Government. These lands became the public domain; but this cession did not include lands beneath the coastal sea, nor lands beneath inland navigable waters, which were always reserved to the States.

Public lands are vacant and unappropriated uplands, subject to the land laws of the United States, and which have been surveyed by the United States under the public survey. The public survey has never been extended to cover the lands under navigable waters, either inland or along the coast, as such lands always have been considered the properties of the States.

If the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. California was a good thing for the reclamation States, the National Reclamation Association would not be lined up against the decision. And the National Reclamation Association has by resolution directed its board of directors and officers 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 undo the unsettling effects of this decision.

By petition, the National Reclamation Association has asked Congress to take immediate action declaring the law to be substantially as follows: First, 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, second, 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 water 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.

Anyone who will say that since the Supreme Court has now decided this matter the Congress should not take any action demonstrates his own complete failure to comprehend the problem. Congress not only should act; Congress must act. If we assume that the Supreme Court's decision settles the question that the Federal Government has complete sovereignty and domain over the marginal seas within the 3-mile limit, then there are, literally, a score or more of questions which must be settled. These questions, of course, would not require separate and special handling if the Congress should dispose of the whole problem by disavowing Federal ownership of these lands. But if Congress does not take that course, then Congress must either itself take up, one by one, the many other questions which will then present themselves, or provide that they be taken up, and settled, in some other

way.

Among these questions are the following:

Is the low-water mark, as it existed when the State came into the Union, to be accepted for purposes of a decree, or is the low-water mark as it existed at the date of the decision to be accepted?

What is to be done with artificially made land projecting into the 3-mile area?

What are to be the limits upon the police jurisdiction within the 3-mile area, for law-enforcement purposes, or for the abatement of nuisances, or the granting of fishing licenses, or the exercise of other police powers?

How are inland bays and waters to be distinguished from the lowwater mark on the ocean shore line?

Are channels and inlets lying between islands within the 3-mile limit, or between an island and the mainland, to be treated as inland waters, or as a part of the area within the Federal jurisdiction, thus bringing the surface of such islands within the domain and sovereignty of the Federal Government?

What is to be the disposition of public and private docks, loading "terminals, and other harbor installations, including jetties and causeways, extending into the 3-mile limit?

What are the rights of present tenants holding under grants or leases from the States?

What is the liability of the States to the Federal Government with respect to royalties and other revenues they have received from lessees, grantees, and licensees for the occupation and use of off-shore areas? That list of questions is by no means comprehensive; but it will serve to give some idea of the complexity of the problem.

If Congress will not settle this problem at one stroke, then Congress must at the very least give its assent to negotiations for settlement between the Federal Government and the States, looking toward a compact, or compacts, which shall be mutually binding, and which shall resolve the issues presented and give adequate protection to the rights of States and individuals. I have given considerable study to the question of compacts as a possible method of attacking the problem, and I shall give it more study, for I am inclined to think it might work.

It is my opinion now, however, as it was when I sponsored House Joint Resolution 225 in the Senate, that this is a question of national policy which should be determined by the Congress, if the Congress will act and if the President does not again nullify its action. The overwhelming sentiment of the people in favor of continuing State ownership and control was demonstrated in the passage of House Joint Resolution 225. The indications are clear that the Supreme Court decision has only strengthened that sentiment.

The only way in which this threatened invasion of State powers and rights can be prevented is by congressional action of some nature. To bring about such action I have recently joined with 19 other Senators in introducing Senate bill 1988, to restore ownership and control of all lands and resources beneath navigable waters to the States and those holding under them. This bill is a nonpartisan measure sponsored by 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Its basic aim is to preserve, as between the States and the Central Government, the true constitutional balance of power which is essential to the preservation of our Federal system and upon which the strength and vitality of this Republic depend. I do not believe it is by any means perfect. In fact, I think it can be improved in language. But its purpose is

sound.

This Government would never have come into existence-in other words, the Constitution of the United States would never have been adopted by the original States-had it not been for the fact that in the organic law itself is was declared, as it is now declared, that those rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government should be reserved to the States and to the people.

As a last expression, let me express the thought that there is no form of totalitarian government that can be more ruthless in its dealings with the individual than that form of administrative hierarchy which we know as bureaucracy. A true dictator, being a one-man government, might change his mind, might yield to his heart or his conscience; but the bureau has no heart, and it has but an assembled conscience. A monarch, however, bound by tradition, has a mind of his own, and may think. The bureau never thinks; it follows the formula. The individual cannot always pass the buck and escape responsibility, but the bureau can always resort to that method.

That is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Chairman. However, I would like to make this suggestion, and I hope the chairman will accept it as a suggestion only. This matter has been before the House during the Seventy-ninth Congress, and exhaustive hearings were indulged in. It then came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and again we held extensive hearings. It was passed by an overwhelming vote in the House and by a very substantial vote in the Senate.

It would seem to me now that the attitude of Congress is pretty well established. It is a matter in my judgment of the Congress of the United States, which is the policy-making body of the Government, reasserting itself as to the policy of the United States as to the matters of tidelands or submerged lands, wherever they may be.

It does seem t ome, Mr. Chairman, and I make this only as a suggestion to you with all due respect, those who oppose the position of the Congress of the United States, as made manifest by its overwhelming vote, should first be heard to see what, if anything, they have to say in opposition to the acts of Congress of the United States.

