into the drilling of additional wells in time of emergency. Steel and other materials are also types of materials used for other areas of national defense.

Senator ANDERSON. If it were an area where you were trying to preserve you could permit the sinking of wells, take rather limited production from them, find out what the areas were, and know pretty well what you could produce when you had to have it. Quite obviously we have not done very much toward developing these areas for usefulness in time of war in the last few years, have we?

Secretary ANDERSON. I believe that development of oil reserves and oil production are equally important to the defense of the Nation, and that a reserve without production would not be at a given. time as advantageous to the Nation as if it were producible.

Senator ANDERSON. I agree with you completely.

You also have to have refining capacity and a great many other things tied to it.

Secretary ANDERSON. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. But would or would it not be desirable to know what you have to call on in this area in case you had to call on it? Secretary ANDERSON. It would be most desirable, and most desirable to have a constant increase in the national petroleum reserves.

Senator ANDERSON. Therefore, it might be desirable to get some legislation here to permit the opportunity to find out what we have done there.

Secretary ANDERSON. I think the expeditious development of the Continental Shelf is important to the national defense.

Senator ANDERSON. I just want to ask you this: Would you determine at some time, and advise the committee or advise me whether a letter written by the office of the Secretary of the Navy under date of June 20 to the Secretary of State, I assume, is still

Senator CORDON. What year, please?

Senator ANDERSON. 1952, signed by Dan Kimball, is still under the confidential tag, and is still regarded as security information?

Secretary ANDERSON. I will be delighted. June 20, 1952, from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of State.

Senator ANDERSON. It is addressed to "My dear Mr. Secretary." It is to the Secretary of State. If it is not security information, would you supply us a copy of that so it might be placed in the record in connection with your testimony?

Secretary ANDERSON. Yes, I will.

(The letter was subsequently supplied as follows:)

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
Washington 25, D. C., February 26, 1953.

United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: During the hearings before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on Tuesday, February 24, you asked me to furnish a copy of the Secretary of the Navy's letter to the Secretary of State of June 20, 1952, if it could be declassified.

Steps taken to declassify the letter have now been completed and I am enclosing a declassified copy.

Sincerely yours,

IRA H. NUNN,

Rear Admiral, United States Navy,

Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

The honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE.

JUNE 20, 1952.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The letter of March 28, 1952, from the Deputy Under Secretary of State to the Secretary of Defense, requesting information on certain matters related to the extension of the territorial waters of the United States as proposed by House Joint Resolution 373, which was introduced by Representative Samuel A. Yorty, of California, on February 11, 1952, has been referred to this Department for reply.

The purpose of House Joint Resolution 373 is to extend the territorial waters around the coast of the United States and Alaska as far as is permissible under the rules of international law set forth in the judgment rendered by the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case on December 18, 1951. Under the joint resolution the United States would establish as the seaward boundary of its inland or internal waters a series of straight lines running between the headlands of all indentations on the mainland and, where there are offlying islands, rocks, or reefs, a series of straight lines running around the outer edges of the farthest offlying islands, rocks, and reefs.

Information is requested as to any benefits which might be derived from the extension of the territorial waters of the United States as proposed by House Joint Resolution 373; the detriments which might be suffered by the United States if other nations adopted similar legislation; and specific water areas of other countries deemed important in this regard.

No benefits would be obtained by the United States from the extension of its territorial waters as proposed by House Joint Resolution 373. From a security standpoint there would be no advantage. Should there be sensitive points requiring more expansive areas of the sea for security purposes than are afforded by the system used by the United States for delimiting territorial waters, there are available the devices of defensive sea areas and maritime control areas, which are well recognized in international law, and which the United States would expect to be able to enforce; also, as it is well recognized that a special jurisdietion may be asserted over areas of the high seas for specific purposes, such as fishery conservation and exploitation of the resources of the seabed and subsoil of the Continental Shelf, without extending sovereign waters, there would be no additional economic advantage resulting to the United States. Both from a military and commercial viewpoint, therefore, no benefits not otherwise obtainable would accrue to the United States were House Joint Resolution 373 adopted.

