Mr. WILSON. I think that is all. Mr. GRAHAM. The court will reserve its decision. Mr. PERKINS. I see the majority of the committee are against my views along this line. Mr. GRAHAM. As I explained, two members of the committee, Mr. Hillings and Mr. Walter, have both been called away in order to complete quorums. But they have been here and you will have the right and privilege to submit your statement. If you want to amplify it, you may do so, and we will receive that until the 11th. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chariman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. GRAHAM. You have it, and for the information of those present, tomorrow we will continue the hearings in this room at 10 o'clock, at which time we will hear those who are largely in opposition. Mr. PERKINS. I would like to answer the question of the gentleman of a few moments ago. I did not answer your question in connection with the 3-mile limit. The 3-mile rule is but a recognition of the necessity that a government next to the sea must be able to protect itself from dangers incident to its location. This is what was stated by the Supreme Court. [Reading:] It must have powers of dominion and regulation in the interest of its revenues, its health and the security of its people from wars waged on or too near its coasts, and insofar as the Nation asserts its rights under international law whatever of value may be discovered in the seas next to its shore and within its productive belt will most naturally be appropriated for its use. But whatever any nation does in the open sea which detracts from its common usefulness to nations or which another nation may charge detracts from it is a question for consideration among nations as such and not separate governmental units. Mr. WILSON. That is the Supreme Court decision you are reading from? Mr. PERKINS. Yes, page 718. Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Reed, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wishes to insert House Joint Resolution No. 25, adopted on February 17, 1953, by the House and concurred in by the Senate of the State of Illinois. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25 Whereas the State of Illinois has within its boundaries on Lake Michigan 976,640 acres of submerged lands which have been owned and claimed by the State and its grantees for over 100 years, and the State, its political subdivisions and grantees have expended millions of dollars in improvements along the shores of Lage Michigan on lands formerly covered by the waters of Lake Michigan; and Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. State of Illinois (146 U. S. 387), held the Great Lakes to be "open seas" and that Illinois ownership of that portion of Lake Michigan within its boundaries rested upon the same rule of law as "lands under tidewaters on the borders of the sea"; and Whereas State ownership of lands beneath the waters within the seaward boundaries of the State has been challenged and clouded by Federal officials in recent years, all of which constitutes a threat against the State of Illinois, its political subdivisions, and grantees in connection with its ownership of the above-mentioned lands: Therefore be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the 68th General Assembly of the State of Illinois, the Senate concurring herein, That the Congress of the United States is hereby petitioned to enact legislation at the earliest possible date which would confirm and recognize in this State and its political sub divisions, its and their ownership and full rights in all lands beneath navigable waters within its boundaries, subject only to necessary Federal regulations in connection with international relationships, navigation, and defense; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent by the secretary of state to the President, the Vice President, Senator Paul H. Douglas, Senator Everett M. Dirksen, and to each member of the Illinois delegation in the House of Representatives of the Congress. Adopted by the house, February 17, 1953. WARREN I. WOOD, Speaker, House of Representatives. Clerk, House of Representatives. Concurred in by the senate, February 17, 1953. JOHN WM. CHAPMAN, President of the Senate. EDWARD H. ALEXANDER, Secretary of the Senate. Mr. GRAHAM. All right. The committee now stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, in this room. (Thereupon, at 11:50 a. m., a recess was taken until Thursday, March 5, 1953, at 10 a. m.) SUBMERGED LANDS LEGISLATION THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1953 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 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, Ruth Thompson, Patrick J. Hillings, and Francis E. Walter. Also present: J. Frank Wilson. Mr. GRAHAM. The committee will be in order. Mr. Hinshaw, of California. STATEMENT OF HON. CARL HINSHAW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think that I really ought to testify at length on this subject, because it is very technical and I have made a long study of it. Among other resolutions that have been introduced by me is House Joint Resolution 144. That resolution differs from the standard resolution which has been introduced. It differs in language very considerably. It sets forth certain definitions which I believe are consonant with the definitions acceptable in international law, more so than the definitions given in other resolutions. For example, the definition of the term "high sea (s)," "open sea," and the term "ocean" is that which is the common highway of nations, the common domain, within the body of no country, and under the particular right or jurisdiction of no sovereign, but open, free, and common to all alike, as a common and equal right. That definition is fundamental to the legislation in question. The terms "maritime boundary" and the "territorial waters" and "territory," and all of these other definitions that are contained in this resolution are, I believe, correct. They were put in the resolution after very long and careful study. For example, the term "coast" as defined in this resolution when used as a proper noun and when used as a noun is a term describing an area. Ordinarily the term "coast" is considered to be, in this legislation that you have before you, something of a line, but it is not; it is an area and means an extent of territory abutting upon the sea, and includes within it the inland waters of such territory and any natural appendages of the land territory which arise out of such waters as islands although these islands may not be of sufficient firmness to be inhabited or fortified. This term "coast" is one which we think of generally as broad or narrow, depending upon the occasion that we have to use it. I have devised a term for the coastline. It means a regular line suitable for purposes of navigation, describing the seaward limit of a coast. Then again, the inland waters; we have a definition which means the waters, both marine and fresh, which are under sovereign jurisdiction and lie landward of a coastline, including all bays, historic bays, and gulfs, channels, passages, sounds, estuaries, ports, harbors, and all other navigable waters. I wish you would examine those definitions. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Hinshaw, may I interrupt at this point? I have talked about this with you on numerous occasions, and I am very much impressed by the position you take, but this thought occurred to me last year. And all other navigable waters," line 5, page 4, do you not feel that in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, that should be made more explicit because I am not so certain that that does not include even small feeder streams on which you would experience difficulty in operating a rowboat? Mr. HINSHAW. I think that they are under jeopardy in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, and I think that all navigable waters within the coastline are in jeopardy. That is, all the land lying under them is in jeopardy. I think another reason exists for the necessity of having accurate definitions acceptable in international law, and which would be used and usable in language of the statutes of various States, as well as the statutes of the United States. There is no common definition or no set of common definitions. These terms are usable and used by the various States as well as the United States. Consequently, there being no common definition, there is no common understanding. You cannot understand if you do not use the same terms or do not use a term meaning the same thing. Mr. WALTER. May I ask you where you got the definition for submerged land on page 3, starting at line 12? Mr. HINSHAW. I think that that is a definition that we had to draw. Mr. WALTER. That is why I asked the question. It does not look very familiar to me. Mr. HINSHAW. The term "submerged land" means the continuation beneath the territorial waters, of land territory having an elevation lower than the elevation of mean low tide or mean low water. Consequently, it is submerged. Mr. WALTER. But would that not extend to a part of the ocean beyond the Continental Shelf? Mr. HINSHAW. It might in places. If it is under the territorial waters it would extend to any depth. I do not see why we should be limited by the Continental Shelf at 150 fathoms or 150 feet or any definite point, because the land may slope off regularly; and where are you going to draw that contour? Certainly submerged land includes that within the limits of the territorial waters of a State. Mr. WALTER. You are not drawing a contour because the location. of the shelf is very well known? Mr. HINSHAW. There are places in California, for example, where you would find difficulty in locating a Continental Shelf. You would |