distinction can be drawn. All are territorial waters, subject to the ownership and dominion of the littoral sovereign.

You may ask why are the ports worried about the decision in which they are not "included." The decision of the Supreme Court does not help. It says:

The Government does not deny that under the Pollard rule California has a qualified ownership of lands under inland navigable waters such as rivers, harbors, and even tidelands down to the low-water mark.

That is not an adjudication of the States' title to land underlying inland waters. It will not prevent a later contention that the Pollard case is not good law. It will be contended that such lands were not included in the present suit.

Although the thought of future steps in this Federal policy of landstealing is becoming apparent. In the stipulation of September 13, 1947, between the Government and California temporarily fixing the lines of three bays in the State, the furthest the Attorney-General would go was to say that the lands within such bays were "not claimed in this case." That does not mean that they may not be "claimed" in a suit to be filed tomorrow.

We have reason to believe they will be claimed. Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, have done so in the past. That is why we do not believe their pious protestations that the expropriation of lands underlying inland waters is the farthest thing from their thoughts.

If there ever was one, San Francisco Bay is a bay or harbor. Its one entrance, the Golden Gate, is perhaps a mile wide. The bay is roughly 80 miles long and an average of 10 miles wide.

Yet on three separate occasions, within the last 5 years, the Government has attempted to seize not only lands underlying its waters, but lands reclaimed from its bottom by public and private grantees of the State of California.

Two of those attempted steals are in the reported cases. See United States v. 412.715 acres of Land, Contra Costa County, Cal. (53 Fed., Supp. 143); and United States v. Certain Lands in Alameda Co., Cal. (53 Fed., Supp. 150).

The first involved the taking of certain reclaimed-as is noted in the opinion-and submerged lands for the establishment of a naval fuel supply depot at Point Mulate.

The second sought the acquisition of certain reclaimed-as noted in the opinion and submerged lands in Oakland for the Army's port of embarkation.

In both cases piers and wharves already existed which had been constructed on the condemned lands by the private owners and with the permission of the State.

In both cases, which were argued concurrently, the brief for the Government was written in Washington by the Lands Division of the Department of Justice. It was not the work of some solitary field representative. It was studied policy of the Department.

In these cases, the contention was that these lands could be taken without compensation under the commerce clause which gives authority to provide aids to navigation. Submerged lands are subject to a servitude for this purpose, and for example, the government need not pay for the land occupied by a lighthouse.

From there on, we had to hold our hats, for it was contended that the Army and Navy exist to protect commerce and navigation; that any facility for the accommodation of either branch was therefore an "aid to navigation" within the scope of the servitude mentioned; and, consequently, reclaimed and submerged lands, within the confines of a land-locked bay, could be taken for an Army or Navy base without compensation.

The contention even included the right to take a pier on such lands without paying.

It was too much for the common sense of the district judge, and the attempt was abortive.

The other instance, on San Francisco Bay, was an earlier proceeding filed to acquire the whole of Treasure Island from the city of San Francisco.

That case was mentioned by Mr. Holm yesterday, although he did not go into it.

The island is artificial and has an area of 500 acres, more or less. It was created by dredging and filling at a cost of about $5,000,000. It had steel and concrete improvements worth hundreds of thousands more, designed eventually to be used in connection with an airport proposed to be established thereon.

The Department of Justice, on behalf of the Navy, filed proceedings to condemn the entire island, declaring San Francisco had some claim, but declaring also, and bluntly, that the land and the improvements belonged to the Government. The amount of $38,000-however it was calculated-was deposited as the amount considered adequate to insure any award that might be made to the city.

The matter was subsequently settled, and does not appear in the reports.

The committee will note that the Department of Justice has not been finicky about any particular theory on which to sustain its grabs. In the Treasure Island case it asserted a fictitious ownership. In the Point Mulate and Oakland cases, it relied upon a financial easement. And when it got to the Supreme Court in the California case, it rested on the idea of external sovereignty.

Nor are the cases above mentioned the only ones in which similar claims were made.

In 1940 the Navy desired to construct a base on Terminal Island within San Pedro Bay and owned partly by Los Angeles and partly by Long Beach. For land worth millions of dollars-part of which was a big producer of oil-it deposited in court the sum of approximately $350,000 but I understand the correct figure is $300,000, and blandly asserted ownership. The case was settled without determination of the issue.

Likewise, in the Port of Seattle, in the Smith Cove case, the Navy tried to take one of the longest piers in the world without compensation. A similar attempt was made at Mulaito, another point in Puget Sound, which definitely is inland water.

The point is that within the last 8 years the Department of Justice, by any argument, however specious, varying and unfounded, has made repeated attacks upon land ownership of reclaimed and submerged lands and structures thereon within inland waters and bays all along the Pacific coast. That is why we take literally the words in the

stipulation in the California case, in which the Government concedes that lands within the named bays are not "claimed in this case." We are afraid they will be claimed in some other case at some other time and under some other theory some bright young lawyer may dream up. When you are dealing with a title shark you have to watch for sharpness.

That is why we think this resolution is necessary.

Senator MOORE. Are there any questions of this witness?

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at this time I would like to present Mr. C. C. McCulloh, the attorney general of the State of New Mexico.

Senator MOORE. All rgiht, Mr. McCulloh.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLYDE MCCULLOH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, SANTA FE, N. M.

Mr. McCULLOH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, before proceeding with my brief statement, I wish to state that Gov. Thomas J. Mabry, of the State of New Mexico, sent a statement with me to be presented here, together with his letter requesting that I present it. I would like to file that for the record.

Senator MOORE. That will be in the record.

Mr. McCULLOH. The letter follows:

Hon. CLYDE MCCULLOH,

Attorney General, Santa Fe, N. M.

DEAR MR. MCCULLOH: I am submitting to you herewith a statement which expresses the opinion of the State of New Mexico on the so-called tidelands case, which I would appreciate your reading to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in support of Senate Joint Resolution 14 and S. 1988. With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS J. MABRY, Governor.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. MABRY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO I desire to express my views in favor of S. 1988, or similar bills designed to quitclaim to the States all claims, if any, which the Federal Government may have to submerged lands under inland navigable waters and the marginal sea. New Mexico joined in the brief of the Association of Attorneys General in the suit entitled United States v. California, and while that case was pending, the State, through its Governor and its attorney general, endorsed resolutions in favor of such legislation which was passed by Congress at the last session and vetoed by the President.

New Mexico is an inland State and the area of submerged lands under navigable waters, which might be directly affected by the Supreme Court decision, is comparatively small. As a matter of principle, however, we feel that the decision in the California case establishes a dangerous precedent, and that a potential cloud is on the title of all States to their lands and natural resources. We feel that Congress has a solemn duty to expel this cloud and settle once and for all time a question which the States thought was already settled under numerous previous court decisions and departmental rulings.

The majority of informed citizens of New Mexico favor cession of the public domain by the Federal Government to the State to be administered as other public grant lands of the State. It naturally follows that citizens and public officials favoring such action would be opposed to the Federal Government having or claiming paramount rights and power over other lands and resources of the State or its citizens by virtue of the decision in the California case.

For this reason, I feel I am expressing the sentiments of the majority of the citizens of New Mexico. As Governor I heartily endorse the resolution referred to and sincerely recommend its passage and approval.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLYDE McCULLOH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, SANTA FE, N. MEX.-Continued Mr. McCULLOH. I would also like to show for the record that the State bar of New Mexico at its annual meeting last October, at which there was a large representative group present, unanimously adopted a resolution in favor of legislation such as is contained in S. 1988.

At that time this had not been introduced, I believe, but they are in favor of such legislation.

As Mr. Johnson informed you, my name is Clyde C. McCulloh, and I am the attorney general of New Mexico.

New Mexico is one of the inland States with a comparatively small portion of lands submerged under lakes and streams. It is estimated that the total area of submerged lands in this State is between 750 square miles and 1,000 square miles. Perhaps not all of this area is covered by navigable waters, but under the definition of the term "navigable waters" as promulgated by the United States Supreme Court, most of this area is covered by navigable waters.

