Senator MOORE. There are three here.

Senator DONNELL. There is only one from the Power Commission. The members of the Power Commission are unanimous in regard to this amendment, as I understand it.

Mr. GATCHELL. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. And their lawyer, himself, thinks that another amendment would be better than the one they bring in, which without any desire to be critical about it, but with a desire to be sure that we are doing the right thing, immediately raises a red flag in front of me as to whether we are doing the right thing in adopting an opinion which in your opinion as a lawyer is inferior to the one you are yourself suggesting.

Mr. GATCHELL. Senator, I think the amendment which the Commission has submitted would amply protect the interests of the United States. I think it would cause a lot less query later on if you simply struck out the words that are put into the Commission's report on page 4.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Mr. GATCHELL. That is my personal view. I think that the official view will protect the interests of the United States in every way that you need, with the exceptions that I have mentioned.

Senator DONNELL. Those exceptions may be rather important, and I am not so sure that we ought to be passing legislation here with the protection of the United States interests only to a limited extent and subject to exceptions. The United States today, according to the decision in the California case, has these paramount rights and dominion and power as against the State of California, at any rate, over those lands.

Senator MOORE. Over the fish, too.

Senator DONNELL. Fish are not mentioned in there. I do not know about that. There may be quite a different rule. I don't care to argue further.

Is there anything further you have to submit, Mr. Gatchell?
Mr. GATCHELL. No. Thank you very much for your courtesy.
Mr. WOODWARD. I want to call your attention to section 5 of the bill.
Mr. GATCHELL. Which draft are you referring to?
Mr. WOODWARD. In which it is provided that—

the United States retains all its powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs except those powers and rights specifically recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in the respective States and others by the first section of this act.

Mr. GATCHELL. To correct that before you go too far, you have been reading section 5 from the draft of a bill prepared by the attorneys general. It is section 4 of the bill as printed.

Mr. WOODWARD. Section 4 of the bill as introduced, yes. That was proposed to be amended by striking after the word "except" and adding:

Those rights to the ownership, use, development, and control of the lands and natural resources which are specifically recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in the respective States and others by the first section of this act.

I wanted to ask you if you did not think that would protect any future interest that the United States might have, although it not be

known at this time.

Mr. GATCHELL. I am sorry to say I don't think that this is the thing that would protect it. I think if the bill were amended only by the amendment which you have now read, that section 1, having given away so much, this would not be a reservation of those matters which were covered by section 1.

I think that the amendments which we have submitted to the committee are necessary in order that this may have some effect. If those amendmends then are adopted, I think that section 5 (a) in this redraft, or section 4 (a) as in the original bill, would amply protect the future interests of the United States.

Mr. WOODWARD. That is my question.

Mr. GATCHELL. Yes, sir. I wanted to be sure that you had covered these amendments which we submitted.

Mr. WOODWARD. It seems to me that in connection with those other amendments if they are adopted you would have the future protection. Mr. GATCHELL. It would not of course protect the interest which the United States might feel that it had in the fish. There are, for example, quite substantial commercial interests in the salmon fishing industry in the State of Washington on the Columbia River. The United State has spent a great deal of money to provide fish ladders and fish elevators in the Bonneville Dam.

Senator DONNELL. You do not think those rights are protected by this bill even with the amendments, do you?

Mr. GATCHELL. I would say the purpose to include fish within those natural resources that are given to the States would show that the bill is not intended to protect those interests.

Mr. WOODWARD. You do not think the control of navigable waters for commerce and for any other purpose set forth there would be sufficient?

Mr. GATCHELL. I do not, because if that were so, then it would not be necessary to refer to the natural resources within the waters. That is the reason why the phrase "within the waters" was put in, as you will see from the statement which Senator Butler introduced as having been made by Attorney General Johnson on the third of March.

They want to get a definite statement from Congress as respects the fish life within navigable waters which is entirely separate from the control of the navigable waters.

Senator MOORE. That is all, I suppose. Thank you.

Mr. OLDS. Mr. Chairman, may I say one word to correct, I think, an impression that has come from a discussion between Senator Donnell and Mr. Gatchell as to the division between the nonlegal members of the Commission and the legal staff.

I would like to state that actually the Commission unanimously approved the original report, which is submitted in mimeographed form and which includes amendatory language which Mr. Gatchell has said he favored and that he felt it was the soundest way to amend

the act.

Senator DONNELL. That is not the amendment that is proposed this afternoon.

Mr. OLDS. No. But the Commission did take into account subsequently, and I think Mr. Gatchell also took into account, the fact that the States attorneys general had certain interests in mind which were not within our province, and that therefore under those circumstances if we could reach agreement on language which took care of those

responsibilities which were given us by Congress, then oth who had other responsibilities affected should undertake such amendments as they felt necessary with respect to thei bilities.

Senator DONNELL. That is precisely the point I was att develop a little while ago, namely, that you gentlemen a after what you think is within your jurisdiction, and nat are not trying to go out over the whole territory here to pro thing else. That is right, is it not?

Mr. OLDS. We agree with Mr. Gatchell on the propo which is now the official report of the Commission. It is n hands.

Senator DONNELL. There are two things in my mind. O is going to sound pretty harsh, I suspect, the other one m quite so harsh. The first one, the nonharsh one, is that to be very difficult for this committee or any other committee all the different avenues. You have had considerable d explore this one, I judge. You have put in a lot of work a on it.

Mr. GATCHELL. I certainly have, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. I think you said it was a hard problen to that effect, a while ago, did you not?

