ereignty, and title to the lands of the Republic to the 3-mile limit which had been commonly accepted by the law of nations, but also to the extent of the actual boundary, which had been fixed by the Congress of Texas so as to extend jurisdiction, sovereignty, and to vest title in the Republic to the lands underlying the waters of the Gulf of Mexico to a point approximately 7 miles beyond the 3-mile limit.

While it is true that under the accepted law of nations, a member of the family of nations has no authority to extend its boundaries beyond the 3-mile limit at will, yet when a certain boundary is fixed by the legislative authority of a nation and such nation is recognized and accepted as a member of the family of nations by other nations, such exception to the accepted rule of international law is valid and binding upon all nations. In other words, since the United States and the other nations hereinabove mentioned recognized the sovereignty of the Republic of Texas without qualification, it necessarily recognized sovereignty of such nation, its territorial limits, and further, that it had title to and jurisdiction over all land within such limits.

After Texas acquired its independence, negotiations were begun to annex Texas to the Union. This result was first thought to be accomplished by treaty, but was defeated when the United States failed to ratify the same. If this treaty had been adopted, the Republic of Texas would have ceded all of its public domain to the United States in return for the payment of the public debt of the Republic of Texas hereinafter referred to. This, however, was the basic reason for the defeat of the treaty by the Senate of the United States, because the Congress of the United States refused to pay the public debt of Texas and accept title to the public domain of the Republic.

Thereafter the annexation of Texas was provided for by a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States, article 2 of which reads in part as follows:

66* * * Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense belonging to the said Republic of Texas, 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 * * * 11

Immediately after becoming one of the States of the Union, the State of Texas promptly asserted jurisdiction over its public domain by joint resolution dated April 29, 1846, volume 2, Gammel's Laws, 1461, Hartley's Digest, article 1634, which reads in part as follows:

"Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That the exclusive right to the jurisdiction over the soil included in limits of the late Republic of Texas was acquired by the valor of the people thereof, and was by them vested in the government of the said Republic, that such exclusive right is now vested in and belongs to the State, excepting such jurisdiction as is vested in the United States, by the Constitution of the United States, and by the joint resolution of annexation, subject to such regulations and control as the government thereof may deem expedient to adopt.'

After the war of 1848 the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo between Mexico and the United States provided that the beginning of the boundary line between the two Republics was placed at a point 3 leagues at sea from the mouth of the Rio Grande, and this boundary was reaffirmed in the Gadsden treaty, under which the Gadsden purchase was effectuated.

In article 5 of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, it is provided:

"The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence, up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence westerly along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then, to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the

Rio Colorado; thence, across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between the upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean."

In Article 1 of the Gadsden treaty, it is provided:

"The Mexican Republic agrees to designate the following as her true limits with the United States for the future, retaining the same dividing lines between the two Californias, as already defined and established according to the fifth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the limits between the two republics shall be as follows: Beginning in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 leagues from land opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande as provided in the fifth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, thence as defined in the said article, up the middle of that river to the point where the parallel of 31°47′ north latitude crosses the same, thence due west 100 miles, thence south to the parallel of 31°20′ north latitude, thence along the said parallel of 31°20' to the one hundred and eleventh meridian of longitude west of Greenwich, thence in a straight line to a point on the Colorado River 20 English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, then up the middle of the said river Colorado until it intersects the present line between the United States and Mexico."

Thus we see from the above that the Republic of Texas first asserted title, jurisdiction and sovereignty over all of the soil included within the boundaries of the Republic up to 3 maritime leagues, or about 101⁄2 miles, from her shore. Thereafter the State of Texas asserted jurisdiction and title to the same submerged lands excepting only such jurisdiction as was vested in the Government of the United States by the Constitution of the United States and by the joint resolution of annexation above referred to.

An

During the existence of the Republic of Texas, its Congress had authorized the issuance of bonds amounting to many millions of dollars, the payment of which was secured by the revenues of the State. These bonds were not only held by citizens of the Republic of Texas, but were held by citizens of other nations. attempt was made by a citizen of England in 1853, before the Claims Commissioner of the United States, to hold the Government of the United States responsible for the payment of the Texas bonds which he held. In his opinion, Mr. Upham, the claims commissioner, said:

"The matter of the indebtedness of Texas was a distinct subject of argument by the terms of the Union. According to those terms, the vacant and unappropriated lands within the limits of Texas were to be retained by her, and applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the Republic of Texas, and the residue of the land, after discharging these debts and liabilities, was to be disposed of as the State might direct, but in no event were the debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States (U. S. Stat. L., vol. 5, p. 798). "The lands of Texas were thus specifically set apart for the payment of the debts of Texas, by agreement of the two governments, in addition to any separate pledge Texas had previously made of this class of property for the payment of her debts" (1 Wharton's Digest, 20-23).

