STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, PLAINTIFF v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 113, Original

   In the Supreme Court of the United States

   October Term, 1987

   On Bill of Complaint

   Answer of the United States

   The United States, in response to the complaint of the State of
Mississippi setting forth its claim to portions of the Chandeleur
Sound, states as to each averment of the complaint:

   1. The averments of paragraph I are admitted.

   2. In response to the averments of paragraph II, the United States
states that the Submerged Lands Act, ch. 65, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C.
1301 et. seq., and this Court's decision in United States v.
Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1 (1960), are the best evidence of their contents
and speak for themselves.

   3. The averments of paragraph III are admitted.

   4. The averments of paragraph IV are denied.

   5. The averments of paragraph V are denied.

   6. In response to the averments of paragraph VI, the United States
admits that prior to United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139 (1965),
the United States had indicated that the Chandeleur Sound was inland
water, at least in some circumstances, pursuant to various
delimitation theories antedating the Convention on the Territorial Sea
and Continguous Zone, opened for signature Apr. 29, 1958, 15 U.S.T.
1606, T.I.A.S. No. 5639, 516 U.N.T.S. 205 (entered into force Sept.
10, 1964) (hereinafter the Convention).  The United States
specifically denies, however, that it is bound by any position taken
prior to the decision in United States v. California, supra, or that
such indications constitute a long history or practice of claiming all
or portions of the Chandeleur Sound as inland waters.  United States
v. Louisiana (Louisiana Boundary Case), 394 U.S. 11, 66-67 n.87, 73
n.97 (1969).  The United States admits that it has published
navigational charges showing areas of the Chandeleur Sound as high
seas and that high sea areas occur in northern portions of the
Chandeleur Sound three miles beyond the coastlines of Cat Island and
East and West Ship Islands. 4 7. In response to the averments of the
first sentence of paragraph VII, the United States states that it
claims the rights to and jurisdiction and control of the Chandeleur
Sound as against the State of Mississippi in accordance with the
provisions of the Submerged Lands Act, supra.  The averments contained
in the second sentence of paragraph VII are denied.  The third
sentence of this paragraph constitutes a characterization of
plaintiff's action and requires no response.

   8. In response to the averments of paragraph VIII, the United
States states that for purposes of defining the term "inland waters"
as employed by the Submerged Lands Act, supra, the definitions
provided in the Convention have been adopted by the Court.  United
States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 165 (1965).  The United States
further avers that, in particular, the Convention uses the term
"baseline" to refer to the "coast line" referenced in the Submerged
Lands Act, supra.  See United States v. Louisiana (Alabama and
Mississippi Boundary Case), 470 U.S. 93, 98 (1985).  The remaining
averments contained in pargraph VIII constitute legal argument of the
pleader and therefore require no response;  inasmuch as those
averments may require a response, they are denied.

                          ADDITIONAL AVERMENT

   The United States avers that the State of Mississippi has no rights
to the submerged lands and resources in areas of the Chandeleur Sound
disputed herein, that the Chandeleur Sound is neither juridical nor
historic inland water and that the United States has never asserted a
straight baseline as sanctioned by Article 4 of the Convention, 15
U.S.T. 1608, anywhere along its coast.

   WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully prays that the Court deny
in all respects plaintiff's prayer for relief, issue a decree
protecting the rights of the United States in the Chandeleur Sound and
grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

   Respectfully submitted.

   CHARLES FRIED

      Solicitor General

   ROGER J. MARZULLA, JR.

      Assistant Attorney General

   CHARLES W. BROOKS

      Attorney

   RALPH W. TARR

      Solicitor

   SUSAN K. HOVEN

      Attorney Department of the Interior

   JUNE 1988