[6. If any impounded animal is suffering from any infectious or contagious disease, or from any disease or injury causing great pain, or is without value, or if no bid is received for any impounded animal offered for sale, the police shall immediately make application to the district judge for authority to destroy it, and the judge shall, if he is satisfied of the facts as stated, enter an order authorizing its destruction.

[7. The cost of constructing pounds and feeding impounded animals shall be paid from Canal Zone funds.

[8. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25, or imprisoned not longer than thirty days, or both fined and imprisoned, in the discretion of the court.

[9. This ordinance supersedes and repeals the provisions of any ordinance, regulation, or law in force in the Canal Zone prohibiting persons from permitting animals to run at large, or providing for impounding such animals, and the provisions, of any other ordinance, regulation, or law in force in the Canal Zone in conflict with it.

[Enacted by the Isthmian Canal Commission, August 5, 1911. [Approved by the Secretary of War, August 22, 1911.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Governor of the Panama Canal is hereby authorized to make and from time to time amend regulations governing the keeping of domestic animals within the Canal Zone, and prescribing where and under what conditions domestic animals may be permitted to be at large, and when, where, and under what conditions such domestic animals shall be confined. Such regulations shall provide for the impounding of animals; the charges to be paid for the impounding and care of such animals, if claimed by the owner; the disposition of unclaimed animals; and the disposition of the proceeds of the sale of such unclaimed animals, if sold.

SEC. 2. Any person violating any provision of the regulations established under section 1 of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished accordingly.

SEC. 3. The ordinance enacted by the Isthmian Canal Commission at the one hundred and forty-fifth meeting, July 18, 1908, approved by the Secretary of War August 12, 1908, providing for the muzzling and impounding of dogs, and the ordinance enacted by the Isthmian Canal Commission, August 5, 1911, approved by the Secretary of War August 22, 1911, providing for the impounding of stray animals, are hereby repealed.

О

=

TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUORS UNDER SEAL THROUGH THE CANAL ZONE

FEBRUARY 17, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. LEA, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 7517]

The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7517) to provide for the transportation of liquors under seal through the Canal Zone, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass.

The bill has the approval of the President and the Secretary of War, as will appear by the letter attached. It was submitted to the Attorney General for comment and the comment of the Attorney General is printed herewith.

Hon. SAM RAYBURN,

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 28, 1932.

Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. RAYBURN: The receipt is acknowledged of a letter from the Hon. Clarence F. Lea, dated January 15, 1932, inclosing, and requesting on behalf of your committee a report upon, certain bills for the revision of the laws of the Canal Zone introduced by him, including bill H. R. 7517, entitled "A bill to provide for the transportation of liquors under seal through the Canal Zone." This is one of the proposals made for the revision of the laws of the Canal Zone recommended by me in letter to the President dated June 5, 1930, and in conformity with the provisions of the act of May 17, 1928 (45 Stat. 596), entitled "An act to revise and codify the laws of the Canal Zone," forwarded by him to the Congress with his message of June 9, 1930. The message and report submitted therewith were printed as House Document No. 460, Seventy-first Congress, second session. The reasons for this proposal are given on pages 552 to

554 of that document.

Briefly, the purpose of the proposed amendment to the national prohibition act is merely to extend to Panama at the earliest possible date some of those rights concerning the transportation of liquors through the Canal Zone which have already been agreed upon and which will undoubtedly form a part of a

new treaty with Panama when the same is ratified. The adoption of the proposed amendment will do much to remove a prolific source of disagreement between the two Governments, but, at the same time, will, it is believed, leave unimpaired those parts of the national prohibition act which pertain to the liquor traffic in the Canal Zone. Section 20 of the national probihition act, with the proposed amendment thereto indicated, will be found in House Report No. 2827 to accompany H. R. 14086.

The early consideration and passage of the legislation proposed for the Canal Zone are recommended.

Sincerely yours,

PATRICK J. HURLEY, Secretary of War. During the Seventy-first Congress this identical bill was submitted to the Attorney General, who commented on it as follows: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., December 29, 1930.

