OCR Text |
Show IN a departure from a policy it has maintained since 1793 the United States recently proposed to the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea that countries be permitted per-mitted to set the limit of their territorial ter-ritorial sea at a distance up to 6 miles. Chairman of the U. S. delegation dele-gation Arthur H. Dean called the proposal a "realistic compromise" which the U. S. was offering at a "very real and substantial sacrifice" sacri-fice" of its own interest. The proposal provides further that a country could establish a cone of up to 12 miles in which it would have exclusive fishing rights. An exception would be made for fishermen of another country who have fished regularly in that area for the past 5 years. In this case, they could continue to fish in the waters lying beyond the limit of the country's territorial sea but would have to observe conservation conserva-tion measures Instituted by the adjacent coastal states. The U.N. Conference failed to reach any kind of an agreement on the proposal and Mr. Dean declared de-clared that the U. S. will continue to adhere to its traditional position posi-tion with respect to the three-mile limit. Many economists in Washington have admitted from the start that an across-the-board tax reduction would provide an immediate tonic to the nation's economy. Less certain cer-tain were they, however, that such a move would not create inflationary inflation-ary effects over the long pull. A decision from President Eisenhower Eisen-hower became more and more important im-portant as time, and concern over the business outlook, passed from day to day. It became apparent that much depended upon the timing, tim-ing, as well as the nature of the President's decision. Further delays in making of the decision set the stage for the Democratic leadership in Congress to initiate new federal spending plans tagged as anti-recession measures. This could put the Administration Ad-ministration in the posiUon of blocking moves heralded as attempts at-tempts at economic recovery. The President had already shown that he was opposed to the federal spending idea until convinced that no "natural" upturn is in sight. In late April, some economists were saying that a decision by the President on the tax-cut question, whatever that decision might be, would spark a pickup in consumer consum-er buying. These held to the theory theo-ry that consumer spending, on the downgrade for some time, is the key to it all. A decision, one way or another, they pointed out, would end uncertainty and free some ol the buying power the consumer! have been holding back. |