attorney general with a copy of that advice, and the next day I received a letter from the Attorney General of the United States, saying that I had quoted him correctly, so I have his approval of my advices in my office. Mr. ROBSION. The inference is that he contended the Government would have title in these lands. He said he would make no claim for any royalties that had been collected, and so forth. Mr. DOYLE. That is right. He stated if he did file suit, he would make no claim for an accounting of back royalties. I might state that that statement from him came in response to my urging upon the Attorney General that the city of Long Beach, Calif., had received its grant from the State of California in good faith, and had acted upon that grant in good faith, and the State of California made its grant to the city of Long Beach to certain tidelands for harbor and park purposes in good faith; that the city of Long Beach had issued bonds, sold bonds in good faith, relying upon its grant from the State of California to these harbor and tidelands in good faith; that the city of Long Beach had already spent millions of dollars of oil revenue and other tax moneys on harbor improvements, and that the city of Long Beach had already projected, on blueprint and postwar projects, the expenditure of many millions of more dollars, depending upon oil income from its own tidelands. As I indicated before, very shortly before I arrived here as Congressman from the great eighteenth district of my native State of California, I discovered that there seemed to be on the horizon, action by the Department of the Interior, or, the Department of Justice, toward claiming ownership and jurisdiction over tide and submerged lands within the 3-mile coastal limits off the shores of our Nation. And, this rumor here at the Nation's Capital was so fairly current and perceptible in its import that I was greatly surprised thereat for the reason that no report had been made of this contemplated action back to the city of Long Beach from Washington, prior to the swearing in of Congress, on January 3, 1945. Yet, the area most frequently reported to be involved with anticipated leases by the Department of the Interior, was the Long Beach tideland area. As it involves several million dollars a year to my home city of Long Beach, and as it appeared very clear from reports that something fairly definite had been in the offing for many months with reference to an anticipated claim by the Federal Government of ownership of tidelands in my very own city, I made it my business to immediately find out the facts. So, I promptly conferred with Secretary of Interior Ickes, who frankly stated to me in substance, that he intended to approve certain applications for leasehold, for the purpose of drilling for oil on tidelands in the California, Long Beach, and Seal Beach areas, as soon as the legal descriptions thereof were corrected by the applicants; and that he had requested the applicants to correct their descriptions and make them definite; and that he did not know just when that would be completed and the leases granted. He was very courteous to me, but very firmly stated this decision. This was on February 21, 1945. On the same date, I wired the honorable mayor, city of Long Beach; the port manager of that city; the Governor of the State of California; the attorney general of the State of California; and the city attorney of Long Beach, and informed them what the honorable Secretary of the Interior had just told me. Prior to that date, to wit, on February 8, 1945, I had conference with Mr. Wolfsohn, Assistant Commissioner, General Land Office, in the department over which Mr. Ickes presides and I then immediately notified the city of Long Beach of that earlier conference. Also, on February 14, 1945, I sent forward communication to the honorable mayor, city attorney, and harbor department of my home city of Long Beach, then advising how the matter then stood here at Washington, on this matter so vital to the port cities and States of this Nation. Within a few days after my personal conference with Secretary. Ickes, City Manager Vickers of Long Beach came to Washington on important business for the city, and Mr. Ickes again courteously saw me with my city manager, on this same subject. Again, to both of us, he firmly restated his decision. City Manager Vickers took this word back to Long Beach and reported it. So, Mr. Chairman, having ascertained pretty clearly to my now satisfaction that real hazard faced my home city and native State in this connection, and believing that any asserted claim by the Department of the Interior or the Department of Justice, would be in contravention to every decision I knew of by the Supreme Court of the United States on this subject, I felt it was my duty as Congressman from the great eighteenth district, to activate interest and opposition to this proposal. My remarks introduced in the Congressional Record, on March 16, 1945 (p. A-1503) of this great Congress, were made for the purpose of stirring up informed interest and action by other Congressmen. I am told it helped considerably along this line. Shortly thereafter I personally interviewed Attorney General Biddle of the United States, and he was also very courteous to me. He authorized me to state that if he did file a law suit claiming ownership and jurisdiction for the Federal Government over tide and submerged lands, that he would not ask for an accounting of back royalties; and that it was not up to him to determine the matter of policy as to whether or not a suit should be filed. I immediately wired the attorney general of California, the city attorney of Long Beach, the mayor of Long Beach, and the harbor commission of the city of Long Beach. So, Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, I am pleased to have you offer opportunity for me to make this brief statement, in order that the record may be clear