LIST OF MR. ICKES' RULINGS THAT THE STATES ARE THE OWNERS OF SUBMERGED LANDS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES Submitted by Mr. William W. Clary 1. Decision of Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, dated December 22, 1933, rejecting Olin S. Proctor's application for oil and gas prospecting permit or lease under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "application"). 2. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office, dated April 18, 1934, rejecting applications of Cunningham, Rose, Mayhew & Vermilyea, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary of the Interior Ickes, October 4, 1934, 55 I. D. 1; affirmed on rehearing by the Secretary, November 28, 1934; prior action again affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, February 7, 1935. 3. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting applications of W. G. Clark and five others, September 18, 1934, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, February 7, 1935. 4. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of J. H. Dolan and A. M. Weirick and three others, October 23, 1934, and affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes on February 21, 1935. 5. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of F. Dewart, C. P. Ritter, and K. Weyant, April 4, 1935, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, October 24, 1935. 6. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of O. L. Dillman, September 27, 1935, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, March 12, 1936. 7. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of J. B. Primm, October 2, 1935, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, March 12, 1936. 8. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of E. L. Stanton, filed March 12, 1935. 9. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of W. H. Taylor, November 4, 1935, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, February 9, 1936. 10. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of S. K. Strickler and others, January 12, 1937. 11. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of Chester Mann, September 28, 1935, subsequently affirmed by the Secretary Ickes. 12. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of R. J. Clark, September 22, 1935, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, October 13, 1936. 13. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of C. A. Weigel and two others, November 18, 1936. 14. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of H. F. Jones and three others, October 26, 1936, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, April 9, 1937. 15. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of J. L. Griffith, March 23, 1937. 16. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of T. A. Johnson, September 25, 1937. 17. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting applications of G. G. Fisher and three others, September 8, 1937. 18. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting applications of F. E. Pendell and one other, June 25, 1936, affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, September 25, 1936; affirmed again on rehearing by decision of the Secretary Ickes, February 4, 1937. 19. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting applications of C. B. Reynolds, Jr., Myrtle A. McCurry, and two others, October 27, 1936; affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes on January 13, 1937. 20. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting application of Myrtle A. McCurry and two others, October 26, 1936; affirmed on appeal by the Secretary Ickes, 56 I. D. 60. 21. Decision of the Commissioner of General Land Office rejecting applications of Robert E. Lee Jordan and five others, June 8, 1937. In most of the above-mentioned decisions, written opinions were given both by the Land Commissioner and the Secretary, holding that submerged lands below high water mark were owned by the State and that no public land of the United States was involved. RESOLUTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS PROPOSED LONG BEACH, CALIF., BOARD OF REALTORS' RESOLUTION REGARDING SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 20 AND HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 131 DEALING WITH TIDELANDS Whereas Senate Joint Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131 are identical bills, introduced in the present Congress by Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney and Congressman Emanuel Celler respectively, and Whereas these resolutions purport merely to be interim proposals without effect on the final determination of the tidelands issue, and Whereas actually they would permit the Secretary of the Interior to issue new tideland oil and gas leases the later legal effects of which could seriously interfere with administration of the tidelands by the states when state ownership is affirmed by the Congress, and Whereas the Secretary of the Interior could, under these resolutions, authorize the placement of oil wells on the major portion of our city's public beach, and Whereas placing control of our public beach, our finest recreational asset, in a bureau far removed at Washington, D. C., would seriously jeopardize the future well-being and development of our city: Therefore be it now resolved: 1. That the Long Beach Board of Realtors oppose Senate Joint Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131, and 2. That copies of this resolution be sent to our United States Senators and Congressmen, as well as all members of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING S. J. RES. 20 AND H. J. RES. 131, AND PETITIONING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO DISAPPROVE EACH OF SAID PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS AND REJECT FAVORABLE ACTION THEREON Whereas under certain Acts of the Legislature of the State of California (Cal. Stats. 1911, p. 1256; Cal. Stats. 1917, p. 159; Cal. Stats. 