A 12-year history of Texas crude-oil production-Continued The term "liquid hydrocarbons" as used here covers all liquefiable hydrocarbons recovered from gas wells and casinghead wells by natural gasoline plants, cycling plants, and field separators; includes condensate, natural gasoline, butane-propane, and other products. The recommendation from the Petroleum Administrator for War includes crude oil and condensate (see the notation above on liquid hydrocarbons which is the term for condensate as used by the PAW). *Bureau of Mines Estimate came back into the picture November 1945. Mr. WOODWARD. Do you know whether any of the oil operators in your State and other tideland areas will testify here with reference to the regulations under which they now operate as compared with Fed eral regulations, and with reference to the national defense question that you mention here in your statement? Governor JESTER. I don't think there have been any such plans, but] suppose that under the Senator's suggestion it might be well to have such testimony. Since the committee has asked for it, that may be a good thing to do Senator DONNELL. It is getting somewhat late. May I interrogate the witness very briefly on one further point for a moment? Governor, the Court did hold, as indicated, and I quote its deci sion Senator MOORE. I will be glad to give you the opportunity afte lunch, but it is so uncertain where you will terminate the discussion, am getting a little weak. Senator DONNELL. That is very proper. That is all right. Senator MOORE. I want to introduce in the record here a statemen by the attorney general, Alan Bible, of the State of Nevada: Hon. E. H. MOORE, DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee, Senate Joint Resolution 14 and S, 1988 Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The State of Nevada appears before your honorable committee by the undersigned Alan Bible, its attorney general, and requests that this state ment may be taken in lieu of personal testimony before the committee on the subject matter. The State of Nevada favors the passage of the resolution and bill mentioned, not in defiance of any finding of title, per se, by the Supreme Court in the California case (if such a finding was made) and not in defiance of Federal supremacy in a Federal emergency, justifying in a particular case the exercise of rights of condemnation or expropriation, but in conformity with the traditional and historical position of the States from their inception and even back to colonial times, which position has long ripened to a rule of property, both by custom and the decisions of courts over a century of usage. No countervailing titles or equities have arisen justifying in our view the establishment of new titles by the fiat of the Supreme Court. We feel Congress alone has the function to determine the question as a political question and in any event has the peremptory right to quitclaim and quiet title to the subject matter. The subcommittee membership includes Hon. Pat McCarran, senior Senator from Nevada, whose position in this matter both as a Senator and as a distinguished and authoritative citizen of Nevada may be said to be judicially noticed by this committee. We do not suggest any divided allegiance in this matter. On the contrary we insist the continued prosperity and existence of our Nation must rest on a continued observance by the central government of those rights of the States and the people not delegated to it, but in this case expressly reserved. Senate Report No. 1290, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, page three, sets forth the unassailable title of the States to lands under navigable waters (in the States) and we urge there is no reason for the Senate to depart from that declaration. While it may be claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the California case is directed specifically to the marginal sea, there is nothing in it which in principle prevents the extension of the doctrine to all submerged lands including those under navigable lakes and rivers in the respective States. The latter lands are not a part of or subject to the laws respecting the public domain. As to any parmount need or force which might operate to impel central Government to move in on State territory, we feel there is now showing setting this up as authority for the contemplated action. We cite the dissents of Justices Reed and Frankfurter on this point and we respectfully urge that the departure excused by the Supreme Court decision will if persisted in, wreck the security, the unity and the future existence of our Federal Government and our Nation as we know them. Very truly yours, ALAN BIBLE, Attorney General. We will recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, the joint subcommittee recessed at 12: 40 p. m., until p. m., of the same day, February 24, 1948.) AFTERNOON SESSION The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., upon the expiration of the cess. Senator MOORE. The committee will come to order, please. All right, Senator Donnell. STATEMENT OF HON. BEAUFORD H. JESTER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS-Resumed Senator DONNELL. Governor Jester, you mentioned this morning he fact that the Republic of Texas was in debt prior to the entry of he State of Texas into the Union. Is that right? Governor JESTER. That is correct, sir. Senator DONNELL. And was the amount of that indebtedness approximately $12,000,000? Governor JESTER. Approximately $12,000,000. Senator DONNELL. Was it arranged that the State of Texas was to remain responsible for that debt? Governor JESTER. Yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. And was it the understanding that the United States of America, in consideration of Texas' remaining responsible for the debt, allowed Texas to retain its public lands? Governor JESTER. That is correct, sir. Senator DONNELL. Now, in that connection, Governor, do you attach any significance to that rention of public lands, as applied to the situation we have here, this marginal belt controversy? Governor JESTER. Yes. Precisely, sir. Senator DONNELL. What is the importance which you attach to that retention of public lands by Texas? Governor JESTER. That, the matter being directly at issue and the Federal Government expressly providing that the State would retain them, I think it is certainly clear that Texas has, since its entry into the Union, had title to its public lands, including its offshore lands. Senator DONNELL. So you think that title to the offshore land, the land under the marginal belt, starting from the low-water mark and going out seaward, is vested in Texas because of the fact that the Federal Government allowed Texas to retain its public lands. Is that right? Governor JESTER. It was one of the conditions of entry into the Union that was expressly in issue. Senator DONNELL. So that you consider that the fact that Texas was allowed to retain public lands meant that Texas was entitled to retain as a part of those public lands the lands underneath the ocean starting at the low-water mark and extending seaward. Is that right? Governor JESTER. Yes, sir. And in our instances the boundary of Texas gulfward, under the constitution of 1836, as well as the constitutioon of 1845, was three marine leagues. |