under a line dividing southern California from northern California, it was known even in Mexican days, to the Pacific Ocean, and it did not say 3 miles into the Pacific Ocean.

And then in a subsequent paragraph, it provided that it should be at a point southermost from the southermost end of the port of San Diego. I went to the maps and archives here and I find that if you take that point instead of running from Coronado, which is the point of land, but if you take the inside part of the harbor and run down you will land directly upon the shore line, and the maps show that.

Now, when California in its original constitutional convention adopted its boundary line, it spoke of 3 miles or 1 league, and followed that line as was suggested on the map here as presented today. So that there was that difference in the act itself, defining the boundaries of California, but it was extended beyond the treaty itself.

So that when we have contended for, and what has been argued always, was the mere fact that whatever sovereign rights Mexico had, either to the upland, or tideland or submerged lands, all passed to the United States, and the United States holds all of that except that portion which by legislative grant it has given to some of the States.

Mr. PIERCE. I have one brief question. Did I understand you correctly to say that you would not be opposed, or the people that you represent, to a simple resolution requesting or directing the Attorney General to institute proceedings to institute title?

Mr. KING. I think that that would be in my interest, if they just did that, particularly if the Attorney General would act.

Mr. REED. Do you not think that the passage of such a resolution as you suggest would also throw a cloud upon the title of that at the present time?

Mr. KING. If you make it general, I do not think that it would.

Mr. REED. You assert in there that there is a controversy as to who is the owner.

Mr. KING. It is for them to make some investigation with respect to it, and take such action if any was necessary, and it is in a modified form, but I do not think that there should be anything to reflect upon the State.

Mr. SPRINGER. As a matter of fact, there is a cloud upon the title of these lands now, by reason of these investigations.

Mr. KING. There is no question about it. That is there at the present time, and pending right now in the United States Land Office. Mr. REED. This would recognize that?

Mr. KING. But if you make it general, then it is not going to be shown as specifying any particular State, and therefore reflecting upon them in the proper consideration of the matter.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. COLMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: This is a subject that I do not know a great deal about, and therefore I shall not attempt to make any statement on it. I merely appear before the committee at the request of the attorney general of Mississippi, the Hon. Greek Rice, and ask that his statement at the time of the previous hearing be incorporated as a part of the hearings held previously.

The attorney general of the State of Mississippi has been authorized, as I understand it, to oppose this resolution on the ground that it might adversely affect whatever rights the State of Mississippi might have on its coast line, with the oil that we hope to discover down there.

This statement that was previously presented is to be found on pages 198 and 199 of the previous record.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE F. NICHOLSON, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES

Mr. NICHOLSON. I am George F. Nicholson, representing The American Association of Port Authorities. I might say that this is an association of principal ports of Canada and the United States, and at this hearing I am representing 44 of the United States ports, principal ports, and also representing a number of ports independently from our association.

A special committee of the association has been investigating this matter for about 7 months, and have prepared a brief which I will leave as a part of the record, and also attached to this brief is a brief submitted by our law and legislation committee. The brief that I have referred to first is a brief concerning the practical operating matters and engineering matters that will follow the passage of these two resolutions, and show the detrimental effects of the passage of these resolutions.

This brief is based on the assumption of our law and legislation committee, who contend that the title of these lands is in the States.

I might just call attention to two or three things in connection with the practical operation of the ports. First, there is the heavy cost of litigation, if these resolutions were passed, and at the present time practically none of the ports are on a self-sustaining basis, and they have to call upon the taxpayer to make up deficits, and the taxpayer will have to dig deeper into his pocket for this extra additional litigation. Also this litigation on the part of the ports will cast a cloud on the title, and that means the extension of our ports are blocked entirely. And as has been said before, while the litigation is pending, the oil pools are being drained.

If the Federal claim is valid, we contend that all of the submerged lands of the United States ports are involved. As the Attorney General of the State of California has said, these submerged lands constitute the very large majority of the ports, and in fact Los Angeles harbor, or approximately 96 percent of the harbor is sub

merged lands; so that if these submerged lands accrue to the Federal Government then our whole harbor goes to the Federal Government. It will also involve the improvements thereon, and an estimate has been made on that. Those amount to $1,775,000,000. That has been based on an estimate of the percentage of the cost of our improvements on submerged lands in ports of the United States.

