Page images

Mr. LAXALT. But aside from the fact that he had a personal interest in the outcome of the transaction, which may not have been all that bad, we must remember that at that time Panama was a struggling little crown colony of Colombia from which it had attempted many. many times, unsuccessfully, to obtain their independence. Because of his intercession in coming here and his successfully negotiating that treaty, Panama for the first time attained its independence.

Moreover, it must be remembered that after the treaty was negoti ated here it was thereafter ratified by the Panamanian Government on the Federal level as well as on the local level.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; with a pistol

Mr. LAXALT. And it was considered throughout the country as a triumph for Panama.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. As it were, with a pistol at its temple.

Mr. LAXALT. Just as the Panama Government was taken in 1968 by General Torrijos.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No, on. The Senator seeks to confuse the issue. Let us stick with the original history of how this rough-riding diplomacy occurred.

Mr. LAXALT. I would suggest to the majority leader, and respectfully. that history does not indicate that at all; that at the time when we entered into the treaty here, negotiated it and had it ratified, it was welcomed by all Panamanians. They had celebrations all over that little country, and well they might, because at that time they were a pest hole ridden by disease, and this canal presented to them an economic salvation as well as a political independence from Colombia. I think history would indicate that, rather than doing disservice to that little country, we rendered them a great service.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. As we look back-it is great to have hindsight as we look back over the years which have transpired since, yes, one can say that we rendered a service to the people of Panama. And we did, by ridding the jungles in that area of malaria and yellow fever. But at the time the governmental sanction of the treaties was, as it were. at the point of a gun, because there was the threat, not only implicit but explicit, that "If you don't ratify these treaties, the United States will wihdraw its military forces."

And then what would have happened to the revolutionaries? Not only would the government have fallen, but the heads of those leaders of the revolution would have rolled in the streets.

Mr. LAXALT. But is it not true that those revolutionaries at the time represented the Panamanian aspirations for freedom and independence?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. They represented the aspirations of some of the people.

Mr. LAXALT. Of most of the people.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Of some of the people.

Mr. LAXALT. Of a vast majority.

Mr. HATCH. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I would be delighted to.

I believe the Senator from Nevada complained yesterday because he had been interrupted, during the reading of his eloquent speech, by Senators who wanted to ask questions. I welcome questions.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would like me to ask questions now, I have a couple which I believe pertain to this specific point.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.

Mr. HATCH. Is it not true also, I ask the distinguished majority leader, that David McCullough also wrote that not only did the Panamanian Government approve these treaties, but that the cabinet representing the Panamanian people approved the 1903 treaty, and then the full, complete Panamanian Governments in 1936 and 1955 reaffirmed modified treaties which took out many of the reprehensible aspects which had been criticized by those who criticized the treaties at the time? So we have had three approvals by the Panamanian Governments of the 1903, 1936 and 1955 combined treaty.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. We have had approval by the Panamanian Governments of modifications of the 1903 treaty. One of those modifications was not only that the payments be increased but also that the United States relinquished its control over some of the lands and


Mr. HATCH. And the United States

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If the Senator will allow me.

Mr. HATCH. Certainly.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD [continuing]. Over some of the lands and waters, the use of which had been granted to the United States under the 1903 treaty, which, to me, is a clear point to substantiate the position that I take, to wit, that the United Sates has never had sovereignty-never had sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone. Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again?


Mr. HATCH. I have to admit that I do not find sovereignty to be that great an issue.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is one of the things.

Mr. HATCH. If I may finish.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I have the floor.

Mr. HATCH. The Senator yielded to me.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I am saying that one of the items in that 1936 treaty was a modification of the 1903 treaty, which modification favors the Panamanians and recognizes the justice of their cause, and, moreover, underwrites the fact that the United States never was given Sovereignty over the Canal Zone in the beginning and does not have Sovereignty today.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield again, I do not think that Sovereignty is the major issue here.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It is one of the issues.
Mr. HATCH. Some of my colleagues do.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It is one of the issues.

Mr. HATCH. They may very well be right. But the point is this: The point that I was trying to bring out is that on three occasions, Panamanian officials approved this treaty. It has only been since the 1960's that we have had the major difficulties here with the advent of Torrijos.

All I am trying to point out is that we should not be led to believe that this was just a total reprehensible situation, where the Panamanians never had any decisionmaking role in the confirmation of these

treaties, because they did. And they did on more than one occasion, long after the fact of the 1903 treaty.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for letting me interrupt him.

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Shortly.

Yes, Panamanians have agreed to subsequent treaties. But I reiterate that those treaties were modifications of the 1903 treaties, and justifiable modifications and were written in recognition by the United States of the justification for higher payments and for relinquishing control over some of the lands and waters

Mr. HATCH. It was more than that.

Will the Senator yield again?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The use of which had been granted by Panama to the United States in the 1903 treaties.

Now, let me say just a little bit more about this.
Mr. HATCH. Will my friend yield?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Let me say just a little bit more. Then I shall be glad to yield to the Senator. I am going to be around until 6 o'clock today. I do not want to monopolize the Senate's time, but I shall be glad to answer questions as long as Senators want to ask them.

The Senator from Utah pays me great tribute in asking me questions. I appreciate the questions that have been asked of me.

Mr. HATCH. I have great respect for the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I appreciate the kind of attention that is being given by Senators to what I am saying. I hope it will be as informative to them as it is informative to me to hear their views.

