plishes the purpose and fully and finally settles this question. I shall not burden the committee with detailed testimony as to the several provisions of the bill treating the problem involved, but do call to your attention that this bill is identical in substance with the bill introduced by the distinguished Member of this Congress from Pennsylvania, Hon. Francis E. Walter, a member of this committee, during the 82d Congress, which was passed by the House of Representatives. This committee is thoroughly familiar with the subject matter, having been subjected to exhaustive and extended hearings on every phase of the controversy. It occurs to me that further imposition upon the committee in additional hearings could do no more than provide repetition.

I do want to call to the attention of the committee that the present administration is unqualifiedly committed by the terms of the platform adopted by the Republican Convention duly assembled in Chicago, Ill., in 1952, by straightforward commitments in campaign promises, both written and oral, and by the statements of the present Chief Executive of this Nation, to determine this question in favor of the States bordering on the ocean, as it should have been determined in the first instance. I see no reason for prolonged debate and discussions in the committees on the subject. The issues have been clearly drawn for several years. The Congress has left no doubt in past sessions as to its position. The present administration at the time of adopting its platform and making the promises to the people of this country was fully advised on the subject, or should have been, and I cannot help but be disturbed by further delay and the creation of additional theories concerning the settlement of this question.

Listening to the testimony of the Honorable Herbert Brownell, Attorney General of the United States, when he appeared before this committee on March 3, I was forced to the conclusion that the Attorney General was unfamiliar with the actual issues or was undertaking to advocate a compromise, which could serve only to delay the final determination of the rights involved and at most create additional controversies that are not and should not be a part and parcel of the matter under discussion. It would seem from the testimony of the Attorney General that, in developing his proposed solution, he started from the premise that the only issue involved in the controversy was the amount of dollars and cents each of the coastal States could obtain. Using this premise as a starting point, he seems to conclude that the entire question can be settled by giving some oil and gas and other minerals to the complaining States and thereby put an end to the need for any determination as to the ownership of title to the land. I call to the attention of this committee and to all other interested parties that this controversy, although there has been many printed and spoken words to the contrary, cannot be settled by paying hush money to the Coastal States, and it is my earnest hope that these States will soundly repudiate any proposition that smacks of a compromise of principles. This entire controversy is plainly and simply a boundary dispute. These Coastal States owned the land to their historic boundaries and the Federal Government undertook, by the exercise of its sovereign power, to unite the fee title into the sovereign power and to fix the entire property rights in the Federal Government. This unconscionable theory was supported by the Supreme Court through legal gymnastics in the California, the Texas, and the Louisiana cases. The responsibility to correct this grievous wrong now rests upon the shoulders of Congress. The 82d Congress assumed and discharged that responsibility by passing the tidelands bill, to wit, Senate Joint Resolution 20, the bill that was vetoed by President Harry Truman.

It is my opinion that Congress is again ready to discharge the responsibility of rectifying the wrong by the passage of the same type of legislation. The question is whether or not the new administration is prepared to carry out its unqualified commitments to correct the wrong. The presentation of new theories, as that advanced by Attorney General Brownell, is nothing short of begging the question. There is no need to dodge the question or to try to indulge in further legal mental gymnastics. The Supreme Court has already won the prize in that field, and I do not think that Mr. Brownell can give them much competition. It would become Mr. Brownell and the present administration to forget the dollar mark and consider the matter of principle the principle upon which the Coastal States stand and also the principle involved in the commitments and promises made by the new Administration concerning this matter. Texans are not prepared, and it has not been their tradition, to compromise their principles for a few paltry dollars. The historic boundaries of Texas have been encroached upon, and this wrong can only be remedied by the withdrawal of the encroacher. Whether or not oil and gas underlies the submerged lands within 3 marine leagues from the low water mark off Texas' coastline is not the question to be

answered. If oil and gas does underlie that land, it is well and good, since the land belongs to Texas and always has, and the proceeds of those minerals should go to Texas. If there is no oil and gas under this strip, Texas still wants what rightfully belongs to her and will not be heard to complain if someone else finds oil and gas under their coastal waters. It is high time that the issue be faced squarely and fairly and that the slippery practices of the past cease. I respectfully commend the committee for the outstanding work that all of its members have done on this problem, and express my appreciation for your kindness in permitting me to appear before you with these remarks.

