Then Mr. Justice Holmes came back in 1908 in U. S. v. Chandler Dunbar Water Power Company (209 U. S. 447), at page 451, and I quote:

The right of the State to grant lands covered by tidewaters or navigable lakes and the qualifications as stated in Shively v. Bowlby (152 U. S. 1, 47), are that the State may use or dispose of any portion of the same when that can be done without substantial impairment of the interest of the public in such waters,

Then we have Mr. Chief Justice White in 1912 in the Abby Dodge case (223 U. S. 166), at page 174.

Senator DONNELL. That case also is discussed in the California case, is it not?

Mr. HOWSER. It was, sir. I quote:

Each State owns the beds of all tidewaters within its jurisdiction.

Then we have Justice Brandeis in 1921, in the Port of Seattle v. Oregon and Western Railroad Company (225 U. S. 56), at page 63: Washington became—

referring to the State of Washington

the owner of the navigable waters within its boundaries and of the land under the same.

Now we are coming down to Mr. Chief Justice Taft in 1926 in Appleby V. New York (271 U. S. 364, 381):

All the proprietary rights of crown and parliament in and all their dominion over lands under tidewater is vested in the several States.

We can come down to Stone in 1935 and Hughes in 1935. reannounced the principle in 1935.

Hughes

In our humble opinion, we believe that this rule has been substantially the same involving 25 other Justices of the Court over a period of the last 100 years, as well as other Federal courts.

Senator DONNELL. What was the case in which Chief Justice Hughes expressed himself, Mr. Attorney General?

Mr. HOWSER. The first one was in Borax Consolidated v. Los Angeles 296 U. S. 10), at page 15, and his other one was Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (297 U. S. 288).

Senator DONNELL. Did he not also speak in Skiriotis v. Florida? Mr. HOWSER. I believe he did, sir.

Senator DONNELL. He is quoted in the case of the United States of America v. California?

Mr. HOWSER. That is correct.

Gentlemen of the committee, our opinion is just this: Going back into the background of what has happened to us in California, we wonder just what, in the face of all these decisions and declarations of the Court, there was that caused the Secretary of the Interior to reverse his many previous rulings and to urge and recommend to the Justice Department that suit should be filed in the Supreme Court. I am now continuing on page 10 of my written matter. The answer to this question is clear and was given by the Secretary himself in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 5. 1946. In this testimony Mr. Ickes admitted that he had made the rulings to which I referred, but he said that nevertheless applicants for Federal oil leases on California's submerged lands continued to file applications and to urge that he grant them.

In his own words, he said

but applicants and their lawyers continue to insist that the United States does own the lands and the oil, and that the Department does have power to grant them oil and gas leases.

So, as you mentioned yesterday, he said "we begin to have doubts." Thus it is clear that this litigation was brought upon the States and that this decision encroaching upon the sovereignty and property rights of all our coastal States of the Union resulted from the insistence, if you please, of applicants and their lawyers.

A brief review of the activities of these parties will be enlightening, and I think in view of what I said, I should bring it out.

For some years prior to 1936 applications were filed for Federal leases on California's tidelands. In many instances these applications covered land already producing oil under State leases, land which had been prospected and developed at the expense of our States' lessees.

These applicants simply hoped to take over proven oil lands and deposits and get rich quickly, with no more investment than the payment of a filing fee.

Up until 1937 Mr. Ickes and his predecessors denied all these applications, in accordance with the settled law and policy of his office.

However, by 1937 the applicants and their lawyers had succeeded in creating sufficient doubt in his mind that he changed this policy and allowed all applications on file to remain open and undenied. This naturally encouraged those applicants, and by 1945 there were several hundred of them on file in California covering the entire beach frontage of our State from Santa Barbara to Newport Beach, a distance of about 150 miles, and overlapping practically all existing State leases. These applications not only created a cloud on valuable property along our entire coast line, but they started a wave of speculation resulting in widespread stock selling which continued until the present Secretary of the Interior dismissed all of the applications on the. ground that the Federal Leasing Act of 1920 does not apply to submerged lands irrespective of the question as to who owns the lands.

I do not wish to take up your time with details as to the activities of these applicants, but I want you men to know that we have in this room evidence showing that several corporations were formed and that the stock was sold in a number of the States throughout the country usually from 1 cent to 10 cents a share. These corporations had no assets whatever, except the hope and the expectation that the Supreme Court would reverse all its former decisions on this question and then that the Secretary of the Interior would grant pending applications.

That was their stock in trade, their merchandise or the product of their corporation.

We possess copies of the stock certificates showing that in some cases the attorneys for these applicants were stockholders of their corporation, presumably prosecuting the claims on a contingent basis. There is nothing illegal in that.

