Mr. WHEELER. I don't know how they could tie these lands up out there without tremendous loss. I may be mistaken about it. Mr. WOODWARD. Secretary Ickes has proposed here in the paper that I read from which he had previously presented to the Judiciary Committee that these lands should be withdrawn and held, and only drilled to prevent drainage. Mr. WHEELER. I don't subscribe to that, at least from what I understand about it. My knowledge of it is very limited and I only get it from talking with my clients. They do not agree with that policy. Mr. WOODWARD. Here are the State lands which draw as high as 522 percent royalty in some cases in Texas, but the oil people who are willing deal with the State and to risk one million or more dollars before they even start a well out in these tidelands. Last November there was paid $14,000,000 to Texas for leases. They are willing to spend $1,250,000, which was an actual case, before they even started a well. That was an individual, by the way. The oil people are willing to do that. The oil industry is willing to do that and pay those high royalties and have local supervision, instead of operating under the Mineral Act which gives them these low royalties, because they prefer to have local supervision, instead of Federal control. Mr. WHEELER. I say that in my judgment the Leasing Act applies, the Court's decision has held in my judgment that it does apply, and my clients who filed prior to 1935 are entitled to have their applications granted by the Interior Department, because the language of the statute amendment of 1935 says that if a person had filed an application prior to 90 days before the passage of that act, the Secretary is ordered and directed to grant his application. Senator MOORE. Have these applications been pending here since 1935? Mr. WHEELER. All of them, yes. I don't want to run away. I will come back at 2:30, if you want me to. Representative COMBS. Mr. Chairman, may I offer an observation at the request of the Senator? I have listened with interest to the fine presentation the Senator has made of his viewpoint. Mr. WHEELER. Thank you. Representative COMBS. I want to say to the Senator that although I am not acquainted with him, I appreciate his work and I appreciate his ability as a lawyer, and the forthrightness with which he states his position. I come from a State which produces more than one-fourth of the oil of this country. Senator MOORE. It must be Texas. Mr. WHEELER. If I may, I will tell you a story about a friend of mine who came from Texas up to Montana. He worked for $150 a month for a while for a newspaper and went out to New York and went to work for the Standard Oil Co. for a while and got into politics and became clerk of one of the big courts there. Representative COMBS. The fact that he got in politics confirms my view he must have been from Texas. Mr. WHEELER. But somebody came to him. They wanted him to draw up deed. He drew up a deed for them, and some contracts. They gave him an interest in some land, deeded him 60 acres of land which he didn't think was any good. He did not think it was worth anything. He didn't file the deed until some prospector came and wanted to drill it. They drilled and got oil and he got a lot of royalties at $5,000 a month for quite a long time. Then he came to me and said, "My God, you ought to help cut down these income taxes." I said, "I thought you were for high income taxes.” He said, "The Rockefellers and the rest of them, you can't get rich now. They have it and you can't get rich." You see, you change your mind, just as Ickes did, at times. Representative COMBS. Senator, let me make this observation, if I may. As I pointed out the question of the tideland oils is one of tremendous importance to my own State, and the district that I represent. And because of the fact that I have served on court benches, I think I know how to ask questions concerning the Supreme Court opinion without violating the rules of deference for our Surpeme Court I want to question you somewhat at length to bring out your views concerning the opinion of the Court, the application of the leasing act, and some other things that I think very vital for us Members of Congress to consider when we come to vote on this legislation. If I may do that? Mr. WHEELER. Yes, indeed. Representative COMBS. With the consent of the committee, of course. Mr. WHEELER. I can't do it now. Senator MOORE. You will be back at 2 o'clock? Mr. WHEELER. I would rather make it 2:30. Senator MOORE. We will probably have other witnesses that we can hear. Mr. WHEELER. I tell you frankly I am late for my appointment, now. Senator MOORE. We will excuse you and then you be back at 2:30 this afternoon. Representative COMBS. Thank you. Mr. COVERT. I want to present the statement of Congressman Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, submitting the statement of the Attorney General of Kansas. Senator MOORE. Very well. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD H. REES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to submit to the subcommittee a statement of Hon. Edward F. Arn, Attorney General of Kansas, in support of legislation acknowledging and reaffirming ownership of tidelands and submerged lands in the respective States. I request this statement to be made a part of the hearings on S. 1988. Mr. Arn has devoted much time and study to this problem and his statement, which also represents my views with respect to this important matter, is as follows: STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. ARN, ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS There is pending in Congress, Senate bill 1988, and similar bills introduced in the House of Representatives, the purpose of which, among other things, is to acknowledge and reaffirm to the several States ownership of tidelands and submerged lands. The State of Kansas cannot be affected by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. California, quite to the extent of the several coastal States, because of its inland location and minimum amount of submerged acreage. However, Kansas does have approximately 66,773 acres within its State boundary lying beneath inland waters, navigable streams. Of this acreage, 5,000 acres is now under oil and gas lease. At the present time considerable quantities of sand are being produced from submerged lands. Further oil and gas development is expected in the future and increased sand production is available and probable. Kansas has substantial resources of lead, zinc, coal, and salt, the production of which may be extended to submerged lands as development increases. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, the State of Kansas received $40,000 from sand royalties, and $20,630.58 from oil and gas royalties and rentals. These revenues go into the State general fund (sec: 71117. G. S. 1935). Our State law authorizes the leasing of submerged lands for such development (sec. 76-112, 76-113, G. S. 1935). Such leases are handled by the State Board of Administration and awarded upon competitive bids (sec. 76-112e, G. S. 1935.) There are few privately owned power dams, minor recreational developments, and piers and docks, particularly along the Missouri and Kansas Rivers in the Kansas City area, constructed upon submerged lands in the State of Kansas. These developments are of minor consequence, but without a methodical survey being made it would be impractical to estimate the value of these developments. Kansas is firmly in accord with the concept that the rights and powers over such submerged lands, now under development and possible of future development, belong to and are vested in the States. The title to submerged lands of the States is clouded by the recent Supreme Court decision in the Case of United States v. California, and the language therein is sufficiently broad to be extended to the soil under navigable inland waters. This cloud of title should be removed by the Congress of the United States in acknowledging and reaffirming such ownership to the States. Dated, February 16, 1948. Senator MOORE. We will recess until 2 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the subcommitte recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m., the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m.) Senator MOORE. The committee will be in order. First I would like to introduce into the record a statement from the Harbor Commissioners of Long Beach, Calif. (The statement is as follows:) RESOLUTION NO. HD-333-A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH PETITIONING the CongrESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ACT FAVORABLY UPON AND ADOPT BILL S. 1988 OR H. R. 4993, PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTEES ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RESPECTIVELY Whereas under certain acts of the Legislature of the State of California, as respectively set forth in Statutes of California 1911, page 1304, Statutes of California 1925, page 235, and Statutes of California 1935, page 794, the State of California did grant to the city of Long Beach "all of the right, title, and interest of the State of California, held by said State by virtue of its sovereignty, in and to all of the tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, bordering upon, under and situated below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean, or of any harbor, estuary, bay, or inlet, which are within the corporate limits of said city," in trust, to be used by the city solely for the establishment, improvement, and conduct of a harbor and for the construction of wharves, docks, piers, and structures necessary or convenient for the promotion and accommodation of navigation and commerce, and for public parks, parkways, highways, and playgrounds; and Whereas the ocean frontage of the city of Long Beach on San Pedro Bay, bordering the Pacific Ocean, consists of 8.11 miles, and the submerged lands within said city limits conveyed by the aforesaid grants consist of 13,027 acres. of which 580 acres have been reclaimed and filled at the expense of said city, and harbor improvements have been constructed and are under process of construction at a total cost exceeding $33,000,000, providing for in excess of 12,000 lineal feet of wharves and docks, accommodating 25 berths, 17 miles of railroad trackage, open and covered cargo storage areas consisting of in excess of 170 acres: and Whereas the total tonnage of cargo handled during the 12-month period ending December 31, 1947, over said municipal docks constructed upon reclaimed tide and submerged lands, including imports and exports, amounted to 1,144.55 tons, and the city received during said period revenue for the use of said harbor facilities incident to the movement of said cargo the sum of $697,500.45; and Whereas in the case of United States of America v. California (No. 12 Orginal), the United States Supreme Court, on June 23, 1947, rendered a decision holding that the Federal Government has certain paramount powers with respect to the "3-mile marginal belt" lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark the coast of California and outside the inland waters of the State of California, and that the State of California has no title thereto or property interest there; and Whereas it is believed that San Pedro Bay constitutes an inland water body of the State of California and that all of the tide and submerged lands granted to the city by the State heretofore mentioned lie within San Pedro Bay as such bay is demarked from the "3-mile marginal belt," however, such matter has not yet been determined by the Supreme Court in said litigation; and Whereas in the Government's brief in the case of United States of America v. California, the theory of State ownership of inland navigable waters and tide waters is attacked as "erroneous," "unsound," "wrong," "fallacy," and a "legal fiction," and it is believed that the theory announced by the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in said case as the basis for the decision rendered therein can be equally applied to the title and ownership of all lands underlying inland waters; and Whereas the expenditure of millions of dollars of public funds by the city of Long Beach in the development of tide and submerged lands conveyed to it by the State has been made in good faith and in reliance upon the rule of property that the title to said lands has vested in the States and their grantees as an nounced by more than 50 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and confirmed by 244 decisions of Federal and State courts, 31 rulings of Secre taries of the Interior, and 49 opinions of Attorneys General of the United States, Now, therefore, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The city of Long Beach, by and through the board of harbor commis sioners of said city, does hereby petition the Congress of the United States to act favorably upon and adopt bill S. 1988 or H. R. 4999, pending before the Committees on the Judiciary of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. respectively, or similar legislation, whereby the Federal Government shall recog nize, confirm, establish, and vest in the respective States and their respective grantees and all persons lawfully entitled thereto title to and ownership of all lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States, and the natural resources within such lands and waters, and the right and power to control, develop, and use said natural resources in accordance with applicable State law, to the end that by said legislation the city of Long Beach shall not be disturbed in its rights, title, and possession in and to lands beneath navigable waters within its corporate limits conveyed to it by the State of California, and the right and power to control, develop, and use the natural resources within such lands. SEC. 2. That the city attorney be, and he is hereby, authorized and requested to present to the Members of Congress and the appropriate committees thereof all matters pertinent to favorable action on and adoption by the Congress of bill S. 1988 or H. R. 4999 and/or similar legislation, and transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the members of the Com mittees on the Judiciary of the United States Senate and House of Representa tives, and to the United States Senators and Members of the House of Representatives from California. SEC. 3. The secretary of the board shall certify to the passage of this resolution by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, and it shall thereupon take effect. SEC. 4. The secretary of the board shall cause this resolution to be published once in the Long Beach Independent, the official newspaper of the city of Long Beach. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, at its meeting of February 9, 1948, by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daubney, Parr, Rochester, Walker, Martin. GEO. ROCHESTER, Secretary of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. I hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. HD-333, resolutions of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, Calif., as same appears in the official records of said board. [SEAL] ALVIN K. MADDY, Executive Secretary of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Senator MOORE. Now we have the statement of Mr. Benjamin C. Marsh, the secretary of People's Lobby, Inc. STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN C. MARSH, SECRETARY OF PEOPLE'S LOBBY, INC. Mr. MARSH. I am going to make a brief statement and then file a long brief. Senator MOORE. I will give you 10 minutes in which to present your oral testimony. That will be long enough, will it not? Mr. MARSH. I appreciate the compliment, but I am not sure that it is fully deserved. I think it may take 15 minutes. Senator MOORE. I will confine it to 10 minutes, and then I will consider as you go along, maybe I will want to hear more of it. Mr. MARSH. Mr. Chairman, this bill is the most remarkable bill, I think, that I have ever seen before Congress in my 30 years here of studying economic gyrations of Congress. It seems to me it does three things: First. It attempts to recall a judicial decision. You may remember that some 40 years ago a gentleman who then rated as a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, suggested at Osawatomie, Kans., if people did not like the decisions of the courts they should recall them. Well, this bill attempts to do that, as I see it. I think that that is the intention. Second. It seeks to strip Uncle Sam of all of the rights apparently that he has in the resources of the United States. Third. It attempts, on page 5 of the bill, to make State courts superior to the Supreme Court of the United States. I guess the proper term is to make them paramount. I want, on behalf of the consumers of America, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to thank you for your self-restraint in not depriving Uncle Sam of the right to provide for defense and the right to tax the common people to increase the salaries of Members of Congress. That authority is still left to them. The other day there was some discussion as to how to find out how much money is being spent on this bill, and I think that the representatives of the States-I believe 46 States, if I remember correctly-made a pretty good statement. I have a strong suspicion that the oil companies have had something to do with this, and being a lobbyist myself, I know that if the oil companies have obeyed the law they have made |