I want to introduce in the record at this time an editorial from the Oakland Tribune, entitled "Attorney General's 'Lawsuit Veto' Plan Could Outdo Filibuster in Obstruction." (It is as follows:) [Editorial from the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune, March 5, 1948] ATTORNEY GENERAL'S "LAWSUIT VETO" PLAN COULD OUTDO FILIBUSTER IN OBSTRUCTION The extremes to which the Attorney General of the United States seems willing to go in efforts to block legislation to quitclaim tidelands to the States is legitimate cause for concern. His actions, approaching those of a rabid partisan closer than those of a legal authority presenting his case, cannot fail to suggest there are some forces in bureaucratic Washington determined to invade States' rights and seize property for a central authority, even if they have to adopt desperate means. Announcement by Attorney General Clark that he now intends to sue Texas for its tidelands "within a month or two" is tip-off to procedure as well as another warning that a dispute first held to be of concern solely to California and Washington concerns all States with tidelands and possibly all States with marginal lands on lakes and rivers. Admitted before the present hearing at Washington, the plan to be followed by the Attorney General is to file suits, one by one, against the Coastal States. When President Truman vetoed former legislation to quitclaim the tidelands, he did so because a suit had been filed. If he follows that pattern, he will veto any new legislation on the subject just so long as the Attorney General is successful in keeping a suit on file. As Chairman E. H. Moore, of the joint congressional subcommittee, asked of Mr. Clark, "So, if you file a suit against Texas you could file a suit against Louisiana next year and again it could be said that Congress could not act while that suit was pending?" HOW Procedure of the kind, if recognized generally as it was recognized in the President's veto and appears to be in practice by the Attorney General, could outdo the worst of filibusters in blocking legislation. Under it all that would be necessary to stop a law approved by a majority in Congress would be the filing of a suit by the law's opponents. What a club this would be in the hands of any administration determined to have its own way despite popular will. There is no legal justification for such a course. The rights of Congress to enact legislation under all circumstances cannot be questioned. If maneuvers of the kind now admitted were successful, we could have one move toward the establishment of a precedent and be a step nearer to a lawsuit-veto power by which needed legislation, at any time, could be blocked. Senator MOORE. I want to introduce for the record a statement by Mr. Donald J. Chaney, of the Fish and Wildlife Service. (It is as follows:) STATEMENT OF DONALD J. CHANEY, CHIEF COUNSEL, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, FOR THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE SENATE ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 299 The Fish and Wildlife Service does not advocate the assumption by the Federal Government of the control and administration of coastal fisheries which have hitherto been exercised by the various States. The pattern of State control and regulation of these fishery resources has long been established. It is conceded that such a system presents certain defects, particularly when migratory species frequenting the waters of a number of States are involved. Likewise, when a productive fishing area, such as the Chesapeake Bay, is subject to the territorial jurisdiction of several of the States, serious problems of administration arise and in some instances may impair conservation of fish and shellfish. For many species of fish, uniformity of regulation is highly desirable, and such uniformity has not been achieved to any great degree. It is believed, however, that recent developments offer an encouraging prospect that these disadvantages will be overcome gradually. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, authorized by Congress and established in 1942, is an official agency designed to bring about coordination and uniformity in State fisheries administration. Its general purpose is indicated by the title of the authorizing legislation, "An act granting the consent and approval of Congress to an interstate compact relating to the better integration of the fisheries (marine, shell, and anadromous) of the Atlantic Seaboard and creating the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Public Law 539, Seventy-seventh Congress." In the relatively limited time since its organization, it has progressed toward this goal, and there is every reason to hope for more concrete results in the future. In 1947 a similar interstate agency, including all of the Pacific Coast States, was authorized by Congress, and is now in process of organization. Similar action is pending among the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In a short time the Coastal States, which have the paramount interest in inshore fisheries problems, will be joined in confederations that ultimately should bring about great improvement in the management of the commercial fisheries. Many of these States already handle this responsibility most effectively, and the trend is distinctly toward improving the level of State regulation and administration. Any attempt to assume these responsibilities by the Federal Government would interrupt this trend and substitute a period of uncertainty and confusion. The Federal Government could not take over the responsibilities now exercised by the States without establishing new and greatly enlarged machinery for that purpose. While the Federal Government can be of material assistance to the States by carrying on research that will develop the basic facts upon which sound management can be based, the application of these principles can be done efficiently through the local State agencies having a greater familiarity with local resources and needs. It is true that conflicts may arise in connection with the conduct of fishing operations by nonresidents of certain States. It would not seem, however, that these conflicts would necessarily be any more complicated than those which may arise in other State relationships having to do with resource or industrial developments. The foregoing comments refrain from any reference to broader considerations of basic relationships between the State and Federal governments, and are an attempt to analyze the pending proposal as to fisheries in the light of practicalities. In summary, it is the opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service that the action proposed, with respect to fisheries, in Joint Resolution 299 will provide no benefits which may not be achieved within a reasonable time as an outcome of the current policy to permit and encourage the States to join with each other for the purpose of conserving and managing more wisely the inshore fishery resources. It is believed that time should be allowed for this approach, which has had less than a decade of actual trial, to prove itself before substituting a different concept. The role of the Federal Government with respect to fisheries regulation and administration in high seas areas, external to the commonly accepted State boundaries, is not discussed here simply because those problems in any event are outside of the scope of the pending legislation. Senator MOORE. Here is a telegram from John O. Pastore, Governor of Rhode Island, that I am offering for the record. (It is as follows:) Gov. BEAUFORD F. JESTER, Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D. C. PROVIDENCE, R. I., February 24, 1948. DEAR GOVERNOR JESTER: I regret I cannot attend the hearings on tidelands legislation because of previous commitments. You may place me on record as being in favor of such legislation in accordance with resolution passed at the Governors' Conference. JOHN O. PASTORE, Governor of Rhode Island. Senator MOORE. I have a letter here, a resolution of the executive committee of the United States Wholesale Grocers' Association, Inc., of Washington, D. C. (It is as follows:) UNITED STATES WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., RESOLUTION OF UNITED STATES WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. Whereas since the formation of the United States, ownership of land beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the separate States has been recognized as belonging to the respective States; and Whereas the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. California holds that regardless of "mere property ownership” the Federal Government has paramount power to take the natural resources from beneath such lands along the coast due to its responsibility for national defense and international relations, thereby creating a new theory of law which clouds State rights, property, and revenues, and may be extended later even to private property; and Whereas governors and attorneys general of 46 States, the American Bar Association, National Reclamation Association, American Association of Port Authorities, and many other organizations have called upon Congress to confirm State ownership of these lands and make it clear that State and private property cannot be taken except by due process of law and with just compensation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the executive committee of the United States Wholesale Grocers' Association, Inc., at a special called meeting in Washington, D. C., this 27th day of February, 1948, That we endorse the proposed legislation now being considered in Senate bill 1988 and recommend its adoption and approval by the President; and that a copy of this resolution be sent to Members of Congress and President Truman. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES WHOLESALE GROCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., W. A. LIVINGSTON, President. Senator MOORE. I have also for the record a resolution adopted by the National Reclamation Association of Phoenix, Ariz. (It is as follows:) RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION AT PHOENIX, ARIZ. Whereas since the founding of the Republic, the several States have been uniformly recognized as the owners of the navigable waters and lands beneath such waters within their respective boundaries: Now, therefore be it Resolved by the National Reclamation Association, That we earnestly urge the Congress to take immediate action through such surrender of title or interest as may be necessary declaring the law to be substantially as follows: (1) That the exercise of the Federal Government's paramount powers in national defense, international affairs, and commerce shall not of itself be interpreted as vesting any proprietary interest in the land or resources so defended or dealt with; and (2) That except as to those lands which the Government has previously acquired by purchase, condemnation, or donation, the respective States own the title to all lands beneath the navigable waters within their boundaries, which as to coastal States includes the marginal shelf, subject to such regulatory powers in the Federal Government as may be necessary in exercising its constitutional powers of, and in, national defense, commerce, and international affairs. Resolved further, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Member of Congress, President Harry S. Truman, Attorney General Tom Clark, Secretary of the Interior J. A. Krug, and the governor and attorney general of each State. And resolved further, That the board of directors and officers of the association be directed to cooperate with and assist the governors and attorneys general of the States in their continued Nation-wide organization and campaign for suitable congressional action to accomplish such purposes. Senator MOORE. Now, the next witness is Mr. Donelan. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. DONELAN, REPRESENTING HAVEMEYERS & ELDER, INC., AND BROOKLYN EASTERN DISTRICT TERMINAL, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. DONELAN. My name is John F. Donelan. I am a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia. I represent Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, both of which companies have their offices at 111 Broadway, New York City, N. Y. In behalf of Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, I wish to support and endorse Senate bill 1988, presently under consideration by your subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., has held and presently holds title in fee simple to properties along the water front of Brooklyn, N. Y. Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., has a very substantial investment in valuable waterside facilities constructed on filled-in land along the Brooklyn water front. These properties are presently under lease to the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, its wholly owned subsidiary, a corporation organized under the terminal corporation law of the State of New York. It is a truism to state that at the present time by virtue of the so-called tidelands controversy, the title and interest of these companies in these properties, either as owner or lessee, have been placed in jeopardy. The uncertainties arising out of the tidelands controversy, including the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. California, are a matter of grave concern to companies such as those whom I here represent and many others similarly situated, who in reliance upon title clearly validated previously by the acts of the legislature and the decisions of the courts of the States concerned have invested great amounts of capital in the development of their enterprises. Senate bill 1988 faces this critical issue squarely and offers a sound and proper solution. Accordingly, Havemeyers & Elder, Inc., and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal strongly support and endorse Senate bill 1988. Senator MOORE. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF PRICE DANIEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS-Resumed Mr. DANIEL. When I stepped aside last time I was making the point that has been discussed here more recently by Senator Wheeler, that the Court specifically had before it the contention of the Department of Justice that the Federal Government owned these lands and had proprietorship in them. I had reviewed the fact that in the 258-page Government brief only ownership was contended for, and nothing about this theory of paramount rights carrying with it what some would say amounts to the right that otherwise used to go with ownership. Then I had read from Attorney General Tom Clark's speech where he talks about proprietorship, and that is all they are after, about six times. Now I would like to review the fact that the Court in its opinion said that the crucial question was not merely who owns the bare legal title to these lands. The United States here asserts rights in two capacities, that is what they said. The Court said that is not the question that they are going to decide, who owns the land. These two rights that the Court says are controlling in this case are said to be national defense and international affairs. Those are responsibilities of the Federal Government. Then, the Court sets out what the question is that they are going to decide in this opinion, and here is what the Court says about the question: In the light of the foregoing, our question is whether the State or the Federal Government has the paramount right and power to determine in the first instance when, how, and by what agencies, foreign or domestic, the oil, and other resources of the soil of the marginal sea, known or hereafter discovered, may be exploited. That is the question the Court says that they are going to decide. Who, in the first instance, the Federal Government or the State, has the paramount right to determine who shall exploit these minerals. Then when it ends up, as has been pointed out here many times, the Court does not say anything about who has the ownership of these lands, except that California, for the reasons stated, does not have ownership; and goes on to say what the Federal Government has is a paramount right in and power over it. What kind of paramount right in and power over it is that? The paramount right is to decide who shall take these minerals. Now, that is our interpretation of the decision, and I say to the committee that it was the interpretation of the decision given by the Justice Department. Otherwise, why did the Justice Department in its request for a decree want to insert the word "proprietorship" in the decree? If they were satisfied that these paramount rights included ownership and proprietorship, why were they not satisfied to write their decree or ask the Court to enter the decree just exactly like the opinion of the Court reads? We know why they were not, they were not satisfied, the Court had not gone on their theory of the case and had not said a thing about ownership or proprietorship being in the Federal Government. Therefore, in their proposed decree, as has been heretofore pointed out, the Government asked for the decree to read as follows: The United States of America is now and has been at all times pertinent hereto possessed of paramount rights of proprietorship in and full dominion and power over the lands, minerals and so forth. In addition to asking for a judgment of paramount rights and full dominion and power over them, they want to say "of proprietorship." Now, here is the point that has not come out in this hearing, within my knowledge, and that is that this question of whether or not the Court's opinion was intended to cover proprietorship was specifically raised before the Supreme Court of the United States. The National Association of Attorneys General filed a brief in the Court objecting to those words "of proprietorship" being in this decree. That was filed by our association. The first point of our brief, on pages 4 through 8, had to do with this specific point, asking the Court not to put those words "of proprietorship" in the decree, because their opinion did not decide the Federal Government had any proprietorship or ownership. In this brief we set out exactly the argu |