Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Is it the position of the State Department that the laws of the State of Alaska and the laws of the United States will not apply to ships or persons within these pockets?

Mr. NELSON. Well, Senator, we do have jurisdiction under the Convention on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone-and all of that territory in these pockets is contiguous zone-we do have jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, sanitary and immigration regulations that appertain to the actual territory. But as far as limiting high seas rights other than that, we don't have jurisdiction, except that the contiguous Fisheries Zone Act, of course, applies within those pockets since they are part of the contiguous zone. So, there is no fishing permitted, except by agreement, within those pockets by foreign fisher

men.

Senator INOUYE. Could someone operate a gambling ship in those pockets?

Mr. NELSON. I think that-that's a very interesting hypothetical, Senator. I think probably that we would consider that to come within our fiscal regulations, because as you know, the U.S. Government taxes gambling.

Senator INOUYE. Even on the high seas?

Mr. NELSON. Well, to the extent that it involved transactions with people coming out and going back and forth. The Federal Government can usually find the basis for prosecution under those circumstances, a basis for acquiring jurisdiction. I don't know exactly how that would work out. It's an interesting test.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. Your participation has been most helpful to us. I would hope that the State Department will give very careful consideration to the statements which will be presented by witnesses following you.

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. We now have a panel of government officials from the State of Alaska. From the attorney general's office, Charles Cranston, Esq. The Honorable Wallace H. Noerenberg, the commissioner of fish and game. The Honorable Charles Herbert, the commissioner of natural resources. C. A. Weberg, director of the division of protection, department of public safety. And Dr. William R. Hunt, professor of history, University of Alaska, head of the department of history.

Are we all present here? Mr. Cranston?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CRANSTON, ESQ., ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY WALLACE H. NOERENBERG, COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND GAME; HON. CHARLES HERBERT, COMMISSIONER OF NATURAL RESOURCES; C. A. WEBERG, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; AND DR. WILLIAM R. HUNT, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

Mr. CRANSTON. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Who is Mr. Noerenberg? Am I pronouncing your name correctly?

Mr. NOERENBERG. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Herbert? Why don't you bring up a chair, sir?

Mr. HERBERT. Thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Weberg?

Mr. WEBERG. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Dr. Hunt?

Dr. HUNT. Right here.

Senator INOUYE. Gentlemen, on behalf of the committee, welcome. And I presume you have all gotten together to decide on your presentation, so I will just leave it up to you, then.

Mr. CRANSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens. My name is Charles Cranston. I'm an assistant attorney general for the State of Alaska, and I wish to thank this committee for allowing the State time within which to present its position relative to the provisional State Department charts delimiting the territorial seal, contiguous zone, and certain internal waters of the United States off Alaska.

I have coordinated this presentation and will, from time to time, call on other of these gentlemen to make statements.

I should like to make one point clear at this time, if I may. I was, and still am, the chief trial counsel for the State of Alaska in the litigation affecting the status of Cook Inlet as internal or international waters. That litigation is still pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in Anchorage. For that reason, nothing in the State's presentation before this committee will relate to the provisional lines in Cook Inlet. Unavoidably, however, by virtue of the similarity and the legal issues involved, it will be impossible to present to this committee the State's position with reference to the provisional lines elsewhere, without referring to the fact situations and legal theories similar to those relied on by the State in the Cook Inlet case.

I believe, since the Senate Commerce Committee has called for these hearings, the State is obligated, except with reference to Cook Inlet, to make its position known. In so doing, the State is not attempting to influence in any way the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in the Cook Inlet case.

Before going to my prepared statement, I would like to comment on a few of Mr. Nelson's statements, and my presentation will also incorporate various comments on his statement.

First, the statement has been made quite often that these charts are provisional. I suppose "provisional" has different meanings to different persons. I would like this committee to know that the charts are on sale. by the National Ocean Survey in Maryland to any individual who desires them, including representatives of foreign nations. And it is the State's information that these charts are in fact being disseminated to foreign nations. Thus, provisional or not, they are slowly becoming, at least so far as the State Department is concerned, the official U.S. position, in that they are being sent to foreign nations.

