Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Mr. MAAS. What I have in mind is the necessity for an additional base-whether it is primary or secondary-at Astoria, not only for the protection of the entrace of the Columbia River, which is absolutely vital, but of other places in that area. I come from the Middle West, and have no personal interest in the local expenditure; but I know the danger is more potent through the Columbia River Valley than in any other portion of the United States. That would be the logical entrance to the Middle West. But I had in mind this: that if we had an air base at the mouth of the Columbia River, it could patrol up and down the coast as a preventive measure against any kind of invasion being effected in any of those bays; there are a number of bays, and it is impracticable to have bases at all. But from Astoria they can patrol up and down the coast, particularly at a critical time. It is probable that war will never be declared again; it will simply be started. And it seems to me that there is need for a permanent establishment of such protective measures in time of peace; it will be too late after war starts. And very likely the mouth of the Columbia River is going to be the point of attack that starts the war. Is it not true that submarines and other war vessels could come up the Columbia River and destroy your shipping?

Senator STEIWER. Well, the various mines might prevent it. Mr. MAAS. But the airplanes patrolling there would see those submarines?

Senator STEIWER. I agree thoroughly with your analysis; and my opinion is the same as yours on the subject; but I ought to say that I do not know that my laymen's judgment is of much value. But there is this to be said: That the opinion you have expressed is the opinion of the Navy itself, as well as the United States Army, with respect to practically every other area of the country. So here they are distinguishing and discriminating against this.

Mr. MAAS. Now, Sand Point will be a defense; they will have a class of patrol boats. I am talking about another type of patrol that would protect against some kind of submarines.

Senator STEIWER. We do not feel that Sand Point, if it is built and maintained according to the plans, will ever afford us any substantial protection at all against attacks at places like Coos Bay, and all of those places where the Government has spent from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000 for the improvement of the harbor, and where the channel depths up to 30 feet have already been provided. These are things that are in existence now. The Japanese freighters and other foreign freighters and various cargo ships now use Coos Bay regularly. The improvement is still going on at the mouth of the Umpqua River; but when it is completed the cargo ships will use that regularly, and every one of those harbors that can be entered by an enemy in time of war is connected with an improved highway that goes to the interior of the State and to Portland. Most of them are served by more than one highway, and many of them by railroads that lead to the commercial centers. There is not a spot along the coast that is not vulnerable to the same degree.

Mr. MAAS. You and I are laymen, as you have suggested; but you have lived out there and know that country. Do you not believe that any sort of effective occupation that was established through the Columbia River would cut off Seattle and all the rest of that part of the country, and cut off also all communications between different parts of that section of the country?

Senator STEIWER. Yes. I have heard it said that if they were attacking Puget Sound they would attack it from the mouth of the Columbia River, and not from Puget Sound.

Mr. MAAS. That is true. Also any rear action against San Francisco would be by going down between the mountains from that section?

Senator STEIWER. That is true.

Mr. MAAS. Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record straight as to what Admiral King said last year, I want to read from the hearings which were held then.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Mott has already put that in this record.

Mr. MAAS. Very well; I did not know that. Mr. PHILLIPS. You said that the Navy was reluctant to send ships into the Columbia River. Can you tell us why that is? Senator STEIWER. I do not know what the reason is now; but possibly 5 or 6 years ago I had the privilege of discussing with the Chief of Operations of the Navy the matter of taking some airplane carriers into the mouth of the Columbia for one of our public demonstrations there. At that time they produced a map, which I believe was 22 years old, and it showed water depths not sufficient for the accommodation of that craft. I do not know whether the Navy is still using that map or not, but they are certainly not up-to-date with the development of the Columbia Řiver.

I think a very important thing and I say this with all respect to the Navy, for which I have a high regard, as a branch of our military service but I think a very important thing is to provide an establishment on the Columbia River that will compel the Navy to make some use of that harbor and permit its officer to know something about the harbor; they will not be so afraid of it when they understand it. Why, some of the regular cargo services that operate out of that harbor find so little difficulty with it that they do not even use the pilot service which is provided; that was true 2 or 3 years ago. I remember one occasion that the Luckenback ships and other ships coming in under control of their own ship officer running into that harbor just as though it was the open sea. It is the only Navy that seems to feel a relunctance about it.

