The lands beneath tidewater and navigable waters belong to the States in their sovereign capacity as States. The claim of Mr. Ickes is a direct attack on State sovereignty. This claim affects not only the ownership and jurisdiction of every port and harbor in the United States but constitutes a threat to all property held under the principle of State sovereignty. The undersigned earnestly urge the enactment by Congress of the proposed legislation. Respectfully submitted. William N. McQueen, Attorney General, State of Alabama; Guy E APPENDIX The following is a partial list of United States Supreme Court cases in which the principle of State ownership of lands beneath tidal and navigable waters has been upheld: SALT WATER AND TIDELANDS Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (1845), 3 How. (44 U. S.) 212, 229, 230 (AlabamaMobile Bay-United States patent held invalid). Goodtitle v. Kibbe (1850), 9 How. (50 U. S.) 471, 478 (Alabama-Shore of a navigable tidewater river). Smith v. Maryland (1855), 18 How. (59 U. S.) 71, 74 (Maryland-Soil below lowwater mark in the Chesapeake Bay). Mumford v. Wardwell (1867), 6 Wall. (73 U. S.) 423, 435, 436 (CaliforniaNavigable waters and soil under same). Weber v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1873), 18 Wall. (85 U. S.) 57, 65, 66 (California-"Shore of the sea, and of the arms of the sea"). McCready v. Virginia (1876), 94 U. S. 391, 394, 395 (Virginia-Oyster beds in tidewaters): Manchester v. Massachusetts (1890), 139 U. S. 240, 259, 260 (Massachusetts— Buzzard's Bay). San Francisco v. LeRoy (1891), 138 U. S. 656, 670-672 (California-Tidelands, San Francisco Bay). Knight v. U. S. Land Association (1891), 142 U. S. 161, 183, 201 (CaliforniaSan Francisco Bay). Shively v. Bowlby (1894), 152 U. S. 1, 57, 58 (Oregon-Tidelands at mouth of Columbia River). Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile (1903), 187 U. S. 479, 482 (Alabama— Mobile River). United States v. Mission Rock Co. (1903), 189 U. S. 391, 404 (California-Submerged as well as tidelands, San Francisco Bay). The Abby Dodge (1912), 223 Ú. S. 166 (Florida-Sponge beds in Gulf of Mexico). Greenleaf Lumber Co. v. Garrison (1913), 237 U. S. 251, 259 (Virginia-Elizabeth River). Port of Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. R. Co. (1921), 255 U. S. 56, 63 (Washington— Port of Seattle). Borax Consolidated v. City of Los Angeles (1935), 296 U. S. 10, 15, 16 (California— Tidelands, San Pedro Bay). United States v. O'Donnell (1938), 303 U. S. 501, 519 (California-San Francisco Bay). THE GREAT LAKES Illinois Central v. Illinois (1892), 146 U. S. 387 (Illinois—Shores and submerged lands, Lake Michigan). Massachusetts v. New York (1926), 271 U. S. 65 (New York-Submerged lands, Lake Ontario). THE NAVIGABLE RIVERS St. Clair v. Lovington (1874), 90 U. S. 46 (Illinois-Mississippi River). St. Anthony v. Board (1897), 168 U. S. 349 (Minnesota-Mississippi River). Donnelly v. United States (1913), 228 U. S. 243 (California—Klamath River). United States v. Utah (1931), 283 U. S. 64 (Utah-Colorado River-Conflicting oil leases). THE INTERIOR LAKES Hardin v. Jordan (1891), 140 U. S. 371, 381 (Illinois-Inland lake). United States v. Holt Bank (1926), 270 U. S. 49 (Minnesota-Its inland lakes). CASE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND A STATE United States v. Utah (1931), 283 U. S. 64. United States v. Oregon (1935), 295 U. S. 1. DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURTS For decisions of various State courts upholding the above principles, see 45 Corpus Juris, pages 540, 541, and footnotes. LAW WRITERS All law writers are in accord with the above principles. 3 Tiffany on Real Property (3d ed. 1939), page 638; 4 Thompson on Real Property, page 319; Patton on Titles, pages 291, 292; 27 Ruling Case Law, pages 1359, 1360. DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE AND DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Prior to 1937 the Department of the Interior in a number of instances held that lands beneath tidewaters belonged to the States, following the precedents and authorities above set forth. Among these decisions were: Joseph Cunningham (1934), 55 I. D. 1; Charles B. Reynolds, Jr., et al. (1937,) 56 I. D. 60. In 1933 Secretary Ickes, himself, wrote a letter upholding State ownership of lands beneath tidewater. This letter is contained in House committee hearings on House Joint Resolution 176 and House Joint Resolution 181, 1939, page 172, and reads as follows: Mr. OLIN S. PROCTOR, Long Beach, Calif. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, December 22, 1933. MY DEAR MR. PROCTOR: I have received, by reference from the Department of State, copies of your letters of October 15 and November 22. As to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government over lands, bordering on tidewater, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in the case of Hardin v. Jordan (140 U. S. 371), as follows: "With regard to grants of the Government for lands bordering on tidewater, it has been distinctly settled that they only extend to high-water mark, and that the title to the shore and lands under water in front of lands so granted inures to the State within which they are situated, if a State has been organized and established there. Such title to the shore and lands under water is regarded as incidental to the sovereignty of the State-a portion of the royalties belonging thereto and held in trust for the public purposes of navigation and fishery-and cannot be retained or granted out to individuals by the United States." The foregoing is a statement of the settled law, and therefore no rights can be granted to you either under the leasing act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437), or under any other public-land law to the bed of the Pacific Ocean either within or without the 3-mile limit. Title to the soil under the ocean within the 3-mile limit is in the State of California, and the land may not be appropriated except by authority of the State. A permit would be necessary to be obtained from the War Department as a prerequisite to the maintenance of structures in the navigable waters of the United States, but such a permit would not confer any rights to the ocean bed. I find no authority of law under which any right can be granted to you to establish your proposed structures in the ocean outside the 3-mile limit of the jurisdiction of the State of California, nor am I advised that any other branch of the Federal Government has such authority. Sincerely yours, (Signed) HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior. (The letters referred to by Senator McCarran, and ordered by the chairman inserted at the end of Mr. Kenny's statement, are as follows:) Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., June 6, 1945. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The report upon Senate Joint Resolution 48, set forth in the accompanying letter of even date, was submitted to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget some time ago for the usual clearance. I have been now advised by the Director of the Bureau that there is no objection to its presentation. In the meantime the suit which was under consideration has been instituted and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. It involves a submerged area near Santa Barbara, Calif., from which oil is being taken by the Pacific Western Oil Corp., the defendant, under lease from the State of California. These operations are within the so-called marginal sea which is the area from the ordinary low-water mark to the 3-mile limit. The suit thus directly relates to the rights of the United States in the marginal sea While tidelands and lands under inland waters are not involved, the status of such lands will probably be clarified to some extent by a decision in the case. Sincerely yours, area. FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General. Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., June 6, 1945. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge the letter of April 4, 1945, from the clerk of your committee, requesting my views upon Senate Joint Resolution 48, 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. The resolution seeks to quiet the titles of the respective States and others to lands beneath tidewaters and lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States. The resolution would convey all right, title, interest, claim, or demand of the United States in lands beneath tidewaters and beneath navigable waters to the respective States or their respective grantees and successors in interest. There would be excluded from lands beneath tidewaters and those beneath navigable waters, lands acquired by the United States from any State or its successors in interest as well as such lands as might have been acquired by the United States through conveyance or condemnation. It is provided that the United States retain its powers of regulation and control for the purposes of commerce, navigation, and the national defense. The resolution contains a definition of "land beneath tidewater" and "lands beneath navigable waters." As you are aware, a long-standing controversy has existed with respect to the rights of the Federal Government in submerged lands off the coasts of the United States. The problems involved have received consideration by both Senate and House committees, as well as by the Department of Justice and other agencies of the Government. At the present time the filing of a suit for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of this controversy is under active consideration in this Department. The question whether the resolution should be adopted is one of legislative policy to be considered by the Congress. If the Congress should decide to adopt a resolution of the kind proposed without awaiting judicial determination of the questions involved, the controversy would largely become moot, although, of course, a number of questions of construction and application of the resolution would be likely to arise. In view of the history and complexity of the issue, and the value of the rights in question, the Congress may well desire to have the controversy determined by judicial proceedings in order that there may be a more adequate basis for the consideration of proposals to alienate the right, title, and interest of the United States. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General. Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: The clerk of your committee has requested this Department to submit a report on S. J. Res. 48, 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. The question of ownership of the lands beneath tidewaters is a legal one of great importance. Like other legal questions, I should suppose this one ought to be settled by the courts, and I have for years urged that action be initiated by the Government to obtain a judicial determination of the ownership of these lands. I am still of that view. There is a subsidiary issue of particular importance to this Department which I wish to bring to your attention. The United States now holds in trust for various Indian groups or individuals a number of tracts which were set apart for the Indians either before or after the admission of the State in which they are located. Some of these tracts include submerged lands within the general categories described in S. J. Res. 48. The United Stats obviously could not seek to divest itself of such title, if any, as it may have to the submerged lands within the tracts so set apart without thereby infringing upon the rights of the Indian groups or individuals for whom these tracts are held and who are, in truth, the owners of the beneficial interest therein. Since S. J. Res. 48 purports to deal only with interests belonging to the United States, it does not appear intended to extend to situations of this type where the United States has only a trust title. However, in order to remove any possibility of misconstruction I recommend that Indian lands be expressly excluded from the operation of S. J. Res. 48 in the event consideration is given to its enactment. This could be accomplished by inserting after the semicolon on page 2, line 8, the following words: "and excepting therefrom such lands beneath tidewaters and such lands beneath navigable waters as are held by the United States for the benefit of any tribe, band, or group of Indians or for individual Indians;". The Bureau of the Budget has advised me that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior. Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, United States Senate. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MY DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: I have received Mr. Cory's letter of April 4, 1945, transmitting for the comment of the Department of State a copy of Senate Joint Resolution 48, 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. As this matter appears to relate primarily to a domestic question of the respective extent of State and Federal rights, and does not appear to any large extent to fall within the purvue of the activities of this Department, I suggest that other agencies of the Government (for example, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department) are in a better position to furnish helpful suggestions with respect to the joint resolution. The Department has been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH C. GREW, Acting Secretary. Mr. KENNY. The next witness will be Mr. Shelley, who represents the port authority of the port of New York. STATEMENT OF LEANDER I. SHELLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Chairman, and committee members, my name is Leander I. Shelley. I am general counsel for the Port of New York Authority, also chairman of the law and legislation committee of the American Association of Port Authorities. I appear on behalf of both organizations in support of the bill. The American Association of Port Authorities is an association of State and municipal officials, departments, and boards, operating piers and wharves in the different parts of the country or having jurisdiction over the ports. Our membership includes such important ports as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans, Mobile, Milwaukee, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland. We have some 51 members representing United States ports. In addition, we have a few other North American members, chiefly Canadians, and I would like to have it appear on the record that none of the proceedings leading up to my appearance has been participated in by the Canadian ports. Under our rules only United States members can participate in matters affecting legislative policy of this country. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shelley, do you represent any of the people along navigable rivers, inland streams? |