1929, p. 1085), the State of California granted to the City of Los Angeles all of its right, title, and interest held by it by virtue of its sovereignty in and to all of the tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, situated below the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean within the corporate limits of said City, with certain exceptions; and Whereas said corporate limits of the City of Los Angeles extend into San Pedro Bay and Santa Monica Bay bordering the Pacific Ocean and three miles seaward from the mean high tide line and from the seaward limits of said bays; and Whereas the said City has reclaimed and filled large areas in both of said bays upon which port and harbor facilities and park and recreational improvements have been constructed by said City by the expenditure of many millions of dollars of public funds; and Whereas on July 26, 1947, a stipulation was entered into by Tom C. Clark, as Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of the State of California in the case of United States of America v. State of California, No. 12 original, in the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein it was stipulated that the United States of America does not claim in said litigation "that part of San Pedro Bay landward of a line drawn from Point Fermin in a northeasterly direction through a point 300 feet due south of the southeasterly extension of the Navy mole and breakwater to the line of ordinary low tide in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California," said area constitut ing inland waters of San Pedro Bay, and that said description of San Pedro Bay is "without prejudice of the right of California to claim" that the line separating said bay from the "three-mile marginal belt" lies farther seaward than the line therein described, and that said bay includes a larger water area than therein described; and Whereas a controversy exists between the State of California and the United States of America in said case as to whether that portion of San Pedro Bay lying seaward of said stipulated line is in the marginal sea or is to be classed as inland waters, and a controversy exists as to whether Santa Monica Bay is to be classed as inland waters or as a part of the marginal sea, the outcome of which controversy would affect the title of the City of Los Angeles in and to the submerged lands and reclaimed submerged lands in each of said bays lying within its corporate limits; and Whereas the City of Los Angeles has projected and planned future developments in each of said bays, especially in Santa Monica Bay, for public beach and recreational purposes; and Whereas Section 3 of S. J. Res. 20 and of H. J. Res. 131 (82d Congress, 1st Sess.) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate with the State of California respecting the issuance of new mineral leases covering the tidelands and submerged lands conveyed to the City of Los Angeles by the State, as aforesaid, outside the Government's stipulated bay line in San Pedro Bay and anywhere in Santa Monica Bay seaward of the ordinary low water line, all within the corporate limits of the City of Los Angeles, and that said authority includes the granting of mineral leases upon the filled public beach lands along the waterfront of the City of Los Angeles in San Pedro Bay seaward of said stipulated line and along the waterfront of Santa Monica Bay seaward of the ordinary low water line, all notwithstanding that the State of California heretofore conveyed said lands lying within the corporate limits of the City of Los Angeles to said City; and Whereas Section 4 of said S. J. Res. 20 and said H. J. Res. 131 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant oil and gas leases to qualified persons offering the highest bonus plus the payment of a royalty of not less than 121⁄2 percent on said tidelands and submerged lands referred to in the preceding paragraph and thus convert public beach areas of the City of Los Angeles into an oilfield, including oil well derricks, tanks, and production equipment, notwithstanding that said submerged and reclaimed submerged lands have been granted to the City by the State of California, and notwithstanding that all of said submerged and reclaimed submerged lands lie within the area contended by the State of California and the City of Los Angeles as being parts of San Pedro Bay and Santa Monica Bay, inland waters of the State of California, and notwithstanding that said areas of submerged and reclaimed submerged lands are presently in controversy as to whether or not the same are submerged lands or reclaimed submerged lands beneath navigable inland waters, in proceedings now pending before the United States Supreme Court, as heretofore stated; and Whereas the granting of the authority set forth in sections 3 and 4 of said proposed resolutions (S. J. Res. 20 and H. J. Res. 131) to the Secretary of the Interior, as heretofore stated, may result in the serious impairment of the rights and equities of the City of Los Angeles and its citizens in the ownership and control of said submerged and reclaimed submerged lands and may result in incalculable damage to said City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Los Angeles, as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Los Angeles does hereby record its opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131 (82d Congress, 1st Sess.) and petitions the Congress of the United States to disapprove each of said proposed resolutions and reject favorable action thereon. SEC. 2. That the City Attorney be and he is hereby authorized to transmit copies of this resolution to the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate and to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and to other Members of Congress. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Los Angeles at its meeting held on the 19th day of February, 1951. WALTER C. PETERSON, City Clerk. Hon. J. C. O'MAHONEY, HARBOR DISTRICT CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of resolution which was adopted at a meeting of the Harbor District Chambers of Commerce, held at Compton, January 26, 1951. Respectfully, CHAS. A. BLAND, Secretary, Long Beach, Calif. RESOLUTION OF THE HARBOR DISTRICT CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE IN CONNECTION WITH S. J. RES. 20 AND H. J. SES. 131 Whereas the Harbor District Chambers of Commerce have consistently favored legislation fully restoring to the States ownership of the marginal ocean belt surrounding the Nation's coasts; and Whereas S. J. Res. 20 and H. J. Res. 131, if passed, would endanger and delay legislation confirming States' rights in this matter; and Whereas these two resolutions would give the Secretary of the Interior authority over vital areas of the harbor district which would be contrary to the best interests of the district. The HARBOR DISTRICT CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE HEREBY RESOLVES to oppose vigorously S. J. Res. 20 and H. J. Res. 131 and to notify the authors of those resolutions, Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney and Congressman Emanuel Celler, as well as Senator William F. Knowland, Senator Richard M. Nixon, and Congressman Clyde Doyle of this action. Authorized by the Board of Directors of the Harbor District Chamber of Commerce at their meeting January 26, 1951. Senator JOSEPH O'MAHONEY, MARINE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR O’MAHONEY: On January 26, 1951, the Harbor District Chambers of Commerce approved and sent to you a resolution opposing Senate Joint Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131. The Marine Association of Commerce concurs most heartily in this action, and subsequently our board of directors, at its meeting on February 27, 1951. endorsed the resolution as drawn by the Harbor District Chambers of Commerce. Due to circumstances beyond our control, it has been impossible to forward the endorsement of the resolution to you before this time. Although we understand that Senate Joint Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131, as written, will not be presented, it is the desire of the Marine Association of Commerce to go on record as opposed to such legislation. Kindest regards. Respectfully yours, W. D. SPICER, Executive Secretary. RESOLUTION OF THE MARINE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE IN CONNECTION WITH SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 20 AND HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 131 Whereas the Marine Association of Commerce has consistently favored legislation fully restoring to the States ownership of the marginal ocean belt surrounding the Nation's coast; and Whereas Senate Joint Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131, if passed, would endanger and delay legislation confirming States' rights in this matter; and Whereas these two resolutions would give the Secretary of the Interior authority over vital areas of the harbor district which would be contrary to the best interests of the district: The Marine Association of Commerce hereby resolves to oppose vigorously Senate Joint Resolution 20 and House Joint Resolution 131 and to notify the authors of those resolutions, Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney and Congressman Emanuel Celler, as well as Senator William F. Knowland, Senator Richard M. Nixon, Congressman Clyde Doyle, and Congressman Cecil King, of this action. Authorized by the board of directors of the Marine Association of Commerce at their meeting February 27, 1951. Senator JOSEPH O'MAHONEY, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 21, 1951. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Please carefully read propositions of fact, law, sound business, and politics presented in my telegram of August 20, 1950, printed, page 361, August hearings. Also carefully read Senator Hill's statement endorsing Attorney General of Alabama's opinion, Congressional Record A-57, June 6, 1950. All doctrines law of trespass and court decisions in law and equity make it unconscionable for Congress to even consider rewarding willful trespassers. To do so would please Stalin more than any other act because it would prove his charges that our Government is dominated by privileged few contrary to best interests of all citizens, small businessmen, and majority of oil industry. Every possible consideration and protection should be given to honest applicants upon merits based on existing laws and equitable claims capable of allowance and confirmation supplemented by additional authority and direction. If any resolution or legislation to be enacted Government not entitled to loyalty and support of citizens if Congress seeks only to reward trespassers and give no recognition and protection to citizens honestly trying to comply with law and upholding integrity and principle, Government's title and rights. Congress and Interior and Justice should be completely disgusted with tactics of trespassers who continue to defy and slander Government officials after all Supreme Court decisions and totally unwarranted strained claims for equitable consideration indubitably in conflict with either justice or equity or honest sound governmental conduct. GEO. B. BUSH, Formerly Legislative Counsel, State of California. FEBRUARY 19, 1951. Hon. JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: With reference to the Tidelands Oil case now being heard in committee, I am taking the privilege of writing you, as chairman of the committee, that laws now in existence are being disregarded by our Secretary of the Interior. Paragraph 8 of your resolution (S. J. 20) should read that applications for prospecting permits or leases filed prior to August 21, 1935, should be excepted from any new provision of the bill. I beg you that this paragraph be made part of the record and would appreciate a copy of the hearings. Sincerely yours, W. A. ENSTROM, Room 2260, Board of Trade Building, Chicago, Ill. Senator JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 19, 1951. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: I have been following your tideland legislation, Senate Joint Resolution 20, which tends to nullify the Leasing Act of February 25, 1920. I think this law is applicable to the 3-mile belt off the coast of California and suggest you place those lands under the leasing law of 1920 and impound the gross proceeds of oil and gas taken from those lands until the courts have had time to decide the matter. It is my understanding there are several suits now pending in the courts of the District of Columbia. Please make this part of your record and mail me a copy of the hearings when they are ready for distribution. Thanking you, I am Very truly yours, RUSSELL E. FORD. |