RIGHT TO PETROLEUM DEPOSITS IN THE BED OF THE

PACIFIC OCEAN LITTORAL TO CALIFORNIA

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1939

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Hatton W. Sumners (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we are considering this morning the bill introduced by Mr. Hobbs, as well as a bill introduced by Mr. O'Connor.

I do not know whether you gentlemen are fairly well organized for your presentations. I have discussed the matter somewhat with the committee, and we understand that there are gentlemen here from a considerable distance who would like to present their views with reference to the bill introduced by Mr. Hobbs and also Mr. O'Connor's bill. I think those two bills cover all of the pending legislative proposals with regard to this oil that is involved. It would probably save time if we discussed informally our procedure. It has been suggested, and I think probably it is a good suggestion, that in view of the fact that Mr. Hobbs has introduced one of these bills, the one for which the hearing was called in the first instance, that the committee hear from Mr. Hobbs at this time.

I am sure that those of you who are interested in this proposed legislation would like to have the views of Mr. Hobbs supporting the bill which he has introduced, so that if there is no objection, Mr. Hobbs, we would like to have you proceed at this time, if you will be good enough to do so.

I assume that members of the committee have been furnished with a copy of Mr. Hobbs' bill, which is House Joint Resolution 176, a copy of which will be put in the record at this point.

(H. J. Res. 176 is as follows:)

[H. J. Res. 176, 76th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring the conservation of petroleum deposits underlying submerged lands adjacent to and along the coast of California, below low-water mark and under the territorial waters of the United States of America, essential for national defense, maintenance of the Navy, and regulation and protection of interstate and foreign commerce; reserving the same as a naval petroleum reserve, subject to any superior vested right, title, or interest; and authorizing appropriate judicial proceedings to assert, ascertain, establish, and maintain the right and in.erest of the United States of America in such reserve, and to eject trespassers

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the conservation of petroleum deposits underlying submerged lands adjacent to and along the coast of the State of California, below low-water mark and under the territorial waters of the United States of America, is hereby declared to be essential for national de

fense, maintenance of the Navy, and regulation and protection of interstate and foreign commerce, and that in the exercise of the paramount and exclusive powers of sovereignty of the United States for those purposes, there are hereby reserved and set aside as a naval petroleum reserve any and all such deposits, subject to the same control of the Secretary of the Navy as is provided for other naval petroleum reserves; subject, also, to any superior right, title, or interest of any person, partnership, association, corporation, or of the State of California, or any municipality, or local subdivision of that State which may have heretofore been granted by the United States of America, or which may have become otherwise validly and lawfully vested, or which may be recognized and established in the judicial proceedings hereinafter authorized. SEC. 2. That the Attorney General of the United States of America is hereby authorized and directed, by and through appropriate judicial proceedings, to assert, ascertain, establish, and maintain the right and interest of the United States in and to such naval petroleum reserve and deposits, and to cause and effectuate by proper judicial proceedings the removal and ejectment of all persons now or hereafter trespassing upon or occupying the said submerged lands or removing the petroleum deposits therefrom without any superior right or interest, and without the consent and permission of the United States.

SEC. 3. 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; nor shall this joint resolution nor anything herein contained, nor any inference or deduction which may be drawn herefrom or from any part hereof, be construed as releasing, waiving, abandoning, disclaiming, or affecting in any way whatsoever any right, title, claim, or interest which the United States of America has or would otherwise have to other petroleum deposits and submerged lands or the right to set aside other petroleum deposits and submerged lands elsewhere as naval petroleum reserves or for other purposes.

(H. J. Res. 181 is as follows:)

[H. J. Res. 181, 76th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Relative to the establishment of title of the United States to certain submerged lands containing petroleum leposits

and

Whereas the petroleum reserves in the United States are constantly decreasing; Whereas the oil reserves now owned by the United States are in serious danger of depletion or loss from various causes; and

Whereas large petroleum deposits underlie various submerged lands along the coast of the United States and below low-water mark and within a distance of three miles under the ocean below said low-water mark; and

Whereas all such submerged lands below said low-water mark and within such three-mile limit lying along the coast of the United States are asserted to be the property of the United States; and

Whereas various persons have heretofore entered, or in the immediate future intend and propose to enter, upon such submerged lands and remove the petroleum deposits underlying the same, without the consent or permission of the United States, and to the irreparable damage and injury of the United States; and

Whereas immediate action on the part of the United States is necessary to preserve such petroleum deposits for the future use of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Attorney General of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, by and through speedy and appropriate proceedings, to assert, maintain, and establish the title and possession of the United States to the submerged lands aforesaid, and all petroleum deposits underlying the same, and to cause and effectuate by proper proceedings the removal and ejectment of all persons now or hereafter trespassing upon or otherwise occupying the said submerged lands or removing the petroleum deposits therefrom, without the consent and permission of the United States, and through such proper proceedings to be by the said Attorney General instituted, to stop and prevent the taking or removing of petroleum products by others than the United States from the said submerged lands as aforesaid; and be it further

Resolved, That the said Attorney General be, and he is hereby authorized to bring such actions or suits in the name of the United States, and to incur such expenses and disbursements in connection therewith as he may deem properly necessary to effectuate and accomplish the directions and purposes of this joint resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hobbs, we shall be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM HOBBS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA, AND A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman and members, both of the full Judiciary Committee and of the subcommittee, Senator Connally, and colleagues, in addition to House Joint Resolution 176, each of you has before you a copy of my brief in advocacy thereof, to which I invite your careful attention at your leisure. Much of the ground covered in my brief will be untouched in this oral statement.

I am in the happy or unhappy position of an innocent bystander. That reminds me of the story told down in my country at Natchez, Miss., about the colonel in the Union forces who came back to visit that part of the country after the surrender. He went into the hotels and restaurants and found that the Negroes were not eating with the white people nor drinking with them in the saloons. And he asked an old Negro who had on a Confederate uniform why it was. He said, "We fought this war to free you damn Niggers, and you are not taking advantage of the rights we fought to give you and which you have now." He asked, "Have these fellows down here made any law against your eating with them? Or against your drinking in the saloons with them?"

The Nigger said, "No, sir; not as I has heard of. The only law on the subject is what they call down here the law of the innocent bystander." "Well," asked the colonel, "what is that?"

The Negro replied, "I don't know, sir, what that law is, but I can tell you how it works. A few uppity Niggers decided that they was going to eat with the white folks after the surrender. They went into the hotel and were seated, the Negroes on the sides of the table and one white man at each end. Just before they would begin to eat one of the white gentlemen would say to the other, 'I don't like what you said about me.' And the other gentleman would say, 'You're a damn liar. I ain't said nothing.' And with that they would pull out their shooting irons and start shooting at each other, but neither one of them would ever get hit. The Niggers would always get killed. And when it came up in court the judge would decide it warn't murder, but jist the law of the innocent bystander."

Well, I feel very much like I am an innocent bystander in that sense, because I have all but been burned in effigy on the California coast. Í have been damned from Dan to Beersheba, and it does not make a "diff of bitterence" what the outcome of these resolutions may be, everybody is shooting at me. My own State may eventually be called upon to defend its similar claini if and when a resolution applying to Alabama shall have been introduced. But when we see the gleam of truth we should follow it into the fullness of its light. Therefore, while I have the highest regard in the world for California and her rights, and am a rabid advocate of States' rights to the nth degree, and love the mem

bers of the California delegation in Congress, I can do no other than to insist upon the truth that has come to me in my study of this problem.

Since I became embroiled, as an innocent bystander, in this investigation, I sometimes receive a hundred letters a day from California, enclosing clippings from the oil journals and the press out there, and with rare exceptions, the word "steal" is applied to the Nye resolution and to mine. The most polite term that they use with respect to these resolutions is "grab," which is the same word that we now apply to Hitler's rape of the Czechs. I wish to say now what I said to a gentleman of the Fourth Estate on the day that I introduced this bill, that it seems to me if California so vehemently resents the intrusion, or this proposed intrusion, of the Federal Government into offshore waters littoral to California, she would be compelled by the force of her own logic, to insist that all intrusion by the Federal Government into those waters cease-and that we might remedy the wrong that we have done her by own intrusion, which would mean that they should insist on our blowing up the seawall that the Federal Government built in the ocean off their coast, within the 3-mile zone, and take our Navy and its personnel and get out.