and definite as to how it came about that I discovered this proposal, and what I did. immediately in connection therewith, in activating interest about it and opposition to it. I stand more firmly than ever in opposition to the objectives of suit No. 4493b Civil, in the District Court of the United States, Southern District of California, Central Division, entitled "United States of America, Plaintiff"-which suit was filed by Attorney General Biddle and which suit undertakes to claim ownership and jurisdiction of California tidelands in favor of the Federal Government. The CHAIRMAN. We have been glad to have you. You have been as active as any other Member of the House in this matter. appreciate your statement and your helpful cooperation. We Mr. DOYLE. I wish to thank the distinguished chairman for those comments and observations, and perhaps it is also in order for me to express my own appreciation to the distinguished chairman and members of the committee for this very fine hearing, so promptly and fully had of this vital problem, needing immediate attention. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all. We are very much obliged to the persons who have appeared here, giving the committee what we believe is useful information. Mr. MICHENER. Do I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the Interior Department or the Department of Justice are not going to appear, and do not desire to appear in opposition to this proposal? The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that they do not desire to appear. They do not desire to appear at this hearing, so far as I have been informed. Mr. ROBSION. They have been requested and notified? The CHAIRMAN. They have been advised. There is nobody connected with any department of the Government that has shown any disposition to appear, so far as I have been able to find. Mr. MICHENER. The attitude is so unusual that I hardly understand it. Mr. GWYNNE. I think they have presented their views at prior hearings. Mr. MICHENER. We have had hearings here for 10 or 15 years, but the committee sitting today have not had the benefit of those hearings. The CHAIRMAN. One of my colleagues calls my attention to the fact that it is his impression that it was stated by one of these departments-I am not sure, but perhaps the Department of Justice-that it does not appear because the matter is now pending in court. Anyway, we are very much obliged to you all, and this hearing is closed. We have with us Representative Allen of Louisiana, who, I understand, wishes to present a letter from the Louisiana delegation. Mr. Allen of Louisiana. STATEMENT OF HON. A. LEONARD ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. ALLEN of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Representatives of Louisiana and various other States have presented the question fully to the committee. I will not take the time of the committee to reiterate the arguments which have already been presented by the officials who have testified from Louisiana, but I simply want to say that the entire Louisiana delegation heartily supports the pending resolutions with reference to lands in question and we are very anxious to see the Congress take a permanent stand to quiet titles to said lands in the several States. Several of the pending resolutions were introduced by members of the Louisiana delegation. This is a matter of tremendous importance to Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I wish to read and file with the committee a letter which I present in behalf of the entire Louisiana delegation. The letter follows: Hon. HATTON W. SUMNERS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: We, the undersigned Congressmen, representing the State of Louisiana, do hereby unanimously place ourselves on record as favoring the legislation now pending in Congress to quiet the titles of the several States to land beneath navigable waters and tidewaters within their boundaries. The State of Louisiana depends upon the revenue received from oil, gas, and mineral development of its lands, including submerged areas, and from the leasing of oyster beds beneath water areas to a great extent and to deny the State of that revenue would seriously affect the financial structure of the State. We would also like to emphasize the fact that oil companies and those interested in the shrimp and oyster industries have spent enormous sums of money as lessees of the State in developing such submerged areas. We feel that the pending legislation is not only necessary in order to quiet the titles of several States, but that it is of equal importance in quieting the fears and anxieties on the part of those who, in dealing with the State of Louisiana and its subdivisions, have reposed so much confidence in the uniform jurisprudence of our Nation, in effect, holding that all lands under these tide and navigable waters belong to the several States within their respective boundaries. Sincerely, First District. F. EDW. HÉBERT, (Whereupon at 11 a. m. the hearing in the above matter was closed.) (The following matter was submitted for the record:) STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH DE LACY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I desire to thank the committee for the opportunity of appearing here on this vital issue of title of the tidelands and lands beneath tidewater. There is considerable interest in this issue in every State and every city along our miles of coast line in the United States and our Territories. I recognize that the committee is holding exhaustive hearings on this matter and that all phases of this subject will be given most serious attention. I have been informed by the Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Harold L. Ickes, that many of the fears which some of us had previously shared are unfounded. The people in Seattle and Bremerton, Wash., in my district, have no interest in California