Mr. GATCHELL. It is a difficult problem.

Senator DONNELL. It is a difficult problem. Here is our that is going to have this bill before us. We are not goi have to look after the power part of it. We are going to ha after all these other things, including looking with the eyes ecy into what may happen not knowing what will happen. ond thing, and this is the harsh thing, I suspect, is that it w to me it is easily possible for gentlemen who are strong ad this bill, who see in it, as they think, something that is e the interests of their own States, perhaps to allow their m somewhat obscured as to other dangers of other States and nections, and while they are perfectly honest in putting amendment, they might not have bestowed the same carefu to seeing that every possible interest of the United States G is conserved, as they have been in seeing that their bill pro they want to protect.

In fact, I understood Mr. Gatchell to say he wrote th ment, himself. They did not write it, did they?

Mr. GATCHELL. We submitted this. I submitted this to neys general.

Senator DONNELL. And they raised no objection.
Mr. GATCHELL. They raised no objection.

Senator DONNELL. How long did it take them to decide not going to raise an objection?

Mr. GATCHELL. We met last Saturday, a week ago. Senator DONNELL. About how long did you meet? Mr. GATCHELL. We met with the committee of Mr. Clary other gentlemen from the attorneys general. They met with eral counsel, Bradford Ross, and Mr. Hobbs, and myself. conference of about an hour, when we went over the pro scratched out some words to see if we could reach some under

Later on, the next week, I submitted to them this draft which we have

given to you today.

Senator DONNELL. How long did it take them to approve the draft which you handed to them the next week?

Mr. GATCHELL. I think they gave me word the next day or the day

after that.

Senator DONNELL. Do you know how long they were in session in consideration of that matter?

Mr. GATCHELL. I have no way of knowing that.

Senator DONNELL. The only conference you were in with them was about an hour?

Mr. GATCHELL. Yes, sir, but you see there had been quite a good deal of study on this thing before that.

Senator DONNELL. But the amendment that was proposed is the result of that hour's conference and your further thought was a different and you think not so good

one

Mr. GATCHELL. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. As the one that is in the report, which has been filed here, of your Commission as on page 4?

Mr. GATCHELL. That is right, sir.

Senator DONNELL. There is another thing. I would like to know, if I could, who this man Clary is, who sat in on this thing. We have had some testimony about a man by the name of Clary who received part of his pay from the oil companies and part of his pay from the States, for drafting legislation. Ithink I am correct in that statement. Mr. GATCHELL. I do not know a thing about the gentleman except that Attorney General Walter R. Johnson, of Nebraska, said that Mr. Clary would like to come over and see me. Mr. Clary did come over and see me and stated that his name was William W. Clary, of Los Angeles, and that is all I know about the gentleman.

Senator DONNELL. I know that you acted in the best of good faith, and I do not say that he did not, either, but after all Mr. Clary is looking at it from his viewpoint; the attorneys general from their viewpoints; you from your viewpoint; and as Mr. Olds has so appropriately said this afternoon here, in substance, you are not trying to cover the whole phase of the globe in your determination, which is perfectly natural, and you are not arrogating to yourself the knowledge on all these different departments of the Government. But this committee, of course, is going to have to come to a decision if this bill is to be favorably reported, which some may possibly hope may not happen, but if it shall happen, we certainly want that bill in such shape as to preserve the best. We want as nearly a perfect bill as you can get. Senator MOORE. As long as we do not foreclose Congress.

Senator DONNELL. That is all, gentlemen.

Senator MOORE. All right. Thank you very much.

Senator DONNELL. Note in the record this point: I call attention to the fact that in the testimony of, I think it was Mr. Ickes, reference was made to Mr. Clary.

Mr. COVERT. At this point in the record I would like to introduce a letter of March 10, 1948, from the law firm of Wheeler & Wheeler, listing certain information concerning the applications represented by said firm.

Senator MOORE. The letter will be received in the record.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. EDWARD H. MOORE,

WHEELER & WHEEL Washington, D. C., March 1

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: In accordance with your request at the hearings y the list of applications represented by this firm is set forth in the follow

Mr. COVERT. At this time I would like to introduce for th a statement dated February 16, 1948, addressed to Senator M signed by Archibald N. Jordon, president, on behalf of the I Wards Island Realty Co.

Senator MOORE. The statement will be received in the reco (The statement referred to follows:)

Hon. E. H. MOORE,

Chairman, Senate and House Joint Subcommitteee Judiciary Commi DEAR SIR AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND

Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY,

Chairman Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR:

TIDELAND HEARINGS

MEMORANDUM OF LAWRENCE WARDS ISLAND REALTY CO.

This company owns extensive tidelands property surrounding Wa in the East River, Borough of Manhattan, New York City. This wat about 3,500 lineal feet, and about 122 acres in area, and consists of 5 m ous plots, part of some of the plots are filled-in lands, and part submer They are based on the water grant of 1811 by the State of New York partitioned in severalty in 1870. Since which time the company and cessors in title have been paying taxes on it to the city of New Yo under water in Manhattan are assessed at $1,000 per front foot oppos Hundred and Fourth to One Hundred and Tenth Streets, Manhattan. contains about 12 city blocks, and we are therefore deeply concerned relating to titles to lands under water and lands under water filled in. We endorse the principle of equitable relief by the United States G as a result of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Unite California (12 Original, October term, 1946), holding that the Nation ment has paramount ownership in tidelands submerged under the wa marginal coastal belt bordering California, decided June 23, 1947, bell this same principle of paramount ownership by the Federal Gover