Hon. JAMES S. PARKER,

Chairman Committee on Intersiate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives; Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In further reply to your letter of the 3d instant, with which you transmitted, for such comment as I might care to make, H. R. 14086, a bill to provide for the transportation of liquors under seal through the Canal Zone, I inclose herewith a copy of an office memorandum dated December 11, 1930, from which it would appear that the situation which this bill is designed to remedy should probably be made the subject of treaty negotiation rather than of legislative action.

Respectfully,

The bill proposes to amend section 20, Title III, of the national prohibition act, which now reads as follows:

"That it shall be unlawful to import or introduce into the Canal Zone, or to manufacture, sell, give away, dispose of, transport, or have in one's possession or under one's control within the Canal Zone, any alcoholic, fermented, brewed, distilled, vinous, malt, or spirituous liquors, except for sacramental, scientific, pharmaceutical, industrial, or medicinal purposes, under regulations to be made by the President, and any such liquors within the Canal Zone in violation hereof shall be forfeited to the United States and seized: Provided, That this section shall not apply to liquor in transit through the Panama Canal or on the Panama Railroad.

"That each and every violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months for a first offense, and by a fine not less than $200 nor more than $2,000 and imprisonment not less than one month nor more than five years for a second or subsequent offense.

"That all offenses heretofore committed within the Canal Zone may be prosecuted and all penalties therefor enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as if this act had not been passed."

There has been some complaint recently by the Panaman Government that the national prohibition act interfered with the transportation of beverage liquors from one part of their country to another. This is due, of course, to the fact that the canal bisects the territory of the nation, leaving one part of the country on one side and the remainder on the other. Obviously the situation is one which should be remedied in some proper way by the Government of the United States. Section 20 of Title III of the national prohibition act sought to internationalize the Panama Canal so far as intoxicating liquors are concerned. The wording of the section accomplished what it intended in so far as liquors going across the Canal Zone from ocean to ocean were concerned. It did not, however, meet the situation which has been complained of by the Panaman Government.

The situation which has thus been complained of can be remedied by treaty and I think that a treaty governing the subject is to be preferred to an act of Congress. I say this because the Panaman Government has already indicated a preference for the treaty method.

The United States Government entered into a liquor smuggling treaty with the Government of Panama on January 19, 1925 (43 Stat. 1875). An examination of Article V of the treaty will disclose that it remains in force from year to year and that it may be modified or revoked on any of its anniversary dates.

Last May the Panaman Government proposed the following amendment to the treaty just mentioned:

"It is agreed that no penalty or forfeiture under the laws of the United States shall be applicable or attach to alcoholic liquors or to vehicles or persons by reason of the carriage of such liquors when they are in transit under seal and under certificate by Panaman authority from the terminal ports of the canal to the cities of Panama and Colon and from the cities of Panama and Colon to the terminal ports of the canal when intended for exportation, and between the cities of Panama and Colon and any other points of the Republic and between any two points of the territory of the Republic when in either case the direct or natural means of communication is through Canal Zone territory and provided that such liquors remain under said seal and certificate while they are passing through Canal Zone territory."

I am not certain that formal notice of the desire for this amendment was given by Panama to the United States in accordance with present treaty provisions. They do not appear to be real positive about it at the Department of State. However, I think that such formal notice probably was given and that the treaty will be amended as desired by the Panaman Government on its anniversary date, January 19, 1931.

This matter of the proposed amending of the Panama Treaty was informally discussed with the State Department last summer and they were advised that the department principally interested in the practical side of the proposition was the War Department, since the Secretary of War was administering the Canal Zone under direct authority of the President. Under the circumstances I think that this bill H. R. 14086 should be discussed with the Secretary of War.

Respectfully,

A. W. HENDERSON.

A general statement relating to the revision and codification of the laws of the Canal Zone is made in the report on H. R. 7519, where the text of the law authorizing such work is quoted. This bill does not form part of the general revision, but is new legislation. It is an amendment to the national prohibition law for the purpose of enabling the Government to carry out a treaty obligation. The committee does not agree with the Attorney General in his opinion that the question is properly one for the treaty-making power, because it does not accept the idea that an act of the Congress can be set aside or amended by a treaty.

