Senator DONNELL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLM. Thank you very much for your attention.

Mr. WOODWARD. Mr. Holm, Mr. Covert and I in our efforts for the committee, have been searching for several weeks the books in an effort to determine whether or not there exists a legal rule by which you can determine what is inland tidewaters and what is part of the marginal sea. Are you familiar with any legal rule by which you can distinguish in the legal sense inland tidewaters from the marginal

sea?

Mr. HOLM. No, Mr. Woodward. I could not answer that question. I don't think there is any lawyer in the country who could answer that for you. I certainly have made a fair search of that. I think I know how to find it in the books, but I have never been able to find anything that would approach an adequate definition of that sort. I think it is beyond the ken and the accomplishment of any lawyer to do it.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Holm, the Supreme Court had before it the same question that was propounded by Mr. Woodward, did it not, in substance and did it not say with respect to that:

We may assume that location of the exact coastal line will involve many complexities and difficulties, but that does not make this any the less a justiciable controversy.

Certainly demarkation of the boundary is not an impossibility. Despite difficulties, this Court has previously adjudicated controversies concerning submerged land boundaries, and there is no reason why after determining that in general who owns the 3-mile belt here involved, the Court might not later, if necessary, have more detailed hearings in order to determine with greater definiteness particular segments of the boundary, citing the case of Oklahoma v. Teras. Such action is commonplace in actions such as this which are in the nature of equitable proceedings.

California's contention concerning the indefiniteness of the claim presents no insuperable obstacle to the exercise of the highly important jurisdiction conferred on us by article 3 of the Constitution.

Mr. HOLM. They said that, but that is a gross understatement of what the difficulties might be, Senator. I think from the many questions and the highly intelligent and important questions you have asked concerning this matter the last 3 or 4 days here, it must be a self-evident fact that that is almost a gigantic task that will take untold years to accomplish.

Why should that uncertainty be permitted to exist when the agency is at your hands and your fellow workers' to alleviate that and pass a bill that will correct it? That is our position.

Senator DONNELL. I get your position. You have made it very clear, Mr. Holm, indeed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at this time I would like to present Mr. Harry C. Brockel, municipal port director of the city of Milwaukee, Wis.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY C. BROCKEL, MUNICIPAL PORT DIRECTOR, BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF MILWAUKEE, WIS.

Mr. BROCKEL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: My name is Harry C. Brockel. I am municipal port director for the board of harbor commissioners of the city of Milwaukee, Wis.

The board of harbor commissioners was created by statute to plan," develop, and operate a modern system of municipal harbor facilities for the port of Milwaukee.

For several decades past, the city of Milwaukee has been in the process of developing a modern municipal outer harbor on the shore of Lake Michigan. This municipal harbor development was projected by the city of Milwaukee with the approval, endorsement, and assistance of the State and Federal Governments.

Milwaukee's general plan of harbor development was approved by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, and by the Congress. which, under the River and Harbor Act of 1922, authorized extensive breakwater construction at Milwaukee for the protection of the municipal outer harbor works. This breakwater project, now complete, represents a Federal investment of approximately $7,000,000.

The State of Wisconsin cooperated by granting to the city of Milwaukee, for harbor and terminal purposes, extensive areas of submerged land in Lake Michigan. The State grants of submerged lands for harbor development extend along the Lake Michigan shore for approximately 2 miles and to an average width of 1,500 feet from the original shore line.

Milwaukee's municipal harbor properties at present comprise 371 acres of land, of which 212 acres, or nearly 10 percent were created partially by natural accretion but principally by filling-in of submerged lands granted by the State. The Milwaukee Harbor project contemplates a series of piers extending into Lake Michigan, and, as additional piers are constructed, extensive additional filling operations will be undertaken. By far the greatest part of the development, both actual and prospective, has been or will be constructed on lands reclaimed from Lake Michigan under State grants.

The city of Milwaukee has, during the past 30 years, invested more than $7,000,000 in the construction of municipal harbor facilities. A series of modern terminal facilities have been provided to meet the needs of commerce and shipping, with substantial benefit to Great Lakes commerce and shipping, both foreign and domestic.

