process server of record, has been able to find out thus far how much of this property has been taken from the people.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt you at that point. The attorney from Boston, I believe Mr. Phister, furnished a list of deeds that had been recorded, comprising an area of some 900 acres plus, and involving a purchase price of around $6,000.

Mr. CALLAHAN. That involved sales that were made, Mr. Chairman, not these takings.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean takings under condemnation, by eminent domain?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Takings that are unaccounted for at the present time. We have had a blanket taking in Essex County.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand you can't have a blanket taking unless there are instituted condemnation proceedings.

Mr. CALLAHAN. The condemnation proceedings are still going through the courts there.

The CHAIRMAN. But now you speak of this blanket taking. That has to be under some authority, and that was obtained by reason of the fact that condemnation proceedings had been instituted by reason of the act of 1931 and the amendment, I think, in 1940.

Neither the Federal act of 1931 nor the later act would permit the Federal Government to just walk in and take a man's property. Some proceedings have to be taken in the event they could not acquire it by purchase, and as I understand it, then condemnation proceedings were instituted?

Mr. CALLAHAN. That is right.

Mr. PACE. Isn't this the situation, that under the law the Federal Government has the right to make a deposit in court to go in and take the land; then subsequently, hearings are held in condemnation?

The CHAIRMAN. But that is after the proceedings have been instituted.

Mr. WORLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the procedure there.is-I have had some experience with this sort of thing-the Government has the right, under most all of these acts where they are authorized to acquire property for certain purposes, to go in and occupy the property, institute its project, and later bring condemnation proceedings to fix the value of the land. That is the procedure.

Mr. RIZLEY. That only applies to War Power Acts. I think that is the only place that applies. The rest of

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude now. the Massachusetts delegation which is to be heard, but I do want to be recorded in favor of the Bates-Lane bill here before you.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us get this straight for the record. Whether in compliance with the law or otherwise the Federal Government has actually stepped in there and taken possession of these lands. Is that right?

Mr. CALLAHAN. That is very true, Mr. Chairman. They have taken possession of the land, and that possession, of course, is against the owner of the fee. That happened all over the district. We have voluminous reports from every land owner down there as to the method in which this was done. Most of the time it was done merely by posting the land.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present the other members of the Massachusetts Legislature before they leave, just to be recorded in favor of the bill.

Mr. WILLIS. They don't care to speak. They just want to be recorded in favor of the legislation. They are:

Representative Russell J. Brown, of Beverley, Essex County; Representative Charles Ferguson, of Lexington; Representative Leslie Cutler, Needham; Representative John Valentine, Republican floor leader in the house; Senator Michael Flanagan, of Lawrence; Representative Michael Batelle, of Lawrence, also in Essex County.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, all of these representatives are in favor of the legislation?

Mr. WILLIS. They are in favor of the legislation and are opposed to the taking of the land.

The CHAIRMAN. And would so testify if we had time to hear them?
Mr. WILLIS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Mr. Joseph D. Rolfe, whose family has owned this land since back in pre-Revolutionary days.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to interrupt the procedure you wish to follow, but I do believe the committee would like to hear now from the conservation commissioner.

Mr. BATES. I will be very glad to call the conservation commissioner of Massachusetts, Mr. Sloper.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Sloper.

STATEMENT OF A. K. SLOPER, CONSERVATION COMMISSIONER OF

MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. SLOPER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, on May 16, 1945, I became commissioner of conservation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I come from the extreme west end of the State, up in the Berkshire Hills, otherwise "up in the sticks" shall I say. I knew nothing of this Parker River taking, the contentions pro or con. When I took the office I found that there was a very serious contention pro and con on the matter, and I started an investigation of my own. I went and looked over the land. I consulted with our ornithologist. I consulted with our biologist, Mr. Barnes, with reference to the plans. I consulted with the secretary of our department who lives in that district, at Georgetown. I talked with people in the area, from all viewpoints.