Certainly the Supreme Court of the United States did not override the Congress. It did not establish or determine anything. It made the matter even more undetermined than it was before. It now seems to me to be the matter of propriety to let those who in the Government think that they have something to oppose Congress with to come forward and let us have it. That is merely a suggestion to you, Mr. Chairman. I am in the minority.

Senator MOORE. Senator McCarran, I think there is merit in that suggestion, and I would like very much to have had that presented, but in deference to the request of Secretary Krug, who is one of the proponents of another bill here that is pending in another committee of the Senate, we acquiesced in beginning this hearing with the proponents of the measure and allowed them until next Monday to present their objections.

I would have liked very much, of course, to have had them here to comply with the request of Senator McCarran. For that reason, and for the reason that we have a great many people here from different States, Governors and attorneys general, whom we must hear, I am sorry I cannot comply with the suggestion of Senator McCarran.

Senator MCCARRAN. I would just like to know, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be up against the same tactics that we were before. After the bill passed the House before, the Attorney General at the instance of the then Secretary of the Interior, filed a case in the Supreme Court. In my judgment, and I state it as my judgment, it was done for the sole purpose of throwing a monkey wrench into the proceedings so that Congress would say the case is pending in the Supreme Court.

Why should we go ahead with it? That was said. It was used as a very forceful argument. Really, the only argument that the President of the United States made in his veto message was that the matter was pending in the Supreme Court and therefore should be held off. Now we have raised another issue apparently. In other words, we have the matter pending in another committee of the Senate of the United States. Shall we hold it off now until the other committee acts. on it, or shall we go ahead? I just wonder.

Senator MOORE. Thank you, Senator McCarran.

Another member of the subcommittee, Senator Donnell, who was also a member of the Seventy-ninth Congress and participated in this hearing, is present. I have asked Senator Donnell if he cared to make any statement about the matter, and I repeat that invitation.

STATEMENT OF HON. FORREST C. DONNELL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the invitation extended to me by the chairman. I may say that I have not prepared a statement this morning to be presented. I am impressed, of course, with the great importance of the issues which are to come before this committee as are suggested by even a casual reading of the bill which is before us now, S. 1988. Doubtless it would be likewise suggested by the other bills to which the chairman has referred.

I shall not undertake this morning to discuss the merits, pro or con, of this bill or series of bills. Personally, in view of the suggestion of Senator McCarran as to the procedure to be adopted, I should like to place myself on record as saying that I think the procedure that is now being followed is proper.

It seems to me that here we have a bill or series of bills which are being advocated, and I think it is entirely appropriate that those who advocate the bill should come before us and should set forth their reasons and give us their best judgment as to why they think the bills should be passed.

I may say, also, and I trust that this will not create any offense, that I do not at all consider that the matter is foreclosed by the previous action of Congress. I think that we now have a situation confronting us after the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on June 23, 1947, and after the issuance of the decree of the Supreme Court handed down on October 27, I believe it was, which make it necessary for us to consider this matter largely from the beginning.

I personally would welcome not only those who are here this morning and honor us by their presence, but I shall certainly welcome hearing the opposition, too.

It seems to me that we are entitled to consider the matter in the light of the present situation and in the light of the finding by the Supreme Court, in the light of the holding to which the chairman has referred and to which Senator Wiley has referred, namely, that California is not the owner of the 3-mile marginal belt along its coast.

I personally feel that it is entirely appropriate that the procedure that is now being followed should be followed.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the privilege of being a member of this subcommittee and of being called upon at this time for my observations. I shall listen, I am sure, with great interest to the presentation

which shall be made by the witnesses both for and against the

measure.

Senator MOORE. Thank you, Senator Donnell. Now we have Members of the House here. Does any Member of the House want to make a statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. CHAUNCEY W. REED, A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Representative REED. Mr. Chairman, realizing that there are present today the governors of several of the States, and persons who represent the governors of other States, we of the House committee will not take time individually or together to make a statement for the record at this particular time.

We were very happy to have the opportunity to join with the Senate committee and to consider these bills together. We feel it will give us all an opportunity to hear all of the witnesses, all of those interested, both pro and con, and be able to consider the matters in our individual committees to the best advantage of all of us.

Should we desire to make a statement or should any of my colleagues from the House desire to make statements, I believe that they would prefer to make them at a later time.

Senator MOORE. Thank you, Congressman Reed.

Representative REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MOORE. Mr. Walter Johnson, attorney general of the State of Nebraska, chairman of a special committee of the National Association of Attorneys General on tidelands legislation, together with other members of his committee, has undertaken the job of coordinated presentation of the testimony of the various States and other public officials appearing in support of this bill.

I want to take this opportunity to say to Mr. Johnson and his committee that both the House and Senate committees appreciate his assistance in organizing this phase of the hearing. Mr. Johnson, you many proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER R. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBMERGED LANDS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Walter R. Johnson, attorney general of Nebraska and immediate past president of the National Association of Attorneys General. appear here not only as an official of my home State but as chairman of the submerged lands committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, which is sponsoring Senate bill No. 1988 and companion bills introduced in the House, and now before you for consideration.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you are now considering one of the most profund questions that has ever been presented to Congress for inquiry.

It

In fact, it is not a mere question but a vital issue that affects the very foundation of our dual-sovereignty system of government. involves traditional equities, elemental principles of real-property law, the economic welfare of the several States, and the bedrock of FederalState relations.