In addition to the large municipal investment, private industries have leased 50 acres of municipal harbor property for new industrial developments utilizing water transportation and the municipal port facilities. About $1,000,000 has thus far been invested in these industrial developments on municipal harbor lands, and an additional million dollars of investment, in the way of new construction, is now under way.

Extensive areas of municipal harbor property have been reclaimed from Lake Michigan at nominal cost, partly by hydraulic fill and partly by use of city waste material. These properties, in their developed state, are regarded as among the finest terminal properties on the Great Lakes. This value is not theoretical, as 50 acres have already been leased on long-term industrial leases, based on land values, of $25,000 and $30,000 per acre. The general development of the municipal outer harbor area is of a type consistent with these substantial land values.

Milwaukee's municipal harbor facilities are by no means the only public installations concerned in the issue before this committee. Milwaukee has a shore line of 71/2 miles on Lake Michigan, and about 95

ent of the entire shore has been brought under public ownership he use and enjoyment of the general public.

■ addition to the municipal harbor installations previously debed, Milwaukee has constructed, partially or completely on rened lands, a modern sewage disposal plant, costing $18,000,000; a er filtration plant, costing $5,000,000; and lake shore parks, drive-, and recreation facilities conservatively valued at $20,000,000. €00,000 would be a very conservative estimate of the value of pubinstallations made within the city of Milwaukee in, upon, or adjat to lands reclaimed from Lake Michigan.

For more than a century, it has been a recognized principle of law t ownership of lands beneath tidal and navigable waters rests in · States. In accordance with this settled rule of law, the State of sconsin has, from time to time, granted areas of submerged lands to rious public agencies in Milwaukee. These agencies have expended e sums of public moneys in developing these submerged lands and constructing facilities in aid of commerce and navigation, and for e public health and welfare. These improvements and expenditures ve been made in justified reliance on the rule of property holding at the sovereign States are the owners of lands beneath their adining waters.

An unwarranted cloud has been cast upon these titles by the claims f the Department of the Interior and by the Supreme Court action cently brought by the Department of Justice. The adoption of . 1988 by the Congress would clarify the entire situation and would Pcognize the legitimate and settled property rights of their sovereign tates and their grantees. On behalf of the city of Milwaukee and its oard of harbor commissioners, I strongly urge that this committee nd the Congress take prompt and favorable action upon S. 1988. Mr. Chairman, in addition to that statement, on behalf of the city of Milwaukee, I would like to enter my appearance for the Great Lakes Harbors Association, of which I am secretary. That association comprises many of the port cities of the Great Lakes, including such cities as Detroit, Toledo, Muskegan, Milwaukee, and others. Those cities have a common concern with Milwaukee in this problem. They have developed harbor facilities, airports, recreational facilities, parks, infiltration plants, sewage-treatment plants, all under the authority of State grants, and a tremendous investment is involved throughout the Great Lakes area in the issue before the committee. I would like also to enter my appearance on behalf of the American Association of Fort Authorities, of which I am first vice president. The views of that organization upon the legislation will be conveyed to your committee within the next day or two by Mr. Leander Shelley, of New York, who is our general counsel.

I thank you.

Senator MCCARRAN. Has your State taken any attitude or action on this!

Mr. BROCKEL. Yes, sir. Attorney General Martin, of Wisconsin, is one of the 46 attorneys general participating in this proceeding, and he unqualifiedly endorses S. 1988.

Senator MCCARRAN. Has your Governor taken any position?

Mr. BROCKEL. Yes, sir. Senator Wiley introduced in the record of this hearing on the opening day a communication from our Governor.

73335-48- -19

Senator MCCARRAN. I recall that. Thank you.

Mr. BROCKEL. Thank you, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. Has your legislature passed any resolution with respect to this question involving this proposed legislation? Mr. BROCKEL. Not to my knowledge, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. You speak in your statement about what you term a recognized principle of law that ownership of lands beneath tidal and navigable waters rests in the States.

