First, the legal problems involved are of extreme importance and exceedingly difficult, and it wants the court to finally settle them. It is true that the Department of the Interior in the past has denied applications for oil and gas permits below the high-water mark. For a year we have been reconsidering the whole question at the instigation of some persons whose applications have been rejected in the past, and of new applications. We are still reconsidering the question. Then you recall at the hearing there was one Thomas Blanton who appeared, and on page 8 it says: Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, the position that I am going to take as the representative of certain citizens of the United States is that tidelands on the coast of California which are lands between low-water mark and high-tide mark should also be included in Senator Nye's resolution, as well as submerged land, the two being distinguished by submerged land being those below lowwater mark out to the 3-mile lmiit in the ocean. And then Mr. Blanton went on, and after the opposition was on, he then made the statement at page 231: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Robert Jordan has been here for several weeks, representing California, whom I represent too, and, instead of making a statement, he would like permission of the committee to put in a short extract from the Encyclopedia of Texas, showing the development of oil in Oklahoma and Texas. If the committee will allow me to do that and also a short statement from him with respect to his explorations in the tide lands and submerged lands out in California, if I may have that permission, I should like to include these. Then at page 227, there was this statement by one Joseph Cunningham, after he submitted the letter: It may be of interest to the committee if I state the fact that I made the first application to the Interior Department in 1934 for a permit to prospect for oil and gas on land below the high-water mark off the coast of California (which application was denied) and the direct cause of this committee meeting. Now it appears, if the members of the committee will just for a second refer to a plat entitled "Application for Federal oil and gas leases along the California shore line," you will see on page 1 the California coast line from Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, and the little squares with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively, are key numbers. Now when you turn to the first page, which is map No. 1, you will see the application and the name of the applicant, and where it applies in Santa Barbara County, it is Schrim, is the name of the applicant, and the number is 053244, and you can proceed on through the pages, Mr. Chairman, and you can see how they have littered up the coast of Santa Barabara County, and then as you proceed further in the book, particularly the last two pages, you will see the Long Beach Harbor and the Los Angeles area, where these applications, or descriptions, simply overlap to such an extent that it would be almost humanly impossible for the Secretary ever to attempt to determine who should get what. I say this difficulty is there, members of the committee, because in California our county fought this very same situation under the State tidal land act, before it was changed into the act that Mr. Dockweiller introduced yesterday. Now it appears from the last page of this particular statement, that Joseph Cunningham appears as an applicant of that large group in the Huntington Beach area, and Mr. Robert E. Jordan's name ap pears on the next to the last page, as applicant 053290, and I take it he is the same gentleman referred to by Mr. Blanton. Now we take this position, members of the committee, that the saving clause that Congressman Hobbs has there saves just exactly whatever these applications might be worth, and under the Leasing Act of 1930 it says, in section 13, that The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to issue leases. We have changed from the prospecting permit situation to a lease for 2 years without rent. The question of whether these gentlemen who have applied have vested rights is now again before the Department, and we feel this, members of the committee, that it would be manifestly unfair to take the situations that now exist in California, thoroughly settled under the act that Mr. Dockweiller presented here, the payments that have been made, and the settlements that have been made, and the offset situations that are now existing, operators whom-I do not know who they are, some who are representing people in our own county, have complied with the law, and the State and county and cities are not losing 1 cent, there is complete compliance, and we feel as a matter of fairness and equity to those people who spent that amount of money in that development of the work, the structures that are out there, that they should not now be placed in a position that if this resolution is adopted, there will be all of these suits to mandamus the Secretary of the Department and these people here, perhaps, to come in and defend the suit for the return of the money. Mr. HANCOCK. Right at that point, are these claims that have been filed here land that has already been developed? Mr. HECENDORF. Oh, yes; all of this from Santa Barbara; it covers all of the known structures, 350 miles; that is covered in the coast line here; and I say it would be manifestly unfair to force these people to defend that situation, and our own people throughout the 300 miles of coast line, to defend clouds on their titles, when these descriptions will be recorded in Santa Barbara County; and the clouds are not there now, because they are merely here with the Department, but when they are put on record as a lease, those people are tied up in litigation, and they can't mortgage their property and do a blessed thing, and it is not fair from that standpoint, and we firmly say this: That whatever the result may be, before this committee, we cannot help but feel in California that the way the law has been straightened out there in view of these two decisions, Utah and the Mission Rock case, that this commnttee should in all fairness to us, to the counties, to the schools, not cause us to lose that revenue. I thank you very much. RESOLUTION No. 2829 RESOLUTION OPPOSING SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24 (H. J. RES. 176) REGARDING FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF TIDELANDS Whereas during the present and past sessions of Congress certain bills and resolutions have been introduced therein claiming that the United States of America had sovereign rights to ownership of tidelands; and Whereas the title of such lands is by right and by law vested in the several States and their grantees; and 141082-39-ser. 2-11 Whereas the several States cannot be deprived of their rights and ownership of such land without just compensation; and Whereas it is believed by this board that such legislation can serve only to create a cloud upon the title to such lands, piers, wharves, and other structures thereon, and to hamper and impede State and municipal authorities in the proper development of ports, tidelands, and beaches of this State: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, That the adoption by the Congress of any legislation directly or indirectly ascertaining that the United States has sovereign title to ownership of lands under navigable waters or any mineral deposits therein, or authorizing any suits or other proceedings by Federal officers, or use of such lands or mineral deposits without the payment of just compensation is contrary to law and sound public policy and should be opposed; that the engineer of public works be and he is hereby authorized to oppose in the name and on behalf of this board, the adoption of any such legislation by Congress, and in connection therewith to furnish copies of this resolution to such committees and members of Congress as may be appropriate and desirable, to prepare memoranda in opposition to such legislation and submit the same to members and committees of Congress, and generally, to take such steps as may be necessary to carry out the intent and spirit of this resolution. The above resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, this 23d day of January 1939, by the following vote: Ayes: Thomas T. Dinsmore, Sam J. Stanwood, Fred G. Stevens, Ronald M. Adam, and C. L. Preisker. I, J. E. Lewis, county clerk and ex-officio clerk of the board of supervisors in and for the county of Santa Barbara, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the original resolution no. 2829, in the matter of opposing Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 regarding Federal ownership of tide lands, and the endorsements thereon, now remaining on file and of record in this office. Witness my hand and the seal of said Board this 31st day of January, A. D. 1939. [SEAL] J. E. LEWIS, Clerk. Mr. TOLAN. Mr. Leach, please. STATEMENT OF CLYDE M. LEACH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES, ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Mr. LEACH. I have prepared a statement, a short statement, which I will ask permission to file with the committee, and it isn't necessary, I think, to repeat what I have in there. As far as the legal questions are involved in this matter, why, we agree that what has been said by Mr. Fairchild, and others, and I know what has been said by the attorney general of our own California, Mr. Warren. We base our opposition on the claim of title from the State of California on an act of the legislature, May 1, 1911, in which the State granted to the city of Los Angeles, all of the right, title, and interest of the State of California, held by virtue of its sovereignty, in and to all tide and submerged land situated below the line of meantide line of the Pacific Ocean, within the limits of the city. Mr. WALTER. Has that statute been amended or repealed? Mr. WALTER. Is it incorporated in your brief? Mr. LEACH. Well, it will be. I know in the Long Beach presentation I was wondering if I had appeared after that, I could just merely refer to things that they have said, but I have a reference to it in my statement. That is the act of 1911, the city acting under that, since they acquired possession of these harbor lands, spent some $23,000,000 and the Federal Government, in breakwaters and channels has expended over $18,000,000 and we still owe about $17,000,000 of our bond issue which will not expire until 1968. During that time Mr. ROBSION. Does this resolution cover that particular territory that you are referring to? Mr. LEACH. Yes; there is one question involved there. Mr. ROBSION. What kind of improvement is that that you are referring to? Mr. LEACH. It is a complete harbor improvement, docks, turning basin, channels, railroads, and other things. We have built a modern port there on these lands situated below the mean high-tide line. Mr. ROBSION. IS that owned by the city? Mr. LEACH. Owned by the city, managed by the board of harbor commissioners, a department of the city, under the city charter. Mr. ROBSION. How much did the Federal Government contribute for these improvements? Mr. LEACH. They have spent in two breakwaters, and in maintaining main channels and fairways in the outer harbor, something over $18,000,000 up to date. The city has spent about $43,000,000, and we feel that the adoption of these resolutions will cast a cloud upon the title and make it impossible for us to go ahead with future development to keep up an increase of trade and commerce. Commerce there now is running over 20,000,000 tons a year, and it is quite an important port, and we feel that anything that is done here would certainly jeopardize the further development of the port until the matter is completely settled. Now, I agree with the legal points presented by these other gentlemen, and I don't feel that I should take any more time. Mr. WALTER. Thank you very much. BRIEF AND STATEMENT OF BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IN OPPOSITION TO HOBBS HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 176, AND O'CONNOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 181 The O'Connor resolution asserts title in the United States to submerged lands and the petroleum deposits therein, while the Hobbs resolution seeks to have such deposits declared a part of the naval reserve. Both resolutions raise the question, in which the city of Los Angeles has a very definite interest, as to what, if any, jurisdiction or rights the Federal Government may have in the submerged lands of the several States, with the exception of such jurisdiction with respect to navigable waters as has been granted by the States to the United States by section 8, article I, of the Federal Constitution, which provides, so far as pertinent to this discussion, that the Congress shall have power to--(Clause 2) Regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; (Clause 10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; (Clause 13) To provide and maintain a Navy; and (Clause 14) To make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces. And by section 2 of article III, which declares that the judicial power shall extend "to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." The foregoing are not grants of title or proprietary rights, but of governmental powers and jurisdiction. Their extent and nature have, up until this time, been so clearly explained and determined by the courts that the great harbors of this Nation have grown up, and commerce has flowed through the same in ever-increasing volume between the States and foreign countries without the semblance of dispute or conflict in the exercise by authorities of the State and of the Federal Government of their powers and duties within the scope of their respective jurisdictions. The Congress and the Corps of Engineers of the War Department have worked in close and intelligent cooperation with State and local authorities in building harbors and ports to keep pace with the growth of the Nation. The history of each port is different. Ports were established in natural harbors in the old sailing-ship days, before the formation of the Union, by persons who were actually engaged in the service of transporting commerce either by land or water, or by private interests owning water frontage in the harbors wharfing out to deep water or handling cargo by lighter to and from vessels at anchor. The era of regulation, as it is known today, had not yet arrived, and the question of jurisdiction was not of great importance. This was the situation with which the framers of our National Constitution were familiar. The ports of that day were the gateways to the lands from which their forefathers had so recently come, and it was quite natural that they, the representatives of the several States owning these harbors within their borders, should see the great advantage to them of giving to the lawmakers of the Union of the States which they were forming the power to regulate the movement of commerce amongst themselves and with foreign countries. Bear in mind that this Congress to whom they were giving this power of regulation was to be made up of their own people, representatives of each of the respective States. They were forming a Union of separate, distinct sovereignties, each a supreme ruler in itself, not creating an independent sovereign to whom they were to cede these harbors which they owned. The Supreme Court of these United States and the courts of the States themselves have consistently construed the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution as giving to the representatives of the States assembled in Congress jurisdiction over the navigable waters of these harbors for certain defined purposes, but not ownership as a proprietor. After the Revolution and the formation of the Union, commerce continued to flow through the natural harbors for the most part, and this was the situation when the State of California was admitted into the Union on September 9, 1850. The act of the Congress admitting California (9 Stat. L. 452, ch. 50 of Laws of 1850) contains this provision: "That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever." California thereupon took her place as one of the United States and became invested with the title to and acquired possession of all tidelands and submerged lands within her borders, excepting such as may have been granted by the King of Spain or the Mexican Government to private persons who could prove their claims and secure confirmation thereof by decree of the Federal courts as provided by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, entered into with Mexico at the close of the War of 1845. There are many so-called Spanish grants in California which were proven and confirmed pursuant to this treaty, and some of them contained tide and submerged lands which remained in possession of private owners. (United States v. Coronado Beach Co., 255 U. S. 472, 65 L. Ed. 736). The Supreme Court of the United States clearly states the fact as to ownership of tide and submerged lands in Weber v. Harbor Commissioners (18 Wall. 57, 21 L. Ed. 798), a case involving title to submerged lands in San Francisco Bay, in the following language: * ** The complainant is not the proprietor of any land bordering on the shore of the sea, in any proper sense of that term. His land is situated nearly half a mile from what was the shore of the Bay of San Francisco, at the time California was admitted into the Union, and over it the water at the lowest tide then flowed at a depth sufficient to float vessels of ordinary size. Although the title to the soil under the tidewaters of the bay was acquired by the United States by cession from Mexico, equally with the title to the upland, they held it only in trust for the future State. Upon the admission of California into the Union upon equal footing with the original 66 |