our whole system of dual State and Federal sovereignties, and cloud the titles of resources beneath private property.

Now, Mr. Chairman, although I am particularly interested as far as Texas is concerned, I am more concerned about the pattern which is developing of our Federal Government taking more and more power unto itself. It is my opinion that we have too much power in Federal Government at this time and that we in Congress should fight every bill which tends to take more and more power from our States. I respectfully urge the members of this Joint Judiciary Committee to favorably consider H. R. 5380 which will quitclaim these lands to the various States.

THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY,

LAW DEPARTMENT,

New York, N. Y., March 8, 1948.

Hon. E. H. MOORE,

Chairman of Subcommittee on Submerged Lands,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MOORE: Referring to the joint hearings which were held commencing February 23, 1948, by subcommittees of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee with respect to Senate 1988 and other pending bills relating to the submerged lands lying beneath the marginal sea along the coasts of the United States.

On Friday morning, March 5, 1948, in the course of my testimony at the joint hearing, Senator Donnell requested me to furnish for the record the approximate dimensions and area of the portion of the port of New York district which projects into the Atlantic Ocean beyond the 3-mile limit.

I transmit herewith a copy of a map showing the boundaries of the port of New York district as established by the compact of April 30, 1921, between the States of New York and New Jersey, to which the consent of Congress was given by Public Resolution 17 (67th Cong.) approved August 23, 1921. This joint resolution contains the text of the compact in full including in article II thereof a description of the boundaries of the port district by metes and bounds.

As appears from the enclosed map, the eastern boundary of the port district crosses Long Island and extends in a generally southerly direction into the Atlantic Ocean. The southern boundary of the port district crosses a portion of New Jersey and extends in a generally easterly direction into the Atlantic Ocean. These two boundaries meet at a point in the open sea, outside the entrance to New York Harbor and at such a distance offshore that the southeast corner of the port district projects into the Atlantic Ocean beyond the 3-mile limit. The point at which they meet is at latitude 40° 24' north, and at longitude 73° 47' west.

The distance along the eastern boundary from the Long Island shore south to the point where it meets the southern boundary is approximately 13.12 plus or minus miles. The distance of the southern boundary from the New Jersey shore east to the same point is approximately 10.07 plus or minus miles. The area within these two lines but outside the 3-mile limit is approximately 48,077 plus or minus acres.

The line shown as the 3-mile limit is a line 3 miles distant from the coasts of Long Island and New Jersey where they face the open sea. Opposite the entrance to New York Harbor, it is 3 miles distant from a line connecting the tip of Sandy Hook with the tip of Rockaway Point. In all cases the distances mentioned in this letter are scaled distances, and similarly the area mentioned is based on scaled dimensions. However, I believe they will be sufficiently accurate for your purposes.

Very truly yours,

LEANDER I. SHELLEY, General Counsel.

MEMORANDUM BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, FRED N. HOWSER, IN REPLY TO STATEMENT OF ORIN DEMOTT WALKER

Mr. Walker has filed a long and elaborate brief in support of the application for a Federal oil lease in the middle of Long Beach Harbor on behalf of Robert

E. Lee Jordan. The principal argument in this brief so far as it attempts to deal with the law is that the United States acquired California from Mexico and thus acquired title to both uplands and submerged lands and that neither the act of admission nor any other act ever conveyed these submerged lands to California and hence they now belong to the United States.

It is difficult to understand how any lawyer who had studied this problem could have overlooked the fundamental principle which has been applied to all new States, namely:

"The titles acquired by the United States to lands in California under tidewaters, from Mexico, were held in trust for the future State, so that their ownership and right of disposition passed to it upon its admission to the Union * *

This was the holding of the United States Supreme Court in the case of San Francisco v. Leroy (138 U. S. 670). Other cases applying specifically to California which contain identical holdings are: (Mumford v. Wardwell (1867) (6 Wall. (73 U. S.) 423, 434, 436); Weber v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1863) (18 Wall. (85 U. S.) 57, 65, 66); Knight v. U. S. Land Association (1891) (1942 U. S. 161, 183, 201); United States v. Mission Rock Co. (1903) (189 U. S. 391, 404); Boraz Consolidated v. City of Los Angeles (1935) (296 U. S. 10, 15, 16).) Under the principle that the lands were held by the United States in trust for the future state, no express grant is required. Lands beneath tidewaters vested automatically upon the State's admission to the Union which operated to terminate the trust.

The same principle applies to inland navigable waters. The United States has never executed any grants to any of the new States conveying to them the beds of their inland navigable waters. These lands are vested in the States under the rule above stated.

If Mr. Walker's theory is correct, then no State owns any land under navigable waters whether inland or coastal.

This one simple principle of law makes completely irrelevant everything contained in Mr. Walker's elaborate brief dealing with the alleged ownership by the United States of lands beneath navigable waters.

On page 25 of Mr. Walker's brief, he stated that the State of California realized that it did not own the tidal, submerged lands and inland waters, or at least did not own the minerals which might be found in them, and that this statement is confirmed by the action of the California Legislature in 1929, chapter 536 of the statutes of that State. This statement is not true. California has at all times asserted ownership to the tidal submerged lands and inland waters. Boone v. Kingsbury (206 Cal. 148 (1929) (certiorari denied, 280 U. S. 517)).

Prior to 1929, the surveyor general of California had issued permits to prospect or drill for oil and gas upon tidal or submerged lands. Because of complaints that oil drilling activities along the beach lands had caused pollution of beaches, the State through appropriate legislative enactment temporarily discontinued oil drilling activities until a complete study could be made to determine the best method of administering such activities. The studies continued for a number of years, and, until the year 1938, when the Legislature of the State of California enacted State Lands Act of 1938 (Stat. Ex. sess. 1938, ch. 5, p. 23) being a comprehensive act relating to lands owned by the State of California. A State lands commission was thereby created vested with the administration of and jurisdiction over State lands, including oil, gas and other mineral lands including uplands as well as tidal and submerged lands. Special provision was made in article 6 of said State Lands Act of 1938 for making oil and gas leases on tidal and submerged lands.

A complete history of the legislative recognition and assertion of California's ownership of tidal and submerged lands is contained in the answer of California to the complaint in United States of America v. State of California, part III, page 756 through 781. A copy of this answer is on file as a part of the record in these proceedings and reference is specifically made to the portions above referred to, as proof of the falsity of the statement contained on page 25 of Mr. Walker's brief that California "realized that it did not own the tidal, submerged lands and inland waters."

There are a number of references in the brief to the bad faith of the attorney general of California. Inasmuch as these are nothing but innuendos and not the slightest evidence has been referred to which support such innuendos, it is

the feeling of the attorney general of California that no answer to this portion of Mr. Walker's brief is called for other than to point out the fundamental legal fallacy above mentioned.

FRED N. HOWSER, Attorney General of the State of California. By WALTER S. ROUNTREE, Deputy Attorney General of the State of California.

DATE: MARCH 16, 1948.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
March 19, 1948.

Mr. MAURICE COVERT,

Care of Judiciary Committee, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. COVERT: I am enclosing herewith, for the files in the hearings on S. 1988, the following:

Letter from J. T. Sanders, legislative counsel, the National Grange, dated March 18, 1948, with enclosure of list, showing membership of the Grange by States as of June 30, 1947; and

Letter from Gus Norwood, executive secretary, Northwest Public Power Association, dated March 16, 1948, with enclosure of statement with regard to S. 1988. With kindest regards, I am

Yours very truly,

E. H. MOORE.

NORTHWEST PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., March 16, 1948.

The CHAIRMAN,

Senate Judiciary Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MOORE: I am enclosing a statement with regard to S. 1988, the tidelands bill, in which I endorse the amendments proposed by the Federal Power Commission.

It would be appreciated if this statement would be inserted in the committee hearings at an appropriate point.

Sincerely,

GUS NORWOOD, Executive Secretary.

STATEMENT OF GUS NORWOOD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NORTHWEST PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION, VANCOUVER, WASH., ON S. 1988, THE TIDELANDS BILL

My name is Gus Norwood. I serve as executive secretary of the Northwest Public Power Association whose members consists of REA cooperatives, public utility districts, and municipal electric distribution systems in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

This association recommends that the tidelands bill, S. 1988, do not pass in its present form.

This association concurs in and endorses the statement of the Federal Power Commission including the endorsement of the amendments proposed by the FPC. If the amendments proposed by the Federal Power Commission are adopted, the proposed legislation will then be beyond the area of interest of this association. I appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement.

Hon. E. H. MOORE,

NATIONAL GRANGE,

Washington 6, D. C., March 18, 1948.

Chairman, Subcommittee of the Judiciary of the

Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate,
United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MOORE: In my testimony before the joint meeting of subcommittee of the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate, I was requested to supply your committee with information on the official action of the National Grange on the matter of the ownership of offshore property.