The United States of America and all other nations have thus recognized the territorial limits of the State of Texas and its title to the submerged lands to the extent of 3 marine leagues into the sea for more than 100 years. This recognition has been in each instance expressly given, and by documents of such dignity as to leave no room for doubt. However, in order to strengthen the title of the State of Texas to the submerged lands in question, if such be possible, your attention should be called to the fact that the law of nations recognizes the sovereignty of a state and a nation over territory acquired by prescription. There could never be a better case for a practical application of this rule than the submerged territory within the limits of the State of Texas, now at issue.

The basis of prescription in international law is nothing else than a general recognition of an existing fact, however unlawful in its origin, on the part of the members of the family of nations. In other words, a nation or a state which has exercised a continuous and undisturbed claim over a definite territory during such a period as is necessary to create, under the influence of historical development, the general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order, is recognized as having acquired absolute sovereignty over and title to the same.

It would seem obvious that the facts above stated with respect to the recognition of the claim of the Republic of Texas and the State of Texas to the submerged lands abutting upon the coast of the State of Texas extending approximately 101⁄2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico, are sufficient to establish beyond any question of a doubt that the sovereign State of Texas has title to such submerged lands by prescription, in addition to its actual title acquired in the manner set out above.

The supreme court of Texas in the case of City of Galveston v. Menard, 23 Tex. 349, held with reference to the boundaries of the Republic and State of Texas, as follows:

"The Republic of Texas had the power, through its legislative department, to grant that part of the Galveston Bay, which lies south of the channel, usually covered with salt water, which constitute what is called the 'flats'; and thereby vest an exclusive right in Menard to the soil thereof, and to the full ownership of same, just as if it had been dry land.

"This power results, as a necessary consequence of the absolute sovereignty of the Republic, over the territory included in its limits. The southern boundary of that territory was defined by (391) an act of the Texas Congress, to extend from 'the mouth of the Sabine River, and running west along the Gulf of Mexico, 3 leagues from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande,' etc. After annexation of Texas, the State, by an act of the legislature, reaffirmed its 'exclusive right to the jurisdiction over the soil, included in the limits of the late Republic of Texas,' excepting such as may be vested in the United States, by the Constitution of the United States, and by the joint resolution of annexation (Hartley's Dig. arts. 1631 and 1634."

and said further, on page 393:

"The legislatures of the several States may grant it, if not previously appropriated by grant, prescription, or otherwise: Provided, The exercise of an exclusive right, thus granted, does not infringe upon the rights of the Government of the United States, in its power 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States.' (Charlestown v. County Commissioners, 3 Met. 202; 21 Pick. 34; 4 Rawle, 9; Angell, Tide Waters, 87."

Although the discussion of the title to the submerged lands is somewhat limited in this brief, it does show (1) that the original 13 States hold the absolute right and title to all their navigable waters and the lands under them; (2) that all of the States subsequently admitted to the Union have the same ownership of title and sovereignty with respect to the lands which underlie the navigable waters along their coast; (3) that the State of Texas owns the lands underlying the waters off her coastline out to and including a distance of approximately 10%1⁄2 miles from her shore; (4) that the United States has no title to the submerged lands below low-water mark and within the 3-mile limit lying along the coast of the United States.

It is difficult for me to conceive any legal basis for contending that the United States has any title to the submerged land abutting upon the coast of any soverign State of the United States, but more especially the soverign State of Texas. I confidently assert that the title to the submerged lands below low-water mark extending 3 leagues into the Gulf of Mexico belongs exclusively to the sovereign State of Texas, subject only to the right of the Government of the United States to regulate commerce in and upon the waters overlying said lands. Any claim of title or further assumption of power on the part of the United States would unquestionably be an encroachment upon the constitutional rights of the sovereign State of Texas and in violation of the solemn agreement of annexation.

The State of Texas, by act of its legislature, effective March 18, 1873, set aside one-half of the unappropriated public domain for the support and maintenance of the public free schoolos of the State (ch. 52, p. 48, acts 16th legislature). This legislative policy was approved by the people of Texas when the constitution of 1876 was adopted. As a matter of fact, the constitution went further and provided that

"SEC. 2. All funds, lands, and other property heretofore set apart and appropriated for the support of public schools; all the alternate sections of land reserved by the State out of grants heretofore made or that may hereafter be made to railroads or other corporations of any nature whatsoever; one-half of the public domain of the State; and all sums of money that may come to the State from the sale of any portion of the same, shall constitute a perpetual public-school fund" (sec. 2, art. 7, Constitution of Texas of 1876).

