The United States had an obligation in this respect to keep the isthmus open. There was a treaty made with England.

These people took a risk when Colombia rejected the treaty. The risk was essentially this. They were on the property at the time. The United States was obligated to keep the property open. The United States could support Colombia, or it could support them.

Initially the United States chose to do neither, according to documentation presented here.

Colombian troops came in. These handful of people were successful in bribing the commanders of the troops. There was no bloodshed in Panama of any sort. It was a bloodless coup.

They, the Panamanians, declared it and they, as of 1903 waited for the United States to recognize them. The United States chose to do so. The United States had an obligation, No. 1, to keep the isthmus open. No. 2, there was already a bill in Congress to build a canal for the whole world, not just for the United States but for the whole world. In any case, I will not argue whether or not the United States has sovereignty in the Canal Zone. I think it has been clearly established by other speakers here.

In order to apply U.S. protections in the Canal Zone, it must be firmly established that the United States is the sovereign power within this territory. I have done that in this statement.

The outcome of this controversy on separation of powers, I believe, will have a profound effect, not only on the inhabitants of the Canal Zone but on U.S. citizens within the States as well. I believe, Senator Hatch, you brought that out clearly here today.

CIVIL RIGHTS THREATENED

As the above indicates, we in the Canal Zone, have had the right to freedom of speech, assembly, petition, life, property, and religion, solely based on the idea that we are the sovereign in the Canal Zone, since the United States established itself as that sovereign.

As in the Bill of Rights, the Canal Zone Code dictates that laws abridging these rights are "void." These rights cannot be taken without due process of law. I would also like to emphasize that it has been established by law, in United States v. Husband in 1971, that the "Canal Zone Bill of Rights" has the same force and effect as the original document from which it came-the U.S. Bill of Rights.

I enumerate in my written statement where the history of these rights began. Personal and civil rights applicable within the Canal Zone originated by Executive order on May 9, 1904, but pursuant to the authority given by act of Congress, dated April 28, 1904. 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 Congress through Public Law 87-845 (Stat. 76A). Effectively what it does is to enumerate the same rights as the Bill of Rights. It gives the citizen in the Canal Zone the right to ownership of property, which is another point that has been raised by the State Department.

Senator HATCH. Let me interrupt you for a second. I am going to have to recess the hearing. I apologize for doing this in the middle of your testimony. But we have a vote on the floor of the Senate. I

shall have to be there. Let us hope that Senator Allen will soon return. If you will kindly wait, we shall recess until Senator Allen can get here. Then we can take the rest of your testimony.

Please accept our formal apologies, but I must leave for the Senate Chamber.

I appreciate your testimony thus far. I have read your statement. It is a comprehensive statement.

At this point, then, we shall recess until Senator Allen returns or until a committee staff member informs you that we are both detained, at which time the staff member will continue the hearing. Mr. DRUMMOND. I thank you very much.

[Recess taken.]

Mr. CROMMELIN [chief counsel and staff director]. Senator Allen has called saying that he is presiding over the Senate right now and has asked that we continue with the hearing.

The subcommittee wishes to have Mr. Drummond complete his statement. So, Mr. Drummond, if you would, please continue.

Mr. DRUMMOND. As I mentioned, I believe it has been well established that the United States is the sovereign in the Canal Zone. As such, U.S. citizens residing in the territory have certain rights. These rights are, in effect, the Bill of Rights.

I am not in any way asserting that the Canal Zone employees or residents or inhabitants of the Canal Zone have constitutional rights. All of their rights are given to them by act of Congress-that I am asserting.

In my letter to the chairman, 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. I see a definite pattern of cause and effect. In response to their actions, I have entered into a court suit, along with several of the Members of this Congress. I firmly believe that the rights of the citizen in the whole of our territory ranks supreme.

The courts have declared that my appeal, based on the above rights, are not yet "ripe" for adjudication. 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.

In all due respect to the court, I must assert that this ruling is not a true reflection of the facts as they apply to the Canal Zone. Not only are the Bill of Rights in the Canal Zone being substantially violated in direct deference to the present canal treaty negotiations, but the rights of the citizen within the continental limits of the United States are also being violated, and for the same purpose.

The rights of the citizen to be protected under the laws of the United States is not abstract. They are true and meaningful rights that cannot be abridged by the foreign affairs policies of the executive branch without due process of law.

I have been a frequent target of these violations, mainly because I have refused to accept that the Canal Zone inhabitant is a "political pawn" in these treaty negotiations. I understand that testimony was given here earlier, I believe it was last Friday. The subject was brought up that the constitutional issue should be set aside because we are talking in terms of billions of dollars.

That is true in one respect. We are talking in terms of billions of dollars. I question who is going to be the recipient of those billions of dollars. I question the merits of the expending of those billions of dollars. But I also point out that the constitutional issue that is lightly brushed aside leaves me with a feeling that the citizens in the continental United States are not being given their just due. They are not being given the right to due process. They are not being represented. And, they should be, if we do have a government of three branches.

FAMILY DETAINED

With respect to my own personal involvement, I would like to bring up one most recent example. On July 22, 1977, at about 11:30 a.m., my family and I were detained at the Tocuman Airport in the Republic of Panama. That was not the first time.

I was en route to testify at these hearings. This detention was effected by the Panama customs agents at this airport. This incident developed over the validity of citizenship of my two children, William, Jr., and Donaldson, aged 11 and 7, who had accompanied me on this trip.

