WEST LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 21, 1951. INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

Your committee immediately should launch a sweeping investigation of the dereliction of both California and Federal officials who have aided trespassing oil companies to flaunt and evade existing law and thus rob the Federal Treasury of untold millions. This a public scandal dwarfing teapot dome. This lawbreaking group included Howser, Krug, and Clark, who signed the stipulation continuing this robbery, such stipulation having been repudiated by the United States Supreme Court. Mastin White, and Sheridan Downey are also tied into this monstrous conspiracy and any interim legislation would serve only to perpetuate and whitewash these illegal acts. If the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 does not apply to these submerged lands which the Supreme Court has declared to be part of the public domain wherein does that act exclude these lands and under what Federal Law are those oil companies now operating? Please include this wire in your record of this hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 20.

THOMAS F. FORD, Former Member of Congress, Fourteenth District, Calif.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 17, 1951.

Senator JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY,

Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I understand that hearings are in progress on your Senate Joint Resolution No. 20.

May I respectfully suggest that your honorable committee consider the placing of all submerged tidelands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.

This Department can efficiently handle the development of the submerged lands without the necessity of creating an additional Federal bureau.

In the event it is impossible to finally dispose of this problem, may I respectfully suggest that a Federal receiver be appointed to take charge of the tidelands and impound all income until the Supreme Court has finally disposed of this problem.

DEAR SENATOR: The considerations of your committee in the tidelands oil dispute is attracting considerable attention. I have followed their deliberations with interest and it seems to me that we do not need legislation to try and nullify the decision of the United States Supreme Court which has ruled that the Federal Government has paramount rights over the submerged oil reserves. In our democratic form of government the decisions of this Court have been respected and considered final.

The national emergency demands that these reserves be developed, and it would seem to be the part of wisdom to authorize the Interior Department to authorize new leases for oil operations in the submerged areas and to have those worked which have previously been made.

There is such a division of opinion about the position to be taken by the California Congress delegation by State and city officials that the issue could be long-drawn out and detrimental to our national defense.

I believe your committee is correct in its action in that the ownership of the tidelands has been established by the Supreme Court of the United States, and it would appear that the States would have no claim to the oil and mineral

production and revenue therefrom unless claim had been filed with the Federal Government prior to the decision. I have appreciated very much the reports which you sent me, and your recognition of my views in this matter.

Very sincerely,

E. W. PERRYMAN.

Hon. JOSEPH. C. O'MAHONEY,

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 19, 1951.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Referring to our telephone conversation: it seems unnecessary for me to appear in view of your desire to preserve the principle of section 8. However if Federal applicants' position is attacked we could show among other things that Federal applicants as against California State lessees deserve as much or more consideration by Congress. As testified last August State lessees have no legal right. Also we believe no equities as against Federal applicants because where controversy exists applications were filed first before important value and were of record when State lessees subsequently entered on same lands. Furthermore on cut-off date, June 1947, in contrast to Gulf coast situation, California offshore production had exceeded 143 million barrels from relatively nominal initial investment repaid years ago as proceeds from sale of controversial oil supplied bulk of development cost and account for huge profit. We assume good faith on both sides but believe that citizens who made prior valid applications with the correct owner and lawfully maintained same, and who have sustained important out-of-pocket expenses defending their position have a more deserving equity than those who made an honest mistake in operating with some notice on a bad title from a lessor who did not own the land, and who because of their mistake may be required by the courts to retire with a profit limited to only that made on more than 143 million barrels of questionably produced oil.

I have no figures as of June 23, 1947, but California State Lands Commission figures indicate cumulative production from offshore wells on January 1, 1947, as 143,808,402 barrels from four fields: Rincon, Capitan, Elwood, and Huntington Beach.

Senator JOSEPH O'MAHONEY,

W. W. PORTER.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 20, 1951.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR O'MAHONEY: Regarding Senate Joint Resolution 20 now being considered before your committee, it is my personal conviction that this resolution is unnecessary because the lands in question fall under the United States Leasing Act of February 25, 1920.

I have therefore taken the liberty of addressing this letter to you and I would appreciate it if you would make this letter a part of the record and send me a copy of the hearings when they are ready for distribution.

Yours very truly,

GEORGE D. ROWAN.