Were the United States to extend its territorial waters as proposed by House Joint Resolution 373, other nations could be expected to assert claims to large water areas off their coasts. Many nations have already asserted these claims and those nations could be expected to treat such action by the United States as a recognition of the validity of their own previously asserted claims. Any action by other nations which would restrict the range of warships and commercial vessels and military and commercial aircraft would be clearly disadvantageous to a great maritime power such as the United States. Any action which tends to restrict free navigation of the high seas by recognizing sovereignty over territorial waters in excess of 3 miles is contrary to United States security interest. At the present stage of international relations adoption of House Joint Resolution 373 would, it is believed, serve no useful purpose not realizable by other means and could lead to embarrassing and burdensome consequences to the United States.

With regard to the effect which similar legislation would have on the jurisdictional claims of other nations, a study has been made of only a few charts randomly selected, enclosures (1) through (4), covering the coastal areas of Venezuela, Greece, Sumatra, and the Netherlands East Indies. This study reveals that the possible effects of a broad interpretation of the decision of the AngloNorwegian Fisheries case could seriously affect the free navigation of the seas in areas such as the Aegean Sea, the coast of Sumatra between the chain of islands from Enggano and Simeuloe, the seas in the vicinity of the Netherlands East Indies, the coastal area of Venezuela between Farallon Centinela and Morro de Robledar and between Pta Ballena and Morro do Chacopata. In other areas not mentioned similar restrictions to free navigation would likewise apply. A report on House Joint Resolution 373, expressing the opposition of the Department of Defense to the enactment of this measure, has recently been submitted to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. A copy of that report is enclosed for your information.

Sincerely yours,

DAN A. KIMBALL

Senator ANDERSON. I do not want to question you on it unless it is cleared. If it is cleared, would you be willing to have some member of the staff come back and comment on it?

Secretary ANDERSON. By all means.

Senator ANDERSON. And a letter from Francis Whitehair to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on which I do not see any tag, but it is April 25, 1952, if you would check that as well. It is not listed as confidential. It may not be, but I would prefer to know before there is any questioning.

Secretary ANDERSON. I will ascertain it for you.

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the Navy Department and the distinguished Secretary of the Navy, the facts in the Long Beach situation are the other way around. The facts as indicated to me by the city attorney of the city of Long Beach are as follows:

In 1911, the State of California, acting through its legislature, conveyed the rights of the State of California to the city of Long Beach. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of California, in adjudicating that transfer, held that the city of Long Beach had received a feesimple title from the State government.

Then in 1939, a lawsuit was filed in the form of condemnation by the Navy Department for the land in Long Beach, to which the Secretary has alluded here this morning. The city of Long Beach desired to have the naval installation as planned by the Navy and agreed to a judgment in the lawsuit by which, for the sum of $1, the City of Long Beach conveyed 105 acres to the Navy Department. I think the records will show that the judgment of condemnation was thereafter recorded in accordance with the laws of California. So the facts apparently are that the Navy does have the type of title to this property which by the Holland bill would be excepted from any transfer in the Holland bill, and the Navy Department would retain the good and sufficient title which previously it received in the lawsuit.

Secretary ANDERSON. The Judge Advocate General advises me that he was acting on information that there had been certain land acquired by accretion. I am glad to have the information which you have supplied. We will, of course, in supplying the information which the chairman has requested, disclose all of those matters.

Senator KUCHEL. May I ask, did that accretion take place seaward or landward of the original 105-acre conveyance?

Secretary ANDERSON. I am under the impression that it would be seaward, sir, but I will ascertain that.

Senator KUCHEL. Let me ask this question, which is suggested by the city attorney of Long Beach. Is it a fact that these lands are filled lands within the inland waters of the State boundary at that point?

Secretary ANDERSON. That I would simply have to determine, Senator. I do not know.

Senator KUCHEL. If it were, then I take it the Navy Department would have no problem. If the facts disclose that situation, then, at least, as to Long Beach, Calif., I would assume there would be no problem between the Navy Department and the sponsors of the Holland bill. Would that be correct, sir?

Secretary ANDERSON. Yes; the whole point that we are suggesting is that if there is not adequate clarifying language in any of the bills to provide for a title to land where military installations have been made, that they should be properly provided for.

Senator KUCHEL. Yes, sir; and if in accordance with the laws of the State of California, the Navy Department has lawfully acquired from the State, or from the State's grantee sufficient title to the property, then would it not be fair to say that the language of the Holland bill is sufficiently clear to present no problem to the Navy Department? Would that not be a fair statement?

Secretary ANDERSON. I think so.

