is the worst imaginable violation of the U.S. Constitution and of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens, as I have outlined in some detail in my statement. Now, this double fraud which stares you in the face on the record, if you only had the record-it is, of course, a big "if"; nobody has it except the bureaucracy and somebody who really wants to go after it has been perpetuated to date by what I can only call stonewalling. Mr. Chairman, may I commend you once again for calling these hearings to bring the legally pertinent facts to light. And, of course, may I repeat that great credit is due not so much to me, but to Senator Laxalt, who has insistently called for these hearings and who has supported me in this from the outset. [The statement and deposition of Mr. Beecher follow:] of 1979. That act, as concerns the Panama Canal Commission, follows almost totally my own testimony before the Panama Canal Subcommittee on March 7, 1979. Let me just quote one sentence from the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee report of April 1979. "The nine," I repeat, "nine members of the Board of the Canal Commission are clearly officers of the Executive Branch." The Foy memo, moreover, does not even deal with the exclusion of all American citizens from certain offices, nor with the unconstitutional limitation of the President's appointive power to appoint where he has no choice at all. If anyone wants a full critique of the Foy memo, of interest to me as a constitutional student, I refer you to the Congressional Record, pages S9541-45, July 16, 1979, remarks by Senator Roth of Delaware. Now, allow me at the end, Mr. Chairman, to sum up in the simplest possible terms once more. What we have here on the documented record on nonratification is the worst fraud-I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman; I cannot use any other word, but if you wish, I shall substitute "swindle" or "hoax," in the words of another distinguished Senator-ever perpetrated on the U.S. Senate and on the American people. That hoax was committed by pretending that in their respective instruments of ratification, the United States and Panama had agreed to the same treaty text, whereas, in reality, under the Panamanian instrument of ratification the United States could exercise the DeConcini reservation only in self defense, pursuant to article 18 of the OAS Charter, and in cooperation with Panama. That is, of course, the exact contrary of the DeConcini reservation, as contained in the U.S. ratification document of the neutrality treaty. Hence, no ratification, and the treaties never came into effect. It is as simple as that. What is more-and I refer to this in my sworn deposition-we have three major published papers, what I call smoking guns, admitting U.S. executive branch complicity in the sorry affair: first, a speech by William D. Rogers, former Assistant Secretary for Latin American Affairs, before the American Society of International Law in 1979, which is part of my deposition; second, a letter by Ambassador David Popper, the man chiefly charged with the implementation of the Panama Canal treaties, which was addressed to Mr. Harman, I believe, in June 1982—Mr. Harman can tell you more about that letter, but in which Popper admits the whole business; and third, most startling, in President Carter's book at pages 172-74. Here, too, Mr. Harman, who read that book first and discovered it first, can give you in his statement more details on it. So much for the nonratification issue, and I challenge anybody to make any kind of argument that these treaties have been ratified. This is nothing personal against the distinguished representative of the State Department, who is just doing his job, I believe, as the attorney for the executive branch. On the appointment of nonresidents-and I stress, nonresident aliens-to U.S. civil offices by the President and, even worse, the exclusion of all U.S. citizens from certain offices of a U.S. Government agency-and I stress that the Panama Canal Commission is not a binational commission; it is a U.S. Government agency-this is the worst imaginable violation of the U.S. Constitution and of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens, as I have outlined in some detail in my statement. Now, this double fraud which stares you in the face on the record, if you only had the record-it is, of course, a big "if"; nobody has it except the bureaucracy and somebody who really wants to go after it—has been perpetuated to date by what I can only call stonewalling. Mr. Chairman, may I commend you once again for calling these hearings to bring the legally pertinent facts to light. And, of course, may I repeat that great credit is due not so much to me, but to Senator Laxalt, who has insistently called for these hearings and who has supported me in this from the outset. [The statement and deposition of Mr. Beecher follow:] STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES H. BREECHER LEGALITY OF THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES OF POWERS COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY U.S. SENATE JUNE 23, 1983 (This statement is part of a sworn deposition made by the witness to the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers on March 17, 1983.) Mr. Chairman, I make two flat assertions: First, that the Panama Canal treaties have not, I repeat "not," been ratified in international law, and that they, therefore, did not go into effect on 1 October 1979. The reason is very simple: in their instruments of ratification the United States and Panama did not agree to the same text of the treaties. Instead Panama added in both its instruments of ratification unilaterally an "understanding" on which it made its agreement to the treaties contingent. This Panamanian "understanding," three paragraphs long, would, had it been accepted by the United States, have nullified the DeConcini reservation under which the United States has permanently the right to use independently, without Panamanian consent or even against Panamanian opposition, military force in Panama to keep the Canal open and operating. Since the United States has not accepted this Panamanian "understanding," which is a further amendment to the text of the treaties as amended by the President in the U.S. ratification documents, pursuant to Senate advice and consent, there are no Canal treaties in international law. This documented fact is beyond any dispute. Second, that the U.S. Constitution unequivocally bars the President from appointing Panamanians, nonresident aliens, as members, administrators, or deputy administrators of the Panama Canal Commission, a United States Government agency. This unsurmountable bar is expressed by the Constitution in the same pithy way as, e.g., for infants by requiring that all executive officers shall bind themselves by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, Article VI, Section 3. A nonresident alien, owing allegiance to Panama, can obviously not swear that oath. Further, the Constitution provides that all civil officers can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, Article II, Section 4. Again, it is obvious that a nonresident alien cannot commit treason against the United States, so these provisions of the Constitution alone are an absolute bar to the President to appoint Panamanians, nonresident aliens, as members, called "directors," administrators, or deputy administrators of the Panama Canal Commission, a United States Government agency. They are also an absolute to the Congress to authorize any payments to them by virtue of these unconstitutional appointments, and there are no other major constitutional objections against the composition of the Panama Canal Commission which appears not subject to any refutation, as I shall outline. Now concerning non-ratification of the treaties, an issue of international law, I want to make it absolutely clear that if there is one thing that is beyond any argument in International law, it is that to ratify a bilateral treaty, the parties must agree in their instruments of ratification to the same written text. Otherwise, there is no meeting of the minds as required for ratification. There is no ratification if one party makes its agreement to the treaties contingent on any amendment, condition, understanding, reservation, or whatever it wants to call it, that is not formally and verbatim accepted by the other party. If one examines the Panamanian instruments of |