Since the adoption of the constitution, the Legislature of Texas has from time to time put into effect legislation necessary to carry out the mandate of the con

stitution. This law, as amended by the acts of the Forty-fourth legislature, 1935, provides in part as follows:

"All lands heretofore set apart under the constitution and laws of Texas, and all of the unappropriated public domain remaining in the State, of whatever character and wherever located, including any islands recovered by the State, except that included in lakes, bays and islands along the Gulf of Mexico within tidewater limits, and except pine-forest lands as defined in article 2613, as amended in section 1 hereof, is set apart and granted to the permanent school fund of the State * * * ""

The State of Texas, as the constitutional and statutory trustee for this endowment, has made proper provision for the sale and lease of the lands set apart and granted to the permanent school fund of the State. The commissioner of the general land office of the State of Texas has, therefore, from time to time executed leases to individuals for the purpose of exploring for oil, gas, and other minerals which may be found in and under the submerged lands lying long the coast of the State of Texas. The individuals who have accepted such grants from the State of Texas, acted upon the good faith and belief that the State had title to such lands, and further, that the Government of the United States would not violate a solemn agreement by which it has been bound for almost a century, and would not attempt to infringe or encroach upon the rights of a sovereign State.

As a matter of fact, these individuals have, in many instances, actually taken possession of said lands included within their leases and have expended great sums of money in prospecting for and in producing oil and gas from said lands. The royalties received by the State have, by operation of law as above stated, been paid to the State of Texas for and on behalf of the permanent free school fund. The actual operations under all such leases have, of course, been with the permission of the Federal Government, but such permission has been acquired in each instance only by reason of the commerce clause of the Constitution, and not in recognition of any title or color of title to such lands in the Government of the United States.

The lands along the coast of Texas, the title to which is sought to be claimed by the United States, involve millions of acres and contain proven oil reserves of the estimated value of $100,000,000, of which the permanent school fund of the State of Texas will be the greatest beneficiary.

If Senate Joint Resolution 24 should become effective, even though it would be necessary for the Attorney General of the United States to assert, maintain, and establish title and possession of the United States to the submerged lands in question, and all petroleum deposits underlying the same, it would seriously cloud and slander the title of all States involved, as well as the titles of those individuals who have expended great sums of money in developing the same. The public school fund of the State of Texas would be seriously crippled, and the State of Texas would be compelled to defend endless and expensive litigation in order to prevent any encroachment upon its rights as a sovereign State of this great Nation. I respectfully submit that the committees of the Congress now considering Senate Joint Resolution 24 should take positive action to see that the same does not become a law.

Respectfully submitted.

BASCOM GILES,

Commissioner of General Land Office of the State of Texas. The CHAIRMAN. What is your official title, please, sir? Mr. GILES. I am commissioner of the general land office, Austin, Tex.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you had that position, please? Mr. GILES. I have had some 17 years' experience in the office. However, I have been the commissioner only since the first of the year. The CHAIRMAN. Please go ahead and state anything you wish in regard to this matter.

Mr. GILES. I just wish to say that I have had this brief prepared, and it sets out four contentions: That the Thirteen Original States had title to their land; that subsequent States joining the Union are entitled to the same rights; that the United States does not have title to the submerged land; and that Texas does have additional rights by reason of the fact that it did retain its land.

I am going to say this, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time and inasmuch as this case has been so ably covered by our Senators Sheppard and Connally and by Mr. Fairchild. I wanted to appear here, as I was directed to do by joint resolution of the legislature of Texas, in protest against this resolution, and ask that it be not passed. I thank you for your attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Giles.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Mr. Wilcox, please.

STATEMENT

OF GEORGE B. WILCOX, PRESIDENT, STATE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS, COLLEGE STATION, TEX. Senator JOHNSON of California. Mr. Wilcox, please state your name, residence, and occupation.

Mr. WILCOX. My name is George B. Wilcox, of College Station, Tex. I am a teacher, and am president of the State Teachers' Association of Texas.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here at the insistence and direction of the State Teachers' Association, composed of some 48,000 teachers, and in the interests of a million and a half school children of Texas. In the first place, we were expecially happy to endorse the statements of our Senators Sheppard and Connally, who have opposed this measure. We especially fear, in Texas, that in case the measure or a similar measure should pass, it might jeopardize and, particularly, impair our permanent school fund. It is a matter of record and more or less common knowledge by most people that the income for support of schools of Texas comes from the fund known as the permanent school fund. That fund has had some $10,000,000 accrue to it in the last 10 years from the submerged lands. The available school fund for current expenditures naturally is income from that permanent school fund. Naturally we are intensely interested in opposing any such measure that might jeopardize or inpair that income.

I am not a lawyer. We have our attorney here, Mr. Robert A. Stuart, of Fort Worth.

I shall be glad to yield to Mr. Stuart.

Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Mr. Stuart.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. STUART, ATTORNEY FOR THE TEXAS STATE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, FORT WORTH, TEX.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Please state your name, residence, and occupation.

Mr. STUART. I am Robert A. Stuart, of Fort Worth, Tex. I am attorney for the Texas State Teachers' Association, an organization consisting of some 35,000 members in the State of Texas, who are to some extent the guardians of that perpetual school fund of Texas that has been set aside for betterment of the schools of the State of Texas. I come here not only as a representative of the Texas State Teachers' Association but also I come before you under the authorization of the Legislature of the State of Texas. The Texas State Legislature, in a joint resolution passed by the legislature, protested