Moreover, the suit does not make any claim to an accounting for the past extracting of oil. "The long-standing controversy over submerged oil deposits has been reflected in legislative proposals in both the Senate and the House during the past 8 years. In 1937 the Senate passed a resolution declaring that submerged lands containing petroleum deposits within the 3-mile limit off the coast of the United States are the property of the National Government. This resolution had the support of the Navy, Interior, and Justice Departments. In the House a somewhat similar resolution was favorably reported, after extensive hearings, but did not reach a vote. Proposals of the same kind were introduced in succeeding Congresses. In the present Congress there are pending several resolutions which would convey to the States all interest of the United States in submerged lands beneath navigable waters, including petroleum deposits beyond low-water mark. In view of this history of uncertainty, a decision in the present suit should provide a most helpful and essential basis for the consideration of future legislation. "The suit was filed after consultation with and approval by the Department of the Interior." BACKGROUND The extent of the oil deposits underlying submerged lands off the coast of the United States can only be estimated. So far as is known the largest oil-bearing areas lie off the coast of California. It has been estimated that the several coastal California oil fields cover an aggregate of 2,100 acres with a recoverable oil content of 35,000 barrels per acre, or about 73,500,000 barrels. Further, it has been claimed that an estimated additional 200,000,000 barrles of recoverable oil lie in more than 5,000 acres of submerged lands off the California coast. has also been discovered in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil Serious uncertainty is overhanging the ownership of submerged oil deposits in the area extending to within 3 miles out from the coast. Title companies, it is understood, have refused to insure titles to submerged land in such areas. Applicants for drilling permits have been pressing the Interior Department for action on the basis of Federal ownership and control. The question was apparently first raised in Congress in April 1937 when Senator Nye, of North Dakota, introduced S. 2164 (75th Cong.) which provided that submerged lands off the coast of the continental United States, between the low-water mark and the 3-mile limit, are a part of the Federal public domain and that such lands and all mineral deposits thereunder be withdrawn from settlement or disposition. This bill also proposed that such of these lands as contained petroleum deposits be set aside as a naval petroleum reserve. Subsequently, in the same Congress, Senator Nye introduced Senate Joint Resolution 208 as a substitute for the earlier bill. This resolution asserted that submerged lands containing petroleum deposits within the 3-mile limit off the coast of the United States are the property of the United States; and it directed the Attorney General to assert, maintain, and establish the title and possession of the United States to such submerged lands and the petroleum deposits contained in them. This resolution was favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Public Lands (S. Rept. 1234, 75th Cong. 1st sess.) and passed the Senate without dissent on August 19, 1937. Extensive hearings were held upon the resolution by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House, which reported it out favorably, after a close vote within the committee, with amendments. The majority report, dated May 19, 1938, stated (H. Rept. 2378, 75th Cong,, 3d sess.): "The Departments of the Navy, the Interior, and Justice are one in requesting that this resolution be passed, so that the courts may determine the questions involved while fully protecting by their decrees all lawfully vested rights. There seems to be no good reason to deny their reasonable request that they be permitted to have the courts decide whether or not the Nation has a paramount right to take and use the oil in question.” The resolution thus reported to the House by Representative Hobbs asserted the paramount right of the United States to take petroleum from the submerged lands as an attribute of sovereignty and in the exercise of the powers of national defense. No action was taken by the House itself upon this resolution. Claims to the oil deposits on behalf of the United States were likewise made in a number of joint resolutions introduced in the Seventy-sixth Congress (S. J. Res. 24, 83, 92, and H. J. Res. 176, 181). However, no action was taken upon any of these proposals. In the present Congress a number of resolutions have been introduced proposing to convey to the States whatever interest the United States possesses in lands beneath navigable waters, including the marginal sea extending oceanward from low-water mark a distance of 3 miles. Mr. TOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer for the record a brief statement by Congressman Miller, of California, as well as a resolution by the California Association of Port Authorities, bearing on this matter. The CHAIRMAN. That may be included. (The papers referred to are as follows:) Hon. HATTON W. SUMNERS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The resolutions now before your committee quitclaiming to the States and their grantees any pretended Federal claim, are of the utmost importance to the communities of my district. Not only have there been very large expenditures of public funds in developing port facilities, but Oakland Municipal Airport, which is one of the finest in the Nation, is largely located upon lands reclaimed from the bay of San Francisco. In addition, there are many large industries located on tidewater. I earnestly solicit the favorable consideration of your committee in connection with these resolutions, and urge that one of them, or one of a similar nature, be recommended. Sincerely, GEORGE P. MILLER. An action has been filed in the United States district court at Los Angeles by the Department of Justice entitled "United States of America v. Pacific Western Oil Corp.", which action seeks to recover possession by the United States of certain tide and submerged lands in the county of Santa Barbara, State of California, and, whereas: for a period of approximately a century the courts of the Nation and of the States which have passed upon the question have uniformly held hat each State upon its admission, became vested by virtue of its sovereignty with the absolute ownership of such lands within its boundaries, and throughout said period the executive department of the United States has uniformly recognized