To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

"Liberals can also err" and so can the liberals who edit the CRIMSON in spite of their supremacy in the ibis hunt. Your attention is respectfully drawn to the following points:

It is hardly fair to blame the opposition Senators for persevering in the face of determined silence on the part of the press and radio; on the contrary they would seem to be fully justified until the mass media are willing to let them lay their case before the public.

Since Senator Taft can end the debate quickly at any time, no true filibuster actually exists. 64 signatures are needed for cloture and over 70 Senators favor the bill. If Senator Taft prefers not to close the debate, the opposition can hardly be reproached for continuing to oppose. Judging from the New York Times reports, Taft has been hesitating because some southern conservatives might be offended by cloture. Thus if the opposition Senators yielded, they would be giving aid and comfort to the Dixiecrats by rendering future filibuster free from a damaging precedent of cloture in this session.

In any case, the only way to abolish the filibuster is to demonstrate that it is not a monopoly of anti-civil rights forces but can also be used against pet measures of the Republican majority. Only then will many Republicans who denounce filibusters but vote to weaken the cloture rules (e.g. the Wherry Resolution) unite with the liberals on a cloture provision with teeth. According to the Times the efforts of the opposition have borne fruit as the Senate Rules Committee is thinking of strengthening the rules on rebate.

You say "the Senators should let the tidelands bill pass, knowing that as soon as the electorate wakes up there will be votes enough to repeal it.' Even a despised 'Poonster would probably know that repeal of a bill which gives away property to a State or individual is more than slightly unconstitutional. The undersea lands will have become the property of the States and will not be subject to confiscation but the US without their consent. That's like locking the door after the ibis is stolen except that this ibis will never be given back. Eli Kaminsky '47, 4G8AS

There are many valid similarities between underseas oil and the ibis. Both are slippery, both impure, and both can be exploited either for the pleasure of the whole community or just a special interest group. However, the similarities Mr. Raminsky brings up are not quite as valid.

(1) The editorial did not blame the liberal Senators for talking in the face of snubs from the press, but merely pointed it out to them as fact. The more they talk, the less willing the press seems to tell what they are talking about.

(2) Of the 70 Senators who favor the bill, Taft cannot count on 64 to pass a cloture bill. The Southerners favoring the bill will not vote for cloture. The Southern Senators, not the pro-filibuster Republicans, are the crux of the filibuster problem. No matter what precedents are set at this session the threat of their Talkethon hangs over any attempt to change the rules. By filibustering themselves, the liberals will gibe much more comfort to the Southerners, because they will be undermining their own anti-filibuster arguments.

(3) Ducking red faces behind the ibis's ample beak, we recognize the unconstitutionality of repeal of the tidelands bill. However, where there are votes there is always a way, Since the states are using the money for education, federal educational grants-in-aid could be withheld from them. The court could even be asked to rule on federal taxation of the state-owned lands, seeing that intergovernmental tax immunity has been stretched in the past (cf. Graves vs. New York, 306 U.S. 466, 1939; also South Carolina vs. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 1905; etc.) All of which goes to prove that there is more than one way to retrieve an ibis.   Ed.