The thing that we must, as I think it is the duty of legislators— pardon me if I say duties, I mean that in the most respectful wayis that you relieve people, and that is your function here, and to adjust wrongs and difficulties and to create stability and pleasant living and harmony and everything else in the minds of everybody that you can, and to perform a good deed rather than to leave something in a questionable status. I think it is the sworn duty of legislators to correct difficulties that appear that way.

Pardon me, I did not mean to preach.

Senator DONNELL. I assure you, Mr. Holm, that your remarks are competent and are considered by the committee as given with the utmost respect to the Congress.

I know that. I can appreciate your desire for the rendition of a good deed. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has held distinctly both in its opinion and its decree, and I quote from the decree:

The State of California has no title thereto or property interest therein.

Then the question as I see it, arises, what equity does California have when it has no title whatsoever to this property and no property interest whatsoever to the ocean property, which is what I am talking about now, not the inland. What equity does it have to cause the United States Government to donate by a document, S. 1988, something, whatever it may be, that the United States Government has to the State of California, when the State of California by the very decision of the Supreme Court and its decree, has not any title whatsoever to the ocean property or any property interest therein?

I think that is a proper subject of inquiry, and I know you do, too, and you have tried to give us here your views. You have done it very clearly and very competently. I do not want to trespass particularly on your time, Mr. Holm, but I wanted to ask you this: Do you know whether or not the State of California has issued any leases or other contracts with respect to oil out in the marginal belt? I mean by that, the ocean marginal belt, since the 23d day of July 1947? Mr. HOLM. I could not answer that question, Senator. That you would have to obtain from the representatives of the State. I don't know what the State has done in that.

Senator DONNELL. I would also like to ask whether or not, if you know, the attorney general of the State of California, who signed these stipulations, which were filed with the Supreme Court, was Mr. Howser? Was he there at the time?

Mr. HOLM. I am assured by Mr. Howser that he signed them.

Senator DONNELL. Very well. Is there any one present here that you know, Mr. Holm, who can give us the information as to whether leases or other contractual documents with respect to oil out in the ocean marginal belt had been entered into by the State by or on behalf of the State of California since July 23, 1947?

Mr. HOLM. Oh, yes; there is Mr. Watson, from the land department of the State, and there are several others.

Mr. FRED N. HOWSER. The answer is "no."

Mr. HOLM. Mr. Howser in an aside, just advised me that the answer is "no," that there have been no leases made. That undoubtedly will be corroborated by Mr. Watson, or somebody else from the State Department.

Senator DONNELL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLM. Thank you very much for your attention.

Mr. WOODWARD. Mr. Holm, Mr. Covert and I in our efforts for the committee, have been searching for several weeks the books in an effort to determine whether or not there exists a legal rule by which you can determine what is inland tidewaters and what is part of the marginal sea. Are you familiar with any legal rule by which you can distinguish in the legal sense inland tidewaters from the marginal sea?

Mr. HOLM. No, Mr. Woodward. I could not answer that question. I don't think there is any lawyer in the country who could answer that for you. I certainly have made a fair search of that. I think I know how to find it in the books, but I have never been able to find anything that would approach an adequate definition of that sort. I think it is beyond the ken and the accomplishment of any lawyer to do it.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Holm, the Supreme Court had before it the same question that was propounded by Mr. Woodward, did it not, in substance and did it not say with respect to that:

We may assume that location of the exact coastal line will involve many complexities and difficulties, but that does not make this any the less a justiciable controversy.

Certainly demarkation of the boundary is not an impossibility. Despite difficulties, this Court has previously adjudicated controversies concerning submerged land boundaries, and there is no reason why after determining that in general who owns the 3-mile belt here involved, the Court might not later, if necessary, have more detailed hearings in order to determine with greater definiteness particular segments of the boundary, citing the case of Oklahoma v. Teras. Such action is commonplace in actions such as this which are in the nature of equitable proceedings.

California's contention concerning the indefiniteness of the claim presents no insuperable obstacle to the exercise of the highly important jurisdiction conferred on us by article 3 of the Constitution.

