Evening star., 1952-05-20
The President and Offshore Wealth

The President and Offshore Wealth
Judging from his speech the other night to
the Americans for Democratic Action, the Presi-
dent will soon send to Congress a message vetoing
the legislation recently enacted to "quitcaim"
to the States certain portion of the submerged
wealth off their shores. If the message, however,
Is as Incorporate or as factually careless as the
speech, then he ought not to be surprised if the
Senate and House vote to override the veto.
For the President has resorted to an extreme
and unjustified extravaganza of language in
denouncing the bill. In the first place, he has
given the impression that it would turn over to
a handful of States all of the countrys great
offshore petroleum and gas deposits national
asset that may be worth as much as $40 billion"
Then, describing the measure as being "just
what the oil lobby wants." he has lashed out
against it as something that would have the
effect, if he signed it, of stealing" from the
American people as whole. In his words, "This
would be robbery in broad daylight-and on a
colossal scale"
This criticism, which suggests that Congress
Willingly or unwittingly-has given its blessing
to an outrageous thieving conspiracy, will hardly
win friends or favorably influence people on
Capitol HILL After all, the measure has been
sent to the President for his signature after
having been approved by vote of so to IS in
the Senate and 247 to 80 in the House. These
very numerous supporters of the bill cannot be
blamed If they react with decided hostility to
what Mr.. Truman has said of it-and indirectly
of them-in his ADA speech. Indeed, it is not
inconceivable that his crack about robbery in
broad daylight" may arouse sufficient number
of Senators to override his expected veto.
Accordingly, since there already are enough
&~ksx So -
thing, it is at least possible that the legislation
will yet become effective.
Should that happen the consequences would
add up to something less than great injury to
the Nation. For the legislation, despite the
impression given by the President, would not
hand over to few States all of the country's
offshore resources. What it would do is this:
It would grant to the coastal States full title to
the petroleum and other deposits in the sub
merged areas lying within their traditional
Seaward boundaries. These areas, in most cases,
would extend three miles out from the coast
line, but for Florida and Texas-because of old
legal conditions bearing upon their entry into
the Union-the distance would be 10k miles.
And how much of our undersea wealth is located
within that region? According to expert calcu-
lations, the answer is, between 20 and 30 per
cent The remainder-between 10 and 80 per
cents within that part of the continental shelf
that Congress has not acted upon.
In other words the President has no factual
justification for attacking, the "quitclam" legis-
lation on the ground that it would give away"
to handful of States the whole or even the
major part of our wealth offshore. Actually,
although an argument might be made for vetoing
it because it fails to recognize national para
mountcy over the region beyond the seaward
boundaries, the bill can be strongly defended as
a measure designed to uphold States rights.
To lken its effect to robbery in broad daylight"
Is to do it gross injustice Its only very serious
weakness, If the principle of States rights is
accepted is that it does not provide statutory
authority for the resumption of exploratory and
productive operations under Federal supervision,
in the vast area-which is by far the richest
area-lying outside what Congress would turn
over to the States.
The private companies-the "oil lobby"-are
at present enjoined from such operations in
keeping with the Supreme Courts 1947 and 1850
decisions. Their primary interest far from being
what Mr. Truman says it is is to see the Federal
State dispute ended in way that will permit
them to explore and produce. The bill passed by
Congress, If supplemented by legislation protect
ing the clear national interest in the region
beyond the seaward boundaries might constitute
a sound compromise settlement. In any event,
whether vetoed or not, or whether or not it
survives the veto it is not nearly so bad as the
President has suggested.