State or its grantees many parcels of these lands for its use. Others it condemned, under the power of eminent domain, paying just compensation therefor in accordance with the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. In numerous instances, the State and its grantees have, in a spirit of helpful cooperation, by gift deed, conveyed many parcels of these lands to the Federal Government. But in every instance that Government always required a formal conveyance to it before any of its funds were expended upon any such lands. The State's title was never disputed, and no question as to its validity ever arose until, under leases made by it in accordance with State law, exploration for hydrocarbon substances was made, wells were drilled, and petroleum products were discovered and produced therefrom. Following this, applications were filed for leases with the Department of the Interior of the Federal Government covering the same areas under lease by the State. While these applications were denied by the Secretary of the Interior, with the express statement of the Secretary that "title to the soil under the ocean within the 3-mile limit is in the State of California and the land may not be appropriated except by the authority of the State," the Secretary later changed his mind and at his instance a suit was commenced in the United States Supreme Court by the Federal Government seeking to establish Federal ownership of these submerged lands. While that Court announced that California was not the owner of these lands, it declined to hold that the United States was the owner and set up the doctrine of so-called "paramount rights," under which it held the United States to be possessor of full dominion and power over all these lands and their resources. Since that time title to and jurisdiction over an area in excess of 2,000,000 acres of such lands within California's boundaries have been cast into a state of confusion and uncertainty. What we desire to emphasize at this time is the matter of high principle here involved. This principle is something which transcends considerations of disputed boundaries, of controversies over divergent legal concepts, or of differences of opinion as to the disposition of financial returns. It strikes at the very roots of the basic principles of our accepted form of government. We believe that the time is long overdue when this situation should and must be remedied by definite, conclusive action on the part of the Congress, which possesses complete authority in this field, and which, in effect, has been invited to act by the Supreme Court's decision. It is our view that the so-called interim measure now under consideration by your committee is inadequate to bring about the desired and necessary result, and that this can only be achieved by the enactment of a statute which will restore to the States, and firmly establish and vest in them, title to all lands beneath navigable waters within their boundaries. This, we believe, constitutes the only method of bringing about a sound, a fair, and a righteous solution of the existing controversy so fraught with complexity, confusion, and uncertainty, and to properly protect the matters of high principle here involved. We respectfully urge that the bill S. 940, which I might paren 80859-51-20 thetically say is a bill introduced by Senator Holland on behalf of himself and 34 other Members of the Senate of the United States, be substituted for Senate Joint Resolution 20 for the reasons set forth above. I wish to thank your committee on behalf of Senator Nixon and myself for the very courteous consideration which you have given our views. The CHAIRMAN. This presentation is on behalf of Senator Nixon as well as yourself? Senator KNOWLAND. That is right. Senator LONG. Mr. Chairman, there is something here that I believe possibly should be in the record. I wish I could have had this available at the time former Secretary Ickes testified. Mr. Ickes this morning testified in effect that Mastin White, the Solicitor for the Interior Department, was not performing his duty and performing contrary to the best interests of the Nation by his interpretation of the Leasing Act that it did not apply to the tidelands in controversy. I believe that Mr. Ickes should have stated, when he said that, that in 1946, long after he made up his mind that the Federal Government should own the tidelands, when this bill was before Congress, Mr. Ickes at that time testified exactly in line with what Mr. Mastin White has been advising the Secretary of the Interior and the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. What was the date of that? This was 1946, hearings on Senate The CHAIRMAN. Before which committee? Senator LONG. This was before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. Now on page 11 of this document Mr. Ickes made this statement: Implicit in these recommendations is the thought that the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 is not applicable to submerged lands. A reading of the act will reveal that in many particulars its provisions would not fit the problems presented to the administration of submerged lands. For example, there is a matter of acreage limitation. Any problem relates to royalties and the distribution, if any, of receipts from these lands. More importantly, the problem of the submerged coastal lands was not considered when the act was passed, and Congress is entitled to and should fix a policy with specific reference to these lands. These, however, are a matter more properly to be presented at another time and to a different committee. Now, there is the statement of the then Secretary of the Interior taking exactly the same position for which he so very strenuously criticizes the Solicitor of the Interior Department today; and, therefore, it seems to me that the Solicitor should not feel too badly about this matter, because the Secretary, who now accuses him of being a tool of the State or a tool of the oil companies or someone, took exactly the same position when he was at the head of the department. Senator CORDON. I suggest that the ex-Secretary, Mr. Ickes, is a strong believer in the statement that consistency has reference to fools. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sanders, will you come forward, please. STATEMENT OF J. T. SANDERS, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, THE NATIONAL GRANGE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am the legislative counsel of the National Grange, and I appear in behalf of the Grange. I have a brief statement here and I shall read it. The National Grange has for years supported the contention that the submerged offshore lands below low tide belong to the National Government, and that the resources of these lands should be developed under the direct supervision of the National Government. We have at all times opposed turning these valuable national resources over to adjacent States or Territories. We believe that the various adjacent States cannot and should not with sound logic own and supervise the development of the resources of these lands. We are in favor of the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 20 because adequate legislation providing for the National Government taking over and supervising the various presently operative leases granted by States and subdivisions of the States cannot be carefully worked out at this time. Yet, it is necessary to maintain the status quo of the operation of these leases until such a law can be passed. These leases, we believe, were entered into in good faith by both the State governments and the leasing companies or cooperatives. We believe that an equitable disposition and transfer of these leases to the Federal Government is an extremely complex problem. The States of course will suffer considerable financial loss. Also private interests, doubtless, will not be satisfied in all cases with final settlements. We would hope to see these factors given careful consideration in working out a permanent law; but we do believe recent court decisions and the current international situation call for immediate attention to the Nation's interest in these resources. We think Senate Joint Resolution 20 meets this demand. Since we have taken a consistent stand that these resources belong to the National Government, and since the United States Supreme Court has confirmed this ownership for cases brought before it for California, Texas, and Louisiana, we are now in favor of working out fair and equitable legal provisions for the immediate transfer of all responsibility of operation of these resources to Federal authority. We agree with the purposes of Senate Joint Resolution 20 which provide for temporary arrangement to continue operations of all leases under the terms which have been granted to lessees by the States or subdivisions of the States. We also agree that in order not to retard the development of these resources, which appear now to be yielding around 1.2 percent of our current domestic production, it is best to pass quickly this resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 20, assuring private interests that they can with expectations of fair dealings under their past legal arrangements continue the uninterrupted development of their leaseholds. The provisions giving full continuation of prior rights of ownership to the resources for inland navigable waters to the States meets with our approval. As we read this provision, it authorizes States or subdivisions of States to enter into negotiation relative to disputes and into settlements with the Secretary of the Interior dealing with submerged inland waters. The provisions making it possible for subdivisions of States tonegotiate these agreements with the Secretary of the Interior are, we think, justified and we trust that our interpretation of section 3 to this effect is correct. The interest of the National Grange in this matter is twofold. First we believe Federal ownership and operation is necessary as a basis of assurance of maximum use of these resources for our national security. In the second place we are interested in seeing that farmer cooperative interests in these resources are fairly and equitably protected. We assure the committee that we stand ready to assist it in working out details of permanent legislation on this important matter, and appreciate the opportunity you have given us to appear before you in this matter. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions to be addressed to Mr. Sanders? Senator LONG. You do feel that whatever is worked out should have some consideration for the interests of the States, I take it. This resolution itself proposes 372 percent. Mr. SANDERS. Does that mean as a permanent income from these resources? Senator LONG. That is my understanding of that resolution. Mr. SANDERS. May I ask would that include undeveloped resources out on the Continental Shelf as far out as the Continental Shelf? Unleased resources? Senator LONG. I was only asking you if you felt that the States should have some equity or some part of the returns from this. I take it you have read this over, because in your statement you think So. I assume you read Senate Joint Resolution 20 before preparing the statement, and it does provide 371⁄2 percent for the States within a 3-mile limit. Mr. SANDERS. As I understand Senate Joint Resolution 20, it does not assume, and the Supreme Court does not assume, that the States will be responsible for any property value they have heretofore taken from the submerged lands, that under the Supreme Court decision now belong to the Federal Government. In other words, past value that they have taken from the land the National Government does not lay claim to. Now I Senator LONG. The Government did lay claim to it, but the Court would not let the Government have it. They laid claim going back to 1947, which the Court refused. Mr. SANDERS. Well, I stand corrected then. In any case the Federal Government does not now have a right to take from the State of California, let us say, any oil values that it has heretofore taken under its previous arrangements. I would say that our organization would feel that that was right under the circumstances, but I doubt whether our organization would agree that States should have 372 percent, as I read the resolution and as I remember it. I doubt whether we would agree that States should have a right to 372 percent of all resources that will hereafter be extracted from the tidelands, and I will tell you the reason why. Because we have found ourselves unable to come to a logical way that these tidelands could be distributed between States. For example, there are no mineral resources I suppose off the New England coast and on the Continental Shelf, which is very wide, but if you tried to extend the lines of Massachusetts and Rhode Island and some of these other States out into the ocean, I would find that there is no conceivable way of proportioning those rights. I just do not understand how you could proportion the rights, and it seems to me that to give the States a right to 372 percent of the resources that may be taken from these shelves in the future would give us endless trouble. I may be wrong on that. Senator LONG. Possibly you would want to reconsider your position then. You are on the record for the resolution, and the resolution does give that. Mr. SANDERS. I assumed that that applied only to any of the resources that are now being taken out, and pending the time that a permanent disposition of this matter will be made by a permanent law. If it does give that right in perpetuity-and I was surprised to hear Senator Wheeler say that he did not look upon this as a temporary measure at all-our interpretation of it was, and we did not submit this to any lawyer, and, of course, we are not legal experts-that this was a temporary measure that would hold only so long as we were undertaking to work out a permanent disposition by permanent measure. I certainly do not think our organization would support giving 372 percent of the resources of the present leases to the lessors as long as they can renew those leases under their contract. Senator LONG. I think you have quite a bit of public lands in your State. How do they deal with Federal lands located in your State? Mr. SANDERS. Which State are you referring to? Senator LONG. In the Middle West I believe they have more public lands than we do in Louisiana. Mr. SANDERS. I happen to have been born in Texas and am still a voting citizen of Oklahoma. The CHAIRMAN. That is a pretty good background. Mr. SANDERS. What was the question? Senator LONG. What have they done with the revenues from public lands lying within the boundaries of a State, with regard to the natural resources there, oil produced on those? Mr. SANDERS. Owned by the National Government? Senator LONG. Yes. Do the States get anything out of that? The CHAIRMAN. The bill provides for the 3712 percent for lands seaward of the State boundaries, or rather for lands landward of the boundary, but not seaward of the boundary. Senator CORDON. Let us say the oil leases in Wyoming provide for a 371⁄2 percent payment of royalties to the State. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator LONG. You feel that it would be fair to provide that with regard to inland lands and interior States, but that it would not be a good idea for coastal States to have the same benefit? Mr. SANDERS. No; I would not say that, Senator. I would say that your State of Louisiana should have the right to collect that 372 percent on the inland, and did I understand this The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sanders, the theory of the bill was this: It is a compromise to grant to the States which have been claiming the |