those waters. That incident also shows that the State's protestation to attempts to diminish the areas of its historic inland waters are not something new. This has been a battle which has been regularly fought since the time of Alaska's statehood, and illogically so, since the State and the United States have generally been the real adversaries. The Shelikoff Strait incident points this out. And I will read for the record and submit an affidavit of Gov. William A. Egan: STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. EGAN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF ALASKA

I am Governor of Alaska. I have been Governor of Alaska during the years from January 3, 1959 through December 6, 1966, and December 7, 1970 through the present date.

In early 1962, I received word through Japanese newspapers that a Japanese fishing fleet was preparing to come to the Kodiak Island area in the vicinity of Shelikoff Strait specifically to fish for herring and to attempt to establish historic rights there.

The possibility of the Japanese fishing effort in the Shelikoff Strait was of concern to the State, because Shelikoff Strait traditionally and historically has been waters of the Territory of Alaska and waters of the State of Alaska. These waters had been policed and regulated by both the federal government and the State of Alaska Fish and Game authorities as waters of Alaska.

Upon learning of the proposed Japanese venture into the waters of Shelikoff Strait, I notified the United States Department of State and the Interior Department officials who were responsible for fishery activity, and told them that the State would not stand idly by and permit such a foreign fishery in those waters. I communicated with the then Undersecretary of State, George Ball, first by letter and later by telegram, the last communication having been April 2nd, 1962. I received no response to my telegram.

Subsequent to that time, and in early April, 1962, the Japanese herring fleet came into Shelikoff Strait. Since the Kodiak fishery is the lifeblood of thousands of the people who live in Kodiak, those people were tremendously upset. Because of this, there is a strong chance of violence if something were not done to stop the Japanese fishery. I feared at the time the violence could erupt to shooting at the Japanese vessels or even boarding them.

A meeting held in the 13th and 14th of April between officials of the State of Alaska and the United States Department of State did not solve the problem presented by the Japanese fishery in Shelikoff Strait.

On April 15, 1962, the officials of the State arrested three captains of Japanese fishing vessels for fishing in the waters of the State of Alaska, to-wit: Shelikoff Strait. One of the vessels was arrested within three miles of shore, and one of the vessels arrested was more than three miles from shore. The captains of the Japanese vessels arrested were taken to Kodiak and there arraigned under the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Alaska.

The Japanese were released from custody after the State obtained an agreement from the Eastern Pacific Fisheries Company, dated April 19, 1962. In that agreement, which upon my information and belief, was signed with the knowledge of the Japanese government, the Japanese fishing company agreed to abstain from fishing in an area in all of Shelikoff Strait north of the line connecting Cape Ikolik with Kilokak Ricks.

That, to my knowledge, with the exception of one isolated incident involving Soviet trawlers on April 27, 1965, there has never been an intrusion by a foreign vessel of any nation into Shelikoff Strait.

On May 3rd, 1962, the Ambassador of Japan filed a protest with the United States Secretary of State relating to the activities of the State of Alaska above described. At no time prior to or subsequent to the Japanese protest did the Secretary of State or any official of the Department of State criticize the State of Alaska with respect to its activities above described.

That on June 19, 1962, the Secretary of State replied to the Japanese Ambassador concerning the Japanese protest of the Shelikoff Strait incident. The Secretary of State in his note declined to assert to the Japanese that the area involved in the seizures was international waters. Instead, he wrote in part: "As the government of Japan is aware, the matter of the seizure of the Japanese fishing boats is now before the courts of the State of Alaska. The Department agrees that the jurisdiction of those courts depend on whether, under international law, the vessels seized on the high seas were within the territorial jurisdiction of Alaska. A decision on this point necessarily involves

determination of questions of fact as well as of law, that is, the precise position of the vessels when seized, as well as the interpretation of the provisions and rules of law applicable to the facts of the case. On the information presently available to the Department, it appears that the vessels may have been within the State's territorial waters. But until the courts have acted to establish the facts, the Department does not consider it proper to take a position as to whether the vessels were seized within the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska, or on the high seas."

The Governor continues:

"So far as I am aware, no further reply was made to the Japanese concerning this matter."

STATE OF ALASKA,

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM A. EGAN

First Judicial District, 88.

William A. Egan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am Governor of Alaska. I have been Governor of Alaska during the years from January 3, 1959 through December 6, 1966 and December 7, 1970 through the present date.

2. In early 1962 I received word through Japanese newspapers that a Japanese fishing fleet was preparing to come to the Kodiak Island area in the vicinity of Shelikof Strait specifically to fish for herring and to attempt to establish historic rights there.

3. The possibility of the Japanese fishing effort in Shelikof Strait was of concern to the State because Shelikof Strait traditionally and historically has been waters of the Territory of Alaska and waters of the State of Alaska. These waters had been policed and regulatetd by both the federal government and the State of Alaska Fish and Game authorities as waters of Alaska.

4. Upon learning of the proposed Japanese venture into the waters of Shelikof Strait, I notified the United States Department of State and the Interior Department officials who were responsible for fishery activities and told them that the State would not stand idly by and permit such a foreign fishery in those waters. I communicated with the then Undersecretary of State, George Ball, first by letter and later by telegram, the last communication having been April 2, 1962. I received no response to my telegram.

5. Subsequent to that time, and in early April 1962 the Japanese herring fleet came into Shelikof Strait. Since the Kodiak fishery is the lifeblood of thousands of the people who live in Kodiak, those people were tremendously upset. Because of this there was a strong chance of violence if something were not done to stop the Japanese fishery. I feared at the time that the violence could erupt to shooting at the Japanese vessels or even boarding them.

6. A meeting held on the 13th and 14th of April betwen officials of the State of Alaska and the United States Department of State did not solve the problems presented by the Japanese fishery in Shelikof Strait.

7. On April 15, 1962, officials of the State arrested three captains of Japanese fishing vessels for fishing in the waters of the State of Alaska to wit: Shelikof Strait. One of the vessels arrested was within three miles of shore and one of the vessels arrested was more than three miles from shore. The captains of the Japanese vessels arrested were taken to Kodiak and there arraigned under the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Alaska.

8. The Japanese were released from custody after the State obtained an agreement from the Eastern Pacific Fisheries Company dated April 19, 1962. In that agreement, which upon my information and belief was signed with the knowledge of the Japanese government, the Japanese fishing company agreed to abstain from fishing in an area in all of Shelikof Strait north of the line connecting Cape Ikolik with Kilokak Rocks.

9. That to my knowledge with the exception of one isolated incident involving Soviet trawlers on April 27, 1965, there has never been an intrusion by a foreign vessel of any nation into Shelikof Strait.

10. That on May 3, 1962 the Ambassador of Japan filed a protest with the United States Secretary of State relating to the activities of the State of Alaska above described. At no time prior to or subsequent to the Japanese protest did the Secretary of State or any official of the Department of State criticize the State of Alaska with respect to its activities above described.

11. That on June 19, 1962, the Secretary of State replied to the Japanese Ambassador concerning the Japanese protest of the Shelikof Strait incident. The Secretary of State in his note declined to assert to the Japanese that the area involved in the seizures was international waters. Instead he wrote in part:

"As the government of Japan is aware, the matter of the seizure of the Japanese fishing boats is now before the courts of the State of Alaska. The department agrees that the jurisdiction of those courts depend on whether under international law, the vessels seized on the high seas are within the territorial jurisdiction of Alaska. A decision on this point necessarily involves determination of questions of fact as well as of law, that is, the precise positions of the vessels when seized, as well as the interpretation of the provisions and rules of law applicable to the facts of the case. On the information presently available to the department, it appears that the vessels may have been within the state's territorial waters. But until the courts have acted to establish the facts, the department does not consider it proper to take a position as to whether the vessels were seized within the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska, or on the high seas."

So far as I am aware, no further reply was made to the Japanese concerning this matter.

Dated at Juneau, Alaska, this 12th day of May, 1972.

WILLIAM A. EGAN,

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of May, 1972.

My commission expires June 7, 1975.

SHARON STURROCK, Notary Public in and for Alaska.

The foregoing has been a very summarized presentation of the basis upon which the State of Alaska claims that three areas located on the proposed baseline charts are incorrectly designated as high seas. They are incorrectly designated, because they are proper historic inland waters of the State of Alaska.

At this point, I will call on Dr. William Hunt. But before doing so, I had initially decided prior to these hearings that there is one bit of evidence which I would not present to the committee, because of a certain sensitivity that it might have affecting the Cook Inlet litigation. But in hearing Mr. Nelson's call through Mr. Stevenson, of all of the evidence which might pertain to the issue of the provisional baselines, I would assume, then, that the Federal Government is waiving any objection which it would have with respect to evidence which might have been admitted in the Cook Inlet litigation.

Recognizing that fact, and in deferring to Mr. Stevenson's call for everything the State has, I would like to offer for the record charts which the State obtained from the U.S. Government, copies of charts, drawn in 1957 by a team of Federal officials, a Mr. Garrett and a Mr. Scudder. The charts were an attempt by Mr. Garrett and Mr. Scudder to graphically depict the regulation which I quoted earlier, defining the waters of Alaska. On the State's information and belief, these charts were transmitted to Canada as evidence of the State's position relative. to the existence of the limits of the waters of Alaska.

Senator STEVENS. Do you mean the State or the Federal Government at that time?

Mr. CRANSTON. Excuse me. The Federal Government transmitted the charts to Canada. And so far as the State is aware, and of course, the State would make the same offer to the Federal Government to call for any evidence they might have, the Canadians did not in any significant manner protest the lines which are on these charts. Without putting them on the wall, I will lay them on this table for the committee. Here is the line as it goes from the southern boundary of Alaska, up the Alaska coast, up to Yakutat Bay. The next line goes. from Yakutat Bay along the outer end of Kodiak Island, across the same lines, Cape Ikolik to Kilotak Rocks, and then on down. The next line goes around the outer limits of the Shumagin Islands, along the

Alaska Peninsula, and back up the Alaska Peninsula, across Bristol Bay. Then it vents up along Norton Sound, and ultimately along the arctic coast.