The CHAIRMAN. That might be due to the fact that on several occasions, or, at least, one one occasion, a ship's officer refused to go around there. Now, they have developed a fine harbor and channel in all that area of water; but at that time it had not been developed sufficiently for battleships to go through, except in the main channels. And the War Department develops the harbors, not the Navy. And it is up to the War Department to develop the channel so as to get sufficient depth. My recollection is that the channel is 800 feet wide. Senator STEIWER. That is the entrance?

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about after passing Astoria.
Senator STEIWER. It is about 500 or 600 feet.

Mr. MOTT. That is on the upper river, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Astoria is not very far from the mouth. Mr. MOTT. No; 10 miles from the mouth; but after you leave Astoria, the regular channel is 500 feet wide.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the point you make is that the Navy should make some use of the harbor. What particular use could they make

[graphic]

of it, except for a harbor? And you have to have a large enough and wide enough harbor; and if you have them using that narrow channel, then you interfere with the commerce that comes down from Portland.

Senator STEIWER. It is not true that the only deep water is in the channel. You will see steamers anchored right off the docks and others not over 200 or 300 feet away. There is sufficient depth in many places in the Columbia River for anchorage.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think the Navy should be criticized for not going into the Columbia River with these large vessels; because, from my viewpoint, it would be bad policy for the Navy to be going in there with large vessels like airplane carriers, unless they are sure that there is no likelihood of going aground. But they are going to take 18 cruisers in a short time up to Portland for a Navy Day demonstration.

Senator STEIWER. They have on accasions brought cruisers up to Portland, some of the newer types of cruisers. And they have had no trouble getting in there.

The CHAIRMAN. Cruisers can go in there all right.

Senator STEIWER. There is no question about that.

Mr. MOTT. May I say that I personally have seen a dozen battleships in the harbor at Astoria, together with a dozen cruisers; and the cruisers went up to Portland, and the battleships remained at Astoria.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say that in 1917-or perhaps it was 1922when we were out there, one of the cruisers went aground above the city of Astoria. But since then the War Department has improved the channel.

Mr. MOTT. It may be that the upper channel was not sufficient . then. That was 20 years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. It could be used; but at the same time, if used to a great extent above Astoria, you are going to block your commerce down to the city of Astoria. But that has nothing to do with what we are here today for.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator STEIWER. I am glad to have had the opportunity of coming before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. That concludes the testimony of witnesses, as I understand, on this bill; and I suggest that we adjourn until Monday moring at 10:30 o'clock, when we will take up House bill 6106, with reference to Benton Field at San Francisco; and we will have a hearing on that, and then we will vote on both of these bills one day next week. (Thereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned until Monday, Apr. 26, 1937, at 10 a. m.)

О

STATEMENT BY REAR ADMIRAL G. J. ROWCLIFF, UNITED STATES NAVY, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY, ON NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

There are four naval petroleum reserves. Nos. 1 and 2, known as Elk Hills and Buena Vista Hills Reserves, respectively, are located in Kern County, Calif.; no. 3, known as Teapot Dome Reserve, is in Wyoming, and no. 4 is in Alaska. Of these reserves no. 1, Elk Hills, has by far the greatest value as an underground oil reserve to supply the future needs of the Navy. One of the main purposes of the bill, S. 1131, is to provide for consolidating and holding naval petroleum reserve no. 1 intact in compact form and to protect it from drainage by adjoining interests.

The following brief statement summarizes the main incidents relating to naval petroleum reserve no. 1:

Naval petroleum reserve no. 1 was created by Executive order of September 2, 1912. It comprises 38,073 acres on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in the Elk Hills district, Kern County, Calif. Of this area the Government owns 32,141 acres, the Standard Oil Co. of California owns 4,662 acres, and the remaining 1,270 acres, comprising sections 16 and 36, are in litigation. The Government has leased 429 acres for offsetting wells to prevent drainage, and the remaining area of 31,712 acres is unleased. Of the leased area 142 acres have been leased to the Bellridge Oil Co. and 287 acres to the Pan American Petroleum Co. which has recently been reorganized.

In the section 36 case, the Secretary of the Interior decided that title is vested in the United States because the lands were known mineral lands on January 26, 1903, when the boundaries of the section. were approved. Therefore the lands did not pass to the State of California under the act of March 3, 1853 (10 Stat. 244, 246) which granted to the State in aid of public schools sections 16 and 36 in each township if nonmineral in character. Suit by the Government. to dispossess the claimants, Standard Oil Co. of California, and for an accounting for the value of oil and gas production taken from the lands, estimated to amount to about $13,000,000, and interest, has been filed in the United States District Court at Fresno on January 20, 1937. The estate of E. L. Doheny in the compromise of its claim in section 36 quitclaimed to the United States all interest in the lands and paid the sum of $100,000 on April 19, 1937.

In the section 16 case, the register, United States Land Office, Sacramento, Calif., also decided that title is vested in the United States because the lands were known mineral lands on January 26, 1903, when the survey officially establishing the boundaries of the section was approved. Appeal to the Commissioner, General Land Office, is now pending.

It will thus be seen that the Government stands a very fair chance to retain both sections 16 and 36 and that the only non-Government

[graphic]

owned lands in the reserves are the 4,662 acres comprising seven and one-half sections owned by the Standard Oil Co. of California. Title to these seven and one-half sections became alienated in the following manner: By the act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292), certain alternate nonmineral sections of land were granted to the Southern Pacific Co. to aid in the establishment of a railroad to the Pacific coast. Naval petroleum reserves nos. 1 and 2 were within the limits of this railroad grant. The railroad company secured patents to these alternate sections on representations that they were nonmineral in character. Two suits were filed by the Government against the Southern Pacific Co. for fraud in securing these patents.

In the first case, familiarly known as the Elk Hills case, approximately nine and one-half-odd numbered sections containing 8,109.17 acres of land in naval petroleum reserve no. 1 were involved. The United States district court rendered its decree in favor of the Government but on appeal this decree was reversed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. The Government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which on November 17, 1919 (251 U. S. 1), reversed the decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed the decree of the United States district court in favor of the Government. By this action the Government regained nine and one-half sections, which, with certain even numbered sections, constitute the west half of naval petroleum

reserve no. 1.

In the second case approximately seven and one-half sections in naval petroleum reserve no. 1 now owned by Standard Oil Co. of California, and 24 sections in naval petroleum reserve no. 2 were involved. The United States district court on August 28, 1919 (260 Fed. 511), rendered its decree against the Government. No appeal was taken although the Secretary of the Navy in his letter of December 6, 1919, to the Attorney General strongly urged that the case be carried to the highest court. For convenient reference this letter and the Attorney General's reply are hereinafter set forth. The Secretary of the Navy's letter is as follows:

I have just read in the newspapers that the Department of Justice is considering abandoning the oil-land suits against the Southern Pacific Railroad. In view of the Navy Department's vital interest in these lands I was surprised at learning of any intention without conference with the Navy Department which is deeply concerned and has the largest interest at stake.

As you doubtless know these cases involve seven and one-fourth sections, or 4,640 acres, in reserve no. 1 and 24 sections, or 15,360 acres, in reserve no. 2. These lands comprise every alternate section in reserve no. 2 and every alternate section in the northeastern part and five isolated quarter sections in reserve no. 1. You will see that the dismissal of this suit involves the practical abandonment of the naval-reserve policy, a policy in which the President of the United States has taken the greatest personal interest.

In view of this Department's vital interests in this matter, I would request that you take no steps toward abandoning these suits, at least until we have had an opportunity to take the matter up with the President.

I have had several conferences with your predecessors with reference to this litigation and with some of the attorneys in your Department at various times who had part in preparing this case. Some of them believed we had sufficient evidence to win and all with whom I talked believed the Government ought to win. I have read the opinion of Judge Bledsoe and have a statement from Mr. Nichols with reference to it. The opinion of Judge Bledsoe was far from being conclusive. It would seem to me that in view of the doubt that must exist in a case of this magnitude the appeal ought to be perfected and a decree of the highest court should be obtained. When the matter was first considered by naval and

« PreviousContinue »