Page images
PDF
EPUB

These minerals, of course, have been conceded to be the property included in riparian rights of the respective States. What has been in dispute are the mineral rights below those waters where there surely must be vast quantities of mineral wealth as indicated by the wealth suspended in the waters above them. So, we are not talking in terms of "peanuts" when we talk about who is going to get what out of the disposition of these minerals.

We dislike going into particulars on what States have what rights except to point out that we maintain that all States have equal rights in sharing and sharing alike that we may keep the wick in the lamp of learning bright, fed by the oil royalties for education.

In conclusion, I point to the fact that some States which would come in for a share of the divsion of such royalties are numbered among the 18 States carved from the Louisiana Purchase, which purchase was defrayed with Federal moneys and not from the treasury of any one State.

Mr. RILEY. On the next to the last passage, I would like to direct vour attention to the memorial which was sent to the Congress recently by the House of Representatives of the Arizona Legislature, which approved this memorial by a vote of 51 to 28. In essence it reads as follows:

In recent years the cost of building, maintaining, and operating schools has increased to an extent rendering it extremely difficult for State and local taxing units to provide adequate facilities for the growing number of children of school age. It is estimated that Arizona alone needs $120 million to take care of urgent school needs.

Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, urgently requests:

1. That legislation be enacted providing that revenue accruing to the United States Government from the production of offshore or tidelands oil be apportioned to the several States for aid to schools on a per capita basis.

There is a voice in the wilderness that has come to us in Washington, Mr. Chairman, without any solicitation. I do believe it is typical and in recognizing the remarks or the question of Mr. Wilson awhile ago— I hope I may take that question on myself, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. RILEY. About the propriety of any but the home folks running the schools, I would like to say that basically your position is entirely a correct one. But if you have a fire and the fire apparatus is out at another fire, I think it is perfectly good for another fire company to come in and put out that fire. If a man is drowning on a beach and the lifeguard is busy saving some other man, I think anybody who can save the second man is quite in order in the process of saving lives.

You have an illiteracy rate in this country today which while it is diminishing slightly is still approximately 10 percent of the adult population. Illiteracy constitutes the lack of an education higher than fourth grade. The rejection of men from the Armed Forces in 1950 and 1951 was so high that those rejected would have made up some 56 divisions of 10,000 men strength simply because they did not know how to read and write.

So it is costing your local community, it is costing you and me as long as we neglect this important job of saving the next generation and trying to salvage as much as we can of the present one.

In the Labor Committee just above, you can get a copy of Report No. 287 of 1950, Operating Expenses of School Districts Affected by Federal Activities, and you can get copies of other reports based on surveys made by that committee headed up by Mr. Barden, who I am

pretty sure is quite a States' rights man, and who talked about holding schoolroom classes in dilapidated school buses.

The lady before me just talked about the children sitting on kegs. I do not know what they sat on in these buses, but it is quite possible they may have even stood.

I do not think it is necessary to belabor the needs of the school systems of this country, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to point out– and these are figures and charts which have been adduced from data from your States, not by the Federal Government, or not at the initial action of the Federal Government. The Office of Education has merely collated the information and it is your own State departments of education which have made the reports. All States are not here, but I see Mr. Wilson is present, and I notice that in Texas 8 percent of the schools are quite unsatisfactory from a fire standpoint, and 16 percent of the remaining schools are only fair. But to the credit of the State, 76 percent of them are quite satisfactory. I might say that is quite a high percentage among the States.

I do not see Pennsylvania here, and I do not see Michigan, but we can talk about a number of other States. Nebraska, 36 percent of the schools in Nebraska are unsatisfactory from a fire viewpoint, and 16 percent are only fair; 48 percent are satisfactory.

Arkansas, from which State Senator Fulbright comes, and who is an ardent supporter as an educator in his own right of the needs of education, recognizes the needs of the schools in his State, because it is noted here that 11 percent of the schools in his State are unsatisfactory, 6 percent are only fair. Yet Arkansas, I think, has the highest percentage of satisfactory schools to the point of 83 percent.

The States recently were very happy-all of them, practically— to accept their proportion of a $3,000,000 grant from the Federal Government to find out what was needed in the way of school facilities.

Mr. WILSON. I certainly do not say that there would be any States that would turn down this money. You understand I am not taking the position that the States will turn it down.