We also have letters which show that these attorneys were constantly at work in the Interior Department in the persistent endeavor to persuade Mr. Ickes and his advisers to change their settled policy.

We also have evidence that in a number of cases these applicants tried to sell out their applications to the holders of the State leases; that is, they tried to get the State lessees to buy them out in order to remove the cloud on their titles.

The top of page 13, now.

As I said a moment ago, these applications have now all been dismissed. However, one of the applicants-and this is very important as to whether or not Congress should act-represented by Mr. Wheeler, has brought action to mandamus the Secretary of the Interior to grant his application on the strength of this case.

Senator DONNELL. Which Mr. Wheeler is that?

Mr. HOWSER. Former Senator Wheeler. I do not mean to imply that any of the activities of these applicants or their lawyers has been carried on in violation of the law, but, gentlemen, I do say, and it is something of concern to you and it is your business, that these applicants and their lawyers who persuaded Mr. Ickes to change his mind were not working for the interest of the good old United States of America as we know it, but working for interests selfish to themselves. I mention these things to show the background that led up to the filing and prosecution of the case of the United States v. California, and if it had not been for the persistent activity of applicants and their lawyers, no case would ever have been filed.

I wish to speak now to the scope and effect of these Federal claims. On this point Mr. Ickes himself either

Senator MOORE. Gentlemen, I think we will stop at this point. I wish to place in the record at this point a statement by Attorney General Greek L. Rice, of the State of Mississippi.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF GREEK L. RICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

The State of Mississippi is very much interested in the enactment of S. 1988. The enactment of this bill by the Congress will definitely clarify and set at rest the ownership of the title to lands and resources in and beneath navigable waters within State boundaries. We believe the bill ought to be enacted promptly.

Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States of America v. State of California, decided June 23, 1947, the legal status of this property has been confusing, uncertain and entirely unsatisfactory to the States involved.

Property that these States have claimed and exercised undisputed ownership ever since they were admitted into the Union may under this ruling be taken, used and disposed of by the Federal Government. We assert without qualification, except for the above decision, there is no legal authority or reason for the Federal Government to come in after all these years and arbitrarily take this property from the States.

I will not discuss the numerous court decisions upholding the States' contention, for the reason that briefs covering the law will be filed by other parties, at this hearing. I shall try to limit this statement to our predicament and the situation confronting us here in Mississippi.

Our State is not wealthy-it is an agricultural State, with limited resources. In 1939 oil was discovered in this State and since that time our people have given more thought and consideration to oil possibilities in this area, and what it means from a revenue standpoint. It is our belief that the Mississippi property involved here is valuable and we are unwilling to stand by and see the Federal Government boldly take it over after these long years, with so little reason and

authority to justify the taking. We urge our rights and our claim before this committee.

The State of Mississippi, in our judgment, has owned the water bottoms in the Mississippi Sound since 1817. This comprises an area of approximately 800,000 acres, including the bays, tributaries, estuaries thereto, the marsh lands adjacent to the bays and sound, islands, and submerged lands.

The State has been continuously in the indisputed ownership of the property for more than a hundred years. The Federal Government, nor any other agency, ever questioned or disputed that ownership in any way, or at any time during that long period of years.

This land and area claimed by the State is completely within the boundary lines of the States as prescribed by Congress and fixed by the State constitution. Under chapter 23, United States Statutes at Large, volume 3, page 348, adopted March 1, 1817, is found the enabling act which empowered our people to form a constitution and State government, and authorized our admission into the Union as a State, on an equal footing with the original States.

In section 2 of this act the southern boundary line of the new State of Mississippi is definitely fixed. This southern line is fixed in the enabling act as commencing on the east at a point on the Gulf of Mexico, "thence westwardly, including all the islands within 6 leagues of the shore, to the most eastern junction of Pearl River with Lako Borgne."

The only restraint placed upon the State in regard to property of this nature within the confines of the State is found in section 4 of this act, which says "and that the River Mississippi and the navigable rivers and waters leading into the same, or into the Gulf of Mexico, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the State, as to other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty import, or toll therefor, imposed by the State."

In accordance with this act, Mississippi was formally admitted into the Union by resolution of Congress on December 10, 1817 (United States Statutes at Large, No. 3, p. 472).

It will be observed that the constitution, adopted pursuant to this act, defines the southern boundary of Mississippi the same as fixed by Congress in this act. I refer you to section 3, Constitution of Mississippi, 1890, and previous constitutions of this State.

During all the years since 1817, the title of Mississippi to this property was never disputed, except by implications contained in the Senate Joint Resolution 92, by Senator Nye, and Senate Resolution S3, by Senator Walsh.

