Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator DONNELL. That is all, Mr. Bradley.

Representative BRADLEY. I might say, if I might interject, of course that while I naturally accept the Supreme Court's decision as the law of the land, like any American citizen, I do not have to believe it is right. I feel exactly like the fellow whom the judge might send to jail for 10 years. He might go to jail but he might believe the judge was mistaken in sending him.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WOODWARD. Mr. Congressman, in your study of international law, as a naval officer during the past 43 years, have you found any theory of law prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in the California case in June 1947, that would lead you to believe that the United States had title to and the paramount rights asserted in that opinion over the 3-mile marginal belt?

Representative BRADLEY. Personally, I have not. The question is very confused as you go back into the history of it, and it is a question of just what the Supreme Court accepts as fact and does not accept. We know in the long study of submerged lands that there were times when the nations claimed the complete seas.

For example, the British for many years claimed complete control of the British ocean and every ship even had to dip its yardarm when it passed another British ship, otherwise it would be fired upon. Gradually that concept has changed until it became the concept that nations claimed the marginal area up to the length of fire of thenknown guns, which was approximately 3 miles.

You must realize there have been many changes. In our prohibition days we extended that to 12 miles for rum-running purposes and so forth. The basis of the Supreme Court's decision, as I understand it, is that they contend this 3-mile limit was not recognized internationally at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

That, I think, is a subject for argument. I cannot argue with them, of course. They believe that is right. If that 3-mile limit was not recognized, that is one thing, but I have never seen anything in my reading or study to make me believe that it was not an accepted fact that the Government has claimed for years that privilege of exercising control over its marginal seas.

Mr. WOODWARD. Was it the policy and the practice of the United States Navy during your long service to recognize the ownership of this area in the States?

Representative BRADLEY. We always considered it, as far as I know, as the private coastal waters, the ownership of the State alongside of which that existed. In other words, the State in which its waters occur, inside the boundaries of that State.

I might say I could not make that too emphatic because that is a thing which seldom comes up in naval service. We recognize in the naval service more the question of national waters than any question of State waters, because the ships operate in any State waters irrespective of sovereignty.

Mr. WOODWARD. In your concept of international law, what is meant by external sovereignty?

Representative BRADLEY. I am unable to give you an answer to that question. I do not know frankly, of what the external sovereignty would consist. It seems to me that sovereignty is sovereignty, and

ownership is ownership. That is a phase which I would not be able to discuss.

Mr. WOODWARD. Whatever external sovereignty may be, could you say that it could be exercised by the United States within the boundaries of a State so long as the State was recognized as a sovereign also?

Representative BRADLEY. There is no possible question but that the United States has jurisdiction as far as navigation, international law, international relations, and so forth, over all the waters which come under the jurisdiction of the United States, just as the United States is empowered to march its troops through another State if it needs to in time of war and the State would be unable to prevent it.

As far as I know, there has never been even a vestige of difficulty in regard to a State's refusing to consider the sovereignty of the United States on its own waters, either inland or external, that has not been solved without any great amount of difficulty.

Mr. WOODWARD. My question was leading to the theory upon which the United States could obtain title to property or paramount rights and full dominion over property within the boundaries of a sovereign State through the processes of external sovereignty.

Representative BRADLEY. I do not believe that the exercise of those generally recognized rights would in any way invalidate the rights which we might have claimed existed as far as the marginal State is concerned. Certainly if that question could be considered as extending the sovereignty of the United States, the small amount they use, then the 100 and some years of exercise by the State and acceptance of the fact that they were the owners, would far overweigh it, I should think, and would throw the balance over to the States instead of to the Government.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Congressman, I wanted to ask you just a few matters in connection with the questioning of Mr. Woodward.

Have you studied the authorities on the question as to whether the Thirteen Original Colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence separately acquired ownership to the 3-mile belt or the soil beneath it?

Representative BRADLEY. No, sir; I could not do that. It would be too large a study. I am only speaking of general knowledge in the study of international law and the practice of it.

Senator DONNELL. So when you refer to your own opinion in regard to the rights of the Colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence, you were giving us just your general impression?

Representative BRADLEY. It is my own opinion, my general impression, and I speak for nobody except myself.

Senator DONNELL. You have not taken a course in law at all. That is correct, is it?

Representative BRADLEY. I am not pretending to be a lawyer in any way. I have no aspirations or desires to be a lawyer.

Senator DONNELL. And you have not, as I believe you said, made a study of what were the rights of the Thirteen Original Colonies to the 3-mile belt?

Representative BRADLEY. I have not; no, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Do you mind telling us what works on international law you have read?

Representatives BRADLEY. I would not want to try to go into the names of them. I do not have them in mind. I recall in the Naval Academy we largely studied Glass on international law.

At the War College we not only studied law, but we were subjected possibly-I might say that rather than sat willingly-we were subjected to a very, very thorough course in international law by some of the professors from Yale University and all that.

You know, like other things, you rather absorb things without trying to state just exactly where you got them.

Senator DONNELL. I appreciate that you had to study the course at Annapolis.

Representative BRADLEY. At the Naval Academy and at the War College.

Senator DONNELL. I understand. You do not recall for the moment what specific books you have ever read on the subject of international law.

Representative BRADLEY. I would not be willing to state that, although I will state there are a considerable number of them.

Senator DONNELL. Congressman, at no time, however, in the course of that study of international law have you studied domestic law in the United States to ascertain what the law is on internal matters? Representative BRADLEY. Other than as a citizen, absolutely not. Senator DONNELL. This matter of whether or not the State or the Federal Government owns the marginal belt, you never had any special occasion to have the specific question arise between the two of them that you had to pass on, did you, as to which one owned it?

