Representative JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOODWARD. You heard the testimony here of the witness from Long Beach, Calif., that it was the contention of the employeers of the Interior Department that a line to determine that demarcation should be drawn around each particular pier▬▬

Representative JONES. Yes.

Mr. WOODWARD. In San Pedro Bay?

Representative JONES. I listened with a great deal of interest to his entire testimony. I want to say that I want to appear in concert with him, so to speak, in connection with Federal operation as against local operation. I believe that our States are so set up out there that local operation in such matters is in much better hands and more efficiently operated by our State land commissioners or State government than by a Federal Government of any type. So I want to concur very heartily in Mr. Smith's statement along that line.

Senator DONNELL. What business or profession were you engaged in before you came to Congress?

Representative JONES. I have been in public life almost all my life, sir. I was formerly an accountant.

Senator DONNELL. Would you mind telling us for the record what position you held in public life?

Representative JONES. I have been in the State treasurer's office. Senator DONNELL. You mean the State treasurer of the State? Representative JONES. City and county treasurer of my home country-mayor two or three times.

Senator DONNELL. What is your city?
Representative JONES. Seattle.

Senator DONNELL. You live in Seattle?

Representative JONES. Bremerton is my home, the adjoining county. Senator DONNELL. You were mayor of Bremerton?

Representative JONES. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. That is all, thank you.

Representative JONES. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at this time I would like to present Mr. Arthur W. Nordstrom, the assistant city attorney of the city of Los Angeles, who appears on behalf of his city.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR W. NORDSTROM, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. NORDSTROM. My name is Arthur W. Nordstrom, assistant city attorney of the city of Los Angeles, Calif., and attorney for the board of harbor commissioners of that city. I have been authorized by the council of the city of Los Angeles and by the board of harbor commissioners, by appropriate resolutions of those bodies, to appear on behalf of the city of Los Angeles and the port of Los Angeles to urge that favorable action on bill No. S. 1988 or a similar bill be taken by your committee and that said bill or similar legislation be adopted by the Congress.

Chairman Moore on Monday introduced in the record a copy of the resolution adopted by the council of the city of Los Angeles, and I will therefore not offer a copy at this time.

The city of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation operating under the provisions of a charter adopted and approved in accordance with the constitution and laws of the State of California. Under said charter the port of Los Angeles has been placed under the control of the board of harbors commissinoners and the parks and recreational facilities have been placed under the control of the board of recreation and park commissioners.

On June 25, 1947, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its opinion in the proceding entitled United States of America v. State of California, No. 12, Original, October Term, 1946. Subsequent thereto, the Supreme Court entered its decree in that proceding to give effect to its opinion and decision.

It was decided in the California case that the State of California did not own the so-called marginal sea, a strip or beit of water and submerged land lying seaward of the ordinary low water mark on the coast of California and outside of the inland waters of the State, and that that belt or marginal sea extended three nautical miles seaward.

In said proceeding the United States did not claim and the decree did not include or adjudicate, as I understand it, the title of the State of California in and to its inland waters and the lands, minerals, and other things of value underlying its inland waters.

Inland waters in said decision were referred to, as did the United States in its arguments to the Supreme Court, as including tidelands, that is, the area between the ordinary low water mark and the mean high tide line, bays, harbors, rivers, and other inland waters.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Nordstrom, I am wondering if I understood you correctly. Did you not mean the contrary to what you said? Did you not mean that inland waters were referred to, as in the decision, as including tidelands? I thought you said they did not include them. Mr. NORDSTROM. I am sorry. I did not notice that slip o fthe tongue. I meant that inland waters include the items that I have mentioned, such as bays, harbors, rivers, and other inland waters, and that the decision of the United States Supreme Court referred to did not adjudicate the title as to those inland waters.

Senator DONNELL. That is correct.

Mr. NORDSTROM. Hence, the previously adjudicated ownership by the State of California of its navigable waters and of the lands beneath them has by said recent decision been reduced to the ownership of its inland navigable waters and the lands beneath them, including bays, harbors, rivers, tidelands in the narrow sense of the phrase and other inland waters.

Senator DONNELL. I think Mr. Nordstrom, doubtless in fairness to yourself, it should be mentioned at this time that in the California case as you well recall, there is this sentence:

The Government does not deny that under the Pollard Rule as explained later California has a qualified ownership of lands under land navigable waters, such as rivers, harbors, and tidelands to the low water mark

and that some considerable apprehension has been expressed here before the committee by various witnesses as to the effect of that language "qualified ownership," which I think has created a doubt in the minds of some and apprehension in the minds of some that the Government may unduly restrict the rights of California, of other

States, with respect to ownership of lands under inland navigable

waters.

Mr. NORSTROM. That is certainly my apprehension, Senator. It is a serious and perturbing apprehension.

Senator DONNELL. I am not expressing an opinion on that, but in view of the fact that you had said and I had concurred with your statement that there is no adjudication in this case as to inland navigable waters, I thought it only fair to mention this sentence which I have quoted in that connection.

Mr. NORDSTROM. There is a difference between an adjudication in a case and a laying down general principles or general statements of law which might in the future affect future adjudication of other problems.

Senator DONNELL. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCARRAN. I am very glad that you brought that out because otherwise your statement would have probably been in keeping with the paramount thought, I use the word paramount with my good friend the Senator from Missouri. Your last statement has clarified your position and given reason for the apprehension.

Mr. NORDSTROM. Senator, I am coming to that apprehension a little more in detail later, especially in view of the remarks of the Attorney General of the United States yesterday.

This decision has taken away from the State of California ownership of its marginal sea three nautical miles in width but has left the exact delineation of its inland waters, which are as yet still unclaimed by the United States, undetermined and in many instances under active dispute.