and acted in accordance with said rule, and, whereas: The State of California granted to various municipalities of the State tide and submerged lands within the boundaries of said municipalities upon which have been built and developed publicly owned and operated harbors and on which harbors there has been expended large sums of money for the development thereof, and, whereas: In 1937 and 1938 certain resolutions known as the Nye resolutions were introduced in the Senate and similar resolutions in the House of Representatives, in which the assertion was made that all tide and submerged lands within the 3-mile limit was "the property of the United States", and whereas: A cloud has now been cast upon the State's title to all lands beneath tidal and navigable waters and such titles have been placed in jeopardy, and whereas: There is now pending before the Senate and the House of Representatives a joint resolution to quiet the titles of the respective States, and others, to lands beneath tidewaters and lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of such States and to prevent further clouding of such titles. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, By the California Association of Port Authorities that all possible support of said joint resolution be given by the several Senators and Representatives of the State of California in Congress to the end that legislation be enacted which will serve to confirm the titles of immensely important and valuable State and municipal properties throughout the Nation in the several States; and be it Further resolved, That this resolution be spread upon the minutes of the California Association of Port Authorities and a copy presented to the President of the United States, the Members of Congress representing California, the Attorney General, the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy of the United States The CHAIRMAN. There are about 14 bills, and I am sure the committee would like to have the members who have introduced bills make statements for the record with reference to the bills they have introduced. Mr. TOLAN. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that they have all been personally contacted. Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that ever so many Members have spoken to me on the floor, and in the corridors, who have pending bills, calling my attention to the many phases of the problem, and I think the committee would be interested in what the Members would have to say. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES DOMENGEAUX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. DOMENGEAUX. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity you have given me to appear before your committee. There is very little I can offer in contribution, in addition to that which has already taken place. I do appreciate the opportunity, because my district is so vitally interested. I represent the Third Congressional District of Louisiana, the entire length of which is along the coast line. We have quite a few producing oil fields in that area which is under controversy. My district is geographically peculiarly formed; it is not a coast line in that sense, because it is broken by numerous lagoons, and bays, lakes and bayous, and we believe that if the Department of Justice would be successful in its anticipated and proposed litigation that practically my entire district would become the property of the United States and we would lose the great heritage of belonging to the free State of Louisiana, and certainly we are opposed to that. All members of the Louisiana delegation in the House of Representatives have joined in a written statement endorsing the legislation before your committee with reference to protecting the rights of the States to lands beneath tide and navigable waters within their boundaries. Furthermore, some of the officials of my State have appeared before you to testify in behalf of these measures. While Louisiana's position in favor of this legislation is thus well established, I feel that I have a special responsibility to urge a favorable committee report. My congressional district is one of the two in Louisiana most vitally interested in this matter. My district extends to and covers a substantial part of the Gulf coast, and includes a section where the coast is quite irregular and filled with numerous lakes, bays, coves, bayous, and inlets. This is not altogether a question of who can take oil and who can remove the oysters and shrimp from the coastal areas. It involves a more serious matter of whether the south Louisiana parishes, as our counties are known, are to retain water and land areas that actually contribute to the physical territory of the parishes. We are interested, of course, in the fact that thousands of our citizens derive employment from the development and production of oil, gas, and minerals from submerged areas, and in carrying on the oyster and shrimp industry. We are also interested in seeing that our State receive an ever-increasing revenue from licenses, leases, severance taxes, and royalties. But I wish to stress the point that a substantial part of the cash consideration for oil and gas leases and for rentals and royalties go to the parishes in which the production is realized, and the parishes of my district need and must continue to receive such revenue. In concluding this statement, I would like to repeat that we, as Members of Congress, are not being asked through this legislation to decide who can take oil, gas, and minerals from the soil and who can remove oysters and shrimp from beds beneath navigable and tidewaters. These House resolutions concern title and ownership. We admit the right of the Federal Government to condemn or expropriate this land for public necessity and we concede the right of the Government to regulate commerce, which includes navigation, but these measures you are considering contemplate the quieting of title and ownership, which has rested in the respective States from time immemorial, and not regulatory controls. I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before your committee on this very important matter. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair inquired yesterday if there were any persons here opposed to this bill. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND M. HUDSON, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I asked the other day if I might file a brief in behalf of some citizens. I do not care to make an oral statement, because I have been ill with the flu, and the doctor will not allow it. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your brief. Mr. HUDSON. I do want to make just this one statement: About ten years ago Congress provided the States, by special action, with jurisdiction in the Federal courts, to determine all the questions involved. That was the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1928, United States Code Annotated, section 400. Since these titles were brought into question by the Federal Government since 1939, these States could any time, under that act of Congress, have had them determined. Now they are coming back and asking Congress to take away from the courts the jurisdiction to examine these questions. I have relied on that in my brief, and quoted other authorities. (The following brief was submitted by Mr. Hudson:) JOINT HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES ON THE JUDICIARY UNDER SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 48 AND 17 OTHER RESOLUTIONS ON SUBMERGED LAND BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE SAID RESOLUTION PRESENTED IN BEHALF OF E. F. DUNN AND ASSOCIATES AS PRIVATE CITIZENS BRIEF The proponents are afraid to submit their claims to the courts Ten years ago Congress provided jurisdiction in the Federal courts by the Declaratory Judgment Act on the petition of any party interested for a decision of disputes such as are involved in these resolutions and when the disputes arose between the United States and the proponent States in 1939 as to the submerged land, the proponent States, or any of them could have, in a proper and efficient procedure under this act, have had a determination by the Court of all the matters in dispute. The act (28 U. S. C. A. 400) provided in part as follows: "(1) In cases of actual controversy (except with respect to Federal taxes) the courts of the United States shall have power upon petition, declaration, complaint or other appropriate pleadings to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party petitioning for such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be prayed, and such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and be reviewable as such." Did the proponents seek relief under this act? Not at all. They shied away from the courts and now that the Government has filed a suit to have the Court determine the issues, the proponents are asking Congress to determine the issues of law and fact involved and beat the Court to it. They are in effect now asking Congress to vacate, set aside, or suspend the Declaratory Judgment Act as far as their disputes with the United States on the submerged land are concerned. After listening to the arguments of the proponents for 2 days and reading their briefs, counsel has received the impression that the proponent States are afraid of the courts and believes that any impartial reader or listener would get the same impression. Is the Congress now going to establish a policy of encouraging among the States and citizens thereof a lack of confidence in the courts? That is what passage of these resolutions will do. If Congress does this it had then just as well abolish the courts and Congress itself decide all legal disputes. It is not a function of Congress, and it has no constitutional authority, to hear and determine legal disputes The constitutional authority to establish courts is mandatory and does not give Congress any power or authority to make itself a court or to hear and determine legal controversies and disputes. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1 Wheat. 304 at 330; 4 L. Ed. 97 at 104) Mr. Justice Story, in delivering the Court's opinion stated: "The next consideration is as to the courts in which the judicial power shall be vested. It is manifest that a supreme court must be established; but whether it be equally obligatory to establish inferior courts is a question of some difficulty. If Congress may lawfully omit to establish inferior courts, it might follow that in some of the enumerated cases the judicial power could nowhere exist. The Supreme Court can have original jurisdiction in two classes of cases only; viz, in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and in cases in which a State is a party. Congress cannot vest any portion of the judicial power of the United States, except in courts ordained and established by itself; and if any of the cases enumerated in the Constitution, the State courts did not then possess jurisdiction, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (admitting that it could act on State courts) could not reach those cases, and, consequently, the injunction of the Constitution, that the judicial power 'shall be vested,' would be disobeyed. It would seem, therefore, to follow that Congress are bound to create some inferior courts, in which to vest all that jurisdiction which, under the Constitution, is exclusively vested in the United States, and of which the Supreme Court cannot take original cognizance. They might establish one or more inferior courts; they might parcel out the jurisdiction among such courts, from time to time, at their own pleasure. But the whole judicial power of the United States should be, at all times, vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under its authority. "This construction will be fortified by an attentive examination of the second section of the third article. The words are 'the judicial power shall extend,' etc. Much minute and elaborate criticism has been employed upon these words. It has been argued that they are equivalent to the words 'may extend,' and that 'extend' means to widen to new cases not before within the scope of the power. For the reasons which have been already stated, we are of opinion that the words are used in an imperative sense. They import an absolute grant of judicial power. They cannot have a relative signification applicable to powers already granted; for the American people had not made any previous grant. The Constitution was for a new government, organized with new substantive powers, and not a mere supplementary charter to a government already existing.' On page 718, Roses Notes, attached to this case in the Law Edition, it is stated that this decision was approved in "Ex parte Knowles (5 Cal. 301), holding Congress cannot confer judicial power on State court; as also in Ely v. Peck (7 Conn. 243), Davison v. Champlin (7 Conn. 248), and Peck v. Jenness (16 N. H. 534, 43), and Peck v. Jenness (16 N. H. 534, 43 Am. Dec. 581), to the same effect; Beavins' Petition (33 N. H. 91, 92), holding law prohibiting State courts from exercising jurisdiction conferred by Congress, constitutional." It thus being mandatory on Congress to establish courts and vest the "whole judicial power" in same, the only logical conclusion is that Congress cannot establish itself as a court nor can it take unto itself some part of this "whole judicial power." |