Mr. SPRINGER. As such it became the grantor?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPRINGER. And then they held the fee of it by consent, and if the owner died it passed to his heris, or otherwise to the vendee? Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. I do not think I can add anything more. Thank you very much.

Mr. KENNY. I would like to call upon Attorney General Ira J. Partlow, of West Virginia.

STATEMENT OF HON. IRA J. PARTLOW, Attorney GENERAL of THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. PARTLOW. My name is Ira J. Partlow. I am attorney general of West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there are more than 300 miles of streams actually navigable within the geographic boundaries of the State of West Virginia, portions of the Ohio River, Big Sandy River, Monongahela River, and all of the Kanawha.

The State at this time is receiving periodic royalties from a coal operating company now mining coal in the bed of the Ohio River in pursuance of a contract with the State.

Mr. SPRINGER. How long has that contract been in existence?
Mr. PARTLOw. About 3 years.

Other contracts for the mining of coal will doubtless be made. The State is at this time also receiving delayed royalties from a company exploring for oil under the bed of one of the navigable rivers, where there have been built up vast quantities of sand and gravel useful for road construction and other purposes, in the navigable rivers within the geographic boundaries of our State, and the State expects to receive substantial income from the removal of such sand and gravel.

As successor of Virginia, the title granted by the Crown of England, it is believed that the State is immune from successful attack against the title of the State in the land under a navigable stream. However, it is desired that the State be made immune even from unsuccessful attacks. I speak in behalf of myself as the chief legal executive officer of the State, and at the request of the Governor of the State, the board of public works of the State, and the public land department. Mr. SPRINGER. What was the date of the grant to Virginia? Mr. PARTLOw. The first one was 1606.

Mr. SPRINGER. Who was the sovereign?

Mr. PARTLOW. James.

Mr. SPRINGER. It is quite a period of time that you have had certain title to your particular part of the earth and what is under it and what is above it?

Mr. PARTLOW. Yes. I do not think it is necessary to enter into a discussion as to the legal questions involved. The State of Virginia existed before the Nation did and had title to the land before the Nation had title. West Virginia is successor of the title of Virginia. Mr. SPRINGER. The Nation never had any title.

Mr. PARTLOW. That is our contention.

As I have just stated, we think we are immune to any attack that may successfully be made, but we would like to know that we are immune from even unsuccessful attacks that might be made.

We have communicated with the Representatives in Congress from West Virginia and with the United States Senators of the State. We have heard from all the Congressmen and they are all in favor of the adoption by Congress of the pending resolution, or one substantially like it. The two Senators were out of the State at the time letters were received at their offices. Their secretaries write that they are confident that the Senators will give sympathetic consideration to the request made.

West Virginia is in favor of the adoption of the resolution.

I thank you.

Mr. SPRINGER. I think you have made yourself pretty clear on that. Mr. KENNY. Mr. Chairman, the assistant attorney general of North Carolina would like to address the committee for 1 minute if he has the chairman's permission.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be very glad to hear him.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUGHES J. RHODES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. RHODES. As representative of one of the Original Thirteen States we do not think we have much to be concerned about. We would not be disturbed about what the decision of the court would be in any case that might be presented, but, like the attorney general of the State of South Carolina, we do not like to be disturbed quite so often, and we feel that the matter ought to be quieted now.

I do not think we have any different problem in our State from those which have been related here by the representatives of the other States. I might say I think we have probably a combination of all of them.

Our State reaches from the western line of Tennessee and includes within its western borders the highest mountains east of the Mississippi. It runs down to the graveyard of the Atlantic at Cape Hatteras. We have a large number of navigable streams in our State along which have been builded most of our larger cities, the more progressive ones. Of course they are greatly interested in this situation. We have a great fishing industry in our State, and they are greatly disturbed about the situation. I am told by the director of the conservation development department that we have around 30,000 men whose livelihood depends entirely upon the fishing industry. has only been in recent years that we have been developing the oyster and shrimp culture in the eastern part of our State, and the income is around $15,000,000 per year now.

