Judge HUDSON. Oh no. I never used the same language at all in discussing the Pollard case as the Court did. Oh, never, never. I spent two paragraphs to lay forth my views in such a manner as to show that that language was susceptible of questioning even at the hands of the gods.

Senator DONNELL. Manley, whether you used the same language or not, I think you referred to the fact that various decisions of the Court had been strong enough, in fact I know that you made mention of how modestly the Court had used this language. I am sure you used that.

Judge HUDSON. Oh, yes.

Senator DONNELL. Namely, this language:

As previously stated, this Court has followed and reasserted the basic doctrine of the Pollard case many times and in doing so it has used language strong enough to indicate that the Court then believed that States not only owned the tidelands and soil under navigable inland waters, but also soil under all navigable waters within their territorial jurisdiction whether inland or not.

Did you not quote that into the record this afternoon as coming from the Court?

Judge HUDSON. I think it has been quoted here about 40 times, has it not?

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Judge HUDSON. I went over that, myself.

Senator DONNELL. Why, certainly.

Judge HUDSON. I went over it for a definite purpose. I had two, I thought, very beautiful paragraphs on it.

Senator DONNELL. You did.

Judge HUDSON. The chairman listened very intently at that point. Senator DONNELL. They were beautiful. That was about the time that quorum call came and we were disturbed by the interruption of it. Senator MOORE. Permit me to tell Judge Manley Hudson that the American Bar Association, through its house of delegates, unanimously approved this bill. Whether you knew that or not, that is in the record here today. That might be of some comfort to the judge.

Judge HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have been a member of the American Bar Association since 1910. That is 38 years now, Forrest-38 years. And I think the association does excellent things. Its leaders are great lawyers. They revere the gods. It has fathered a great many of my movements in the last 25 years. I hope it will continue so in the future. I welcome its action as showing that the lawyers of this country are trying to do some individual thinking, not only about the law of the future, but about the state of the Nation, and what is in the public interest.

Senator DONNELL. I may add to the record, if Manley will permit me to do so, that he stands exceedingly high in the American Bar Association, as he knows.

All I wanted to add was just to quote after this language which you yourself quoted from Mr. Justice Black, in which you say he said with becoming modesty, I want to quote merely this observation of the Court after that was said. He says:

All of these statements were, however, merely paraphrases or offshoots of the Pollard inland water rule and were used not as enunciations of a new ocean rule, but in explanation of the old inland-water principle. Notwithstanding the fact that none of these cases either involved or decided the State-Federal conflict presented here, we are urged to say that the language used and repeated

in those cases forecloses the Government from the right to have this Court decide that question now that is squarely presented for the first time.

Judge HUDSON. Thank you very much, Senator. You have given me opportunity to comment somewhat more fully on the first sentence which you read.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Judge HUDSON. To the effect that all of these statements were merely paraphrases and the offshoots of the Pollard inland water rule, and were used not as enunciations of a new ocean rule but in explanation of the old inland water principle.

I revere the gods, of course, but I must read three-hundred-odd volumes of United States reports with my own humble mind and my own inadequate skill. Reading those reports, having read all of these cases, I would have written the statement somewhat as follows: All of these statements were made to show that the Pollard inland water rule was a deduction from the marginal sea rule, and instead of enunciating a new rule as to inland waters, the Court applied to inland waters the rule which had previously been accepted, established, and applied to the marginal sea.

That is the way I would have written the sentence. I don't profess the competence of Mr. Justice Black, of course, but if I had been sitting in the World Court, I think I would have written it in about those terms.

Senator DONNELL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Representative CHADWICK. May I ask one question?

There is one aspect of this which troubles me. I find in the opinion of the Supreme Court a somewhat labored effort to build up the theory upon which they acquired these lands. When, as a matter of fact, do you take it that the United States of America acquired these lands not only with respect to title, but dominion and imperiam and all the other incidents of that?

Judge HUDSON. The lands off the California coast?
Representative CHADWICK. Yes.

Judge HUDSON. I take it that the United States has not acquired title. I am bound, of course, by the statement of the Supreme Court. I have the decree here, and the decree says that the United States has paramount rights in, full dominion and power over, lands, minerals, and so forth. That does not say title, and they refused to put in the word "proprietary" at the time the decree was drawn.

Representative CHADWICK. That is true, sir, but going back a little into the history of which you are a master, did not the United States of America acquire title and all these other incidents when it acquired the land out of which the State of California has since been carved? Judge HUDSON. Of course, the marginal sea was appurtenant to California as soon as it was ceded-perhaps even before.

Representative CHADWICK. Yes; perhaps even before. That is why I put the question to you.

Judge HUDSON. It was ceded by Mexico. Because I believe we date our possession of the geographical territory of California from conquest and occupation, and not from cession. With conquest and occupation, of course, that is my whole theory; the marginal sea went along as appurtenant to the land itself.

Representative CHADWICK. Then there is no occasion for a labored discussion, is there, as to how the United States acquired this land in

the first instance, when it acquired the territory which has now become California?

Judge HUDSON. But it took that territory for the purpose of making a new State. The court has said many times, they did make a new State and made it very promptly. The State itself has a constitution, I think I am right in saying, even before it was actually admitted to the Union. When the State took over that territory when it became sovereign of the territory, I thought and I had awfully good company, I thought that the marginal sea was, of course, to be treated precisely as the land was treated so far as the relations between the Federal Government was concerned.

Representative CHADWICK. Do not misunderstand me. I agree with you prefectly. I am only trying to point out that it seems to me that far more basic than any theory of the acquirement of a special paramount interest and constitutional rights over waterways and our international relations is the fact that the State of California obtained from the United States all that the United States had at that point at that time, and your whole argument points to the fact that that included the appurtenant parts of the land.

