and more than 36 percent of the total acreage of the United States and its Territories.

In the last decade the land holdings of the Federal Government have increased 150,000,000 acres. In September, 1944, the Federal Government owned more than 455,000,000 acres in the continental United States, not including 50,000,000 acres of reserved mineral rights, and $21,000,000 million acres of land in the United States and its Territories.

I think that in America we have demonstrated completely the competence of private enterprise to meet the requirements however vast for defense in time of war or national peril.

It is high time we checked trends in thinking toward nationalization of natural resources in this country. Germany, when she began plans to conquer the whole world, started that preparation with the nationalization of natural resources. Russia long ago did the same thing with resources for her war machine and, like Germany, centralized her economy.

I do not believe it will be the policy of Congress to take the step toward centralizing the economy of our country and changing our way of life. I do think that unless this legislation is passed, we do take the first step in nationalizing oil by nationalizing the oil that is involved in these tidelands, nationalizing them to the extent that they are taken from a former property owner, one who has had dominion, exercised control, management and operation thereof.

The presence here at Washington of the representatives of many States, the expressed attitude of the Governors' conference, decrying this new interpretation of ownership of these lands which overrides a long uninterrupted series of court decisions, should be conclusive evidence of the need for the corrective legislation which we now seek. For these reasons, and because of the express agreement in 1845 with the United States Congress that Texas would retain title to these lands, we join with these States in urging the Congress to pass this legislation recognizing and affirming State ownership of these tidelands, submerged lands and their natural resources to the States in accordance with their heretofore long-recognized rights.

In conclusion, I will say I think it is the province of the Congress by its legislative act to make this correction in the ultimate results of the Supreme Court.

As I pointed out once before, gentlemen, this would not be the first time that the Congress has had by its act to correct a decision of the Supreme Court.

The latest example of this that I think we recall was in 1944 when the Supreme Court held in the United States Southeastern Underwriters' Association that insurance was interstate in its nature, and in interstate commerce.

The Congress of the United States properly corrected it the next year. When the Congress corrected it, I remember it was part of the declaration that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest.

This was turned back to the States. Certainly, you have a pattern to follow, gentlemen.

I thank you for your very patient hearing.

Senator DONNELL. Governor, you stated earlier in your address this morning that you will not discuss the law involved in the Tidelands

case. I know that doubtlessly, as one member of the committee, I have been largely responsible for causing you to violate your statement at that point. I want to ask you this question, and it is a question that I would like to get your judgment on as a lawyer. The decision of the Court in the California case says:

Now that the question is here, we decide for the reasons we have stated that California is not the owner of the 3-mile marginal belt along its coast.

Then this part to which I call your attention, particularly:

and that the Federal Government rather than the State has paramount rights in and power over that belt, an incident to which is full dominion over the resources of the soil under that water area.

Where the Court uses that language that it decides that the Federal Government, rather than the State, has paramount rights in and power over that belt, is it in your opinion true that the Court was going even further than the point of decision of title and was including within its decision both title and something else beyond title?

Governor JESTER. It certainly went beyond title, sir.

As I have said before, it establishes an entirely new ideology which I think is one for the Congress to pass on.

Senator DONNELL. If it went beyond title, then do you take the view that by the use of the term "paramount rights," it included title and something else beyond title? Is that your judgment?

Governor JESTER. I think it went beyond title.

Senator DONNELL. Yes; but did it include title and something else when it used the language "paramount rights"?

Governor JESTER. I don't think it did by the fact that the Supreme Court finally failed and refused, after being requested after this opinion was handed down, to make the declaration that we have discussed before.

Senator DONNELL. I am talking now just for the moment about the decision. I will come in a moment to the decree.

Had you never seen the decree at all, would you have concluded that the words "paramount rights in and power over that belt" includes title and perhaps something else even beyond title?

Would that have been your conclusion?

Governor JESTER. It goes beyond it to the point for the purposes and reasons that they assigned that they assert this dominion over.

Senator DONNELL. I particularly wanted to know, though, Governor, not so much whether it goes beyond it, you have said that, but in going beyond did it include title in its possession or beyond title?

Governor JESTER. It would be an element, but as I say, I cannot read into it where they have done anything else except to take the title from the State of California, sir.

Senator DONNELL. You say that it would be included. Do you mean that title is included within the term "paramount rights"?

Governor JESTER. I think I can answer your question by giving my reaction to this decision, reading it from the four corners.

Senator DONNELL. Governor, do you mind just giving me your

answer on that particular question?

Governor JESTER. Repeat the question again.

Senator DONNELL. Then you can amplify as much as you like.

Is it your opinion that the term "paramount rights in" includes title as one of the elements going to make up and constituting the paramount rights?

I would like to have your opinion on that, and then amplify it just as much as you like.

Governor JESTER. I can't say that I do, sir.

Senator DONNELL. You cannot say that you do. Would you like to go further than that statement?

Governor JESTER. I just wanted to say my reaction to this opinion, reading it from all four corners, is that what the Court has done is to take the title of the State of California to this land. It has declared that it does not own this land, but the essence of it is that, for the purposes of national defense, the Federal Government has paramount rights, and dominion, over this land.

Senator DONNELL. Then it follows, Governor, that language to which I have directed your attention, with the statement, "an incident to which is full dominion over the resources of the soil under that water area, including oil."

I understood you to say a little while ago that the Court was approaching, in fact, I think you said at one time even more than that it was approaching a declaration there that title in and to the oil was in the Federal Government.

Am I correctly quoting your previous testimony?

Governor JESTER. I would not want to say ever that the Federal Government was able to establish title in the Federal Government in this land and the oil beneath it.

Senator DONNELL. I was asking you what the Court said, though. Does the Court in your opinion by the language "full dominion over the resources of the soil under that water area, including oil," include ownership in and to the oil?

Governor JESTER. I would not know how to interpret that, sir.

Senator DONNELL. On the meaning of this word "paramount," I have in my hand a series of definitions from Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary of the English language, 1937, reading as follows:

Paramount: (1) Possessing or pertaining to the highest title or jurisdiction, supreme in authority, as a paramount chief, paramount rule. (2) Possessing the highest degree of power, superior to all others, supremely controlling, as paramount obligations, a paramount necessity.

Then comes quite a number of synonyms. I am not going to read them all:

"Chief, eminent, foremost, preeminent, principle, superior, supreme,” and various ilustrations.

In view of that definition that paramount means possessing or pertaining to the highest title or jurisdiction, supreme in authority, possessing the highest degree of importance, superior to all others, supremely controlling, would you say what is your opinion as to whether by the use of the term "paramount rights in" the Court meant to include legal title?

Governor JESTER. You could include in that, in disregard of anybody else's right or title, they are asserting a paramount control over it. You could say the construction could be that by having the para

mount langauge to mean that it overrode even an ownership vested in the States.

Senator DONNELL. You could also construe it, could you not, Governor, to mean that the Federal Government has paramount rights, that is, the rights than which nothing is supreme or higher, and in that event, paramount would include title, would it not?

Governor JESTER. You could consider that.

I would say that every man who realizes that should urge upon the Congress to see to it that the danger and threat in that language to the establishment of this policy situaion would impel the Congress to enact the legislation in which we are appearing in behalf of here today. Mr. WOODWARD. Governor, are you familiar with the record in the California, case?

Governor JESTER. No. My attorney general is. I would much rather have not gotten into a legal discussion of this. I think it is evident you have seen I have not studied this so thoroughly as the lawyers who have studied it.

I do not want to evade any question of the very eminent Senator from Missouri, and I was glad to discuss it with him anyhow.

Mr. WOODWARD. Is it your opinion as a lawyer that under this decision of the Supreme Court, the Federal Government may exercise these paramount rights with all of the implications that the meaning of the word gives to it, regardless of title?

Governor JESTER. That is exactly what I think.

Mr. WOODWARD. And that all of these elements of paramount rights include the right to take the resources, to use the resources, to sell the resources, to control the lands from which the resources come.

That kind of dominion would all be an incident to the paramount rights of the government under this decision; would they not?

Governor JESTER. Exactly, and that is one of the reasons we are here. Mr. WOODWARD. Is it your opinion, then, that it is the effect of this opinion that these "paramount rights" of the Federal Government do exist and may be exercised, whether the Federal Government has title or not?

Governor JESTER That is exactly my position.

Mr. WOODWARD. Then is it your opinion that in reaching its ultimate conclusion the Court did not find it necessary to say that the Federal Government had title; but having these paramount rights, it could exercise all the elements of title without having title?

Is that your opinion?

Governor JESTER. That is right. I suspect that is particularly brought out when it says that it has those rights that transcend even the rights of a mere title owner.

Mr. WOODWARD. When I asked you if you were familiar with the record in the California case, I had reference to the Constitution of California when it came into the States, fixing the State boundary at a point 3 miles seaward from the low-water mark.

That constitution being accepted and approved by an act of Congress fixed the boundaries of California by an act of Congress? Governor JESTER. Yes.

Mr. WOODWARD. That being a matter of record in the case, do you suppose that is the reason that the Supreme Court refused to say that the Federal Government had ownership in that area?

Governor JESTER. That could be one reason; yes.

Senator DONNELL. Governor, the attorney general, Mr. Daniel, was here yesterday, and I understand he will be prepared to discuss further the decision itself and the legal phases.

If I am incorrect, please check me. I believe you would prefer that any testimony with reference to the proper inferences to be drawn concerning the decree and the request of the attorney general concerning that should be taken up by him rather than yourself; is that correct?

Governor JESTER. That has been agreed upon, sir.

Senator DONNELL. I will not question you with reference to those matters if you would prefer that he so testify.

I would, however, like to direct your attention to that portion of your testimony in which I think you have appropriately taken up the question as to whether it is necessary or advantageous for the Federal Government to have the ownership, control, development, and operation of the tidelands.

Governor JESTER. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. You are going there not to the legal question, but to the policy question; the broad policy of the National Government. That is what your undertaking will be for discussion?

Governor JESTER. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. I know on page 7 of your statement you say that

we have the record and proof that the emergency and war needs are best served by the productive ability of free, competitive enterprise, rather than by government ownership, control, and operation.

Is the point that you are emphasizing there that if the Federal Government succeeds in holding all these coastal marginal lands, there will be a Government ownership, control, or operation which would not be as beneficial to the Nation as would be the productive ability of free, competitive enterprise?

Governor JESTER. Correct, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Governor, is it not true that if the ownership were to be passed by this bill, S. 1988, over to the States, that the States would own the oil, would own the land, just as the United States Government would if the Government retains that ownership? Governor JESTER. Correct, sir.

Senator DONNELL So there is no reason to believe, is there, Governor, that the ownership by the Federal Government of those marginal lands is going to result in Government ownership and operation any more than it could be considered that that result would follow in the event that the States should own those lands?

Governor JESTER. The point I am making, Senator Donnell, is that our record and experience show that oil regulation and conservation. measures of the States have done a job. It is a tried and true record of accomplishment.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Governor JESTER. And that it is preferable to a development of oil by the Federal Government.

Senator DONNELL. Very well. That is your view, and I respect your view.

But it is not obligatory on the Federal Government if title to these lands is in it to operate it as an operator to control its operations,

73335-48-10