Diario las Américas., 1958-04-06

that responsible Panamanlan au-
thorities will dispose of this i'm
pertinence by a prompt dismissal
of the application.
Flood introduced five pages Of
documents into the Congressional
Record of wednesday, to support
his view that the United States
has exclusive sovereignty over the
Panama Canal and the Panama Ca
nal Zone.
The publication represented an
extension of remarks, following
Floods address in the House of
Representatives on March 26. Then
he charged that there was extre-
mist nationalistic political agita-
ton in Panama; and a propaganda
campaign from cOmmunits sources
for Observation-Disclosures of the Ca
nal.
Representative Flood ~prefaced
his supplementary publication with
the statement that his address of
March 26 dealt with the subject
Of jingoism on the part of certain
radical elements in the Republic
of Panama, attacking the jurisdic-
ton of the United States over the
Panama Canal and the Canal Zone.
I'm that address | indicated the
difference between the Suez Ca
nal and Panama Canal situations,
but the lack of time prevented
adequate development of this phase
of the subject. Hence, l now I'M
dertake to supply explicit, detail
ed, and carefully considered dis
cussions of dissimilarities between
the SueZ and Panama Canals,
Documents reprinted in the Con-
gressiOnal Record included ad-
dresses made on May Is, 1857, to
the Panama Canal Society of Wa
Shington by Maurice H. Thatcher,
the only surviving member of the
lSthmian Canal Commission; and
Captain Miles P. Duval, retired ma
val officer and historian; and a
statement made in May 1857 by
major general w. E. Potter, Gov
ernor of the Canal Zone.
Representative flood concluded
his inserted remarks with the
statement:
"On the whole, Mr.. Speaker, it
must be perfectly clear that there
can be no question as to the ex-
elusive sovereignty by the United
States over, the Panama Canal and
Canal Zone in perpetuity.
"The assertion of any so-ealled
titular Or residual sovereignty over
the Canal by Panama, in the light
of the facts involved, is purely
academic and serves no purpose
except that of agitation and az
gravation.
I'm this general connection, /
would submit, the realistic truth
is that any diminution or dilution
of United States sovereignty and
control could not possibly yield a
successful result: this, regardless
on whether Panama or some other
nation than the United States
might be concerned.
GAS l have heretofore discussed
the subject this was recognized
in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty OF
1901, wherein Great Britain re-
linquished to the United States
certain existing rights held by the
former with respect to the cons
truction and operation of an 18th
milan Canal.
"The United States policy was
established thereby; and, for the
reasons l have enumerated, was
followed in the adoption of the
treaty of 1903.
Finally, if Panama had joint
sovereignty and control with the
United States over the Panama
Canal and the Canal Zone, would
this make for greater or lesser
stability for the entire enterprise?
'In the light of history the ans
wer must be obvious. Undoubtedly,
those who framed and executed
the Treaty of 1908 had the pro-
blem of sovereignty and control
clearly in mind, and undertook to
nrovide a solution for all time".