Governor WARREN. Yes, sir. Senator FERGUSON. But it still refuses to say that it was in the other person, which could be the only other owner as I understand the pleadings and the history of the whole case. Governor WARREN. Yes, sir. We believe, sir, that this will create more confusion on titles and on the powers of the States in regulating and developing their harbors and other resources in connection with these lands than anything else that is in the books. Senator FERGUSON. It is true, is it not, that the Court assumed that all the facts were stated and in effect said it was not essential to take any testimony to determine any facts. There were no interpleaders by private individuals in this case, were there? Governor WARREN. I think not. It was a clear issue between the Federal Government and the State of California. Senator FERGUSON. Then we get this suspended title, as it were. Senator FERGUSON. As far as the legal opinion is concerned. Senator FERGUSON. I thank you. Senator DONNELL. In connection with Senator Ferguson's question, I think it would be well that our record should show the theory of Mr. Justice Frankfurter on that very question. He says in the dissenting opinion which he filed: Let us assume for the present that the ownership of California cannot be proven. On a fair analysis of all the evidence bearing on ownership, then, this area is, I believe, to be deemed unclaimed land, and the determination to claim it on the part of the United States is a political decision not for this Court. The Constitution places vast authority for the conduct of foreign relations in the President, et cetera. So Justice Frankfurter, I gather, feels from what he said here that on a fair analysis of the evidence that this area is unclaimed land. Governor WARREN. Senator, we would be very glad to rest our case on the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter. It is a very short opinion, and if you would read the remainder of it as well as that portion which you have read, I believe it would more clearly indicate what is in the Justice's mind. We believe that the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter is sound and in all respects upholds the position that we take in this matter. Senator DONNELL. So you take the view then that under the decision of the Court this is unclaimed land? Governor WARREN. No, sir; I do not. I am taking the conclusion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter and not just isolated language in the middle of his dissenting opinion. Senator DONNELL. Is that not his conclusion, on a fair analysis of all the evidence bearing on ownership then this area is, I believe, to be deemed unclaimed land? Governor WARREN. I think if you would read the page and a half after his opinion, Senator, it would more clearly represent what he thinks and what his conclusion is. Senator DONNELL. Governor, I asked you a few minutes ago whether or not you had read this bill and were in favor of it. I do not know whether I did ask you whether you specifically read it or not. But I asked you whether you were in favor of it. Governor WARREN. Yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. Do you have it before you right there, section 4 (a)? Governor WARREN. Yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. I would like to ask you one question which is the matter largely of draftsmanship, but I would like to get your judgment on it. It says the United States retains all its powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the purpose of commerce, navigation, national defense and international affairs, except those powers and rights specifically recognized, confirmed, established and vested in the respective States and others by the first section of this act. The question to which I direct your attention is, do you think the fact that there is a retention by the United States of all of its powers of regulation and control for the purpose of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs, except certain powers, implies that those excepted are also powers for the purpose of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs? Governor WARREN. No, sir; I do not. I believe that it was the intention in writing section 4 (a) which you have just mentioned, to state the law as it has been recognized and understood by the people of the United States for the last one-hundred-an-seventy-odd years, and that in this section they endeavor to distinguish between regulatory powers and controls on the one hand and property rights on the other. Senator DONNELL. You do not think the section, then, as stated, might be susceptible of construction later on by the courts that while the United States retains various powers of regulation and control relating to commerce, navigation, national defense and international affairs, some powers and rights relative to those four subjects are recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in the States and its grantees by the first section of the act? Governor WARREN. No, sir; I do not, because the first section has to do with the confirmation of the title to the lands, and section 4 (a) has to do with the regulation and control of the individual lands for the purpose of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs. I am sure that there is no difficulty between the United States Government and the various States on that score. We recognize the rights of the Federal Government. There has never been any contest, and I am sure the Federal Government never had any difficulty. Senator