hearings. You did so at the last session of Congress at similar hearings, and I appreciate your repeating the courtesy.

There are here in the room, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, certain distinguished citizens from my home city of Long Beach that have been sent by my city across the continent to appear at these hearings to add weight, at least by their presence, to the position of my home city on this important subject, and I would like the privilege of just presenting them to the committee. It will only take about 30 seconds, and I am sure they would be honored by being so presented, and I am sure the committee would be glad to see them personally.

So if I may have that privilege, first I have the honor to introduce. the Honorable Councilman Keller, chairman of the oil petroleum committee of the city council of my city, and also a petroleum engineer.

Emmet H. Sullivan, a member of the harbor board of my home city of Long Beach, and Mr. Amar, harbor manager of my city, and we think the best harbor manager of one of the greatest harbors in the country.

I will be very brief. I feel that the record is fairly well complete, as the chairman has said, on most of the material points that could be presented at such a hearing as this. Furthermore, our very able city attorney is here again, and I will yield what time I might otherwise take in his favor and in favor of the deputy attorney general of my State, who is also to testify this afternoon.

As a member of the Seventy-ninth Congress I filed for the State a quitclaim bill representing the State theory of ownership of tidelands. I believe the record will show that I filed my bill before the Attorney General filed his suit against the State of California. I filed only after conference with the then Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Ickes, and with the then Attorney General, Mr. Biddle.

At that time before the suit was filed, I registered objection to the proposed suit, and I urged that no accounting be asked of my State or of my city of any oil royalties received by either the State or the city on the grounds that my city had received its tideland grants in good faith from my native State of California in 1911; the State of California dealt in good faith when it made the grants and when it made the oil leases; and also that when my home city had contracted its oil wells on tidelands for production purposes that it had dealt in good faith.

We passed a quitclaim bill in the House of Representatives in that Seventy-ninth Congress. I think there were only 11 votes against it. I was one of the Members of Congress who voted to override the veto of the President of the United States of that bill.

Again in the Eighty-first Congress I again filed what we term, what this committee terms, the quitclaim theory for the State of California and other States, and I again supported that theory by appearing before the House committee, and then by appearing before this committee during your important hearings in the month of August 1950. I also appeared in the House in the Seventy-ninth Congress in behalf of passage of the quitclaim theory bill for the State of California and the city of Long Beach.

And now in this session of Congress I again filed the same bill that had been approved in the last session of Congress by the House Judiciary Committee and for which a rule was granted by the House of

Representatives. The text of that bill was the same as the Walters bill of the last session of Congress and the same as the Walters bill this session of Congress.

My resolution was H. R. 58, filed January 3, 1951, and I believe was the first bill filed in the House of Representatives, at least numerically, representing that theory.

I, of course, am in support of the Walters bill in the House of Repreesntatives.

The City Council of Long Beach, the city harbor board, the city of Long Beach, forwarded to me recently under certification of the city clerk, copies of Resolution No. C-12838, dated February 6, 1951, registering opposition to Senate Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131.

I, therefore, and because I also as Congressman feel that that was the consistent position for the city of Long Beach to take under the circumstances, oppose the two resolutions just named by me.

As I said, the city attorney will register the arguments. I will not take time so to do.

I do wish to say that I have here Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3 by the Assembly of the State of California registering objection to Senate Resolution 20. I wish to file that with the committee, and also Assembly Joint Resolution No. 4.

The CHAIRMAN. This material may be received and made part of the record.

(The resolutions referred to are as follows:)

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3-RELATIVE TO THE TIDELANDS AND SUBMERGED LANDS ADJACENT TO THE COASTAL STATES

Whereas until recently it was generally recognized that all of the coastal States owned a belt of land beneath navigable waters adjacent to their coasts; and Whereas in 1947 the Supreme Court of the United States held that those lands were not owned by the States and that the Federal Government rather than the States has paramount rights in and power over the 3-mile belt of land; and Whereas the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court was to divest the States of valuable oil rights; and

Whereas State ownership of the 3-mile belt of land is not inconsistent with the Federal control necessary in the conduct of international affairs and Coast Guard activities: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Congress of the United States is respectfully memorialized to enact such legislation as will be necessary to restore the ownership of the 3-mile belt of land beneath navigable water adjacent to the coasts of the coastal States; and be it further

Resolved, That the chief clerk of the assembly is directed to transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative of a coastal State in the Congress of the United States.

