Now, I believe that you say that you can go out and take the oil from under these submerged lands, if California owned all that was to be owned there, except for this difference that you have indicated: that you could not in England have a patent granted to a private

person.

Mr. McNEMAR. Yes, sir. There is one further thing, Mr. Chairman, in connection with this, and that is that in order for the Federal Government to take this oil out from under the submerged lands, under our constitutional set-up, the necessity for the thing must be shown.

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming that you need it?

Mr. McNEMAR. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us assume that, and let us stay with that a minute. Now, the ownership of that oil in the first instance is in California, but you have this national necessity to take it for the Navy, and that oil can be taken without compensation, you think? Mr. McNEMAR. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And then you move inland and you strike the other half of that same pool that is under dry land.

Mr. McNEMAR. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, if you take that from the same California, would you have to pay for that?

Mr. McNEMAR. The right of eminent domain would apply; yes, sir, which is what we understand from the decisions of the courts. It is derived from the English law and applies above the high watermark.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. Let us stay with this a little further. Let us say that California has a half-million barrels covered by water and has a million barrels out, and you think that the Federal Government, because there is some water above the one-half million, has a peculiar right to appropriate and disregard the constitutional requirement to pay compensation?

Mr. McNEMAR. It would if that water is a part of the territorial waters of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. I am assuming that the water is all right.

Mr. McNEMAR. We do not want to get confused with the cases where the oil is under a lake that is wholly within a State.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just giving you the best kind of water that could be on it.

Mr. McNEMAR. The answer is that we could take that part of it that is under the water without compensation, and that part of it that is inland, above high water, would require the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the sort of ownership that belonged to the general sovereignty that never went to the subdivisions?

Mr. McNEMAR. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. But when you have a situation where the general sovereignty derives its powers from the smaller units of government and is itself a creature of the smaller units of the Government, would that make any difference?

Mr. McNEMAR. That would make a difference to this extent, yes, it makes a difference in this case particularly because here the major government has only those powers that have been delegated to it..

The CHAIRMAN. That is right, so these kinds of powers that came from England might be on a different basis.

I do not think that it is necessary to take further time. I think that we have got what is in your mind. We do have some difficulty there in making or drawing definite hard and fast analogies between this country and England, because of the things which we have just indicated, because with us the States were the basis of the sovereignty.

Mr. McNEMAR. Of course, that applies only to the 13 Original States.

The CHAIRMAN. They created the Federal agency to function for them?

Mr. McNEMAR. Yes, sir. Of course, that not only applies to the Thirteen Original States but to Texas as well.

Now, I think that we have gotten this thing back to where we started from, and I desire to leave it with the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you.

Mr. McNEMAR. I must confess that although I have appeared before subcommittees of the Congress on prior occasions, this is the first time that I ever saw the full committee sit in with the subcommittee. I am sure that is due to the very great interest in this matter of national defense, and I hope to the interest in the Navy. Of course, I also know that it is because of the distinguished member of this committee, Judge Hobbs, who introduced this bill.

On behalf of the Navy Department we thank you very much. Mr. FAIRCHILD. Did I understand correctly that the committee was incorporating in the record the record of the prior hearings?

Mr. MURDOCK. I am not sure, but that is my impression.

Mr. FAIRCHILD. If that be not true, I would desire to introduce the full record of the previous hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. We have enough copies for the use of the committee or anybody else that might want to have them, and they will not have to be formally introduced in this record to be considered by the committee now in examining the questions. Whether it is formally in the record or not, it will be considered by the committee as being a part of the record.

Mr. MURDOCK. I think that the subcommittee and the whole committee wishes to thank everybody that has appeared.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to express my very great appreciation to the members of the subcommittee for the magnificent manner in which they have conducted this committee, and we appreciate, all of us, the contributions which you have made to the understanding of the committee on this question.

Mr. TOLAN. There is another member of the California delegation, but with so many witnesses we did not want to take the time of the committee, and he authorized me to speak for him. I am also authorized on behalf of the California congressional delegation to have it recorded that they are all in opposition to the resolution, to both resolutions, and I would also like to have the written statement of Congressman Ford inserted into the record.