Mr. HOLM. They said that, but that is a gross understatement of what the difficulties might be, Senator. I think from the many questions and the highly intelligent and important questions you have asked concerning this matter the last 3 or 4 days here, it must be a self-evident fact that that is almost a gigantic task that will take untold years to accomplish.

Why should that uncertainty be permitted to exist when the agency is at your hands and your fellow workers' to alleviate that and pass a bill that will correct it? That is our position.

Senator DONNELL. I get your position. You have made it very clear, Mr. Holm, indeed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at this time I would like to present Mr. Harry C. Brockel, municipal port director of the city of Milwaukee, Wis.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY C. BROCKEL, MUNICIPAL PORT DIRECTOR, BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF MILWAUKEE, WIS.

Mr. BROCKEL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: My name is Harry C. Brockel. I am municipal port director for the board of harbor commissioners of the city of Milwaukee, Wis.

The board of harbor commissioners was created by statute to plan, develop, and operate a modern system of municipal harbor facilities for the port of Milwaukee.

For several decades past, the city of Milwaukee has been in the process of developing a modern municipal outer harbor on the shore of Lake Michigan. This municipal harbor development was projected by the city of Milwaukee with the approval, endorsement, and assistance of the State and Federal Governments.

Milwaukee's general plan of harbor development was approved by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, and by the Congress, which, under the River and Harbor Act of 1922, authorized extensive breakwater construction at Milwaukee for the protection of the municipal outer harbor works. This breakwater project, now complete, represents a Federal investment of approximately $7,000,000.

The State of Wisconsin cooperated by granting to the city of Milwaukee, for harbor and terminal purposes, extensive areas of submerged land in Lake Michigan. The State grants of submerged lands for harbor development extend along the Lake Michigan shore for approximately 2 miles and to an average width of 1,500 feet from the original shore line.

Milwaukee's municipal harbor properties at present comprise 371 acres of land, of which 212 acres, or nearly 10 percent were created partially by natural accretion but principally by filling-in of submerged lands granted by the State. The Milwaukee Harbor project contemplates a series of piers extending into Lake Michigan, and, as additional piers are constructed, extensive additional filling operations will be undertaken. By far the greatest part of the development, both actual and prospective, has been or will be constructed on lands reclaimed from Lake Michigan under State grants.

The city of Milwaukee has, during the past 30 years, invested more than $7,000,000 in the construction of municipal harbor facilities. A series of modern terminal facilities have been provided to meet the needs of commerce and shipping, with substantial benefit to Great Lakes commerce and shipping, both foreign and domestic.

In addition to the large municipal investment, private industries have leased 50 acres of municipal harbor property for new industrial developments utilizing water transportation and the municipal port facilities. About $1,000,000 has thus far been invested in these industrial developments on municipal harbor lands, and an additional million dollars of investment, in the way of new construction, is now under way.

Extensive areas of municipal harbor property have been reclaimed from Lake Michigan at nominal cost, partly by hydraulic fill and partly by use of city waste material. These properties, in their developed state, are regarded as among the finest terminal properties on the Great Lakes. This value is not theoretical, as 50 acres have already been leased on long-term industrial leases, based on land values, of $25,000 and $30,000 per acre. The general development of the municipal outer harbor area is of a type consistent with these substantial Jand values.

Milwaukee's municipal harbor facilities are by no means the only public installations concerned in the issue before this committee. Milwaukee has a shore line of 71⁄2 miles on Lake Michigan, and about 95

percent of the entire shore has been brought under public ownership for the use and enjoyment of the general public.

In addition to the municipal harbor installations previously described, Milwaukee has constructed, partially or completely on reclaimed lands, a modern sewage disposal plant, costing $18,000,000; a water filtration plant, costing $5,000,000; and lake shore parks, driveways, and recreation facilities conservatively valued at $20,000,000. $30,000,000 would be a very conservative estimate of the value of pubhe installations made within the city of Milwaukee in, upon, or adjacent to lands reclaimed from Lake Michigan.

