Page images
PDF
EPUB

A good deal has been said about the jurisdiction of the United States. The old theory was 3 miles because that was about the range of defense armaments, and that a cannon shot 3 miles. In the case of the 12mile limit under prohibition enforcement, as I recall it, that was brought about by treaty between the United States and other countries in which other countries agreed that within a 12-mile limit the United States might exercise, not ownership, but jurisdiction, to enforce its laws.

Of course it may be said now that cannon range is 25 or 30 miles, but unless we get some agreement with other nations, that probably would not obtain. We would have to observe international law in that respect.

But that refers after all to the assertion of governmental power. It refers to enforcement of our laws. It refers to navigation. It refers to those essential things that are a part of the national sovereignty. Ownership of soil is not a part of national sovereignty. The Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, but that does not mean its own highways within the States over which interstate commerce passes. That does not mean that in its control over interstate commerce it can reduce its title to fee simple and go down and get oil, gold, coal, or any other mineral under such a highway. In most cases the highway belongs to an individual citizen who owns the abutting property but has merely granted an easement. Of course in some cases the State takes fee simple title, and in such a case it belongs to the State. The Federal Government simply acquires control of traffic on top of the ground.

What is control of navigation? Why, it is control of the passage of commerce over the ocean, or under the ocean by means of submarines if commercial submarines there be. That does not mean ownership of submerged lands.

In the case of the national defense is it necessary for the Federal Government to have title to soil under waters in order to conduct the national defense? They say they need oil. They do not need that oil any more than they need oil in any tank.

If the powers of sovereignty in one case are good, and for a sample case they say they have oil, why cannot they go out and take any other war supply they need? The Federal Government under the Constitution may take anything it needs in the exercise of any of its powers of sovereignty, but in order to do so it must comply with the other section, by giving compensation.

But the authors of this resolution do not want it placed upon that ground. In section 3 they provide:

That nothing contained in this joint resolution shall be construed as a taking, as authorizing a taking, or as ratifying a taking, of any property by exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Thus they meticulously and carefully avoid any implication that the taking is under the powers of eminent domain. In other words, the taking is to be some other kind of taking. It is to be a case of the Government saying: "I want this and I am going to take it and you shall have no compensation whatever."

Now, I do not want to preempt the ground here because these other representatives of my State are present and I am anxious that they shall be heard, but I do want to speak a few words with respect to the State of Texas, and I think we may very safely generalize from

the situation in which Texas finds itself to extend to similar situations in other States.

As all of you know, Texas was originally a part of Spain. It was a Spanish dominion. In 1819, when the United States purchased Florida, United States entered into a treaty defining the boundaries of the Southwest, and that treaty contains the following language:

The United States hereby cede to his Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the above-described line.

Now, that line was the eastern boundary line of the State of Texas, along the Sabine River, beginning in the Gulf and proceeding thence northward on up into the northern territory. So whatever interest or title the United States had was renounced forever beyond that line and conceded to the King of Spain.

Of course when Mexico ceceded from Spain, and established its independence in 1821, the territory which is now Texas being a part of Mexico; Mexico succeeded to all the rights which Spain had. Remember, Spain had not only title as an independent nation of anything which thus belonged to her, but she also had whatever title the United States may have had because the United States renounced its title specifically in the boundary treaty.

So, then, we have the Republic of Mexico owning whatever title, either in submerged lands or tidelands, whatever title any government owned in the lands adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent to the territory now Texas.

And then, in 1836, when Texas became an independent republic, it acquired from Mexico all the title which it theretofore possessed, whether it extended 3 miles, 10 miles, or 100 miles. That became the property of the State of Texas.

The Republic of Texas by act of its congress declared that her jurisdiction extended to the following territory along the sea coast:

Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine River, and running west along the Gulf of Mexico three leagues

which is about 10%1⁄2 miles

from land to the mouth of the Rio Grande.

When Texas was admitted to the United States first there were negotiations by way of treaty, but the United States Senate did not ratify the treaty, so it was then provided that Texas be admitted by joint resolution of Congress. Among other things that joint resolution provided as follows:

Said State when admitted into the Union * * * shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of sas said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States * * *

Now, what were public lands under that declaration? There were only two kinds of lands when Texas came into the Union, either private or public lands. All other public lands, whether out on the surface of Texas territory or under the sea, were public lands. Texas was a republic or a nation. It was not a State but a nation, and whatever right any nation had in those lands adjacent to our waters.

140042-39-2

were the property of the State of Texas, and continued to be its property when it was admitted into the Union, because Congress explicitly expressed through the joint resolution that those lands should be retained by the State of Texas.

Now, the Legislature of Texas, after it became a member of the Union, reasserrted and reaffirmed its

exclusive right to the jurisdiction over the soil included in the limits of the late Republic of Texas.

So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me at least that under the indisputable title which Texas has not only possessed but asserted and maintained, there can be no question whatever as to this proposed resolution insofar as it relates to the submerged coastal lands of the State of Texas.

In the case of the Thirteen Original Colonies it seems to me there is no question as to their title, because when the Revolutionary War was over each one of those colonies was an independent State, and it owned whatever title any of them had in and to coastal waters and lands.

In the case of California-and I won't put much time on that because they have so many more able representatives to present their side of the question-but it seems to me when they came into the Union, unless there was some specific restriction to indicate that it came in under some other footing, it came in on the same basis of equality as every other State of the Union. It was admitted upon that theory and upon that theory alone. It did not seek to come into the Union as a territory. It did not seek to come in in any subordinate capacity but desired to come in as full sister in the sisterhood of States.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And it was so provided.

Senator CONNALLY. Yes. Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall not argue the general theories asserted by this resolution as to a sort of inchoate, suspended, unasserted right of the Government out beyond low-water mark to oils that lie below the surface.

If the United States owned those lands where did it get them? In the case of the State of Texas if the right and title did not come from Spain or Mexico, where did it get it?

If

In the State of California the same query might be propounded. the United States owned the title of those lands below low-water mark how did it get it? This resolution says it gets it because it has charge of navigation. It gets it because it says it has the sovereign right of national defense. Nobody disputes these generalities. The Senator from Oregon is a businessman and, doubtless, he is the owner of some lands. I say to you if there are beneath your ownings, oil, while it is within the power of the Federal Government in the matter of national defense to ask for that oil, yet it cannot touch a gallon of it which you own unless it first makes compensation to you. You may own property adjacent to a navigable river in your State. They have the right to control navigation on that stream, but they have no right to destroy your property without compensation.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the United States Government, if it is simply because it needs oil that it is proposing to do this, could easily get all the oil it needs. The Government is able to pay for the oil it uses. It has been paying for it heretofore. Why should the possessors of this title in the State of California have their property

confiscated simply because the Government of the United States needs oil? Why should the property of citizens in any other State be confiscated simply upon the plea that under sovereignty the Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate and foreign commerce?

Mr. Chairman, the theory it seems to me is very finely spun, that it is a very inchoate sort of theory that, after 150 years, either longer or shorter exercise of jurisdiction and ownership by the States, the United States Government, through this resolution, should seek to establish a new doctrine, a doctrine wholly alien to anything that has heretofore taken place under the theories of national defense and the regulation of interstate commerce.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, and ask the indulgence of the committee in hearing other representatives of the State of Texas, and for that matter other opponents of the resolution.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I was going to suggest to the chairman, if he will permit me to do so, that the proponents of this resolution now present their case.

The CHAIRMAN. All that I will say to the Senator from California is that he has the right-of-way.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what I meant by that remark was that it is hereby tendered to you.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Oh, I understand that and I thank you for it. But I am going to remain here during the hearings, so I would like to hear the gentlemen who have proposed these resolutions. I want to know the theory upon which they are acting.

Senator CONNALLY. May I add one other word?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator CONNALLY. Whatever right the United States Government, either imaginary or otherwise, may have, that right is based upon the theory that it acquired it as a nation because it was a nation. We in Texas insist that if that is the theory then it cannot apply to us, because whatever right Spain had as a nation, whatever right Mexico had as a nation, whatever right the Republic of Texas had as a nation, now rests in the State of Texas by reason of its explicit reservation in the joint resolution of admission to the Union.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Captain Stuart here?

Captain STUART. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that Captain Stuart of the Navy come forward and give us the benefit of his statement.

Capt. H. A. STUART. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that Congressman Hobbs be heard first.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, we will be glad to hear Representative Hobbs of Alabama. Might I suggest to those who are present and who would like to be heard on this matter, to go to the clerk of the committee, Mr. Camalier, and give their names and whom they represent in the matter, so that we may endeavor to work out a schedule for the hearings.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have a list of witnesses I should like to have heard. But I may wish to reverse the order in which they would appear, and will furnish it to your clerk shortly.

Senator NYE. You mean in opposition to the resolution?
Senator JOHNSON of California. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Representative Hobbs.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM HOBBS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Representative HOBBS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, insofar as the pending resolution is concerned the opponents might as well quote the Ten Commandments as to quote the authorities they have dwelt upon, for certainly the Ten Commandments are indisputable, and so are the authorities they have read from with respect to tidelands.

No one seeks, much less the proponents of this resolution, any confiscation of any right of property anywhere, particularly not in the tidelands because they are specifically excepted from the operation of this resolution.

I think particularly the distinction indicated in Senator Holman's first inquiry, which he will notice the opponent refused to reply to specifically and which I desire to call attention to and answer as specifically as I know how

Senator HOLMAN (interposing). Might I right there attempt to develop a thought that has occurred to me? I am very much interested in developing the theory of ownership or control of submerged lands below and beyond tidelands, to the extreme edge of the continental shelf. It is quite possible that a foreign nation might begin at some future time operations on such submerged lands, as Japan, for instance, now carries on fishery activities off the coast of Alaska. There might be mechanical developments that will permit a foreign nation, 25 or 30 miles offshore, to operate. Then what are we going to do? I think now is the time to determine national control over submerged lands clear to the edge of the continental shelf, if it is pertinent to this discussion.

Representative HOBBS. I will be very happy to try to answer the Senator's implication as well as his specific question.

Speaking for myself I am heartily in accord with the Senator from Oregon that we should now and immediately begin to obtain from the nations of the earth another agreement as to that canon of international law which fixes the control and proprietorship of littoral nations in submerged lands and waters where nations who are littoral have exclusive control.

It may be that this zone of exclusive control should extend to the continental shelf. Personally I think so. It is interesting to note the development of this idea: At first it was sword's length, then spear's length, then the arrow shot, and finally the maximum limit it was thought the fire of a cannon could ever reach. In other words, the whole idea grew out of national defense, and it was only that territory which a nation could defend that was subject to its exclusive control and dominion.

Now that a cannon shot might carry 35 miles, and an airplane might fly with a radius of several hundred miles, I can see no logical reason why the paramount authority of control and proprietorship over littoral waters by any particular nation should not be extended to the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »