your title nor will they prevent any individual State from going into court to prevent you or to restrain you from entering on State lands. Mr. MURDOCK. The very purpose of the resolution is to bring the thing into court; is that your understanding of it?

Mr. GILMAN. We do not see any necessity for it.

As was stated to the gentleman who has just left, the purpose of the resolution is to assert title in the United States. That puts us on notice. We are forced to appear here to protect ourselves and to protect and protest against what we deem illegal claims against the various States.

We cannot sit idly by here without a protest and by silence appear to acquiesce in this resolution; so while I say that the passage of these resolutions means nothing to you in the way of title, they do seriously jeopardize and cloud titles to the various States.

In New York State we have granted millions and millions of dollars' worth of titles below the high-water mark to individuals. Those individuals, in turn, have invested millions of dollars in improvements. Up to now the title is and has been clear and free of all clouds and encumbrances. Your assertion of title in the United States will place the burden not only on New York State but on every coastal State in the Union, of first determining and then proving that there is no oil within the 3-mile limit. It will also cloud the title of the lands which have already been granted.

If one of those individuals attempts to sell the land, which he has acquired from the States, the first question a title company will ask him is, "Have you any oil deposits on your land?" and if you have not, then you will have to prove it.

Mr. MURDOCK. Right there, do you not think that the very fact that this question has been raised, and that the Congress of the United States and this committee now have considered it at two different sessions, does raise a sufficient question or a sufficient cloud that the best thing for everybody concerned would be to have a court determination on it, and get it out of the way?

Mr. GILMAN. You mean up to date it has raised a cloud?

Mr. MURDOCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILMAN. I do not think that it has raised a cloud on our title, but the passage of the resolution will raise a cloud.

Mr. MURDOCK. Well, I have this in mind, that the very fact that it is being questioned would probably raise that question in the minds of the title insurance companies to the extent that they would be rather reluctant to write title insurance.

Mr. GILMAN. Without the passage of the resolution I do not think that it will.

Mr. MURDOCK. All right.

Mr. GILMAN. But I say that if the resolution is passed, the title companies, the same as we, would be put on notice.

Let us forget the legal aspects of these propositions. In every-day life a man's title is best proven by the fact that he occupies a piece of property, and exercises acts of jurisdiction and ownership over that property, while at the same time his neighbor and the world in general recognizes that title in the individual and acquiesces in that title. Every man on this committee is secure in his title just for those reasons. You occupy your home, and you assert title to it. You exer

cise acts of jurisdiction over it and ownership over it, and I recognize your title and acquiesce in it. If you will apply these principles to the point in question, what do you find?

Each of the original 13 States and each of the succeeding States as they came into the Union, has broadcast, maintained, and defended its sovereign title from the date of its existence, and each of them has exercised jurisdiction over their lands and their lands under water, and has regulated the use of both the lands and the water above. When I say that I mean the coastal States.

On the other hand, this very United States which is now seeking to assert title to those same lands, has recognized the title in the individual States, and has acquiesced in the State ownerships; and fur-thermore, as far as I know, until the introduction of the Senate Resolution 208 last year the United States has never questioned the title of the individual States as to their lands under water.

It occurs to me that the only possible point of dispute might be as to the territorial limits of these States extended into the oceans, and that is especially true since Mr. Hobbs in his brief on page 3, I think, questions who owns the ocean. May I say at this point that the United States above all nations has been the most consistent and persistent in recognizing a minimum 3-mile limit of jurisdiction and title in the various States. May I also say that the United States Supreme Court, the judicial branch of the United States Government, decreed and recognized the title in the States to the 3-mile limit so many times that, well, it is almost senseless to try to repeat the cases. You have had them over and over and over again.

The executive branch of the Government through its treaties has recognized title in the States, and recognized the jurisdiction of the 3-mile limit, and you, yourself, this very branch of the Congress, have passed laws recognizing the title in the States to the 3-mile limit.

As early as June 5, 1794, your body at the first session of the Third Congress by chapter 50, passed a law entitled "An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain claims against the United States." Section 6 of that act reads:

And be it further enacted and declared, that the district courts shall take cognizance of complaints by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof.

On May 14, 1793, Attorney General Randolph rendered an opinion to the Secretary of State on the capture of the British ship Grange in Delaware Bay. The question of her location when captured was at issue and the Attorney General, among other things ruled:

In like manner is excluded every consideration how far the spot of seizure was capable of being defended by the United States; for although it will not be conceded that this could be done yet will it rather appear that the mutual rights of the States of New Jersey and Delaware up to the middle of the river supersede the necessity of such an investigation.

In 1806 a communication was addressed by Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, Ministers to London. Mr. MURDOCK. I wonder if you are reading from the brief now, if you could not insert it in the record.

Mr. GILMAN. I think that I may save time by inserting it in the record.

Mr. MURDOCK. I believe that that would be the better procedure at this time, and I know that all of the members are getting a little weary, and we would like to adjourn now as early as possible. I think that there are about three more witnesses.

Mr. GILMAN. May I say as a climax, that the Federal Government has come to New York State time and time again, and made application to New York State for grants of land under water. We have made those grants. If that is not recognition of title in New York, I do not know what recognition is.

We have made grants at West Point, Governor's Island, Ellis Island, Bedlow's Island, Davis Island, Fort Schuyler, Fort Hamilton, Fort Tutton, and hundreds of lighthouse sites and for many other reasons.

We also feel that California is the owner of its lands under water. Her constitution in 1879 definitely stated that its title extended 3 miles into the Pacific Ocean, and the United States has acquiesced in that; and they have made application for grants as the Attorney General has told you, to the State of California, and the grants have been made by California. That is another recognition of title and acquiescence in California's title.

It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, and I do not say this in criticism, and we feel so strongly on our title, and we feel that we should defend it in such a manner that I am going to say this, that I know that there is not a man on this committee who approves of what has been going on on the other side, in Bohemia and other countries, but are you not doing the same thing to the States? Are you not being asked to do the same thing to the States?

Mr. MURDOCK. I plead not guilty to that.

Mr. GILMAN. We have this title, and we own it, and by your resolution you are definitely asserting title to it and directing your Attorney General to come in and possess it and take possession of it and exclude and eject us from our land.

We ask you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, to kill this resolution, and bury it so deep that they will never ask that it be brought up again.

Mr. PIERCE. Whom do you represent?

Mr. GILMAN. I represent the State of New York, and I would like to leave with you this brief.

(The document above referred to was then incorporated into the record as follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. BENNETT, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK STATE, IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 176 AND 181, PRESENTED AND SUBMITTED BY WARREN H. GILMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Chairman, let us analyze these resolutions before your committee. They are joint resolutions, the one asserting title in the United States to the lands under water within the 3-mile limit in all coastal States, where oil deposits may be found, and the other limited to the State of California but unlimited as to the 3-mile area.

Both are resolutions of Congress asserting title to something. Truly, this is a paradox. If you have title to these lands you are the owner and there is neither rhyme nor reason for asserting it, nor will an assertion add anything to your title. On the other hand, if you have no title, all the assertions in the world won't give you title.

Even granting you passed these resolutions and they became law, do you suppose for a moment that any State is going to sit by and let you take its oil without a court fight? Not if the temper of the State representatives outside the rail is any criterion. All the resolutions you may pass from now until doomsday won't mean a thing nor will they add one iota to your title, nor will they prevent the individual States from resorting to court proceedings to restrain you from entering upon State lands.

We are put on notice as to your assertions of title and we are forced to appear here to protect ourselves and to protest against what we deem illegal claims by the United States Government against our property. We cannot sit by idly, without protest and by silence appear to acquiesce in your assertions. So while I say the passage of these resolutions means nothing to you in the way of title, they do seriously jeopardize and cloud the titles of the various States.

The State of New York, since its inception and as one of the Original Thirteen States, has owned, possessed, and performed countless acts of ownership and possession over the lands within this 3-mile limit. We own our land and that by reason of conquest. In 1778, following the Revolutionary War, Articles of Confederation were ratified by New York State's Legislature. These articles asserted in their preamble "The freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the said State." Article 2 provided that "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled" (Articles of Confederation, art. 2, Shan. I, Laws of 1778).

The State of New York came into being in 1777 when a constitution was adopted. In 1779 its legislature enacted chapter 25 of the Laws of 1779, provided "That the absolute property of all messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments * * and all right and title to the same, which next and immediately before the 9th day of July 1776 did vest in, or belong, or was due to the Crown of Great Britain be, and the same and each and every of them hereby are declared to be, and ever since the said 9th day of July, 1776, to have been, and forever after shall be vested in the people of this State, in whom the sovereignty and seigniory thereof are and were united and vested, on and from the said 9th day of July 1776."