That part of the national prohibition act which is specifically made applicable to the Canal Zone reads as follows:

SEC. 20. That it shall be unlawful to import or introduce into the Canal Zone, or to manufacture, sell, give away, dispose of, transport, or have in one's possession or under one's control within the Canal Zone, any alcoholic, fermented, brewed, distilled, vinous, malt, or spiritous liquors, except for sacramental, scientific, pharmaceutical, industrial, or medicinal purposes, under regulations to be made by the President, and any such liquors within the Canal Zone in violation hereof shall be forfeited to the United States and seized: Provided, That this section shall not apply to liquor in transit through the Panama Canal or on the Panama Railroad. * * *

The penalty follows.

Since the enactment of the national prohibition act the Panaman authorities have continually complained that there has been unreasonable restriction in the matter of the transportation of liquor shipments from one point in the Republic to another when such transportation involved passage through the Canal Zone. It has repeatedly been argued by Panama that the right of free passage through the zone, as provided in the sixth article of the treaty of 1903 between the United

HR-72-1-VOL 1-56

States and Panama, should prevail as against that provision of the national prohibition act which forbids the transportation, etc., of liquors through the zone except as specifically provided therein. It is further argued that the "right of way" provision of the 1903 treaty was not expressly repealed by the national prohibition act and that a repeal by implication is an untenable theory.

The essential portion of Article VI of the treaty of 1903 follows:

The grants herein contained shall in no manner invalidate the titles or rights of private land holders or owners of private property in the said zone or in or to any of the lands or waters granted to the United States by the provisions of any article of this treaty, nor shall they interfere with the rights of way over the public roads passing through the said zone or over any of the said lands or waters unless said rights of way or private rights shall conflict with rights herein granted to the United States, in which case the rights of the United States shall be superior.

Regardless of the merits of the contention of the Panama Government, it is indisputable that the enforcement of the national prohibition act in the Canal Zone has operated to the great disadvantage of the interests of Panama. Panama has no deep-water ports on the Isthmus, and for all practical purposes all cargo destined to or from the Republic of Panama must of necessity pass through the contiguous Canal Zone ports of Balboa and Cristobal. Likewise, many points in the interior of the Republic of Panama are accessible only by passage through the Canal Zone; this is particularly true as concerns those towns in the Republic of Panama on or near the shores of Gatun Lake which can be reached only by transit through Canal waters, and those many larger Panama towns and villages lying beyond the boundary line which can be reached by the highways passing through the Canal Zone.

The manufacture, sale, and use of alcoholic liquors in the Republic of Panama is, of course, permitted by law. The claim of the Republic of Panama to the right of transit of liquors under seal through the Canal Zone has been conceded by our Government in negotiations for the adoption of a new treaty between the United States and Panama. This new treaty has not yet been ratified and it appears improbable that the same will be ratified in the near future. Article VII of the proposed new treaty may be quoted for the purpose of showing the attitude of our Government on the subject, and is as follows:

It is agreed that no penalty or forfeiture under the laws of the United States shall be applicable or attach to alcoholic liquors or to vehicles or persons by reason of the carriage of such liquors, when they are in transit under seal and under certificate by Panaman authority, from the terminal ports of the canal to the cities of Panama and Colon and from the cities of Panama and Colon to the terminal ports of the canal when intended for exportation, and between the cities of Panama and Colon and any other points of the Republic and between any two points of the territory of the Republic when in either case the direct or natural means of communication is through Canal Zone territory, and provided that such liquors remain under said seal and certificate while they are passing through Canal Zone territory.

The purpose of this bill is merely to amend the national prohibition act so as to extend to Panama at the earliest possible date those rights concerning the transportation of liquors under seal through the Canal Zone which have already been agreed upon and which will undoubtedly form a part of the new treaty when the same shall be ratified. The adoption of this amendment to the national prohibition act will do much to remove a source of disagreement between the