Page images
PDF
EPUB

SUBMERGED LANDS LEGISLATION

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D. C.

Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary met pursuant to recess at 10 a. m., in room 327, Old House Office Building, Hon. Louis E. Graham, chairman of Subcommittee No. 1, presiding. Present: Representatives Louis E. Graham (presiding), Ruth Thompson, Patrick J. Hillings, and Francis E. Walter.

Also present: Chauncey W. Reed (chairman), DeWitt S. Hyde, J. Frank Wilson, and Edwin E. Willis.

Mr. GRAHAM. The meeting will come to order.

First, for the purpose of the record, Mr. Walter must attend a meeting of the Un-American Activities Committee, and we want to note his presence for the purpose of effecting a quorum.

Now, then, may I submit this for the record, a letter from Hon. John E. Lyle, from Texas, which he asks to have incorporated in the record. (The letter is as follows:)

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 2, 1953.

Hon. LOUIS E. GRAHAM,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR JUDGE: I presume to be helpful in writing this letter. To some extent it is prompted by the statement made today by the Attorney General before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs wherein he outlines his views with reference to minerals under the submerged lands seaward of our coastlines.

Any disposition of the submerged lands issue must be based upon a sound premise. Minerals beneath the submerged lands within the historic boundaries of the States belong to the States. Legally and historically their titles to such minerals are undisputed. It therefore should be the purpose of legislation recommended by your committee to clear the clouds upon that title raised by judicial opinions and administrative policies. An outright quitclaim seems to me to be appropriate.

The issue is one of title. The title should be cleared. A positive disclaimer by the Federal Government would clear the States' titles. The States have authority to administer and develop the natural resources within their boundaries. Such authority cannot be granted by Federal Government as suggested by the Attorney General. It would but mock the issue. Certainly the Federal Government has no right to grant a license in an area wherein it has no rightfal title.

Quite another problem arises in the consideration of the submerged lands lying seaward of the State boundaries. Here I believe the Federal Government rightfully must assert its jurisdiction. However, I do not think it either wise or 299

necessary for the Federal Government to establish an agency or enlarge existing agencies to administer leasing and drilling operations in this area. It seems much more practical for the Federal Government to make the various States their agents under such rules and regulations as the Congress desires to prescribe. I sincerely believe that our Nation would benefit to a much greater extent if this policy is adopted. Sincerely,

JOHN LYLE.

Mr. GRAHAM. The order of witnesses today is: Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, is first; then Mr. T. A. Thompson, of Louisiana, is second; Mr. Utt, of California, third; Mr. Cecil R. King, of California, next; and Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky.

Mr. WALTER. If you will indulge me 1 minute, I would like to make just a brief statement.

Mr. GRAHAM. Go right ahead.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, throughout the long period of time that this question of supervision over the submerged lands has been. under consideration, there is one thing that has impressed those of us. who believe that the States have title to a portion of this land, and that is the treaty between the United States and Texas. The Attorney General, Mr. McGrath, at one time attempted to explain that away by saying that was an unfortunate agreement. But whether it was an unfortunate agreement or not, there it is. The solemnity of the contract entered into between the United States and another State cannot be lightly passed off as being an unfortunate agreement. When Texas. became a part of the United States, its boundaries were well known. With meticulous care, every inch of the boundary of that republic was defined. And when it became a part of the United States, its southernmost boundary was in the water, but its location was as well known as that of its northernmost boundary adjacent to the United States.

Now, what sort of an impression would be created throughout the world if people believed that we treat solemn agreements such as this one is as lightly as it has been treated. True, it is that it may be to the advantage, and probably it is, to the United States, if the revenue derived from the development of this submerged land would inure to the benefit of all of the people. But certainly that does not offer any justification for taking territory which for a long period of time has been recognized as belonging to a particular State.

[ocr errors]

I think that the whole thing was summed up as best it could be by Justice Frankfurter in his dissenting views in the California case, in which he said in substance, "How territory that once belonged to the State became the property of the United States will always remain a mystery to me.' I think it is one of those things that cannot be explained away, that stands out just as in a lawsuit there is one thing that will stand out, and the whole case will turn on that particular thing. Here is something that is a fact. It is a fact, it is concrete, it is understood, it cannot be explained away. If that submerged land belonged to the States, then it certainly seems to me that it is our duty to see to it that the sovereignty of the several States is protected by adequate legislation.

Now, I want to address one further remark on this problem, and that is as to the submerged land beyond the State boundaries. I do not think we can consistently say that Texas or Louisiana or California is entitled to any revenue beyond their historical boundaries.

