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 River.

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

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 1922— when 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.)

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

Title

owned lands in the reserves are the 4,662 acres comprising seven and one-half sections owned by the Standard Oil Co. of California. 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

Justice representatives both felt that the Southern Pacific had been guilty of fraud. The decision in the Elk Hill case shows that the Southern Pacific was guilty of fraud. Therefore, I believe that the case ought to be carried to the highest court, and hope to take the matter up with you before final action is taken.

In reply the Attorney General wrote the Secretary of the Navy on December 9, 1919, as follows:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th instant relative to my announcement that appeals will not be prosecuted in the Southern Pacific cases recently decided by Judge Bledsoe adversely to the Government.

You may be sure that in deciding the purely legal questions involved I did not underestimate the importance of the cases, and had there been even a remote chance of success on appeal I would have directed appeals to be taken. Notwithstanding the special assistant to the Attorney General, who had the cases in charge and who was thoroughly conversant with the record, had reported that the evidence would not justify appeals, and had recommended that no appeals should be taken, I had him come here for conference and was thus enabled to canvass the situation thoroughly. The discussion made it entirely clear that the record presented no questions of law or fact upon which the Government could hope to secure a reversal. I might add that the special assistant referred to, also argued the Elk Hills case in the Supreme Court, and he informed me that he never doubted that the final decision of that case would be in favor of the Government, but he pointed out that the controlling facts in the Elk Hills case were entirely dissimilar to those in the other cases.

While I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with you, and certainly with the President if he desires it, before taking formal action, I cannot see how any possible exigencies of policy can affect the result.

Thereafter there was introduced into the Sixty-sixth Congress, House Joint Resolution 419, instructing the Attorney General to institute certain suits, and so forth, and for other purposes. In reply to the request of the chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, for the views of the Navy Department thereon, the Secretary of the Navy on January 7, 1921, reported as follows:

In reply to your letter of the 18th ultimo requesting a report on House Joint Resolution 419, instructing the Attorney General to institute certain suits, and so forth, and for other purposes, I herewith submit my views concerning the enactment of this legislation.

Upon hearing that the Department of Justice did not feel justified in perfecting an appeal to the Supreme Court in the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. case I immediately wrote to the Attorney General inquiring as to the correctness of this rumored intention. I enclose herewith a copy of my letter to the Attorney General and his reply thereto.

While I naturally am compelled to follow the decision of the legal department of the Government in this matter, I am firmly convinced in my own mind that the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. was guilty of fraud in this case and I was extremely desirous of seeing the case carried to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, aside from the question of actual fraud on the part of the Southern Pacific Railroad Co., it would appear, in spite of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Burke case (Burke v. So. Pac. 234 U. S. 669) that the title to the reserved mineral lands could be legally conveyed to the railroad company only by a supplemental act of Congress. It is no reflection on the Supreme Court to seek a reversal of the Burke decision, because the Court is primarily guided in its action by the evidence brought before it.

The Barden decision by the Supreme Court in its closing paragraph states the facts and the law, relative to railroad grants, as follows:

"An affirmance of the judgment in this case would enlarge the grant of the Government against its oft-repeated exception of mineral lands and give to the plaintiff the vast mineral wealth of the States through which the grant passes. * When Congress has time and again declared that they should have no mineral lands, and that no act of Congress should be construed to give them any; and that they in all cases shall be and are reserved exclusively to the United States, unless otherwise specifically provided in the act or acts conferring the