dispose of territory and other property of the United States was without limitation; and that it would not be assumed that Congress, which had constitutional control over Government property, would execute its powers in such way as to bring about injustices to States, their subdivisions, or persons acting pursuant to their permission.

Many witnesses testified that they construed the opinion as an invitation or recommendation to the Congress to consider the legislative question as to whether in the public interest the States should continue in possession of, and exercise State control of, the submerged lands within their boundaries, or the Federal Government should take from the States these lands and hereafter exercise all control over them.

The issue presented to this committee is well stated in the words of the report at page 12:

V. WHAT DISPOSITION OF THE SUBMERGED LANDS WITHIN STATE BOUNDARIES WILL BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Since Congress must restore to the States their long-asserted rights, or must implement the claims of the Federal Government in the submerged lands, we believe the following two propositions to be pertinent: (1) While limitations do not run and laches do not apply against a sovereign, a sovereign should be as eager to do equity as an individual; (2) the evidence conclusively shows that the national defense and the public interest will be served best by confirming the long-asserted rights of the States to the property in question.

What are the equities involved?

The Supreme Court stated in the California decision that the Court could not and did not assume that Congress, which has constitutional control over Government property, will execute its powers in such way as to bring about injustices to States, their subdivisions, or persons acting pursuant to their permission.

The President has stated there was no desire on the part of the administration to destroy or confiscate any honest or bona fide investment.

It is uncontroverted that improvements of the lands in question have been made at great expense to public and private agencies in the bona fide belief of the State's authority over them. Whether equity should be done necessarily raises the question of how these equities came into existence. The committee finds they exist because of the affirmative acts of ownership by the States carried on over a long period with the acquiescence and consent of the Federal Government.

The report further stated at page 11:

Unless S. 1988 is enacted, confusion will exist as to the ownership and taxability of, and powers over, bays and the 3-mile belt, and their development necessarily will be retarded. We consider it against the public interest for the

Federal Government to commence a series of vexatious lawsuits against the sovereign States to recover submerged lands within the boundaries of the States, traditionally looked upon as the property of the States under a century of pronouncements by the Supreme Court reflecting its belief that the States owned these lands.

As to a solution of the problem, last year's committee said at page 17:

The committee is of the opinion that not only will the public interest be best served by confirming the rights of the States but that common justice and equity require such action.

The fact that no legislation has finally been passed to settle the tidelands problem and the chaotic conditions which have resulted intensifies the obvious need for Congress to act, the more so as time has passed. Speaker Sam Rayburn of the House of Representatives in a public-spirited consciousness of these facts invited State officials to meet with him and discuss the drafting of a bill on the subject of submerged lands. He also invited the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of the Interior to participate in these meetings with the thought, as he expressed it, that an area of agreement might be arrived at, harmonizing and coordinating the positions of both those representing the Federal departments and of State officials in attendance and that a common ground expressed in a single legislative measure might be reached.

Numerous meetings were held with Speaker Rayburn at his office during the months of June, July, and August, at some of which the United States Attorney General and Secretary of the Interior were present. Meetings were also held with the Solicitors of the Departments of Justice and Interior, as a result of which many areas of divergence were harmonized and agreement was reached as to the language of numerous provisions of the bill.

Mr. WALTER. May I interrupt you at that point?

Mr. HAMMOND. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALTER. Did the Department of Justice express its agreement with the provisions of either of these bills?

Mr. HAMMOND. I would say, sir, that the whole thing was more or less tentative as it went along. I can only answer by saying that at times I thought they did and at other times I thought they did not. Mr. WALTER. That is why I asked the question. Thank you. Mr. HAMMOND. The Department of the Interior, however, took the positive stand that it must be given complete and exclusive control and management of all submerged coastal lands-including both the marginal belt adjoining the coast and the continental shelf seaward thereof and that no portion of the revenues from any oil or gas produced therefrom would be given the bordering States unless this provision were incorporated. Believing this to involve a matter of basic principle, the State officials could not submit to such a provision. A relatively small number of other differences existed upon which no agreement could be reached, including the refusal of the Federal officials to embrace the Great Lakes within the definition of "inland waters."

In view of the impossibility of reconciling these fundamental differences and so that the issues may be placed before the Congress for its consideration without further loss of time, it was decided that both the bill originally suggested by the Speaker, as revised, this being