AMBIGUOUS STEAL

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

While I recognize the pressure group implication in the Senate vote on the tidelands oil issue, I should like to call to your attention the actual Senate debate and the issues raised therein. I happened to be present in the gallery on the afternoon the issue was raised and heard Senators Ives, Knowland, Nixon, Lehman, and Taft all speak on behalf of the states. In particular, Senator Ives read a letter from Mayor Impelliteri to President Truman in which the New York solon pointed out how other waterfront state activities such as the Port of New York would be jeopardized as to jurisdiction should the Senate fail to clear the states' title as obscured by the Supreme Court decision. Senator Taft read an article by the former Dean of the Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, which firmly maintained the ownership of the tideland oil lands by the states. Finally one of the speakers called attention to the act by which Texas was admitted to the Union which specifically provided for ownership out to a ten-mile limit as opposed to the three-mile limit claimed by the other states. For a more exact account of the arguments raised in favor of state ownership may I refer you to the Congressional Record for Wednesday, April 2nd. With reference to the disposition of the funds raised by federal ownership of the tidelands, in the first place it is not considered good budgetary practice to earmark funds, in the second it would be poor policy to earmark funds for a politically controversial purpose as federal aid to education (if aid outside present areas is intended), and in the third place the states charge a rate of 37 1-2% on the extractive industry, whereas the federal government charges only 11%, which would mean a revenue loss to the people should the federal government control the oil. More important I believe is the larger issue raised by the legalists in this discussion, that is, the ambiguity that would reflect upon other state controlled activities, particularly wharves where great investment has been made by the state and local authorities, should the act be passed, and the resultant diminution of the role of the non-federal governments as political units. Robert H. Stewart '53