These lines were captioned-this Garret-Scudder line was captioned, "Proposed 3-mile limit for fishery regulation." Excuse me, I would like to quote it exactly. The caption on the line was, "Proposed baseline from which to measure the 3-mile limit for fishery regulation."

The State believes that these charts represent a line which was transmitted to a foreign government, purporting to be a line measuring a 3-mile limit for the measurement of fishery regulation. And further, that the charts were transmitted to that government, that is, Canada, at that government's request. This again, I would say, I have offered these in response to the legal adviser's request for al of the State's available evidence.

I would also like to make a few comments on Mr. Nelson's presentation. We do not dispute the fact that the Federal Government exercised great care in drawing these lines. Insofar as they carefully applied the rigorous concept of the 3-mile limit. However, the State is informed and believes that at none of the meetings of the baseline committee did it consider any historic evidence relative to the Alaska coastline, as it did in the case of Long Island Sound.

Senator STEVENS. Let me interrupt there. Do you have knowledge of any contact from this group, the LOS Committee, the LOS Task Force, Executive Operations Group, with the State of Alaska?

Mr. CRANSTON. I do not believe that prior to the approval of the charts they did. I think there was a request for information afterward, at which time Governor Egan-what happened, I believe, is that the charts were issued. Governor Egan wrote a letter of protest, after which the committeed called for information. And of course, this hearing is one of the vehicles through which the State is submitting to the committee the historic information requested by it.

Senator STEVENS. Let me ask, if I may, Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Nelson is still in the room. The copies that I have show that they are either August of 1969 or June of 1970, in the bottom part of it. Did you know the period of time within which the task force group was working?

Mr. NELSON. I think, Senator, that was from late in 1970 through 1971. I think the dates on the bottom of the charts are the dates of the Coast and Geodetic Survey charts upon which the liens were superimposed. That's not the date on which the lines were drawn.

Mr. CRANSTON. I think I can answer the Senator's question. The first meeting of the baseline committee was sometime in June, I believe, of 1970. The last meeting of the committee was January 4, 1971. And they met at approximate weekly or two weekly intervals during that period. Senator STEVENS. In looking over these dates at the bottom of the charts, one of them goes back to October of 1968. These lines have been superimposed on charts that were prepared before the group commenced its work: right?

Mr. NELSON. That's right. They are the standard Coast and Geodetic Survey charts.

Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

Mr. CRANSTON. With those comments, then, I would call on Prof. William Hunt, chairman of the history department of the University of Alaska, to place the historic basis of these charts in a rather broader concept.

Senator INOUYE. Before proceeding with that, I would like to ask one question. Is it the contention of the State of Alaska that prior to the establishment of these provisional baselines, the Federal Government did, by act and by deed, recognize Alaska's jurisdiction over these waters that are now shown to be in pockets?

Mr. CRANSTON. Yes, it in fact and in deed, while Alaska was a territory, the United States recognized and asserted its own jurisdiction as the sovereign of the Alaska coastline. After statehood, when the State of Alaska asserted jurisdiction of its own territorial waters, without protest the United States allowed the State to regulate, manage, and enforce its laws in waters which are now enclosed within those red lines.

Senator INOUYE. Prior to the establishment of provisional baselines, was the jurisdiction of the United States or the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska questioned by other nations or objected to by other

nations?

Mr. CRANSTON. So far as the State is aware, there is no protest of a foreign nation of any assertion of sovereignty over areas in the Alexander Archipelago. The State's position that we the United States has in fact invited foreign nations into areas which they themselves would reasonably consider them to have been excluded. Of course, the Shelikoff Strait incident is an example of a foreign protest. The State arrested the Japanese. The Government of Japan protested. But then as Governor Eagan's affidavit makes clear, the response of the United States to the Japanese protest was very equivocal, and certainly was not handslapping of the State of Alaska in any way.

Senator INOUYE. In that case, did not the Government of Japan in fact recognize the jurisdiction of Alaska?

Mr. CRANSTON. Well, if it can be said that through the signing of the agreement by the fisheries company, the Japanese Government permitted that to happen. There may be some sort of constructive participation by the Japanese Government. It might be an overstatement to say that they equivocally recognized that.

Senator INOUYE. Did the Japanese Government pursue this matter to an international tribunal?

Mr. CRANSTON. No. The last that has been said about it is the series of notes, the Japanese note and the response by the State Department which I quoted in Governor Egan's affidavit.

Senator INOUYE. Since that incident, has the Japanese Government or have citizens of Japan made similar attempts to penetrate what you consider to be an Alaskan jurisdiction?

Mr. CRANSTON. Certainly not in Shelikof Strait. And I'm certainly not aware of any in the Alexander Archipelago or in the Shumagin Islands.

Senator INOUYE. From that, could you contend that the Japanese recognize your authority over these waters?

Mr. CRANSTON. This is the State's position, and this is what we are arguing to this committee.

Senator STEVENS. Could I ask Mr. Nelson if he could provide us with copies of that note and the response of the State Department for the record?

Mr. NELSON. Certainly we can do that, Senator.