UNITED STATES WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., RESOLUTION OF UNITED STATES WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. Whereas since the formation of the United States, ownership of land beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the separate States has been recognized as belonging to the respective States; and Whereas the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. California holds that regardless of "mere property ownership" the Federal Government has paramount power to take the natural resources from beneath such lands along the coast due to its responsibility for national defense and international relations, thereby creating a new theory of law which clouds State rights, property, and revenues, and may be extended later even to private property; and Whereas governors and attorneys general of 46 States, the American Bar Association, National Reclamation Association, American Association of Port Authorities, and many other organizations have called upon Congress to confirm State ownership of these lands and make it clear that State an 1 private property cannot be taken except by due process of law and with just compensation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the executive committee of the United States Wholesale Grocers' Association, Inc., at a special called meeting in Washington, D. C., this 27th day of February, 1948, That we endorse the proposed legislation now being considered in Senate bill 1988 and recommend its adoption and approval by the President; and that a copy of this resolution be sent to Members of Congress and President Truman. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES WHOLESALE GROCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., W. A. LIVINGSTON, President. Senator MOORE. I have also for the record a resolution adopted by the National Reclamation Association of Phoenix, Ariz. (It is as follows:) RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION AT PHOENIX, ARIZ. Whereas since the founding of the Republic, the several States have been uniformly recognized as the owners of the navigable waters and lands beneath such waters within their respective boundaries: Now, therefore be it Resolved by the National Reclamation Association, That we earnestly urge the Congress to take immediate action through such surrender of title or interest as may be necessary declaring the law to be substantially as follows: (1) That the exercise of the Federal Government's paramount powers in national defense, international affairs, and commerce shall not of itself be interpreted as vesting any proprietary interest in the land or resources so defended or dealt with; and (2) That except as to those lands which the Government has previously acquired by purchase, condemnation, or donation, the respective States own the title to all lands beneath the navigable waters within their boundaries, which as to coastal States includes the marginal shelf, subject to such regulatory powers in the Federal Government as may be necessary in exercising its constitutional powers of, and in, national defense, commerce, and international affairs. Resolved further, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Member of Congress, President Harry S. Truman, Attorney General Tom Clark, Secretary of the Interior J. A. Krug, and the governor and attorney general of each State. And resolved further, That the board of directors and officers of the association be directed to cooperate with and assist the governors and attorneys general of the States in their continued Nation-wide organization and campaign for suitable congressional action to accomplish such purposes. Senator MOORE. Now, the next witness is Mr. Donelan. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. DONELAN, REPRESENTING HAVEMEYERS & ELDER, INC., AND BROOKLYN EASTERN DISTRICT TERMINAL, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. DONELAN. My name is John F. Donelan. I am a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia. I represent Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, both of which companies have their offices at 111 Broadway, New York City, N. Y. In behalf of Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, I wish to support and endorse Senate bill 1988, presently under consideration by your subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., has held and presently holds title in fee simple to properties along the water front of Brooklyn, N. Y. Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., has a very substantial investment in valuable waterside facilities constructed on filled-in land along the Brooklyn water front. These properties are presently under lease to the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, its wholly owned subsidiary, a corporation organized under the terminal corporation law of the State of New York. It is a truism to state that at the present time by virtue of the so-called tidelands controversy, the title and interest of these companies in these properties, either as owner or lessee, have been placed in jeopardy. The uncertainties arising out of the tidelands controversy, including the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. California, are a matter of grave concern to companies such as those whom I here represent and many others similarly situated, who in reliance upon title clearly validated previously by the acts of the legislature and the decisions of the courts of the States concerned have invested great amounts of capital in the development of their enterprises. Senate bill 1988 faces this critical issue squarely and offers a sound and proper solution. Accordingly, Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal strongly support and endorse Senate bill 1988. Senator MOORE. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF PRICE DANIEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS-Resumed Mr. DANIEL. When I stepped aside last time I was making the point that has been discussed here more recently by Senator Wheeler, that the Court specifically had before it the contention of the Department. of Justice that the Federal Government owned these lands and had proprietorship in them. I had reviewed the fact that in the 258-page Government brief only ownership was contended for, and nothing about this theory of paramount rights carrying with it what some would say amounts to the right that otherwise used to go with ownership. Then I had read from Attorney General Tom Clark's speech where he talks about proprietorship, and that is all they are after, about six times. Now I would like to review the fact that the Court in its opinion said that the crucial question was not merely who owns the bare legal title to these lands. The United States here asserts rights in two capacities, that is what they said. The Court said that is not the question that they are going to decide, who owns the land. These two rights that the Court says are controlling in this case are said to be national defense and international affairs. Those are responsibilities of the Federal Government. Then, the Court sets out what the question is that they are going to decide in this opinion, and here is what the Court says about the question: In the light of the foregoing, our question is whether the State or the Federal Government has the paramount right and power to determine in the first instance when, how, and by what agencies, foreign or domestic, the oil, and other resources of the soil of the marginal sea, known or hereafter discovered, may be exploited. That is the question the Court says that they are going to decide. Who, in the first instance, the Federal Government or the State, has the paramount right to determine who shall exploit these minerals. Then when it ends up, as has been pointed out here many times. the Court does not say anything about who has the ownership of these lands, except that California, for the reasons stated, does not have ownership; and goes on to say what the Federal Government has is a paramount right in and power over it. What kind of paramount right in and power over it is that? The paramount right is to decide who shall take these minerals. Now, that is our interpretation of the decision, and I say to the committee that it was the interpretation of the decision given by the Justice Department. Otherwise, why did the Justice Department in its request for a decree want to insert the word "proprietorship" in the decree? If they were satisfied that these paramount rights included ownership and proprietorship, why were they not satisfied to write their decree or ask the Court to enter the decree just exactly like the opinion of the Court reads? We know why they were not, they were not satisfied, the Court had not gone on their theory of the case and had not said a thing about ownership or proprietorship being in the Federal Government. Therefore, in their proposed decree, as has been heretofore pointed out, the Government asked for the decree to read as follows: The United States of America is now and has been at all times pertinent hereto possessed of paramount rights of proprietorship in and full dominion and power over the lands, minerals and so forth. In addition to asking for a judgment of paramount rights and full dominion and power over them, they want to say "of proprietorship." Now, here is the point that has not come out in this hearing, within my knowledge, and that is that this question of whether or not the Court's opinion was intended to cover proprietorship was specifically raised before the Supreme Court of the United States. The National Association of Attorneys General filed a brief in the Court objecting to those words "of proprietorship" being in this decree. That was filed by our association. The first point of our brief. on pages 4 through 8, had to do with this specific point, asking the Court not to put those words "of proprietorship" in the decree, because their opinion did not decide the Federal Government had any proprietorship or ownership. In this brief we set out exactly the argu ment that has been made by the National Association of Attorneys General here. We set out that the word "dominion" as used in the Court's opinion evidently, since they were not going to decide the question of ownership, that was not the question before them, they said, and it was not the transcending question, that evidently the Court meant by the word "dominion" the same as the general definition used by Webster, "power over or control." Webster lists the words "control," "rule," "authority," and "jurisdiction" as synonyms of the word "dominion." And in this brief here is what we asked the Court to do: Proprietorship is, in legal terms, synonymous with fee simple ownership and exclusive control. Since the Government is interpreting the use of the terms "paramount rights" and "dominion" in the opinion to mean ownership and is seeking that it be so decreed in the language "of proprietorship," and since other confusion may arise if the Court's true meaning of the terms is not written into the decree, it is respectfully urged that the Court clarify the matter in the decree entered, as follows: * * Here is our suggestion to the Court: Omit the words "of proprietorship" in line 3 of numbered paragraph 1 of the proposed decree. And that is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States did. The words "of proprietorship" were stricken from that decree. I submit to the committee that the question of whether the Court meant to include ownership or proprietorship was squarely before it there, and that their striking it out of that decree ought to be good enough for any lawyer and good enough for the Congress to let them know that the Court did not mean for paramount rights and control to cover fee simple ownership or proprietorship. It was before the Court in another way. Robert Lee Jordan's brief filed in the Court pointed out to the Court that the word "ownership" ought to be written in the decree. That brief evidently was not acted on. Anyway, it was before the Court. The suggestion was there for the Court to do that, and the Court refused to do it. So much for that point as far as the law is concerned. In completing my rebuttal testimony, I would like to sum up as far as the States are concerned, with this thought: Throughout these hearings there has been no criticism of State operations on these lands; no direct criticism. There has been some sweeping language by Secretary Ickes and a few more about the way the States run their control of the oil business and supervision, but there has been no specific, definite criticism of the way the States operate. Attorney General Tom Clark and Secretary Krug complimented the way the industry had handled itself and the way the States were handling conservation. Mr. Krug said there was only one State that he knew of that was not doing a good job of it. It gets down on this matter of policy to whether or not you want to follow the suggestions that have been made here by the Government or the suggestions made by Secretary Ickes and Senator Wheeler. Here is what is before you. Their proposal, instead of giving this property where it belongs and making sure that the States have itas they have always thought they had it, and the courts always heretofore believed they had it, using the words of Justice Black himself, whether or not you want to follow the Government's proposal or Senator Wheeler's and Secretary Ickes' proposals. The Government proposes to fix it so that you can have some naval reserves, but in their proposed bill they fix it where the Secretary of Interior can go on and lease this property, large tracts, just like they are leasing other lands now. On this naval-reserve proposition, I want to say to you that all of the patriotism in this country is not centered in Washington. These governers and these attorneys general have just as much patriotism and love this Nation of ours, the United States, as much as any people who are staying here in Washington and connected with the Federal Government; and I, as one citizen willing to put national defense ahead of everything else, want to go on record to say that I think the worst thing in the world you can do for national defense of this country is to set aside the oil properties as petroleum reserves and have it where it is not ready to be used immediately when we might need it for national defense. Attorney General Tom Clark said that was one of the things that they were considering, to establish petroleum reserves like Teapot Dome. What an illustration. That is one reason we are against naval reserves. We do not want any more Teapot Domes or any more Elk Hills, where the Government cannot get the oil out of the ground fast enough to save the lives of boys whom we were serving with. This naval reserve and national defense has been put up as a smoke screen and not the real thing people are after. I think that I can illustrate that best by recalling former Secretary of the Interior Ickes' testimony. He sat here in this chair and told the committee that it was his idea that this property ought to be set aside for naval reserves. There is your smoke screen to get plenty of popular appeal behind their idea. That is for the purpose of getting it in the hands of the Federal Government. Then, before he left this stand, he told the committee what he really thought ought to be done with it after the Federal Government got hold of it under the pretense of naval reserves and national defense. He told the committee he thought the Mineral Leasing Act applies to all of these lands and criticized the solicitor of the Interior Department and Attorney General Clark for holding to the contrary. So he thinks the Mineral Leasing Act ought to apply to these lands. That would mean all this proposed naval reserve on the California coast would go out at 25 cents an acre to these 1,021 lease applicants who have their applications on file like Senator Wheeler's clients. The whole coast of California. All these pretended naval reserves would go out to individuals at two bits an acre, individuals whose ability to produce oil is unknown; nothing has been said about them at all. On the Texas and Louisiana coast practically every prospect for oil would go out at 25 cents an acre to these individuals and Kansas City oil co-ops who have filed these applications under the Mineral Leasing Act. So, I think it is evident to the committee that there is some double talk in this thing. They talk naval reserve and national defense to try to get the popular appeal to get this property in the hands of the Federal Government, but they have shown their true intent to let this property go out on leases of 25 cents an acre to these people, these many applicants. I have fixed up a little chart here, based on the applications filed with the Department of the Interior, 1,021 of them, to give a summary to the committee on what the Department of the Interior itself reports |