At the present time, there are movements to attempt to get other nations in South America to adopt the Peruvian view. In the Ecuadoran case there were two things in their consideration: No. 1. The denial of innocent passage to fishing vessels; and No. 2, and probably of even greater importance, is the fact that they have claimed 12 miles of territorial waters, but the method by which they have done it is the thing that is of importance. They have drawn a line, a so-called baseline, from the mainland to and around LaPlata Island, for instance, and back to the mainland. That actually gives them from 27 to 30 miles of water which we consider the high seas.

Senate Joint Resolution 13 in effect would permit that type of thing as far as the States were concerned, because in it it says that within inland waters are all channels, estuaries, and all other bodies of water which join the open sea. That might appear to be a technical distinction that we are making or that we are quibbling about technicalties. I can assure you that Ecuador will find great aid and comfort from that particular statement made in that way, because certainly it is a channel which exists between La Plata Island and the Ecuadoran coast.

Senator KUCHEL. Does your Norwegian Fisheries decision shed any light upon the authority of a nation to extend its boundaries? Is there anything in that decision which might differentiate between what Ecuador has done and what Peru has done on the one hand, and what is sought here to be done in this bill?

Mr. REAL. We find nothing in the Anglo-Norwegian decision that would justify any nation in now expanding any claims previously made or, as a matter of fact, in initiating a new claim which would exceed the traditional 3-mile concept. I mean, that is with respect to nations who have never said whether it is 3 or 12, as far as they are concerned. The Norwegian case should be applied and was applied by the Court to the Norwegian coast, which had some 120,000 land formations away from its coast, islands, and islets. That certainly cannot be compared to any sparsely isled coast such as we may have in the United States. There are probably very few places in the world that have such a comparable coast. Maybe the tip of Chile is one of them.

Nevertheless, throughout the opinion in the Anglo-Norwegian case there was constant reference-I have it here, if the Senator cares to see them to the peculiar geography of the Norwegian coast, and the fact that there were these 130,000 islands and islets off the coast. The Court believed that that gave Norway some reason for including all those little islands within the coast; that plus the historical argument, the history of the assumption of jurisdiction for well over 120 or 130 years in that intervening water.

Senator MILLIKIN. I regret that I was not able to be here at the beginning of your talk. May I ask what is your point?

Mr. REAL. Our point, Senator, is that we do not oppose the giving or the return, as the case may be, of the submerged lands to the States. We oppose the portions of the legislation, of Senate Joint Resolution 13, which would do two things: No. 1, it would in effect change the United States position by saying that Congress could, if it wanted to, allow a State to claim more than 3 miles. That would mean that the United States then could, if it wanted to, change its traditional 3-mile

ption. We do not feel that the United States should do that even f t could.

That first question, the legal question, has not yet been fully answered. The reason that we do not is because it will then become a Iarty to these expansionist claims that are being made throughout the world with respect to territorial seas. We think the United States position should be an ultraconservative one, because it may be faced with the task of having to bargain these questions at some kind of council table. It certainly would not want to start out with a wide lam or being a party to an expansionist move, because I do not nk there is any question that it is in the best interests of the United States policy, being a leading maritime nation or the leading maritire nation, that we advocate a policy of containment with respect to this particular question.

Senator HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question at this pont, because I think the witness unduly limited his statement that e has just made to the Senator from Colorado?

As I have understood the witness' previous position, it applies to the return of the coastal margin, the marginal lands, out to the State undaries, which the witness has spoken of as 3 nautical miles, relating not only to the bottom but also to the waters and everything contated within that marginal belt. Is that correct?

Mr. REAL. We want in this legislation that matter limited. We do Tot hope or want in this legislation, for instance, to foreclose the claim. of Texas that they have a 3-league boundary. The amendment which we would propose to make would not foreclose Texas from continuing to urge that position. We do not feel that the Texas position should be settled in this particular legislation because of what that would do, Senator. It would say that the United States policy has been changed, because the United States policy to this date has never said our territorial waters are 3 miles except in the case of Texas.

Senator HOLLAND. I do not think the witness caught my point. In his most recent answer to the Senator from Colorado, Senator Millikin, he spoke of his testimony having approved the return or grant, whichever it might be, to the States of the lands within the coastal belt extending out 3 nautical miles. I understood his previous testimony to cover not only the lands but also the waters and everything contained

in them.

Mr. REAL. I am sorry, Senator, that is the case.

Senator HOLLAND. I did not want the record to show the limitation. which his most recent statement put upon it. I am correct in my understanding?

Mr. REAL. Yes. It is correct that we do not oppose the return to the States within 3 nautical miles, the return of the subsoil resources, the water itself, the things in the water and the jurisdiction of the water. We might have some question with respect to the return or the granting to the States any authority over navigation, but that is not a point at issue here.

Senator HOLLAND. That of course is reserved to the United States under this bill?

Mr. REAL. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. And under the Constitution?

Mr. REAL. That is right, sir. We do not need to talk about that.

Senator MILLIKIN. Then what is your point of departure in the theory of California and Texas?

Mr. REAL. In the theory of California our point of departure is that this bill should not permit the drawing of the line from which territorial waters are to be measured from mainland to and around the outer edges of islands as these exist in California. We believe that the United States policy with respect to that should be as it is now, which is that the line will hug its features except in the case of certain coastal indentations to which special rules are applied.

Senator MILLIKIN. How about Texas?

Mr. REAL. With respect to Texas we do not believe that this legislation should in effect ratify and approve Texas' claim that it has jurisdiction over 3 leagues out into the Gulf. We believe that that question should be saved, and our amendments would save it, for later discussion either in litigation or in legislation.

Senator CORDON. Please proceed.

Mr. REAL. We have just talked about the reason why the fishing industry should be protected.

What Dr. Chapman says of the United States fishery is equally true of the fishing industry of other nations. Migratory fish have no nationality, and fishermen of all nations must follow them to the waters off the coasts of many other countries. In many instances these fish migrate off the coasts of nations who have not progressed to the point of being able to adequately harvest them. These nations, led by a shortsighted policy of opportunism, have seen more advantage in the process of presently taxing the efforts of the fishermen of other countries than in retaining for themselves the future opportunity of fishing off the coasts of other nations when, and if, they too should become a fishing nation. Accordingly they have expanded their claims to territorial waters as far as 200 miles to sea, and if they can do this with impunity there is no reason why they cannot go farther. Such nations would receive considerable aid and comfort from any efforts on the part of the United States to expand its own territorial waters.

Senator CORDON. May I interrupt to ask what nations have sought to expand their national limits 200 miles to sea?

Mr. REAL. Peru for one. I have those, Senator, and can either give them to you in a supplemental memorandum or look for them right

now.

Senator CORDON. I would prefer that you furnish a supplemental memorandum.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you want to take a look at the list here and see if that meets your question?

(Document was handed to the witness.)

Senator CORDON. For my purposes, if you could present a memorandum in which you discuss it, it might be better than a tabulated statement because we would get the facts with reference to what action was taken by what body, and so forth.

Mr. REAL. This memorandum does tabulate them and does set forth the claim as being a claim, but there were certain differentiations between them which are quite important to note.

Senator ANDERSON. Why do you not file a memorandum?

Mr. REAL. I will do that.

Senator CORDON. Please do that.

Mr. REAL. For the reasons given above by Dr. Chapman, the United States has an obligation to its own fishing industry to prevent maritime aggression by others. In its role as a world leader, it owes a like obligation to other fishing nations. It cannot fulfill these obligations by attempts to expand its own claims, no matter how subtly they be disguised.

The statements we made as to the effects elsewhere of a United States policy extending territorial-waters claims even to the slightest degree are not in any way speculative or unlikely. Our fears are realistic and proof of this lies in the happenings of the last few years. The position taken by the United States in many world matters is often cand sometimes intentionally) misunderstood. When the Presidential proclamation regarding the Continental Shelf was issued in 1945, it caused a rash of new worldwide claims. Within 5 years approximately 20 nations issued similar proclamations, as unquestionably they had the right to do, but in the case of several Latin American nations the proclamations included extension of actual sovereignty over sea areas as far as 200 miles. I will file the supplemental memorandum showing which nations.

Senator CORDON. May I interrupt the witness for a moment and call to the attention of the members of the committee and let the record show that beginning on page 507 of the submerged lands hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 20, the 1st session of the 82d Congress, there is a discussion of the matter of national claims in adjacent seas by the Witness S. Whittemore Boggs from the State Department, and in that discussion on page 511 is a table along the lines of the inquiry here as to the nations which have asserted additional extraterritorial claims in the open sea and the extent of them.

Please go ahead.

Mr. REAL. Will that relieve me, Senator, of the burden of submitting the supplement?

Senator CORDON. The committee would be pleased to have any additional supplemental statement that you would make for us. I think the matter is pertinent here and of some importance.

Mr. REAL. I will be very glad to do that, sir.
(The statement to be presented is as follows:)

FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF SAN PEDRO,
San Pedro, Calif., February 27, 1953.

Senator GUY CORDON,

(kairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: As per your request we are herewith filing a supplemental statement setting forth the territorial waters claims made by Latin American nations after the issuance of the Presidential proclamation of September 28, 1945. Thank you for the courtesies extended when we appeared before your

committee.

Very truly yours,

FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION.
JOHN J. REAL, Manager.

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REAL

During our appearance before the committee, the chairman requested that we fe a supplemental statement setting forth the claims of Latin American nations to expanded sovereignty over the high seas.

ar pint in t' is connection is that any movement by the United States with respect to territorial waters is closely watched by other nations, partic

those of Latin America. Unquestionably the tendency of those nations is to find a way to expand their own claims. Many times what the United States says on this subject is misunderstood. Sometimes such misunderstanding appears to be intentional. When the Presidential proclamation of September 28, 1945, respecting ownership of the Continental Shelf sea-bed resources was issued, a rash of claims, which went far beyond the stated limitations of the Presidential proclamation, were made.

It is our suggestion that a more complete and detailed study of what these claims were and what the United States has done about them should be requested by this committee from the Department of State. Our information indicates the following claims made on the heels of the Presidential proclamation.

Mexico: On October 29, 1945, the President of Mexico published a declaration in which he claimed the whole Continental Shelf adjacent to the coasts of Mexico.

Panama: In 1946 the constitution of Panama was amended to provide that the national territory of Panama includes the submarine Continental Shelf.

Chile: On June 23, 1947, Chile proclaimed national sovereignty over the adjacent Continental Shelf and its natural resources.

Peru: On August 1, 1947, Peru issued a decree in which it was declared that the national sovereignty and jurisdiction of Peru was extended over the continental or island submarine shelf.

Costa Rica: In 1948 Costa Rica issued a proclamation substantially similar to that of Chile.

Nicaragua: In 1950 Nicaragua provided that the national territory of Nicaragua includes the Continental Shelf and the marine and island shelves.

El Salvador: In the 1950 constitution of El Salvador the national territory of that country was declared to include the adjacent seas within a distance of 200 nautical miles of its coasts.

Honduras: In 1951 Honduras declared that its sovereignty was extended over the continental and island shelves.

Ecuador: Ecuador has under consideration at the present time the proposition of whether or not it should follow Peru and Chile. Ecuador has declared that its present jurisdiction extends 12 miles from a line drawn from headland to island to headland. In some instances this brings under Ecuadorian jurisdiction waters within 25 to 30 miles from its beaches. Ecuador has also declared that the right of innocent passage does not exist in favor of fishing vessels.

Argentina, Brazil, and lately, Venezuela, have made claims similar to those set forth above.

In all of the foregoing cases the claims purported to assimilate, in one manner or another, adjacent sea areas to national control. The United States Presidential proclamation did not do this and therefor in most, if not all, of the foregoing cases the United States Department of State was forced to protect the claims made by these other nations.

It is our belief that the seaward boundaries implications of Senate Joint Resolution 13 would set off a similar and more damaging chain reaction.

We reiterate that it would be of value to the committee to invite detailed comments of the Department of State on the foregoing as well as on the entire problem which we have sought to bring forth to the committee.

Mr. REAL. The Presidential proclamation did not claim for the United States any degree of sovereignty beyond that which had previously been claimed: to wit, the 3-mile limit. Yet, these latter nations used this as a springboard for their extravagant claims. As of this moment there are further claims in the making. We have no hesitation in predicting that a misapplication of the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case will be made in the furtherance of still greater claims. Norway conducts a whale fishery in the Pacific in waters 50 miles and more from the shores of South America. It is no secret that some of the South American Pacific coastal states have longed for control over this high-seas fishery now being carried on by Norway. It is not inconceivable that, as in the case of the United States Presidential proclamation, they should use the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case as a further, even though again improper, justification for their