Mr. GRIFFITH. I made the statement that the State has lands leased all in the bay.

Senator DONNELL. Are you, Mr. Griffith, referring to any leases on property out in the 3-mile marginal belt or are you just talking about leases on properties in the bay?

Mr. GRIFFITH. It is out in the Gulf.

Representative BOYKIN. Is it? I did not know that. I am glad to know it.

Mr. GRIFFITH. It is my understanding it extends into the Gulf. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States is the law of the land. We are not here to find any fault with its decisions. Senator MOORE. That has been repeated here a good many times. "It is the law of the land, whether we like it or not.'

I am not criticizing your statement because it is, and I agree with it. Mr. GRIFFITH. It is not a question of liking or disliking. It is whether we agree with it, whether Congress can change it or not. Senator MOORE. That is right.

Mr. GRIFFITH. It is the duty of our Supreme Court to interpret the law. As to whether such law is a proper and right law the Supreme Court would be silent. If this law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is wrong, then it is the duty of the Congress to make laws clearing these inequities.

We most respectfully submit that it now becomes the duty of the Congress to act. They acted once before but the President vetoed their act, but I am sure that this will not keep this Congress from preserving the rights of our States.

To us this is another infringement of States' rights. It is even more. It is one of a series of infringements that will result in finally abolishing and obliterating all of the rights of the States. By the same rule of thought, the Federal Government may continue to abolish such rights until the States will have had taken from them all of their sovereign rights and be reduced to mere puppets of a strong centralized Federal Government. This is dictating to the puppet States what they shall do and what they shall not do.

Senator DONNELL. You think the Supreme Court has obliterated State's rights?

Mr. GRIFFITH. I think they have opened the door.

Senator DONNELL. To the 3-mile marginal belt out in California? Mr. GRIFFITH. I think they have opened the door to a serious question whether the rights can be taken away from the States or not; yes, sir.

Senator MOORE. You know, do you not, that about all the lawyers in the United States who have given any thought to this thing fear very definitely the extension of the doctrine that might encompass all the rights to property.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Absolutely.

Senator MOORE. Some have gone so far as to say it might even apply to private property.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Absolutely. They have opened the door.

Senator MOORE. They have opened the door. I agree with you. Senator DONNELL. You are familiar with the fact, Mr. Griffith, that the Court held not that it was obliterating any States' rights, not taking away something that the State had, but it held that California

is not the owner of the 3-mile marginal belt along its coast. Do you remember that?

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir. I think they reversed over a period of 100 years of ruling that the property rights reposed within the sovereign States from the beginning.

Senator DONNELL. There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision itself that says it is reversing anything, though, is there?

Mr. GRIFFITH. No.

Senator DONNELL. All right.

Mr. GRIFFITH. The former opinions are there to speak for themselves.

The Federal Government through its system of taxes is draining off many of the sources of taxation that the State is entitled to. Untold numbers of millions of dollars are constantly flowing to Washington.

Before there was ever a Federal Government, there were separate Sovereign States with individual governments to meet the conditions and requirements of such States.

Before Alabama became a State it was a part of other States and had its sovereign rights passed down from Original States and Ter

ritories.

From this source, it had a right to its rivers and bays and harbors, and to its shores upon the Gulf of Mexico. It not only owned the shores but owned the land under the waters out for 20 miles. By becoming a State, it never surrendered its right to tidewater land. The State during the course of its development owns the Alabama State docks and other valuable property with a tremendous investment of millions of dollars, all of which are standing on tidewater land. Are we to lose our State docks and other property on tidewater lands?

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Griffith, are those docks in the bay or are they out on the Gulf, right out in the open gulf?

Mr. GRIFFITH. They are on the bay.

Senator DONNELL. They are back in the bay, is that right?

Mr. GRIFFITH. But what would preclude the Supreme Court from holding that the bay belonged to the Federal Government?

Senator DONNELL. Of course the Court has not held that yet.

Mr. GRIFFITH. It has not been called on to do it. It probably will be called on pretty soon, I imagine.

Senator DONNELL. Are you familiar with the fact that there is pending in the Senate now a bill called S. 2222? I understand there is a corresponding bill over in the House. It starts out with these words:

A bill relating to the rights of the several States in lands beneath inland navigable waters and a recognition of equities in submerged coastal lands adjacent to the shores of the United States and for other purposes.

Are you familiar with that bill or its companion in the House?
Mr. GRIFFITH. No, sir.

It has been argued that the Federal Government needs these sources. of so-called oil deposits for national defense. I want it distinctly understood that the State of Alabama would want the Federal Government to have all or any part of oil found under the tidelands of Alabama, but that the State as the owner of such land, should have the right to convey such oil. During the time of war, the Federal Gov

ernment has sufficient power and authority to get whatever it needs from those to whom it belongs by a proper and right amount of pay

ment.

Since the Supreme Court's decision is an expropriation of the property of the several States, and since the States have better facilities and measures for conserving and developing the resources within their boundaries, Congress should decide this Federal-State conflict in favor of the States and enact S. 1988 as a part of the law of the land. Senator MOORE. Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith, for presenting the views of the Governor of Alabama. I want to say that I regret he was unable to be here to present his own views.

I am grateful to you.

The committee will recess now until 2 o'clock.
I am very sorry, Mr. Nordstrom.

Mr. NORDSTROM. I will be glad to be here later.

(Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the joint sucommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(Whereupon, at 2:15 p. m., the joint subcommittee reconvened, pursuant to the taking of the noon recess.)

Senator MOORE. The committee will come to order.

Representative GOSSETT. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hobbs of Alabama is here, and he wants to take just a minute to put a statement in the record.