It

In addition to that, we have recently been experiencing some difficulty with oil companies. They are now just merely exploring, and most of the people are excited about rumors that we are hearing with reference to oil in North Carolina. We have not leased any of our lands to the oil companies. The State has reserved most of the land. Part has been leased on a royalty-plus-a-per-acre rental.

We join in the request that this resolution be adopted so that it may quiet any uneasiness on the part of the citizens of North Carolina as to their rights to the use of navigable streams to the extent that such use is not in conflict with the use of the Federal Government for purposes which we concede they are entitled to.

Mr. MICHENER. May I ask you one question? Assuming that the Federal Government should want to develop navigation, and this resolution were on the statute books, would that in any way interfere with the rights of the Federal Government to remove sand and gravel and stone from the bottom of a stream?

Mr. RHODES. While we have conceded to the Federal Government jurisdiction for the purposes of navigation, we have always felt that we owned whatever was beneath navigable streams in the way of minerals.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your statement.

Mr. KENNY. The attorney general of Maine has said that he can present his views to the committee in 2 minutes. I will call on Attorney General Farris of Maine.

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH W. FARRIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. FARRIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear as attorney general for the State of Maine and to say that the State of Maine is vitally interested in the passage of this resolution. I shall not take any of the committee's time in discussing the law, as the attorney general of California has filed a brief which I signed. Maine has 2,500 miles of coast line. We have two navigable rivers. We have the Penobscot River at the head of tide, and the Kennebec River, so that we have considerable submerged land which the State has always claimed title to, and it has never been disputed up until now.

In Portland we have several million dollars invested on made land. In 1939 the State legislature established the Port of Portland Authority. We have $1,800,000 invested there; and it would be very disadvantageous to the State of Maine should the Federal Government come in and claim title to any of our land 3 miles out to sea.

We also have our clam beds to which we claim title, which are regulated by the sea and shore fisheries commission, which gives the right to individuals to dig clams in our tidal waters.

Mr. SPRINGER. How long has there been the State of Maine?
Mr. FARRIS. In 1820 we were admitted as a State.

Mr. SPRINGER. How long has the State granted licenses for clam fishing and other fishing?

Mr. FARRIS. Back in 1908, I think, the sea and shore fisheries commission was established. Fishing was free to all the people of Maine up to that time.

Mr. SPRINGER. For 37 years?

Mr. FARRIS. Yes.

Mr. HANCOCK. If in making a harbor improvement the Federal Government should take any of these made lands would the State be entitled to compensation?

Mr. FARRIS. I believe so. We have never had that question arise. Mr. HANCOCK. Has such claim ever been made?

Mr. FARRIS. No; it has not been made in our State.

Mr. SPRINGER. Those clam beds are not in the way of navigation; are they?

Mr. FARRIS. No, sir. They are not in the navigable channels of the harbors.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. KENNY. The next witness is a representative from Alabama, Mr. Gessner T. McCorvey, who is special assistant attorney general of that State.

STATEMENT OF HON. GESSNER T. McCORVEY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. McCORVEY. Judge Sumners, and gentlemen of the committee, the attorney general of Alabama was due to be here to represent our State in this hearing, but the Alabama Legislature is now in session, and he was unable to get away. In fact, he is required to advise the Governor as to whether or not bills are constitutional, in his opinion, before the Governor signs them.

I shall be very brief. Alabama is very much interested in this matter. We are especially interested in regard to the Federal Government's claiming any interest in submerged lands and tidewater lands. Alabama was admitted to the Union in 1818; and we did not know that under the law the Federal Government could make any claim to these lands until this controversy came up here.

