Page images
PDF
EPUB

compromises with Panama, or by the negotiation of such compromises to open ourselves to claims by both Britain and Colombia for violation of our control treaties with them.

Who is punching the panic button? Why should there be such a rush to give away one of the greatest engineering and transportation works ever built by the hand and brain of man?

I believe firmly that our national interest will be best promoted by terminating all current negotiations with Panama looking toward the surrender of the present canal to that country and the construction of a new canal. If we undertake instead to modernize the present canal within our sufficiently broad treaty rights, we can continue, without involving ourselves in any new diplomatic imbroglios or negotiations of surrender, to meet the needs of world commerce, as well as our own, well within the twenty-first century.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, as a representative from one of the great Coastal States with extensive maritime interests, I long ago recognized the vast economic importance of the Panama Canal. It is in the truest sense a part of the coastline of the United States and as such its proper operation and protection are just as much the responsibility of our Government as the ports of New Orleans and New York.

The Canal Zone and Panama Canal are territory and property of the United States paid for by our taxpayers. The construction of the canal and subsequent maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection, including defense, from 1904 to June 30, 1968, represent a net total investment of more than $5 billion.

Under the Constitution the power to dispose of territory and other property of the United States is vested in the Congress. Despite this constitutional provision, the negotiators for the discredited 1967 treaties would have ceded United States sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama without any compensation whatsoever. In June of this year Panamanian negotiators publicly announced the intention of their government to obtain full sovereignty over the Canal Zone as their objective and in the event of failure to get it, to refuse to sign any treaty.

The United States is not the only country with treaty interests in the Panama Canal. We have the 1901 Hay-Pauncefote Treaty with Great Britain that established the rules for the operation of the Panama Canal on terms of equality for all nations.

We also have the 1914 Thompson-Urrutia Treaty with Colombia which grants to that country essentially the same rights to use the Panama Canal and Railroad as enjoyed by the United States. The problems that would be caused by surrendering our treaty based rights, power and authority would be monumental and plague us into the indefinite future. Moreover, the surrender of the Canal Zone would vastly complicate the difficult problems of modernizing the existing Panama Canal, which can be done under existing treaty provisions. For these and many other reasons that need not be enumerated, I urge the adoption of the identical measures on Panama Canal sovereignty and jurisdiction so that the entire world would well know that the United States has the vision and will to meet its obligations at Panama.

ENG THULLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
TISSUE OF PENNSYLVANIA

# FUSS JUST LUNAN IS RIGHTS IN THE PANAMA NI INE

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

The C

in cãd waterway

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

da PLICE DE seligations it has incurred in as operated, maintained, and Any wis own us, but for the benefit of De werid & has paid the Republic of Panama end has invested a total of $5 billion

's now Avosing overcrowded and is not able to acDe larger doner geng resses the answer is not

Ti tão cald commoda e se270 to hand a over

There is no doubt that the Panama Canal constitutes a vital link in the U.S. defense network and has to remain in our hands.

I, therefore, urge all members of this body to support House Resolution 239.

STATEMENT OF HON. C. W. BILL YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in behalf of my resolution, House Resolution 190, and other similar resolutions which call on the United States to retain sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone.

The Treaty of 1903 in which Panama offered the United States terms to build a canal in Panama instead of Nicaragua has been condemned almost every day by the Panamanians. Since 1903, Panama has insisted on more generous terms and benefits, and despite two revisions in 1936 and 1955, Panama still claims that she is not receiving a fair share.

On December 1, 1970, the final report of the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission, authorizing a sea-level canal regardless of ecological damage or economic costs, would surrender the United States' sovereign rights and jurisdiction. Panama demands that we sign all of our rights over the canal to her, without regard to her previous commitment and the security of the entire Western Hemisphere.

Presently, the United States has sovereignty over the canal and the Canal Zone. This canal, which cost approximately $375 million, has not paid its own way. Now, Congress will be asked to build a new canal, at a cost estimated to be $2.88 billion, a canal whose feasibility remains questionable and over which the United States will have no authority. We must not give away our rights to control and to defend the canal as a condition to building a new one or improving the present one. The possible consequences of signing away these guarantees are severe, and I call on this committee to report favorably a resolution to retain U.S. sovereignty over the Panama Canal.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

CONVENTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHIP CANAL, 1903

Concluded November 18, 1903; ratification advised by the Senate February 23, 1904; ratified by President February 25, 1904; ratifications exchanged February 26, 1904; proclaimed February 26, 1904. (U.S. Stats., vol. 33.)

I. Independence of Panama.
II. Canal zone.

III. Authority in canal zone.

IV. Subsidiary rights.

ARTICLES.

XIV. Compensation.

XV. Joint commission.
XVI. Extradition.
XVII. Ports of Panama.

V. Monopoly for construction, etc. XVIII. Neutrality rules.

VI. Private property.

VII. Panama; Colon; harbors.
VIII. Panama Canal Company and

railroad.

IX. Ports at entrance of canal.

X. Taxes, etc.

XI. Official dispatches.

XII. Access of employees.

XIII. Importation into zone.

XIX. Free transport.

XX. Cancellation of existing treaties.
XXI. Anterior debts, concessions, etc.
XXII. Renunciation of rights under
concessionary contracts.
XXIII. Protection of canal.

XXIV. Change in governinent, laws, etc.
XXV. Coaling stations.
XXVI. Ratification.

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama being desirous to insure the construction of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Panama to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and the Congress of the United States of America having passed an act approved June 28, 1902, in furtherance of that object, by which the President of the United States is authorized to acquire within a reasonable time the control of the necessary territory of the Republic of Colombia, and the sovereignty of such territory being actually vested in the Republic of Panama, the high contracting parties have resolved for that purpose to conclude a convention and have accordingly appointed as their plenipotentiaries,—

The President of the United States of America, John Hay, Secretary of State, and

The Government of the Republic of Panama, Philippe BunauVarilla, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Panama, thereunto specially empowered by said government, who after communicating with each other their respective full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles:

ARTICLE I.

The United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.

« PreviousContinue »