Slike strani
PDF
ePub

moving the petroleum deposits therefrom without any superior right or interest, and without the consent and permission of the United States.

SEC. 3. That nothing contained in this joint resolution shall be construed as a taking, as authorizing a taking, or as ratifying a taking, of any property by exercise of the power of eminent domain; 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.

[S. J. Res. 83, 76th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Relative to the establishment of a naval petroleum reserve in the submerged lands along and adjacent to the coast of the State of California

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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; subject, also, to any superior right, title, or interest of any person, partnership, association, corporation, or of the State of California, or any municipality, or local subdivision of that State which may have heretofore been granted by the United States of America, or which may have become otherwise validly and lawfully vested, or which may be recognized and established in the judicial proceedings hereinafter authorized.

SEC. 2. 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 to cause and effectuate by proper judicial proceedings the removal and ejectment of all persons now or hereafter trespassing upon or occupying the said submerged lands or removing the petroleum deposits therefrom without any superior right or interest, and without the consent and permission of the United States.

SEC. 3. That nothing contained in this joint resolution shall be construed as a taking, as authorizing a taking, or as ratifying a taking, of any property by exercise of the power of eminent domain; nor shall this joint resolution nor anything herein contained, not 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. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Nye, do you not wish to make a statement? STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD P. NYE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator NYE. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I would remark only that the resolution I introduced by way of a substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 24, namely, Senate Joint Resolution 92, is identical with the so-called Hobbs bill upon which hearings have been conducted by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. The Walsh resolution and my resolution are identical except for the statement of declaration at the beginning of my resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other statement to make at this time. The CHAIRMAN. I see that Senators Connally and Sheppard, of Texas, are here. Do you gentlemen wish to be heard at this time? Senator CONNALLY. Senator Sheppard is my senior, and if he so desires he may go ahead now.

STATEMENT OF HON MORRIS SHEPPARD, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Senator SHEPPARD. The resolutions before the committee set up a claim on the part of the Government of the United States to the ownership of the petroleum deposits underlying submerged lands adjacent to and along the coast of the State of California below lowwater mark and under the so-called territorial waters of the United States of America.

It provides further that neither

this joint resolution nor anything herein contained, nor any inference or deduction which may be drawn herefrom or from any part hereof, shall 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.

The resolutions thus challenge the rights of all the other coastal States, as well as California, to the petroleum deposits in the submerged lands adjoining their coasts below low-water mark and under their adjoining sea waters.

I shall endeavor to show that these resolutions overthrow a basic principle of the American form of government.

At the time the Original Thirteen Colonies secured their independence from Great Britain they became separate and independent Sovereignties, their territorial jurisdiction extedning into the open sea adjoining their respective coasts as far as it had extedned from such coasts under the English Crown.

Regarding Great Britain, the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, passed by Parliament in 1878, established the extent of the territorial maritime belt of Great Britain as 3 miles seaward, or 1 marine league seaward, from the low-water mark of the coast (Oppenheim's International Law, McNair, vol. 1, Peace 397).

Regarding nations in general, Oppenheim, a well-recognized authority on international law, says:

If the municipal law of a State does not by a statute extend its jurisdiction over its maritime belt, its courts ought to presume that, since by the law of nations the jurisdiction of a State does extend over its maritime belt, their sovereign has tacitly consented to that wider range of its jurisdiction (Oppenheim's International Law, McNair, vol. 1, Peace 35).

In the instrument by which the new sovereign American States created the present Government of the United States of America and defined its powers-that is, the Federal Constitution-it is stated in amendment 10 as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Constitution will be searched in vain for any language showing a delegation to the Federal Government of the ownership of the submerged lands under the ocean waters of the States or the minerals in

and under such lands, or the power of the Federal Government to acquire such lands or minerals without compensation. This the present resolution proposes to do. The powers and rights of the States in this matter have been defined and established by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a few of these decisions are presented herewith:

In Martin v. Waddell (11 L. ed. 997, 16 Peters 367), Mr. Chief Justice Taney said:

For 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 to the General Government.

