Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

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

American territory.

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
to cartainty that which was before mascertained. It announce the
fuct; it prociates in a tangible for the adstence of the boundary;
1t doos not make a seu boradary; it usorts only where the bene
boundary mus.' Dat it camot under color of nudag « boundary
previously odsting, though not in fact marked, undertake to code
wany, vithout the concurrence of Congress, Whale provinces,"

Quoted in Crandall, Troatia Thals Kleding and Daforcement (2nd A)

[ocr errors]

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

[ocr errors]

NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

CHIE OF STAT

CARL L. PERIAN

CHIEF COUNSEL

ERNEST I. CORRADO

CHIC CLERK

FRANCES STILL

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.
GERRY E. STUDDE, MASI.

PAUL .. TRIOLE, JR., VA.
DAVID R. DOWON, MISS.
JOSHUA EILBERG, PA.
RON DE LUGO, V.I.
CARROLL HURLARD, JN., KY.
DON DONKER, WAON.
LIS AU COIN, OREG.
NORMAN L. D'AMOURE, N.M.
JERRY M. PATTERSON, CALIF.
LEO C. ZEFEROTTI, N.Y.
JAMES L. OBERSTAN, MINN.
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, NJ.
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, MD.
DAVID L. BONGOR, MICH,
DAN K. ACARA, MAWALI

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on
Merchant filarine and Fisheries
Room 1334. Longworth Iponse tice Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

MINORITY COUNSEL

W. PATRICK MORRIS

July 22, 1977

Honorable James B. Allen, Chairman
Separation of Powers Subcommittee
Senate Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Allen:

I wish to commend you for holding hearings on the Constitu-
tional question involved in the proposed giveaway of the
United States territory known as the Canal Zone. The hear-
ings are of particular interest to me as one of the six Members
of Congress who are plaintiffs in Helms v. Vance which has aimed
to achieve judicial settlement of the question.
I am confident that your hearings will prove to be of great
value in the current debate over the canal issue. Since the
State Department in recent years, for unexplained reasons,
has claimed the Canal zone is not u.s. territory, I would like
to submit a statement for the record which will document United
States sovereignty over, title to, and ownership and control
of the Canal Zone.

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.

Sincerely,

Gene Snyder
Ranking Minority Member
Panama Canal Subcommittee

GS/nnl

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. DRUMMOND, CHAIRMAN, CANAL ZONE
CENTRAL LABOR UNION_METAL TRADES COUNCIL, LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE, PRESENTED TO THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

SEPARATION OF POWERS

THE HONORABLE JA ES B. ALLEN, CHAIRMAN

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman:

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
Canal Zone Code, consisting of seven titles was established.

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.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »