« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
resolutions dght be done by a trosty); and Jones v. Kehan involved rather the validity of a reservation to two Indien diefs out of a cession of
Indian land to the United States, then a transfor or cession of original
Vore persuasive than these decisions, it seems to me, are the cessions of territory by troáty prectice which are relied upon by H. Salans at pages 8 and 9 of his statedent. To thes, I think, night be added the recent case of Sven Island, ofl of Banderu.
I have not bad an opportunity to render these; but I would observe
that apparently they went unchallenged, and that a mber of the rould
ppear to be boundary adjustments, us to which it. May said:
"In all these cases, the treaty taking power kerely reduces
Quoted in Crandall, Troatia Thals Kleding and Daforcement (2nd A)
It is worth noting so that the treaty oth PaprI of 1955
Article V thereof nade the coureguice or cussion to Pants of certain lands,
both within and without the Casal Zone rabject to the enactant of legislation
by the Congress."
M. Corintan, 11 I ver to present this matter to a court I would,
of course, viab to do a great deal na research on the subject than I have
attempted at this point.
As tentative conclusions, bowever, I would suggest the following:
1. A treaty provisben calling for payment of ponies to Panama
out of the freasury of the United States, definitely calls for and requires
implementation by an Act of Congresi.
2. By parity of reasoning the same rould see to be true as to
the transfer of other personal property of the United States, and quite
possibly also as to real property interests ecquired by the United States
fra private landbaldari,
3. The necessity of suplementing legesletion in regard to treaty provisions providing for the cession of national territory, or the release of treaty rights conferring substantial national sovereignty over Zone or
tract of territory, is certainly ur debatable; I would, bowever, be
willing to debate it, and I a clourly of the opinion that, in any event, any
much treaty respecting the territory of the Canal zone maght, in the sational
Interest, to be so drum w to require il senting loddelatia.
I thank this distinguished.cocottee for extending to me the
opportunity to spear before it, and I hope that I usy bave been able to
contribute something of some value to your consideration of this very
CHIE OF STAT
CARL L. PERIAN
ERNEST I. CORRADO
JOHN M. MURPWY, N.Y., CHAIRMAN THOMAS L. ASHLEY, OHIO
PHILIP L. RUPPE, MICH. JOHN D. DINGELL. MICH.
S PAUL N. MC CLOSKEY, JR., CALIF. PAUL G. ROGERS, PUA.
GENE SNYDER, KY. WALTER I. JONES, N.C.
EDWIN .. FORSYTHE, N.J. ROBERT L. LEOGETT, CALIF.
DAVID C. TREEN, LA. MARIO DIAGGI, N.Y.
JOEL PRITCHARD, WAGH. GLENN M. ANDERSON, CALIY.
DON YOUNG, ALASKA (KIKA) DE LA GARZA, TEX.
ROBERT E. BAUMAN, MD. RALPH N. METCALSZ, ILL.
NORMAN F. LENT, N.Y. JOHN 1. BREAUX, LA.
DAMD 2. EMERY, MAINE FRED .. NOONCY, PA.
ROBERT K. DORMAN, CALIF. BO GINN, GA.
THOMAS 1. EVANS, JR., DEL.
PAUL .. TRIOLE, JR., VA.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
W. PATRICK MORRIS
July 22, 1977
Honorable James B. Allen, Chairman
Dear Senator Allen:
I wish to commend you for holding hearings on the Constitu-
It seems to me that this fact, our absolute and total possession of the Canal zone, must underlie any discussion as to who is empowered under the Constitution to dispose of that territory should such an eventuality come to pass.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. DRUMMOND, CHAIRMAN, CANAL ZONE
SEPARATION OF POWERS
THE HONORABLE JA ES B. ALLEN, CHAIRMAN
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
It is my understanding that the subject of this hearing is to resolve a constitutional contraversy between the President's right to negotiate treaties and the Congress' right, once a territory has been acquired, by treaty or otherwise, to administer and dictate the future disposition of that u.s. territory. It is my firm belief, not without substance, that the solution to this contraversy is to have the Executive Branch seek direction and approval from the Congress prior to embarking upon any new Canal treaty with the Republic of Panama.
The outcome of this contraversy will have a profound impact on the inhabitants of the Canal Zone as well as U.S. citizens within the States.
"Personal and Civil Rights" applicable within the Canal Zone originated by Executive Order on May 9, 1904, pursuant to the authority given by Act of Congress dated April 28, 1904. These rights were and are based on the "Bill of Rights" of the Constitution of the United States.
On June 19, 1934, also pursuant to an Act of Congress, the
On October 18, 1962 the revised Canal Zone Code was enacted by
94-468 0.77 - 17
Congress through Public Law 87-845 Stat. 76A., effective January 2, 1963. This revised edition consisted of eight titles. Title 1, Chapter 3, section 31 is composed entirely of "Personal and Civil Rights" applicable to the Canal Zone. It has its base in the "Bill of Rights" of the United States. Title 4, Chapter 9, protects "owners of Property". Specifically, section 152 states: "Any person, whether citizen or alien, may take, hold, and dispose of property within the Canal Zone." ( derived verbatim from Title 3, section 262, 1934 Canal Zone Code.)
At least since 1914 Canal Zone residents have owned, title and deed, leased and rented real property within the Canal Zone. Ownership of personal property, of course, is also of historic record. (The Cristobal Shrin club is one example)
As the above indicates, we have had the right to freedom of speech, assembly, petition, life and religion since the United States established itself as the sovereign within the Canal Zone, These rights cannot be taken without due process of law. As in the Bill of Rights, the Canal Zone Code dictates that laws abridging these rights are "void". I would also like to emphasize that it has been established by law, Husband v. U.S., 1971, that the "Canal Zone Bill of Rights" have the same force and effect as the original document from which it came.
r. Chairman, in my letter to you dated July 8, 1977, I have indicated that, with the possible exception of freedom of religion, all of the above rights have been negated or compromised by our Executive Branch in deference to the present treaty negotiations. In response to their actions, I have entered into a court suit, along with several of the members of this Congress.
The Courts have declared that my appeal based on the above rights are not yet "ripe" for ad judication. I can only deduce from this ruling that the court considers my claim to be abstract and that this present negotiation process has not yet subverted the rights of the Canal Zone inhabitant.