Someone has made reference to the approval given by the representatives of the Panamanian revolution. Dr. Amador, the first President of Panama, objected strenuously-strenuously-to the terms of the treaty. And one member of the delegation actually struck BunauVarilla when Bunau-Varilla rushed over to the train station to meet the delegation from Panama that had come down to the train. After Bunau-Varilla had signed the treaty, he rushed over to the train station and there told these representatives of the Panamanian revolution what had happened, what he had done. And McCullough said that one of them was reported to have struck Bunau-Varilla, which indicates to me that they were not too happy with what had been done. I yield to my friend from North Carolina.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
He said that no Panamanian had signed the 1903 treaty.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No Panamanian signed the 1903 treaty.

Mr. HELMS. I beg to differ with the leader. Let me list the names of those who did sign.

From the junta: J. A. Arango; Tomas Arias; and Manuel Espinosa B.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. What was the date?

Mr. HELMS. December 4, 1903. If the distinguished Sent will indulge me, let us go down the list and thereby pursue it further.

[ocr errors]

Not only did the three whom I have just mentioned sign it but the Minister of Interior, Eusebio A. Morales, signed it; the Minister of Foreign Relations, F. V. de la Espriella, signed it; the Minister of Justice, Carols A. Mendoza, signed it; the Minister of the Treasury, Manuel E. Amador, the Minister of War and Marine, Nicanor A. de Obarrio, and the Subsecretary of Public Instruction, Francisco Antonio Facio, signed it.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is talking about the ratification of the treaty. I am talking about the original signing of the treaty. No Panamanian signed that treaty. Bunau-Varilla and Secretary Hay signed the treaty.

Mr. HELMS. Who designated him, I ask the Senator, to sign it?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I went through that a while ago. Shall I go through it again?

Mr. HELMS. I wish he would. In the meantime, since the Senator is so concerned about a non-Panamanian signing the 1903 treaty I would remind him that Henry Kissinger was not born in this country. And Mr. Kissinger signed the Kissinger-Tack agreement.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I beg the Senator's pardon?

Mr. HELMS. Henry Kissinger negotiated for this country, and he was not born here.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Henry Kissinger is a citizen of this country. Mr. HELMS. Bunau-Varilla could scarcely have become a citizen of a country that came into existence only a few days earlier. Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?


Mr. HATCH. By the majority leader's argument, I think at least 25 percent of the American people should sign these treaties, because that is about what was the number of Panamanians that signed this treaty. Disturbance in galleries.]

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. May we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the galleries.

Mr. HATCH. If the Cabinet does not have the right to sign these treaties, who does?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Cabinet did not sign the treaties.

Mr. HATCH. If they did not have the right to approve it, I do not know who did.

Incidentally, in the 1936-55 modifications, which were far more than giving a few water rights and property, I do not know of anybody striking any French citizen or American citizen during those times. They were more than happy to have them.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. If the Senator insists, I refer him to the Background Documents Relating to the Panama Canal, prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. On page 288, he will find the two signatories listed. John Hay and P. Bunau-Varilla, and their seals. Mr. SARBANES. Will the distinguished majority leader yield? Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. SARBANES. Is it not the case that a delegation had come from Panama to discuss the treaty with representatives of our Government, hopefully to sign a treaty, and that they were held in New York-held in New York-by the maneuverings of Bunau-Varilla so he could have the time to rush down and meet with John Hay and sign the treaty.


It is important that the 1903 treaty was signed by a man who had a very special personal financial interest in the provisions of the treaty. There is no question about that. Bunau-Varilla and William Nelson Cromwell, a New York lawyer, who later had a lawsuit with BunauVarilla's company over the amount of official personal financial interests in the fees that he was entitled to collect, all stood to gain from this treaty in a special personal way.

When the Panamanian delegation held in New York arrived in Washington, as the majority leader stated, and Bunau-Varilla met them at the train station and presented them with the treaty, they went into a state of shock, except for one fellow who maintained enough sensibility to strike him over what he had done.

Subsequently, the treaty was sent down to the Panamanians and, in effect they were compelled to agree to it by the threat that, if they did not do so, they would lose the independence which they had recently gained because the United States would withdraw its protective umbrella.

There is no doubt the Panamanians wanted their independence from Colombia. But there is also no doubt that the Panamanians did not want and were very much opposed to the provisions of the treaty, which Bunau-Varilla drafted himself and then signed, and that they have remained so opposed ever since.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield for a question.

Mr. HATCH. My question is this: Is it not true, just to put this prior problem to bed. Is it not true that the Supreme Court of the United States has said in Wilson against Shaw, that with regard to the matter of original signatories, "A short but sufficient answer is that subsequent ratification is equivalent to original authority"?

So, regardless of what the emotional argument is, the 1903 treaty is valid.

I thank the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope I have not been misunderstood to say that the 1903 treaty was not valid.

In pursuance of that point, may I say that, regardless of how many governments that there may have been, regardless of how many times the Government of Panama may have changed since 1903, so far as I know, no government of Panama has ever sought to repudiate the 1903 treaty. They all have lived up to it. I have not said it is invalid. That is the point the Senator is making.

Mr. HATCH. The implication is there.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. No, the implication is not there. I simply said that the treaty was not signed by any Panamanian.

Mr. HATCH. But the Senator will agree that it is a perfectly valid. treaty.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I do not disagree with that.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I think it is enormously useful for us to go into the history of the origin of our relations with Panama. It is interesting as a matter of history. It is interesting as a matter of giving us a feel for this whole situation.

« PreviousContinue »