The reclaimed lands have been referred to, and I might say that there are thousands and thousands of acres in our ports that have been reclaimed on submerged lands, and on those reclaimed lands have been built permanent buildings. We have a seven-story concrete building in Los Angeles harbor which cost $750,000. We have highways, rail lines, and utilities, and as I say permanent buildings on those reclaimed lands. So that all of those improvements on the reclaimed land would go to the Federal Government if these resolutions were passed.

I want to be as brief as possible, and just say that the American Association opposes both of those resolutions, and requests that the committee disapprove of them.

(The brief submitted is incorporated into the record as follows:)

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H. J. RES. 176 AND H. J. RES. 181

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES, INC., SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUBMERGED AND RECLAIMED LAND LEGISLATION, Washington, D. C., March 22, 1939.

To the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives: This memorandum is submitted in opposition to House Joint Resolutions 176 and 181 by the American Association of Port Authorities, the membership of which includes 44 State and municipal agencies engaged in port development and operation and representing all of the important ports of this country. A list of these 44 public agencies is appended hereto.

House Joint Resolution 176 attempts to establish a petroleum reserve in certain submerged lands of the State of California while House Joint Resolution 181 asserts title to the submerged lands of all States containing petroleum deposits.

This association opposes the adoption of the above resolutions for the following reasons:

1. Litigation which will follow, as a result of the adoption of the above resolutions, will cause the State and its grantees (or the grantees of its predecessor sovereign) very heavy expense in litigations and create an additional tax burden on the taxpayers of California and all other States and all port districts including those represented by this association.

2. Forcing this litigation upon the States and port districts would immediately cast a cloud on the titles to the submerged and reclaimed lands and improvements thereon which would continue for the many years that these matters were in the courts resulting in placing our States and ports in a serious situation as far as financing additional improvements are concerned.

3. While litigation is pending, probably for many years, the private interests owning adjoining upland can drain the oil pools under submerged lands.

4. If the Federal claims as contained in the resolutions are valid, then the submerged lands, not containing petroleum deposits of all other States and their port districts would become the property of the Federal Government.

5. If this Federal submerged program is successful then all of the harbor and terminal facilities constructed by public port agencies and private corporations on or over the submerged lands and on reclaimed lands at enormous expense would become the property of the Federal Government and these public and private agencies would lose this very large investment.

6. Reliance upon an unfounded claim of ownership will only serve to delay the Federal Government in the acquisition of petroleum deposits for the purpose of adding to the present naval oil reserves.

The defects of the proposed joint resolutions and the detrimental effects that they would have on our numerous ports if they were adopted are discussed in detail in this memorandum.

The resolution, House Joint Resolution 176, proceeds upon the theory that the Federal Government possesses some paramount or exclusive power of sovereignty which empowers it to seize the petroleum deposits irrespective of State ownership and control and without any compensation being made.

It goes so far as to direct the Attorney General of the United States to institute legal proceedings to assert the right and interest of the United States in such deposits. This is tantamount to a direction to assert the "title" of the Government thereto. That the idea is to establish a superior title in the Gov. ernment is the more evident when consideration is given to the provisions of the resolution directing the removal and ejectment of all persons trespassing upon or occupying such submerged lands. Inasmuch as no one can say where petroleum deposits may be found underneath the submerged lands, since new deposits are being constantly discovered and many harbor improvements are now constructed upon submerged lands of harbor waters from which petroleum is now being removed, it would seem that the resolution, House Joint Resolution 176, jeopardizes the interests and rights of all harbor authorities.

Indeed, this is clearly the interest expressed in section 3 of the resolution wherein it reserves to the United States any "right, title, claim, or interest which the United States of America has or would have to other petroleum deposits and submerged lands or the right to set aside other petroleum deposits and submerged lands elsewhere as a naval petroleum reserve or for other purposes." While there is no finding by Congress expressed in the resolution that the Federal Government owns the submerged lands and the petroleum deposits therein, the implication is clearly there. Therefore, every coastal and inland State and their several public agencies, including all United States ports, who own their submerged lands and reclaimed lands that were originally submerged lands are vitally affected by this proposed legislation.

Any litigation brought under such a resolution could not be limited to petroleum deposits along the California coast without directly involving the claim of the Federal Government to ownership of all submerged lands. Indeed, any legal action itself would partake of the nature of a proceeding for declarative relief, which is now permitted by the act of Congress. The Attorney General certainly would raise, in such a proceeding, every possible claim of title, right, or interest of the Federal Government in order that the courts might not be foreclosed from passing upon the broadest issues possible. The interests of the ports in their own submerged lands would be inevitably involved in such litigation. As a result all ports of the United States would have to contest every court action of this kind brought by the Federal Government.

The heavy expense to these public ports in such litigation would be enormous and since the ownership of the submerged lands by the States and their grantees has already been established, it seems futile for the Federal Govern. ment to force this issue.

The legislation as proposed seeks to prevent the development of such petroleum deposits on behalf of the public interests which now control the submerged lands in which they are found but would leave untouched the drilling operations along the shore line above the mean high tide line which in most cases are carried on by private corporations. Such corporations would thereby be enabled to drain the submerged oil pools and deplete the public resources now being utilized by the public ports in question.

Some of the ports in California, such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, members of this association, have a direct interest in such petroleum deposits and are receiving substantial revenues from the extraction of petroleum from submerged tidelands and would be directly affected by the passage of such legisla⚫ tion. Similarly, the interests of various ports and other public agencies of Texas and Louisiana would be endangered. In the future when petroleum is discovered in additional States many more public agencies will be affected. If the power exists to take over and hold oil-bearing submerged lands to preserve them for the rights of posterity in respect to commerce and the future

needs of the Government in providing for its Navy, then by the same process of reasoning, the Government has power to conserve and set aside all natural resources, such as iron and copper deposits, timber, and other resources. And if the power exists generally, it need not be limited to property now held by the States and their municipalities. It extends to its fullest extent to embrace property privately held, limited only by the construction which the constitutional clauses may themselves compel.

The difficulty with House Joint Resolution 176 is that it confuses the issues and actually contemplates the establishment of a paramount right or interest on behalf of the Federal Government which would empower it to seize and set aside the property it seeks to acquire and to eject all trespassers therefrom. This, in effect, involves issues of title and paramount ownerships. It can only be litigated by raising the very questions of sovereign claims of title which the O'Connor and Nye resolutions directly contemplate and concerning which all ports have a definite interest.

An attempt has been made by the framers of House Joint Resolution 176 to divorce the petroleum from the submerged lands and place the Federal Government in ownership and control of the petroleum only, due to the fact, we presume, that ownership of submerged lands in the State and their grantees has been well established by many court decisions. However, it is quite clear from numerous United States Supreme Court decisions that title to minerals and petroleums and title to land cannot be separated so it would seem this plan of procedure will not obtain the results desired. A large number of court decisions could be quoted to substantiate this statement, but since several State attorneys general and attorneys for a number of our ports in California and other States will present this phase of our opposition to the resolution in detail, quoting many court decisions to support their views, we will not discuss the matter further in this memorandum. Also you are referred to the attached memoranda submitted by the law and legislation committee of this association to your committe at least year's session of Congress.

We have characterized House Joint Resolution 176 as being an attack upon basic land titles. House Joint Resolution 181 (O'Connor) is likewise a similar attack only much more pronounced since it directs the Attorney General to assert title to submerged lands, containing petroleum deposits, of all states, which, if successful, would mean the passing of the ownership of all submerged lands whether they contained petroleum deposits or not to the Federal Government. All of our arguments we have advanced in opposition to House Joint Resolution 176 of course apply to our opposition to House Joint Resolution 181. There appears to be no question but that title to all submerged lands within the territorial limits of the State, including all lands under the coastal waters to at least the 3-mile limit, belong to the State or its grantees (or the grantees of its predecessor sovereign) and not to the Unied States.

Rather than add unnecessarily to the length of this statement by citing decisions in support of this contention, we refer you to the legal memoranda, copies of which are attached, submitted by the committee on law and legislation of our association at your hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 208 (Nye) in the Seventy-fifth session of Congress last year, which completely substantiates our position.

Under item 4 on page 2 of this memorandum we have referred to the proposed litigation casting a cloud on the title to the submerged and reclaimed lands and improvements. Litigation of this kind, as your committee well realizes, would be in our courts for many years and such a cloud would exist over this long period of time. This is a most serious matter affecting the financial status of our ports and would practically block the further development of our ports. It is very difficult now to obtain approval of bond issues for the development of ports and construction of harbor facilities. If such litigation as proposed was initiated harbor authorities would be compelled to give up any plan of financing harbor construction by the issuance of bonds or any other method. In fact, the extension of harbor facilities and improvements would come to an abrupt halt. Also the title to all harbor facilities on the submerged and reclaimed lands amounting to approximately $650,000,000 would be jeopardized. Even if House Joint Resolution 176 was amended to confine its purpose strictly to establishing petroleum reserves, the American Association of Port Authorities is sure it must intervene in court actions on account of the petroleum being