It will be remembered that the decision in the Texas case was made by only 4 judges out of 9 and that they totally disregarded the specific language in the annexation agreement wherein Texas retained all of its public lands and unappropriated lands which included the marginal sea belt to the end of 3 leagues from low-water mark.

In the so-called Walter bill some of the best legal minds in the country have drawn the language in this bill in title II, and that language therein is conclusive, all inclusive, and cannot be subject to any disagreement about the fact that this marginal sea belt, which was a part of the Texas Republic and which Texas retained, is restored for all time to come to the State of Texas without reservation on the part of the Congress of the United States.

We do not believe it is possible, regardless of what words are used, to improve upon language in the Walter bill in title II. On the other hand, we believe that if the wording in this section is tampered with and anything else is placed in a bill quitclaiming this region to the various States, including Texas, that instead of minimizing suits in this area, it will magnify them greatly. Not only this, but we believe that any different language or any language restoring this property to its rightful owner would be insufficient to permit the State to enter into leases or any other agreements for the exploration for oil and minerals of any character that might be sought.

In my opinion, if the language both in the Holland bill so-called, and the Walter bill, which has been passed by the House of Representatives twice, is changed or modified, it vill take more years of study and wrangling before any conclusion can be reached by the Congress.

In my opinion, this committee should insist that titles I and II be left as they are in the bill introduced by Mr. Walter, H. R. 636, or as found in my bill, H. R. 641, or in Mr. Graham's bill, H. R. 2948, chairman of the subcommittee. Any change in this language would result in confusion since the effect of any change in the wording would not become apparent until after long study, long hearings, and long discussion.

I think the Attorney General perhaps had in mind that litigation would be minimized as he stated but, in my opinion, the reverse effect would be true.

Also, the statement of the Attorney General that a map should be drawn showing the historical boundary line, which in the case of Texas would be 3 leagues or 101⁄2 miles, and in the case of every other coastal State of the Union it would be 3 miles from the low-water mark, except Florida on its west coast would be 3 leagues or 10% miles.

I think if this method of approach is taken seriously by the committee that it would require hundreds of map drawers years to complete the gigantic job of ferreting out every little inlet from the top of Maine down the east coast to the bottom of Florida and around the Gulf coast to the mouth of the Rio Grande River, to say nothing of the gigantic job that will be faced on the west coast where innumerable islands just off the coast would complicate the matter greatly. If this course were followed, I think probably we would not have any tidelands legislation for another 5 or 6 years.

In my opinion, if the two Houses of Congress should adopt these two suggestions of the Attorney General, then it would be far better at this time to take titles I and II of the Walter bill which would in truth and fact be substantially the Holland bill in the Senate, and enact it now quitclaiming the seaward boundaries of all the coastal States, as well as the Great-Lake-States and quieting the title to inland waterways and inland waters within State boundries of the respective States and leave the Continental Shelf for future determination.

I had rather, and I take it from Secretary McKay's testimony that the administration had rather deal with this all in 1 package such as is done in the Walter bill, but if any change of approach is made that would complicate the matter, I think it would be simpler to deal with the 2 areas; namely, inside historical State boundaries in 1 bill, and outside their historical boundaries to the end of the Continental Shelf in another.

I am still hopeful that the committee will take a commonsense view of this matter and not try some new and untrod pathway but bring out with the unanimous approval a bill such as the Walter bill which the Members of the House know and understand, and that this can be done in the next few weeks.

Hon. LOUIS E. GRAHAM

SEATTLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Washington 5, D. C., February 11, 1953.

Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. GRAHAM: The board of trustees of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce recently reaffirmed a policy decision urging clarification by the Congress of title to submerged lands, and supporting State ownership of such lands.

I have been instructed to advise you and the members of your committee of this decision, and respectfully request that the chamber's position be made a part of the record in hearings to be conducted soon on the subject of tidelands. Yours very truly,

GEORGE E. THOMAS, Assistant General Manager.

Mr. GRAHAM. I now declare the hearings in this matter closed. (Thereupon at 11:55 a. m., the hearings were concluded.)