The U.S. coal industry has managed for a long time tO impose controls on the import of fuel oil tut now it seems that the oil industry is hitting back. Intorior secretary Stewart Udall has entered the controversy and maintains that the control programs would increase fuel costs for U.S. consumers in the short term, but without controls the cost might bo even greater in the long run, "The moderate immediate costs attributable to the program are necessary to the maintonance of en industry that is perhaps the most essential of all to our national security," Udall said in a recent letter to Representative James C. Cleveland. Congressman Cleveland wrote a reply challonging Udall's explanation, The oil industry was only asking for a rolaxation of controls on residual fuel oil and this'exploded any fictitious arguments that national security was being imperilled by residual—fuel oil imports,
The controversy has entered into other fields, The Justico Depart~ mont says it is looking into possible anti-trust violations stemming from the control program. ‘William Il, Orrick, assistant attorney general, revenled this in a recent letter to John K. Evans, Washington represent— ative for the Inépendent Fusl Oil Marketers of America, Inc. Justico has no jurisdiction over administration of oil-imports controls, Orridk wrote, but, “it is deeply concerned with the possible effects of that control system on free onterprise competition in oil marketing."
The present attack on the residual program may bo more intense thay sm tho past because of political changes. Political analysts spevelzte that the Johnson administration is more likely to woo the industrial east for political support. The late President Kennedy, by contrast, was said to feel some obligation to the coal states, particularly West Virginia. Johnson's asmouncement that the Interior Department would be responsible for oil postsy gavo critics a single target on which to concentrate, and thoy are doing some concentrating.