28 



It seems to me that, by alluding to the fact that we have so many 

 people in this field, we are aware that there has been a tunnel-vision 

 approach into the very important area of the sea. Eacli fellow is look- 

 ing down his tube. If he is after oil, that is the tube he is looking down, 

 and he says, "Don't bother me with anything else. I am after oil. It is 

 important. We ought to get it." 



It seems to me that what the Council is trying to do under the law 

 that Congress set up and the significance attached to our use of "ocean- 

 ography" is that we want an ecological interrelationship type ap- 

 proach. Is that a correct analysis ? 



Dr. Wenk. I think that is exactly right. We are trying to look at the 

 relationship of these problems to the marine environment in which 

 they exist. The ecological approach, I think, is correct. 



The other aspect of this problem which touches on your point con- 

 cerns the cross-connections necessary between the people looking down 

 these different tubes. Someone once referred to the problems of the 

 structure of government in terms of a fabric with only a "warp." 

 Wliat we are trying to do is provide a "woof" at least within the 

 Federal Government, and also communication among the Federal 

 Government and States and the private sector. 



Mr. Hanna. You want to catch the stuff that is falling between the 

 cracks that people said wasn't anybody's responsibility. The specific 

 part of your remarks that I wanted to follow up is the one introduced 

 by Mr. Pelly. 



You will recall that in 1963 I first remarked about the problem of 

 the law of the sea, and in 1964 1 introduced a bill related to that and in 

 the testimony on this bill I suggested that that be added with the 

 remark that in some of the areas of the law of the sea we were just 

 about to reenact our frontier experience in the United States, where 

 the law of the six-gun prevailed and it seems like the violence gained 

 therefrom is nine points of the law. 



We had a pretty bloody chapter in the history of America while 

 we went through that experience and we wouldn't want it reenacted 

 in the law of the sea. It seems to me, gentleman, that to understand it 

 you have to realize that there are three areas of the law. 



See if this is in accord with your understanding. I am not much on 

 Latin, but there is what we call in Latin "res nullius" that in my 

 parlance would be the law where nobody owns anything. There is the 

 "res communes," which is the place where everybody owns everything 

 and then there is that area in which there is sovereign claim, which 

 means that that is mine. I own it. 



Now, it seems that where we are now is that we have to keep our 

 minds separated in all three departments as to what part of the law 

 we are addressing ourselves to and each is changing. There is no 

 fixed framework for this because what we have learned is that as the 

 techniques and technology changes, the boundary lines between these 

 three frameworks of the law change, don't they ? 



In other words, nobody was really heavily involved in what is in the 

 subsoils of the sea until very recently and that is now extending quite 

 a ways out. The Senator from Idaho, Mr. Church, suggested that the 

 U.lSr. ought to have the bottoms of the deep sea. 



It seems to me that that is a quick answer, but I just wonder how 

 practical it is. With these things moving out, are we better off going 



