Mr. SETHER. Yes; out to the 3-mile limit.

Senator DONNELL. Has your attorney general passed an opinion as to whether the California decision throws a cloud on the title that the State still owns in these submerged lands?

Mr. SETHER. He has officially notified the State Land Department of Washington that we were to administer those lands as we had always done; that they were ours to administer in that manner.

Senator DONNELL. But I mean: Has he expressed the opinion that there is any cloud on the title of those lands?

Mr. SETHER. No; he says there isn't.

Senator MOORE. He says there is not?

Mr. SETHER. That is right. I might also add here that the Union Oil Co. is the company that is drilling there. They are drilling on a piece of land that has been built up by action of the tide. It is dry land now. Their attorneys were asked to interpret the California law with reference to the type of a permit that the State could issue, and whether the State could issue them a valid permit. Their attorneys advised the Union Oil Co. that they should take the State permits. Therefore, the State has issued permits to individuals out the entire 3-mile limit in about the southerly two-thirds of the State on the ocean front.

Senator DONNELL. Do you know approximately how much in revenues have come into the State of Washington since September 28, 1945, from the leases on submerged lands out in the ocean?

Mr. SETHER. Yes. We do not have any leases. We just issue permits to prospect for oil. And the revenues that we call "rental" in those cases have been running, oh, in the neighborhood of $35,000 to $40,000 a year.

Senator DONNELL. A year?

Mr. SETHER. A year, yes.

Senator DONNELL. And that has been coming in for how many years, approximately?

Mr. SETHER. Two years.

Senator DONNELL. Was that the first time that you ever made those agreements of that type?

Mr. SETHER. Yes, because there have been, over the years, many people drilling for oil in the State, but they have never been out on the ocean front. They have always been inland.

Senator DONNELL. And have these moneys received, as you indicated, under these contracts, been set apart into a special fund to await the result of such, if any, litigation as may arise between the United States of America and the State?

Mr. SETHER. No; they have not.

Senator DONNELL. They have been placed into the general revenues of the State?

Mr. SETHER. Into the general funds of the State; yes.

I also wish to state that the State of Washington is represented here by Mr. George Stuntz, special assistant attorney general; and as I am not an attorney myself, he will probably be here to answer any questions that you might have in regard to the legal status of these

matters.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your time.

STATEMENT OF HUGH S. JENKINS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OHIO Mr. JENKINS. I would like to place a statement in the record at this time. I must leave.

My name is Hugh S. Jenkins, and I am attorney general of Ohio. Inasmuch as a majority of the witnesses appearing before this committee will speak on behalf of coastal States, I shall not discuss phases which are peculiar to them but confine my remarks to the interests of Ohio and the other Great Lakes States.

I personally, have been assured on several occasions by Government officials that it was not the intention of the Government to question the title of the Great Lakes or other inland States to the lands underlying waters either inside their borders or bordering on the limits of those particular States. We have been informed that the interest of the Government is confined to coastal States.

While I have respect for the representatives of the Government who have made these assertions, nevertheless, it is my feeling that it is of paramount importance that the legislation hereunder consideration be adopted in order to insure for all future time the rights of all of the States.

The mere statement of one Federal official that he has no intention of making claims for the Federal Government to property now owned and controlled by the inland States is meaningless and without legal force, and in effect not even binding on the person who makes such

a statement.

As stated by Senator McCarran in a recent speech:

The people of the inland States must look to the decision of the Supreme Court, examine the grounds upon which the Court based its decision and see for themselves whether or not the doctrines upon which the decision is based could be extended to inland waters. If they could, then the inland States are definitely in jeopardy and will be subject to attack whenever Federal officials determine that such an attack should be made.

We are able to visualize a situation wherein the rights of the States to submerged lands along their boundaries as well as under their navigable rivers may be questioned, just as have those of California been questioned with respect to the submerged lands along its coast line. We are, therefore, impelled to present the facts pertaining to the situation facing Ohio with respect to Ohio's interest in the pending legislation.

Ohio has a total of 184 miles of shore line along the south shore of Lake Erie. On April 30, 1802, the Congress of the United States passed enabling legislation to permit the inhabitants of what now constitutes the State of Ohio to form a State government and define the boundaries of the territory to be included in the new State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatever.