For more than a century, it has been a recognized principle of law that ownership of lands beneath tidal and navigable waters rests in the States. In accordance with this settled rule of law, the State of Wisconsin has, from time to time, granted areas of submerged lands to various public agencies in Milwaukee. These agencies have expended large suins of public moneys in developing these submerged lands and in constructing facilities in aid of commerce and navigation, and for the public health and welfare. These improvements and expenditures have been made in justified reliance on the rule of property holding that the sovereign States are the owners of lands beneath their adjoining waters.

An unwarranted cloud has been cast upon these titles by the claims of the Department of the Interior and by the Supreme Court action recently brought by the Department of Justice. The adoption of S. 1988 by the Congress would clarify the entire situation and would recognize the legitimate and settled property rights of their sovereign States and their grantees. On behalf of the city of Milwaukee and its board of harbor commissioners, I strongly urge that this committee and the Congress take prompt and favorable action upon S. 1988. Mr. Chairman, in addition to that statement, on behalf of the city of Milwaukee, I would like to enter my appearance for the Great Lakes Harbors Association, of which I am secretary. That association comprises many of the port cities of the Great Lakes, including such cities as Detroit, Toledo, Muskegan, Milwaukee, and others. Those cities have a common concern with Milwaukee in this problem. They have developed harbor facilities, airports, recreational facilities, parks. infiltration plants, sewage-treatment plants, all under the authority of State grants, and a tremendous investment is involved. throughout the Great Lakes area in the issue before the committee. I would like also to enter my appearance on behalf of the American Association of Fort Authorities, of which I am first vice president. The views of that organization upon the legislation will be conveyed to your committee within the next day or two by Mr. Leander Shelley, of New York, who is our general counsel.

I thank you.

Senator MCCARRAN. Has your State taken any attitude or action on this!

Mr. BROCKEL. Yes, sir. Attorney General Martin, of Wisconsin, is one of the 46 attorneys general participating in this proceeding, and he unqualifiedly endorses S. 1988.

Senator MCCARRAN. Has your Governor taken any position?

Mr. BROCKEL. Yes, sir. Senator Wiley introduced in the record of this hearing on the opening day a communication from our Governor.

Senator MCCARRAN. I recall that. Thank you.

Mr. BROCKEL. Thank you, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. Has your legislature passed any resolution with respect to this question involving this proposed legislation? Mr. BROCKEL. Not to my knowledge, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. You speak in your statement about what you term a recognized principle of law that ownership of lands beneath tidal and navigable waters rests in the States.

Have you studied the decisions yourself on which that recognized principle of law, as you term it, is based?

Mr. BROCKEL. I may say, Senator, I am not an authority. But I have assisted the attorney general and our city attorney in their consideration of this matter. I have read many of the leading decisions and have a general familiarity with the legal background of the problem.

Senator DONNELL. May I inquire what was your profession before you became the municipal port director?

Mr. BROCKEL. I have been associated with the port authority for the last 22 years. That is the only occupation I have had.

Senator MOORE. That is all, Mr. Brockel. Thank you.
Mr. BROCKEL. Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF NELS G. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. NELS G. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am the attorney general of the State of North Dakota.

The State of North Dakota is interested in this controversy only because of the basic, fundamental principle upon which our Government was founded, the dual system of sovereignty.

The States' rights controversy, which all the people assumed was settled by the Civil War, is again present. It has been precipitated in recent years by the ever-growing authority and power of the Federal Government.

The growth of the Federal Government and the alarming rate at which it has, in the past 15 years, taken over functions formerly performed by the States, has caused concern to the sovereign States of the Union, and is one of the modern problems of government that must be solved unless all citizens are to concede that under modern conditions a strong centralized Federal Government can perform the functions formerly belonging to the States better than the States were and are able to do them.

Senator MCCARRAN. I do not like your 15 years. I wish you would take another period of years.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will agree with you, Senator. That is probably not long enough.

There are a great many people who do not believe that the Federal Government can perform many local functions so effectively as the States, and that further encroachment upon State sovereignty by the Federal Government is dangerous to our continued liberty.

When our Constitution was framed and adopted our forefathers were definitely attempting to avoid the formation of a Federal Government with too much authority. History had demonstrated to them that too much authority in a centralized government was danger