Zone is wholly barren and dormant (reversionary in character) at least so long as the Convention of 1903 remains in effect. The United States sees no useful purpose to be served in debating the question of sovereignty, as such, over the Canal Zone, a matter fully resolved by Article III of the 1903 Convention. The United States is not disposed to alter its basic rights in the Canal Zone as described in Article III of the 1903 Convention.

Captain WILLENBUCHER. No Secretary of State, or any official of the State Department, except for Alger Hiss, in a matter not directly pertinent here at this time, has brought publicly into question the nature of the efficacy, legality or propriety of the exercise of the sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

This has been consistently done, that is to say, to bring this matter into question in the current negotiations, in public statements, speeches of officials, and in collaboration with others who made such false and derogatory statements. I, on repeated occasions, have inquired of the highest officials in the State Department, in the office of Ambassador Bunker, on what basis such statements are being made.

On each such occasion I have been told that these statements are based upon "legal opinions." from the State Department Legal Division, or the General Counsel's office.

On the last such occasion, during a speech by Ambassador Bunker, at the last monthly meeting of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the Naval Academy Graduates Association, I asked the Ambassador the same question, and was again told that the statements were based upon "legal opinions" of the State Department's General Counsel's

office.

I then outlined some of the grossly fallacious statements. As a result, a few days later I received a letter from the State Department, Office of the Legal Advisor, a copy of which I have here.

On every former occasion when I asked for copies of any or all legal opinions covering the canal sovereignty question I have been told they could not be furnished, and I was advised that I should read Ambassador Bunker's former speeches, all of which I have read, and reread, and which moved me to ask for the legal opinions in the first place.

Upon receipt of a letter from the Office of the Legal Advisor, I immediately called its author, Mr. Michael Kozak, and carefully outlined what I should like to obtain, only to be told there was no such legal opinion in that form, but he did tell me that there was a letter which had been written, signed by Mr. S. Morey Bell, to Congressman Gene Snyder, and that he would send a copy of that letter to me, which he did.

I find almost everything in the letter to Congressman Snyder to be inaccurate and lacking germaneness, even false, and the inaccuracies and fallacies can easily be demonstrated.

The United States having granted to it by Panama all of the rights, power and authority to exercise sovereignty over the Canal Zone to the complete exclusion of any exercise of sovereignty by Panama, it is for the United States. and the United States alone, acting unilaterally, to determine whether, when, and if ever it may choose to surrender or abandon in whole or in part any such sovereign power, which incidentally, belongs to the people of the United States under our system.

Not long after the 1903 treaty the United States recognized that for certain purposes there resided in Panama a reversionary right, which was called "titular sovereignty."

It was made indelibly clear that this was a mere scintilla of reversionary right, and called by Secretary Hay "a barren scepter" and by Secretary Taft, who referred to it as, I think, "a barren ideality".

Referring again to the letter of the State Department to Representative Gene Snyder, there is perhaps only one accurate statement, namely on pages 4 and 5, and this I quote, in part, leaving out the nonpertinent portions. It reads:

I should add, however, that in my judgment the fundamental question which must be addressed in considering whether a new treaty with Panama is desirable is not that of sovereignty. Rather, the question is whether a new treaty would or would not serve the United States interests.

That statement is correct. Since the sovereign rights, power and authority are crystal clear, and as to the other matters, since sovereignty is not negotiable, are matters solely for, as to other matters, solely for bilateral consideration of the United States and Panama. They are not for the United Nations, where we do have a veto power, nor for the OAS, where we overlooked reserving a veto power.

However, they are not for such organizations on the basis of an analogy at least to the reservation as being a matter within the domestic concern of the United States, recognizing its global obligation to operate the canal under the terms of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, which superseded the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty for reasons which are historic.

Now, Madam Chairman, that, may it please the committee, finishes my statement on sovereignty as such, but I should like to take a few minutes on some other aspects, if I may be permitted to do so, and I think at this point it might be well if there are a few questions on the sovereignty question, I shall be glad to try to answer them.

