the wall. I urge that witnesses make full use of the map or of any other maps or charts or graphs. What we are after in this hearing are the facts, presented clearly and succinctly. This controversy has been heightened somewhat by the action of the outgoing President of the United States in issuing an Executive order a few days before the close of his term, the purport of which was set aside the submerged lands on the Continental Shelf as a naval petroleum reserve. I have a communication addressed to the chairman of the committee from the Attorney General of the United States with respect to the legal effect of this order. I desire at this time to read both the letter of transmittal and the attachment into the record, and the originals will be made a part of the record. This letter was handed to the chairman in person on February 13, 1953, and it is as follows: MY DEAR SENATOR BUTLER: I have your letter of February 5, 1953, requesting certain information relating to the promulgation of Executive Order No. 10426 of January 16, 1953. On February 5, 1953, the Secretary of Defense asked my opinion on a question involving the same matter. By letter of this date I have replied to the Secretary of Defense, and I enclose herewith for your information a copy of my letter. I trust that the enclosed letter complies with the request contained in your letter above referred to. Sincerely, HERBERT BROWNELL, Jr., The enclosure, being the letter from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Defense, is as follows: The honorable the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This will refer to your letter of February 5, 1953, requesting my opinion on the question whether, by virtue of the provisions of Executive Order No. 10426 of January 16, 1953, the Secretary of the Navy "has authority to administer the undersea area as a Naval petroleum reserve." As you know, section 1 (a) of Executive Order No. 10426 specifically provides that the lands in question "are hereby set aside as a naval petroleum reserve and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Navy." I assume, therefore, that the question you are asking is the narrow question whether the lands involved may be administered by the Secretary of the Navy as a naval petroleum reserve under the provisions of existing legislation relating to Naval Petroleum Reserves Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (34 U. S. C. 524), and it is to that limited question that I shall address myself. I have carefully reviewed the file in the Department of Justice which relates to the promulgation of Executive Order No. 10426, and it is clear that the Department of Justice objected, on legal grounds, to the promulgation of an order which would have constituted these lands a naval petroleum reserve to be administered under the legislative provisions above referred to. It is also clear that the then Attorney General approved the order, as finally drafted and issued, on the understanding that it did not intend to, nor did it in fact or in law, create a naval petroleum reserve within the meaning of the statute. I have given careful independent consideration to the question and I, too, am of the opinion that the order did not intend to, and did not, create a naval petroleum reserve to be administered under the provisions of 34 U. S. C. 524. In my opinion, the general effect of Executive Order No. 10426 is merely to transfer to the Secretary of the Navy the authority over these lands which had previously been conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior by Executive Order No. 9633 of September 28, 1945, entitled "Reserving and Placing Certain Resources of the Continental Shelf Under the Control and Jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior" (10 F. R. 12305). Sincerely, HERBERT BROWNELL, Jr., The letter and attachment are made a part of the record at this point. Senator ANDERSON. May I ask there, Mr. Chairman-the Attorney General is the law officer, certainly, for all of the departments of government, and questions will probably be asked of various representatives and, as has happened already, the Secretary of the Interior may say, "This is out of my hands; it has been transferred to the Navy." Will Mr. Brownell be here to testify? Senator CORDON. I cannot answer for Mr. Brownell. I hope he will be here to testify. Senator ANDERSON. What I am trying to find out is, if he is not going to be asked to testify by the proponents of the Holland bill and the Daniel bill, then the rest of us are going to have to ask him. We would just like to know so we might schedule him, because it seems to me incredible that a hearing of this nature would be held without the chief law officer, the attorney for the various departments, being present to testify on it in person. Senator LONG. May I ask a question? Senator CORDON. Let us take them one at a time. Senator ANDERSON. Could we get an answer as to whether he is going to be one of the witnesses in behalf of these bills? If he is not going to be, we would like to be notified of it so that we can be sure that he is here. Senator CORDON. I do not recall when an Attorney General has ever appeared here on this matter. The Solicitor General has appeared, but not an Attorney General. However, I hope that the Attorney General or someone representing the Department of Justice will at the appropriate time appear before the committee. I shall certainly request such an appearance, or invite such an appearance, rather let me say. In the last analysis, this is the Congress, a separate and equal department of the Government, in session at this time, through one of its committees, rather than the executive department. I do hope that we will have the Attorney General or a representative of the Department of Justice before the committee. Senator ANDERSON. Would it be possible for other members of the committee to get copies of what he has just put into the record? Senator CORDON. Why, certainly. That is the reason it is made a part of the record. I am sorry. Had I had it in sufficient time I would have been happy to have furnished all members with a copy of it. It is dated the 13th, which I think was last Friday. I want to assure my colleague, if he needs assurance— Senator ANDERSON. He does not need it at all. Senator CORDON. That we are going to get everything into this record that could in any wise supplement the voluminous record we now have. Senator LONG. I was thinking of the point the chairman made, that although I believe it would have been desirable during the previous Congress, neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Attorney General appeared before the committee in connection with this legislation, even though their departments vigorously opposed it. Of course, Í would be very pleased to hear from both of them on the subject. I did direct a question to the present Secretary of the Interior at the time of his confirmation relating to the subject, but I would be pleased to hear from both of them on that subject. Senator CORDON. The chair will continue his preliminary staten. 