Evening star., 1952-10-15
Eisenhower on Offshore Wealth

Eisenhower on Offshore Wealth
General Eisenhower-in his New orleans
address-has taken a sound and thoroughly
defensible basic position regarding the Federal
State controversy over the submerged wealth off
our shores.
As so many others have done on both sides
of this debate, the Republican presidential can
didate has made the mistake of referring to the
disputed area as the "tidelands" even though
the "tidelands' are in no way involved. Except
Tor that lapse, however, his essential views on
the subject are clear and unequivocal. In his
own words, he favors legislation under which
the Federal Government would quitcaim to
the States "all submerged lands and resources
beneath inland and off-shore waters which lie
within historic State boundaries"
The issue involved here has been the subject
OF angry argument-much of it grossly distorted
and misinformed on both sides-ever since the
Supreme Court, in the California case of 1947
and the Texas and Louisiana cases of 1850
affirmed that the Federal Government had
paramount" rights to the oil, gas and other
resources of the submerged coastal lands beyond
the inland waters of the States However despite
popular misconception to the contrary, the
Courts decisions did not impair, do not now
impair, and can never impair the power of
Congress to enact quitclaim legislation of the
sort advocated by General Eisenhower and
opposed by Governor Stevenson, his Democratic
opponent.
Actually, of course, the 82nd Congress-by
vote OF 247 to SO in the House and so to IS
In the Senate-adopted just such legislation
Had the bill not been vetoed by President Tru-
man last June, it would have granted to the
coastal States full title to the petroleum and
other deposits in the underwater areas lying
within their historic or traditional seward
boundaries. These areas generally speaking,
extend 3h land miles out from the low-tide
mark off the coast, but in the case of Florida
and Texas-owing to old legal conditions con-
nected with their entry into the Union-they
extend 10ka miles out. Within this limited sub
merged territory-that is to say, within the
States historic or traditional seaward boun-
daries-iS located between 20 and 80 per cent
OF our undersea wealth. The balance of between
70 and 30 per cent is located in the great region
beyond-that part of the continental shelf whose
resources clearly belong to the aDhole Nation and
not merely to few adjacent States.
In his veto message last June, President
truman offered only one strong argument
against the quitclaim legislation sent to him
by CongreSS-namely, that the bill failed to
establish or acknowledge national ownership of
the resources beyond the historic seaward boun-
oarleS and tnat 1t provided no statutory authority
for the resumption, under Federal supervision
OF the productive operations from which the
private companies have been enjoined by the
Supreme Courts decisions But he submitted
a weak case otherwise, the more so because he
made point of declaring that the Government
did not claim to own the fish, shrimp, kelp, etc.,
In the disputed area long recognized as being
part OF the adjacent States Why then should
1t claim to own the oil and the gas in that area?
General Eisenhower, in effect, has made
clear that if he is elected to the Presidency, he
will sign the kind of legislation that MIR. Truman
has vetoed-provided, presumably, that it clearly
establishes Federal ownership and control over
the vast region beyond the seaward boun-
daries, which is where most of the wealth is.
This may agitate some of his friends as well
as his enemies, but it is nonetheless common
sense position in terms Of both States rights
and the interests Of the Nation as whole.