the continuance of ownership and jurisdiction by the State is well justified solely from the standpoint of good governmental administration, not to mention the legal and equitable questions involved. Therefore, in view of the present and potential values of the natural resources in submerged lands of the Great Lakes it is important and proper that the rights therein of the State and parties lawfully entitled thereto be preserved by appropriate legislation. In my opinion Senate bill 1988 accomplishes this result and should become law. FEBRUARY 18, 1948. P. J. HOFFMASTER, Director, Department of Conservation. Mr. COVERT. At this time I present a letter of February 16, 1948, addressed to the chairman of this subcommittee from Mr. Gilbert M. Denman, president, State Board of Education of Texas, together with a copy of the resolution which accompanied it and which is referred to in said letter, and ask that the letter and the resolution be made a part of the record of this hearing. Senator MOORE. The letter and resolution wil be made a part of the record. (The letter and resolution referred to are as follows:) Hon. E. H. MOORE, Senate Judiciary Committee, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TEXAS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Enclosed is a copy of resolution of the State board of education, urging your support of bill S. 1988. If the Supreme Court of the United States rendered an opinion that title to the land in all the large cities of Texas belongs to the United States, there would doubtless be mass meetings of indignation throughout Texas. The opinion in the Tidelands case involves a greater financial loss to Texas and from a legal standpoint is just as shocking to all those who understand legal titles and vested rights. The people of Texas are beginning to fully realize the utter injustice of this decision, the magnitude of their financial loss, and the sinister creeping policy established by this decision of Federal domination over States in disregard of long-established and recognized States' rights. As you know, the tidelands of Texas rightfully belong to our public free schools, so the decision is a crushing blow to education in Texas. We therefore urge you to do all in your power to secure the passage of this bill. Respectfully yours, GILBERT M. DEN MAN, President. RESOLUTION OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Resolved by the State Board of Education of the State of Texas, ThatWhereas there is now pending in the Congress of the United States a bill, S. 1988, to confirm and establish the titles of the States to lands and resources in and beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and to provide for the use and control of said lands and resources; and Whereas said bill, if enacted into law, will confirm in this State and the publicschool system of Texas the right to the income from the lands beneath navigable waters, as in such bill defined, within the State of Texas; and Whereas such income has been of paramount importance to the welfare of the educational system of Texas, and education in Texas will seriously be jeopardized if the State should be divested of such income as held by a recent decision of the Supreme Court affecting such lands; and Whereas it is to the national interest as well as the interest of each State that the revenue for education in the States be not divested and impaired; and Whereas such bill should be enacted into law: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the State Board of Education of Texas exhort the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress and the Committees of the Judiciary, and other committees to which said bill may be referred, that said bill S. 1988, in all its contents, do pass and becomes a law. GILBERT M. DEN MAN, President. Mr. COVERT. At this time I present a letter dated February 17, 1948. from Mr. J. E. Sturrock, general manager, Texas Water Conservation Association, with which was enclosed a copy of a statement prepared by Mr. Sturrock in support of S. 1988. I ask that the letter and the statement be made a part of the record. Senator MOORE. The letter and statement will be made a part of the record. (The letter and statement referred to follow :) TEXAS WATER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, The CLERK, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES SENATE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am enclosing herewith four copies of statement prepared by me in support of S. 1988, a bill to confirm and establish the titles of the States to lands and resources in and beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and to provide for the use and control of said lands and resources. Will you please see that a copy of this statement is inserted in the record of the hearings before the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee beginning on February 23, 1948. Thanking you, I remain Most respectfully yours, J. E. STURROCK, General Manager. STATEMENT OF J. E. STURROCK, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE TEXAS WATER CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION My name is J. E. Sturrock of Austin, Tex. I am secretary and general manager of the Texas Water Conservation Association, a State-wide organization with offices in Austin, the State capital. The Texas Water Conservation Association is greatly concerned over the farreaching effect of the Supreme Court decision in the California tidelands case. In this case, United States v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that the tidelands and lands beneath navigable waters along the coast of California belong to the Federal Government. This holding constitutes the greatest threat to the sovereign right of Texas to the owners.. p of its coastal lands and lands beneath its navigable waters and the ownership, control, and utilization of its waters along the coast, since the State was admitted to the Union. In fact, if the theory followed by the Court in this case is law, the lands beneath the navigable rivers in Texas and the control and utilization of the waters thereof may be taken over by the Federal Government. The Court in this case strikes down a legal principle which has been upheld time and time again by the same court that "the lands beneath tidewaters and navigable waters belong to the States in their sovereign capacity as States." It gives further impetus to movement to nationalize the natural resources of this country which is being advocated by many persons in the United States. In the California case the Department of the Interior alleged that the United States owns title to all the submerged lands below low water off the coasts of every coastal State in the Union, including the Original Thirteen States. In the case of Nebraska v. Wyoming (295 U. S. 40, 1935), the Department of the Interior intervened and in its plea of intervention alleged "that the United States is the owner of all unappropriated water in the North Platte River, irrespective of any appropriation made or to be made by it under the law of any State." In its final decision in this case the Supreme Court rightfully denied this claim. The decision in the California tidelands case, however, will give the Department of the Interior encouragement in making further claims to the unappropriated waters of the United States. In Texas many improvements have been made along the coast and along our inland navigable streams. Many industries have located along our coastal and inland waterways and the title to their sites are clouded by the decision in the California case in that some are located in what may be termed "filled-in areas." The great Rice Belt of Texas is located along the coastal area and great diversion works have been constructed in, along, and across our coastal streams for the irrigation of rice. Our great Gulf and inland ports have been constructed and improved on the long-established theory of State ownership of lands beneath tidewaters and beneath navigable waters. The theory followed in the California case opens the way for the Federal Government to take over the water resources of the Nation in the interest of national defense since water is the basic resource in the processing and produc tion of other resources essential to the national defense and welfare. The Texas Water Conservation Association is dedicated to the task of developing, conserving, controlling, protecting, and utilizing the water resources of Texas for all beneficial purposes, and the preservation of the integrity of State water laws in controlling such development, conservation, protection, and utilization of said resources. Therefore, the association actively worked for the passage of House Joint Resolution 225 by the Seventy-ninth Congress, having for its purpose "to quiet the titles of the respective States, and others, to lands beneath tidewaters and lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of such States and to prevent further clouding of such titles." At its annual meeting held in Austin, Tex., on October 10 and 11, 1947, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: ["Resolution No. 4] "Whereas since the founding of the Republic the several States have geen uniformly recognized as the owners of the navigable waters and lands beneath such waters within their respective boundaries; and "Whereas with and since the founding of this Republic in every national emergency involving conflict with foreign powers the several States have, along with their sons, made available material resources to the national defense; and "Whereas in its recent opinion in the California case the Supreme Court of the United States, wholly ignoring the effect of numerous prior decisions and unquestioned claims of the several States, declared that the Federal Government has a paramount right to all of the resources under California's marginal sea. without regard to or settling the question of ownership of the lands involved; and "Whereas the Court based its decision on the sweeping and dangerous assertion that, because it was the duty of the Federal Government to defend the country against attack and to conduct foreign relations, it has a paramount right to take all the resources in and under such waters and lands without compensation; and "Whereas this doctrine wholly ignores the reserved powers of the several States and constitutes a direct threat to all ownership of minerals, surface and underground waters, and other resources, public and private, because it is based upon the novel and unfounded premise that the Federal Government has the right to take without compensation all the resources in and under all lands submerged and inland which it is obliged to defend, thus leading directly to nationalization of all natural resources and wholesale confiscation: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved by the Texas Water Conservation Association assembled in Austin, Ter., on this the 11th day of October 1947, That Congress be urged by this association to pass suitable legislation renouncing the powers attributed to the Federal Government by the Supreme Court in the California case, affirming and declaring the States' ownership in submerged lands within their respective boundaries, and to all resources in and under said lands, thus avoiding endless litigation; that a copy of this resolution be sent to each Member of Congress. President Harry Truman, Attorney General Tom Clark, Secretary of the Interior J. A. Krug, and the Governor and attorney general of each State. In view of the Court's decision in the California case, the passage by Congress of Senate bill 1988, confirming and establishing the titles of the States to lands and resources in and beneath navig ble waters within State boundaries and providing for the use and control of said lands and resources, is a matter of most vital concern to the State of Texas, to every port city and industry along the coast and the navigable waters of the State; to navigation districts and water conservation and irrigation districts with diversion works located on our navi gable streams. It should be a matter of no less concern to every other coastal and inland State. I, therefore, urge the committee to report S. 1988 favorably, and that Congress pass it at the earliest possible moment. Mr. COVERT. At this time I present for the record a letter of February 17, 1948, to Senator Wiley, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, from Senator Knowland, enclosing, first, a letter of February 11, 1948, to Senator Knowland from the secretary of state of California; and, second, the resolution referred to in the letter to Senator Knowland, and ask that these letters and the resolution be made a part of the record. Senator MOORE. The letter to Senator Wiley and the letter to Senator Knowland and the copy of the resolution will be made a part of the record. (The letters and the resolution referred to follow :) UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, February 17, 1938. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WILEY: Enclosed is a letter I received from the Honorable Frank M. Jordan, secretary of state for California, enclosing a copy of a resolution adopted by the National Association of Secretaries of State with regard to the tidelands matter. The resolution is being forwarded at the request of Secretary Jordan and it will be appreciated if you will have it considered when hearings commence on S. 1988. Sincerely yours, Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, United States Senator. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I am forwarding herewith a copy of a resolution passed at the meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State, assembled at Biloxi, Miss., on September 26, 1947, and shall appreciate it if you will have these filed with the proper authorities. Thanking you, and with kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, FRANK M. JORDAN, Secretary of State. RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE Resolved, That the thirtieth annual convention of the National Association of Secretaries of State, assembled at Biloxi, Miss., on September 26, 1947, commend the unanimous action taken by the governors of the several States at Salt Lake City on July 16, 1947, of proposing and supporting enactment of suitable legisla tion at the next session of Congress for the purpose of acknowledging and affirming ownership of submerged lands and resources to the respective States in accordance with the heretofore long-recognized constitutional rights of the States. Mr. COVERT. At this time I present for insertion in the record a letter of February 24, 1948, to Congressman Michener, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, from the Honorable Walt Horan, Member of Congress from the Fifth District of the State of Washington, and ask that said letter be made a part of this record. Senator MOORE. The letter will be received and made a part of the record (The letter referred to follows:) Re: H. R. 5461. Hon. EARL C. MICHENER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV Washington, D. Č., February 2 Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: Since I know there will be very many witnesses de appear before the joint hearings considering the bills pertaining to the controversy, I shall not ask for time before the committee. However, like to set forth for the record the following brief statement of the in the State of Washington in this highly important matter. My bill, H. R. 5461, is identical with that introduced by the Congress] California, the Honorable Willis W. Bradley, H. R. 4999. I mention this this version has been declared more acceptable to both management a associations concerned with our most important fisheries industry. Th groups have expressed themselves in opposition to terms of section 4 0 introduced by the Congressman from Mississippi, the Honorable Wi Colmer, relating to jurisdiction over fishing waters in the areas aff the bills. While the spotlight in the tidelands controversy has been aimed at f prized oil resources along the shores of California and Texas, our State ington has a definite interest in this case, To me it is somewhat start the Federal Government never seriously asserted a claim to the disput until certain Government officials became aware of the rich resources u them. As I am sure most witnesses on this subject will testify, the grea precedent holds that such lands have always rightly been the propert several States. If the Federal Government should be empowered to asser ship to any portion or classification of lands in which important resource be discovered, there would be little left to prevent it from asserting mineral deposits under the mountaintops as well as under the sea wa might easily jeopardize the status of virtually every important piece of pro the Nation. But there are two particular arguments I wish to state to the committ first is the subject of lands at tidewater which have been reclaimed by th prise and activity of individuals and municipalities in such States as Was Along Puget Sound, for instance, lands previously in the category of be merged beneath the low-water mark have been reclaimed by filling in a constitute valuable surface property within and near such important Seattle. The Supreme Court decision of June 23, 1947, might place title to reclaimed lands in jeopardy, or at least throw them into fear of litigation. stress to current owners and local tax authorities alike. No doubt sim uations obtain in several other States of the Union which must be clarifie Congress immediately. It is to me essential that Congress immediatel ciate a policy whereby enterprising individuals and local communities ma engage in such reclamation activities without fearing that the fruit of thei will be expropriated upon the whim of Federal officials seeking further over our national resources. It is further significant that, so I am advised, subsequent to the Court's and prior to the entry of the order and decree of October 27, 1947, the A General of the United States and the Secretary of the Interior had ente two situations with the attorney general of California, in which the two officials renounced and disclaimed paramount governmental power over particularly described submerged lands on the California coast and aut that State, under certain conditions, to enter into leases on these certai It would be well for the committee to inquire by what caprice the Feder ernment, through its officials, is so anxious to assert title to these lands in to gain control, then immediately renounces its paramount rights to, pres those portions of the lands in which it is not interested. Of particular interest to the government of the State of Washington, h is the effect of the Supreme Court decision upon provisions of the State e tion and the policies and precedents of the State and local governments wl predicated upon that constitution. Pursuant to the enabling act of Congress, approved February 2, 1889, t stitution of the State of Washington was adopted and was, pursuant to s proclaimed by the President as having been formed and adopted pursuant |