583 
been received by the Federal treasury from less than 1 percent of the 
continental margin so far explored. 
I am of the opinion that the treaty-making power, which article IT, 
section 2, delegates to the Executive (for exercise with the advice and 
consent of the Senate), does not override the clear mandate of the 
property clause of article IV, section 3, so as to delegate to the Execu- 
tive the power (even with the advice and consent of the Senate) to 
dispose of property or territory of the United States, a power which 
article IV delegates to the whole Congress. Similarly, the dedication 
by treaty of the royalty revenues from the American continental mar- 
gin to an international organization, as some have proposed, would 
be subject, in my opinion, to the mandate of article I, section 7, that 
all bills for raising revenues (hence for appropriating such revenue) 
shall originate in the House of Representatives. 
But the contrary opinion on these points is entitled to respect. It is 
conceivable that, as a matter of international law, a treaty which re- 
linquished the claim of the United States to the mineral resources of 
the American continental margin, or dedicated American royalty or 
tax revenues from this source to an international agency, would be 
enforceable against this country by other parties to the treaty, even 
though, as a matter of domestic law, the making of that treaty vio- 
lated article IV, section 3, and article I, section 7, of the constitution, 
because the House of Representatives was bypassed. 
The very possibility of a constitutional uncertainty of this magni- 
tude adds weight to Congressman Pelly’s point that any proposed re- 
linquishment of United States jurisdiction over the maximum area 
of the continental margin to which we may fairly lay claim, subject 
to the limitations on that jurisdiction imposed by the convention on 
the Continental Shelf, should be considered and decided by both 
Houses of Congress. Why not? At stake is possibly the most valuable 
property still remaining in Federal possession. National policy, as well 
as the language of the Constitution, requires the concurrence of the 
House in its disposition. 
Mr. Petty. Is it too much to hope that maybe the American Bar 
Association through its appropriate committee would study that 
problem and maybe pass a resolution expressing its thoughts on that 
matter ? 
Mr. Exy. The Bar Association functions through committees that 
report to sections, and the sections submit recommendations to the 
House of Delegates, and only the House of Delegates speaks for the 
American Bar Association. , : 
I would certainly be happy to recommend to the appropriate section 
that they study this question. What happens beyond that is totally 
beyond my control. : 
Mr. Petty. I can only say that I think I express the feelings of the 
members of this committee that they would like to fortify their own 
feelings with regard to the importance of the House of Representatives 
and their own responsibilities, that we could have such a study and in 
turn possibly a resolution at the appropriate time. — 
Mr. Ey. Before I leave, may I call your attention to my appendix 
B, which deals with the legislative history of the convention. Since you 
gentlemen deal with legislative history every day, let me point out the 
