OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take Page 6 The Utah Independent August 18, 1977 A Stand History Of Canal Treaty Negotiations commercial operations, be they rail or water. Thus, Article 35 of the 1846 Mallarino - Bidlack treaty granted to the United States: that the right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama, upon any modes of Interest and negotiations by the United States to build a canal across the Isthmus of Panama date back to 1826 when Henry Clay, then Secretary of State, recommended a canal. In 1867, President Andrew Johnson presented a new treaty to Colombia which was canal oriented, but Colombia rejected it. In 1870, President U.S. Grant tried again but Colombia called that one unacceptable as well. cross-isthmu- s communication that may be hereafter constructed, shall be open and free to the Government and citizens of the United States... And in return, the United States guaranteed "the perfect neutrality of the before mentioned Isthmus... Therefore, Colombia acquired the obligatidn to permit construction of either railroads or canals by the United States. Colombia's rejection of several later Canal treaty attempts forced the United States to move in the direction of a Nicaraguan canal, and this stoked the fire of revolution in the hearts of Panamanians who saw the finan cial gain to them to have the canal in their territory as being irretrievably lost. Colombia's actions which culminated in the final independence of Panama are usually not mentioned. The 1846 Mallarino - Bidlack treaty with Colombiamentioned above however, played a key role in the Panamanian revolution 57 years later. One must remember that Panama had been trying to gain independence from Colombia for many years but had not succeeded. To the Panamanians, Bogota was far away, high in the mountains, detached and insensitive to the distant maritime, mosquito ridden province of Panama. In a revolt attempt in 1840, Panama had declared In the final treaty effort with Colombia, the United States agreed to buy a 100 year Canal Zone lease, to pay Colombia $10,000,000 cash and an annual rental fee of $250,000. In a related but separate arrangement, the United States agreed to buy out themselves independent, called their country State of the Isthmus. So Colombia wanted a treaty with the United States for two principal reasons to maintain control of the Panamanian rebels and to reap the financial rewards of any future the French concession for $40,000,000. for Teddy Roosevelt to say. 1 took it"? Or for people to keep saying today, "We stole it? But the French concession was about to expire and Colombia saw a chance to get a share of the $40,000,000. So in August of 1903 they rejected the treaty, to much surprise and anger in Washington. As a result of the several failures to negotiate a treaty with Colombia, the United States opted for a transocean canal across Nicaragua, a thousand miles closer to New York. The sovereignty question will be decided not by Panamanian and American negotiators but by the United . States Senate who must ratify any new treaty. Also, in the case of the Panama Canal, the House of Representatives will have a voice, since the real estate of the The Spanish-AmericaWar, of need for a course, itensified the United States canal to succeed the n French 1881-188- 9 canal Canal Zone, bought by the American taxpayer piece by piece, comes under the jurisdiction of Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. Both the Senate and House will have their ears finetuned to what the American people will say. building In 1899. a special United States commission studied both a Panama canal and a Nicaraguan canal, and at the turn of the century United States public and Cofailue. We must not get transfixed by ngressional sentiment was far stronger for a Nicaraguan canal than for a Panama canal. sovereignty issue so that we do not see beyond the Panama Canal itself. The sovereignty means, quite simp- It was the possibility the United States might indeed build a sea level ly, control and military presence. Beyond that, however, the Panama Canal is the test case whether or not the United States will defend its rights anywhere. Are we indeed a canal in Nicaragua which galvanized the Panamanians to plot and prepare their fifth revolt for independence, hoping to induce the United States to build the canal to Panamanian territory. In the fever of the period, the leaders of Panama were willing to give almost anything to the United States -including sovereignty over the Canal Zone (1) to build the canal across the Isthmus, and (2) to 1899-190- paper tiger? Our case for ownership and sovereignty in Panama is solid, legal based, and confirmed. If the United States abjectly signs away its rights to the Panama Canal, we shall certainly see in subsequent 3 years Communist efforts to negotiate us out of the Philippines, Guantanamo, the Mediterranean, the Western Pacific and the Indian guarantee their independence. With this background, was it fair Ocean. THE NEWS, Lynchburg, Va., Fri., Aug. 5, 1977 President Carter has been proceeding, as Presidents Ford, Nixon and Johnson before him, on the assumption that he can give away the d canal in Panama via treaty which only the U.S. Senate has to ratify to make valid. U.S.-owne- Recently, however, constitutional experts testified before a Senate subcommittee holding hearings that the Constitution expressly requires the full approval of the Congress whenever U.S. territory or property is disposed of. Attorney George S. Leonard called attention to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." This means, Leonard explained, that the both Houses of Congress must ratify any treaty concerning the Canal not just the Senate. "The power of Congress to dispose of property belonging to the United States is exclusive," Leonard explained. "Therefore any authority of the executive to dispose of property of the United States must first be derived from authority given by an Act of Congress." Rep. John M. Murphy, chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee which has. jurisdiction over the Panama Canal, agreed with Leonard. Leonard warned the subcommittee of the danger of a fait accompli in which the President through his control powers over the Canal Zone could permit it to be occupied by Panama before the Constitutionality of the giveaway could be decided in the courts. Should the courts rule the giveaway was illegal, the Panamanians would have occupied the Canal Zone the and could be removed only by force. Senator Jesse Helms .) told the subcommittee about his recent tour of three-fourtof the Latin American countries: he was told hij all of the governments he visited that the U.S. (R-N.C- hs should "keep the canal. Their reason: the Panamanian gov- ernment was notoriously unstable, and could.be expected to vastly increase canal charges. This would adversely affect their international trade, so much of which moves through the canal. Lt. Gen. Dennis McAuliffe, commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command which is based in the Canal Zone, dismissed the threat of a Panamanian attempt to take the canal by force. McAuliffe noted that Panama's armed forces, called the National Guard, consists of no more than 8,000 troops on active duty, of which only one fourth are combat troops. Panama has a Navy of some 200 men and 1 1 boats, he said, |