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY,

BATON ROUGE, LA., February 15, 1951.

Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D. C.: Re tel February 12 regarding hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 20: My present plan is not to attend and make statement, particularly if hearing shall be limited to new material. I presume that former testimony on issue will be made a part of the contemplated hearing. My position is clearly shown in my prior testimony. The appearance of other Louisiana witnesses will be a matter of their discretion.

BOLIVAR E. KEMP, Jr., Attorney General.

Senator JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY,

AUSTIN, TEX., February 21, 1951

Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

In testimony before your committee yesterday Solicitor General Philip B. Perlman questioned Congress' authority to restore tideland ownership to the States. This testimony is directly contrary to previous testimony of Mr. Perlman and is in direct conflict with a statement made by Mr. Perlman to the Supreme Court of the United States on August 18, 1950. Solicitor General Perlman testified before your committee that Congress has the power to restore this property to the States, as shown by page 211 of the printed report of committee hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 195, on May 9, 1949. While arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States, in answer to a question by Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Periman said, "Oh, yes, Congress could give whatever title it has, whatever rights it has, to the States. It could settle it that way. It can only settle it one way, and that is by giving everything to the States, everything that this Court has said belongs to the United States." This is shown on pages 6-7 of the transcript of the argument. This is only another example of the contradicition and double-talk by Federal officials who have waged the fight to take away lands which have been claimed and enjoyed by the States for over 100 years. I would appreciate your insertion of this telegram in the record of the present hearings so that Mr. Perlman's previous testimony may be compared with his testimony yesterday. The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. California makes it clear that Congress does have the power to restore this property to the States. I refer especially to the following quotation from the opinion. "Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution vests in Congress power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. We have said that the constitutional power of Congress in this respect is without limitation. United States v. San Francisco (310 U. S. 16, 29–30). Thus neither the courts nor the executive agencies, could proceed contrary to an act of Congress in this congressional area of national power."

Sincerely,

PRICE DANIEL, Attorney General of Texas.

SMOOT DEVELOPMENT CO.,

Hon. JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY,

Salt Lake City, Utah, February 16, 1951.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I received your wire regarding Senate Joint Resolution 20, and I want to express our appreciation of the fair and statesmanlike way you are handling this intricate problem.

Paragraph VIII, which protects the Federal applicants in the marginal sea area in the event the courts hold the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act applies to the marginal sea area, is the only new matter contained in the resolution. Naturally, there will be a vigorous effort to eliminate paragraph VIII from the resolution and as we are vitally interested in this phase of the problem, I would like to set out briefly for the record the reasons why paragraph VIII should definitely remain in the resolution. The reasons are:

1. It was through the efforts of the Federal applicants that the United States first became cognizant of its rights in the marginal sea area. The applicants continued to urge Secretary Ickes to commence an action to determine who actually controlled the marginal sea. In this way and through the efforts of the applicants the rights of the United States were finally established.

2. The Federal applicants, during this whole controversy, have consistently complied with the laws laid down by Congress and the rules and regulations laid down by the Department of the Interior. Their only request has been to have their day in court, and under our American system of fair play their day in court should not be denied them.

Most of the testimony in the congressional hearings has been directed toward granting equity to the State lessees. Yet it was these State lessees who have denounced the Supreme Court, claimed the Government has stolen the tidelands from the State and continuously misrepresent this problem as a tideland question, when there is not one foot of Tidelands involved. As shown by the late

California State reports, recently released, the State lessees have taken in excess of 100 million barrels of oil from the marginal sea. There would be a net profit of at least $70,000,000 from this oil taken, and as they were trespassers knowing of the claims of the United States, it seems that they have been given more than a fair deal.

The applicants have made no profit and have been before the courts and Congress for the last 15 years in an effort to establish their rights.

There are a number of cases brought by the applicants now before the Federal courts to determine if the Mineral Leasing Act applies to the marginal sea area. A decision will shortly be reached. If the courts hold that the Mineral Leasing Act does not apply to the marginal sea then the applicants are definitely out forever, but if the courts hold that the Mineral Leasing Act does apply to the Marginal Sea, then surely the applicants' rights should be preserved.

There can be no sound argument against paragraph VIII and we sincerely petition that paragraph VIII remain as a part of S. J. Res. 20.