Judge HUDSON. That was always my understanding.

Representative CHADWICK. There would be no occasion for a labored study of the basis of this supposed paramountcy rights so far as it involves the question of title, because the title was admittedly at one time in the United States of America, and out of that title was carved by consent in the establishment of the State a coastal State of California, which under the logic of your fine statement acquired those rights from the United States under a system with which we are familiar.

I am at a loss to understand, therefore, why the logic of the thing does not take us back to the fact that the United States owned this first, subsequently carved out the State of California without reservation, and thereby logically lodged in the State of California these lands as appurtenant thereto. If that is the case, then the paramountcy of rights subsequent to that must be taken in the light of our own constitutional system, a paramountcy based on the constitutional power of the United States in its relations with the States under our federated system.

Judge HUDSON. Thank you very much. I wish I had made that statement myself.

Senator MOORE. Any other questions?

Judge HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I must thank you and the members. of the committee for your kindness and your tolerance. I feel myself not only at home here in dealing with men of such acumen, but I actually feel myself a friend to everybody on the committee, after this charming afternoon.

Senator MOORE. Thank you, sir.

We will resume hearings at 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 5:35 p. m., the joint committee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a. m., Thursday, February 26, 1948.)

TITLE TO SUBMERGED LANDS BENEATH TIDAL

AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1948

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
AND SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittees met in joint session, pursuant to recess, at 9:40 a. m., room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator E. H. Moore (chairman of the Senate subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Moore (chairman of the Senate subcommittee), Donnell, and McCarran.

Representative Chadwick.

Also present: Senator Knowland.

Guy Woodward, administrative assistant to Senator Moore; and Maurice W. Covert, member, professional staff of Senate committee. Senator MOORE. The committee will be in order.

I have a letter from the Governor of Georgia, Governor Thompson, signed by himself and the attorney general of the State of Georgia. I have been requested to put this letter into the record, expressing their views on this matter.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to record affirmatively, to show that without any aspersions on either of these gentlemen or without any intimation of their reluctance to testify, I have no intention of so implying; I want the record to show, however, that neither the Governor of Georgia nor the attorney general of Georgia is here in person.

Therefore, there is no opportunity to cross-examine these two gentlemen on the contents of their statements.

Mr. JOHNSON. I might add in that respect, Senator, that the attorney general of Georgia had planned on being here during the week, but we got a wire from him yesterday stating he was still engaged in the trial of a case which prevents his personal presence.

(The letter follows:)

Hon. E. H. MOORE,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MOORE: The undersigned Governor and attorney general, representing the State of Georgia, beg leave to submit for the consideration of your committee and the Congress the position of the State of Georgia with respect to the resolutions, Senate Joint 14 and S. 1988, confirming the State ownership and Sovereignty of submerged lands within the borders of the States.

The State of Georgia, as a proprietor, owns lands situated off its coast in the Atlantic Ocean consisting of Jekyll Island and other property. So it has a

proprietary interest in the problem as well as the interest of its citizens who own land adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, and furthermore, its rights as a sovereign State. All of its rights are affected by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring that the Federal Government has paramount rights to those of the sovereign States and their citizens in the minerals and submerged properties of tidewater lands.

For more than a hundred and fifty years prior to the rendition of the decision of the Court, it was universally recognized that the title to these submerged lands and the minerals therein did not belong to the Federal Government, but were within the control of the sovereign States of the Union.

Furthermore, it was recognized that the Federal Government, in its sphere of jurisdiction, had no more power over these lands and the minerals therein than it possessed over any other lands of mineral properties within the borders of any State. If these lands and the mineral rights are needed for national defense or for any other purpose to execute the powers possessed by the Federal Government, they may be subject to that power and used for said purpose in the manner prescribed by the law and the Constitution. But it by no means follows that except for said national purposes, the Federal Government should have power

over same.

While, of course, we bow to the decision of the Supreme Court, we urge that the Congress of the United States, composed of representatives from each State in the Union, restore to Georgia and the other States of the Union their proprietary rights and sovereignty over the submerged lands and the minerals therein. We respectfully request that your honorable committee will favorably act upon these resolutions to the end that Georgia and her citizens may be declared to be possessed of those rights and proprietary interests which for more than a century and a half have been recognized to belong to them. Respectfully submitted.

M. E. THOMPSON,

Governor. EUGENE COOK, Attorney General.

Senator MOORE. Senator George A. Wilson of Iowa, presents the statement of Governor Blue, of Iowa, signed by Governor Blue and by the attorney general, Robert L. Larson, of Iowa, which we will place in the record at this point.

Senator DONNELL. Please, Mr. Chairman, may the record show that neither the Governor of Iowa nor the attorney general of Iowa is here in person, and consequently, the opportunity of cross-examination is not afforded at this time with respect to the statement of these two gentlemen.

Again I state there is no intimation or even suggestion that these gentlemen are reluctant to appear. I merely desire the fact to be shown that there is no opportunity for cross-examination of them. afforded to the committee at this time.

(The statement referred to above follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT D. BLUE, GOVERNOR, AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. LARSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF IOWA

The State of Iowa presents its views in support of S. 1988 to the subcommittee of the Judiciary at its hearing beginning Monday, February 23, 1948.

Iowa generally is interested in the preservation of our dual sovereignty system of government. Iowa believes that the equities favor State ownership of the lands beneath the rivers and lakes within its State boarders, and has long exercised control therof without objection by Federal authorities.

Through its conservation commission and executive council, prudent and efficient management of the 200,000 acres beneath its inland waters has resulted in sound conservation practices. Iowa is well equipped to continue the care of these natural resources.

Iowa through its conservation commission and executive council has now about 1,000 acres under mineral lease. The minerals now being developed are sand and gravel, though coal and other minerals are known to be found under said