STATEMENT OF MISS M. VASHTI BURR, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Miss BURR. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have the honor to represent the attorney general of Pennsylvania. My statement is very brief. I think it will give some facts that may clear up a number of things with respect to our particular interest, supplementing the brief in which our attorney general has joined with the others, which you have before you in the record.

Before I proceed, however, with my formal statement, I desire to comply with the request of Mr. Shelley, of New York, who wishes it to appear on the record that he inadvertantly failed to include Philadelphia as a member of the American Association of Port Authorities, when he was asked whether the association which he represented had any cities on navigable rivers.

Certain questions directed to those who appeared before your committee this morning, suggest that there should also be entered the following additional facts with respect to oil and coal in the riverbeds of our State.

In places dams have widened the rivers in areas which are underlain by coal, and in some of these productive oil sands underlie the surface. (1) The Pittsburgh coal bed underlies the Monongahela River from Brownsville to Greensboro.

(2) The Allegheny coals, some of which are thought to be workable underlie all of the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania, the Youghiogheny River below Connellsville, and the lower Allegheny and Ohio Rivers from Pittsburgh to Beaver.

The rivers draining from the anthracite region are yielding annually one-half to one and one-half million tons of fine anthracite coal and doubtless will continue to do so. Many industries are dependent upon coal so recovered, notably from the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania believes that such legislation as is proposed by the pending resolutions is necessary to quiet titles and to prevent further agitation affecting valuable and long-settled property rights. In addition to having joined in the brief of attorneys general filed with you by Hon. Robert W. Kenny, attorney general of California, it is desired to submit for the considereation of the committee what we believe to be pertinent information.

According to information compiled from surveys by the Pennsylvania Water and Power Resources Board (see annex hereto. attached), our nine navigable rivers have a water frontage of 2,849 miles and submerged lands totaling 148,616 acres. Lake Erie has a water frontage of 46 miles on the Pennsylvania side of the lake and the portion of the lake owned by Pennsylvania, which extends to the middle line of the lake, covers 275,000 acres. The water frontage of the other lakes and ponds, including the portion of the Pymatuning Reservoir in Pennsylvania, totals 241 miles and the area of the submerged lands thereunder is 39,680 acres.

The distance in statute miles from the head of tidewater at the upper railroad bridge, Trenton, N. J., to Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, is estimated as 33.72 miles. The distance on the Schuylkill River, from the Fairmount Dam, the head of tidewater, is 8.6 miles. This portion

of the Schuylkill River is available for commerce from both sides, giving a water frontage of 17.2 miles. The Philadelphia City water front on the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers is 37 miles long, about one-half of which is improved.

The United States Army engineers credit Pennsylvania with a total of 20.23 square miles of submerged land in the tidal basin at mean high tide, as follows: 19 square miles in the Pennsylvania section of the Delaware River and 1.23 square miles in the Schuylkill River.

The water frontage of the port of Chester is 10 miles. The amount of water frontage and submerged lands at Pittsburgh is included in the attached annex to this statement under the heading "Ohio Basin." The Erie Park Commission on Presque Isle Peninsula, at Erie, reports that roads, improvements, and protective works have cost approximately $2,000,000. The city of Erie receives no revenue. The docks are privately owned. The Erie Park Commission receives annually a minimum of $800 from private licenses for dockages for pleasure boats and $1,100 from concessions. Statistics are not presently available concerning the value of improvements at Pittsburgh. With respect to the Port of Philadelphia, the 1945 report of the commission for the Port of Chester is authority for the statement that the annual net volume of commerce in the Port of Philadelphia is approximately 45,000,000 tons, which represent imports and exports of 18 municipalities served by the Delaware River and its tributaries. Only 5 of these 18 municipalities are in Pennsylvania, But the total tonnage of imports and exports for these 5 municipalities is 42,191,266. The port of Philadelphia ranks second among the United States seaports in point of tonnage handled.

Every port facility in Philadelphia is built on State property under grant by license. The director of wharves, docks, and ferries is also the agent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Approximately $40,000,000 was spent prior to the end of 1942 in improvements.

Mr. SPRINGER. How long has the State of Pennsylvania had title to those improvements on which the docks are constructed?

Miss BURR. We claim it from the time of the charter in 1681. As early as 1761 we had an act of our colony group in Pennsylvania.

Although 28 percent of the city piers is city owned, the taxpayers of Philadelphia are still paying approximately $1,500,000 a year toward amortization of bonds for improvements (not included in the $40,000,000). The annual rental receipts from the city-owned piers have advanced from $246,000 in 1939 to $428,000 in 1944.

To show the magnitude of the undertaking of improvements in the port of Philadelphia, the value of which is estimated by the department of wharves, docks, and ferries to range between one-half billion and one billion dollars within the city of Philadelphia alone, the following examples of improvements are given:

Two hundred and sixty-seven wharves, of which 159 are projecting piers and 108 are individual sections of bulkhead frontage. Of the projecting piers, 41 represent the water-front terminals of the Pennsylvania, Reading, Baltimore & Ohio Railroads. Fourteen are large municipal piers. Three are piers built by the United States Government and are devoted exclusively to ocean commerce. Along the water front are 8,000,000 square feet of covered storage space and a total berthing space of 190,000 lineal feet. There are two modern coal tipples, two large grain elevators, two large rapid oil-handling piers, and the largest shipbuilding yards on the American Continent.

It is respectfully submitted that the foregoing facts are sufficient to indicate in part the great value of the many properties located in, upon, or contiguous to Pennsylvania's tidewaters and submerged lands.

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania it is earnestly requested that members of your committee support the efforts of the States to quiet titles and prevent further agitation affecting longsettled property rights of the States.

(The document referred to and submitted by the witness is as follows:)

Amount of water frontage and amount of submerged lands of principal rivers and lakes and ponds in Pennsylvania

As

The CHAIRMAN. We have got to close these hearings very soon; but for the benefit of those who have to leave tonight, if they can make preliminary statements and file for the record any additional statements which they would like to make, I think that would be well. a matter of fact, a statement in detail can hardly be carried in the memories of the members of the committee anyway, and if you can supplement the statements that have been made and then file statements which will go into details, probably it would help some of you to get home tonight.

Mr. KENNY. I know that the gentlemen from Rhode Island and Connecticut have told me that they will speak very briefly.

The CHAIRMAN. How many do you have for tomorrow?

Mr. KENNY. I am sure that nearly every State in the Union would like to be heard in this matter. Whether the witnesses can condense

their statements into written statements or not I do not know. I think I can call on Mr. Cooney of Rhode Island at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. While you are interrupted: I believe we are going to have to close the presentation tomorrow. I think it would hardly

be worth while to meet at 10 o'clock. We will meet at 10:30. You can all get together tonight and get your presentation systematized. Mr. KENNY. Yes. The committee has been so efficient that we are ahead of our schedule now.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. COONEY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. COONEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am counsel to the attorney general of Rhode Island, and I am here by direction of the Governor of Rhode Island, as well as by direction of the attorney, general of Rhode Island.

Rhode Island, as you know, was chartered by King Charles in 1663. You know, also, that Rhode Island lived under the King Charles charter until 1743. We did not even come into the Union, as you know, until 1790.

Rhode Island, of course, is small. Its shore line is not anything like that of Maine, but we have important fishing interests in Rhode Island, and we are on the way to expanding our harbors and our docks. Our general assembly, the legislative body of the State, some years ago established a harbor line in Narragansett Bay. That is an arm of the sea which empties into the Atlantic Ocean. The traditional owners of the land bordering on Narragansett Bay have been permitted by statute to fill out to the harbor line and have title in fee to the land bordering the harbor line.

The city of Providence, in particular, our principal city, has invested very heavily in dock facilities in the city of Providence, and we are fearful that if legislation of this type does not pass the city of Providence may be interfered with with respect to that.

We have in our department of agriculture and conservation a division of fish and game. That division is authorized by statute to license growers of oysters, clams and quahogs, and a very large revenue is derived from those sources of employment.

Our problem essentially is the same as that of the other States. So I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into any further details. We respectfully ask that the resolutions or one of them be adopted by this committee.

Thank you.

Mr. KENNY. The next witness is the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Harry L. Brooks, who has a brief statement to make.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY L. BROOKS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to make this a very brief statement on behalf of the attorney general whom I represent in the State of Connecticut.

We are in full accord with the opening statement of the attorney general of the State of California as to the state of the law. It seems to me that the law is very well settled and has been repeated so many

times that it can no longer be questioned, by decisions of our Federal courts and our State courts.

Connecticut has a coast line of about 100 miles, and we feel that the problem that is presented here is a matter which interests the State of Connecticut, and we would like to have this matter, which we regard settled but which seems to bob up in these latter days, actually determined by this resolution. The State of Connecticut is in accord with the resolution, and we approve it.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I have just been apprised by the clerk that notices have been sent out that the committee would meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Have you some other witnesses?

Mr. KENNY. We have a witness from Louisiana, the assistant attorney general, who has indicated that his testimony will take only a few minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. MADDEN SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is John L. Madden. I am special assistant attorney general of the State of Louisiana.

First, I should like to read a brief letter from the Governor of the State of Louisiana, addressed to this committee, as follows [reading]:

As Governor of the State of Louisiana, I wish to place myself on record as favoring the proposed legislation now pending in Congress to quiet the titles of the several States to land beneath navigable waters and tidewaters within their respective boundaries.

I feel convinced that if the many decisions of our courts are not to be recognized on this subject, the only way to prevent the further clouding of the titles of the several States to such lands is to have quitclaim issue as proposed in the resolutions. It is obvious that the State of Louisiana depends upon the oil, gas, and mineral development of its lands, including water beds and bottoms, for much of its revenue and receives additional revenue from the leasing of oyster beds beneath water areas, but equal, if not primary, concern is felt for those who have spent years of labor and enormous sums of money as lessees of the State in effecting such development. The ever-increasing acts to cloud the State's title not only produce fears and anxieties on the part of those who for years have reposed full confidence in the uniform jurisprudence of our Nation on the subject mentioned, but are bound to curtail their interest and initiative in further leasing and development.

I deeply regret that I cannot be present for the hearings but I have requested the attorney general of this State to ask leave of the committee for this letter to be filed in the record and I have also requested him and his staff to represent me in giving the proposed resolutions vigorous support. I shall depend upon John L. Madden, special assistant attorney general, to present this letter to your honorable committee.

I am not going to steal the thunder of the lady who is to follow me, the register of the State land office. I am not going to talk much about oil and gas, although they are very important resources of the State and important sources of revenue to the State. I am just going to say something about tideland as distinguished from navigable waters inland.

It was in 1917 that the Governor of our State issued a proclamation withdrawing State lands, including oyster beds and bottoms, from entry and sale.