Senator INOUYE. May I interrupt at this point? Do these maps-I haven't seen any of them-bear the seal of the United States or anything to indicate they are official maps?

Mr. CRANSTON. They contain a provisional statement on them to the effect that

The lines delimit provisionally the territorial sea and contiguous zone. These lines are subject to revision whenever it is required by amplication or correction. if the information is shown to be incomplete.

However, there is nothing to show that as of the time they are disseminated, that as of that moment, they do not represent the official position. They do contain the caveat that they may be modified, but so far as the State is a aware, and it is certainly the Federal Government's position in the Cook Inlet case that these charts at the present time represent the official position of the Government.

Senator INOUYE. And so it's your suggestion that even if they are stated to be provisional, there is no opposition or-by the mere fact of longstanding practice and no opposition, they could become official?

Mr. CRANSTON. That's correct.

Senator STEVENS. It still bears the seal of one of the agencies. It says, "United States, Alaska, southeast coast," and then contains the caution, "the documents not to be used in navigation," and the provisional statement. But their existence has caused considerable controversy, to say the least.

Mr. CRANSTON. They have also, Mr. Chairman, been disseminated to the U.S. Coast Guard in a small pamphlet form, with this statement: statement,

This guide is intended to be used by units assigned to law enforcement mission, to aid in the determination of jurisdiction in the coastal waters of Alaska. This guide may be used in fisheries enforcement and other Federal law enforcement purposes.

Thus, the State's position is that they are certainly more than a weak, provisional assertion of or disassertion of quasi-sovereignty.

Mr. CRANSTON. They contain a provisional statement on them to the effect that

The lines delimit provisionally the territorial sea and contiguous zone. These lines are subject to revision whenever it is required by amplication or correction, if the information is shown to be incomplete.

However, there is nothing to show that as of the time they are disseminated, that as of that moment, they do not represent the official position. They do contain the caveat that they may be modified, but so far as the State is aware, and it is certainly the Federal Government's position in the Cook Inlet case that these charts at the present time represent the official position of the Government.

Senator STEVENS. Wouldn't you go a little further than that and say that they are presenting an invitation to overlook what we would consider, from an Alaska point of view, outright invasion of our sovereignty, because they do depict a line which would invite foreign intrusion?

Mr. CRANSTON. That's correct, Senator Stevens, and I will present some evidence on that point a little later.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Mr. CRANSTON. A brief outline of the State's presentation is this: The State will limit its historic presentation to three specific areas of the Alaska coastline: southeastern Alaska including the Alexander Archipelago, the Shumagin Islands, and Shelikoff Strait. In limiting its presentation to those areas, the State does not indicate it accepts the remainder of the provisional charts elsewhere. The State has chosen

those three areas because they represent the areas where the State's position and Federal position are most clearly in conflict. Time limitations have prevented investigation into other areas, and time limitations have severely limited our presentation in these three areas.

The Cook Inlet litigation affected a small segment of the coastline. It took approximately 14 days to try and a year to investigate. Thus, the State's position, at least today, will be a very cursory view of the problem. But if the committee would request further evidence or submissions by the State, we would be glad to do so at its request.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Cranston, the committee will welcome any additional statements, testimony, graphs, charts, et cetera, and the record will be kept open for such material. Any and all material which you would feel to be relevant and important to this case will be received and made part of the record.

Mr. CRANSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The presentation will first set forth the position of the State of Alaska, that the waters involved are historic, inland waters. And that the provisional charts exclude those waters from the inland waters of Alaska.

We will next present testimony relative to the problems faced by the State of Alaska with respect to fisheries and natural resource management. This will be followed by a brief discussion of the straight baseline concept as applied to Alaska. And we will conclude our presentation with a statement by Governor Egan.

To begin then, I would like briefly to set forth the State's legal position with respect to its claim that these provisional charts in the three areas which I have discussed exclude from the status of internal waters, waters which have historically been treated as State of Alaska waters. The position of the State on the historic issue derives from article VII of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. That section, while referring specifically to bays indenting a nation's coastline, recognizes the concept of historic waters. The three areas to which the State refers in its presentation do not geographically possess the status of bays, but are more properly characterized as straits. Even so, the State's reliance on historic title is valid, and is supported by the most recent authoritative treaties on the subject. The United Nations document entitled "Juridical Regime of Historic Waters Including Historic Bays," dated 1962. I would like to quote from paragraph 34 of that treatise. There the author states:

One of the lesser problems which, at least, in a preliminary way, should be clarified is the terminological question arising from the use in theory and practice rather indiscriminately of the terms "historic bays" and "historic waters". These two terms are obviously not synonymous. The latter term has the wider scope and is also apparent from the expression used in the resolutions of the Conference of the Law of the Sea, and the General Assembly, namely "Historic waters, including historic bays." It is a fact that the term "historic bays" is more frequently used than "historic waters". This circumstance can, however, not be taken as evidence that the more general view is that only bays, not other waters, may be claimed by States on a historic basis. On the contrary, it can be said that all those authorities who have directed their attention to the problem seem to agree that historic title can apply to waters other than bays. That is, to straits, archipelagos, and generally to all those waters which can be included in the maritime domain of a state.

The United States itself has claimed a strait, namely, Long Island Sound, we are informed this morning, as historic waters. Thus, the

United States recognizes that straits, such as Chatham Strait, Frederick Sound, Shelikoff Srait, the strait between the Shumagin Islands may legally have the status of historic waters.

Once it is established that the doctrine of historic waters may apply to straits and archipelagos, the question arises, what are the criteria upon which historic status is based? The Juridical Regime sets forth three basic criteria: First, the nation claiming an area as historic must exercise sovereignty over it. An example, given at paragraph 85 of the treatise, is that such sovereignty may be shown if the nation claims that its own citizens have the exclusive rights to fish the area. And I will show this to be the case in these waters later. Second, the sovereignty must have been exercised for a continuous period of time. And last, the sovereignty must have been acquiesced in by foreign nations. The State contends that those three criteria are met in the Alexander Archipelago, Shelikoff Strait, and the Shumagin Islands.

There has been an exercise of authority by both the United States and the State of Alaska over all of those waters. The authority which has been exercised by both the United States and the State is that type of authority recognized by the Juridical Regime as supportive of a claim of sovereignty. These are actions of a sovereign under its municipal law, such as laws, regulations, administrative measures, and judicial decisions.

I believe it is well known that during most of the years that Alaska was a territory, and indeed all of the years after Alaska has been a State. Alaska's principal economic activity was based on the area's vast fish resources. During territorial days, and even today, Alaska is the location of the Nation's most valuable salmon and crab fisheries. In addition, it is the location of a significant halibut fishery and shrimp fishery. A unique factor related to these fisheries is that from the late 1800's to the time of statehood in 1959, the United States solely, exclusively, and with increasing intensity managed these fisheries. The territorial government had no management or enforcement responsibility over them. It is through the management and enforcement of these fisheries before statehood, and indeed by the State in all of the years after statehood, that the U.S. Government and the State recognized that the waters involved are excluded from the category of inland waters, when, in fact, they are historic inland. waters of the State of Alaska.

The best starting point from which to make the point clear is the Secretary of Interior's fish and wildlife regulations pertaining to Alaska as they existed in 1959, the date of Alaska's statehood. Section 101.20 defined the waters of Alaska. And I will read the definition, since it is extremely interesting.

For the purpose of the regulations in this part, the term "waters of Alaska" north and west of the international boundary at Dixon entrance are defined as those extending three miles seaward (a) from the coast, (b)-and this is very important-from lines extending from headland to headland across all bays, inlets, straits, passes, sounds and entrances, and (c) from any island or group of islands including the islands of the Alexander Archipelago, and the waters between such islands and the mainland.

With that definition as a starting point, and with particular reference to subparagraphs (b) and (c), it is appropriate to consider the Federal management of fisheries in southeastern Alaska. The best graphic representation of the lines described in the regulation I have