I base my position in this whole matter on the historical boundary. But what about the territory beyond that? There has never been an assertion of sovereignty in that territory. I am wondering what our position would be if on tomorrow we would find that 12 miles or just beyond the territory of the State of Texas the Dutch Oil Co. developing the land? What would our position be?

It seems to me that while we are dealing with this problem we ought to deal with it in its entiety, and we ought to assert the sovereignty of the United States in what is the territory of the United States, even though it is submerged.

I trust that you in your wisdom will conclude that this whole problem should be disposed of finally and now, and that there be an assertion of the sovereignty of the United States in the submerged lands beyond the historical boundaries, and that there will never again be any question as to the ownership of the territory within those lines. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much for your very valuable contribution.

Mr. Hillings, do you have any questions you would like to ask Mr. Walter before he leaves?

Mr. HILLINGS. No, except, Mr. Chairman, that I think Mr. Walter has given us an excellent discussion of this whole problem, and it shows the need of a full conclusion of the problem as soon as possible. I certainly concur in the views that he has advanced.

Mr. GRAHAM. Miss Thompson, have you anything you wish to ask? Miss THOMPSON. No, except to concur with Mr. Walter. I think he is absolutely right.

Mr. GRAHAM. The Chair, like a judicial court, will reserve his decision to a later date.

I

Mr. Willis, are there any questions you would like to ask Mr. Walter? Mr. WILLIS. I would like to suggest one thought, Mr. Chairman, if may, in connection with the statement of Mr. Walter. I concur in his views that we should come to grips with the whole problem involved. We may disagree on details and perhaps on the question of division of returns of development beyond historic boundaries, but that, after all, is a legislative function that we must all bring our minds together to solve.

I have an amendment I am going to propose exactly along the lines of what Mr. Walter has said with respect to historic boundaries. I think that in the bill itself, the very first section which refers to boundaries, we should insert the words "historic boundaries." That would be consistent with all the discussion of the subject lately that we have been hearing about.

If I may say, in a purely nonpolitical way, I should like to include the Republican platform and the statements of General, now President, Eisenhower. I think we should spell it out. So I am going to propose an amendment to include that word.

Also, along with what he had to say regarding the treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United States, there is a sentence in section 4 of the bill, as I recall, spelling out that in the case of any State whose historic documents speak out for a greater area than 3

miles, that their rights shall not be prejudiced. It in the concluding sentence of section 4 states:

Nothing in this section is to be construed as questioning or in any manner prejudicing the existence of any State's seaward

here I will insert "historic seaward boundary"—

beyond 3 geographical miles, if it was so provided by its constitution or laws prior to the time such State became a member of the Union.

I think we should spell out "or by treaty ratified by the Senate of the United States." I think those words should go in there to show that we mean exactly what we say. So I am going to draft appropriate amendments.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. May I suggest that you submit them in time to Mr. Foley so he may have time to consider them, because there will probably be a discussion between he and the Attorney General with respect to the matter.

Mr. WILLIS. Yes. I have a couple of amendments I want to suggest, but I wanted to speak to the point of Mr. Walter's statement at this time.

Mr. GRAHAM. We will now hear from Mr. Utt, of California.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. UTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 117

Mr. UTT. Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to take part in these deliberations as I consider my State eminently represented on this committee by Congressman Hillings, of California, but after listening to the testimony of Attorney General Brownell and examining his prepared statement, I feel that I would be neglecting my duty as a Representative from California if I failed to voice my objections to certain suggestions made by him.

My House Joint Resolution 117 is similar to the Holland bill vetoed by President Truman last year. However, I have no objection to the inclusion of the Continental Shelf clause provided there is a proper severability clause to protect the historical-boundary provisions in case of constitutional attack.

To me, the Doctrine of States Rights overshadows all other concurrent issues and stands in diametric opposition to the Doctrine of Paramount Rights by reason of sovereignty. I quote from the Bill of Rights:

*** all rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government are retained by the several States, and all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government reside in the people.

Retained and reside-two words upon which hinges the whole doctrine now at issue-mark them well, and may they never leave your consciousness.

I can find nowhere that the States have granted, either specifically or by inference, these retained rights to the lands lying beneath the waters within the historical boundaries of the several States.

The statement and testimony of Mr. Brownell appear to be an unwarranted attempt to compromise these two opposing doctrines. To me, his position is confusing, untenable, and unconscionable. It is

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »