As a result of this decision, the title to the tidelands in California and in the other States has remained in controversy to the present with the subsequent confusion.

As an example, in California our great harbors are clouded by the Supreme Court decision. Our world-renowned public beaches and shoreline recreational developments are at a standstill until the State's ownership of tidelands is reaffirmed. One city alone, Long Beach, finds many of its important community projects paralyzed until the matter is cleared up.

Thousands of homes and pieces of land owned by thousands of persons are up in the air while the issue of whether or not the Federal Government is to be empowered to take at will, and without compensation, such lands as it needs or wants is still to be decided.

To illustrate what this means to real estate in California, the California tidelands in dispute include the land under San Francisco's ferry building and the land under San Diego's civic center and municipal airport. Half of Los Angeles Harbor and much of Long Beach Harbor are of uncertain status. In the claims of the Federal Government for title to the tidelands, much has been made of the oil deposits under the tideland area in California, as well as in other States, and the need for Federal control for the preservation of natural resources. In the case of California, however, the facts show that oil deposits are actually found under only 15 miles of California's coastline, and half of the estimated oil supply in those pools has already been extracted. The State of California is the guardian of all the rich natural resources so important to our natural resources within the boundaries of the State, and shares equal concern with the Federal Government for the development and protection of these resources.

The 1,200-mile coastline tidelands area of California is one of the State's greatest natural resources. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by the State and its citizens on harbors, fisheries, pleasure resorts, and other uses essential to the orderly development of the State. The cities and counties of California have additional plans for the use of the tidelands. But if the tidelands question is not settled, these plans are retarded, and if title should be granted to the Federal Government, the people of California and the other States involved would be subordinated to the Federal Government in these matters.

I believe that equity calls for the confirmation of the title of these lands to the States as provided for in H. R. 2726 and the other similar bills now under consideration by this committee.

Only the Congress can resolve the long-standing controversy between the States of the Union and the departments of the Federal Government over the ownership and control of submerged lands, and the longer this controversy is permitted to continue, the more vexatious and confused it becomes. In addition, much needed improvements on these lands and the development of strategic natural resources within them has been seriously retarded.

The bills which are now under consideration by this committe would confirm and establish the rights and claims of the 48 States, asserted and exercised by them throughout our country's history, to the lands beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and the resources within such lands and waters, and would end the controversy which has been blocking development of the tidelands since 1938.

I sincerely urge this committee's favorable consideration of H. R. 2726, which would establish the legal title of the States to the tidelands areas, as defined in this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. MORRISON BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HELP THE PRESIDENT RETURN THE TIDELANDS TO THE STATES

Mr. Chairman, for over 100 years the individual States have claimed and possessed the submerged lands within their boundaries relying in good faith upon many Supreme Court and administrative decisions. Attempts recently have been made by the executive agencies of the Federal Government and decisions of the Supreme Court have clouded the titles of all the States, both inland and coastal, to their submerged lands.

So much has been said already in this long controversy that one can wonder what, if anything, remains to be said. Or if nothing new remains, then what things need repeating with new light on reemphasis.

The controversy has taken some fantastic turns. The attempt to use 90- or 100-year-old Government scrip is one such incident. Or consider the fabulous estimates that $40 billion of petroleum is involved. Or consider the fact that support of our public-school system and the sacred defense of our Nation have been dragged, and I say "dragged" advisedly, much nearer the center of the controversy than is warranted. Not only did the late Secretary of the Interior Ickes reverse himself but our Supreme Court, by a narrow margin, awarded paramount powers and dominion to the United States Government. To make the controversy even more weird, the International Court of Justice at The Hague meanwhile has decided the Norwegian Fisheries case and, though it may not be acceptable to generalize those results too far, that decision appears to lend support to the position of the States in the marginal seas problem.

I wish to reiterate that from 1776 to 1937 the right of the States was not successfully challenged. Some 296 court decisions and departmental pronouncements appear to have substantiated the right of the State dominion over these lands. That ought to constitute settled law, if such there be. It is not, as some have claimed, that what we now propose would be a steal, but rather a just return of property which should never have been claimed by our Federal Government. The President has reiterated that he would favor legislation returning control of offshore resources to the States. That will fix things upremove this cloud on the title.

Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to lose no further time in moving in that direction. The President needs our help-let's help him on this most important matter.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CLARK W. THOMPSON REGARDING H. R. 371 by Mr. BENTSEN

The sentiments which I would like to leave with the committee are those of a layman and one who is fully cognizant that the committee itself is composed of able and experienced lawyers.

Texas held undisputed title to the so-called tidelands out to the traditional 3-league boundary ever since Texas became a State, until the Federal Government stepped in with an adverse claim less than 10 years ago. By its claim the Government undertook to set aside a principle wihch I have always known as squatters' rights. These rights vary somewhat in different States, but in general if an individual has used and occupied a piece of property for some 10 years and if there have been no adverse claims in the meantime, he has a good title to such property. If the position of the Federal Government is finally sustained in this case, it would seem to me that it would render doubtful any title claimed under squatters' rights.

I have often noted in the course of the tidelands controversy in recent years that Texas is represented as trying to grab something that does not belong to it. The Texas position, of course, is that the grab came the other way. Texas had held peaceful possession for many years and continued to do so until the Federal Government asserted its claim.

Certainly the Texas position differs from that of any other State. The agreement with the Federal Government when Texas became a State is perfectly valid and has never been violated by the State. Under the present circumstances and without the passage of the legislation presently being considered, it is the Federal Government which has violated the contract. The opportunity is before your committee to direct that this contract be observed just as a lawyer would insist in any court in the land that a contract between individuals be carried out in accordance with its terms.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER ROGERS

To the Honorable Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress:

My name is Walter Rogers. I am the Representative in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress for the 18th Congressional District of Texas.

My appearance before this honorable committee is for the purpose of supporting proper legislation for the immediate determination of the dispute now pending between the United States of America and the several States of the Union bordering on the sea, which dispute concerns the ownership of the submerged lands on the coasts of these States. I have introduced a bill that I feel accom

plishes the purpose and fully and finally settles this question. I shall not burden the committee with detailed testimony as to the several provisions of the bill treating the problem involved, but do call to your attention that this bill is identical in substance with the bill introduced by the distinguished Member of this Congress from Pennsylvania, Hon. Francis E. Walter, a member of this committee, during the 82d Congress, which was passed by the House of Representatives. This committee is thoroughly familiar with the subject matter, having been subjected to exhaustive and extended hearings on every phase of the controversy. It occurs to me that further imposition upon the committee in additional hearings could do no more than provide repetition.

I do want to call to the attention of the committee that the present administration is unqualifiedly committed by the terms of the platform adopted by the Republican Convention duly assembled in Chicago, Ill., in 1952, by straightforward commitments in campaign promises, both written and oral, and by the statements of the present Chief Executive of this Nation, to determine this question in favor of the States bordering on the ocean, as it should have been determined in the first instance. I see no reason for prolonged debate and discussions in the committees on the subject. The issues have been clearly drawn for several years. The Congress has left no doubt in past sessions as to its position. The present administration at the time of adopting its platform and making the promises to the people of this country was fully advised on the subject, or should have been, and I cannot help but be disturbed by further delay and the creation of additional theories concerning the settlement of this question.

Listening to the testimony of the Honorable Herbert Brownell, Attorney General of the United States, when he appeared before this committee on March 3, I was forced to the conclusion that the Attorney General was unfamiliar with the actual issues or was undertaking to advocate a compromise, which could serve only to delay the final determination of the rights involved and at most create additional controversies that are not and should not be a part and parcel of the matter under discussion. It would seem from the testimony of the Attorney General that, in developing his proposed solution, he started from the premise that the only issue involved in the controversy was the amount of dollars and cents each of the coastal States could obtain. Using this premise as a starting point, he seems to conclude that the entire question can be settled by giving some oil and gas and other minerals to the complaining States and thereby put an end to the need for any determination as to the ownership of title to the land. I call to the attention of this committee and to all other interested parties that this controversy, although there has been many printed and spoken words to the contrary, cannot be settled by paying hush money to the Coastal States, and it is my earnest hope that these States will soundly repudiate any proposition that smacks of a compromise of principles. This entire controversy is plainly and simply a boundary dispute. These Coastal States owned the land to their historic boundaries and the Federal Government undertook, by the exercise of its sovereign power, to unite the fee title into the sovereign power and to fix the entire property rights in the Federal Government. This unconscionable theory was supported by the Supreme Court through legal gymnastics in the California, the Texas, and the Louisiana cases. The responsibility to correct this grievous wrong now rests upon the shoulders of Congress. The 82d Congress assumed and discharged that responsibility by passing the tidelands bill, to wit, Senate Joint Resolution 20, the bill that was vetoed by President Harry Truman.

It is my opinion that Congress is again ready to discharge the responsibility of rectifying the wrong by the passage of the same type of legislation. The question is whether or not the new administration is prepared to carry out its unqualified commitments to correct the wrong. The presentation of new theories, as that advanced by Attorney General Brownell, is nothing short of begging the question. There is no need to dodge the question or to try to indulge in further legal mental gymnastics. The Supreme Court has already won the prize in that field, and I do not think that Mr. Brownell can give them much competition. It would become Mr. Brownell and the present administration to forget the dollar mark and consider the matter of principle-the principle upon which the Coastal States stand and also the principle involved in the commitments and promises made by the new Administration concerning this matter. Texans are not prepared, and it has not been their tradition, to compromise their principles for a few paltry dollars. The historic boundaries of Texas have been encroached upon, and this wrong can only be remedied by the withdrawal of the encroacher. Whether or not oil and gas underlies the submerged lands within 3 marine leagues from the low water mark off Texas' coastline is not the question to be

answered. If oil and gas does underlie that land, it is well and good, since the land belongs to Texas and always has, and the proceeds of those minerals should go to Texas. If there is no oil and gas under this strip, Texas still wants what rightfully belongs to her and will not be heard to complain if someone else finds oil and gas under their coastal waters. It is high time that the issue be faced squarely and fairly and that the slippery practices of the past cease. I respectfully commend the committee for the outstanding work that all of its members have done on this problem, and express my appreciation for your kindness in permitting me to appear before you with these remarks.

REMARKS OF HON. GEORGE S. LONG OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee, the United States Government now owns 24 percent of all the land in our mainland. This does not include the Indian reservations.

Besides owning all of this land, our Uncle Sam apparently is bent upon going into this landlord business on a whole-hog basis. Only one other government in the world is a larger landholder. That is Red Russia, which owns or controls all of the land in that Communist country where private ownership is forbidden. Less than 25 years ago the United States Government owned 33 percent of all the land in 11 western States. Today it owns 54 percent of it. This land pays no taxes for the support of our schools, colleges, universities, highways, and other public improvements of local and State governments.

Now, after acquiring ownership of one-quarter of this Nation's soil and a staggering number of dwelling units, the United States is trying to reach out to sea and lay claim to ownership of those areas off the shores of some of our States. The United States seeks to grab the oil and gas in these off-shore areas. Who knows when this grab will be extended to fisheries, port and dock rights, beach facilities, and each and every other use related to our coastal waters?

Whither are we drifting?

Where is all of this to end?

It is a serious, a very critical situation. It constitutes a dire threat to our American system of government. What is to happen to private ownership and development under this new system? Where does it leave free enterprise which is the heart and soul of our American capitalistic system?

It is bad enough that Uncle Sam has gone into the land and housing business in a wholesale way. He at least presumably has a sound and marketable title to these possessions. In the case of the tidelands, he seeks to acquire additional possessions without any just claim to title.

I admit that the United States has paramount power and dominion over navigation, commerce, war activities, cte., but this does not bestow title to the soil and resources in navigable waters upon the United States nor does it destroy title, whether in States or in private owners.

Title of all States in the American Union to the soil and all resources in their navigable waters is supported by the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Independence with the British Crown, entered into in 1783, and several United States Supreme Court decisions.

I do not believe that anyone will dispute the proposition that if the United States does not have title to the submerged lands beneath navigable waters within the respective State boundaries, it is not entitled to them or whatever they may produce.

If we are to intelligently discuss the question of title to these submerged lands, we must look back to the original source of such title. This would, of course, stem back to the time when the original States became free and independent sovereign States under the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

Then, we find that the next link in the States' chain of title to these lands was developed by the provisional treaty which was entered into by and between the original States through the Congress of the Confederation and the British Crown on November 30, 1782, in which we find the following provision:

"Article 1st. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence-Plantations, Connecticut. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent states; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, proprietary and

territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof: and that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz:

"Article 2d. *** East by a line to be drawn along

*the rivers that

fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States."

This provisional treaty was ratified by the definitive treaty on April 11, 1783, between the original States through the Congress of the Confederation of the United States.

Therefore, by both the Declaration of Independence and the treaty with the British Crown which followed the Revolution, the Original Thirteen States were free and independent sovereign States, to whom the British Crown had relinquished not only all claims to the Government, but also all proprietary and territorial rights of the same.

For the next 6 years, or until the United States Constitution was written in the 1787 Convention and ratified, finally, in 1789, the original States functioned under Articles of Confederation, article IX of which provided that, "No State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."

In Harcourt v. Gaillord (12 Wheat. 523) (1827), the United States Supreme Court held, "There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the Confederate States; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the States."

When the Constitution was written by the 1787 Convention of delegates from the original States, they were very careful to provide that the blood-bought right of government and their proprietary and territorial rights confirmed by the treaty with the British Crown in 1783, was made the supreme law of the land by a specific provision in the United States Constitution, which the people of the original States ratified finally in 1789.

Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, provides:

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or lows of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

In this connection, it should be pointed out that on Saturday, August 25, 1787, on motion of Mr. Madison, made in the Convention, article VIII (later made article VI by the Committee on Style and Revision) was reconsidered and, after the words "all treaties made," were inserted the words "or which shall be made," with the explanatory statement: "This insertion was meant to obviate all doubt concerning the force of treaties preexisting, by making the words 'all treaties made' to refer to them, as the words concerned would refer to future treaties" (69th Cong., 1st sess., H. Doc. No. 398, at p. 618).

So it is that the 1783 treaty of the Revolution by which the British Crown relinquished to the original States all "proprietary and territorial rights" of the British Crown became, and is now, the supreme law of the land.

The same article VI of the Constitution requires all Members of Congress, and State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, to support this Constitution, which makes said treaty the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court of the United States has, on more than one occasion, interpreted and confirmed the proprietary rights thus acquired by the original States in all of the submerged lands within their boundaries. This will be clearly seen by a reading of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Martin v. Waddell cited as 16 Peters (41 U. S. 367) and also McCready v. Virginia (94 U. S. 391), both very old cases.

In the McCready case the Supreme Court had this to say:

"The principle has long been settled in this Court, that each State owns the beds of all tidewaters within its jurisdiction, unless they have been granted away. In like manner, the States own the tidewaters themselves, and the fish in them, so far as they are capable of ownership while running. For this purpose the State represents its people, and the ownership is that of the people in their united sovereignty. Citing Martin v. Waddell (1842), supra. The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which in respect to foreign and interstate commerce has been granted to