COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00008 00003	As printed:
C00013 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;
∂AIL Editor:↓%2New York Times%1↓229 West 43d St.↓N.Y. 10036∞
.turn on "→";
To the Editor:

	The Wyoming State Senate is to be congratulated for voting
20 to 10 to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 in face of the
Federal threat to withhold $52 million per year in highway money -
evne given the further fact that Wyoming has the highest
highway death rate in the country.  Presumably, the Wyoming Senate
is correct in its judgment that Wyoming citizens would rather
drive faster even at the cost of more chances of death, somewhat
more money for gasoline, and foregoing the road improvements the
Federal money would buy.

	Wyoming is right on two grounds - procedural and substantive.

	Procedurally, they are right in defying the Federal takeover
of a power that traditionally and rightfully belongs to the states.
In the present confused constitutional situation, we can't tell whether
the Supreme Court will protect any states' rights from Congressional
preemption, but whether or not the Court holds that states have
rights, they should.

	States' rights in social evolution are like sex in biological
evolution.  They allow ideas about government to be tried out where
there is enthusiasm for them.  If they are good, other states will
adopt them, and if they are bad they die.  When Congress decides
on a policy for the whole country, it is harder to say whether it
worked out well or badly, because there are no comparisons.  The
annoyance caused by the non-uniformity of state laws is trivial
compared to the disasters that occur when Congress gets caught up
in some stupid enthusiasm that sweeps the nation.

	The 55 mile per hour speed limit is just one application of
a recently discovered trick whereby Congress gets around the
Constitutional limits on its powers.  It taxes the states and then
gives them money back on condition that the states do something that
Congress can't or is afraid to make them do directly.  It is time
for this to stop.

	Wyoming is also right in substance.  It is a matter of
judgment, values and even taste, but I agree with the Wyoming Senate
that the U.S. has gone too far in coercing people for their own
presumed good.  Let the citizens take greater risks if they want to,
even accepting the fact that more Wyoming children will suffer from
their parents' bad driving.

	As an energy saving measure, the 55 mile limit was acceptable
as a means of getting by an emergency.  Unfortunately, it is being
made permanent, because the Carter Administration has apparently decided
to prevent the energy problem from being solved by new and old
technology.  This Administration seems to be following the dishonest advice of
former EPA Administrator Russell Train when he wrote (%2Science%1
June 7, 1974),
%2"We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and
great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we
should be making anyhow for other reasons"%1.

	The sooner the public and the states refuse to co-operate with
pious appeals for energy conservation, the sooner Congress will realize
that it is important to get the energy and stop using its lack to impose
the life-style tastes of the environmentalist lobbyists on the country.

.sgn
As printed:
	The Wyoming State Senate is to be congratulated for voting
20 to 10 to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 in face of the
Federal threat to withhold $52 million per year in highway money -
even given the further fact that Wyoming has the highest
highway death rate in the country.  Presumably, the Wyoming Senate
is correct in its judgment that Wyoming citizens would rather
drive faster, at the cost of more chances of death, somewhat
more money for gasoline, and forgoing the road improvements the
Federal money would buy.

	Wyoming is right on two grounds, procedural and substantive.

	Procedurally, it is right in defying the Federal takeover
of a power, traditionally and rightfully belonging to the states.
In the present confused constitutional situation, we can't tell whether
the Supreme Court will protect any states' rights from Congressional
pre-emption, but whether or not the Court holds that states have
them, states %2should%1 have rights.

	States' rights in social evolution are like sex in biological
evolution.  They allow ideas about government to be tried out where
there is enthusiasm for them.  If they are good, other states will
adopt them; if they are bad they die.  When Congress decides
on a policy for the whole country, it is harder to say whether it
worked out well or badly because there are no comparisons.  The
annoyance caused by the non-uniformity of state laws is trivial
compared to the disasters that occur when Congress gets caught up
in some stupid enthusiasm that sweeps the nation.

	The 55-mile-per-hour speed limit is just one application of
a recently discovered trick whereby Congress gets around the
constitutional limits on its powers.  It taxes the states and then
gives them money back on condition that the states do something that
Congress can't or is afraid to make them do directly.  It is time
for this to stop.

	Wyoming is also right in substance.  It is a matter of
judgment, values and even taste, but I agree with the Wyoming Senate
that the U.S. has gone too far in coercing people for their own
presumed good.  Let the citizens take greater risks if they want to,
even accepting the fact that more Wyoming children will suffer from
their parents' bad driving.

	As an energy-saving measure, the 55 mile limit was an acceptable
means of getting by an emergency.  Unfortunately, it is being
made permanent because the Carter Administration has apparently decided
to prevent the energy problem from being solved by new and old
technology.  This Administration seems to be following the dishonest advice of
former E.P.A. Administrator Russell Train when he wrote in Science
(June 7, 1974),
%2"We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and
great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we
should be making anyhow for other reasons"%1.

	The sooner the public and the states refuse to cooperate with
pious appeals for energy conservation, the sooner Congress will realize
that it is important to get the energy and stop using its lack to impose
the life-style tastes of the environmentalist lobbyists on the country.