Arising out of this decision, two harassing circumstances exist, in addition to the loss of ownership of the marginal sea.

First, the United States is claiming that it has paramount powers and dominion over areas which have heretofore traditionally been considered as bays, harbors, and other inland waters, and second, the United States has consistently-when I refer to the United States I mean the Attorney General, his staff, and various other departments of the Government-refused to concede that the State of California is even the owner of its bays, harbors, and other inland waters.

I say this advisedly, not withstanding Attorney General Clark's statements before this committee yesterday and the day before.

These two threats, coupled with the actual loss of ownership of the marginal sea itself, will have the continued effect, in my opinion and in the opinion of the legislative body of the city of Los Angeles, and the board of harbor commissioners, unless this proposed bill or a similar bill is enacted, of jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars of State and municipal improvements and of stifling further State and other local governmental investment in improvements sadly and woefully needed in this postwar era for the advancement of the commerce and navigation of the United States and of the people of the United States and for the recreational needs of the people of the State of California and the various political subdivisions thereof.

Senator DONNELL. Would you prefer not to be interrupted?

Mr. NORDSTROM. I think, Senator, that I am coming back to some of these general statements later, and I will amplify them and then possibly you will find that some of your questions might be answered then.

Senator DONNELL. You would really prefer then that you be permitted to proceed continuously?

Mr. NORDSTROM. Unless for clarification you feel it advisable. Senator DONNELL. If you do not mind, I will tell you the question I was about to ask you. If you prefer, however, not to answer it at this time, it will be perfectly all right. I will return to it. The question was this: You say in the last sentence, which you have given to us, these two threats, the ones that you have mentioned, "coupled with actual loss of ownership of the marginal sea itself."

I wanted to know what you mean by the actual loss of ownership in the marginal sea itself? You observe the point I am getting at, whether California has lost anything at all or whether the Supreme Court simply held that she never owned it. If you prefer not to go into that phase

Mr. NORDSTROM. Yes; I would like to answer you at the present time, if you please.

The decision of the Supreme Court, as I understand it, held that the State of California did not have title and has not had title to the marginal sea. Therefore, we have not lost title in the strict legal sense of the term, but the Supreme Court did not hold and it could not hold, Senator, that the State of California and the city of Los Angeles and the city of Long Beach and the various political subdivisions of the State of California holding either as grantees or lessees under the State have not had possession in the past of the marginal sea, and that that possession and the use and control of the marginal sea by the State of California and the other entities that I have mentioned consisted of the use and exercise of all of the rights and attributes of legal title in the past.

That is an actuality, and that is what has been taken away from us by the decision.

Senator DONNELL. I wanted to question you further along that line, but I shall defer so doing, Mr. Nordstrom, until after you have completed your statement, unless you rather I do it at this moment. You might just as well proceed, if you wish.

You state that the city of Los Angeles and Long Beach and these other places have had possession and have asserted through that possession all the attributes of ownership. The Court, however, held, did it not, as I understood you to state, that the State of California is not the owner of the 3-mile marginal belt along its coast. Therefore, does it not follow that at no time have any of these persons or any of these corporations, muncipal or otherwise, claiming under Čalifornia, been owner of the 3-mile marginal belt along the coast of California.

Mr. NORDSTROM. I have already stated that in my previous statement, Mr. Senator.

Senator DONNELL. So this statement in your written memorandum of "the actual loss of ownership of the marginal sea itself," is not accurate, is it, Mr. Nordstrom, because there has been no loss of ownership inasmuch as California does not own it and never did own it. Is that not correct?

Mr. NORDSTROM. I think that I have explained that in my previous statement, that by loss of ownership I meant exactly that we have lost the rights that we have been exercising for the last-as far as the city of Los Angeles is concerned-for the last 37 years.

Senator DONNELL. Of course, if you did not have title, you did not actually have the rights, did you?

Mr. NORDSTROM. We were exercising the rights, Senator, and we are exercising them with the permission and consent of the various departments of the Government, in consonance with the statements of the Supreme Court of the State of California, in consonance with the statements of the Supreme Court of the United States as the present decision even admits the Supreme Court thought, or believe, until they in June held contrariwise.

Senator DONNELL. If, however, the State of California did not have title, obviously neither the State of California nor its grantees had any actual rights in and to this marginal property. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. NORDSTROM. I have already stated that is the effect of the California decision.

Senator KNOWLAND. I would like, if I might, to interrupt at this time, to say that Congressman Bradley, of California, is here. His district includes the city of Long Beach. He has to get back to the House. I would say by way of introduction, Congressman Bradley has had a long and distinguished career in the Navy of the United States and is the holder of this Nation's highest award for valor.

Senator DONNELL. We would like to have Congressman Bradley appear at this moment.

Senator DONNELL. With the approval of the other two members of the committee, the Congressman will appear at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIS W. BRADLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Representative BRADLEY. I am very sorry I was unable to come over as soon as I received word that you would hear me, but, as you know, we are frequently tied up in committees and simply cannot get away.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose in coming before you to attempt to present any part of the technical arguments involved in this bill intended to restore ownership of the marginal sea and other previously or presently submerged lands to the States.

I appreciate that you have had an almost unparalleled array of eminent and learned witnesses before you, including our own Ġovernor of California, Earl Warren, and our Attorney General of California, Mr. Howser, before you.

I am not a lawyer, and I can add nothing whatsoever to the legal aspects of this controversy other than from the viewpoint of international law with which I am naturally quite familiar due to my many years of service as an officer of the Navy.

I do, however, want to present the layman's point of view as the representative of many of the people vitally concerned and affected by the Supreme Court's decision in the so-called tidelands case. May Isay here, Mr. Chairman, that my district, the Eighteenth District,

I