REMARKS OF HON. GEORGE S. LONG OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee, the United States Government now owns 24 percent of all the land in our mainland. This does not include the Indian reservations.

Besides owning all of this land, our Uncle Sam apparently is bent upon going into this landlord business on a whole-hog basis. Only one other government in the world is a larger landholder. That is Red Russia, which owns or controls all of the land in that Communist country where private ownership is forbidden. Less than 25 years ago the United States Government owned 33 percent of all the land in 11 western States. Today it owns 54 percent of it. This land pays no taxes for the support of our schools, colleges, universities, highways, and other public improvements of local and State governments.

Now, after acquiring ownership of one-quarter of this Nation's soil and a staggering number of dwelling units, the United States is trying to reach out to sea and lay claim to ownership of those areas off the shores of some of our States. The United States seeks to grab the oil and gas in these off-shore areas. Who knows when this grab will be extended to fisheries, port and dock rights, beach facilities, and each and every other use related to our coastal waters?

Whither are we drifting?

Where is all of this to end?

It is a serious, a very critical situation. It constitutes a dire threat to our American system of government. What is to happen to private ownership and development under this new system? Where does it leave free enterprise which is the heart and soul of our American capitalistic system?

It is bad enough that Uncle Sam has gone into the land and housing business in a wholesale way. He at least presumably has a sound and marketable title to these possessions. In the case of the tidelands, he seeks to acquire additional possessions without any just claim to title.

I admit that the United States has paramount power and dominion over navigation, commerce, war activities, cte., but this does not bestow title to the soil and resources in navigable waters upon the United States nor does it destroy title, whether in States or in private owners.

Title of all States in the American Union to the soil and all resources in their navigable waters is supported by the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Independence with the British Crown, entered into in 1783, and several United States Supreme Court decisions.

I do not believe that anyone will dispute the proposition that if the United States does not have title to the submerged lands beneath navigable waters within the respective State boundaries, it is not entitled to them or whatever they may produce.

If we are to intelligently discuss the question of title to these submerged lands, we must look back to the original source of such title. This would, of course, stem back to the time when the original States became free and independent sovereign States under the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

Then, we find that the next link in the States' chain of title to these lands was developed by the provisional treaty which was entered into by and between the original States through the Congress of the Confederation and the British Crown on November 30, 1782, in which we find the following provision:

"Article 1st. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence-Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent states; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, proprietary and

territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof: and that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz:

"Article 2d. *** East by a line to be drawn along * * * the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States."

This provisional treaty was ratified by the definitive treaty on April 11, 1783, between the original States through the Congress of the Confederation of the United States.

Therefore, by both the Declaration of Independence and the treaty with the British Crown which followed the Revolution, the Original Thirteen States were free and independent sovereign States, to whom the British Crown had relinquished not only all claims to the Government, but also all proprietary and territorial rights of the same.

For the next 6 years, or until the United States Constitution was written in the 1787 Convention and ratified, finally, in 1789, the original States functioned under Articles of Confederation, article IX of which provided that, "No State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."

In Harcourt v. Gaillord (12 Wheat. 523) (1827), the United States Supreme Court held, "There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the Confederate States; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the States."

When the Constitution was written by the 1787 Convention of delegates from the original States, they were very careful to provide that the blood-bought right of government and their proprietary and territorial rights confirmed by the treaty with the British Crown in 1783, was made the supreme law of the land by a specific provision in the United States Constitution, which the people of the original States ratified finally in 1789.

Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, provides:

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or lows of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

In this connection, it should be pointed out that on Saturday, August 25, 1787, on motion of Mr. Madison, made in the Convention, article VIII (later made article VI by the Committee on Style and Revision) was reconsidered and, after the words "all treaties made," were inserted the words "or which shall be made," with the explanatory statement: "This insertion was meant to obviate all doubt concerning the force of treaties preexisting, by making the words 'all treaties made' to refer to them, as the words concerned would refer to future treaties" (69th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. No. 398, at p. 618).

So it is that the 1783 treaty of the Revolution by which the British Crown relinquished to the original States all "proprietary and territorial rights" of the British Crown became, and is now, the supreme law of the land.

The same article VI of the Constitution requires all Members of Congress, and State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, to support this Constitution, which makes said treaty the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court of the United States has, on more than one occasion, interpreted and confirmed the proprietary rights thus acquired by the original States in all of the submerged lands within their boundaries. This will be clearly seen by a reading of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Martin v. Waddell cited as 16 Peters (41 U. S. 367) and also McCready v. Virginia (94 U. S. 391), both very old cases.

In the McCready case the Supreme Court had this to say:

"The principle has long been settled in this Court, that each State owns the beds of all tidewaters within its jurisdiction, unless they have been granted away. In like manner, the States own the tidewaters themselves, and the fish in them, so far as they are capable of ownership while running. For this purpose the State represents its people, and the ownership is that of the people in their united sovereignty. Citing Martin v. Waddell (1842), supra. The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which in respect to foreign and interstate commerce has been granted to

the United States. There has been, however, no such grant of power over the fisheries. These remain under the exclusive control of the State. * * * The right which the people of the State thus acquire comes not from their citizenship alone, but from their citizenship and property combined. It is, in fact, a property right, and not a mere privilege or immunity of citizenship."

"THE TITLE OF NEW STATES

"The title of new States admitted into the American Union since the adoption of the Constitution, to their submerged lands was recognized by our Supreme Court in 1945. In that year the Court in Pollard v. Hagan (3 How. 212), had this to say:

"By the preceding course of reasoning we have arrived at these general conclusions: First, the shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States, respectively; secondly, the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States.'"

In this and many other cases, the United States Supreme Court has held over a period of many years that the various American States have owned their tidelands.

You might wonder-and for that matter, so do I-why the successor to this same Court in 1947 and again in 1950 upset the settled and accepted law of the land in the now famous California, Texas, and Louisiana tidelands cases. Apparently without rhyme or reason was this radical departure made from the I sound and well-reasoned doctrine laid down by the jurisprudence and settled law of the land.

It can only be explained by the unfortunate trend in recent years toward a paternalistic, a centralized government.

STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRYAN MOORE, REGISTER OF STATE LAND OFFICE, STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ellen Bryan Moore. I am the duly elected, commissioned, and acting register of the State land office of the State of Louisiana, with official headquarters and personal domicile in the city of Baton Rouge, La.

I deeply appreciate the courtesy and privilege of making this appearance before your committee in order to express my deep concern in the legislation now pending before you.

I would like to say, first of all, that the official duties of the register of State land office in the State of Louisiana are, in general, the same as those of the commissioner of public lands in other States of the Union. Louisiana public lands, which are subject to entry and sale or other disposition, are under the control and administration of the register.

I have duties and responsibilities prescribed by statute that are broader in scope than those usually performed by land commissioners in most States; for instance, one of my official responsibilities is to collect all revenue derived from the leasing of State-owned lands in Louisiana for oil, gas, and mineral development. As a matter of fact, the State land office is the second largest revenuecollecting agency for the State of Louisiana.

Some 3 million acres of submerged coastal lands in the marginal belt of the State of Louisiana have been leased for oil, gas, and mineral development. Under State leasing in that belt, a total of 14,430,093.45 barrels of crude oil has been produced, and 46,386,661 M. c. f. of gas. I have collected on behalf of the State of Louisiana $41,989,430.89 in bonuses and royalties and $1,177,411.22 in rentals to December 1952 under State mineral leases affecting submerged coastal lands alone. Of course, I am now referring to leases that were granted before the suit of the United States against the State of Louisiana, generally known as the Louisiana Tidelands case. Since that suit was filed, various State lessees have paid to the United States, through the Secretary of the Interior, $14,372,354.02 in rentals and royalties.

