willing to omit. But we will just save them for another time and another day. And that is clearly shown by his statement. The only reason it is restricted to California is that for the moment California is the only place where there is any danger of somebody getting the oil before the United States Government gets it.

Mr. ROBSION. Section 3 makes it clear that in this proceeding the Government is not assuming the right of eminent domain.

Senator CONNALLY. Exactly.

Mr. ROBSION. And section 3 declaring that as my friend Mr. Michener brought out, why should we say that this oil is necessary for the defense of the country, and so on?

Senator CONNALLY. It seems to me that the language to which you refer is very adroitly drawn for the very purpose of reinforcing what I said a while ago was this declaration of doctrine or policy. In other words, the drafters of this resolution wanted to make it clear that we are not just going out and asserting a right to condemn this property under the right of eminent domain and pay for it, but are asserting a sovereign right, the power of the Federal Government to go out and take it.

And I think that is why, if I may say so, that particular language was inserted there.

Mr. ROBSION. If it belongs to the Government, why should we have to say that it is necessary for the national defense?

Senator CONNALLY. If it belongs to the Government, a suit would determine that matter, I assume, because I assume the courts would do their duty, and if it is Federal property they would declare it to be Federal property.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up more of the committee's time. I want to say there are representatives here in addition to the ones that I mentioned a while ago, of the attorney general's department of my State and a number of other very eminent and able attorneys who will probably ask the indulgence of the committee.

But I did want to put on record our opposition to this resolution. I think if the committee should do anything, if it feels that anything is necessary, it should simply divest this resolution of everything except a stright-out authorization or direction to the Attorney General to bring suit; and that is all.

I do not think that the Federal Government ought to declare that something belongs to it when it does not. And I do not think that these implications contained in the resolution and these reservations should be allowed to hang over the heads of the people of my State or the school children of my State.

You can frequently create almost as bad a condition by casting color on a title, by casting a cloud on a title as by bringing suit. We all know how hazardous and how ticklish and how greatly involved is the oil business.

In my State these lands belong to the school fund. Naturally, they want to get all they can for the school fund. But if, by the action of the Federal Government, a cloud is cast on all of these titles, we would have great difficulty in getting people to invest their money to carry out these drilling operations although our title might be just as clear as the daylight sun; because almost everybody is afraid of the Federal power. They realize what a tremendous force it can exert when it determines to do so.

Unless there are some further questions, Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement.

Mr. GWYNNE. Is it not true that whatever right or title there might be in the Federal Government as to this land, it got it from the States originally, did it not?

Senator CONNALLY. Exactly.

Mr. GWYNNE. Where in the Constitution is there anything on which you can suppose or assume that the States gave that right to the Federal Government simply by giving them the right to control navigation?

Senator CONNALLY. As to the Original Thirteen States, and the State of Texas, and perhaps some others, I do not think there is any question whatever about the fact that the States retained all of these rights and privileges, because, as you suggest, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that they surrendered that which was theirs when the Constitution was adopted.

Mr. GWYNNE. Do you not think that when the Government acquired new land, they acquired it in trust for the States? They acquired it in trust for the States that were later created and every State that came into the Union came in on the same basis as the Original Thirteen States; is not that true?

Senator CONNALLY. I cannot quite agree with that. I am as familiar, however, as probably you are, with the history of the various admissions of States into the Union. Of course, when they come in, they are a State. But as to private property, anything of that kind, I can conceive how there might be reservations as there were in the case of the State of Texas. We specifically stipulated that our lands should remain the property of the State of Texas. We could have conveyed them, of course, to the Federal Government. With those exceptions, I think your view is correct.

Mr. TOLAN. As you know, the original Nye resolution of the Senate was introduced, and then it came over here and as you say, it was amended to apply to California alone. I do not know whether the Senator is aware of the fact that this committee at this time is considering a resolution introduced by Congressman O'Connor which is similar to the Nye resolution.

Senator CONNALLY. I knew there was a resolution introduced, but I did not know that the committee was now considering it. Mr. TOLAN. We are considering both of them.

Senator CONNALLY. My remarks were confined to this particular resolution because it is immediately before this committee, and for that reason I thought I should direct my attention to it.

I want, again, Mr. Chairman, to express my appreciation to the members of the committee and to my distinguished colleague from Texas, Judge Sumners, for their courtesy and for the patience with which they have heard me. I ask your indulgence in giving time, such as the committee feels appropriate, to others from my State who may be here to present their views with regard to this resolution. Mr. WALTER. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator CONNALLY. Before I leave, Mr. Chairman, I had prepared a brief statement, only one or two extracts from which did I use in my presentation this morning. May I, with the permission of the committee, make this short statement a part of the record in this hearing?

Mr. WALTER. Without objection, permission to do so is granted.

(The statement referred to, filed by Senator Connally, is as follows:)

When I realize that the present resolution is confined in its direct effect to the lands of the State of California, yet the original Senate resolution of the last session included tidal or submerged lands in other States of the Union, including those of Texas. While, primarily, I am concerned with the title of the State of Texas to the tidal or submerged lands, I desire to oppose setting the precedent by this resolution which might, in the future, result in a similar attack upon the title of the State of Texas to these lands.

While I think it was clearly determined by this committee at the last session that Texas has absolute title to tidal or submerged lands along the Gulf coast as a result of which Texas was stricken from the bill, yet I feel it necessary to here reassert and set forth the indisputable title of the State of Texas and its public-school funds to such lands adjacent to the State of Texas.

By the boundary treaty with Spain in 1819, the United States renounced all claims to the territory which is now the State of Texas, in the following language:

"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 territory now constituting Texas was a part of the Kingdom of Spain and thereafter it became Mexican territory. Upon the success of the Texas Revolution, the Republic of Texas succeeded to the Mexican and Spanish title. 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 * (Gammel's Laws 1193, vol. 1 Sayles Early Laws of Texas, art. 257).

When Texas was admitted to the Union, the joint resolution of the Congress specifically 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 Unted States * *

After becoming a State of the Union, Texas, through her Legislature, reaffirmed its "exclusive right to the jurisdiction over the soil included in the limits of the late Republic of Texas."

It will thus be seen that the indisputable title to all the coastal submerged lands adjacent to the State of Texas, at least to the extent of the 3-mile limit, is vested in the State of Texas. This title has never been challenged or attacked by the Government of the United States. This committee, by its action at the last session, in striking Texas from the bill, recognized this right. I here, now, strongly urge that the committee take appropriate action to recognize that right and title beyond all question so that it may never, under any color of claim, be attacked or challenged by the Federal Government.

Even the pending resolution can find no support in the doctrine that under a claim of sovereignty of the United States title to tidal lands may be acquired without just and adequate compensation to the owners under the express terms of the Constitution.

I submit that this committee should take no action which even, indirectly, might be construed as casting doubt upon the integrity of the title of the State of Texas or other States similarly situated to such tidal or submerged lands.

Mr. WALTER. Last year quite a record was made on this matter and it seems to me that that record ought to be incorporated by reference into these proceedings. In that way we may avoid a great many repetitious statements, statements of those who may come from distant points. I think we ought to confine the remarks made in this hearing to new matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sumners of Texas). May I suggest before you put on another witness that it would be a good idea for the committee to determine the procedure for this afternoon. I do not know at this

moment what is going to be in the House this afternoon, but I think it well to suggest to the subcommittee chairman that if you do sit this afternoon, someone representing the committee obtain permission from the House for your subcommittee to sit during the session of the House this afternoon.

May I also suggest to the gentlemen who are appearing here in connection with this matter that if they have not already done so, they should arrange to have somebody act as sponsor in introducing the various witnesses. I think that would facilitate the hearings.

Mr. WALTEK. I think Mr. Tolan of California knows everyone who is here and could very probably arrange the order of the appearance of the witnesses.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Is it possible to get an idea of how much longer we are going to sit this morning, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WALTER. There is present, I think, a representative from the Navy Department, and I think it would be well to hear the proponents this morning so that the opponents may be aware of the position taken by them, including the position of the Navy Department. I think if the representative of the Navy Department is here, we ought to hear him at this time.

Senator CONNALLY. Mr. Chairman, may I add this: Senator Sheppard, my colleague, would have been here with me today but for the fact that he is out of the city. I want to speak for him as well as myself in expressing his interest in this matter.

Mr. WALTER. Thank you.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, it is the plan of the committee to incorporate by reference in the hearings, the hearings previously held in February of 1938.

Mr. WALTER. That is right.

Mr. CHANDLER. If anyone wishes to make any corrections in his previous testimony, I imagine that it would be proper for him to do so; or, somebody might want to take something back.

Mr. WALTER. That is quite true. If the representative from the Navy Department is present, we shall hear him at this time.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. H. A. STUART, UNITED STATES NAVY, DIRECTOR OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

Mr. WALTER. You may proceed, Captain Stuart.

Captain STUART. Mr. Chairman, last year I made a statement before the committee on S. J. Res. 208. This year I would like to add a little to that statement. I have prepared a statement, which I would like to present to the committee.

Mr. WALTER. If it is new matter, I think you ought to be permitted to make your statement. But I do not think it is necessary to repeat at this time what you said last year. We are very glad to hear what your position is.

Captain STUART. There is very little new matter. There is some. Of course, I am not arguing the legal question at all. We are satisfied with Judge Hobbs' statement. We agree thoroughly with him. There is also present an attorney for the Navy Department who will present some features on our side of the case.

Mr. WALTER. Your position is the same as it was last year?
Captain STUART. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALTER. Then you may present your statement for the record.

Mr. MASSINGALE. I wanted to ascertain, Mr. Chairman, if the captain filed the same statement last year.

Captain STUART. No, sir; it was a statement similar to this. But I have added a little to it this year.

Mr. WALTER. The statement will be made a part of the record, Mr. Massingale.

Captain STUART. I should like to file the following statement :

On February 23, 1938, I made a statement before the House Committee on the Judiciary. This statement appears on pages 34-41, inclusive, of the hearings on S. J. Res. 208. I request that this statement be made a part of the record for this hearing, with the following corrections: On page 35, line 34, "17,000,000,000 barrels” should read "17,000,000 barrels"; on page 36, line 14, "33,000,000 barrels" should read "33,000,000,000 barrels."

I also desire to submit for the record the following letter of February 20, 1939, from the Secretary of the Navy to the Speaker of the House of Representatives:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Washington, February 20, 1939.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a proposed 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 interest of the United States of America in such reserve, and to eject trespassers.

It

The purpose of the proposed joint resolution is to conserve petroleum deposits underlying the bed of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California below lowwater mark and under the territorial waters of the United Sttaes of America by reserving and setting aside such deposits as a naval petroleum reserve, subject to any outstanding and lawfully vested adverse right, title, or interest. involves the assertion of a claim of the right of the Government to conserve the oil in these petroleum deposits for the purposes of national defense, maintenance of the Navy, and regulation and protection of interstate and foreign commerce. The Attorney General is authorized and directed to maintain such naval petroleum reserve and to remove from territorial waters all persons and instrumentalities engaged in taking or in attempting to take any of such petroleum without any superior right or interest, and without the consent and permission of the United States.

The conservation of such petroleum deposits is essential because the United States needs oil vitally. Now that almost every vessel of the Navy, the Coast Guard, and merchant marine is driven by oil, the powers conferred on the Congress by the Constitution of the United States "to provide and maintain a navy" and "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States," can best be exercised by the conservation of petroleum deposits as provided in the proposed joint resolution.

Serious depletion of the oil in these petroleum deposits is now taking place. Recently the State of California and the city of Long Beach, Calif., have let two contracts which call for the drilling of at least 177 wells at Huntington Beach and at Long Beach-the two largest known submerged fields. These wells will be sunk on shore, whipstocked beneath the waters of the Pacific Ocean and bottomed in the areas under consideration in the proposed joint resolution. Drilling of these wells has been started and will continue progressively until all are completed. None of this oil is needed at the present time and its production merely aggravates an existing overproduction situation. This drilling should be stopped, at least until it is determined by appropriate judicial proceedings just what rights the Federal Government has in these oil deposits. These wells alone will produce millions of barrels of oil and will deplete the oil reserves in the State to that extent.