Word: landed
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1940-1949
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Arguments presented in the dispute have involved numerous issues that are related to the tideland problem, but the basic question of ownership of the land has brought out two different approaches...
Those favoring the bill for federal ownership concentrate their views on the Supreme Court decision. They say that since the states never owned the land the states have no rights to be considered whatever. Since the United States has "paramount rights and full dominion" in this land, why should the government give the land away? How can the federal government, they argue, give land in which all the states have an interest to three states? This, they say, would be a quitclaim, and they see no reason...
...side of the fence, the supporters of the bill giving ownership of the tideland oil deposits to the states look at the practical situation in the tidelands today and try to ignore the Court decision as much as possible. They maintain that in practice the states have owned this land, and the federal bill would take it away from them. Great development and organization of the new oil fields have already taken place under state ownership. Such a change as is proposed by the administration would disrupt the whole system and delay the development of the area until...
Other issues used as arguments by both sides are conservation, national defense, states rights, and land grab...
...result of the Court decision is that Congress definitely has the right to dispose of the land as it sees fit. Some interesting legal controversy has, however, arisen outside the government. Since this land was not given to California in its original land grant and since the federal government does not own it, the land is claimed by 21 bands of California Indians. But the government is continuing its well established policy of ignoring Indian demands...