Before that, I would also like to submit for the records matter from the "Untold Story of Panama," written by Earl Harding. Mrs. SULLIVAN. It will be received for the record at this point. [The following was received for the record:]

THE UNTOLD STORY OF PANAMA

(By Earl Harding)

Chapter 4

THE BABY REPUBLIC IS BORN

At 12:51 P. M. of November 7, 1903 Secretary of State Hay cabled instructions to United States Vice General Felix Ehrman in Panama to enter into relations with the de facto government. At 1:40 P. M. Secretary Hay received Bunau-Varilla's telegram from New York announcing that "the Republic of Panama has been pleased to designate me as its Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary near the Government of the United States" and that "in spreading her protecting wings over the territory of our Republic the American Eagle has sanctified it."

Bunan-Varilla's authority was already in jeopardy. Dr. Amador cabled him— so wrote Bunau-Varilla in his 1913 book of Panama adventures-that his

powers would be limited to those of a "Confidential Agent,” and Arango, Boyd and Arias instructed him by cable to contract a loan of $200,000. BunauVarilla said he ignored these insructions as beneath his dignity.

A newspaper story that a special commission would soon leave Panama and do the treaty negotiating gave Bunau-Varilla at the White House and extended Secretary Hay to rush a treaty to conclusion. On November 13, 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt received Bunau-Varilla at the White House and extended formal recognition to the new Republic of Panama. By November 15 Secretary Hay sent to Bunau-Varilla a copy of the Hay-Herran Treaty, which Colombia had rejected, modified to apply to Panama.

Bunau-Varilla, according to his later story, worked all night redrafting and strengthening Secretary Hay's draft. His handling of the question of sovereignty is still a burning issue in Panama, and should be carefully noted here. Bunau-Varilla wrote in his 1913 book:

"After mature thought I recognized that if I enumerated in succession the various attributes of soverignty granted, I ran the risk of seeing, in the Senate, some other attributes asked for. To cut short any possible debate I decided to grant a concession of sovereignty en bloc." The formula which Bunau-Varilla said seemed to him the best was expressed in his text of Article III of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty. The sovereignty of the United States within the Panama Canal Zone, despite Panamanian clamor for its abrogation, still stands.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Snyder, very briefly, do you have any questions that you want to ask of the Captain?

Mr. SNYDER. I do not believe so, Mrs. Sullivan.

I appreciate your support and comments on the letter which you referred to, Captain. Needless to say, I agree with what the captain said, insofar as how he described the letter as being full of inaccuracies, and I can assure the captain that I intend to deal with that letter at some length, if Mrs. Sullivan permits it-and I expect she will when we get into closed session-with those responsible for the

content.

Captain WILLENBUCHER. That should be done, because there have been very gross errors here.

There have been some things included that absolutely are not in any degree pertinent.

One is a provision here which tries to indicate that the rights of the United States over the Panama Canal Zone offer an example of the most complete jurisdiction over a territory without it being a cession in the technical international law sense.

That is not the one. The one I refer to is the one which tried to take out of the 1936 treaty another provision.

Mr. SNYDER. It is in the next paragraph.

Captain WILLENBUCHER. Do you have that?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

We will talk about it later.

Every single one of these things can be disputed successfully. Captain WILLENBUCHER. May I have 1 or 2 more minutes, very briefly, Madam Chairman?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Very briefly, please.

Captain WILLENBUCHER. Yes.

The question involved here in this great problem to the United States is whether we are to reestablish the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico area as a bastion of defense, or allow it to deteriorate to an area from which invasion of the United States through a soft underbelly, established by ourselves.

On two occasions in our history, one in the War of 1812, Jackson

stopped an attempted invasion in 1815 by the British through that area, and again in 1862 Farragut conducted another attempted invasion and occupied New Orleans.

Without the strongest kind of a position of the United States in the Caribbean area, the situation, the strategic situation in the Caribbean area is actually much more important than when Mahan, who was, of course, the leader in the very reasonable expansionist period of the United States which made this country great.

He was one whose works were followed by Senator Lodge, and by Theodore Roosevelt.

Now, of course, attempt is made to indicate that Theodore Roosevelt took some unfair advantage over Panama, which this is not so, and is not historic.