DONNELL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator MOORE. Anything further? Senator FERGUSON. May I ask one question? Governor, do you know of any unclaimed land in the continental United States? Governor WARREN. You mean that are not in ownership at all? Senator FERGUSON. Yes: which this Justice Frankfurter decision may indicate. I was not familiar with any. I thought that all land had to have an ownership. It may be difficult at times to determine who it is, but that was one of the fundamentals of the English real estate law, common law. 73335-487 Governor WARREN. I go even further than that. I think there is nothing in the soil or above the soil in our land, with the possible exception of wild animals, that does not belong to somebody. I know of no land in this country that does not have some ownership. Senator FERGUSON. Thank you. Senator MOORE. Thank you, Governor Warren. Mr. JOHNSON. Gentlemen, at this time I would like to present the Honorable D. Hale Brake, the State treasurer of the State of Michigan, who will speak for the Governor of that State. STATEMENT OF HON. D. HALE BRAKE, STATE TREASURER, STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN, MICHIGAN COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION Mr. BRAKE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am one of three here. to represent Governor Sigler of Michigan. I would like to read for the record a letter from the Governor, which is in the nature of credentials: Senator E. H. MOORE, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Submerged Lands, United States Congress, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: I, as Governor of Michigan, have been invited to appear before your committee to express my views concerning State ownership and sovereignty over all submerged lands within the boundaries of the States, notwithstanding the paramount rights theory announced by the Supreme Court in the California case. I shall not appear in person because I prefer to have those in my administration who are more familiar with the background of this problem represent me and the State of Michigan. Accordingly, I have appointed Mr. D. Hale Brake, our State treasurer and chairman of the committee on interstate cooperation for Michigan in the council of State governments, together with Mr. P. J. Hoffmaster, director of the department of conservation, both of whom have given considerable study to this matter. The attorney general of this State, Mr. Eugene F. Black, will be rep‐ resented by his assistant, Mr. Maurice M. Moule, who has likewise spent a great deal of time upon this subject. Each will present separate statements concerning the importance of the subject to the State of Michigan and will testify orally summarizing the substance of their respective statements. Respectfully submitted. KIM SIGLER, Governor. The others who are here representing our State will speak of the extent and the nature of the minerals that we have in the Great Lakes. That I shall not touch on at all. While the immediate controversy with reference to mineral rights within the 3-mile limit of the ocean's bottom involves a distant State, the administration in Michigan is definitely concerned because: 1. We feel that this is certainly an infringement of long and wellrecognized rights in a State by the Federal Government, and that the principle involved concerning the proper relationship between State and Federal Government is of much more importance than the monetary value of the minerals that may be taken from the disputed land. 2. While technically lands beneath the Great Lakes on the borders. of our State would appear not to be included within the decision of the Supreme Court in the California case, we are nevertheless appre hensive that in view of the ease with which the majority of the Court was able to find a paramount Federal claim and to declare that the State had no title thereto nor property interest therein, it is all too possible that the doctrine announced could be enlarged to include the lands under the fresh waters of the Great Lakes, particularly since part of those waters are on an international boundary. 3. We do not regard this as an isolated instance, but instead as a part of a concerted drive for the increase of Federal authority at the expense of the States. We are opposed to that trend and we are convinced that if the trend is to be stopped, items or incidents cannot be handled en masse but must be dealt with one at a time, and that this is an excellent place at which to start. 4. Michigan certainly has no objection to such regulation by the Federal Government of submerged lands under international waters as may be properly incident to the Federal Government's control of international relationships either in time of war or peace, but like California, we will, if the necessity arises, most strenuously protest against the taking of what we regard as our property other than through the regular legal processes. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hoffmaster, of the State of Michigan, is here and did desire to testify, but I spoke to him at noon, and if it would be satisfactory to the committee, he would like to file a written memorandum with the committee. After hearing the testimony here this morning, there were certain things that he wanted to incorporate. So, if he could have the privilege of sending to the committee a memorandum which could become part of the record, we would appreciate it. Senator MOORE. I am sure that is satisfactory. Representative REED. Mr. E. Roy Wells, chief engineer of the Illinois Postwar Planning Commission, was here this morning. He had to take an early train back to Chicago. He gave me a short statement here from Governor Green of Illinois, and asked that I present it to the committee for him. Senator MOORE. Will you read it? Representative REED. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The legislation set out in Senate bill 1988 is of great importance to the State of Illinois. The eastern boundary of this State from Indiana to Wisconsin is located in Lake Michigan. Its western boundary is the Mississippi River. The Ohio and Wabash Rivers are its southern boundary and half of its remaining eastern boundary. The important Illinois River and Illinois waterway transverses the State. It also has many rivers of lesser importance. Through certain interpretations of the Supreme Court's tidelands decision, the Federal Government could obtain comparable rights in Lake Michigan and these rivers. Governor Dwight H. Green in a recent address stated, among other things, the following: "The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the United States v. California, and the events surrounding that case, have a deep significance for every State, and indeed for every American citizen. That decision upheld the dominion of the Federal Government over all lands within the 3-mile limit of the coast of California. The lawyers here appreciate the fact which has been accepted for 171 years, that the title to such lands and all submerged lands within a State rested in the State. Until a different declaration of the law is made by the Congress of the United States, the decision will cloud the title of all suberged lands, whether held by the State, or by private individuals, or corporations which have received them from a State. "Without attempting a legal discussion of the issues or the decision in this case, let me point out that the majority opinion giving the Federal Government jurisdiction over these lands was based on the assumption that the natural resources in these lands might be vital to the national defense, and that they might be the subject of international negotiations conducted by the Federal Government. Of course, all of us will agree that in time of war the Federal Government has the right to the use of every resource which we possess; but that right does not imply the confiscation of existing property rights in those resources or the lands which contain them. The new principle enunciated in United States v. California might be applied to effect the nationalization of all property useful or vital to the national defense or which might become the subject of international negotiations. "These proceedings were launched by the Attorney General on his own motion after Congress had rejected a resolution which would have directed him to undertake them. While the case was pending a resolution was adopted by the Congress recognizing the right of the States to title to these tidelands. This resolution was vetoed by President Truman on the grounds that it was an issue pending in Court and Congress should not interfere with the Court's decision. "Fortunately, the Supreme Court itself has pointed the way for us. The very decision which upheld Federal dominion over the tidelands states--and I quote: 'An act passed by Congress and signed by the President could, of course, limit the power previously granted the Attorney General to prosecute claims for the Government.' And again, from the same paragraph, I quote: 'We have said that the constitutional power of Congress in this respect is without limitation.'” In conclusion Governor Green states: "Therefore, I believe it is clearly the duty of Congress speedily to take such action as will nullify the effect to upset the established rights of the States and the American system of free enterprise and private property." Mr. JOHNSON. Gentlemen, I would like to present at this time Mr. Russell E. Watson, counsel to the Governor, State of New Jersey. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. WATSON, COUNSEL TO THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. WATSON. My name is Russell E. Watson. I am counsel to the Governor of New Jersey. Governor Driscoll was unable to be here today because of illness, and I appear in his behalf. I shall not discuss the merits of the bill in detail. That has been ably done by Governor Warren and others, and will be presented also by Mr. Shelley, general counsel of the Port of New York Authority, an agency of the States of New Jersey and New York, and by the Association of Attorneys General and by others. Suffice it to say that, prior to the California case, the title of the States to the tidal lands and submerged lands was universally accepted and undisputed. The Supreme Court, although specifically urged to do so, pointedly refrained from holding that the title to the 3-mile marginal belt is owned by the United States. Refraining from determining the ownership of the title, the Court decided that the United States has powers of dominion and regulation over the 3-mile belt and that its rights in and powers over it are paramount. The beneficial incidents of national dominion announced by the court: the protection of the country "against dangers to the security and tranquility of its people"; the ability of the Government to conduct "United States relations with other nations"; its capacity to make agreements in time of emergency, "concerning the control and use of the marginal sea and the land under it"; and the power of the |