And so it was that from the time the English rule was overthrown, title to lands within the jurisdiction of the colonies became vested in the people; not in the king as a sovereign. In the case of People v. Trinity Church, 22 N. Y. 46, the court of appeals said:

"The Constitution, in the clause mentioned (the sovereignty clause) does not declare a mere presumption of a present title which can be repelled by proving a grant from the State but an absolute rule of political sovereignty. The people are deemed,' not presumed, to possess the original and ultimate prop erty; in other words, all private titles are held from them as the political sovereignty, as in England all lands are held under the Crown in the same sense. When by the Revolution the Colony of New York became separated from the Crown of Great Britain and a republican government was formed, the people succeeded the King in the ownership of all lands within the State which had not already been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source of all private titles."

As stated in Mr. Justice Stone's opinion for the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Massachusetts v. New York (271 U. S. 65):

"The right of property and dominion in the lands discovered by those acting under royal authority were held to rest in the Crown, which, under the principles of the British Constitution, was deemed to hold them as part of the public domain for the benefit of the nation. Upon these principles rest the various English royal charters and grants of territory on the continent of North America. As a result of the Revolution the people of each State became sovereign, and in that capacity acquired the rights of the Crown in the public domain."

We have sold millions of dollars' worth of these lands to the owners of the adjacent uplands, and they in turn have spent millions of dollars in improvements. With the possible exception of the lower end of Manhattan Island, all of the improvements on the New York side of New York harbor are built on what was formerly State-owned land. The title is and has been free of all clouds and encumbrances, but your assertion will place the burden not only on New York State but every coastal State of first determining and then proving that there are no oil deposits on its ungranted land within the 3-mile limit. It will also

cloud the title of the lands already granted and will cast upon the owners thereof, should they choose to sell them, the burden of proving that there are no oil deposits thereon. The first question a title company will ask of a grantor is, Have you any oil deposits on your land; and if you haven't, then prove it? Let us for a few minutes forget the legal aspect of these resolutions and look at the proposition from a common-sense standpoint.

In everyday life and by common practice a man's title is best proven by the fact that he occupies a piece of property which he calls his own and exercises the rights of ownership and jurisdiction thereover, while at the same time, his neighbor and the world in general recognizes him as the owner of that land and acquiesces in his ownership and title. This acquiesence is especially binding and conclusive against those who admit the claim of ownership. So strong is this principle that most States after a period of time recognize title in a man who holds land adversely.

Each of you on this committee is secure in the title to his home because the rest of us admit and acquiesce in your ownership, and that principle is none the less true because the parties here are the individual States and the United States.

Apply these principles to your present case and what do you find? Each of the Original Thirteen States and each of the succeeding States as they came into the Union has broadcast, maintained, and defended its sovereign title from the date of its existence. Each of them has exercised jurisdiction over their land under water and has regulated the use both of the land and the water above. On the other hand, this very United States which is now seeking to assert title to those same lands has recognized the title in the individual States and has acquired in those State ownerships and furthermore had never questioned the States' titles until the introduction of resolution at the last Congress, similar to one of those before you now.

It occurs to me that the only possible point of dispute might be as to the territorial limits of each State, and on this point the United States Government has been the most consistent and persistent of all nations in pressing for the recognition of a minimum 3-mile limit of title and jurisdiction.

May I also say that not only has the Supreme Court, the judicial branch of the United States Government, decreed and recognized title in the States to the 3-mile limit many, many times but the executive branch by its treaties, and you, the legislative branch, by your own acts have passed laws recognizing title in the States to the 3-mile limit.

As early as June 5, 1794, your body at the first session of the Third Congress, by chapter 50, passed a law entitled "An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain claims against the United States." Section 6 of that act reads: "And be it further enacted and declared, that the district courts shall take cognizance of complaints by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof."

On May 14, 1793, Attorney General Randolph rendered an opinion to the Secretary of State on the capture of the British ship Grange in Delaware Bay. The question of her location when captured was at issue and the Attorney General, among other things, ruled: "In like manner is excluded every consideration how far the spot of seizure was capable of being defended by the United States; for although it will not be conceded that this could not be done, yet will it rather appear that the mutual rights of the States of New Jersey and Delaware up to the middle of the river supersede the necessity of such an investigation. In the treaty of amity between the United States and Great Britain, concluded November 19, 1794, and ratified by the President and proclaimed on February 29, 1796, we find in article 25 thereof, "neither of the said parties shall permit the ships or goods belonging to the service or citizens of the other, to be taken within cannon shot of the coasts."

In 1806 a communication was addressed by Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, Ministers Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States at London, as follows:

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE, May 17, 1806. "GENTLEMEN: I herewith enclose a commission and letters of credence authorizing you to treat with the British Government concerning the maritime wrongs which have been committed and the regulation of commerce and navigation between the parties, etc.

*

*