NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS JOHN M. MURPHY, N.Y., CHAIRMAN THOMAS L. ASHLEY, OHIO GLENN M, ANDERSON, CALIF. RALPH H. METCALFE, ILL FRED B. ROONEY, PA. BO GINN, GA. GERRY E. STUDDS, MASS. DAVID R. BOWEN, MISS. JOSHUA EILBERG, PA. RON DE LUGO, V.I. CARROLL HUBBARD, JR., KY. DON BONKER, WASH. LES AU COIN, OREG. NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, N.H. DANIEL K. AKAKA, HAWAII CHIEF OF STAFF CARL L. PERIAN CHIEF COUNSEL ERNEST J. CORRADO CHIEF CLERK MINORITY COUNSEL W. PATRICK MORRIS Honorable James B. Allen, Chairman Dear Senator Allen: I wish to commend you for holding hearings on the Constitu- I am confident that your hearings will prove to be of great It seems to me that this fact, our absolute and total possession of the Canal Zone, must underlie any discussion as to who is empowered under the Constitution to dispose of that territory should such an eventuality come to pass. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. DRUMMOND, CHAIRMAN, CANAL ZONE SEPARATION OF POWERS THE HONORABLE JAMES B. ALLEN, CHAIRMAN SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Kr. Chairmanı It is my understanding that the subject of this hearing is to resolve a constitutional contraversy between the President's right to negotiate treaties and the Congress' right, once a territory has been acquired, by treaty or otherwise, to administer and dictate the future disposition of that U.S. territory. It is my firm belief, not without substance, that the solution to this contraversy is to have the Executive Branch seek direction and approval from the Congress prior to embarking upon any new Canal treaty with the Republic of Panama. The outcome of this contraversy will have a profound impact on the inhabitants of the Canal Zone as well as U.S. citizens within the States. "Personal and Civil Rights" applicable within the Canal Zone originated by Executive Order on May 9, 1904, pursuant to the authority given by Act of Congress dated April 28, 1904. These rights were and are based on the "Bill of Rights" of the Constitution of the United States. On June 19, 1934, also pursuant to an Act of Congress, the On October 18, 1962 the revised Canal Zone Code was enacted by 94-468 77-17 Congress through Public Law 87-845 Stat. 76A., effective January 2, 1963. This revised edition consisted of eight titles. Title 1, Chapter 3, section 31 is composed entirely of "Personal and Civil Rights" applicable to the Canal Zone. It has its base in the "Bill of Rights" of the United States. Title 4, Chapter 9, protects "owners of Property". Specifically, section 152 states: "Any person, whether citizen or alien, may take, hold, and dispose of property within the Canal Zone." (derived verbatim from Title 3, section 262, 1934 Canal Zone Code.) At least since 1914 Canal Zone residents have owned, title and deed, leased and rented real property within the Canal Zone. Ownership of personal property, of course, is also of historic record. (The Cristobal Shrin club is one example) As the above indicates, we have had the right to freedom of speech, assembly, petition, life and religion since the United States established itself as the sovereign within the Canal Zone. These rights cannot be taken without due process of law. As in the Bill of Rights, the Canal Zone Code dictates that laws abridging these rights are "void". I would also like to emphasize that it has been established by law, Husband v. U.S., 1971, that the "Canal Zone Bill of Rights" have the same force and effect as the original document from which it came. Mr. Chairman, in my letter to you 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. In response to their actions, I have entered into a court suit, along with several of the members of this Congress. 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 respect due 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 out of deference to these treaty negotiations. I had intended, at this time, to include a number of specific examples of the violations that I have spoken of, but after reflection; I realize that to do so would take away from the thrust of this hearing and the time alloted to me. I have been supplying the House Panama Canal Subcommittee with these type examples for the last several years, and I am sure that they would be willing to supply this Subcommittee with copies of this correspondence. incidents. I include here some of the more recent Mr. Chairman, I have all but exhausted my appeal rights to the two other branchs of our government. I am here today appealing to the Congress of the United States on a matter that is of direct interest to them and the U.S. citizens that they represent. The right to be protected under the laws of the United States. I do not consider these rights to be abstract. If this Subcommittee elects I, and the people I rep If I fail in my appeal here today not to act forcefully in this matter resent, will not only be the losers, but our very system of government will have been tested and will have failed to meet that test. I can think of no circumstance that could justify the Congress of the United States ignoring their responsibility in asserting the seperation of powers clause in this matter when United States citizen's rights are being violated.. Respectfully submitte Willian R. Frurro William R. Drummond Congress through Public Law 87-845 Stat. 76A., effective January 2, 1963. This revised edition consisted of eight titles. Title 1, Chapter 3, section 31 is composed entirely of "Personal and Civil Rights" applicable to the Canal Zone. It has its base in the "Bill of Rights" of the United States. Title 4, Chapter 9, protects "owners of Property". Specifically, section 152 states: "Any person, whether citizen or alien, may take, hold, and dispose of property within the Canal Zone." (derived verbatim from Title 3, section 262, 1934 Canal Zone Code.) At least since 1914 Canal Zone residents have owned, title and deed, leased and rented real property within the Canal Zone. Ownership of personal property, of course, is also of historic record. (The Cristobal Shrin club is one example) As the above indicates, we have had the right to freedom of speech, assembly, petition, life and religion since the United States established itself as the sovereign within the Canal Zone. These rights cannot be taken without due process of law. As in the Bill of Rights, the Canal Zone Code dictates that laws abridging these rights are "void". I would also like to emphasize that it has been established by law, Husband v. U.S., 1971, that the "Canal Zone Bill of Rights" have the same force and effect as the original document from which it came. Mr. Chairman, in my letter to you 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. In response to their actions, I have entered into a court suit, along with several of the members of this Congress. 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. |