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4-RELATIVE TO LANDS BENEATH THE NAVIGABLE WATERS ADJACENT TO THE COASTS OF COASTAL STATES

Whereas a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States refutes a long recognized claim of the coastal States to the 3-mile belt of land beneath the navigable waters adjacent to their coasts; and

Whereas the effect of this decision was to divest those States of valuable oil rights; and

Whereas ownership of such land by the coastal States would in no way interfere with Federal control necessary in the conduct of international affairs and Coast Guard activities; and

Whereas if it is possible for the Federal Government to secure the ownership of such lands on the basis of its contentions before the Supreme Court, there is a danger that the ownership of all State lands in other States as well as in the coastal States will be jeopardized; and

Whereas the legislature of the State of California, has, by resolution, memorialized the Congress of the United States to enact legislation necessary to restore this land to the State: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the legislatures of each of the States are urged to adopt a resolution similar to that of the California Legislature; and be it further

Resolved, That the legislature of each of the States is requested to transmit to the Legislature of California copies of any resolutions adopted or notice of any taken relative to the subject matter of this resolution; and be it fur

ther

Resolved, That the chief clerk of the assembly is directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to each of the legislative bodies of each of the States.

Mr. DOYLE. In closing, Mr. Chairman, may I reserve the right to file a short statement in addition to this brief statement by me? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed. The committee will be very glad to receive it.

(NOTE. The supplemental statement filed by Congressman Doyle appears in the appendixes.)

Mr. DOYLE. The resolution by the City Council of Long Beach, referred to, and the Harbor Board, referred to, on February 6, 1951, was incorporated by me with appropriate remarks by myself on February 13, 1951, at page A-774 in the Congressional Record Appendix. I wish again to renew my appreciation for the courtesy of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Doyle, as physical proof of the fact that your presentation to us last year has not been forgotten, I hold in my hand a copy of a photograph of Long Beach which you were good enough to present to the committee at the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 195 last year.

This photograph, an enlargement of which we also received and which I have sent for in order to be exhibited here, contains a representation of the line of demarcation fixed in the stipulation between the State of California and the Government of the United States. It also shows the limit of the bay as defined for the purposes of the cases of United States v. Carillo (13 Federal Supplement 121). It shows also a third line much further seaward running from Point Fermin to Newport Beach. This line cuts off a part of the city of Long Beach itself, and from my way of thinking would be utterly and completely unfair to the city of Long Beach.

I want the record to be clear, however, that nothing in this bill curtails, or fixes, I should probably say, the boundary of the inland navigable waters. The greatest care was taken in drafting the bill to make certain that it would not in any way fix that line. The fixing of the line will be made either by way of the decision of the Supreme Court after the Master's Report has been received or in permanent legislation eventually passed by the Congress.

I am sorry that the enlarged map is not present in the room, but I will hand this down the line so all the members of the committee may see it.

Mr. DOYLE. I wish to thank the chairman for that statement. I know, Mr. Chairman, you made a similar statement at the hearings before this committee last session of Congress when I questioned the propriety of that proposed line.

Senator LONG. Could I ask the witness whether the line here on the picture outside the proposed Government line

Mr. DOYLE. That, Senator Long, is the Federal breakwater.

Senator LONG. And I take it that the proposed line proposes to take for the Federal Government approximately half the land inside the breakwater-in fact possibly more than half.

Mr. DOYLE. More than half, Senator. Further, the fact is that the corporate limits of my city, which is a municipality under our State law and a city of first class, extend out at every point at least as far as the Federal breakwater and in two or three places slightly beyond the Federal breakwater; in other words, approximately 3 miles out.

