424 



as impaired by anytling- obtained in this law. I do not see any contra- 

 diction there. 



We are not talking about inherent powers such as the police power 

 and other inherent power in a political subdivision legally constituted 

 to govern along the coastal line. 



Mr. Dellexback. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 

 amendment. 



]Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance I rise to oppose the amendment, 

 because I believe there is not any question that the goal for which the 

 gentleman from Texas is reaching is one that has much desirable 

 about it. 



I believe the points made by the gentleman from Ohio are really 

 fundamental. We should just look at the proposed language, which 

 says, "Nothing contained in the act shall be construed as prohibiting 

 any citizen free and unlimited access to the public beaches," and so on. 

 It raises frightening possibilities. 



It raises very serious questions as to the validity of any reasonable 

 restrictive laws impos?d in the sense of criminal penalties. 



The matter of trespass has been touched upon. We may get into a 

 situation where there is a public beach and the duly constituted author- 

 ities feel they nnust restrict entrance to some degree, or there may be 

 an instance they feel they must charge fees for a part of the use. This 

 Amendment might prohibit even such valid and proper restrictions. 

 It goes on and on and on, under the language involved in this 

 amendment. 



I am sure, under the haste of putting this together, there have been 

 words put in here that would not stand careful scrutiny. I believe we 

 would be creating a monster that would fly right in the face of proper 

 and careful planning, wdiich is the purpose of this legislation. 



Mr. Collier. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield ? 



Mr. Dellenback. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois. 



Mr. Collier. I would certainly agree with my colleague in the well. 

 We must consider the implications of the proposed amendment, well- 

 meaning as it might be. They are far-reaching, too far-reaching to be 

 handled on the basis of having the amendment adopted here today. 



I would hope that with proper deliberation at the proper time the 

 committee could consider this approach and do it in the proper way, 

 rather than on the basis it is presented here. 



Mr. Dellenabck. I appreciate the comments of my colleague, and 

 I am glad to yield now to my colleague from New Jersey. 



Mr. Patten. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 



May I say that we have no authority under the Constitution to pass 

 this amendment. Atlantic City, and the gentleman's beaches in New 

 York, such as Coney Island and so on, and the rights to real estate 

 therein, are under State laws and not under the U.S. Constitution. I 

 think this bill would violate those interpretations. 



There is no such thing as a free beach. If Members have ever had the 

 responsibility of regulating a million people at Coney Island, they 

 understand that there is no sucJi thing as a free beach. We have to pay 

 a lot of money in order to bring those people to the beaches. 



Mr. Dellenback. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman, and 

 now I am happy to yield to my colleague and friend from California. 



