1948: Frank O. Sether, assistant commissioner of public lands.

1949: Arthur B. Langlie, Governor; Smith Troy, attorney general. 1950: Smith Troy, attorney general.

West Virginia

1945: Ira J. Partlow, attorney general.

1946: James Kay Thomas, assistant attorney general.

1948: Clarence W. Meadors, Governor; Ira J. Partlow, attorney general.

Wisconsin

1939: Common Council, city of Milwaukee, resolution.

1945: John E. Martin, attorney general; Harry C. Brockel, port manager, city of Milwaukee; C. W. Babcock, city attorney, Milwaukee.

1946: Walter S. Goodland, Governor; Harry C. Brockel, port manager, city of Milwaukee.

1948: Oscar Rennebohm, Governor; John E. Martin, attorney general; John Bohn, mayor, Milwaukee; Mrs. Walter J. Mattison, city attorney, Milwaukee; Harry C. Brockel, port director, city of Milwaukee; commissioners, city of Milwaukee.

Wyoming

1945: Louis J. O'Marr, attorney general. 1948: Lester C. Hunt, Governor.

Mr. BEELER. I want to join General Fatzer in expressing to you gentlemen my appreciation for being permitted to appear here and read his paper and throw a rock or two on behalf of States' rights. Thank you very much.

Senator CORDON. Is it satisfactory with the members of the committee to continue our hearing until noon? It may be that Senator Holland has further presentations to be made by those who have come from a considerable distance, and it would aid them in their plans to return home.

Without objection, we will continue the hearing until noon.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, Attorney General Edmond G. Brown of California, who is vice chairman of the Submerged Lands Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, is here, and he tells me that his statement will be very short. I believe we can dispose of that before lunch.

Senator CORDON. We will hear from you now, Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF EDMOND G. BROWN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBMERGED LANDS COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL

Mr. BROWN. My name is Edmond G. Brown. I am the attorney general of the State of California. I am authorized by the Governor of our State to make this statement to your committee. In doing so, I present the united position of the Governor, the State legislature, and I believe it was the unanimous vote, although there may have been one or two dissenting, in a joint resolution presented by the Senate and the Assembly of California, the office of attorney general, the State director of finance, and our State controller.

We favor the adoption of the so-called Holland bill which was enacted and received executive veto in May of last year.

I have shortened my statement in consideration of the expressed

desire for brevity, and I shall not repeat any of the former presentations made by the State of California.

I wish it to be definitely understood, however-and upon this I place emphasis that the State of California is not primarily concerned over the financial revenues involved. With an almost immeasurable growth during the past decade or more, reaching a population of over 11 million souls, and with over 40,000 coming to our State each month to find homes within our boundaries, our problems are great. With an annual budget of over a billion and a quarter dollars, every source of revenue is important. However, the approximately $10 million per annum which we receive from revenues derived from our submerged lands does not constitute our primary concern. True, it contributes most helpfully to the purposes to which our laws apportion it which include funds for our State public beaches and parks, our veterans' dependents' educational fund, and moneys which find their place in our State contributions to general education.

The thing which concerns our State in this problem is the basic matter of high principle involved. We are deeply concerned over the property rights of our State which were recognized and respected for a century of time-and it is this principle upon which we stand, as does almost every State throughout our Nation, both interior and coastal. California, with its 1,100 miles of coast line, which include some 2,000,000 acres of submerged lands, has a fine record of management under its State lands commission.

In our State, both Democrats and Republicans have joined in defense of this principle-without regard to any party considerations. This has also been true of our representation in the Congress. It has likewise been demonstrated in the sponsorship of the Holland bill, which is now before this committee. We believe, and we trust, that this spirit of united effort in support of this measure should and will be effectuated by the action of the committee.

We are not unmindful of the problems of other States, some of which extend beyond their historic boundaries. We are not to be understood as disparaging these problems, nor as turning our backs upon them. We believe that this problem also requires solution. We speak at this time in support of Senate Joint Resolution 13, sponsored by Senator Holland and his 39 associate Senators, and trust that this issue may receive favorable action by your committee here assembled. Senator CORDON. Is there any question by any member of the committee?

If not, thank you very much, General Brown.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me that perhaps if Senator Anderson wishes to question this witness as to assertion by his own State of title by the State to offshore lands by various measures, this might be a good occasion for him to do so.

Mr. BROWN. I might say in that connection that Mr. Everett W. Mattoon and the members of the State lands commission will be in attendance throughout these entire hearings, and if there is any way that we can add to the solution of legal problems involved, we will be very happy to do so. Mr. Mattoon is here now.

Senator ANDERSON. Would you be willing to state for us what the Legislature of California did in 1949 with reference to changes in its boundaries?

Mr. BROWN. I was elected attorney general in 1950 and took office in 1951, but I believe that they passed a resolution extending their— I want to be correct about it.

Senator ANDERSON. Extending their boundaries to the outermost reefs of the outermost islands in a straight line drawn between them. STATEMENT OF EVERETT W. MATTOON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MATTOON. The Senator is correct in that. The legislature adopted an enactment in 1949 which announced that the legislature was endeavoring to give more precise definitions to the boundaries of California as set forth in section 21 of our constitution, and in so doing it included the areas out to the outermost edges of our offshore islands. At that time, as is well known to this committee, there was pending in the International Court of Justice at The Hague, the Anglo-Norwegian case, in which a similar issue was involved. That issue was decided on December 18, 1951, as I recall it.

In that decision, the International Court of Justice approved and sanctioned the claims of Norway to the area of water between their offshore islands, rocks, islets, and so forth, which in Norwegian they call the "shaegaard." They sanctioned the claims of Norway to that entire area as being properly within its jurisdiction, which we believe furnished approval of what our California Legislature did in 1949. Senator ANDERSON. If the same expansion to some 50 miles from the coast was indulged in by the Republic of Mexico, would it have any effect upon the California fishing industry?

Mr. MATTOON. Well, we are very proud of our fishing industry— Senator ANDERSON. I realize that.

Mr. MATTOON. They are doing all right.

Senator ANDERSON. You are proud of everything that California has, and justly so, I am sure; but what would it do to the fishing industry of Mexico if you put your boundaries out 50 miles into the ocean and said "you shall not fish here"?

Mr. MATTOON. We have not exerted that control over this area. Senator ANDERSON. No; but you must be planning to do it or you would not have expanded to 50 miles. Was that not the purpose of it?

Mr. MATTOON. No. The purpose was to define the boundaries of our State.

Senator ANDERSON. They had not theretofore been defined?
Mr. MATTOON. In the constitution, yes.

Senator ANDERSON. What were they in the constitution?

Mr. MATTOON. The constitution followed somewhat this languageI can give you the exact langauge if I may be permitted to get the document. It followed the coast line 3 miles out from shore and included all ports, harbors, and bays, and the islands adjacent to the

coast.

Senator ANDERSON. Did California come into the Union without a single foot of public land?

Mr. BROWN. Yes; it did.

Mr. MATTOON. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. Does it have some public land now?

Mr. MATTOON. We have our school lands, and our in lieu lands, as I think you have, two sections in each township, and so forth.

Mr. BROWN. We also have the inland waters, whether they are public lands or not.

Mr. MATTOON. Those, of course, were reserved by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in the California case.

Senator ANDERSON. You said you were impressed by the Norwegian case. Is your coast line similar to the Norwegian coast? Is it rugged and broken with fiords, or anything similar to fiords?

Mr. MATTOON. We prepared, that is, the engineers in our State lands commission prepared a chart showing the extent of the inland waters, or they call it "internal waters" in the Norwegian case, which were approved by the decision of the International Court of Justice, and overlaid that upon this definition of boundaries which you have mentioned. Our boundaries fell well within those which were sanctioned by the International Court for Norway. In other words, Norway's were more extensive than California's.

Senator ANDERSON. But is the coast comparable?