I came to the conclusion that the manner of taking was considerably out of order. Having been in the real estate business for 40 years, having been in many condemnation proceedings for the State, the county, and the city, I felt that the people had not had a proper opportunity to express themselves on this matter, and I felt that with the congestion of population that we have in Massachusetts, with the people not having had the proper opportunity to express themselves against it, and as far as I could ascertain it seemed to me it was an unwise procedure to choose that location for the desired results; consequently I have taken the position that it is contrary to the best interests of the department of conservation, and for conservation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us your reasons for that position, so the record will show it?

Mr. SLOPER. I went to Mr. Kenney and asked him what his procedure was in reference to consent for the Department of the Interior, Wildlife Division, taking over the land. He told me that he had not given any written consent for the Government to take the land by condemnation proceedings in that area.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the enabling act was his consent required? Mr. SLOPER. I think it was. But you see, I was put into this position in May 1945, and I was unbiased in every way, shape, and manner. I was a long ways from the shore, up in the hills. I went into all angles of it, and I feel that I have come to a conclusion that was, I think, in the interest of the people involved, who have owned those properties for generations, that the procedure in acquiring the land has been very high-handed indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, for the purpose of the record will you set forth the reasons why you think this project should be killed, abandoned? Mr. SLOPER. You want me to write it out?

The CHAIRMAN. No, just tell us the reasons that led you to the conclusion that this legislation should be passed.

Mr. SLOPER. That the project be killed?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Tell us why you come to that conclusion. Mr. SLOPER. From my investigation I come to the conclusion that the black duck does not need such a large area as the Parker River involves.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that area going to be needed in the future for further development?

Mr. SLOPER. In my opinion it would have been wise to have started with, say, 2,000 acres; then, as the development grew, if it can grow with the people of the community

The CHAIRMAN. (interposing). You mean your population is pretty heavy up there?

Mr. SLOPER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this land needed for the development of that area?

Mr. SLOPER. I feel not.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it needed for the people to live on? I understand your population is pretty much congested up there.

Mr. SLOPER. I would like to have Governor Tobin say a word here. Governor TOBIN. We have wildlife preserves in Alabama where they have a population of 55 per square mile, in Arizona with a population of 4 per square mile, in Georgia with 53 per square mile, and Florida 55. Massachusetts is the third most densely populated State in the Union, exceeded only by Rhode Island and New Jersey. We have 527 persons per square mile in Massachusetts, but Essex County, the county in which this preserve is located, has a population of 930 per square mile.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand you, this land, most of it, is actually needed for the further settlement of your civilian population?

Governor TOBIN. Yes, it is definitely needed, because it is in the heart of a heavily industrialized area, bordered by three cities, the city of Lawrence, known the world over as one of the great woolen textile centers of America; the city of Haverhill, the city of Newbury

port, the town of Amesbury, all within 5 or 6 miles of the Crane Pond Reservation, the city of Lynn 10 miles.

And one other point that will be made-well, that answers your question about the development. There is a tremendous housing shortage in the cities of Haverhill, Lawrence, Newburyport, and the town of Amesbury, and I know they have got to go to other territory in order to further expand. That is definitely the case.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, that raises the question as to the health of the people in that section as the second reason in setting forth the reasons why this legislation should be passed.

Governor TOBIN. The chief engineer of the State health department will testify that this is a health menace. He is a nationally recognized authority, and he will testify that this is a positive health menace, that it will produce malaria carrying mosquitoes that breed in fresh

water.

The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to get from the witness is this: That his investigation led him to the conclusion that this legislation. should be passed. I was wondering the reasons behind his conclusions, whether they were the same reasons as were set forth by you.