After discussing the history of the proprietors of New Jersey (the State involved in this case), Mr. Justice Taney said further:

* * * when the people of New Jersey took possession of the reins of government and took into their own hands the powers of sovereignty, the prerogatives and regalities which before belonged to the Crown or the Parliament became immediately and rightfully vested in the State

* *

*

The jurisdiction of the British Crown in this respect extended from the shore for a distance of 3 miles seaward.

In the case of the United States v. Mission Rock Co. (189 U. S. 391) it was held that

The State of California upon its admission into the Union acquired absolute property in, and dominion and sovereignty over, all soils under the tidewaters within her limits, with the consequent right to dispose of the title to any part of said soils in such manner as she might deem proper, subject to the paramount right of navigation over the waters, so far as such navigation might be required for the necessities of commerce with foreign nations or among the several States, the regulation of which is vested in the General Government.

Other Federal rights or easements, such as national defense and commerce, belong to the United States Government, but of course do not include title in said Government to the lands under the territorial waters of the States.

In the Mission Rock case Mr. Justice McKenna, delivering the opinion of the Court and referring, among other cases, to Weber v. Commissioners (18 Wall.), quoted from the latter as follows:

Although the title to the soil under the tidewaters of the bay was acquired by the United States by cession from Mexico, equally with the title to the upland, they held it only in trust for the future State. Upon the admission of California into the Union upon equal footing with the original States, absolute property in, and dominion and sovereignty over, all soils under the tidewaters within her limits passed to the State, with the consequent right to dispose of the title to any part of said soils in such manner as she might deem proper, subject only to the paramount right of navigation over the waters, so far as such navigation might be required by the necessities of commerce with foreign nations or among the several States, the regulation of which was vested in the General Government.

In the same case Mr. Justice McKenna, Shively v. Bowlby, quoted Mr. Justice Gray, of the Court in the Shively case as follows:

referring to the case of who rendered the opinion

Each State has dealt with the lands under the tidewaters within its borders according to its own views of justice and policy, reserving its own control over

such lands, or ganting rights therein to individuals or corporations, whether owners of the adjoining upland or not, as it considered for the best interests of the public. This right

said Mr. Justice McKenna in the Mission Rock Co. case

is an attribute of the sovereignty of the State, and it follows that in the exercise of the right (quoting Mr. Justice Gray), the State may dispose of its tidelands free from any easement of the upland proprietor.

In Shively v. Bowlby (152 U. S. 1), Mr. Justice Gray, delivering the opinion of the Court, said:

By common law both the title and the dominion of the sea, and of the rivers and arms of the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, and of all the lands below high-water mark, within the jurisdiction of the Crown of England, are in the King. Such waters and the lands which they cover either at all times, or at least when the tide is in, are incapable of ordinary and private occupation, cultivation, and improvement. Their natural and private uses are public in nature, for highways of navigation and commerce, domestic and foreign, and for the purpose of fishing by all the King's subjects. Therefore the title * * * in such lands * * * * and the dominion thereof belongs to the King is vested in him as representative of the Nation and for the public benefit. * * * The various charters granted by different monarchs of the Stuart dynasty for large tracts of territory on the Atlantic coast conveyed to the grantees property and the dominion of lands under tidewaters. And upon the American Revolution all the rights of the Crown and of Parliament vested in the several States, subject to the rights surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution of the United States.

* * *

* *

* *

* the

In Hardin v. Jordan (140 U. S. 381), Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

* * *

* * * such title to the shore lands under water is regarded as incidental to the sovereignty of the State and cannot be retained or granted out to individuals by the United States. Such title being in the State the lands are subject to State regulation and control, under the condition, however, of not interfering with regulations which may be made by Congress with regard to public navigation and commerce. The State may even dispose of the usufruct of such lands, as is frequently done by leasing oyster beds in them, and granting fisheries in particular localities; also, by the reclamation of submerged flats, and the erection of wharves and piers, etc.; * * * State control and ownership therein being supreme, subject only to the paramount authority of Congress in making regulations of commerce. * * * The right of the State to regulate and control the shores of tidewaters and the land under them is the same as that which is exercised by the Crown in England. * it depends on the law of each State to what waters and to what extent this prerogative of the State over the lands under water shall be exercised * *

* *

Again, in Shively v. Bowlby, Mr. Justice Gray said:

The Congress of the United States, in disposing of the public lands, has constantly acted upon the theory that those lands, whether in the interior or on the coast, above high-water mark, may be taken up by actual occupants in order to encourage the settlement of the country; but that the navigable waters and the soils under them, whether within or above the ebb and flow of the tide, shall be and remain public highways; and, being chiefly valuable for the public purposes of commerce, navigation, and fishery, and for the improvements necessary to secure and promote those purposes shall not be granted away during the period of Territorial government; but * shall be held by the United States in trust for the future States, and shall vest in the several States when organized and admitted into the Union; in short, shall not be disposed of piecemeal to individuals as private property, but shall be held as a whole for the purpose of being ultimately administered and dealt with for the public benefit by the State, after it shall have become a completely organized community.

* *

Further, Mr. Justice Gray, quoting with approval from the Supreme Court of Oregon in this case, said:

From all this it appears that when the State of Oregon was admitted into the Union, the tidelands became its property and subject to its jurisdiction and disposal; that in the absence of legislation or usage, the common-law rule would govern the rights of the upland proprietor, and by that law the title to them is in the State; that the State has the right to dispose of them in such manner as she might deem proper, as is frequently done in various ways, and whereby sometimes large areas are reclaimed and occupied by cities, and are put to public uses, State control and ownership being therein supreme, subject only to the paramount right of navigation and commerce. The whole question is for the State to determine for itself; it can say to what extent it will preserve its rights of ownership in them or confer them on others.

Our State has done that by the legislation already referred to; and our courts have declared its absolute property in and dominion over the tide lands, and its right to dispose of its title in such manner as it might deem best, unaffected by any "legal obligation to recognize the rights of either the riparian owners, or those who had occupied such tide lands," other than it chose to resign to them, subject only to the paramount right of navigation and uses of commerce.

Again, in Shively v. Bowlby, Mr. Justice Gray, summing up the great mass of authorities which had been cited, said:

* *

At common law, the title and the dominion in lands flowed by the tide were in the King for the benefit of the nation. Upon the settlement of the Colonies, like rights passed to the grantees in the royal charters, in trust for the communities to be established. Upon the American Revolution, these rights, charged with a like trust, were vested in the original States within their respective borders, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States. Upon the acquisition of a Territory by the United States, * the same title and dominion passed to the United States, for the benefit of the whole people, and in trust for the several States to be ultimately created out of the Territory. The new States admitted into the Union since the adoption of the Constitution have the same rights as the original States in the tidewaters, and in the lands under them, within their respective jurisdiction. The title and rights of riparian or littoral proprietors in the soil below high-water mark, therefore, are governed by the laws of the several States, subject to the rights granted to the United States by the Constitution.

The United States, while they hold the country as a Territory, having all the powers both of national and of municipal Government, may grant, for appropriate purposes, titles, or rights in the soil below high-water mark of tidewaters. But they have never done so by general laws; and, unless in some case of international duty or public exigency, have acted upon the policy, as most in accordance with the interest of the people and with the object for which the Territories were acquired, of leaving the administration and disposition of the sovereign rights in navigable waters, and in the soil under them, to the control of the States, respectively, when organized and admitted into the Union.

Grants by Congress of portions of the public lands within a Territory to settlers thereon, though bordering on or bounded by navigable waters, convey, of their own force, no title and dominion of the future State when created; but leave the question of the use of the shores by the owners of uplands to the sovereign control of each State, subject only to the rights vested by the Constitution in the United States.

Many more cases could be cited in support of this thoroughly established doctrine.

Not only does this resolution call for the violation under the Constitution, of the sovereignty, and for the confiscation of property, of the State of California, but it involves possible similar action with respect to the submerged ocean lands of all the other coastal States. It clouds titles to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of petroleum properties already sold by certain States to private owners and, in the case of the State of Texas, to submerged lands the proceeds from which already have been dedicated to the use of the public schools of the State. Texas possesses petroleum properties under its sub

« PrejšnjaNaprej »