NAME-CALLING

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The illogical blast that ran as your editorial on the tidelands oil dispute Monday morning completely amazed me in view of the insight and clear thinking which usually typifies your editorial column. You charged robbery, which is merely a device to avoid your opponents' arguments; you said that the federal government owned the land, which is not so; you claimed that the federal government could use the money, which is hardly conclusive. In general, you blandly ignored the several sound arguments which could lead to an opinion opposite to yours.

Basic to the whole controversy is the fact that for twenty years tidelands oil has been developed under the assumption of state ownership. This means that highly speculative investments have been made, long-range plans undertaken, and state finances based on the current status of these lands under state control. The states have been in possession of these lands for twenty years and taking them away from the states would present an enormous practical problem. An entire industry would have to halt while the government set up its traditionally complex administration of control. Possibly there are gains that would make this temporary chaos worth while, but the turmoil that the change from state to federal ownership would create cannot be ignored as you editorial did.

Current war needs also lead to favoring state control. Increased oil production requires a steady development of unknown resources under the tidelands. Such development would necessarily have to halt while oil men waited to see how federal control would work in practice. In such a speculative industry as oil, no one would drill a well in the face of the uncertainty of federal control.

The editorial claimed the federal government owned this land because of the Supreme Court's statement that the government had "paramount rights" in it. The attorney general specifically asked the Court to say that government had "proprietary rights". The Court refused to do this and instead made the inconclusive statement of "paramount rights". Clearly, "paramount" does not mean "proprietary". The Court did not say who owned the land, and that question is still a legal dispute.

The fact that federal government could use the money to aid education is really irrelevant. Whoever gets the money will use it for governmental purposes--Texas uses its oil money to support its public schools. The amount of money going to the respective governments will be the same, for the owner of oil land gets a standard one-eight royalty. More important that the possible federal uses of the money is that state finances are currently based on this income. To take it away would force states into a sudden readjustment of their tax systems.

In general, the charge of "robbery" is meaningless. Calling your opponents robbers is in the same class as calling them fascists and communits indiscriminently. It would be like calling the CRIMSON communist for its well known stand on academic freedom--an ignorant attempt to obscure the real issues. Edward J. Sack '51, 1L

The question of who owns the marginal lands does indeed remain in dispute, but the crucial issue is actually who will manage the land and use the oil revenue. Since paramount rights in the areas under consideration are vested in the United States, an attempt to grab them for the use of the three separate states involved is "robbery". Despite assumptions to the contrary, the Supreme Court declared in the California case of 1947 that the states had never held title to the submerged land.

We believe that the benefits of forty billion dollars for public education throughout the nation for outweigh the difficulties involved in the issuance of new issues.