In addition to lease bonuses, rentals, and royalties aforementioned received by the State prior to said suit, the State had received $3,223,321.25 in severance taxes on oil and gas recovery in the areas affected.

While it is only natural for any State official charged with the responsibility of collecting revenue for the State to be deeply concerned in the flow of income

into the treasury of the State, my interest lies deeper. It is of more importance to know where that money is going and for what purposes after it reaches the State treasury. Long since the revenue derived from oil, gas, and mineral leases in submerged coastal lands, as well as lands lying beneath inland navigable waters of the State, has been earmarked and dedicated to a material expansion in State services: the building of roads and the construction of various institutions, including charity hospitals. Of equal importance, perhaps, is the dedication of moneys derived from severance taxes. A vast portion of that revenue goes to the humanitarian program of furnishing free schoolbooks and supplies to schoolchildren.

As an official of the State of Louisiana and as a citizen of that great State, I want to see all of the great work undertaken that the revenue aforementioned serves and to prevent the stability of our State fisc from undergoing material impairment.

I am not a lawyer; in fact, I have never read the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the so-called Tidelands case that was brought against the State of Louisiana by the Federal Government. I only know that, as a result of more than 50 decisions of the very same Court in the past, the several States had every reason to believe that they were secure in their proprietary rights to all lands under navigable waters, whether inland or not, within their respective boundaries. My position is not based on legal argument but moral precepts. I feel that the States should be returned to status quo, and be secured in their property rights, which they enjoyed from the Declaration of Independence down to the time, only a few years ago, when the doctrine of "paramount rights" was held to transcend those of a mere "property owner." I think that 150 years of jurisprudence should be respected and that the history of our Nation in regard to the ownership and control of submerged lands should be given meaning and import.

Obviously the people of Louisiana, want a sound state fisc but we are vastly more concerned in the high principle which underlies our entreaty to Congress to pass legislation which would accomplish fair play and goodwill in FederalState relations.

It is manifest that our paramount objective is that of having State ownership of lands and resources restored within historic boundaries. Secondly, we desire the development of the natural resources within the Continental Shelf outside the historic boundaries of the States; and due to the fact that the State has spent many years of effort and a great amount of public funds interesting oil companies in developing such areas for oil and gas, which activities and expenditures led to discovery and production, we think that, if Congress authorizes the leasing of such lands for the development of natural resources, the State of Louisiana should obtain a substantial share in the revenue to be derived from such development program.

My position is positive and not negative. In other words, I am here to express my earnest approval of certain legislation without dealing with that legislation which I consider dangerous and inimical, not only to the State of Louisiana, but to the Nation at large. The only statement I care to make in regard to that legislation which proposes to authorize the Federal Government to lease all lands seaward of the low-water mark of the States without restoring the ownership of the states to the lands and resources within their historic boundaries, is that equity would not be done and the initiative and good faith of certain States would be destroyed.

In addition, I would like to make a few brief remarks in regard to the amendment to the last-mentioned bill in which revenue derived from Federal leases would be dedicated to national defense and security and what is left to educational purposes. I have been a schoolteacher for most of the years of my life. I am fully conscious of the great need for an increase in educational advantages, more school facilities and higher salaries for school teachers; however, realizing as I do the great demands that exist for national defense and security, it is rather difficult for me to conceive of any appreciable revenue going to schools or for educational purposes after the demands of national defense and security are adequately served. As a matter of fact, no one can say what money, if any, would go to the schools or for educational purposes after the all-important demands of national defense and security are satisfied. This is not an idle observation. I was one of the first four women in Louisiana to enter the service of the United States Army. I served in the Women's Army Corps for a period of 4 years during World War II. I think that I am in a position to visualize to some extent, at least, the needs of national defense and security in times of emergency and particularly when we are at war.