Mr. RILEY. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. Oh, no. I have not seen anyone yet turn down any give-away money yet, individuals or States. But my contention is that it is a dangerous proposition to permit the Federal Government to get control of the public schools. Some pooh-pooh that. I did not say that. That is impossible, as long as we provide in the law that they have no control. I know whenever the Federal Government gets into business, gets a big bureau started, that they grab for power. That is just as inherent as the fact that we breathe air. They want bigger bureaus, and they want more power. They want to go a little further, and they want to abolish certain techniques, and they want to say who will teach in our schools. That is what I think will follow. Mr. RILEY. This information was adduced by the agency which is now headed by a lady from your State.

Mr. WILSON. I understand. She has been there 30 days.

Mr. RILEY. I believe Mrs. Hobby will not allow that to happen. I think you have a good States rightser right there.

Mr. WILSON. I agree with you on that. That does not alter the question. She may be there 6 months, she may be there 40 years, she may be there 20. She may have somebody, I could name him, but I will not, that has a different idea about the matter.

Mr. RILEY. We do not think millions that have gone from the Federal Government to the States have dominated the schools.

Mr. WILSON. Because they have gone for a particular purpose because of some action brought on by the Federal Government. I voted for those appropriations.

Mr. RILEY. I felt the same thing when you talk about the tax base getting away from the States. You gentlemen are the ones who are in control of the situation.

Mr. WILSON. I understand that, but there are pressure groups, as you understand, too.

Mr. RILEY. Do not put us down for a pressure group. If it is pressure, we are for the school cause.

Mr. WILSON. There are a lot of pressure groups in this country who want a lot of things. They want fewer taxes and more appropriations. Congress has to do the best it can and when the pressure gets too great

Mr. RILEY. Some of your greatest pressure groups, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wilson, are the biggest oil companies.

Mr. WILSON. That is very true. There is no question.

Mr. RILEY. They control not the primary systems of the country but they get them after they are topped off and going into the secondary level.

Mr. WILSON. I agree with you.

Mr. RILEY. So it is rather appropriate that the Federal Government might step in on the part of the common schools and try to head off that kind of tendency we are trying to live with.

Mr. WILSON. I think the better way is to retract the Federal base, so the schools can get enough money out of the taxes that they once had that have been appropriated by the Federal Government that they can control the matter at home. I do not deny that we have a serious situation in the schools in this country-worse in some States than in others.

Mr. RILEY. If you have an amendment coming on the floor soon helping the common schools of this country, we will pitch in and help, whether it be local or on the Federal side. Let us get these kids educated and placed right.

Mr. GRAHAM. Is that all, Mr. Riley?

Mr. RILEY. Yes; thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.

The chair wishes to announce at this time that we have now completed the witnesses both for and against the bills that have been proposed. Some time will be left for those who desire to submit statements, but at this time, if there are no further witnesses to appear, the hearings will be closed, and any of those who wish to submit statements may do so by sending them to Mr. Foley, the committee counsel in this

matter.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a memorial that we received today.

Mr. GRAHAM. It will be admitted without objection.

Mr. FOLEY. It is from the House of Representatives, State of Arizona, House Memorial No. 2.

(The memorial follows:)

[blocks in formation]

I, Wesley Bolin, secretary of state, do hereby certify that the attached document is a true, correct, and complete copy of House Memorial No. 2, first regular session, 21st legislature; That I am the official of the State of Arizona having custody and control of the Original of said copy and the legal keeper thereof.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal of the State of Arizona. Done at Phoenix, the capital, this 9th day of February A. D. 1953.

[SEAL]

WESLEY BOLIN, Secretary of State.

[State of Arizona, House of Representatives, 21st Legislature, 1st regular session] HOUSE MEMORIAL No. 2-A MEMORIAL RELATING TO OFFSHORE OR TIDELAND OIL DEPOSITS

To the Congress of the United States:

Your memorialist respectfully represents :

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that offshore oil deposits, also known as tideland oil deposits, belong to all the people of the United States. The Congress of the United States has in study legislation to define the mileage limits of the coastal States.

In recent years the cost of building, maintaining, and operating schools has increased to an extent rendering it extremely difficult for State and local taxing units to provide adequate facilities for the growing number of children of school age. It is estimated that Arizona alone needs a hundred and twenty million dollars to take care of urgent schools needs.

Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, urgently requests:

1. That legislation be enacted providing that revenue accruing to the United States Government from the production of offshore or tidelands oil be apportioned to the several States for aid to schools on a per capita basis.

Passed the House February 9, 1953, by the following vote: 51 ayes, 26 nays, (0 absent, 3 excused.

Filed in the office of the secretary of state February 9, 1953.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I should like to offer a prepared statement for the record at this time. Mr. GRAHAM. It is admitted without objection. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE J. FRANK WILSON, FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, on H. R. 641, BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

I certainly favor the passage of what is known as the Walter bill. I have introduced H. R. 641 which is substantially the Walter bill with a few slight amendments which I deem necessary in order to protect the rights of certain lessees who are not protected by the Walter bill.

I am in substantial agreement with Secretary McKay in his statement that the seaward boundaries of the States out to their historical boundaries should be quitclaimed and restored to the States thereby overturning the Supreme Court decision in the California, Texas, and Louisiana cases. I further believe that legislation should be in one package, and that is deal with the Continental Shelf and State boundaries at the same time because this whole territory should be developed by private lessees so that the oil may be severed and brought to the ground for use.

I further agree with Secretary McKay when he says that until some comprehensive legislation dealing with waste, conservation, taxing powers of the States and police powers of the States to this contiguous territory should be left in the hands of the States.. In other words, State conservation laws, police powers, as well as the right to tax this territory in a reasonable manner should be continued as the Walter bill provides until the Federal Congress legislates in this field.

I further believe, and am apparently in disagreement with the announced policy of the administration, that the contiguous States to the Continental Shelf area should receive 371⁄2 percent of the revenue gotten from the Continental Shelf just as many of the several States receive 371⁄2 percent of any revenue obtained from minerals on Federal lands on their boundaries.

I believe the States should have absolute title restored to them out to their historical boundaries, and that the Continental Shelf should be given to the Federal Government with the exclusive right of management and control of the Continental Shelf.

The so-called Walter bill is a well-drawn, comprehensive bill which has been passed by the House of Representatives twice and this bill should be voted out again by this committee and sent to the House floor in the same form it was in during the 82d Congress.

This problem must be dealt with at the earliest possible moment because the critical situation in the world could render this oil absolutely essential within a very short time.

It is my hope that this committee will act immediately after these hearings are completed to bring this matter to a close and pass this bill so that those presently holding leases and those who wish to lease land in both these areas can do so immediately.

I had first thought that I would not burden the record by any mention of the special situation as exists with regard to Texas but since certain witnesses, including some Members of Congress who favor Federal ownership and control of all the seaward boundaries of all the coastal States, insist that the Supreme Court's holding with regard to Louisiana and Texas forecloses Texas of all of its property rights and treaty rights, I thought it best to make some mention of this matter.

In this connection, I call the committee's attention to the actual language of the annexation agreement between the Congress of the Republic of Texas and the Congress of the United States which is as follows:

"Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, forts and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, maga ́ines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing said Republic; and shall also retain all of 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, after discharging said debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.”

The above language is not subject to but one interpretation, and that is that Texas being a republic, and having acquired 3 leagues seaward from the lowwater mark of its coastal boundary in the Gulf of Mexico, and having claimed same under treaties theretofore entered into and by right of conquest, and said claim having been recognized, and said land seaward for 3 leagues from the lowwater mark of the coastal region of Texas having been recognized specifically in the treaty of annexation provided Texas would pay its own debts, should for all time end any discussion about who owns this 10%-mile strip of land. I must admit that I was more or less startled by the new theory presented by Attorney General Brownell when he went so far as to say that the Supreme Court decision in the case of the United States Government v. Teras would not have to be overruled but that these paramount rights declared by the Supreme Court to be in the possession of the Federal Government that the Congress would have the right to enter into some kind of an agreement with the several States giving them the power and the right to explore for oil and gas within the region of their historical boundaries, and yet the Federal Government would retain its naramount rights.

First, I do not believe this to be possible. Second, I know that this theory is not acceptable to Texas because we are not here fighting for a division of a few dollars but to retain land which we have owned for more than a century, the title to which land seaward from the low-water mark for 3 leagues is and has always been in the State of Texas and its predecessors, and we do not intend to agree that title has ever been transferred to the Federal Government by the Supreme Court decision or by any other act on the part of Texas or the Federal Government.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »