that then they were told by propagandists as to what was going on, similar to what I have shown you here this morning, to the effect that they were going to come out and they were going to take this tract of land, not only the oil companies but the power companies all over the country have been contending in the streams of Montana that the Government did not have any right. But the Supreme Court said that in the Missouri River and the Mississippi River and all of the rest of the rivers, that the Government had a right to go in and build dams and take the water out of the river and use it for irrigation and reclamation and build a power company to do it.

Representative CоMBS. Let us get back to these ignorant governors. Governor Warren journeyed a long way to plead with this committee for this bill.

Mr. WHEELER. I can understand the Governor of California doing it, because the political pressure that would be put on the Governor of California by his constituents would be great; and if he wanted to be reelected to the governorship of California or any other place, he could not be elected if he came down here and advocated anything else.

Representative COMBS. If it is an oil-company proposition, do you think the oil companies run California?

Mr. WHEELER. I do not think that they run it, but I know that they have tremendous influence out there. I happen to know something about California, but I do not care to go into it and tell you all of it; but I can tell you this: That I know that they have tremendous political influence in the State of California, and I know it not from hearsay but I know it as a matter of fact.

Anybody else who knows anything about California knows that that is true. He knows it just the same as he knows that the railroads used to dominate the political scenes in the State of North Dakota and in the State of Iowa and in these other States.

Now, listen, you are not so naive; there may be a lot of people in this country that are naive enough to believe that the oil companies in California do not exert tremendous political pressure, and there may be people in this country who believe that the power companies do not exert tremendous pressure; and there may be people who believe that the railroads and the other big interests do not exert tremendous political pressure in this country, but I cannot believe that you, as a Member of Congress from the State of Texas, knowing the influence that the oil companies have in Texas, would not know it.

Representative COMBS. Let us drive a peg right there. Governor Warren, of California, does not belong to my political party, but I want to tell you something about that.

Mr. WHEELER. He had the support of both the New Dealers and the Republicans down there.

Representative COMBS. Let me sound off a little now, please.
Mr. WHEELER. You are doing pretty well.

Representative COMBS. I met some people out there, and that Governor out there impressed me as a fellow with lots of brains and a man who loves his State; and he journeyed across the continent to come here and plead for these tidelands. But let us suppose that he was motivated by the fact that California stands to lose their valuabie lands, and, mind you, it is only our States and not the oil companies that will lose. It is the people of California that will lose on this.

Mr. WHEELER. So will the people of Montana lose and so would the people of Montana, again, if you gave the public lands back to the State of Montana, just as much as the people of California would gain if you give these oil lands back to California.

Representative COMBS. Let us go a little further. Let us skip California and Texas, and let us assume that we are venal and that we are just run by oil companies.

Mr. WHEELER. Now, wait a minute. I do not say the people of California are venal, and I do not say that the people of Texas are venal. I do not think that the people, as a rule, in this country are venal, and I do not think that the politicians of this country are venal, as a rule. There are some crooked politicians, but there are a lot of honest politicians. I do not say any people are venal; but I do say this, that any controlling interest or any big interest in any State does have political influence in that State; and you cannot tell me that you are naive enough to believe that that is the truth.

Let me tell you a little story about when I first came to the Senate of the United States.

Senator MOORE. It seems to me that this has resolved itself into a historical discussion, and I did not understand that this is a partisan matter at all.

Representative COMBS. Let me make a comment, Senator. I did not mean to go into that, but since the Senator has made that statement, I want to call attention to the fact that we should leave out the oil States. Here is the Governor of North Carolina that has not an oil well in the whole State, and the governors and attorney gen erals that have not a drop of oil in them were here. Surely they had not been pressured by oil companies or oil lobbyists.

Mr. WHEELER. I was told by a Senator last night, a prominent Senator of the United States, that a certain prominent oil man that is well known, and his name has been mentioned, was getting his Gover nor to come up here.

Representative COMBS. That is just hearsay that you are repeating. Mr. WHEELER. I am repeating what the Senator told me last night. and I do not know anything about it. I have been in politics a long time, and I did not intend to get into this discussion, but I know it: and let me just say this to you: When I first came to the Senate there was an old gentleman that was a clerk who had been here for years and years. He came to me one day and he said to me, "You are going to get a vote today that you do not expect to get." I said, "Why?" He told me the reason why, because of certain influences.

Now, I do not care who the man is, and I do not care how good he is or anything else. When he comes to the Senate of the United States from his State, he has to represent, if he is honest, and if he properly represents them, he has got to represent the interests of that particular State and there is nothing wrong about that.

this

After all, when you are elected, you do not simply represent class of people or that class of people or this particular class of people. You ought to represent all the people of your State; and if the oil interests in California or in Texas are a powerful interest down there and it is to their interest that you are elected from Texas or that dis trict, you have to, as a matter of fact, if yout to serve the people of your State, pay attention to what those people think.

Representative COMBS. The oil companies do not cast near as many votes in Texas as the people.

Mr. WHEELER. Now, wait a minute.

Representative COMBS. Let us not go into that argument.

Mr. WHEELER. Do not try to kid me, because I am too old in the game to be kidded.

Senator MOORE. I might enjoy getting into this discussion; I believe that I could offer some observations that have occurred to me, but I do not think it is pertinent to the bill that we have got under consideration here. This is a bill that was introduced, Senator, as you know, and I think originally you know the history of it; it was sponsored by, I believe, Senator McCarran and Senator Knowland, and myself. I believe the first bill was.

Then I think it was introduced in the Senate again by myself and Senator McCarran, and Senator Knowland. They were the same people. Twenty Senators volunteered themselves to join in the sponsorship of this thing. I believe that it happened to be that 10 of them are Democrats and 10 of them are Republicans. So it was furthest from my mind that there was any politics in it at all, or any basis for any political discussion with reference to it.

Representative COMBS. If I got on politics, I did not intend to. Mr. WHEELER. I am not questioning the motives of anybody. Senator Pat McCarran and I have agreed probably as much as any two men in the Senate of the United States, and the distinguished chairman here is a Republican, and I have been a Democrat, but I think that he and I agreed in the Senate of the United States on most propositions almost as much as any other two men, regardless of politics; and I have nothing but the very highest regard and considered him one of my best friends. But because of the fact that you disagree on the philosophy or you disagree on legal propositions, does not mean that you impute to anybody motives; but I do say that regardless of whether I am in the Senate or who is in the Senate, I have to listen to my constituents, and many times my constituents own newspapers and they had very powerful influence in my State. They fought me a good many times.

Representative COMBS. I want to conclude with this observation. Mr. Chairman, it had not been my purpose to inject partisan matters. There are 46 States here.

Senator MOORE. They just naturally come up in a discussion.

Representative COMBS. There are 46 States represented by Democrats and Republicans, and I have an abiding faith in the people to select honest attorneys general and Governors. While there may be exceptions here and there, I think the people who came from all of the States, North and South and East and West, were motivated by high principles and what they conceived to be the interest of their State and their Nation.

Mr. WHEELER. I have not disputed that in the slightest degree. Senator MOORE. Is there anything else?

Representative COMBS. That is all. You have been very patient with me, and I had not intended to prolong the discussion.

Mr. WHEELER. I enjoyed the discussion.

Senator MOORE. There is a limit, of course, to what we can go into here.

Thank you very much, Senator Wheeler.

I want to introduce in the record at this time an editorial from the Oakland Tribune, entitled "Attorney General's 'Lawsuit Veto' Plan Could Outdo Filibuster in Obstruction."

(It is as follows:)

[Editorial from the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune, March 5, 1948]

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S "LAWSUIT VETO" PLAN COULD OUTDO FILIBUSTER IN

OBSTRUCTION

The extremes to which the Attorney General of the United States seems willing to go in efforts to block legislation to quitclaim tidelands to the States is legiti mate cause for concern. His actions, approaching those of a rabid partisan closer than those of a legal authority presenting his case, cannot fail to suggest there are some forces in bureaucratic Washington determined to invade States' rights and seize property for a central authority, even if they have to adopt desperate

means.

Announcement by Attorney General Clark that he now intends to sue Texas for its tidelands "within a month or two" is tip-off to procedure as well as another warning that a dispute first held to be of concern solely to California and Washington concerns all States with tidelands and possibly all States with marginal lands on lakes and rivers. Admitted before the present hearing at Washington, the plan to be followed by the Attorney General is to file suits, one by one, against the Coastal States.

LOW

* *

*

When President Truman vetoed former legislation to quitclaim the tidelands, he did so because a suit had been filed. If he follows that pattern, he will veto any new legislation on the subject just so long as the Attorney General is successful in keeping a suit on file. As Chairman E. H. Moore, of the joint congressional subcommittee, asked of Mr. Clark, "So, if you file a suit against Texas you could file a suit against Louisiana next year and again it could be said that Congress could not act while that suit was pending?" Procedure of the kind, if recognized generally as it was recognized in the President's veto and appears to be in practice by the Attorney General, could outdo the worst of filibusters in blocking legislation. Under it all that would be necessary to stop a law approved by a majority in Congress would be the filing of a suit by the law's opponents. What a club this would be in the hands of any administration determined to have its own way despite popular will.

There is no legal justification for such a course. The rights of Congress to enact legislation under all circumstances cannot be questioned. If maneuvers of the kind now admitted were successful, we could have one move toward the establishment of a precedent and be a step nearer to a lawsuit-veto power by which needed legislation, at any time, could be blocked.

Senator MOORE. I want to introduce for the record a statement by Mr. Donald J. Chaney, of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

(It is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DONALD J. CHANEY, CHIEF COUNSEL, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. FOR THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE SENATE ON HOUSE JOINT RES OLUTION 299

The Fish and Wildlife Service does not advocate the assumption by the Federal Government of the control and administration of coastal fisheries which have hitherto been exercised by the various States. The pattern of State control and regulation of these fishery resources has long been established. It is conceded that such a system presents certain defects, particularly when migratory species frequenting the waters of a number of States are involved. Likewise, when a productive fishing area, such as the Chesapeake Bay, is subject to the territorial jurisdiction of several of the States, serious problems of administration arise and in some instances may impair conservation of fish and shellfish. For many species of fish, uniformity of regulation is highly desirable, and such uniformity has not been achieved to any great degree. It is believed, however, that recent developments offer an encouraging prospect that these disadvantages will be overcome gradually.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, authorized by Congress and established in 1942, is an official agency designed to bring about coordination and uniformity in State fisheries administration. Its general purpose is indicated by the title of the authorizing legislation, "An act granting the consent and approval of Congress to an interstate compact relating to the better integration of the fisheries (marine, shell, and anadromous) of the Atlantic Seaboard and creating the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Public Law 539, Seventy-seventh Congress." In the relatively limited time since its organization, it has progressed toward this goal, and there is every reason to hope for more concrete results in the future. In 1947 a similar interstate agency, including ali of the Pacific Coast States, was authorized by Congress, and is now in process of organization. Similar action is pending among the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In a short time the Coastal States, which have the paramount interest in inshore fisheries problems, will be joined in confederations that ultimately should bring about great improvement in the management of the commercial fisheries. Many of these States already handle this responsibility most effectively, and the trend is distinctly toward improving the level of State regulation and administration. Any attempt to assume these responsibilities by the Federal Government would interrupt this trend and substitute a period of uncertainty and confusion. The Federal Government could not take over the responsibilities now exercised by the States without establishing new and greatly enlarged machinery for that purpose. While the Federal Government can be of material assistance to the States by carrying on research that will develop the basic facts upon which sound management can be based, the application of these principles can be done efficiently through the local State agencies having a greater familiarity with local resources and needs. It is true that conflicts may arise in connection with the conduct of fishing operations by nonresidents of certain States. It would not seem, however, that these conflicts would necessarily be any more complicated than those which may arise in other State relationships having to do with resource or industrial developments.

The foregoing comments refrain from any reference to broader considerations of basic relationships between the State and Federal governments, and are an attempt to analyze the pending proposal as to fisheries in the light of practicalities.

In summary, it is the opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service that the action proposed, with respect to fisheries, in Joint Resolution 299 will provide no benefits which may not be achieved within a reasonable time as an outcome of the current policy to permit and encourage the States to join with each other for the purpose of conserving and managing more wisely the inshore fishery resources. It is believed that time should be allowed for this approach, which has had less than a decade of actual trial, to prove itself before substituting a different concept.

The role of the Federal Government with respect to fisheries regulation and administration in high seas areas, external to the commonly accepted State boundaries, is not discussed here simply because those problems in any event are outside of the scope of the pending legislation.

Senator MOORE. Here is a telegram from John O. Pastore, Governor of Rhode Island, that I am offering for the record.

(It is as follows:)

Gov. BEAUFORD F. JESTER,

PROVIDENCE, R. I., February 24, 1948.

Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D. C. DEAR GOVERNOR JESTER: I regret I cannot attend the hearings on tidelands legislation because of previous commitments. You may place me on record as being in favor of such legislation in accordance with resolution passed at the Governors' Conference.

JOHN O. PASTORE, Governor of Rhode Island.

Senator MOORE. I have a letter here, a resolution of the executive committee of the United States Wholesale Grocers' Association, Inc., of Washington, D. C.

(It is as follows:)