I think the committee will agree with me that a very small stream can be considered as navigable.

The State has thus far not leased any submerged lands for mineral or exploration purposes, and no revenue is derived from such area except indirectly from recreational concessions on property and improvements which is nominal, and $425.000 annually received from the sale of fishing licenses. However, the prospects for discovery of minerals in the area exists, and some of the submerged lands may become very valuable and lucrative to the State or its citizens.

Although the decision of the Court in the California case does not affect inland States directly, we feel that it establishes a dangerous precedent which, if followed to its ultimate conclusion, would result in a serious invasion of rights of the sovereign States, if not wholly obliterating States' rights and powers and subordinating them to the Federal Government contrary to the express provisions of the United States Constitution.

The decision is a precedent which, if followed and expanded, would overthrow all our long-established legal principles of title and ownership of property, not only by the States but by its citizens as well.

If the necessity for public welfare and defense gives the Federal Government paramount rights over submerged lands, including all the resources therein and full control thereof, without compensation to the States who have been the recognized owners of the area since colonial days, then it is only one more step to hold that inland submerged lands under navigable waters are subject to the same rule. If the theory is followed to its ultimate conclusion, the results above-mentioned are inevitable, and conceivably could be extended to cover all property and resources.

New Mexico has a model State land department which, under the commissioner of public lands, administers all of the State's lands in a highly efficient and satisfactory manner. There are approximately 111⁄2 million acres of land granted to and still owned by the State for common schools and institutional purposes. The revenue from these lands is about 5 million dollars annually, and the cost of administration is far below the statutory maximum allowed, being 2.6 percent.

Stockmen, and the public generally, are highly satisfied with State administration of grazing lands and mineral lands, and are in favor of the Federal Government's ceding the public domain to the State.

By "public domain" I mean the lands outside the forest lands and military reservations and outside the Indian reservations, ordinarily considered grazing lands. There are about 15,000,000 acres of such lands in the State.

With the sentiment of the people, generally, being opposed to further accessions of lands by the Federal Government, and in favor of ceding lands in the public domain to the State, it is a foregone conclusion that the people would be strenuously opposed to the decision reached in the California case and to the dangerous precedent it establishes.

We feel that Congress should settle the matter once and for all time by legislation which will show the States that the Federal Government intends to abide by the Constitution and does not intend to undermine and ultimately destroy the sovereign rights and powers of the States concerning matters of a local nature. For these reasons we strongly favor S. 1988.

Senator MOORE. Are there any questions, Senator McCarran or Senator Knowland?

Mr. WOODWARD. General, do you know how much of your revenue from State lands accrues from oil and gas development?

Mr. MCCULLOH. I do not have the exact figure. I would say most of the 5.5 million dollars. Perhaps at least 3 million dollars, I would say, is from oil and gas royalties and leases.

Mr. WOODWARD. As I understood you, there is more public lands in New Mexico than State lands.

Mr. McCULLOH. Oh, yes, about three times as much, I would say. Mr. WOODWARD. Do you know what the revenue from oil is from the lands under Federal control as compared with lands under State ownership?

Mr. MCCULLOH. I do not know that specifically, but the revenue is very much less because there is less Federal lands leased.

Mr. WOODWARD. Has the development for oil and gas on State lands been much greater or less than the development on the public domain? Mr. McCULLOH. The development on State lands has been greater. I think the lessees and operators can develop to better advantage under our State leases.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at this time I would like to present Mr. John L. Madden, special assistant attorney general of the State of Louisiana, who will speak for the Governor and the attorney general of that State.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. MADDEN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am appearing for both the Honorable James H. Davis, Governor of Louisiana, and the Honorable Fred S. LeBlanc, the attorney general. Each has prepared a brief.

Senator MCCARRAN. Someone told us you had a new Governor down there?

Mr. MADDEN. We do have, Senator.

Senator MOORE. Do you speak for the new Governor?