States to follow such action; (3) because we believe this is an error from the standpoint of absence of legal or logical justification; and lastly, it is a most grave error from the standpoint of national security. We sincerely hope that this error will not be made; that the Celler bill and its amendment will be approved instead of the Graham or Walter bills. Mr. GRAHAM. Miss Thompson, do you have any questions you desire to ask? Miss THOMPSON. No. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Wilson, do you have any questions you desire to ask? Mr. WILSON. You are free to say that there is a misunderstanding and pure selfishness on the part of oil interests and some States. Do you think the State, if it has a treaty with the United States, is selfish in trying to see that it gets its rights? Mr. SANDERS. No; I would not say that, Mr. Congressman. Mr. WILSON. Those are the facts with regard to Texas. Texas came into the Union, and came in under a treaty approved by Congress, approved by three Presidents, the President who was in office at the time, approved by the Congress of the State of Texas, which was a free nation. Do you believe that those treaties should be kept? Mr. SANDERS. I believe they should; yes. But I do not think those treaties give to the State of Texas Mr. WILSON. It certainly does by clear, unimpeachable terms. Mr. SANDERS. I have just forgotten the exact wording, Mr. Congressman, but I read that recently and felt that again—by the way, I may say I am a Texan, too. Mr. WILSON. You apparently did not read it very carefully. Mr. SANDERS. I read the phraseology only 2 or 3 days ago. As I interpreted it, I could not see that the treaty would give to Texas any more right to those submerged lands than it would the enabling act of any other State. Mr. WILSON. Of course, it is an entirely different proposition. Texas is the only State in the Union that came in as a republic. Mr. SANDERS. That is right. Mr. WILSON. For 10 years it was a republic after gaining its freedom from Mexico. Mr. SANDERS. That is right. My grandmother lived there. Mr. WILSON. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that was entered into by the United States 4 years after Texas came into the Union upheld Texas' claim to its public land. Mr. SANDERS. I am agreeing with you, but it seems to me that this is not classified as the public land of Texas. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Sanders, so you may understand, you will have until the 11th of this month to supplement your testimony with regard to anything you are unable to produce at this time. Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that if the treaty specifically stated that the submerged lands were included in the public lands of Texas and belonged to Texas Mr. Wilsox. Here is the language right here. In the joint resolution for annexation of Texas to the United States, which was adopted by the Congress of the United States and adopted by the Congress of Texas, this language was used: Said State when admitted into the Union after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms, armament, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense belonging to said Republic of Texas, it shall retain all the public lands, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due or owing said Republic, and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands and mind you, Texas had always, and so had Spain and so had Mexico, claimed 3 marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico, beginning at the Rio Grande River and ending at the Sabine and the residue of said land after discharging said debts and liabilities to dispose of as said State may direct. In the agreement entered into between the Congress of Texas and the Congress of the United States, the United States Congress was particularly trying to get out of paying Texas' debts. They paid every other debt of every other territory and State that came into the Union, but they did not want to pay Texas' debt of $10 million, and Texas paid that debt. [Reading:] But in no event do said debt and liabilities become a charge upon the Government of the United States. In view of those words, do you still say that Texas is selfish in trying to enforce that treaty entered into between the Congress of the Nation of Texas, not the State of Texas, the Nation of Texas by its own Congress and by the Congress of the United States? Mr. SANDERS. As I said to you in the first place, I do not interpret public lands to mean land under water, because I think they would say water. Mr. WILSON. There is no question but that the 10 miles or 3 marine leagues was a part of the public domain of Texas and a part of its public lands. There is no dispute about that. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Sanders is disputing it right here. Mr. SANDERS. I am not enough of an international lawyer, or lawyer, although I studied one course in international law, I do not know a thing about it, I will tell you that. Mr. WILSON. Very few of us do, as a matter of fact. These words are very short words and very plain in their meaning, to us, at least, and they have been to Congress. Mr. SANDERS. You are not including me in that "us." I do not really believe that they mean that Texas has the right to the land 1012 miles from her shoreline under that. I may be wrong. I certainly would not have any tendency, Mr. Congressman, to argue at length, but I just want to express our opinion on this, and I believe by the same token that Florida does not have the right to claim the resources submerged below the low-tide line. Mr. WILSON. Of course, the historical boundary line on the western shore out in the gulf includes 3 marine leagues, just like Texas. There is not question of that. I do not want to argue with you about the matter, but I am just saying that you more or less impugn our intentions as being selfish. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Congressman, when I say that, I really think if I were a Representative from Texas, I would think it was justified self ishness, but that does not keep me from saying, in representing a national organization that is primarily interested in the welfare of agriculture in all States, that I think that that is a selfishness, and if Texas presses those claims, I see no reason why she should not continue to press them, but I think it should be decided in the interest of the Nation as a whole, and not in the interest of Texas. I do not believe she has a legal claim to it. Mr. WILSON. We are going to continue to press it, regardless of who thinks it is selfish or unselfish. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAHAM. May I ask one question, Mr. Sanders. Are you familiar with the prior hearings in this matter in other Congresses, or not? Mr. WILSON. I have appeared in 4 or 5 of them. I am not familiar with them. I do not remember all that went on. Mr. GRAHAM. The point I make is this: A number of years ago when I first came on this committee, at that time it was my recollection that out of the 48 States, 46 governors joined as amicus curiae and 45 United States attorneys joined in. What I am differentiating at this point is this, that all the States, practically, asserted their rights; not only Texas, California, and Louisiana, but all the States maintained they had a right in this matter. Mr. SANDERS. The thing is that in the Celler and Anderson bills, it is felt that the rightful property under the inland waters was impaired by this decision. Both bills undertake to say specifically that this decision, and that the Congress specifically protect those rights. I would say most certainly every State should fight for its rights to its inland waters that it really justly owns. But these I do not believe could be classified as inland waters. I am familiar with that; yes, sir. Mr. GRAHAM. I was wondering whether you had taken that into consideration. Miss Thompson, have you any questions. She is from Michigan and she is vitally interested in the Great Lakes. Miss THOMPSON. We have 1,500 miles more shoreline than any other State. Mr. SANDERS. I am glad to get acquainted with the Congress woman. Miss THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much. Mr. GRAHAM. Is the representative of the Cooperative League of the United States here; Mr. Campbell, here? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Campbell, we will hear from you now. Do you have a statement? STATEMENT OF WALLACE J. CAMPBELL, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I do. My name is Wallace J. Campbell. I am Washington representative of the Cooperative League of the United States of America, a na tional federation of consumer, purchasing and service cooperatives. Our direct membership includes nearly 2 million farm and city families. In addition, we serve several million members of cooperatives which are associated with the league through their functional federations. The Cooperative League has consistently supported the ownership by the Federal Government of the offshore oil resources as outlined in the Celler bill, House Joint Resolution 15. We support, in addition, the bills introduced by Congressmen Feighan (H. J. Res. 126) and Perkins (H. J. Res. 89) which would provide that the royalties from the development of these resources should be used for the support of education in all the 48 States. The legal issues involved here have been clarified completely to our satisfaction. The Supreme Court decisions-United States v. California (332 U. S. 19), decided June 23, 1947; United States v. Louisiana (339 U. S. 699), decided June 5, 1950; United States v. Texas (332 U. S. 707), decided June 5, 1950-have confirmed the Federal Government's paramount rights and power over this area. During the last year there has been a great deal of artificial confusion injected into the controversy over the offshore oil resources. We feel, however, that the Supreme Court's decision that the Federal Government has "paramount rights" and "full domain" over these resources constitutes a decision in the public interest and should be sustained by the Congress. It is our feeling, Mr. Chairman, if I may interject here, that in the disagreement among the legal authorities-the attorneys general in their statement, the Governors in their statement, and the Supreme Court in its three decisions-we have to go along with the Supreme Court. We know there is a substantial difference of opinion, but that is where we stand. Developments in the last few days in testimony presented by Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay and Attorney General Herbert Brownell have helped to clarify the situation affecting the national interest and security. We still feel, however, that the original decision is the proper one and that the paramount rights of the Federal Government are in the entire offshore petroleum resources and are not limited by what have been called "historic boundaries" of the States involved. Our organization feels that the move now under consideration to reverse the ruling of the Supreme Court by legislative action and give the offshore oil resources of the 48 States to 3 States simply because of their proximity would be an unwise step and contrary to the national interest. Because all of our members are ultimate consumers of petroleum products and are dependent upon petroleum for essential farm production, we have an unusually keen interest in the long-range conservation, protection, and use of offshore oil resources. We feel the Federal Government is in a better position than the States to protect these resources from shortsighted or wasteful exploitation, and we feel the Federal Government will adequately protect and preserve the consumer interest as well as the national security in the development of these resources. During the last few years a great deal of unnecessary confusion has been injected into the controversy over these rich oil resources. Part of that confusion has come from the States which have an understandable interest in securing the exclusive use of the revenue from these natural riches. An even greater part of the confusion, we fear, comes from the major oil companies, which, we understand, have poured untold resources into the campaign to turn the leasing rights over to the States for their, the oil companies', own vested interests. This confusion reached its absurd heights when a representative of the city of New York testified before the Senate Interior Committee and raised the question of whether Coney Island is owned by the State of New York or by the Federal Government, and praised the Holland bill as clarifying that point. I visited Coney Island on the Fourth of July in 1934. The New York Times estimated that 1 million people were on Coney Island that day. I wonder why either the Federal Government or the State of New York should be concerned about its ownership, if I may be facetious at this point. I am afraid that Commissioner Moses has unknowingly lent his prestige to the campaign of the oil companies to confuse the issue of offshore oil reserves by injecting an issue which has never been pertinent to the case. As we understand it, there has never been any question of the Federal Government seeking to acquire internal waterways, port and dock facilities, and other kindred resources. In other words, we look upon these as being a phony issue whose only intent can be confusion. The ownership of filled-in lands is adequately protected in the court decisions and in the Anderson bill in the Senate. We would like to suggest for the consideration of this committee that the Celler bill be amended to provide several of the safeguards which were written into the Senate bill which was up for consideration in the Senate last year. So that there will never again be any question about the ownership of land under navigable inland waters, the following section from the Anderson bill (S. 107) might well be added. The United States hereby asserts that it has no right, title. or interest in or to the lands beneath the navigable inland waters within the boundaries of the respective States, but that all such right, title, and interest are vested in the several States or the persons lawfully entitled thereto under the laws of such Sates, or their respective lawful grantees, lessees, or possessors in interest thereof under State authority. To take care of the bugaboo of possible Federal control of dock, pier, and wharf facilities, or filled-in land, the following two paragraphs might well be added to the Celler bill; this in turn comes from the Anderson bill in the Senate: (a) Any right granted prior to the enactment of this act, by any State, political subdivision thereof, municipality, agency, or person holding thereunder. to construct, maintain. use, or occupy any dock, pier, wharf, jetty, or any other structure in submerged lands of the Continental Shelf, or any such right to the surface of filled-in, made, or reclaimed land in such areas, is hereby recognized and confirmed by the United States for such term as was granted prior to the enactment of this act. That I am sure would satisfy Mr. Moses on his point. But, to take care of future possibilities (b) The right, title, and interest of any State, nolitical subdivision therof, municipality, or public agency holding thereunder, to the surface of submerged |