Evening star., 1953-04-06
The House on Offshore Wealth

The House has done good days work In
voting, 285 to 108, to quitclaim to the States all
submerged lands and resources lying within
their historic seaward boundaries. Critics Of the
measure have attacked it as "give-away" and
"steal" and robbery in broad daylight" but
to call it that is to be guilty of gross misrepre
Sentation. Actually, in terms of law. morals,
equity and the like, it is an excellent piece of
legislation designed to effect fair and honest
settlement of the long-standing controversy
over the Nations offshore oil and gas deposits.
Under the House bill. this controversy-the
misnamed "tidelands" issue-would be ended by
clearly defining and delimiting what should
belong to the coastal States and what to the
country as whole. Thus, the bill provides that
the States are to have full title to the sub
merged riches within their historic seaward
boundaries and that the Federal Government,
representing the entire Nation, Is to be the
owner and controller of all the resources in the
continental shelf beyond those boundaries. The
division on that score is not left in doubt in any
respect; it offers no more and no less to either
side than what was pledged by General Eisen-
hover and the Republican Party during last
years presidential campaign.
Thus, in enacting its bill, the House has
wisely defeated provision that would have
entitled the States to levy special taxes on oil
words it has denied to the adjacent States
percentage "cut-in" of any kind on the wealth
outside their historic boundaries-10k miles out
in the case of Texas and Florida and three
nautical miles out in the case Of California,
Louisiana and the rest. That limited region, ac-
cording to expert estimates, contains only be-
tween 20 and 80 per cent Of the riches OF our
coasts, while the far bigger region beyond-the
region set aside as belonging to the entire Ma
tion-contains between 10 and 80 per cent OF all
the oil and gas deposits in the continental shelf.
Considering the nature of this apportion-
ment-which includes specific authority for
national development Of the resources in the
Federal area-and considering also the legal
and moral force of the States historic c-boundary
claims, the critics certainly do violence to COM
mon sense and to the facts of the situation when
they describe the House bill as "give-away," q
"steal" or robbery in broad daylight" Far from
being anything Of the Sort it represents good
compromise solution to difficult problem that
has bedeviled the country for the past several
years. Worked out and approved by an over
whelming bipartisan majority Of honorable
Representatives, 1t Is q solution, moreover, that
should be adopted by the Senate as well.
After its Easter recess, the Senate will de-
bate its own version Of stidelands" bill that
calls for quitclaim within historic boundaries,
but leaves in some doubt-to be settled by sep
arate legislation-the future of the Federal area
beyond. This deficiency, which could open the
way to State claims on that area and which
conceivably might justify veto, Is not to be
found In the House measure. That measure Is
fortnight and specific in every major respect,
and the Senator'S would do well to enact It. #
they do, the Presidents approval viii be o
foregone conclusion. 4