I maintain that this is the logical conclusion of their argument, because if we have no business in offshore waters for one constitutional purpose, then we have no business there for any purpose.

I submit that California is not the object of any spleen of mine or of any one else's. We wish to grease the wheel that is squeaking; we wish to stop the pinching of the shoe where it is pinching. Off California thousands of barrels of oil are being taken every day from submerged lands underlying the territorial waters of the Nation. More than 80 companies are engaged in such exploitation there. There are no extensive drilling operations in any of the territorial waters of the United States anywhere else on its whole coastline, the country round. Therefore, it is logical that we begin with California.

But whether that be logical or not, I wish to assert again, as positively as I know how, that I do not think that this resolution should be limited to California alone. I do not wish to be understood as taking the position that the United States should fail to assert its claim of right to conserve, take, and use oil under its territorial waters anywhere. I think we should assert such claim everywhere. My first resolution did so. But when I could not get that favorably reported, I took what I could get. The present resolution is the result of that compromise. It claims the oil in the bed of the ocean off California, for the maintenance of the Navy, national defense, and the protection and regulation of interstate and foreign commerce.

Now, I wish to make this observation, that so far as I am concerned, my sole zeal in this matter comes from a sincere desire to clear my own conscience, and as best I may, keep my own skirts clean. I will not be a party to another Teapot Dome oil scandal! The value of the oil off the California shore line, under the territorial waters of the United States, is estimated variously at from 2 to 5 billion dollars. It is where the Navy needs it, and you know I speak the truth!

The plane that bombed the Panay and sunk her, was motored with fuel taken from this subocean oil deposit. Certainly the vast bulk of the oil being abstracted here is being sold to Japan. Japan may have just as much right to buy it as any other purchaser, but we ought to save every drop of it for our own national need.

We need that oil, as the naval oil office will tell you and did tell you last year. And we need it there on the Pacific coast.

Mr. WALTER. May I interrupt there?

Mr. HOBBS. Certainly.

Mr. WALTER. Before you develop your argument with respect to the legal title, I wonder if you would be good enough to yield so that Senator Connally may make his statement? I notice that he is present.

Senator CONNALLY. Mr. Chairman, I prefer that the gentleman proceed. I can arrange my time to his convenience.

Mr. HOBBS. I shall be delighted to yield.

Senator CONNALLY. No; please proceed with your presentation.

Mr. HOBBS. Now, the next few minutes I want to devote to the burning up of some straw men. The first one of these is the tideland bogey.

There could be no tideland touched under this resolution. Tidelands are definitely out, and yet we cannot seem to convince our friends from California of that fact.

I received a letter from Long Beach, the Long Beach Realty Board, this morning, under the seal of that organization, frantically protesting against this resolution. Their argument is based upon this predicate:

It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of the United States that the tidelands and submerged lands lying within the boundaries of any State of the Union belong to that State by virtue of its sovereignty.

I echo that statement. That is the truth. We are in agreement on that. There is no quarrel there, that tide and submerged lands, within the limits of any State, have been held, in the sense in which the court was speaking in particular cases, to belong to the States.

We are not shooting at tidelands. We begin where tideland ends. We expressly begin where shore and water meet, at low-water mark, and go out into the ocean.

I see my good friend, John Tolan, who is one of the ablest lawyers and best Members of this House, the most diligent servant of his constituency and of all the people of California, even he, in this regard, when he came to prepare the minority report of this committee, last year, referred to tidelands, all the way through his minority report.

We are not shooting at tidelands and anyone who bases his argument on that false assumption is just simply not sticking to the issues. Another amusing element in this case, so it appears to me, is the insistence of our friends of the port authorities all around the coast that they may be questioned or interfered with in their rightful possession and operation of their improvements. We specifically say that any vested right in any one is to be respected, and that our claim is asserted subject to all and any vested rights. This resolution asserts no claim about low-water mark, thereby excluding from its field of contemplation all river and harbor improvements.

I want to submit to you that even if the worst were true—now, understand, I do not say there is any ground for fear; but even if the worst fears of the port authorities were true-and my deliberate judgment is that they are unfounded, I am sure they would not be disturbed in their possession or use in the slightest degree. This committee, in the boundary-line dispute, involving much the same