Mr. MURDOCK. It will be inserted in the record.

(The document above referred to was incorporated into the record, as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS F. FORD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives:

I am not a lawyer, therefore not competent to present to you hair-line legal points.

I wish merely to refer to "An act for the admission of the State of California into the Union approved by the Thirty-first Congress on September 9, 1850." The act recites as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."

It further recites, in section 3 of the act:

"That the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States, and the right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned." There, gentlemen, we find a specific exemption relating to public lands, and it seems a settled policy, substantiated by Supreme Court decisions, particularly in Hardin v. Jordan (140 U. S. 371), that public lands extend only to tidewater. This puts tide lands and submerged lands, not exempted in the act granting California statehood, in an adjudicated position; and if we are to accept, as we must, the decisions of the Supreme Court, the two resolutions now before this committee should be rejected.

One point I want to emphasize is this: Is this committee ready to act upon two resolutions that will unsettle for a long period land titles in all States bordering on tidewater, subjecting cities and individuals to the expense and anxiety incident to having the titles to property purchased or otherwise acquire in good faith, clouded?

The first effect would be a stoppage of all realty transfers; the second would be the making it impossible to secure a loan on any of the property involved; the third would be the invalidating of all existing mortgage, bonds, or other loans made on property, and would threaten with ruin and bankruptcy thousands of individuals and institutions holding these mortgages. I thank the committee for its courtesy and patience.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL H. WILLIAMS

My name is Samuel H. Williams and I am manager of the Transportation Bureau, Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce.

The purpose of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce is to protect and improve the commerce, business, and manufacturing interests of the port and city of Philadelphia and to advocate and encourage whatever may increase the prosperity or welfare of the citizens of Philadelphia. Its membership is composed of several hundred individuals, firms, and corporations of diversified interests in and contiguous to Philadelphia.

This organization is opposed to the enactment of House Joint Resolution 176. Millions of dollars have been invested by local governmental and private interests in developing and maintaining facilities at the port of Philadelphia on the Delaware River. Over $40,000,000 have been spent alone by the city of Philadelphia in providing terminal and port facilities. This proposed legislation if enacted would create doubt and confusion with respect to ownership of such port facilities and might lead to expensive litigation which would be unjust and burdensome to local interests.

While the enactment of this legislation in itself probably would not directly affect Philadelphia or Pennsylvania's interest, the question of title to lands under the Delaware River would seem to be clouded thereby.

This resolution while dealing with submerged lands adjacent to and along the coast of California alone would seem to be the entering wedge for, in section 3, it is provided that the United States does not waive any of its rights to similarly proceed against other States not only for the recovery of petroleum deposits, but "for other purposes" as well.

No matter how narrow the initial claim may be the principle upon which it is based is broad. It must, therefore, be considered as a test claim as to the ownership of all submerged lands.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY THOMAS M. EATON, M. C., REPRESENTING THE EIGHTEENTH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING THE CITY OF LONG BEACH

Mr. CHAIRMAN. In presenting my position to the committee I am not going into the legal steps and decisions which have given the people of California every assurance that the ownership of their lands is sacred to the American principles of States' rights. You will hear these legal points from eminent authorities.

What I wish to point out is that the various resolutions have and are at this time causing great anxiety to thousands of citizens who have purchased and developed properties in good faith and who now are facing the possibility of long legal battles with their own Government.

No one has questioned the ownership of California of its submerged lands until the city of Long Beach was fortunate enough to strike oil in its city owned and developed harbor district.

I submit to you that the Federal Government cannot now in good faith question the ownership of property for the purpose of taking the oil from that property.

The people of Long Beach have, at their own expense, by bond issues developed its harbor and without assistance of the Federal Government provided the Navy landing. It is developing its harbor oil properties in an orderly and sensible manner and is securing for the people a maximum return as high as 60-percent royalty in many cases.

Many of our private small homes are erected on filled lands which were formerly submerged lands. If the Federal Government asserts title to our submerged lands, they in effect assert title to all lands which were submerged since these lands were received from Spain. Thus would the Federal Government cast a cloud over the small home owners as well as the public submerged lands along our water front.