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I was not able to ask a question about the letter of April 25. I find it is published in the reports of the Supreme Court where the special master was considering the coast of California, and I now feel free to ask you just a simple question or two on it.

The letter dated April 25 from the Department of the Navy, signed by Mr. Whitehair, points out that the United States has always been one of the world's foremost advocates of the doctrine of the freedom of the seas and has vigorously opposed all efforts to restrict the free navigation of its war vessels and merchantmen. The concept of the freedom of the sea likewise applies to the freedom of the airspace above the seas. Because of this and other reasons, the United States Government, including the Department of the Navy, has always advocated the 3-mile limit of territorial waters, delineated in such a way that the outer limits closely follow the sinuosity of the coastline. Do you subscribe to that?

Secretary ANDERSON. Senator, I have not had an opportunity of reading that letter or thinking about it, but it would seem to me that the letter has reference to the utilization of the sea, and that appropriately there might be a differentiation between the utilization of the waters of the sea to the 3-mile territorial limit for international purposes, and dealing with the Continental Shelf under the sea for purpose of proprietary ownership.

Senator ANDERSON. You are familiar with the difficulties that have been going on in Mexico, Ecuador, and various other places where the Government has refused the right of innocent passage to fishermen !

Secretary ANDERSON. Yes; I am familiar with some of the problems we are having in the utilization of territorial waters, and I think it is an international problem upon which the Department of State should have the right to take a position. But I think there is an appropriate differentiation between the utilization of the waters outside the territorial limit of the continent, and the proprietary ownership of the Continental Shelf.

Senator ANDERSON. We are talking about extending the historical boundaries. That is what is involved in this legislation, 12 miles, 27 miles, 150 miles. Your home State wants to extend its boundaries 150 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

Senator DANIEL. But to cover only the seabed and subsoil, not the waters.

Senator ANDERSON. I understand it is applicable only to the seabed. Senator CORDON. Senator Long.

Senator LONG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge that the procedure that we use on some committees be used; that when a Senator

has asked his questions, that he pass until we come to him for a second round.

Senator ANDERSON. I apologize.

Senator LONG. I will have to follow my advice in that instance, because I have been one of the violators on that. But it helps to get down to the junior Senators. I am halfway down the line, and I know Senators like Senator Daniel are more affected by the situation than I.

Senator CORDON. The Chair is in agreement with the general rule. There must be exceptions as in the case of Senator Anderson who asked questions without full information at first, obtained the information, and therefore could complete the examination.

Senator LONG. Mr. Secretary, am I to understand that most of your naval installations are actually located on inland waters? For example, we have New Orleans, Norfolk, the various harbors, all of which always have been and still are recognized as belonging to the States. That is inland waters.

Secretary ANDERSON. Senator Long, frankly I do not know the proportion that would be located on inland waters and those that would be located on seaward waters. It would be my assumption that a majority of them would be on inland waters.

Senator LONG. Perhaps Admiral Nunn might answer this more appropriately than you, Mr. Secretary. Am I to understand also that for more than 100 years, and up until the time the controversy arose over oil, there was really never any disposition on the part of the Navy Department to question the States' title to these properties? Admiral NUNN. That is correct; prior to about 1938, I believe. Senator LONG. I am now referring to property within the 3-mile limit.

Admiral NUNN. Yes, sir.

Senator LONG. And it was only after oil was discovered in this submerged land and a question was raised as to the title of the States in this property that the Navy did not take every means to assure itself that it had acquired proper title from the States wherever it built its naval installations?

Admiral NUNN. That is correct, sir, and beyond the inland waters in all cases.

Senator LONG. Yes. Now, with regard to all the inland waters, do I understand that the Navy has continued to take any steps to a-sure itself that it had the proper rights that it needed with regard to installations located on inland waters?

Admiral NUNN. Yes, sir; with regard to inland waters we have always realized that we must obtain title and have done so in most cases. Senator LONG. Now, even prior to the time of any question about the States' title in this area, was there ever any doubt also that the Navy had the responsibility for defending this area?

Admiral NUNN. None whatsoever, sir.

Senator LONG. And also that the Navy was interested in the navigation phase to see that any obstacle constructed in any navigable water would be properly marked and properly buoyed in order that navigation might not be subjected to undue hazard?

Admiral NUNN. That is correct, sir, together with the jurisdiction exercised by the Coast Guard and the Army engineers.