His the treaty, heretofore referred to, 'grants o ... "Other provisions of the treaty add to the "Further, it is said that the boundaries of ever doubted the title of this Republic to Alaska." Comment: Firstly, the Supreme Court quotes directly from the language of the treaty, which language indicates that the United States has absolute sovereign power over the canal zone and that United States sovereignty is "to the entire exclusion" of Panamanian sovereignty. Secondly, the Supreme Court holds that it is fallacious to argue that there are imperfections in the title of the United States to the canal zone. Lastly, it is extremely interesting to note that the United States Supreme Court analogizes the United States' rights to the Panama Canal Zone to the United States' rights over the Territory of Alaska (which are, of course, undisputed). III. RECENT FEDERAL DECISIONS HAVE REAFFIRMED THAT THE A 1971 United States Court of Appeal decision, United States v. Husband R. (Roach), 453 Fed. 2d 1054 (8th Circuit 1971), has reaffirmed the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone is United States territory. "The Canal Zone is an unincorporated 10 11 12 13 14 15 the Congress 16 17 453 Fed.2d at 1057 (emphasis supplied). 18 19 CONCLUSION Before Congress acts, Congress should understand that this 20 country has sovereign rights over the Panama Canal and the Panama 21 Canal Zone, that the Panama Canal Zone is actual territory of the 22 United States and belongs to the United States just as much as Alaska belonged to the United States upon our purchase of that territory. 1/ DATED: July 13, 1977. Michael Horndy MICHAEL J. BRADY 40 Campo Bello Court Menlo Park, California 94025 The most recent reflection of public opinion concerning the Panama Canal Zone occurred on June 18, 1976, when the House of Representatives (concerning an amendment to HR 13179) voted 197-157 in favor of the proposition that any new Panama Canal treaty should "perpetuate the sovereignty and control" of the United States over the Canal Zone. His the treaty, heretofore referred to, 'grants o agreement, "Other provisions of the treaty add to the "Further, it is said that the boundaries of Comment: Firstly, the Supreme Court quotes directly from the language of the treaty, which language indicates that the United States has absolute sovereign power over the canal zone and that United States sovereignty is "to the entire exclusion" of Panamanian sovereignty. Secondly, the Supreme Court holds that it is fallacious 1 2 3 to argue that there are imperfections in the title of the United States to the canal zone. Lastly, it is extremely interesting to note that the United States Supreme Court analogizes the United States 4 rights to the Panama Canal Zone to the United States' rights over the Territory of Alaska (which are, of course, undisputed). III. RECENT FEDERAL DECISIONS HAVE REAFFIRMED THAT THE A 1971 United States Court of Appeal decision, United States v. Husband R. (Roach), 453 Fed. 2d 1054 (8th Circuit 1971), has reaffirmed the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone is United States territory. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 the Congress 453 Fed.2d at 1057 (emphasis supplied). CONCLUSION Before Congress acts, Congress should understand that this country has sovereign rights over the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone, that the Panama Canal Zone is actual territory of the United States and belongs to the United States just as much as Alaska belonged to the United States upon our purchase of that territory. 29 The most recent reflection of public opinion concerning the Panama Canal Zone occurred on June 18, 1976, when the House of Representatives (concerning an amendment to HR 13179) voted 197-157 in favor of the proposition that any new Panama Canal treaty should "perpetuate the sovereignty and control" of the United States over the Canal Zone. July 21, 1977 Hon. James B. Allen 20515 Dear Senator Allen: In view of the planned hearings by your Subcommittee on Separation of Powers on the negotiations for a new Panama Canal Treaty, we of the Panama Audubon Society would like to bring to your attention the threat posed by such a treaty to the Canal Zone's valuable biological resources. During the current talks between the United States and Panama, there has been no indication that the U.S. negotiators have considered the ecological impact on the Canal Zone of the proposed new treaty. This fact has caused great concern on the part of many persons here, as well as in the States, who realize that the forests of the Canal Zone harbor one of the world's richest treasures of tropical bird, animal and plant life. Robert S. Ridgely, ornithologist and author of A Guide to the Birds of Panama, describes the Canal Zone as "a naturalist's paradise... ...(with) probably the most extensive, readily accessible lowland forests in Middle America." It is our understanding that under United States law the State Department should have prepared an Environmental Impact Statement prior to entering into negotiations with Panama to change the political status of the Canal Zone. This, to our knowledge, was not done. Considering Panama's almost total disregard of environmental conservation within the area of the Republic, there can be little doubt that Panamanian control of Canal Zone lands would pose a grave threat to the survival of the Zone's forests and their wildlife populations. Their destruction would be a great loss to mankind. Equally important, removal of the forests would have a disastrous effect upon the operation of the Canal itself, reducing the precipitation so vital to the Canal's water supply and promoting rapid erosion of the floodplain and silting of Canal channels. We, therefore, urge you and your subcommittee to give serious consideration to the ecological implications of the proposed Canal Treaty. For whatever further information it may provide on the subject, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to President Carter on June 21, 1977, plus a copy of the reply I received from Mr. Hodding Carter of the State Department. |