Senator ALLEN. Apparently the Congress had already given the authority for boundary adjustments under the Canal Act. Mr. MEEKER. From what year is that statute that you were just reading from? Senator ALLEN. This is the original Panama Canal Act, which gives the right to exchange property and thereby to rectify boundaries. Mr. MEEKER. Going back to the Spooner Act in 1902? Senator ALLEN. No. I believe the time of it was later. Senator HATCH. If I might interrupt again, I think that was a mistake. Apparently no one followed up on that, but even so, this would be covered by the Spooner Act itself. Senator ALLEN. The date of the Panama Canal Act was 1912. Senator HATCH. I think the clear intention of Mr. Holland was to submit legislation and approve the whole action. However, the distinguished chairman has pointed out that even if he did not submit legislation they could exchange lands under the original act. Therefore, it really was a mistake. Mr. MEEKER. Well, I think articles VI and VII, though, did not involve an exchange. I could see the application of the 1912 statute to exchange, but I think in 1955 articles VI and VII simply reconveyed to Panama some lands that had been obtained initially and were considered no longer to be needed. Senator ALLEN. On the exchange, though, in this statute it says, "exchange any land or land under water not deemed necessary for such purpose, or other land or land under water that may be deemed necessary." Mr. MEEKER. That would be for an exchange. Senator ALLEN. Yes. My thought was that an exchange might be involved in a boundary adjustment. Senator HATCH. What was conveyed if it wasn't exchanged or if it was not a negotiated dispute? Senator ALLEN. In any event, if it was not an exchange, articles VI and VII go back under the principle of the boundary line precedents, which apparently do not take approval. Mr. MEEKER. There was no new land granted to the United States. in 1955 by Panama. Senator HATCH. Was there any new land granted to Panama? Mr. MEEKER. It was part of the original conveyance, which the 1955 treaty reconveyed to Panama on the ground that it was no longer needed for purposes of the Canal. Senator ALLEN. Well, actually, to straighten out a boundary running along a few city blocks could hardly be comparable to divestiture of the Panama Canal or of the Panama Canal Zone. Mr. MEEKER. There is a big difference, naturally, between transferring a relatively small area and the whole area. Senator ALLEN. I understand also that under article V, which did involve a substantial amount of land, the property was not authorized by the Congress to be conveyed. Do you recall that being the case? Mr. MEEKER. That I do not know. Senator ALLEN. Apparently Congress did retain a veto there and in fact did not make the conveyance. 94-468 O 77-16 So that makes it pretty positive that it would require the Congress to ratify the disposition or in fact dispose of it by act. Mr. MEEKER. That was true with respect to the Article V land. Senator ALLEN. I have no further questions. Senator Hatch? Senator HATCH. Mr. Meeker, I would call your attention to one Indian case that really is holding, not dictim. That was the Sioux Tribe of Indians v. the United States case, where it was held that since the Constitution places the authority to dispose of public lands exclusively in Congress, the Executive's power to convey any interest in these lands must be traced to congressional delegation of its authority. It is a very interesting case, but in that particular case that was a holding. Mr. MEEKER. Was there a treaty there which was invalidated? Senator HATCH. I am not sure, but I do not think that there was. Mr. MEEKER. I think, unless there was a treaty which was held to be ineffective, you would not have a holding that Congress must act under article IV. Senator HATCH. I think maybe both of us should look that case up and check it out. Mr. MEEKER. Yes. Senator HATCH. I think we both have to admit that the other was clearly dictum. Mr. MEEKER. Yes. Holden v. Joy was dictum. Senator HATCH. Do you not at least think that it would be wise and proper for the State Department to come to Congress for authority before entering into these negotiations? There has been a lot of frustration about this and there is a lot of acknowledgement by the various executives in times past that they need to do this. There is considerable precedent for requiring congressional approval, even though some of the precedents involved authorization after the treaty was agreed to. In this particular case, though, knowing that the American people are so upset about this, and knowing that there may be a majority of the American people who are against the transfer of the Panama Canal to Panama, don't you think it would have been far preferable for the State Department to come to Congress before entering into negotiations? Mr. MEEKER. These negotiations were begun a long time ago. In fact, they were begun back in the administration of President Johnson. I think that Mr. Linowitz himself was to some degree concerned with them at an earlier time than now. Possibly one reason for not coming to Congress for a formal action such as a statute or a joint resolution was the lack of knowledge as to what a new treaty might contain. I suppose Senator HATCH. Couldn't they at least have come to Congress and said, "Look, we want to go down and negotiate with them because they are upset. We may have to negotiate better terms with them, or we may have to do this or that." I think Congress may very well have given them the consent to go down and negotiate subject to final approval by legislation by Congress. Mr. MEEKER. I assume that, both in the administration of President Johnson and later, the President and the State Department did certainly consult informally with Members of Congress about this, and probably did so many times along the way. Certainly, they would not need an authorization from Congress in order to negotiate with Panama, because the Constitution does make very clear that the conduct of negotiations with foreign countries is an Executive function. What lies with Congress is provided for elsewhere in the Constitution, and of course the making of a treaty is for the President and the Senate acting together. I would be very surprised, indeed, if the President and the State Department had not consulted with Senators and with members of the House on many occasions concerning the Panama problem, which has been a long and difficult one, and very complicated and not yet solved today. Senator HATCH. Well, if it is a matter of not knowing what the negotiations are, why didn't they bring the Kissinger-Tack agreement to Congress? That was a definitive agreement. Mr. MEEKER. That question would probably have to be addressed to those who were responsible for making it, but I guess they considered that this was a preliminary outline rather then the treaty. Obviously, the treaty would come to the Senate later. Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any further questions, I want to thank you for coming, Mr. Meeker, and I will certainly review your testimony again after today. Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeker. We appreciated your fine testimony and your courtesy in coming before the committee. Mr. MEEKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ALLEN. The committee will stand adjourned until next Friday morning at 8 a.m. [Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m., the subcommittee stood in recess to meet July 29, 1977.] [The following letters and statements were subsequently supplied for the record:] I noted in the Indianapolis Star this morning that you are about to hold On December 6, 1971, while a member of the Congress from Indiana, I |