My personal view is that Congress has the right to assert the Nation's claim to oil off the coast of Texas, just as we have off the coast of California; and the same right with regard to oil off the coast of my State of Alabama.

Mr. TOLAN. I thank you, Congressman.

Mr. ROBSION. There have been some assertions that the Interior Department and other departments of the Government failed to assert these rights. Does the Constitution give any department of the Government the right to surrender any claim of the United States?

Mr. HOBBS. I thank you, sir, for that question. The answer is: Assuredly, no. That is absolutely true. I want to point out that there is a considerable misunderstanding about what the Interior Department has done. All that the Interior Department did, as I understand it, was to say that they have no right, as they view the law, to entertain applications for drilling permits in this submerged land.

Mr. ROBSION. If they did claim that they had the right to surrender claims of the Government, is there anything in the Constitution giving them the right to do that, or could anyone do it except by action of Congress?

Mr. HOBBS. No, sir. I agree with you heartily, and I thank you for the suggestion. No executive agency can bind the Government without congressional or constitutional authority, and there is none.

You gentlemen will, of course, remember that the Secretaries of Interior, War, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and the Works Progress Administrator, with Frederic A. Delano and Carles E. Merriam, constituted the National Resources Committee. This impressive committee, after exhaustive studies, made its report to the President on January 28, 1939. From that report I quote as follows:

Another problem affecting petroleum reserves which merits attention here is that of national policy toward ownership of petroleum and natural gas lying beneath the submerged areas off the coast of the United States between lowwater mark and the 3-mile limit. Unsettled questions of law are involved, but the very existence of doubt offers an opportunity for the bold assertion of the national interest in any petroleum or natural gas reserves that may be found beneath these areas. It is one of the unfortunate errors of our national development that early in our history the public ownership of all subsurface mineral wealth was not declared; such a step would have been so simple at an early stage and would have meant so much in terms of conservation, and it would be so complex and costly at this stage-not to speak of the wastes of irreplaceable resources that have already taken place. But here and now in 1939 we have one last opportunity to take steps which will reserve to the Nation petroleum deposits that may be of considerable extent. In the third session of the Seventyfifth Congress a joint resolution, asserting the Government's rights to these deposits and setting them aside as a naval petroleum reserve, was introduced, passed by the Senate, reported with amendments by the House Committee on the Judiciary, and committed to the Committee of the Whole House. final action was taken, owing doubtless to the pressure of other matters and to the early adjournment of the Congress. It is recommended that the substance of this resolution again be presented to the Congress. At this stage in our history it is sheer folly to overlook any opportunity for safeguarding the national interest in petroleum reserves.

No

There will also be presented to you the letter of Hon. Charles Edison, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, accompanying and transmitting a resolution identical with mine except for the title. I most respectfully ask that this letter be incorporated in the record of these hearings.

(This letter appears at p. 28 of these hearings.)

I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not taken too much time, Judge. May I make this explanation? Mr. Hobbs has taken this time as a Member of Congress and as a member of this committee because it would help you gentlemen, who have come here either to oppose this resolution or to support it, to have a clear understanding of Mr. Hobbs' position and would make easier your own presentation to the committee either in support of or in opposition to his resolution.

Senator Connally, of Texas, is here, and we shall be glad to hear him at this time. Before the Senator begins, I should like Mr. Walter, who is chairman of the subcommittee that has had this matter in charge, to take charge of this hearing.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM CONNALLY, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Senator CONNALLY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want first to express my very earnest appreciation of the courtesy that the committee has extended in allowing me to appear here. And I want to be as brief as I possibly can. There are a number of representatives of the State of Texas and its various agencies who are present who will later on develop this matter: The Commissioner of the General Land Office; former Senator Robert A. Stuart, representing certain interests; Mr. McCorkle, of Dallas; Mr. Keys, of Corpus Christi; and others whom I probably have not been able to recall at

the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that at the last session of the Congress this committee struck from the then resolution the State of Texas and several of the Thirteen Original States, and some others; and that the present resolution relates only directly, at least, to the State of California.