The Federal Government has recognized that the State of Alabama. owns these lands. Mobile Bay, as some of you may know, is at the base of the second largest river system in the country. Two or three rivers come in there, and we have more navigable waters around Mobile than any other port except New Orleans. Silt comes down the rivers and constantly fills up the bay. While the bay is 30 miles long and 20 miles wide, the average depth is only about 8 or 10 feet. However, we have a fine channel dredged through the middle of the bay, about 32 feet deep to accommodate any ships that come into the Gulf.

In these dredging operations, which of course the Federal Government carries out in directing navigation for the purpose of interstate and foreign commerce, they threw up what we call sand islands just below Mobile. They are shown on this splendid map, and I would like you gentlemen to look at that. Marked in red are the sand islands and reclaimed lands. The Federal Government itself recognized that the bed of Mobile Bay, these islands, the tidal lands, belonged to the State of Alabama. For instance, only a comparatively few years ago they wanted to put a quarantine station in Mobile Bay. When ships come in from the tropics they fumigate them to see that they do not bring in any yellow fever; and they wanted to build a quarantine station on these sand islands thrown up in Mobile Bay. The Federal Government came to the State of Alabama in reference to the matter. There was no question raised about it.

After 30 or 40 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States it seems like the question was settled in the minds of everyone; but it keeps bobbing up. Somebody has described this resolution as a bill to quiet title in the States. Until you do that there is not going to be any end to it Out in California, with reference to the suit that has just been filed, it will be 2 or 3 years before the matter can go through the district court and go to the court of appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it will probably be 3 years before the case can be decided.

Suppose it is decided against the Federal Government-and I feel confident it will be the next thing you know, some energetic young attorney in one of these numerous Government agencies or commissions will stir it up.

California came into the Union after the Mexican War. I have forgotten my history, but I have asked and was told that California was settled after the Mexican War, and they have some law applicable to California which some young, energetic attorney will claim is affected by the California decision, but that such decision does not affect any other States.

The State of Alabama is part of what was Georgia originally. We came in later as one of the Thirteen Colonies. We have not the vast areas of land that they have in the Midwest that came in under the Louisiana Purchase during Jefferson's time.

I hope you gentlemen will not go off on the proposition that the decision in the case which is now pending in California will settle anything. It is not going to settle anything. The question will keep bobbing up until Congress definitely quiets the titles of the States.

The Supreme Court of the United States as now constituted does not seem to have any more law of stare decisis, which one of the gentlemen asked about awhile ago. One of the ablest men on the bench said, in a matter involving the right of southern people to bar Negroes, that decisions of the Supreme Court were getting to the point where it was like buying a railroad ticket, "Good for this day and train only." So we can rest assured that this question is going to keep on bobbing up until Congress settles it.

Mobile, by the way, is one of the points in the country settled by the French, in 1702. Some of the business area of Mobile is built on made ground. In 1922 we amended our constitution to give the State the right to engage in works of internal improvement, and the people of Alabama voted a $10,000,000 bond issue, and we have built some of the finest structures you ever saw. We leased to the Aluminum Ore Co. 7,500 acres of made ground on which are constructed the finest plants of the kind in America. At the beginning of the war 80 percent of all the alumina was produced there. That is altogether on made ground. We also have a magnificent cold-storage plant. There is a great truck center around Mobile, and carloads of fruits and vegetables are brought in. Unless the State owns those things, the Federal Government can take them away from us. We certainly hope that you will adopt this resolution. I would like to file here, having the same situation as Mississippi has, a copy of an oil lease just recently made, in connection with which Alabama got a check for $34,000 from one of the oil companies. When we got that money and put it in the State treasury we thought we had money belonging to the State of Alabama. If this question is not settled, it may not have that result.

I want also to file a map that the State docks commission prepared, showing the number of acres of reclaimed land.

I am much obliged for your attention.

(The documents referred to were submitted by the witness and are on file with the committee.)

The next witness is a representative of the State of Pennsylvania, the assistant attorney general, Miss M. Vashti Burr.