On April 17, 1946, the executive committee of the National Grange adopted the following statement of policy:

"It should be the policy of the Federal Government to establish title and control of all offshore oil-bearing lands as far out as drilling operations are practical. Title should remain in the Federal Government rather than in any of the States, at least beyond the 3-mile limit, because the full burden of supporting, policing, and protecting these lands will fall upon the Federal Government and these assets should be preserved for all the people rather than a limited group who live in a State bordering on these reserves.

"The title should remain within the Federal Government with leases granted equitably in such manner that large oil companies may not gain monopolistic control. Drilling rights should be allocated on an equitable basis and should be of such firm character that any individual or firm investing the necessary development money should be assured of reaping the benefits from their investment (pp. 65 and 66 of the Journal of Proceedings of the 80th Annual Session of the National Grange, Portland, Oreg., 1946)."

We have no way of determining the exact active membership of the Grange due to the fact that our only means of checking membership is on the basis of dues paid to the National Grange. After a number of years of service, members are exempt from the payment of further dues. To these are added some unaffiliated members. We estimate that the number of members thus exempted from dues constitute from about 5 to 7 percent of our dues-paying members. It is, therefore, necessary to add possibly 5 to 7 percent to the number of duespaying members to get the approximate active membership of the Grange.

The approximate present total membership of the Grange by States as of June 30, last year, is shown by the enclosed list. Since this date there has been a net gain of approximately 30,000 members and these should be added as well as the 5 to 7 percent indicated above.

In my testimony I stated that it might be possible to supply you with a list of the subordinate granges in California. I find that we do not have a printed list. I have ascertained from National Master Goss since returning to my office that these lists are only officially releasable by the respective State masters and are not the property of the National Grange.

I will gladly send the request of the committee direct to Mr. George Sehlmeyer whose address I placed in the record for the committee, or the committee could make the request direct to him.

Sincerely yours,

J. T. SANDERS,

Legislative Counsel, the National Grange.

MARCH 19, 1948.

In compliance with request received today the following letter from Mayor O'Dwyer concerning the tidelands and submerged lands problem, is included in the record. This letter is the same one which appears at page 303 of the hearings of February 7, 1946, on House Joint Resolution 225:

Re Senate Joint Resolution 48.
Hon. PATRICK A. MCCARRAN,

CITY OF NEW YORK,
New York 7, N. Y., February 4, 1946.

Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The above joint resolution to quiet the titles of the States to lands beneath the tidewaters and navigable waters is before your committee. I strongly urge approval of the resolution.

The city of New York has a vital interest in retaining title to its water front and harbor lands and lands under water. This city's water front and harbor, developed and maintained under municipal control, is an invaluable asset not only to the people of New York, but to the entire Nation. The city's title to its foreshore and lands under water, as granted to it by ancient charters and by the State of New York, has never been challenged. It is of paramount importance to the development of this city that New York retain full and complete control over these lands and improvements.

The purpose of the resolution before your committee is to reaffirm that title to lands under tidewaters and navigable waters has always been vested in the States and their grantees, such as the city of New York. Recent assertions of title to lands under water by the Government of the United States are contrary to all historical precedents and to judicial determinations. Such claims might becloud the city's title to one of its most valuable assets and cause serious repercussions in maintaining and continuing the constant development and improvement of New York Harbor.

I firmly believe that the city's title is beyond question, but the resolution before your committee would constitute a final recognition of that title and a disclaimer by the United States that it ever had any title to these lands. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted a similar resolution (H. J. Res. 225), and I trust your committee will approve the resolution. Very truly yours,

WILLIAM O'DWYER, Mayor.

NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,
Washington 6, D. C., March 19, 1948.

Memorandum: To Mr. Covert, Senate Judiciary Committee.
From: Clyde T. Ellis, executive manager.

Here are my statements about which I talked with you. I would appreciate it if you would get this inserted in the record and give copies to the proper persons on the committee.

Thank you very much.

CLYDE T. ELLIS.

STATEMENT OF CLYDE T. ELLIS, EXECUTIVE MANAGER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN RE S. 1988

I am Clyde T. Ellis, executive manager of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, a service organization representing 758 rural electric systems with 1,485,785 consumer members in 42 States.

I want first to make clear to you the reasons that prompt me to present a statement at these hearings on S. 1988. Our organization is dedicated now and always to the extension, improvement, and perfection of rural electrification in the Nation. We are proud of the record of the rural electrification program since 1935, during which period the number of electrified farms in America has increased from 10 to 60 percent, and we want this progress to continue. We are ever conscious of the millions of farm homes in the land still dark and of the farmers in those homes who wait for the blessings of electricity to relieve them of the burdens of farm toil and to increase the production and preservation of food.