Mr. MATTOON. Yes. That all appeared in the evidence which we presented, and the distances were given. The distances in Norway between even rocks and island in one instance was 44 and a fraction miles. I would say they are very comparable.

Senator ANDERSON. The Norwegian Government did this to try to protect its fishing industry?

Mr. MATTOON. There had been a long dispute between Norway and Great Britain.

Senator ANDERSON. Therefore, California was operating in the same field, then?

Mr. MATTOON. No; there was no connection between the fishing industry in California and its definition of boundaries.

Senator ANDERSON. I thought in the original statement you said there was; that the Norwegian fishing case called this to your attention.

Mr. MATTOON. The boundaries: I say the boundaries concerned in the Norwegian case very definitely brought it to our attention. Senator ANDERSON. Then the extension of the boundaries was done because of the Norwegian situation?

Mr. MATTOON. Not on the ground of fishing: no.

Senator ANDERSON. I did not ask on what ground it was.

Senator KUCHEL. The fact is that the legislative act by the legisla tive branch of the government of California preceded the decision in the Norway case. Is that not the fact?

Mr. MATTOON. Preceded the decision: ves.

Mr. BROWN. The case was pending at the time.

Senator ANDERSON. Surely.

Mr. MATTOON. The case was well known and was followed very closely and very carefully. As a matter of fact, if I may add this, Mr. Senator, the Federal Government stated in its briefs that they felt that the situation was quite comparable and that the decision in the Norway case would have a very definite effect upon the decision on California's boundaries.

Mr. Br. wx. I think the committee should know that the Californ'a case is still pending before the Supreme Court. The report of ↑

special master has been made, but exceptions have been filed by both the attorney general's office of the State of California, and the Attorney General's office of the United States, the Solicitor General. So the question

Senator ANDERSON. It is pending, but has not something been done by the special master? Did he not hold that it was 3 miles outside and not this 50-mile limit?

Mr. BROWN. That is correct.

Senator ANDERSON. Now you come back to the conflict with the Federal Government on this, do you not?

Mr. BROWN. Come back into conflict?

Senator ANDERSON. Yes; because the special master, if the Supreme Court adopts that decree, would hold 3 miles out from low tide; but California would say, "Those are not our boundaries. We go out 50 miles."

Mr. BROWN. I do not believe that is an issue in the case before the Supreme Court at the present time.

Senator KUCHEL. May I interrupt you, General?

Mr. BROWN. Certainly.

Senator KUCHEL. Senator, I want to be sure we understand one another with respect to the action of the government of California. Because of your suggestion of a 50-mile contention and my understanding that it was merely 3, there is a little confusion in my mind about just what the facts are. As I understand the situation, the government of California found itself under a Supreme Court decision where paramount rights on what it had previously believed to be its own were lodged in the Federal Government. Obviously we had property in a number of instances, the islands along the California coast, which were part of the State of California, paid taxes, belonged to counties and to school districts, and I think that the intent of the legislature in 1949 was merely to contend that a constitutional 3-mile limit would extend farther seaward from the islands offshore.

Rightly or wrongly, the State was endeavoring by that action to contend that its boundary lines would extend in that distance 3 miles seaward of those islands, and I imagine that your thought of a 50mile radius would be from the mainland of California out 3 miles seaward of the farthest island off the coast. Is that not where your 50-mile thought comes in?

Senator ANDERSON. Yes, that is correct. That is what I had in mind.

The reason I mention it is that I am somewhat interested in what the international complications are going to be. I think we will find out that if States begin to extend their boundaries 50 miles from what has been customarily regarded as the shoreline, then other countries will have a right to extend their boundaries, which could very quickly upset the entire arrangement of treaties for international fisheries. This is of very vital importance to the New England States because, if Newfoundland can start to sweep its boundaries out 3 miles beyond the edge of the outermost island, then the New England fishing fleet is in some distress.

Senator KUCHEL, I am inclined to agree.

Senator ANDERSON. I think the California fishing fleet is too.