Also, the information that is being promulgated is that some Frenchman or the other negotiated the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty.

That Frenchman was the one on whom the Panamanians relied for the financing of their successful revolution from Colombia. It was he whom they selected to be their Envoy-Extraordinairy, and Minister Plenipotentiary.

I would like to add one other thing, and this will be my last statement. When he wrote the "Untold Story of Panama,” Earl Harding quoted Bunau Varilla as having said in 1913:

After mature thought I recognized that if I enumerated in succession the various attributes of sovereignty granted, I ran the risk of seeing, in the Senate, some other attributes asked for. To cut short any possible debate I decided to grant a concession of sovereignty en bloc." The formula which Bunau-Varilla said seemed to him the best was expressed in his text of Article III of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty. The sovereignty of the United States within the Panama Canal Zone, despite Panamanian clamor for its abrogation, still stands.

That is an important matter, because in the so-called opinion that was sent to Congressman Gene Snyder, there was a quotation written 27 years later, in 1940, when he was quite an old man, and neither one, as a matter of fact, are legitimate materials for interpretation where interpretation is not needed.

I want to thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee for indulging me this opportunity.

I should like to have had more time, but I realize it could not be granted.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Captain, may I say I think everyone in this country realizes today the potential danger with respect to Cuba. We see General Torrijos, as the chief of government and dictator of Panama, visiting Cuba, and being promised by Castro that he would use all his strength to see that Torrijos gets what he is after. When I see this I think we are in a very dangerous situation. I would sav that the talk being verified today of abolishing the Canal Zone and giving the land back to Panama would take away our rights of sovereignty over the canal, and this would be disastrous.

I say this because I think that the contemplated giveaway is the most dangerous thing that could happen in this country today.

I am not going to get into a full discussion of this matter, because I brought you in on somebody else's time, but I do appreciate your coming.

Thank you for your contribution. It is part of the record, and I hope the people will read it.

Captain WILLENBUCHER. I am sorry I had no more time and no staff to write a formal statement, which I usually furnish when I testify before such a committee as this.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I appreciate your taking the time.

Thank you.

I now recognize Mr. Snyder for any statement he cares to make. Mr. SNYDER. With your indulgence, Madam Chairman, I would like to make a statement.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. After your statement we will vote on whether or not to close the hearings.

Mr. SNYDER. I want to take this opportunity, particularly, to associate myself with the remarks that you made on the opening day of these hearings, and I wish that the State Department people had been here to hear those remarks. I hope they will read them.

I have stated repeatedly that the State Department has not been doing this Nation, the Republic of Panama, or the world, any service in its attempt to yield sovereignty over the Canal Zone and our waterway therein.

Worse yet, I fear that the State Department has resorted to untruths in an effort to delude the people of this country into believing the zone is not rightfully ours. In some way we are guilty of a great fault by having swindled Panama out of its rightful possession, according to them.

The captain referred to the letter to me from Mr. Bell, and I will hopefully deal with that when we are asking questions after the witnesses come before us.

I am glad to know of the enormous national feeling against giving up the Canal Zone, despite all the propaganda by the liberal media that represents no one, and editorializes only on their own behalf.

I think anyone who has heard of the amendment I offered to the appropriations bill last year knows my position well. It received considerable attention outside of the Congress, both in the United States and in the Republic of Panama, and in the Canal Zone.

What may not be known quite as well is the opinion of many members of the Congress who did not vote for the amendment which would have prohibited use of fiscal year 1976 State Department appropriations to negotiate the surrender of our zone and our canal. It did not oppose negotiations, as so many falsely claimed. I do not oppose updating our daily_relationships and cooperation with the Republic of Panama, but I stand firmly against yielding our sovereignty. I would like to direct attention to the colloquy that I had with Mr. George Mahon, Mr. Slack, and Mr. Cederberg, all three of whom voted against the amendment, but all three of whom positively stated on October 7, 1975-and it's in the Congressional Record, page H9712-their unalterable opposition to giving away our sovereignty over the canal and the Canal Zone.

At this point I want to quote from the Congressional Record the colloquy I had with the Honorable George Mahon, of Texas, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee after a substitute