Have you studied the decisions yourself on which that recognized principle of law, as you term it, is based?

Mr. BROCKEL. I may say, Senator, I am not an authority. But I have assisted the attorney general and our city attorney in their consideration of this matter. I have read many of the leading decisions and have a general familiarity with the legal background of the problem.

Senator DONNELL. May I inquire what was your profession before you became the municipal port director?

Mr. BROCKEL. I have been associated with the port authority for the last 22 years. That is the only occupation I have had. Senator MOORE. That is all, Mr. Brockel. Thank you. Mr. BROCKEL. Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF NELS G. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. NELS G. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the conmittee, I am the attorney general of the State of North Dakota.

The State of North Dakota is interested in this controversy only because of the basic, fundamental principle upon which our Gover ment was founded, the dual system of sovereignty.

The States' rights controversy, which all the people assumed was settled by the Civil War, is again present. It has been precipitated in recent years by the ever-growing authority and power of the Federal Government.

The growth of the Federal Government and the alarming rate at which it has, in the past 15 years, taken over functions formerl performed by the States, has caused concern to the sovereign State of the Union, and is one of the modern problems of government that must be solved unless all citizens are to concede that under moder: conditions a strong centralized Federal Government can perform the functions formerly belonging to the States better than the State were and are able to do them.

Senator MCCARRAN. I do not like your 15 years. I wish you would take another period of years.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will agree with you, Senator. That is probably not long enough.

There are a great many people who do not believe that the Federal Government can perform many local functions so effectively as the States, and that further encroachment upon State sovereignty by the Federal Government is dangerous to our continued liberty.

When our Constitution was framed and adopted our forefathers were definitely attempting to avoid the formation of a Federal Gov ernment with too much authority. History had demonstrated t them that too much authority in a centralized government was danger

ous.

Modern history of the immediate past proves that our forefathers were right in their apprehensions in that connection.

Our forefathers also knew that government close to the people was the best and more easily controlled to effect their wishes and desires. A government close to the people, and in their local control, was the aim and desire of the founders and framers of the United States Constitution. The result of the adoption of the Constitution. was a dual system of government, consisting of States and a Federal Government of defined delegated powers.

As early as the time of Aristotle, the ancient philosopher, who lived between 374 and 322 B. C., the Greeks recognized that the aim of democracy was to give the people a chance to share in the government to the utmost. Aristotle said:

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.

This truth so well expressed by a philosopher of the most ancient of democratic countries was known to our forefathers. Yet, it is a fact that we Americans are beginning to forget it.

American history tells us that it is extremely doubtful whether the Constitution would ever have been adopted by the Thirteen Colonies, then existing under the Articles of Confederation, if the people had not felt that the only power to be exercised by the United States Government was such power as had been delegated to it in the Constitution.

While the Articles of Confederation had not produced the cohesive strength necessary in the formation of a nation, the fear of a powerful Federal Government was actual and real to our forefathers, and the Constitution was an attempt on their part to keep the tendency toward centralization of Federal authority within certain bounds. The Constitution, therefore, was so constructed as to contain checks and balances to limit Federal power and at the same time create a sufficiently strong national union.

The fear of too much central authority in the Federal Government led to the adoption of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in December of 1791. Articles IX and X of these amendments state:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (art. IX).

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved in the States respectively, or to the people (art. X).

All authority of the United States Government must find its basis in the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant thereto. Yet it is a fact that as it is now being interpreted and construed, local government power, historically and generally conceded as belonging to the States, is said to reside in the Government of the United States.

It is generally conceded that the sphere of power, which except for the delegated powers of the United States Government, embraced all power left to the States, is getting smaller and narrower in scope. There is a marked tendency in the Federal Government to find means and methods to expand the Federal power. Particularly is this true in the last 15 or 20 years or so. This tendency leads to the question: Even in these United States is such tendency wholesome? Senator DONNELL. I would like you to state, sir, that Senator Mc