Governor TOBIN. I think so; yes, sir. He will also testify that Mr. E. W. Barnes, who is a biologist of world fame on shellfish, will testify that if this preserve is established, the Ipswich clam industry, which has been in existence for 300 years by grant of the British Crown to the people who were residents of the town of Ipswich, will be destroyed, because you will have conservation on one side for the conservation of duck life, with a complete disregard for the conservation of shellfish life, and the majority of the people in the community of Ipswich are dependent upon clamming for their living, and over the years the original grant granted by the Crown to the establishment of our Nation as an independent Republic still carries on down through the years. Sections of these clam flats, are apportioned to the residents of the community, and I have explained to you the importance of Ipswich clams, known all over the eastern part of the United States, and in our particular section if a vendor can get Ipswich clams, they are very proud to post up in their establishments the fact that the clams they sell are Ipswich clams, and I know of no other clams in our area that are advertised as coming from this particular area. I just wanted to state that for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. Now I understand, Mr. Commissioner, that your reasons are similar to the reasons set forth by the Governor?

Mr. SLOPER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, we have here the State ornithologist, Mr. Joseph A. Hagar, who, perhaps more than anyone else present, is familiar with bird life in Massachusetts, and I would like to present him as our next witness.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Hagar.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. HAGAR, STATE ORNITHOLOGIST, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Mr. HAGAR. My views on this matter are set forth in the pamphlet which you gentlemen have, and I believe I cannot add much to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to make this pamphlet a part of your testimony?

Mr. HAGAR. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be placed in the record at this point.

(The pamphlet referred to follows:)

PARKER RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE THE CASE FOR REVISION OF PLANS (Joseph A. Hagar, Massachusetts Department of Conservation, November 1945)

(The author of this statement was appointed State ornithologist in the Massachusetts Department of Conservation in 1934. His special field is waterfowl management. He has been in charge of all waterfowl studies in the Department since 1934, except for 3 years on military leave, June 1942-June 1945. This statement is prepared and printed with the approval of the commissioner of conservation.)

INTRODUCTION

The protests against the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge have been based upon a variety of grounds, and yet because waterfowl management is a new and comparatively unfamiliar field, the issue which goes most directly to the root of the controversy has so far received less than its proper share of attention.

The object sought in the Parker River Refuge is an increase of waterfowl. Its establishment depends upon a showing of reasonable probability that it means more ducks, and its permanence over a term of years depends upon the actual production of more ducks.

This fact is clear enough to the responsible Federal agency. No matter how many minor concessions and inducements may be put forward to soften the opposition of farmers, landowners, surf fishermen, and the recreation-seeking public, the campaign for the refuge has always been chiefly directed to establishing a thesis that the whole area is adapted to waterfowl management, that a large increase of waterfowl will result from its operation, and that waterfowl gunners in particular will benefit from the anticipated changes.

This line of reasoning is carried so far in the recent (September 12, 1945) decision of the Secretary of the Interior, that every protest is turned aside on the ground that the public interest requires continuance of the refuge. This is to say that the public benefit to be derived from an increase of waterfowl will prove so great as to offset every loss,, damage, and inconvenience which may result from the forcible establishment of 20 square miles of waterfowl refuge in a thickly settled industrial community such as Essex County. The end will justify the means.

Obviously, the Fish and Wildlife Service is very heavily committed to producing an increase of waterfowl. To make good its promises, it is gambling upon its previous experience, the accuracy of its present local information, and the soundness of its collective judgment in drawing up plans. It may properly be asked, then, are all of these to be accepted by Massachusetts without further question?

Initially, the answer would have been affirmative. The Wildlife Service had the advantage of moving into New England with the prestige derived from its program for waterfowl restoration in the West and South. There was general recognition that the program had brought about a substantial increase of those species of prairie-breeding ducks for which it was planned. Naturally, then, there was a disposition to credit the Service with expert knowledge, and to accept at face value every promise it made. It was taken for granted that its New England program would be properly adapted to local conditions.

This early confidence was shaken only as details of the refuge plans became known. To the general public, familiar by daily experience with the intensity of land use in Massachusetts, the size of the proposed seizure was extremely disquieting. To those with some knowledge of the biological aspects of waterfowl management, the program seemed still a program for the prairie ducks, taking no practical account of the fact that western waterfowl are numerically insignificant in New England, while the only important game ducks, the black, has such different habits as to require different procedures for its welfare.