586 
‘Mr. Ely, I greet you once again as a legislator. I have been long an 
admirer of your presentations. You will recall our meeting in the State 
legislature, when you represented our water interests, and I must say 
that you bring to this new subject all of those fine qualities I found 
so admirable in your previous work. 
Mr. Exy. Thank you very much indeed, sir. : 
Mr. Hanna. Mr. Ely, would you care to comment on my suggestion 
that we ought to go to some extent to emphasize the importance of the 
development of the law of the sea equally as we have continued to em- 
phasize the development of science and engineering ? 
It seems to me that we must keep in tandem with the development 
of science and engineering, this whole area of the law of the sea. Would 
you care to comment on that ? 
Mr. Ety. I think you are quite right, Mr. Hanna. As far as the Amer- 
ican Bar Association is concerned, within the past several years its 
activity has been stimulated. We have two sections whose committees 
have been at work on this general problem of the law of the sea, plus a 
standing committee. They have concentrated so far, on the problem of 
submarine mineral resources. 
In the past they have devoted considerable attention, as Mr. Pelly 
may recall, through Mr. Ned Allen’s chairmanship of the Committee 
on Oceanography, to fisheries problems. They are beginning to take up 
the question of pollution of the sea from onshore sources. This is being 
considered also by a committee of the International Law Association 
on which I serve. 
We don’t deal with a situation of anarchy, of absence of law. There 
is, of course, a tremendous body of the law of the sea. The admiralty 
courts of the civilized nations have recognized maritime liens for cen- 
turies. The rules of the road at sea are recognized internationally. 
There is a vast body of well-settled law governing surface opera- 
tions. The Convention on the High Seas and the other conventions 
that resulted at Geneva deal in various ways with the use of the water 
column. 
We are just beginning to grapple with this question of the seabed, 
and I agree with you that a great deal remains to be evolved. I think 
that many of us feel that the law ought to move cautiously and in 
tandem with scientific knowledge, to follow, not precede, the develop- 
ment of factual information. 
Many of us are concerned by the efforts to blueprint law for the 
future that we are really not yet equipped to write. We have, as to the 
seabed minerals, a confrontation between two very large and unwieldy 
bodies of law. One is the principle of the freedom of the seas, treating 
the trackless oceans as available for everyone. The other is the prin- 
ciple of the mining law that security of tenure is essential. 
But I agree with you that all phases of this problem need evolution. 
Mr. Hanna. I appreciate your comments and I certainly have no 
point of departure with you in terms of the caution with which we 
develop law. I think if you look back at some of the statements that I 
have made, it sounded as if you and I were reading out of the same 
chapter and verse. 
Mr. Exy. Iam sure that is true. 
Mr. Hanna. T think it is an observation of most practicing lawyers 
that the law tends to develop out of practical experience, and that is 
