here at the insistance and request of the teachers of Texas, and the fathers and dads of those kids. Thank you. Mr. HANCOCK. May I ask how long they have been deriving revenue from the wells in the submerged lands of the Gulf of Mexico? Mr. WILCOX. There are some 50 wells. Mr. HANCOCK. When were they first drilled? Mr. GILES. I will answer that question to say that the first wells were drilled in 1913, and that is the first time that oil was discovered on our coast. STATEMENT OF R. A. STUART, ATTORNEY FOR THE TEXAS STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Mr. STUART. I am R. A. Stuart, attorney for the Texas State Teachers Association. I appeared here last year and argued the legal phases of this question. I have a rewritten brief, because of the fact that it was written hurriedly before, and it is more inclusive this time, including the cases, citations, and some of the quotations from the treaties on international law that I had in the former brief. I want to refile that brief this time, if I may, as amended. Mr. WALTER. I, for one, am wondering how you could improve on your other one. Mr. STUART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The brief above referred to was incorporated into the record, as follows:) THE HOBBS AND O'CONNOR RESOLUTIONS Memorandum brief submitted as an amended and supplemental brief to that heretofore filed before the committee at its hearing at the third session of the Seventy-third Congress on February 23, 24, and 25, 1938, at the request of the Texas State Teachers Association, a Texas corporation, having a membership of more than 30,000 public-school teachers THE SUBMERGED LANDS BELOW LOW-WATER MARK WITHIN THE 3-MILE LIMIT ALONG THE COASTS OF THE VARIOUS STATES OF THE UNION ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES BUT ARE OWNED BY AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE LITTORAL STATE By the terms of the Hobbs resolution, it is declared "That the conservation of petroleum deposits underlying submerged lands adjacent to and along the coast of the State of California, below low-water mark and under the territorial waters of the United States of America, is hereby declared to be essential for national defense, maintenance of the Navy, and regulation and protection of interstate and foreign commerce, and that in the exercise of the paramount and exclusive powers of sovereignty of the United States for those purposes there are hereby reserved and set aside as a naval petroleum reserve any and all such deposits, subject to the same control of the Secretary of the Navy as is provided for other naval petroleum reserves;" It is further provided: "That the Attorney General of the United States of America is hereby authorized and directed, by and through appropriate judicial proceedings, to assert, ascertain, establish, and maintain the right and interest of the United States in and to such naval petroleum reserve and deposits," And providing further: "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." While the above resolution pertains primarily to the submerged lands along the coast of California, it, by inference, and from its practical operation, should it be adopted, will affect the rights of every State of the Union lying adjacent to the coasts of the United States. H. J. Res. 181, by Mr. O'Connor, which is also before this committee, embodies practically the same terms as S. J. Res. 208, by Senator Nye, which was heard before this committee on February 23, 24, and 25, 1938, which resolution reads as follows: "Relative to the establishment of title of the United States to certain submerged lands containing petroleum deposits. "Whereas the petroleum reserves in the United States are constantly decreasing; and "Whereas the oil reserves now owned by the United States are in serious danger of depletion or loss from various causes; and "Whereas large petroleum deposits underlie various submerged lands along the coast of the United States and below low-water mark and within a distance of three miles under the ocean below said low-water mark; and "Whereas all such submerged lands below said low-water mark and within such three-mile limit lying along the coast of the United States are asserted to be the property of the United States; and "Whereas various persons have heretofore entered, or in the immediate future intend and propose to enter, upon such submerged lands and remove the petroleum deposits underlying the same, without the consent or permission of the United States, and to the irreparable damage and injury of the United States; and "Whereas immediate action on the part of the United States is necessary to preserve such petroleum deposits for the future use of the United States; Now, therefore, be it "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Attorney General of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, by and through speedy and appropriate proceedings, to assert, maintain, and establish the title and possession of the United States to the submerged lands aforesaid, and all petroleum deposits underlying the same, and to cause and effectuate by proper proceedings the removal and ejectment of all persons now or hereafter trespassing upon or otherwise occupying the said submerged lands or removing the petroleum deposits therefrom, without the consent and permission of the United