Already rackets are being worked and practically every piece of property in my district has a Federal leasing claim filed and recorded in the Federal Land Office. These claims are filed for the purpose of drilling for oil which these applicants feel may come about by the Federal Government taking control of these lands.

I have been informed that the Navy policy has always been to lease their oil lands rather than drilling themselves. The hope of private reward, based upon possible Federal ownership accomplished by these resolutions, is the reason for these claims hanging over property in my district and a large part of the State of California.

Even the breakwaters extending far out to sea are plastered with these applications and all are encouraged by this type of legislation. The best way to kill off this kind of racketeering is for this committee to emphatically throw out and kill such unfair proposals and threats to States' rights and private property.

I have no criticism of the Navy or any Federal agency wishing to set aside these lands for oil reserves, but I do object to the inference of confiscation without pay, because that is what the result would be if all the court decisions of the past should be reversed. That is what is hoped for by the proponents of these resolutions, otherwise, why introduce them?

If national defense is the reason we are to decide the issue on, then I submit that California should not be called upon to finance national defense any further than its just share. If it be for national defense, then let these lands be fairly appraised and the Federal Government pay to California a fair and honest price for its product.

It would be as reasonable to ask Minnesota to donate its iron ore or Kansas its wheat, or Texas and Louisiana their cotton. Each of these is major commodities used by the Navy.

The properties belong to all the people of California and are estimated to be worth as much as a billion dollars, or an average of possibly $500 for every family in the State. It is these families these resolutions are directed at, because only they are involved in the ownership. While these properties are tied

up in expensive litigation the oil will be drained from much of the properties by private interests on adjacent lands.

I leave explanation of the legal points and decisions to those more familiar with their terminology, but I call your attention to the fact that a very large part of California titles is based upon old Spanish land grants and the people have come to believe their safety is in the honesty and sincerity of our Government. Only the Federal Government could endanger the clearness of these titles and it is such suggestive legislation as is here proposed which will endanger titles. No greater curse could come to this Nation than to question titles which have been accepted for over a hundred years.

As a man without legal training, I believe I speak for my people when I say that our Federal Government has let us rest secure in the ownership of our lands and through the Federal courts has assured us of our ownership. Now, just because my home city of Long Beach has discovered oil in submerged lands off shore, this should in no way affect the question of ownership which has been established for over one hundred years.

STATEMENT OF HON. HOMER D. ANGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

To the Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

MARCH 25, 1939.

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: As a Representative of the Third Congressional District of Oregon, I desire to submit a statement in opposition to House Joint Resolution 181 and House Joint Resolution 176.

GENERAL STATEMENT

While these resolutions have to do with oil deposits on submerged lands and the Hobbs resolution (H. J. Res. 176) only with such petroleum deposits in the State of California, the principle involved is equally applicable to every State in the Union having submerged lands and particularly to those States bordering upon the ocean. Oregon has no commercial oil fields but is interested in the broad question involved as it is equally applicable to docks and to the structures over waters adjacent to the shoreline, as well as to mineral deposits under the waters.

PROPONENTS' CONTENTIONS

It is my understanding that the proponents of this legislation take the position that neither the individual States nor the United States has title to the submerged lands below low-water mark and extending out to the 3-mile limit, but that the United States, by virtue of its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and to provide for the national defense and maintain a Navy, and by reason of its national sovereignty, has a right to appropriate petroleum products in the submerged lands below low-water mark and within the 3-mile limit.

PROPOSITIONS MAINTAINED

We maintain the following propositions :

1. Title to the submerged lands in question is owned by the State in whose territory the lands lie.

2. The United States has no title of any kind in and to these lands or to the petroleum products or minerals under the soil. Its only rights therein are such as are given to it by the Constitution, extending power over interstate and foreign commerce.

3. Under the Constitution the United States is a Government of delegated powers and has only such national sovereignty as is given to it by the Constitution. The States retain all the sovereign powers they originally had before the compact was entered into in establishing the United States, and all of these residuary powers are still held by the States except the powers delegated by the Constitution to the United States.

4. The National Government has the right to provide and maintain a navy and provide for the national defense, but in doing so it is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and cannot deprive a State or an individual of its property or rights without due process of law, including just compensation.