oil. We want oil-like every natural resource to this great Nationto be protected for the benefit of the people. The protection of every natural resource is a vital concern of the people of the Pacific Northwest. Our own great natural resource-power from the mighty Columbia and its tributaries-has been saved for the people by the Government of this Nation. With Federal development of that great resource we look forward to growing prosperity throughout the evergreen lands of the Pacific Northwest. Our State is therefore perfectly at ease in allowing the normal judicial processes of this Nation to determine whether or not the United States Government is the owner of submerged deposits beneath tidelands and navigable waters. Mr. Ickes informed me that the true issue here involves only the question of the control of the wealth and natural resources vital to the security of America. This problem he would leave to the Federal courts. He insists that nothing was further from his mind than the thought of gaining control over tidelands reclaimed from the sea and, as he put it to me, "the Boston Harbor." It is oil, and nothing more, that is involved; who is to have control over these valuable oil deposits, Mr. Ickes informs me. If that is the issue-and I think it is exactly the issue-then the people of the State of Washington have no interest as a people, and Washington has no interest as a State, and my congressional district has no interest as a congressional district. We would follow the Secretary of the Interior and the Department of Justice in allowing the courts to decide that vital matter. We are interested in lands reclaimed from tidewater and lands reclaimed from navigable waters. We, like Boston Harbor, had such fears. Whole industrial sections of the city of Seattle are built upon lands which were reclaimed from the sea. We are proud of the great civic planning which went into the building of Seattle. We have sluiced down whole hillsides, which some of my midwestern colleagues would call "mountains." We pulled down these "mountains" to level our city of seven hills. We filled in waste tidelands, reclaimed the land beneath Puget Sound and built upon it a great industrial city. This, of course, is not true of Seattle alone. This is the progress of many cities lying along the coast line, of many great ports. Streets now traverse what was previously tidelands. Trackless trolleys run across what was once a part of Puget Sound. Tall buildings stand on land which we took from the marshes and shallows of the sound. The great bulk of Seattle's war effort second to none in this Nation-goes forward upon land reclaimed from Puget Sound. One of the great Boeing plants, where the great American war workers produce the Superfortresses which are leveling the war industry of Japan, is located on such lands. Most of our great ship construction and ship repair industry is so located. This land is ours. We have always considered it such. We do not believe that ever in history-and for his Department, Mr. Ickes confirms it was it the thought of the Federal Government to claim title to this land reclaimed from beneath tidewater or navigable waters. Such a claim would do irreparable damage to the progress which is made in reclaiming such lands, and in increasing the industrial potentialities of the communities involved. In the city of Seattle, it has cost us over $50,000,000 to reclaim this land. Today, as a result, the city, State, and port of Seattle are receiving $983,096 in taxes and $84,055 in rentals every year from this reclaimed land. This is our concern with the matter before this honorable body. We do not intend that this natural interest shall be perverted against the interest of this Nation in any justified claim it might have to oil beneath the sea. That is certainly a matter for the courts. In view of Mr. Ickes' assurances-which I understand he intends to transmit to the committee-it would seem to me that the Secretary should have no objection to legislation which would clearly set forth that the United States quitclaims all right, title, interest, claim, or demand in all lands reclaimed from beneath tidewaters and all lands reclaimed from beneath navigable waters, if your committee considers such legislation necessary. It does seem that we should make a clear demarcation between the problems confronting many communities such as Seattle and those of the oil interests of California. STATEMENT BY HON. NED R. HEALY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee, my interest in this resolution arises from the questionable status of extensive installations which the city of Los Angeles has constructed for adequate harbor facilities resulting from a Federal Government claim. The city of Los Angeles had no natural harbor and as a consequence the entire facilities for seagoing commerce were man-made. Title to this project, which was undertaken at great expense to the city of Los Angeles will no doubt be claimed by the Federal Government if their pending suit is successful. In order that costly and almost inexhaustible litigation may be avoided and in order that further necessary development of these facilities may be undertaken without delay or prejudice, I earnestly request that this resolution be reported favorably. In support of the foregoing statement I wish to present the following resolution which was adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles on June 13, 1945: RESOLUTION No. 1662 Whereas there has been filed in the United States district court at Los Angeles by the Department of Justice an action entitled "United States of America v. Pacific Western Oil Corp.," being No. 4493 B-Civil, under date of May 29, 1945, which is an action to recover possession by the United States of certain tide and submerged lands in the county of Santa Barbara, State of California, and for an injunction to prevent further extraction of petroleum from such lands; and |