Of course, I know that California is ably represented and it will take care of its own interests. If the resolution did not have implications, and if it were not based upon a theory which, if adopted, would probably set a precedent for future action, as against the State of Texas, in some other resolution or some other proceeding, I should not ask your indulgence to listen to me today.

While I was very much interested in the presentation by Judge Hobbs, his closing shot clearly set forth that, as to my own particular State, he entertained the hope of doing to Texas what he is undertaking now to do to California. Therefore, I want to express the view at the outset that if the Federal Government owns these oils lands, or these oil deposits, a joint resolution confined simply to a direction to the Attorney General to bring suit would settle the issue.

But that is not the purpose of the proponents of this resolution. The proponents of this resolution have as their purpose first to declare a policy and assert a right as the basis of some judicial action, because, according to my view, if the Federal Government owns these oil deposits beyond the 3-mile limit-if they own them, as has been very clearly pointed out by the gentleman from Kentucky, it does not need assertion. Executive officers and the Attorney General can proceed by going into the courts and have a declaration of title and an adjudication of the rights of the respective parties in interest.

But I want particularly to point out the situation as it relates to the State of Texas and leave largely to others the development of those aspects.

As has been known, of course, by all of you for a great many years, Texas was originally a part of Spain. In 1819, when the United States purchased Florida, it entered into a treaty defining the limitations of the purchase and fixing the boundary between the United States and Spain. And a clause in that treaty reads as follows:

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.

The above-described line in that particular case was a line from the mouth of the Sabine River out into the Gulf, and down to the mouth of the Rio Grande. I think the record will disclose that.

So that the United States, in settling its business with Spain, recognized Spain's title to all the lands out in the Gulf of Mexico and contiguous to what is now the territory of the State of Texas.

Then when Mexico achieved its independence in 1821, of course, Mexico acquired sovereignty and whatever rights belonged to any nation were acquired by the Republic of Mexico.

Now, by the success of the Texas revolution, in 1836, the Texas Republic was established. Whatever title belonged to the Republic of Mexico, or whatever rights as a government they had obtained, it was acquired by the State of Texas or by the then Republic of Texas.

And the Republic of Texas, by an act of its congress, declared and asserted its right and title to these lands out in the Gulf of Mexico. The Republic of Texas, by act of congress, declared that her jurisdiction extended to the following territory along the seacoast:

Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine River and running west along the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande.

So, whatever right there was there, whether imaginary or real, declared or undeclared, whether possessed or unpossessed-whatever right there was, was acquired by the Republic of Texas.

When Texas was admitted to the Union in 1845, the joint resolution, you will recall-and you will recall that they first undertook to negotiate for admission into the Union by way of treaty, but the treaty was rejected and then the State was admitted by joint resolution of the Congress. And that joint resolution provided that

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 as 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, bearing in mind that in the treaty of 1819 with Spain the United States renounced all claim of every kind to these lands; and then bearing in mind that whatever rights any government possessed in them was acquired by the Republic and then by the State of Texas; and then further the express declaration by the Federal Government in the joint resolution of Congress admitting the State of Texas, that Texas retained all of these rights, retained every right and every title, it follows that Texas retained them in and to the lands adjacent to the Gulf coast.

So it seems to me that as a legal proposition it is clear that so far as the State of Texas is concerned, the title is absolutely without any

color or claim in the Federal Government; that it is in the State of Texas. And it is somewhat wearisome, no doubt, to the committee, to have this iterated and reiterated.

But, Mr. Chairman, this resolution is predicated, as I understand it now, upon the theory that beyond the low-water mark there is some sort of an inchoate right in these lands. Well, in the case of Texas, no matter whether they are public or private, or whether the right is inchoate or reduced to possession-whatever right there was belongs now to the State of Texas and to its school fund, under its own act, and under its own power of disposition.

We have no fear of a judicial determination, but we do not think it is quite fair to the State of Texas to have the threat hanging over our heads constantly, as will be asserted by this resolution, that the Federal Government at some future time not only will make this indirect attack made in this resolution, but will make a direct attack on the title of the State of Texas to these submerged or coastal lands and the oil deposits lying thereunder.

Now, as to the question of sovereignty. I do not care to consume your time on that further, because I think most of the members of this committee, in fact all the members of this committee, I am quite sure, thoroughly understand the doctrine of sovereignty.

We have two sovereignties, that of the State and that of the Nation. Each one is within its own particular sphere and within its own particular jurisdiction it is supreme. But the one does not oust the other. The fact that the United States Government is a sovereign nation and controls navigation and controls fortifications along the coast simply means that its sovereignty applies to its particular jurisdiction, of that character. It is simply an easement to regulate commerce and perform these other functions. But it does not reach the title to or the ownership of land.

Mr. ROBSION. I would like to ask the Senator a question. Suppose the Government should find oil in Kentucky-and it is there, and all the gold, too—and suppose it desired to have that oil. Suppose it could exercise the right of eminent domain and take the oil for the use of the Navy or any other purpose it had in mind. What difference is there between that and the right of the Government to go down into Texas and take the oil there under the right of eminent domain, or in California, or any other place?

Senator CONNALLY. I point out in my statement, along the line of your suggestion, that if there is a question of need of the oil, we would have a perfect right to go out and take anything that the Government may need for the national defense, under the condemnation processes. But in doing so, we must pay just and adequate compensation.

Now, let us assume that the United States Government has the Sovereign right to regulate interstate commerce, as it does, everywhere throughout the United States. That commerce passes over somebody's line every day, does it not? Can you deduce from that, because we regulate commerce on the surface of the land, that the United States Government has any right or title to the land or beneath the land? It simply has an easement or a regulatory power to control the currents of commerce.

Mr. WALTER. You take the position then that this resolution is an attempt to establish a right rather than assert one?

Senator CONNALLY. I cannot arrive at any other conclusion from the statement of Judge Hobbs, because if we have the right now. you did not need a resolution. All you have got to do is direct the Attorney General to bring suit. I do not think it would need any direction. It seems to me, under the power of the Attorney General and the Executive to direct him, if he would not move of his own accord, a suit could be brought at any time.

Mr. WALTER. I asked Mr. Hobbs that question and he seemed to feel that under the decision in Gilman v. Philadelphia it was necessary where this dormant right had not been asserted, to have a congressional expression.

Senator CONNALLY. While I am not familiar with that case, it looks to me that the filing of a suit is a pretty good assertion, if it is done by the authorized agents of the Government. I think the department itself would probably think that it was an absolute demand. Mr. MICHENER. Senator, if I recall, when this matter was up last year, the Department of Justice was not sure enough of its groundand is not sure enough of its ground now-to start this kind of a suit without some declaration on the part of Congress. In other words, the legal department is of the opinion, as I understand it, that the Government did not have such title as would warrant it in starting this proceeding.

Senator CONNALLY. If that be true, would not a simple direction that they bring suit suffice?

Mr. MICHENER. That is what I brought out a while ago.

Senator CONNALLY. If the committee will bear in mind the closing paragraph of Judge Hobbs' argument, there is something more than simply the testing of this right in the courts. He proposes by this resolution to assert a policy, to assert a right which he says can only be asserted by a declaration of Congress. In other words, it is a sort of a build-up, a little persuasion exercised on the court; a sort of an indication to the court that "we expect you to declare that these lands belong to the United States."

Now, I particularly want to object to section 3, for instance. While this committee last year struck out from the purview of this resolution the Thirteen Original States and the State of Texas, thereby permitting the deduction by implication that the committee had confirmed our rights, yet in this resolution, in section 3, they disclose the ultimate purpose as to all of the States. It is specifically provided here:

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.

It seems to me that this language is very revealing. In other words, we are trying it out on California, and if it works, then at some later date we will come along and, as Judge Hobbs says, even as to Texas, they had a right to go out and at least bring suit.

Of course, they have the right to bring suit. But this clear implication was, that even as to Texas, if this policy and this doctrine can be asserted here by a solemn declaration of Congress, then we will go on as to these other States which, for the moment, we are