These resolutions were before Congress several years ago, and nothing was ever done then, and the Federal Government asserted no title to these lands because of these resolutions.

Naturally, the States were led to believe that Congress would never assert any claim to this property. I refer you to the report of the "Hearings before the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, United States Senate, Seventysixth Congress, first session, March 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1939." The law is fully discussed in this report and I shall not try to review it here.

The State of Mississippi since 1939, has leased this property for oil and gas developed under three separate lease contracts. The State's title was never questioned by the lessees.

On March 23, 1939, the State leased this property to Phillips Petroleum Co., of Bartlesville, Okla., for $61,200 and other consideration. A part of this property was explored for oil and gas, but due to the unusual conditions existing at the time the lease was made, it was returned to the State.

Due to the conditions brought about by the war, the property was not offered for lease again until January 1945.

On January 15, 1945, one-half of this area was leased to the Kerlyn Oil Co., of Oklahoma City, Okla., for $25,000, and other considerations. The State was unable for a long time to lease the other half of this property, due to the persistent claims of title by the Federal Government. After the House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 225, we were able to lease the other half of this property to the Atlantic Oil Co., for the sum of $25,000.

There are no leases in effect on this property at this time. Oil companies are interested in the property and are anxious to secure leases for further exploration, but are unwilling to lease it further until something is done to clarify the title. In other words, Mississippi can do nothing with this valuable property

which it has owned since 1817 until the Congress can straighten out this unfortunate controversy.

Prior to 1937, Mr. Ickes, then Secretary of the Interior, believed and so held that title to this land was in the respective States. He changed his mind in 1937 and started this movement for the Federal Government to take over this property from the States. Apparently he has overlooked no occasion, since he changed his mind, to cloud the States' title and prevent the States from making use of this land.

Within a short time after we advertised this property for lease purposes in 1945, the Governor of this State had the following letter from Mr. Ickes:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington 25, D. C., January 16, 1945. MY DEAR GOVERNOR BAILEY: My attention has been called to an advertisement of the State mineral lease commission appearing on page 303 of the Oil and Gas Journal for December 30, 1944. This advertisement gives notice that the commission will meet on January 15 to receive proposals for the leasing for oil and gas purposes the following lands:

"The water bottoms in the Mississippi Sound, all bays tributaries, estuaries thereto, also the marshland owned by the State of Mississippi adjacent to the bays and sounds and the islands and submerged lands which are owned by the State of Mississippi in the Mississippi Sound and/or the Gulf of Mexico, estimated to contain more than 800,000 acres."

I would appreciate having a more detailed description of the lands involved, particularly information as to whether they are tidal lands, that is, those between high and low tide; how far from low tide the other lands extend; and which lands are in the Gulf of Mexico and in the other waters described in the notice. I should also like to know the basis for the States' claim of ownership of these lands and the oil and gas contained therein.

Sincerely yours,

HAROLD ICKES, Secretary of the Interior.

Naturally, we were surprised and somewhat embarrassed by this letter. We thought we could clearly see through this agency the strong arm of the Federal Government reaching out again for more power and more property, at the expense of the State, at a time when we thought this issue had been finally and definitely settled.

Governor Bailey's reply to the Secretary of the Interior, among other things, contained the following statements:

"I refer you to article 2, section 3, of the constitution of Mississippi, which outlines the boundaries of Mississippi, and it there states the Mississippi boundary line extends from a point 10 miles east of Pascagoula River on the Gulf of Mexico, westwardly, including all islands within 6 leagues of the shore to the Louisiana Sound or bay and all is definitely within the boundaries of the State of Mississippi. Some of it is inland tidal lands and other parts are river bottoms where the tide ebbs and flows."

This same land was leased in 1939 to Phillips Petroleum Co. and the State's title was then approved by the lessee. The Federal Government, in recognition of that title, issued all requested permits for the necessary exploration of this property for oil and gas.

I refer you to the case of State v. Stewart (184 Miss. 202), where the court said:

"The State of Mississippi is the absolute owner of the title of the soil and minerals therein contained in the beds of all of its shores, arms, and inlets of the sea, wherever the tide ebbs and flows, as trustees for the people of the State and subject only to the paramount right of the United States to control commerce and navigation with the consequent right to use or dispose of any portion thereof, when that can be done without impairment of the interest of the publie in the waters, subject to the paramount right and when not inconsistent with the Constitution (Constitution, sec. 8)."

Several years ago Senator Nye introduced a joint resolution in Congress authorizing and directing the Attorney General of the United States to file suit and endeavor to establish the claim of title of the United States to all such submerged lands. This matter was given a public hearing before the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, and all the States having coastal lands were given