Article contents
Treaties, Executive Agreements, and the Panama Joint Resolution of 1943
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
A recent Congressional debate appears to have been one of the opening skirmishes on the question of whether the postwar commitments of the United States should be accepted by treaty or by unfettered executive discretion. On August 13, 1942, President Roosevelt transmitted to Congress a request for the passage of an enclosed draft joint resolution ostensibly “authorizing the execution of certain obligations under the treaties of 1903 and 1936 with Panama, and other commitments.” The President's message, after referring to the “thoroughly coöperative” attitude of the Panamanian Government in the present crisis and stating that “on March 5, 1941, the President of the Republic of Panama issued a manifesto making available for use by the United States certain defense sites in the territory of that Republic,” added that the time had come to make certain concessions long desired by the Republic of Panama. “Accordingly,” continued the message, “I deem it advisable that this Government convey to Panama the water and sewerage systems in the cities of Panama and Colon; that it relinquish its extensive real-estate holdings in the cities of Colon and Panama, so far as these holdings are not essential to the operation and protection of the Canal; and that it liquidate the credit of two and a half million dollars made available to the Republic of Panama by the Export-Import Bank for the construction of Panama's share of the Chorrera-Rio Hato Highway, a road essential to our defense requirements and constructed in accordance with standards made essential by these requirements.”
- Type
- International Affairs
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1943
References
1 Cf. Senate Report No. 201, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (April 22, 1943) on H. J. Res. 14, Authorizing the Execution of Certain Obligations under the Treaties of 1903 and 1936 with Panama, Part 1, pp. 2–4. The Minority Views are contained in Part 2.
2 Cf. Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., Dec. 3, 4, 1942 (S. J. Res. 162); ibid., 78th Cong., 1st Sess., April 13, 26, 1943 (H. J. Res. 14); approved by the President, May 3, 1943, Public No. 48.
3 Cf. the remarks of Senator White of Maine, ibid., Vol. 88, pp. 9595–9596 (daily ed., Dec. 3, 1942), and S. Rept. No. 1720, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. on S. J. Res. 162, p. 6.
4 Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, p. 9597 ff. (daily ed., Dec. 3, 1942).
5 Ibid., p. 9642 (Dec. 4, 1942).
6 It is unnecessary here to enter into the legal merits or details of this controversy.
7 Senator Gillette of Iowa, who introduced the amendment, was not sure that Colombia had been divested of her reversionary rights, although his amendment wa3 not directed exclusively to that question. Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 9604 ff. (daily ed., Dec. 3, 1942).
8 Ibid., p. 9648 (Dec. 4).
9 S. Rept. No. 201 (cited), Part 2, p. 4.
10 Cf. U. S. Treaty Series, Nos. 431 and 945, particularly Arts. II and X of the 1936 treaty.
11 Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, p. 9605 (daily ed., Dec. 3, 1942). Italics supplied.
12 Cf., Department of State Bulletin, Vol. VI, No. 152 (May 23, 1942), p. 448.
13 Cong. Rec., Vol. 89, p. 3383 (daily ed., Apr. 13, 1943).
14 Ibid., Vol. 88, p. 9588 (daily ed., Dec. 3, 1942).
15 Department of State Bulletin, cited, p. 452.
- 2
- Cited by
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.