I wonder if that would be agreeable?

Senator MOORE. Will you yield to the Congressman, Mr. Nordstrom? We realize how busy the Congressmen and Senators are, and they have to come in at an opportunity. You may not, but I do. I appreciate your forebearance, Mr. Nordstrom.

All right, Congressman Hobbs.

Representative HOBBS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate your indulgence. I wish just to say I am disappointed in not having an opportunity to reply to Governor Folsom's statement here. All I wish to do at this time is to make the request that I be permitted to file a written statement which I will prepare and file. I have none now.

Senator MOORE. We will be very glad, I assure you, to receive it. Representative HOBBS. I appreciate the opportunity of coming here, and I wish that I felt that it was appropos to go into the matter at length, because I have a very deep conviction on the subject, and believe that we ought not to run any risk whatsoever of killing the war powers of this Nation.

Senator DONNELL. Congressman Hobbs, before you leave, do you mind stating, if you can, in a sentence or two, for I know you want to get away, whether or not you favor the enactment of S. 1988?

Representative HоBBS. If I understand all the provisions, I do not. Of course, I do not claim to be an expert on it. I am deeply and conscientiously, as most are who have spoken against it, against any such bill. I believe that the war powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are paramount to any State right in the subject of subocean oil.

I understand there is an amendment pending to the bill known as the Colmer bill, which would give to the Federal Government the right to regulate fisheries.

Of course, for 115 years that has been conceded to be by the law exclusively within the policies of the police powers of the State. Therefore, I am utterly opposed to that.

I want to see the vested rights of the States maintained. As has been stated by the Supreme Court probably better in the Pollard v. Hagan case than any other, their power is merely municipal police power, and that it is at all times subject to the paramount right of the four constitutional purposes of the Federal Government.

I am not going to blow hot or cold alternatively. I think we ought to preserve the States' rights that are, and not give them those that

are not.

Senator MOORE. Congressman Hobbs, you are a lawyer, of course? Representative HOBBS. I have a license to practice.

Senator MOORE. I understand. I have always understood that you were an able lawyer.

Representative GOSSETT. This Congressman is an extremely eminent lawyer, and was a judge before coming to Congress.

Senator MOORE. I am making that as a preliminary statement.

Representative GOSSETT. Of course, I do not agree with him in his

statement.

Senator MOORE. I do not, either, of course. Being a man of capability, as I know him to be, he is going to file a statement here based upon his preliminary statement that he just made.

Would you make yourself available when that statement is filed, if we desire to cross-examine you with reference to it?

Representative HOBBS. Why, of course.

Senator MOORE. We have never made that request, but we have afforded that request to other members of the committee.

That is on the condition that it is agreeable to you. I do not force it on you.

Representative HOBBS. I would be delighted, sir. I just crave the honor and the privilege. I am just delighted to grant your request and glad you made it.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the Congressman would be willing, even though he cannot do it this afternoon, to give us his oral testimony?

I am wondering if he would be willing to come before us and give his statement as oral testimony. He may have it in writing, too, for that matter.

I think we would all like, I am sure I would very much prefer, to have the Congressman come before us and let us talk with him and get his ideas and question back and forth. I believe it would be productive of better understanding, at least, on my part, than just to read a cold record in a printed document or typewritten document. Representative HOBBS. Whatever is the pleasure of your committee, or any members of it, it will be my joy to comply with that.

Senator MOORE. All right, Congressman, as soon as you can give us an idea of when you can be ready.

Representative GoSSETT. Senator, I do not know about the Senators, but House Members work on Saturday. We might do this Sat

urday morning. Congressman Hobbs is always down on Saturday morning.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, that would be perfectly all right with me, but I might mention that Mr. Howser, the attorney general of California, told me a few minutes ago that he is going to have to get back to California and has his reservation, I believe, for tomorrow evening. I do not know whether that would interfere with this or not.

His cross-examination has not yet been completed. I thought I would mention that.

Representative GOSSETT. He has to go tomorrow evening? Tomorrow is Friday.

Senator DONNELL. I see. That is right.

Senator MOORE. For the record, I would like to state that we worked here last Saturday morning. I do not know whether this Congressman was here or not.

Representative GOSSETT. No, I was not. I worked in my office,

though.

Senator MOORE. I am not charging you with idleness.
Senator DONNELL. Then that is fine with me.

Representative GOSSETT. I would suggest to expedite business and get it over with that we set Congressman Hobbs down for Saturday. I think it would be convenient for him and for us, too, to set the time.

Senator MOORE. All right, Mr. Nordstrom, we will let you go ahead.

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

Mr. NORDSTROM. Mr. Chairman, to resume, starting at the top of page 3 of my prepared statement:

It is not proposed to show the extent of the interest of the city of Los Angeles in Los Angeles Harbor, and the manner in which the present uncertainties of title, engendered by the Supreme Court case in United States v. California as between the State of California and the United States, affects the titles and the properties of the city of Los Angeles and their interest in the navigable waters within their corporate or municipal boundaries.

In the interest of time, I will skip a portion of the prepared statement, and say that at the time of the construction of the breakwater in San Pedro Bay, which was built to protect and partially enclose what had for many years been natural meandering channels running several miles inland capable of floating small-draft vessels, Los Angeles had at that time no well-developed harbor, and what is called the inner harbor now, that is the portion of the harbor lying between Terminal Island, which was mentioned this morning, and the mainland, was too shallow and marshy for use for oceangoing liners or vessels.

Since Los Angeles, then, had no well-developed harbor in the sense of deep water, the city determined to and did build one to order. The work on the breakwater began and before it was finished in 1912, the city of Los Angeles in rapid succession had, in 1908 at its own