With reference to what the chairman said, I call your attention to the fact that the Government proposed line here [indicating] is at Gaviola Avenue. That is the landward end, and leaves 3 miles and almost 4 miles of municipal beach and municipal water which could be leased by the Secretary of the Interior if he wanted to under this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Congressman, you are mistaken about that on two grounds. First, this line which is denominated the "proposed line" is only the line of the stipulation.

Mr. DOYLE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Govrnment has never proposed any such line. No person has made any representation to this committee to the effect that that should be the boundary line. It is not a proposed line. That line, according to all of the information I have received, was drawn in the stipulation merely for the purpose of putting on the landward side all of the wells that have been drilled there. It is my information that there is no well in the Long Beach Harbor on the seaward side of that line. But I have tried to make it clear that so far as the chairman of this committee is concerned, and I would judge from the expression of other members of the committee, there is nobody on this committee who even dreams that that line of the stipulation should be regarded as the boundary of the inland navigable waters. The boundary in my judgment must be much farther seaward. It certainly should not be permitted to cut off any part of the city of Long Beach. Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just urge to your attention very briefly two points on that.
Senator ANDERSON. Do you agree with that or not?

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, Mr. Senator.

Senator ANDERSON. What the chairman has just said?

Mr. DOYLE. I do. As far as I know, that is a fact.

Senator ANDERSON. Then why is it called the "Government proposed line"?

Mr. DOYLE. Well, that is the farthest south line, or the line out the farthest in our harbor which the Government is willing to accept. Senator ANDERSON. As part of the stipulation?

The CHAIRMAN. As part of the stipulation?

Mr. DOYLE. Manifestly, Mr. Chairman, at least the whole corporate limits of my city was an inland bay, and all these years-

The CHAIRMAN. My understanding about it, sir, was that that line was drawn not for the purpose of fixing a boundary but for the purpose of defining the line on the landward side of which were all of the wells that have been drilled. It was a line of convenience and not a line of determination of boundaries?

Senator SMATHER. Did the people of California propose that line there?

Mr. DOYLE. We did not.

Senator SMATHERS. Who proposed that line?

Mr. DOYLE. May I ask the city attorney?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. IRVING W. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I believe I should clarify this because of the lack of information. That is a Government proposed line. The Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court in the California case that they fix this segment of the California coast line as the final line of the inland waters at San Pedro Bay and ocean front at Long Beach. And the Attorney General for California, Mr. Mattoon, I am sure, will bear out and supplement that with documents.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, let the Chair interrupt so as to clarify again. Mr. Smith is testifying with respect to the lawsuit. Now what he says about the lawsuit is correct. I am talking about the legislation, and I want to make it as clear as clear can be that, so far as the sponsors of this legislation are concerned and according to my judgment as far as the committee is concerned, that line has never been drawn. It means nothing to us, and nothing in this bill is intended to fix that line or to control the right of the city of Long Beach to areas seaward of that line. We are taking nothing away from it in this legislation.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, may I make one brief observation though? Of course the fact that that was proposed by the Government in the lawsuit as the permanent line is the cause of fear on the part of our people.

The CHAIRMAN. Naturally. I can understand that and I am doing my best to allay that feeling.

Mr. DOYLE. One further point so that you realize that the city council and the harbor board have more than just ordinary causes of fear, and that is this: That within the last year the harbor department of my city asked the right of the Federal Government to dredge just adjacent to this proposed line, outside, for the purpose of getting land to fill a pier inside the proposed line, and the Federal Government refused the right of my city to dredge in our own municipal harbor contiguous to the Government proposed line to get land to fill a pier area within my corporate limits on the ground, Mr. Chairman, that the dredging would take place outside the Government proposed line in this lawsuit. And now, therefore, we come before you, as you realize, with the real ground, we feel, of fear. Furthermore, we are dead anxious to have that point clarified at the earliest possible date, and Senate Joint Resolution 20 doesn't, as the distinguished chairman said it couldn't, because it is an engineering problem.

But we again insist-and this will be my last statement-we again insist that the least that can be done, and I think the chairman has made it clear for the committee that there certainly should be no opposition to all the corporate limits in the city of Long Beach being understood to be exempted from any inclusion of less than an inland bay. Clearly it is an inland bay and should be exempted for purposes of legislation.

80859-51-8