Some gypsum may extend out into the lake in the gypsum region near Sandusky. However, mining of this would be precarious as the cover is thin between the gypsum and the lake water.

The main resources thus are petroleum, natural gas, and brines.

In addition to the above-mentioned conditions, it is a known fact that many gas pockets exist along the Lake Erie shore. Although no concentrated exploration has been made, several attempts are contemplated as soon as the release of materials will permit. It is easily seen that from the very nature of the subsoil stratas in Ohio, there is every indication that profitable wells, both gas and oil, will be discovered beneath the waters of Lake Erie.

Since 1935 the State of Ohio directly has entered into contracts to permit sand and gravel companies to extract sand, gravel, and limestone from beneath the waters of Lake Erie. The income from this operation approximates $10,000 per year.

Thus, it will be seen that Ohio, having enjoyed along with the other States the rights fully recognized by the courts in the lands under Lake Erie, is placed in a position of losing a large amount of revenue and the fundamental rights involved. It is earnestly requested that this committee approve the joint resolutions under consideration here today, and recommend that such resolution be adopted by the Congress.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I have wondered how far the State of Ohio contemplates that it has ownership from the shore line.

Mr. JENKINS. To the international boundary. That was established by the act of Congress when the boundary was set.

Mr. MICHENER. How far out in the lake does the line extend? Mr. JENKINS. We consider that the north boundary of Ohio is the international line. It is the line between Canada and the United States. It varies in distance. At some points it is 6 miles away from the shore; in some instances it is down to 4 miles, I think, at the closest point. Toward the east end of the lake it is approximately 20 miles.

Mr. SPRINGER. Does the act of Congress to which you referred date back to the admission of Ohio as a State?

Mr. JENKINS. No; it was after the War of 1812 when the treaty with Great Britain was signed.

Mr. SPRINGER. It has been in force over a hundred years?

Mr. JENKINS. Yes.

Mr. SPRINGER. And during all that time you have exercised the right of sovereignty over this portion of the lake, including the land on the shores and the international boundary line?

Mr. JENKINS. That is correct; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Keech seems to be the next witness.

STATEMENT OF RICHMOND B. KEECH, CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPEARING AS VICE PRESIDENT OF, AND ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS

Mr. KEECH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear as vice president of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. Our membership is made up of 408 cities in 47 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Hawaii.

Our member cities are vitally interested in the resolutions which this committee is now considering, because the claim of title to tide and submerged land which the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior have asserted has cast a cloud upon the title of these cities to such lands and has created questions as to possible loss of tax revenues and other income which cities now derive from businesses located on such lands. It is also true that if the claims are sustained, cities will lose the billions which they have invested in port and harbor facilities, recreational areas, and other improvements on such tide and submerged lands.

Looking at the problem broadly, it is readily apparent that practically every city of any consequence in the United States is located on either a major river, a lake, or one of the oceans. The economic life of many cities is dependent to a great extent, if not entirely, upon commerce which flows through harbor and port facilities which have been constructed and which are now operated on such rivers, lakes, or oceans. Facts already presented to this committee demonstrate quite conclusively that these port and harbor facilities have been developed at public and private expense of billions of dollars, and almost without exception the major part of this harbor development has been upon tide and submerged lands.

It was not until 1937 that any Federal official ever suggested that the Federal Government has title to these tide and submerged lands. It is, of course, true, as other witnesses have already pointed out, that in more than 50 decisions over a period of more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Federal Government has no such title as that now asserted, and that not one single case has ever been decided to the contrary. While it seems quite evident to the mind of any reasonable person that this question has been and should be now looked upon as definitely settled, cities are naturally concerned by the unfounded claims now advanced by Federal officials holding high positions.

We who represent cities feel that to have these unfounded claims of Mr. Biddle and Mr. Ickes wiped out by the courts would require many years of litigation, as the pending suit in California would undoubtedly not settle the many legal questions which would arise throughout the Nation on hundreds of other factual situations. Already, as the result of the controversy which this legislation would settle, we find ourselves in a situation where cities throughout the Nation are calling a halt to postwar plans for harbor development and for the development of recreational and other facilities on tide and reclaimed lands until this question can be settled. We who represent cities feel that the Congress is the proper forum to settle this question at the earliest possible moment so that we can get on with our postwar programs without having this threat hanging over our heads.

This committee is well aware of the fact that harbor and other improvements by cities on tide and submerged lands are sometimes financed through bond issues, and in some instances by revenue bonds the sole guarantee of which is revenues from the harbor installations. Until the questions raised by Mr. Biddle and Mr. Ickes have been answered, it seems extremely doubtful that a successful sale of revenue bonds based upon income from harbor facilities can be made.

Mr. SPRINGER. Do you have any idea how many bonds have been sold based on such installations as you have referred to?

Mr. KEECH. It is a tremendous sum. I do not have the detailed answer, but it is in the millions and billions of dollars, sir.

This matter affects cities in several ways. First of all, cities would lose the millions of dollars which they have invested in publicly owned harbor facilities as well as the income from such facilities. If the title contention of Mr. Biddle and Mr. Ickes is sustained, the Federal Government will, of course, step in and own all these facilities which have been developed at municipal expense, free of all municipal claims.

In the second place, I would like to refer to tide and submerged lands on which privately owned enterprises, homes, or other facilities are now located. These lands are worth billions of dollars and are one of the chief sources of tax revenues of many of our major port cities. In some of these cities, as members of this committee are personally aware, railroad terminals and other valuable industrial establishments are erected on such land so as to be as close to the port facilities as possible. If the claim by Mr. Biddle and Mr. Ickes, that these lands do now, and always have, belonged to the Federal Government is sustained, this means that cities in some instances will find themselve in serious financial difficulties because of loss of tax revenues. The committee is well aware that when the Federal Government has title to land, there can be no taxation of such land by the State and local government.

