Mr. TOLAN. You agree with Congressman Hobbs that the same sort of legislation could be directed against Texas? Mr. MCNEMAR. Yes, sir. Mr. TOLAN. And to the submerged lands on the Atlantic coast as well? Mr. McNEMAR. I think so. And I do not think that there is any difference between the submerged lands anywhere under the Territorial jurisdiction of the United States, that is the 3-mile belt. do not believe that it makes any difference whether it is in the Atlantic or the Pacific or the Gulf. Mr. TOLAN. Then this sort of resolution could take in the Atlantic and Gulf States the same as California? Mr. MCNEMAR. It could if it were amended. Mr. TOLAN. The O'Connor resolution does take it in. Mr. McNEMAR. That is quite true. I do not think that the Navy Department has O. K.'d the O'Connor resolution. If it has I am not aware of that fact. Mr. TOLAN. But you do not see any distinction in the law, or this sovereign right that you contend for. You do not see any distinction between California or the Atlantic or the Gulf? Mr. McNMEAR. Let me put it this way: It does not make any difference whether California has, as stated this morning, an inferior position in this matter, in comparison with New York or Massachusetts or Texas. It would apply to New York or Texas or Massachusetts, or to the territorial waters that we are now talking about, just the same as it would anywhere else, so really it does not make any difference. Mr. TOLAN. Well, upon what do you base your statement that California is inferior? Have you got any reason for that? Mr. MONEMAR. Well, now, may I say that I do not know whether I made that statement or not, I do not recall that I did, but that really is not essential to this resolution as we see it. Frankly, that is a statement that is completely aside from the situation we have before us here, and unless there is a very decided demand for it, I would rather not go into that controversial issue from the standpoint of the Navy Department, if you please, sir. I hope you will not think I am trying to dodge the issue, because really I think that I have the answer to the question. Mr. TOLAN. We never think anything bad about anybody in this committee. Let me read you section 1, article 21, of the constitution of the State of California. Its boundaries were described as to the Pacific Ocean and extending therefrom 3 English miles and thence running in a northerly direction and following the direction of the Pacific coast to the forty-second degree of north latitude. And then by the act admitting the State into the Union, approved September 9, 1850, it declared that whereas the people of California have presented a constitution and asked admission to the Union, which constitution was submitted to Congress by the President of the United States, by message dated February 19, 1850, and which on due examination is found to be republican in its form of government, be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled, that the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever. That puts them on a parity with the other States, does it not? Mr. McNEMAR. It does. Insofar as the language as to equality has been interpreted, that is so. It is, however, subject to interpretation. Have you the third section of that statute from which you were just now reading? Mr. TOLAN. No; that is all that I have. Now, Captain, I have one more thing and then I am finished. Oil was discovered, that is in the submerged lands in California, at Santa Barbara, in 1894, 45 years ago; so that California has been taking that oil from submerged land, and they have built millions and millions of dollars' worth of port improvements in San Francisco, San Pedro, and Long Beach and other places; and, in other words, they have had possession through all of these years, and the Federal Government said to them, "Well, you go ahead; you have exercised your sovereignty and you have got it." Now, it is the same way on the Atlantic coast. There are hundreds of millions of dollars invested; and it is the same way with the Gulf States, and now why did the Navy Department, if you feel that you are so strong now, why did the Navy Department wait so long to assert this claim of title? Mr. McNEMAR. Incidentally, that is a matter of fact and policy upon which Captain Stuart is the naval authority, and not a legal proposition in any way, as you no doubt understand. The Navy Department goes on the theory at the present time, and it is not a theory, but it is a fact, as they see it, that the demand now exists to conserve this oil in connection with the national defense of the United States; and that that demand has arisen because of the large consumption of fuel oil required for all of the vessels of the Navy. Practically every naval vessel has now been converted to an oil burner; all of the new vessels of the Navy and all of the merchant vessels we are now building in the new merchant marine and for the Coast Guard and for the other activities of the United States of America also burn oil. And that condition having developed to this point, it now becomes necessary for us to take over certain reserves of petroleum or oil deposits for future use. Mr. TOLAN. Are you prepared to discuss the question of conservation and necessity? Is that your part? Mr. MCNEMAR. That also comes under Captain Stuart's jurisdiction; but I do not desire to appear as avoiding any question which you may have to ask. Mr. TOLAN. I would like to call your attention to an article in the Washington Herald last Sunday, and probably you are familiar with it. This