The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1949-12-09

to all such coastal lands and miner
ais, as well as all lands and minerals
all navigable waters.
This Joint Resolution passed both
houses of congress. However, the
measure was vetoed by President
Truman, and it failed to be passed
over his veto.
CLARIFIES TERM
The pertinent part of the Presi-
lent's veto message as given in the
Congressional Record, Vol. 90, part
3, page 1860, August L, 1916 is as
'ollows:
81 return herewith, without my
signature, House Joint Resolution
225.
"The purpose of this measure is
to renounce and disclaim all right,
title, interest, claim or demand Of
the United States in lands beneath
tidewaters', as defined in the Joint
Resolution.
Contrary to widespread misun-
Outstanding the case does not in
volve any tidelands, which are lands
covered and uncovered by the daily
ebb and flow of the tides; nor does
1t involve any lands under bays,
harbors, ports, lakes, rivers, or 9TH
er inland waters. Consequently the
case does not constitute any threat
to or cloud upon the titles of the
several states to such lands, or the
improvements thereon. When the
Joint Resolution was being debated
in the Senate, an amendment was
offered which would have resulted
in giving an outright acquittance |
to the respective states to all tide
lands and all lands under bays, har-
bors, ports, lakes, rivers and other |
inland waters. Proponents of the
present measure, however, defeat
ed this amendment. This clearly |
that the primary pur-
pose of the legislation was to give
to the states and their lessees any
right, title, or interest of the UniteE
States in the lands and minerals
under the waters within the 3-mile
limit. Emphasis supplied.)
1.-THE ownership of the vast guam
tity of oil in such areas presents
vital problem for the nation from
he standpoint of national defense
and conservation. If the United
States owns these areas, they should
not be given away. If the Supreme
Court decides that the United
States has no title to or interest in
he lands, a quitclaim from congress
s unnecessary. Emphasis supplied)
1t thus presents a legal
question of great Importance to
he nation, and one which should be
lecided by the Court. The con-
sress is not an appropriate forum
o determine the legal issue now be-
ore the Court. The jurisdiction of
he Supreme Court should not be (
nterfered with while it is arriving
It its decision in the pending case"
The President has analysed the '
Sc, the United States of America "
ate of California, supra, very apt {
in his veto message as is shown by {
2 Supreme Courts decision on June {
, 1947, 1872 US 10, in which the i
urt very carefully distinguished i
tween: finland navigable waters l
ch as rivers, harbors and tide {
Ids down to the low-water mark
d the land Hereunder" and "waters
ng to the seward in the three
lie belt" and the lands Hereunder;
to the former, the Court states:
'The government does not deny
nat under the Pollard rule, as eX-
lained in later cases, California
as qualified ownership of lands
nder inland navigable waters such
5 rivers, harbors, and even tide
Inds down to the low water mark"
ain the Court states: O
"The belief that local interests t
re predominant as constitutionally t.
, require state domination over u
nds under it's land-locked navi- r
able waters finds some argument s.
II its support. But such can hard h
be said in favor of state control f
yer any part of the ocean or the n
;ean's bottom. IL