This detention lasted for about 30 minutes. It was resolved upon my bribing one of these customs inspectors with 15 dollars. Specifically I was told that because my children were born in the Canal Zone, the territory of the Republic of Panama, according to the customs agents, I would need a "Pasi-Salvo" for each boy prior to leaving Panama. I would also like to point out that they instructed me that I would also need Panama passports for these two boys.

I explained to this agent that I was leaving the Canal Zone en route to Washington, D.C., and that I would be returning to the Canal Zone and not the Republic of Panama. I offered official Canal Zone Government orders to this effect, and still this agent insisted upon his position. I produced U.S. passports with my children's citizenship, but these documents only further complicated the matter. In the end I was forced to use the one passport that Americans are forced to use in this and other countries-money.

This problem exists because of the stated position of our executive branch. At least since 1975, the State Department's position is that the United States is not sovereign in the Canal Zone. Since we are not sovereign, according to our Embassy and our State Department, Panama law and Panama citizenship applies. Any child born in the Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen is required, according to our executive branch, to take out dual citizenship to comply with Panamanian law when leaving the country. The fact that this position is in direct violation to present treaty agreements with the Republic of Panama appears to have little effect on our State Department.

At this time, Mr. Crommelin, I would like to present for the record a copy of the order that I was given. I would like to point out that both myself, my two sons, and my wife are recorded on these orders.

This reflects upon a treaty giving canal employees and their families free access in and out of Tocuman Airport. I believe the treaty was agreed to in 1947 with the Republic of Panama.

Mr. CROMMELIN. Mr. Drummond, we will, without objection, place the order in the record.

[Material follows:]

Mr. DRUMMOND. With that, I would also like to point out a news release from the Miami Herald, dated January 8, 1975, in which this subject was brought to the public's attention.

Mr. CROMMELIN. We will have that placed into the record also. [Material follows:]

[From the Miami Herald, Jan. 8, 1975]

BORDER HASSLES BAR U.S. CITIZENS LEAVING PANAMA

PANAMA.-U.S. citizens, traveling on U.S. passports but born in the U.S.controlled Panama Canal Zone, are being barred from traveling by road to Costa Rica unless they have a Panamanian passport and tax clearance.

Under a provision of Panama's 1972 constitution, all persons born in the Canal Zone are regarded as natural-born Panamanians, but only in the last four months has it worried U.S. citizens born there.

In that period, at least six Americans from the Canal Zone, and probably more, have been stopped from leaving Panama on the Inter-American Highway at Paso Canoa, on the Costa Rican border.

"It is still a problem," a U.S. embassy spokesman said here, adding that "the embassy has been discussing it with the (Panamanian) immigration people for a long time, but right now we are at an impasse."

"The kids here think it's a blast," said the mother of one young man stopped at the border, but others born in the canal zone react bitterly to it.

The youth obtained a Panamian “cedula" (identity card) and passport, both of which were issued in his mother's maiden name because she had divorced after his birth.

Under Panama law, a divorced woman does not retain her husband's name. Gifted with two passports and two different surnames, the youth and a companion traveled the 300 miles to the Costa Rican border.

There, Panamanian officials refused them exit for lack of a Panamanian tax clearance certificate ("paz y salvo"), obtainable, for 25 cents, only in the capital. They returned to the Canal Zone, subsequently flying to the United States (their original destination) from Panama's Tocumen International Airport where they experience no travel document problems.

Under a 1936 agreement between Panama and the United States, Tocumen is a "corridor" for Americans entering or leaving the Canal Zone with Canal Zone documentation.

The Canal Zone government has its own customs and immigration officers at the airport.

In the meantime, Canal Zone authorities are discouraging highway travel to Costa Rica and beyond for Canal Zone-born Americans; or suggesting they obtain the Panamanian documentation required.

About 18 per cent of the Canal Company's 3,500 U.S. citizen employees were born in the Canal Zone.

Nobody appears certain as to how extensively Panama is enforcing the requirements, however. It's believed to be the result of lower-echelon bureaucracy rather than any high level decision.

Mr. DRUMMOND. I would like to differentiate between an employee leaving the Canal Zone by road through the Inter-American Highway and a canal employee leaving for the United States through Tocuman Airport. This airport is considered to be a corridor that employees in the Canal Zone, because of this treaty of 1947 or 1949, have the right to free access in and out.

I have had this harassment problem on prior occasions, as I mentioned.

Mr. CROMMELIN. Mr. Drummond, let me interrupt to ask you if you think that problem is related to your activities regarding the canal negotiations, or is it simply a problem that all Americans in the zone would face?

Mr. DRUMMOND. To my knowledge, I am probably the only person that this has happened to. I cannot state that it has never happened to anyone else. I believe it was probably related with my political beliefs and activities, but I cannot prove that.

In any case, it is a further deterioration of the agreements made with the Republic of Panama, based on our State Department's official position that, No. 1, children born in the Canal Zone, a U.S. territory, born of U.S. citizens, are not citizens, and, therefore, are required to comply with the laws of the Republic of Panama, which is in direct violation of the treaty of 1947 and the present treaty related to the canal-the 1903 treaty.

In that respect I would like to continue. This problem exists, as I mentioned, because of our State Department's position. It is in black and white. Several of my constituents have gotten copies of this State Department position [indicating]. I am also enclosing three other incidents of Canal Zone inhabitants who have had their rights vio