States, and through such proper proceedings to be by the said Attorney General instituted, to stop and prevent the taking or removing of petroleum products by others than the United States from the said submerged lands as aforesaid; and be it further "Resolved, That the said Attorney General be, and he is hereby authorized to bring such actions or suits in the name of the United States, and to incur such expenses and disbursements in connection therewith as he may deem properly necessary to effectuate and accomplish the directions and purposes of this joint resolution." And while the State of Texas is primarily interested only in the latter resolution, we maintain that the passage of either of these resolutions would cloud the title to, and would affect millions of dollars worth of submerged oil land, which is the property of, and has been appropriated for the use and benefit of the permanent school funds of the State of Texas. We maintain that all of the coastal States have an interest in common in preserving their rights and title to the submerged land along their various coasts. We respectfully submit the proposition, which we consider fundamental, that if the submerged lands, affected by these resolutions, are in fact the property of the United States, that no legislation or act of Congress is needed to enable the Attorney General to perform his duty, as provided in these resolutions. But, on the other hand, if this property is not the property of the United States and belongs to the littoral State, then, and in that event, certainly there should not be passed an act of Congress which would cloud the title to these various properties or which might create title or ownership in said lands that do not now exist. The Forty-sixth Legislature of Texas has recently passed a resolution memorializing Congress to defeat all resolutions asserting title or ownership in the submerged lands along the coast of Texas, and further asserting that the ownership of such lands. and the natural resources thereof, is vested in the permanent school fund of the State of Texas. Said resolution is as follows: "Whereas during the past and present sessions of Congress, bills and resolutions have been introduced into the Congress of the United States of America claiming, directly and by implication, that the United States of America has sovereign rights to and is the owner of all lands, oil, and mineral reserves under water along the coast line of the United States extending out to the three-mile limit; and "Whereas there is now pending in Congress, Senate Joint Resolution No. 24. by Senator Nye, which asserts that title and ownership of said lands and said oil reserves is vested in the United States of America instead of the varions individual States of the United States; and "Whereas title to such land is by right and by law vested in the several States and their grantees and they cannot be deprived of their rights to the ownership of such land without just compensation; and "Whereas Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 asserts title to said land and undertakes to appropriate the oil reserves along such coast line extending out to the three-mile limit for the use and benefit of the United States Navy; and "Whereas, the State of Texas, in its treaty of annexation to the United States, specifically reserved all of its lands and the public domain of the State of Texas extending along the coast line into the Gulf of Mexico three (3) leagues from shore, and has heretofore, by legislative enactment and by Constitutional provision, conveyed title to all of said submerged land along the coast line of the Gulf of Mexico to the permanent school fund of the State of Texas and that the title to said land, together with all mineral rights thereunder, is now vested in the permanent school fund of the State of Texas as an endowment of public education for the use and benefit of the public-school system of the State of Texas, and that there is now estimated to be oil resources vested in said fun to the extend of at least one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000); now, therefore be it "Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, That the adoption by the Congress of the United States of any legislation, directly or indirectly, that the United States has a sovereign title to and ownership of lands under navigable waters or any of the mineral deposits thereunder, or authorizing any suit, or other proceeding by Federal officers to obtain possession or use of such lands or mineral deposits without the payment of a just compensation, is contrary to law and sound policy and should be opposed; and be it further "Resolved, That Gerald Mann, attorney general of the State of Texas; Bascom Giles, land commissioner; R. A. Stuart, attorney for the Texas State Teachers Association; Gen. Claude V. Burkhead, representative of Governor W. Lee O'Daniel, and Coke R. Stevenson, lieutenant governor, be and they are hereby authorized to oppose, in the name and on behalf of the State of Texas and of the permanent school fund and the school children of the State of Texas, the adoption of any such legislation by Congress, and in connection therewith to furnish copies of this resolution to such committees and Members of Congress as may be appropriate or desirable, to prepare briefs and memoranda in opposition to such legislation, and submit the same to Members of Congress and to the committees considering said resolution, and to appear in opposition thereto at any hearing, and generally to take such steps as may be necessary to carry out the intent and spirit of this resolution; and be it further "Resolved. That we assert ownership to said lands, and the natural resources thereof, to be vested in the permanent school fund of the State of Texas and that we urgently request and petition our Representatives in Congress from the State of Texas, and other Representatives in Congress, to defeat the Nye Resolution or any other resolution that undertakes to interfere with the title or possession of said land or any operation thereof for the use and benefit of the public free schools of the State of Texas." Upon the successful conclusion of the Revolution, each of the Original Thirteen States, as the successor of the Crown of England, became the owner of all of the lands under the navigable waters of the State, which ownership was not lost upon admission to the Union. Martin v. Waddell. 16 Pet. 367, 10 L. Ed. 997. Den er dem. Russell v. The Jersey Co., 15 How. 426, 14 L. Ed. 757. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 38 L. Ed. 331. Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 Wall. 432, 18 L. Ed. 756. Upon the acquisition of new territory, the United States acquired ownership of the lands under navigable waters in trust for the States later created within such territory. Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 11 L. Ed. 565. Weber v. State Harbor Com'rs, 18 Wall. 57, 21 L. Ed. 798. We insist that the Original Thirteen States, and the States thereafter created from new territory acquired or by annexation to the Union, are, insofar as their lands are concerned, whether within the borders of the State or under its navigable waters a distance of 3 miles from the low-water mark, independent nations and own the land under their navigable waters, including the arms of the sea. We respectfully submit, in opposition to the passage of these resolutions, that it is definitely established by the principle of international law that the littoral State is the owner of the bed of the ocean within what is commonly known as the "maritime belt"-that is, out into the sea a distance of 3 miles from low-water mark. Oppenheim's International Law, volume 1, pages 394 and 396, states: "SEC. 185. The maritime belt is that part of the sea which, in contradistinction to the open sea, is under the sway of the littoral States." Title to the bed of the sea throughout the maritime belt is vested in the littoral State. "SEC. 190b. It seems to follow, from the opinion which has been adopted above, that the part of the sea which forms the maritime belt is the property of the littoral State, that the surface and subsoil of the sea bed under the maritime belt is also the property of the littoral State and cannot be appropriated by any other State" (Oppenheim's International Law, vol. 1, p. 403). Philip C. Jessup, who is considered an authority on international law, states: Jessup, p. 12. "The doctrine of territorial waters is not laid down in any international instrument, but the jurisdiction of nations over their coastal waters has been accepted by usage and is now a recognized rule of international law." Jessup, p. 14. "Vattel (Le Droit des Gens, Lib I, c. XXIII, Fenwick's Translation, 1916, p. 107. Cf. Fulton, p. 560) asserted that these resources near the shore may be taken advantage of by the littoral State and subjected to its ownership, apparently without regard to the limit of cannon range. 'Who can doubt,' said Vattel, 'that the pearl tisheries of Bahrein and Ceylon may be lawful objects of ownership? Apparently the British Government does not doubt it, for they have asserted dominion over the Ceylon pearl banks far beyond the three-mile limit which they so stoutly uphold." To quote further from Jessup, p. 14. "The littoral sovereigns have claimed the beds from time immemorial as their exclusive property. The whole subject received most thorough study by the Appellate Criminal division of the Indian High Court at Madras in the case of Annakumaru Pillai v. Muthupayal in 1903 and 1904." It was held in this case involving chank beds as follows: Jessup, p. 15. “It was found that the Ramnad proprietor claimed the chank beds by immemorial privilege and that he had a property right in the chanks." Proceeding then to a consideration of the situs of the beds, the learned Chief Justice remarked, "that the rule as to the territorial waters of a country is founded on the principle that a proper margin is absolutely necessary for the safety and convenience of every country bordering on the sea.” It was said that doubts had been expressed as to the present soundness of the three-mile rule in view of the modern range of cannon, but the judge concluded that "in the absence of a distinct international concert on the point, the three-mile limit must stand subject to the qualification laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Manchester v. Massachusetts." Jessup, p. 16. "We regard it as an integral part of His Majesty's dominions." Jessup, p. 55. "The Naval War Code of 1900 in art. 2 declares: "The territorial waters of a State extend seaward to the distance of a marine league from the low-water mark of its coast line.'" To quote further from Jessup, p. 57. "In 1812, America's greatest admiralty judge, Story, declared: 'All the writers upon public law agree that every nation has exclusive jurisdiction to the distance of a cannon shot or marine league, over the waters adjacent to its shores, * * ** and this doctrine has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States (Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cr. 187, 231). Indeed such waters are considered as a part of the territory of the sovereign.' On a later occasion, as a justice of the Supreme Court, he recognized the distinction made between 'revenue jurisdiction' and 'the ordinary maritime jurisdiction over waters within the range of a cannon shot from our shores.' Perhaps the best way of stating it is that every nation has the right to control so much of the seas adjacent to its shores as is necessary for all purposes of revenue or defense." In the case of Manchester v. Massachusetts (1891) 139 U. S. 240, "Her boundaries on the sea, as defined by her statutes would unquestionably be acknowledged by all foreign nations, and her right to control the fisheries within those boundaries would be conceded." Jessup, p. 61. "In the Costa Rica Packet arbitration between Great Britain and the Netherlands, before M. F. Martens, the arbitrator held that 'the right of sovereignty of the State over territorial waters is determined by the range of cannon measured from the low-water mark.'" Jessup, p. 62. "The Central American Court of Justice, in the case of El Salvador v. Nicaragua was of the opinion that there exist 'two zones, in which, according to the law of nations and the internal laws of the riparian States, they may exercise their jurisdiction, to-wit, the zone of one maritime league contiguous to the coasts, wherein the jurisdiction is absolute and exclusive, and the further zone of three marine leagues, wherein they may exercise the right of imperium for defense and fiscal purposes.' * * Jessup, p. 63. "Great Britain and the United States have stood out as the two leading nations which have claimed the three-mile limit of that portion of the sea as a part of the national domain. * Italy alone stands out as a State which denies that international law compels respect of the three-mile limit." Jessup, p. 64. "Chapter III demonstrates that the three-mile zone is in reality a 'territorial' sea, fully under the dominion or sovereignty of the adjoining State. It is believed that the conclusion follows that the usage and practice of nations has created a rule of customary international law to the effect that it is the three-mile limit which marks the boundary of the former, or territorial zone." Jessup, p. 115. "If it appears that nations are privileged to do within this maritime belt whatever they may do on land, if the national power is coextensive in both regions, is it not accurate to describe the three-mile zone as 'territorial'?" Jessup, p. 116. "So a nation may deal with national property to the exclusion of all other nations. Whatever rights, privileges, powers, and immunities the law attaches to the owner, those are enjoyed by that nation which is sovereign of the object. In this sense it is believed that a State is sovereign over the territorial sea and over the air space. Hautefeuille (Droits et Devoirs des Nations Neutres-3d Ed. 1868, p. 54) says the territorial sea is the property 'de la national riveraine.' Westlake (International Law, p. 183) says the littoral sea is 'capable of occupation by the sovereign of the land.' Hall (International Law, 8th Ed., sec. 40) states that it is almost universally considered that portions of it (the sea) are affected by proprietary rights.'" Jessup, p. 118. "Secretary of State Marcy in 1855 said: 'Harbors and littoral waters are as clearly a part (of our territories) as the land.' The land underlying the marginal sea has been held to be the property of the littoral State." Jessup, p. 191. "All nations seem to agree that the basic principle holds true that a nation is sovereign throughout the extent of its territory." Jessup, p. 208. "It is believed that the above pages (ch. III) have demonstrated that the littoral sovereign has over territorial waters right, powers, and privileges which are in principle the same as those which he possesses on his land territories. His freedom of action is restrained by the right of innocent passage and the right to seek shelter in distress. Under the definition or description set forth above, it may therefore be said that the State is sovereign over its territorial waters." Cornelius van Bynkershoek, in his Classics of International Law, p. 44, states: "The power of the land property ends where the force of arms ends. Therefore the sea can be considered subject as far as the range of cannon extends. This interpretation seems to have been used by the estates of the Belgic Confederation in their decree of January 3, 1671, which is considered and praised." "The rights and prerogatives of the Crown date from the earliest periods of the national history. The three-mile limit as the measure of the marginal jurisdiction of the Crown is of quite modern growth. It has developed out of Bynkershoek's rule that terrae finitur ubi finitur amorum vis, and Bynkershoek's De Domino Haris, in which the rule was enunciated, was only published in 1702. |