Senator ANDERSON. No. No; it is not. It is equal to three nautical but not three geographical miles, I believe. I put "I believe" after that. Senator JACKSON. Let me ask you this: How many statute miles in one marine league? Mr. SLAUGHTER. About 32 or approaching 312. Senator CORDON. Where are we going to get a definition? Senator ANDERSON. Is there a difference between geographical and statute? Mr. SLAUGHTER. Oh, yes. Mr. FRENCH. The Coast and Geodetic Survey would be the official source. Senator CONDON. I do not care what source you go to, but let's find out the precise distance of a geographical and statute mile and a marine league, right now, in feet. Mr. FRENCH. I will call up and get it. (The information requested is set forth below :) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, Hon. GUY CORDON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. (Attention: Mr. Stewart French.) DEAR SENATOR CORDON: In accordance with the telephone request from your office this morning, the following information is furnished: A marine league is the equivalent of 3 nautical miles, or 3.453 statute or land miles (1 statute mile equals 5,280 feet). The nautical or sea mile, generally speaking, is the value of a minute of arc along the meridian. Because of the flattening of the earth at the poles, the nautical mile varies from about 6,046 feet at the equator to about 6,108 feet at the poles. Prior to 1929 different countries had adopted different values for the nautical mile. In 1929, most maritime nations, except the United States and Great Britain, adopted a value of 1852 meters (6,076.10 feet) as the standard length for the nautical mile and it was called the international nautical mile, being related to the value of the international meter. It has been proposed that this value be adopted by all countries in the interest of uniformity. This is now in the process of being finalized insofar as the United States is concerned. The present United States nautical mile is defined as equal to one-sixtieth of a degree on a sphere whose surface equals the surface of the earth. When calculated on the mathematical figure of the earth adopted by the United States (the Clarke spheroid of 1866), the value of the nautical mile is equal to 6,080.20 feet or 1,853.248 meters. The present accepted value of the English nautical mile is 6,080 feet or 1,853.18 meters. I trust this will give you the information you desire. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I may be of further service. Very truly yours, R. F. A. STUDDS, Rear Admiral, USC&GS, Director. From Shalowitz, Assistant Director: A geographical mile is the same as a nautical mile. A nautical (or geographical mile) is thus 1.151 statute or land miles. Senator CORDON. The question I want to raise is slightly different from yours, Clint. If we use the suggested language prepared by the staff, the second paragraph thereof becomes a matter of interest as far as I am concerned, and I will read it: The State of Alaska shall consist of all the territory, together with the territorial waters appurtenant thereto, now included in the Territory of Alaska, more particularly described in the Treaty of Cession, March 30, 1867 (15 United States Statutes-at-Large 539). The first question which arises in my mind is: What was included in the Territory of Alaska in the act creating the Territory? That is the one that established territorial waters, if we speak in terms of waters of the Territory. If we use the general term "territorial waters," that is something else again, is it not, Mr. Slaughter? Mr. SLAUGHTER. The act establishing the Territory refers to the treaty. Senator CORDON. I would think, then, we had better use the act that refers to the Territory. "The territory ceded and known shall be and constitute the Territory of Alaska." I would prefer to refer to the act creating the Territory for my authority. it? Senator JACKSON. How does the act creating the Territory describe Senator CORDON. It does the same thing as is done here. It says: The territory ceded to the United States by Russia by the Treaty of March 30, 1867, and known as Alaska, shall be and constitute the Territory of Alaska under the laws of the United States. Senator ANDERSON. Let's refer back to the law creating the Territory, which in itself will then go back to the other. Senator CORDON. That is right. What we are doing is granting statehood to a Territory, and the Territory was created by this act. If we refer to that act we have everything that was put in the Territory. Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, might I make this inquiry? Has there been any adjustment of the boundary between Alaska and Canada since the creation of the Territory in 1912? Mr. SLAUGHTER. There were some boundary adjustments. I believe they were before 1912. Senator JACKSON. I think you ought to have language so if there have been any accretions to the Territory since 1912 by reason of the Boundary Commision that has been set up, we want to be sure that that will be conveyed. Senator ANDERSON. Why can we not do it this way? Why can we not do what Senator Cordon is suggesting: take the boundaries of the Territory as carried in the act creating the Territory in 1912, and ask our staff to make a check between now and the time this bill gets to the floor to see if there have been any accretions, and we will solve the problem for ourselves. Senator JACKSON. You can expand it by including the Territory as it is as of the date of becoming a State. Mr. SLAUGHTER. There were some adjustments in the boundary of southeastern Alaska. Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, you can cover that by stipulating that it also includes the Territory as of the date of cession to the Union. Senator CORDON. If we can refer to changes. Senator JACKSON. Yes. That would cover all boundary adjustments. Senator ANDERSON. Do we agree that we will take this language and revise it in accordance with the suggestion made? Senator JACKSON. I do not think there is any need for research on it. Senator CORDON. You do not want to leave the thing quite at those loose ends. If we can refer to the Territory of Alaska subject to changes in the boundaries thereof made in certain documents or certain decisions, then we would have it specific. Senator JACKSON. I agree, there may be something in addition to boundaries, Mr. Chairman, and that was why I thought we ought to include the Territory as it existed at the time it comes into the Union. In other words, there may have been some-I do not know; I am just thinking out loud-acquisition in addition to boundary adjustments between Canada and the United States. I do not know whether there has been any land acquisition. Senator CORDON. Of course, you can do it all, if you want to do it, very simply by saying "The State of Alaska shall consist of all the territory, together with the territorial waters appurtenant thereto, now included in the Territory of Alaska"-period. That is what it is. Senator ANDERSON. Let's do it that way. Senator JACKSON. That would be better. Senator CORDON. However, check those, Mr. Slaughter, because some Senator well may ask the question on the floor. Senator ANDERSON. Let me ask again, does this put the same sort of water around Alaska that we put around the other States on the west coast? In other words, the Gulf of Mexico got 3 leagues, and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts got 1 league. Senator CORDON. No; the Gulf of Mexico did not get 3 leagues. Texas possibly got 3 leagues, and the matter is one for judicial determination. When Texas came in it had a definite boundary. The territorial waters appurtenant thereto would include as territorial waters the area-this is my judgment of it-the area ceded to the United States by Russia. There is a line on that map where it goes from that point on out [indicating]. It is a described line, and territorial waters would go to it. We had a map here the other day which indicated that the shelf went far beyond that. Mr. SLAUGHTER. Of course, the question of territorial waters is not necessarily determined by the terms of the treaty, Senator, because the treaty itself drew this line, and also drew this line over here, and said that Russia ceded to the United States everything it possessed on the continent of America and the adjacent islands between those two lines. There was no specific statement as to what territorial waters were included or excluded. Senator CORDON. I see. masses. Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes. That was an exterior limit to the land Senator CORDON. In which case, as I understand the law, your territorial boundary for political purposes, that is, for police purposes, would be 3 miles from the mean high-water mark off the shore. If that is not established, I don't know of anything that is. Senator ANDERSON. I would be perfectly satisfied with that state ment. Senator CORDON. You will recall that in the litigation which was had over submerged lands, there was never any question with respect to police jurisdiction. The question was of title, or the new term. "dominion and control," to lands, but not police power within boundaries. This, by the way, is substantially the terminology in the Hawaiian bill. We had a little stronger case for Hawaii because the courts of Hawaii had made a holding to that effect. Is that not correct? Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes. Senator ANDERSON. The reason I raised the question is only that the picture you had the other day of the Continental Shelf indicated it went out for miles, and I did not want the argument in case somebody filed for oil 5 miles off the coast. Senator JACKSON. How far does the Continental Shelf extend? Senator JACKSON. At Bristol Bay? Senator ANDERSON. Yes. Senator CORDON. The cession was a cession of land within certain boundaries that were a considerable distance at sea. The general rule with respect to Territorial waters offshore in the sea would apply. That is the basis upon which we had the 3-mile limit that this country has contended for always, so far as political jurisdiction is concerned. Do you agree with that? Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes. Mr. BENNETT. You have one additional problem, as brought out in your record here, in that the historic bays are considered as part of Territorial waters, and the State Department apparently has refused to recognize any of the bays in Alaska. Senator CORDON. If we attempt in this or any act of this kind to go into that field, gentlemen, it will be a year from some Thursday when we could report any kind of bill. Senator ANDERSON. I just wanted to know if the general language was sufficient to protect the interests of the country pretty well on it. That is all I wanted. If it is, I am willing to pass it and go right on to the next item. What about his marine league and geographical mile? Senator CORDON. We have some information here. A marine league is 3 nautical miles. Mr. FRENCH. This is from Admiral Studds, of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. He says a marine league consists of 3 nautical miles. I said, "The next question is: What is a nautical mile?" He said, "That is a question that is up for international consideration at this very moment." "What is the position of the United States?" "The nautical mile consists of 6,080.2 feet, whereas a statute mile is 5,280 feet." Senator CORDON. What is a geographic mile? Mr. FRENCH. The same as a nautical mile. Senator CORDON. Another question that we have to determine is that of land beneath navigable waters above high tide. Again my understanding of the law is that the title to lands beneath the navigable waters goes to the State by virtue of its admission as a State. Senator JACKSON. That is my understanding. any admission Senator CORDON. I do not now recall any provision in act specifically granting lands beneath navigable waters. Mr. Slaughter, I need my admiralty lawyer this morning, and he is not here. Mr. SLAUGHTER. I do not recall any provision of that sort in any enabling act for the admission of a new State. Of course, in the case Senator JACKSON. Let me ask this, Mr. Slaughter: The Supreme Court has passed on the question in a number of decisions, and has held that the beds of navigable streams belong to the State. Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is correct. Senator JACKSON. Just a checkup on those decisions I think would give us the reasons. Mr. SLAUGHTER. Those decisions were reached in the absence of any specific language in the enabling act. I know that. Senator CORDON. That is my understanding. Senator JACKSON. That was my recollection. I did not think it had anything to do with the statehood situation. It is a rule of law that the Court has adopted, based on State sovereignty, that the beds of the streams themselves belong to the States; that all 48 States have that property right. Mr. BENNETT. I think the Supreme Court has discussed it also in terms of the lands having been Federal prior to the admission of the State, and then the "equal-footing" clause gives a newly admitted State the same right that the Original Thirteen had; and the Original Thirteen had that title by virtue of sovereignty. So you have the new States coming in on the same footing due to the "equal-footing" clause. Senator JACKSON. They had that from the beginning. Mr. BENNETT. That the Original Thirteen had, and the others came in on that basis. Mr. SLAUGHTER. Furthermore, in the case of Alaska, in the 1898 statute, the Congress specifically included a provision which was referred to in the committee the other day, looking forward to ultimate transfer to the State. Senator CORDON. What is that provision? Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed as impairing in any degree the title of any State that may hereafter be erected out of the Territory of Alaska, or any part thereof, to tidelands and beds of any of its navigable waters, nor the rights of such State to regulate the use thereof, nor the right of the United States to resume possession of such lands, it being declared that all such rights shall continue to be held by the United States in trust for the people of any State or States which may hereafter be erected out of said Territory. The term "navigable waters" as herein used shall be held to include all tidewater up to the line of ordinary high tide and all nontidal waters of navigable streams up to the line of ordinary high water mark. The CHAIRMAN. What are you reading from, Mr. Slaughter? Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is section 3 of the act of May 14, 1898, 30 Statutes 409, 48 United States Code, section 411. Mr. BENNETT. I believe that was part of the statute extending the homestead laws to Alaska. Mr. SLAUGHTER. That was a part of a statute extending a number of public land laws to Alaska. Whether it was the homestead laws, I don't know. Senator ANDERSON. Would you request a memo on this section? Senator CORDON. Yes. Let's have a memorandum with the appropriate citations and provisions therefrom, covering the question of (1) whether the admission bill need specifically to grant title to the |