is from the State College of Pennsylvania: The petroleum industry each year uses 1,200,000,000 barrels of the 14,000,000,000-barrel reserve of crude oi'. but at the end of the year there is just as much known oil in the United States. The petroleum industry does not live on its reserves but on its new discoveries. Dr. Person scoffed at the prediction that the supply of crude oil in the United States would be exhausted in 10 to 14 years. Would you agree with that? Mr. MCNEMAR. No, sir; the Navy Department does not agree with that. Mr. TOLAN. How much oil have you got, would you say, now, in the reserves of the United States. Mr. McNEMAR. I would prefer not to answer that question. If you desire to pursue that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Captain Stuart be put on the stand; because, after all, that is not a legal matter, but a technical matter. Mr. TOLAN. I will not press it, then, under the circumstances. Mr. McNEMAR. I am sure that Captain Stuart has all that in his statement which was submitted here this morning. There was just one thing further that I desire to add. In the third section of the enabling act to which the distinguished gentleman from California referred and quoted a moment ago, it is provided the following: And be it further enacted that the said State of California is admitted to the Union upon the express condition that the people of the said State through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no acts whereby the title of the United States to, and the right to dispose of the same shall be impaired or questioned, and that they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever upon the public domain of the United States, and in no case shall nonresident proprietors who are citizens of the United States be taxed more than residents Mr. TOLAN. I would like to ask you a further question there. and that all of the navigable waters within the said State shall be common highways and forever free to the inhabitants of said State as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax imposed or duty thereof; provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinances adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that State. Mr. TOLAN. Captain, have you looked up the acts of Congress under which other States of the Union were admitted? Mr. McNEMAR. Yes, sir. Mr. TOLAN. Do you not find almost practically that same language in every one of them? Mr. McNEMAR. We find it in some, and in others we do not, but the statement to which you refer, this last statement that I just read, you find in none of the other enabling acts; that is the last part of that proposition as to the boundaries. Now, as to the question of equality, you find that in practically all of the enabling acts in one form or another. In other words, they used the same language when they admitted New Mexico, which has no tide waters or boundaries bordering on any waters, as they did in admitting California; practically the same, and so far as the question of equality is concerned no distinction is made between themthat is, New Mexico stands on the same basis of equality as California. There is just one thing further. If we turn to the act which admitted North and South Dakota, Montana, and the State of Washington, we find that Congress used the same language for all four of those Territories when they were admitted as States of the Union. Mr. TOLAN. You are conversant with the fact, are you not, Captain, that the Supreme Court has held that that reservation of public lands which is incorporated in the admission of the different States in the Union refers to public lands, uplands, and that the Supreme Court has decided that? Mr. McNEMAR. Oh, yes. Mr. TOLAN. So that that reservation does not take anything away from California because it has nothing to do with these submerged lands whatever. Is that true? Mr. McNEMAR. That is the reservation as to the public lands in this enabling act. That is correct; there is no doubt about that. We do not contend that the laws which have to do with public lands are applicable to this case. Mr. MURDOCK. What part of the act that you just read there do you contend fails to approve the boundaries set-up? Mr. McNEMAR. The latter part which refers to the propositions in the Constitution, which it says it neither affirms nor denies. Mr. WALTER. Are there any further questions? If not, the witness is excused. Mr. Tolan, who do you think should be next? Mr. TOLAN. Is the Navy Department through? Mr. WALTER. Have you anything further? Mr. McNEMAR. No, sir; I have nothing further. Mr. TOLAN. I would like to have Mr. Giles come forward. STATEMENT OF HON. BASCOM GILES, COMMISSIONER OF GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. GILES. Mr. Chairman, I am Bascom Giles, the commissioner of General Land Office of the State of Texas. I am an elective constitutional officer of that State and am here at the direction of a resolution passed by the legislature of that State directing me to attend this hearing. I have prepared a brief, at least the legal department of my office has, that I want to file with this committee. Senator Connally this morning covered a great deal of the ground that I had in mind attempting to cover here this afternoon. I do not happen to be an attorney mself, but I am custodian of the records and have charge of the sale and lease of the State lands, and, incidentally, we have exercised that ownership there for some one hundred years, and have in Texas, as I say, not only exercised authority over the lands, the uplands, but also the submerged areas. Specifically, since 1913 have we had a number of leases with reference to minerals under the Gulf waters. I would like to file these copies of the brief, and I will also be glad to pass a copy of this brief to any member of the committee or all that would like to have one. Mr. WALTER. We will receive it, and it will be incorporated in the hearings and printed. (The document above referred to is incorporated into the record as follows:) MEMORANDUM BRIEF, IN OPPOSITION, SUBMITTED BY HON. BASCOM GILES, COMMISSIONER OF GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Re House Joint Resolution No. 176, relative to the establishment of title of the United States to certain submerged lands containing petroleum deposits Under the terms of House Joint Resolution No. 176, the Attorney General of the United States is "authorized and directed, by and through speedy and appropriate proceedings, to assert, maintain, and establish the title and posses sion of the United States" to various submerged lands along the coast of the United States and below low-water mark and within a distance of 3 miles under the ocean below said low-water mark, from which large petroleum deposits may be recovered. The resolution also asserts that such lands are now the property of the United States. The proposition which is respectfully but firmly urged is that the United States does not own the title to such submerged lands and is not entitled to the possession of the same. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held that such lands are the property of the sovereign States upon whose shores said lands abut. While it would no doubt be of great benefit to the United States to have access to the petroleum deposits lying under said lands, yet the means employed are definitely in violation of the existence of the absolute property rights and the sovereignty of such individual States. After the successful conclusion of the revolution, the Original Thirteen States acquired title to the lands and navigable waters within its limits. In the case of Martin vs. Waddell (16 Peters 410), the court said: "When the Revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign, and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution." Under the Constitution of the United States, the power of Congress to acquire lands in the several States was limited by the required consent of the legislatures of the various States. In other words, there is no provision whatsoever in the Constitution which grants title of the lands in question to the Federal Government. The Constitution, of course, permits the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce, and in this respect the legislatures of the various States would not, under any circumstances, be authorized to take any action and the States could not claim any right which would interfere with this grant of power to the Federal Government. However, the right to regulate interstate commerce does not in any sense give the right to the Government of the United States to assert title to lands underlying navigable waters, and the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly so held. This principle was reaffirmed in the case of Manchester v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (139 U. S. 159). As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in this case specifically held that a State can define its boundaries on the sea within the limits of what is generally accepted and recognized as the territorial limits of States by the law of nations. Now let us determine just what territorial limits of States are generally recognized by the law of nations. The general acceptance of the 3-mile limit below low-water mark dates back to the end of the eighteenth century. Since that time some confusion has arisen as to this construction, since the terms "marine league" and "distance of a cannon shot" have been used by many countries. The United States of one time claimed again and again that a "marine league" was not a fixed distance, namely 3 nautical miles, but an abbreviated expression meaning the distance which guns can command. (Stockton's International Law, pp. 126 et seq.) Also, the Institute of International Law, the most authoritative and representative body of international jurists, adopted in 1894 a resolution adopting 6 miles instead of 3 as the definition of a marine league (67 Sol. J. 634). However, this only amounted to a recommendation on the part of the Institute and was never generally recognized by the family of nations. The territorial limit which is most generally recognized and which has been virtually unchallenged in practice is the 3-mile limit from below low-water mark. This has been asserted as law by the most eminent statesmen and in the most famed documents among nations. In other words, the language "distance of a cannon shot" has been generally recognized as only descriptive of the 3 nautical-mile limit in the early days of acceptance, and is an enlargement which would vary with the range which a cannon may command. These general rules of maritime law are without any question binding upon the Government of the United States. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court held in the case of Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart (253 U. S. 149) that- "The Constitution itself adopted and established as the laws of the United States, approved rules of the general maritime law." The Supreme Court, in referring to the case of McCready v. Virginia (94 U. S. 391) said: |