Said enabling act then fixed the boundaries of said territory as follows:

On the north by an east and west line drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan running east after interesecting due-north line aforesaid from the mouth of the Great Miami until it shall intersect Lake Erie on the territorial line, and then with the same through Lake Erie to the Pennsylvania line aforesaid * *

Subsequent to this enabling legislation the people of the territory pursuant to said enabling act framed a constitution dated November 29, 1802, and on February 19, 1803, Congress approved the organization and recognized and declared that the State of Ohio had become one of the United States of America.

Following the approval by the Congress the Ohio General Assembly enacted legislation declaring that the waters of Lake Erie within the boundaries of said State together with the soil beneath and its contents do and always have, since the organization of the State of Ohio, belonged to the State, three page's Ohio General Code Annotated, section 3699-a. Said act declares in part as follows:

It is hereby declared that the waters of Lake Erie within the boundaries of the State together with the soil beneath and their contents do now and have always, since the organization of the State of Ohio, belonged to the State of Ohio as proprietor in trust for the people of the State of Ohio, subject to the powers of the United States Government, the public rights of navigation and fishery and further subject only to the right of littoral owners while said waters remain in their natural state to make reasonable use of the waters in front of or flowing past their lands, and the rights and liabilities of littoral owners while said waters remain in their natural state of accretion, erosion, and avulsion.

* #

Following the enactment of these several statutes the Congress of the United States, by an act of June 15, 1836, 5 United States Statutes at Large, page 49, reaffirmed the establishment of the northern boundary of the State of Ohio as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio shall be established at, and shall be a direct line drawn from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan, to the most northerly cape of the Maumee-Miamibay, after that line, so drawn, shall intersect the eastern boundary line of the State of Indiana; and from the said north cape of the said bay, northeast to the boundary line between the United States and the province of Upper Canada, in Lake Erie; and then, with the said last mentioned line, to its intersection with the western line of the State of Pennsylvania.

Thus it will be observed that following the Treaty of 1783 between the United States and Great Britain it was concluded, determined, and definitely established that the subaqueous land of that portion of Lake Erie lying to the south of the established boundary between the United States and Ontario in Canada, and consisting of approximately 3,540 square miles of submerged lands under the water of Lake Erie, is a part of and belongs to the State of Ohio.

In addition to the various legislative acts which have been enumerated herein, the courts have also affirmed the rights of the States. In the case of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. The State of Illinois (146 U. S. 386), decided by the United States Supreme Court, December 5, 1892, the Court held as follows:

It is the settled law of this country that the ownership of and dominion and Sovereignty over lands covered by tidewaters, within the limits of the several States, belong to the respective States within which they are found with the consequent right to use or dispose of any portion thereof, when that can be done without substantial impairment of the interest of the public in the waters,

and subject always to the paramount right of Congress to control their navigation so far as may be necessary for the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the States. This doctrine has been often announced by this Court, and is not questioned by counsel of any of the parties. Pollard v. Hagan (44 U. S. 3 How. 212, 11:565); Weber v. Board of State Harbor Comrs. (85 U. S. 18 Wall. 57, 21:798).

The same doctrine is in this country held to be applicable to lands covered by fresh water in the Great Lakes over which is conducted an extended commerce with different States and foreign nations. These lakes possess all the general characteristics of open seas, except in the freshness of their waters, and in the absence of the ebb and flow of the tide. In other respects they are inland seas, and there is no reason or principle for the assertion of dominion and sovereignty over and ownership by the State of lands covered by tidewaters that is not equally applicable to its ownership of and dominion and sovereignty over lands covered by the fresh waters of these Lakes.

Investigation discloses that improvements on this submerged land within the boundaries of the State of Ohio are valued at approximately $500,000,000. The improvements consist largely of port facilities in the cities of Conneaut, Ashtabula, Lorain, Cleveland, Sandusky, and Toledo, Ohio, and are permanent in nature. From these ports in 1947 were shipped 54,000,000 tons of coal. Many of the shipping facilities have been installed on filled land. The income from such properties to the State or its political subdivisions amounts to the sum of $10,000,000 per year. In addition to these permanent structures which are used in commerce, each municipality along Lake Erie secures its domestic and manfacturing water supply by means of intake pipes resting upon the floor of Lake Erie and extending out into Lake Erie for from 1 to 3 miles. So far as income is concerned, it is almost impossible to estimate the amount of income from these municipal operations.

From a survey made in 1935 by the Geological Survey of Ohio, it appears that numerous minerals have been located in the submerged lands adjoining the north shore of Ohio, and I quote from this survey:

Natural gas from the Newburg, Clinton, and Trenton sands. The old Clinton field west of Cleveland extends to the shore of Lake Erie and the pool undoubtedly continued on out into the lake.

Petroleum occurs in the same group of sands. The best example are the Trenton wells east of Toledo, which probably extend on into the bay.

Brines in the deep-seated rocks, found anywhere from Lorain County east to the Pennsylvania line. The most important ones along the lake front would be those in the Oriskany sand in the tope of the Big Lime and at the Newburg horizon near the base of the Big Lime. These brines are very rich and should become the basis of chemical industries, similar to the ones worked by the Dow Chemical Co. at Midland, Mich. Also the rock salt of the Salina group extends into the lake from Lorain east. This may be obtained by drilling into the rock salt, dissolving it by water, and then pumping to the works. Such brines are useful mainly for common salt and for soda-ash industries. Some gypsum may extend out into the lake in the gypsum region near Sandusky. However, mining of this would be precarious as the cover is thin between the gypsum and the lake water.

The main resources thus are petroleum, natural gas, and brines.

In addition to the above-mentioned conditions, it is a known fact that many gas pockets exist along the Lake Erie shore. Although no concentrated exploration has been made, several attempts are contemplated. It is easily seen that from the very nature of the subsoil stratas in Ohio, there is every indication that profitable wells, both gas and oil, will be discovered beneath the waters of Lake Erie.

Since 1935 the State of Ohio directly has entered into contracts to permit sand and gravel companies to extract sand, gravel, and lime

Gentlemen of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Gentlemen of the committee, I would like to present Mr. Fred N. Howser, attorney general of the State of California. Senator MOORE. All right, General Howser.

STATEMENT OF FRED N. HOWSER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HOWSER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as has been stated by Walter Johnson, I appear here today as attorney general of the State of California, and my purpose will be to outline to you briefly the scope and the objections of the legislation, the background which led up to the tidelands controversy, the far-reaching and disastrous consequences of the Supreme Court's decision, and the imperative need for remedial legislation and to call your attention to the fact that you have before you, in my opinion, a problem of national importance affecting the whole constitutional relationship between the States of our Union and the Federal Government.

The purpose of Senate bill 1988 is the same as the purpose of House Joint Resolution 225, which passed both Houses of Congress at the last session by very substantial majorities, but which was vetoed by our President. That purpose, briefly, is to quiet and confirm the titles of the various States to certain properties which have always been in their possession and control and which until recently were always believed by both State and Federal courts and public officials to be the property of the States.

However, because of the Supreme Court decision which has been rendered since the President's veto of House Joint Resolution 225, the language of the present bill has been changed somewhat, but the ultimate result will be the same as it should have been under the former measure.

You will find in my written statement, on the next page, page 2, an explanation of the various sections of the bill. As for pages 3 and 4, I do not care to read them, because these matters have been referred to. However, down in the first paragraph of page 4, I want to call your attention to the fact that no attempt is made in our bill to pass upon the validity or location of any State's boundary except to recognize the minimum of 3 miles, as has been suggested.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Howser, pardon me. Perhaps you mentioned this, but I did not get it. The copy I have here has several pages marked out.

Mr. HOWSER. I have marked those out, because it was anticipated that I would go into it; and I shall.

Senator DONNELL. You are now calling our attention to page Mr. HOWSER. Page 4, the first paragraph, eight lines down:

4?

No attempt is made to pass upon the validity or location of any State's boundary except to recognize the minimum of 3 miles as I have just mentioned.

In other words, the bill does not fix any boundaries. It does not adjudicate or confirm any existing claim to more than 3 miles. But it does not prejudice or define any such claim.

Senator MCCARRAN. I take it that that statement that you have just made has to do with, or "squints at," as we might express it, the different claims that are set up by the respective States.