20045-53-2 There are before the committee four measures, each of them somewhat different as an approach to the solution of the problem. There is Senate Joint Resolution No. 13, introduced by Senator Holland, of Florida, for himself and 39 other Senators. There is Senate bill 107, sponsored by Senator Anderson, of New Mexico. There is Senate bill 294, sponsored by Senator Daniel, of Texas. And there is Senate Joint Resolution 18, introduced by Senator Estes Kefauver, of Tennesee, for himself and seven other Senators. In addition, we have the amendment proposed by Senator Hill, of Alabama, with I believe 22 sponsoring Senators, the amendment being to Senate bill 107. I direct that the text of each of these measures, and of the amendment, appear in the record at the conclusion of this brief opening statement. May I point out at this time that this issue has been before the Congress some 16 years now, ever since the passage of the Nye bill (S. J. Res. 208), in 1937. Some 14 hearings have been held on the subject matter. This proceeding is hearing No. 15. I understand the House is opening No. 16 tomorrow morning. The record of these 14 hearings comprises some six-thousand-and-odd pages of testimony and exihibits. In addition to the hearings, there have been three lawsuits argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, and several reports on matters in connection therewith, including a final one by a special master appointed by the Court in the California case. This entire record is before the committee, and at this time the chair incorporates, by reference, the whole of that into the record of this hearing. The incorporation by reference, of course, you understand, means that there will not be a reprint of those hearings. All of the previous record is to be considered as before the committee, and will be taken into consideration by the committee in determining what action will be recommended to the Congress. I ask that a list of the hearings compiled by the committe counsel be set forth in the record at this point. I have had such a list prepared, and as it goes into the record it will carry exhibit numbers; the several hearings beginning with the hearing in the 75th Congress, and concluding with that of the 82d Congress on June 12, 1952, will carry appropriate exhibit designations from A to N, inclusive. While this may not be of value today to the witnesses, I will endeavor to make copies of the list available for their use in case they desire to refer to testimony already of record. (The list of hearings referred to is as follows:) To: Senator Guy Cordon. MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 14, 1953. From: Stewart French, staff counsel, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Subject: Submerged-lands hearings. There have been at least 14 formal hearings, totaling more than 6,000 pages of testimony and exhibits, on the submerged-lands issue since the first legislation respecting the subject came before the 75th Congress in 1937 when S. 2194 was introduced and a substitute measure, Senate Joint Resolution 208, passed the Senate on Consent Calendar. Two measures, House Joint Resolution 225, 79th Congress, and Senator Holland's substitute form of Senate Joint Resolution 20, 82d Congress, both so-called quitclaim bills, have been approved by both Houses of Congress. Both were vetoed by President Truman. The hearings are: 1. 75th Congress, 3d Session, House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 23, 24, and 25, 1938, on Senator Nye's S. J. Res. 208, which had passed the Senate on calendar call Aug. 19, 1937 (Congressional Record, vol. 81, pt. 8, p. 9326). This joint resolution asserted that lands below the low-water mark and within a distance of 3 miles from the coast were the property of the United States. The Attorney General was directed to take "speedy and appropriate" proceedings to establish the possession of the United States and to eject trespassers. Secretary of the Navy Claude S. Swanson, in an official communication dated Feb. 19, 1938, recommended that Congress set aside the Continental Shelf as a naval petroleum reserve. S. J. Res. 208 was favorably reported to the House but no mittee, of which Congressman Walter, of Pennsylvania, was Charles Edison, Acting Secretary of the Navy, in an offi- 3. Senate Public Lands Committee, 76th Congress, Mar. 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1939, on S. J. Res. 83, and S. J. Res. 92, by Senators Walsh and Nye, declaring the conservation of the petroleum deposits off the California coast is essential to the national defense and maintenance of the Navy, and, in the exercise of the "paramount powers" and sovereignty of the United States, they are set aside as a naval petroleum reserve. Substitute language for S. J. Res. 92 was favorably reported by Senator Adams on April 24, 1940 (S. Rept. 1612, 76th Cong., 3d sess. The substitute language requested the Attorney General to bring suit to establish the right, title, and interest of the United States in all ocean submerged lands... 4. 79th Congress, 1st session, June 18, 19, and 20, 1945. Joint hearings, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, and a special subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on H. J. Res. 115 and numerous companion bills. H. J. Res. 225 was subsequently introduced and reported favorably to the House. This bill quitclaimed to the States submerged coastal lands within State boundaries at the time they entered the Union........... 5. 79th Congress, 2d session, Feb. 5, 6, and 7, 1946. Hearings before Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. This bearing related to S. J. Res. 45 and to H. J. Res. 225 which had passed the House during the first session of the 79th Congress. H. J. Res. 225 was adopted by the Senate, and was vetoed by the President. The House failed to override. 6. 80th Congress, 2d session, 17 days in February and March, 1948. Joint hearings before subcommittees of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary on S. 1988 and companion House bills quitclaiming to the States wit merged coastal lands within original State boundaries, This was the longest and most comprehensive hearing beid on the subject, 7. 80th Congress, 2d session, May 4 and 5, 1948. Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. This hearing supplemented the joint hearings described next above.. 8. 81st Congress, 1st session, Aug. 24, 25, and 29, 1949. Hear- 9. 81st Congress, 1st session, Oct. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, 1949. aries.. 11. 82d Congress, 1st session, Feb. 19, 20, 21, 22, 1951. Hearings before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 82d Congress, on S. J. Res. 20, the O'Mahoney-Anderson interim bill endorsed by executive departments, and Mar. 28 and Apr. 10 on S. 940, a bill quitclaiming to the States submerged lands within the original boundaries 12. 82d Congress, 1st session, June 6, 1951, House Judiciary Com- 13. 82d Congress, 2nd session, Feb. 7, 1952. Senate Interior and Total pages in printed record of hearings. STEWART FRENCH. 1 A great many hundreds more pages of material were submitted for the committees' files. |