Representative BRADLEY. We in California who have been mixed up in this game for quite a long time have been hearing many discussions of it and have done a great deal of reading on it to see what we could find out. I cannot give you the names of any books. I would not pretend to. But we are a little advanced from the ordinary layman in that field. Possibly you may say we are prejudiced. Maybe we are. At least we believe that while the Court says the Federal Government owns it, we do not agree with the Court, and we ask that Congress should have an opportunity to discuss the case fully on the floor, and if Congress says we do not own it, then we do not own it. Senator DONNELL. All the Supreme Court says, and I quote it: California is not the owner of the 3-mile marginal belt along its coast.

You reserve the right of a citizen to disagree?

Representative BRADLEY. I reserve the right to object to the Supreme Court decision.

Senator DONNELL. You, of course, recognize that what the Supreme Court says actually is the law.

Representative BRADLEY. The same as if I were in jail and a judge had put me there.

Senator DONNELL. I hope you do not get in jail, Congressman, and I have confidence you will not.

I thank you.

Representative BRADLEY. Thank you. It is a pleasure to have been before you.

Mr. COVERT. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Boykin of the First District of Alabama is here and would like to make a very short statement, if he may.

Senator MOORE. You acquiesce in that, do you?

Mr. NORDSTROM. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Nordstrom is growing old here.

Representative BOYKIN. I just want to introduce Mr. Kenneth J. Griffith, whom is the legal representative of Governor Folsom of Alabama. The Governor came here yesterday, but you were not able to get him on the stand on account of having Attorney General Clark, Mr. Krug, and others, and he had to go home last night. But he left his legal representative and he has a statement here which he wants to present for Governor Folsom.

This is Mr. Griffith, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. GRIFFITH, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come before you representing the Governor of Alabama on a matter pertaining to the rights of several States over their tidewater lands.

Since the decision in the United States v. California, June 23, 1947, "The tidelands question" is: How and by whom are the natural resources in the submerged coastal land adjacent to the shores of the several States to be developed? By the States or the United States? Congress' action or inaction with respect to a bill, S. 1988, which is to be considered by the Senate's Judiciary Committee will provide the

answer.

S. 1988, sponsored by Senators Moore, et al., is a bill to confirm and establish the States' title to lands and resources within State boundaries and as denied under a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. California.

The decision in United States v. California that the State is not the owner of the 3-mile marginal belt along its coast, and that the Federal Government rather than the State has paramount rights in and power over that belt, completely overturns the almost universally accepted assumption that the State owns the resources of the soil under that area, including oil.

Furthermore, the decision jeopardizes the States' title to other property, such as harbor facilities, sewage disposal plants, shoreside recreational areas, navigable streams and lakes and bridges, shrimp, oyster, and minerals. We in Alabama, are in the process of expanding our dock facilities, $4,000,000.

Prior to 1937, the States' title to lands under the seas to the 3-mile limit was not questioned. For 150 years, it was believed settled law that tidewater lands were rightfully held by the States by virtue of the State sovereignty.

The Department of the Interior is advocating the passage of a bill in opposition to S. 1988. The Government's bill provides that the United States Department of the Interior will develop and conserve the resources in the submerged coastal lands adjacent to the shores to the United States. It provides for a submerged coastal lands commisison to control leasing. I believe that with responsibility close to the people, checks can be maintained more closely on the disposition of oil and other minerals.

Alabama has 199 miles of coast line. Alabama claims a distance under the grant by Spain of six marine leagues, or about 20 miles,

south into the sea from the shore line. This includes such islands as Dauphin, which is a distance of 3 miles south from the mainland; Petit Bois Island, which is a distance of 16 miles south from the shore line of the mainland; and other islands.

It would be a proper conclusion that the State of Alabama if it owns these islands and all other islands within the described territory that it likewise owns the land under the water between the shore of the mainland and the islands.

While no exploitation or development of this area with respect to oil and gas has been undertaken, there is a strong possibility that it contains valuable minerals and other resources. The State has leased some of this area for oil and gas exploration. The legislature has enacted adequate laws and established a State department of conservation and an oil and gas board to conserve and develop the natural resources of the State for the benefit of its citizens. The Department. of the Interior's regulation is not needed, it would be an invasion of States' rights.

The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States is the law of the land.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Griffith, do you know whether or not the State of Alabama has made any releases on any of these leases of these marginal lands since June 23, 1947, which is the date of the decision of the Supreme Court?

Mr. GRIFFITH. No, sir; I do not think it has. I was legal adviser to the Governor up until the first day of this month, and none had come over my desk.

Representative BOYKIN. It has been leased for years. When Governor Grace was Governor, we leased it to some people in Fort Worth, Tex. Since then that lease ran out. They have spent thousands and thousands of dollars, shooting Mobile Bay and finding out about the structures. As I understand it, it is leased now. I have forgotten who it is leased to, but it is leased right this minute. They are getting 25

cents an acre.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Boykin, is that in Mobile Bay that you are talking about?

Representative BOYKIN. Yes, Mobile Bay and other bays and rivers in five spots we have. We have about 200 miles.

Senator DONNELL. I was referring to the 3-mile marginal belt out in the Gulf.

Representative BOYKIN. I am not sure about that, but we do have the bay. The bay is 15 miles wide. That is all leased clear across.

Senator DONNELL. You do not know whether any leases are under any of the marginal lands out in the 3-mile belt?

Representative BOYKIN. No, I really do not. But I imagine so because they were trying to lease it all and we were anxious to lease it and get any income we could for the State of Alabama.

Senator DONNELL. I see.

Mr. GRIFFITH. There has not been any recently.

Representative BOYKIN. Governor Sparks and Bib Graves and Dickson leased. All of our Governors leased. We have handled it always because it was ours, of course. We never have given it to anybody, never had deeded it to anybody.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »