Document ppNN2QEqE6Zg6YRGkj90pRY2B

C THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, \ U Monday, June 30. 1980 RequiredReporting ofOil Spilh by Those : Responsible Is Upheld by Supreme Court By a Wall Street Journal Staff Revorter rate criminal penalties for failure to report WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court up the oil spill in the first place. . held the federal government's authority to ,, Only Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed require those responsible for oil spills to re-' and said that the penalty levied against' port them, even when it leads to a fine. . ' Ward was criminal in nature. ,, ! The high court ruled, eight-to-one,, that While the issue isAn important one, the fines for water pollution from oil spills are impact may be less than it would seem at levied in civil hearings and that persons who first, glance.,According to papers filed with' report spills don't enjoy any constitutional, the Supreme Court, civil penalties were lev protection from self-incrimination. ied by .,the Cbast Guard in 8,000 oil-spill The court turned aside the arguments' of cases in 1978, but only 350 involved possible L.O. Ward Oil & Gas Operations which was self-incrimination. , fined $500 in 1975 when oil escaped from a In another action, the Supreme Court drilling site near Enid, Okla., and spilled ruled Friday that a Washington, D.C., man into an Arkansas River tributary. A federal, who received worker's compensation bene appeals' court based in Denver accepted fits in Virginia could also apply for benefits Ward's argument that reporting of the spill, in Washington that went beyond those in' required by federal law, amounted to self-in Virginia. . ' ' crimination in violation of the Fifth Amend The worker, Halley, Thomas, injured his- ment to the Constitution............ . back in 1971 while operating an air hammer Justice William Rehnquist, writing for' in Virginia for Washington Gas Light Co. He the court, said there was "overwhelming ev won compensation benefits froirn Virginia j idence that Congress intended .to create a and applied for additional benefits in Wash-1 penalty civil in all respects." The Fifth ington. An examiner'at the U.S. Labor De-1 Amendment would apply only to criminal partment, which is responsible for the work- i proceedings. By determining that hearings er's compensation program in the District oF on the imposition of oil spill fines are 'civil, Columbia, ruled for Mr. Thomas. But a fed-' the court said the Fifth Amendment didn't eral appeals court reversed the examiner, apply. The court noted that there are sepa saying the award in one state precluded an award in another. ,, -* . > . , The issue was a constitutional one, cen tering on part of the Constitution that re quires states to give "full faith and credit" to the acts and laws of other states. How ever, of the seven justices ruling in Mr. Thomas's favor, only four addressed the constitutional question. The four justices, in an opinion by Mr. Stevens, issued a broad ruling that the Constitution doesn't preclude dual claims under two states' worker's com-; pensation laws. Three justices, in an opinion by Justice Byron White, took a much nar rower view, simply concluding that Virgin-; ia's law didn't preclude a later claim in Washington. ' . Justice Rehnquist dissented, joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall. . : ' PCB-ARCH-EXT0375794