Along the North Carolina coast, the Florida coast, and the New England coast, we are all familiar with the recreational areas which have been developed adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. These facilities, almost without exception, are located on tide and submerged lands which have been reclaimed. The same situation exists on the Pacific coast and on the Gulf coast, and, for that matter, along the Great Lakes. If the Federal Government is to step in and take title to this land, the millions of dollars which cities, States, and other local public agencies have put into the development of these parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities will be lost, or at least local desires will be subservient to the ideas of Mr. Biddle and Mr. Ickes as to what should be done with this "newly acquired" Federal land up until the Congress acts on the problem. It can well be imagined how much development some Washington official would allow at some of these localities, whereas community pride and desire for local development does force people who actually reside in these communities to expend their funds to further their own local needs.

Most of the members of the committee are lawyers, and we are all familiar with tactics whereby we attack our opponents at the weakest possible spot, or at least the spot we think is the weakest. It seems to those of us who represent cities that Mr. Biddle and Mr. Ickes have deliberately started the case of which this committee has been informed with the idea of saying that this whole matter is one of title to "oil." This is not the case. Fortunately, cities throughout the Nation have been informed of this pending law suit and they have become aware of its vast implications.

It is true that there are a few municipalities located in Texas, Alabama, and California which receive some income, and in at least one

instance the amount is substantial, from oil properties which are located on tide and submerged lands, the title to which was acquired from the respective States in which these municipalities are located. The amount of such oil-producing, city-owned land is infinitesimal as compared with the Nation-wide investment by municipalities in harbor facilities which are located on such tide and submerged lands. We want this committee to clearly understand that this is not an "oil" case, but it is rather a case in which the Federal Government is raising a broad principle in a specific case which does involve oil-producing lands. The Federal officials apparently do not or will not follow their claims to the ultimate conclusion and see the Nation-wide consequences which flow from them.

It is true that oil produced by these cities is sold to oil companies, and that such oil will continue to be sold to oil companies whether the State or Federal governments, municipalities, or private interests have title to the land. I would say that the only interest the oil companies have in this legislation is in finding out who really does own the land so that they can pay royalties to the right person.

Mr. SPRINGER. What difference would it make, as matter of law, if the State or a subdivision of the State owned the property, as to whom it might sell this property?

Mr. KEECH. None at all. I am not discussing the question of oil, I am discussing the question of title to the land, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. He can give it away if he wants to?

Mr. KEECH. That is correct, sir.

That is sufficient on the oil situation, sir.

I have a statement received from the city solicitor of Philadelphia and a statement received from the city solicitor of Baltimore stating the interest of their cities in supporting the principles contained in these resolutions. I would like to insert these in my testimony at this point.

Let me simply conclude by stating our belief that the early adoption of legislation embodying the principles of these joint resolutions is imperative in order that all of the Nation-wide uncertainty which now disturbs city officials may be dispelled as quickly as possible. It is the belief of the cities which I represent that the Congress is the proper forum to end all of the uncertainty which now exists because of the claims of Mr. Ickes and Mr. Biddle. It is our belief that the Congress should reaffirm the principles which have been announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in so many cases, and put at rest the doubts which have been created by the unfounded claims of Mr. Biddle and Mr. Ickes so that cities can go forward with their post-war plans, secure from the harassment of these claims.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, therefore, on behalf of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, I support the resolutions which are before your committee.

I thank you.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I would like to ask a question about the interests of cities in tide lands and submerged lands. Is it your contention that the cities have any rights except those acquired from the States? Mr. KEECH. None, sir. They have acquired in many instances such rights from the various States, sir.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Down in my district, on the Tennessee River, suppose the city of Chattanooga wanted to build a dock or a pier out into the Tennessee River: Whose permission would it have to secure?

Mr. KEECH. That is a navigable stream, sir. It would be the permission of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. Mr. KEFAUVER. Suppose it was back where it would not interfere with navigation?

Mr. KEECH. I think that on all navigable streams the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army passes on the question, because they want an opportunity to see if by any chance it might interfere with the navigability of the stream.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Has permission been secured from somebody to build all these things that you have spoken of?

Mr. KEECH. Where they are on a navigable stream; yes, if navigability is affected.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Is it your contention that where the permission has been secured in those instances a decision in favor of the Federal Government in the pending case would jeopardize the property rights in those piers and docks which have been built?

Mr. KEECH. Our position is that the suit which is pending will be determined correctly, as have been all the others, namely, that the rights of the States will not be disturbed.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I am assuming that it is determined against the state. Is it your contention that in that event the States would lose their vested interest in the port facilities which they had built? Mr. KEECH. Unquestionably, sir.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Even though they had the permission of the Federal Government to build them and conduct them?

Mr. KEECH. That is true; yes.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Whose permission did the railroad companies get when they built approach railroads on submerged or tide lands? Mr. KEECH. If in private ownership, from private owners, if state or city owned, then from the state or city.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Suppose the title to this property is left in the State as it is: what is the relationship between the city and the State as to the ownership of the land?

Mr. KEECH. The cities got title through the various states, sir;' and in certain instances there has been a second transfer from the city to private ownership.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Let us follow that matter a little further. When they build a dock or pier out on submerged land, does the city take the matter up with the State generally to secure title or permission from the state at the present time?

Mr. KEECH. It could be either way, sir. The city may have already acquired title from the State. In that instance, of course it would not be necessary.

Mr. KEFAUVER. At one time or another must the city take the matter up with the State toward getting title to the land on which they are building a pier or dock?

Mr. KEECH. The cities did get their title from the States.

That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I just wanted to get the point in my mind. You say they take it up with the State?