by any known weapon and only the atomic bomb could cause temporary interruptions to traffic. Navigation through an uncontrolled Panama sea-level canal would be entirely feasible; however, the tidal currents should be regulated for added safety to shipping. Tidal regulating structures would consist essentially of a tidal lock, and a navigable pass which would be opened to traffic during mean tidal stages. In wartime, the gates of the pass could remain open, or, if destroyed when closed, could be removed within a few days and the canal operated as an open waterway. Radioactive contamination of the sea-level canal would not prevent the passage of ships after the lapse of a short period of time for reduction of the intensity of the radioactivity. Decontamination measures could reduce delays to traffic.

Serious earth slides in any canal could be prevented by appropriate flattening of the bank slopes.

Either a lock canal or a sea-level canal would meet the future needs of interoceanic commerce, but only a sea-level canal would meet the future needs of national defense.

The Governor recommends that the Panama Canal be converted to a sea-level canal to meet the future needs of interoceanic commerce and national defense, substantially in accordance with the plan presented in his report, at an estimated cost of $2,483,000,000.

MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT ON THIRD SET OF LOCKS

Mr. SCRIVNER. From what I have been able to gather from this discussion, there is no present intention of making any particular use of the third locks or the installation of the third locks.

General MEHAFFEY. No, sir.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Yet my recollection is you have an item of somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 in this request for doing something to the third locks. What is that $100,000 for?

General MEHAFFEY. We have a considerable amount of equipment which was bought in connection with the third locks. Much of the construction equipment we sold as soon as the job was finished, but we have a lot of other equipment, as, for example, testing equipment for materials, and so forth, which we want to keep there for future

use.

We also have started some long-range studies on the lasting qualities of materials of various kinds in the tropical waters of the Canal Zone, with hundreds of specimens of all sorts of materials, which should extend over a number of years and which, I think, it would be a very great pity to discontinue at this time.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Conceding that, the question arises in my mind, and probably in the minds of others, why should this even have any reference to the third locks. In your item of $100,000, why should it even refer to the third locks at all?

General MEHAFFEY. You mean that the necessary amount of money to keep up these studies would be included as a part of the regular operating cost?

Mr. SCRIVNER. As a part of the regular operating cost.

General MEHAFFEY. That would be entirely satisfactory.

Mr. SCRIVNER. It has raised the question in my mind, and I am sure would raise the question in somebody else's mind, that if you are not going to use the third locks, why have any money in here relating to the third locks. Of course, if you are going to do that work, it does not make much difference what it is assigned to.

General MEHAFFEY. That would be entirely satisfactory, and I can see some advantages to it.

EXPENDITURES ON THIRD SET OF LOCKS

Mr. KERR. General, just to refresh my recollection about something I know a little something about, on page 112 I notice we have spent about $81,000,000 on these third locks. Is that correct?

General MEHAFFEY. That is true, except that some $5,000,000 of that will have been spent on the study of the sea-level canal under Public Law 280, Seventy-ninth Congress. So that the amount actually spent on the third locks is in the neighborhood of $76,000,000.

Mr. KERR. Of course, unless it is finally perfected as part of the Canal, that money would be thrown away?

General MEHAFFEY. A part of it would be thrown away. However, a considerable part was spent for housing and other developments, including the construction of the new towns which are completely in use-not entirely for our own personnel, but also for Army and Navy personnel, both of those units being short of housing in the Canal Zone. So a considerable part-I am not prepared to say just how much, but a considerable part-of the expenditure is continuously useful whether or not the third locks or some other project goes ahead.

Mr. KERR. Pursuant to the original contract to build those third locks, what percentage of the contract was completed at the time the project was abandoned?

General MEHAFFEY. Several large contracts were let, Judge Kerr. The contract for the excavation for the new Gatun locks was completed 100 percent; the excavation of the Miraflores locks was about 75 percent completed; and the excavation for the new Pedro Miguel lock was not started at all.

Mr. KERR. You spent about $87,000,000?

General MEHAFFEY. About $77,000,000.

Mr. KERR. And you cannot tell exactly how much it would have cost to complete it?

General MEHAFFEY. The estimated cost of completion at that time was $277,000,000.

Mr. KERR. So that really not half of the project of the locks had been completed?

General MEHAFFEY. No, sir. We had spent only about a quarter of the authorized cost of the project.

Mr. KERR. I was just wondering how much work was done there and was completed.

ADVISABILITY OF CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. NORRELL. General, how much money has been appropriated that has not been contracted out on new construction work? Do you have anything to your credit that has not been allocated under contract for improvements?

General MEHAFFEY. Yes, sir. You mean from the regular appropriations?

Mr. NORRELL. Yes. I am thinking about your construction program. In view of the situation existing down there, I do not think any new construction should go on if it can be stopped. If any should be under contract, I presume it would have to be finished: but if there is any that has not been contracted, that could be stopped? General MEHAFFEY. It could be stopped; yes, sir.

Mr. NORRELL. Have you stopped that, or are you planning to stop it?

General MEHAFFEY. No, sir; we are not planning to stop it. Mr. NORRELL. I would like to ask you if you think this Government should make large investments down there in view of the existing circumstances.

General MEHAFFEY. My view of that, Mr. Norrell, is that even if the present Panama Canal were to be abandoned in favor of a canal at some other site in the American Isthmus, it would be a matter of 15 years, at the very least, before a new canal could be completed and put into operation. And I feel the present Canal must be kept at a high pitch of efficiency for the benefit of our own commerce and that of the world until a new project is completed.

Mr. NORRELL. I agree with you, so far as the general maintenance is concerned, that we must keep it up; we must keep it maintained; but we do not have to expand; we do not have to do anything more than that which would come under normal maintenance. your idea?

Is that

UNSATISFACTORY HOUSING SITUATION IN THE CANAL ZONE

General MEHAFFEY. Well, we have, for example, Mr. Norrell, an entirely unsatisfactory housing condition in the Canal Zone. The housing for the Silver employees is in bad physical condition, and I am absolutely certain that it cannot be maintained so as to stand up for another 15 years or so.

Then the housing situation for the American employees is entirely unsatisfactory, and I think, as a matter of proper maintenance and operation rather than expansion, that we must replace some of the unsatisfactory housing which exists in favor of somewhat better housing.

We have, as another example, an appropriation which was made last year for the new obstetrics and pediatrics ward for the hospital. I think everyone who has examined the present Gorgas Hospital recognizes that the present situation, particularly with respect to obstetrics, is not only unsatisfactory but, in fact, is dangerous to mothers and their new-born children. I should hate very much to contemplate the operation of the Panama Canal for another 15 years without an adequate ward for pediatrics and obstetrics.

DISCUSSION OF POLICY OF UNITED STATES IN VIEW OF REJECTION OF TREATY BY PANAMA

Mr. NORRELL. I think this Government has shown, or has tried, at least, to show the Panamanians that we are their friends, but if they are not going to lease us bases to adequately protect the Panama Canal, I do not know how the other members of the committee may feel, but I do not feel that this Government is justified in doing any more than keeping up normal maintenance until we can go somewhere and dig a canal and have adequate bases for the protection of the same.

This Government can build a canal somewhere else, and I hope that that government will understand that we have got to have adequate bases or we are going to go somewhere else, I think, to build another canal.

I do not know why we would build permanent houses, for instance, for a period of 12 or 15 years.

I know you want to keep the good will of the Panamanians, and so do we, but this committee cannot continue to appropriate money for anything outside of normal maintenance unless the Panamanian Government shows a little better spirit of cooperation.

Of course, I only know what the vote was on the ratification of the treaty. It was pretty severe on the part of the Panamanian Government to turn the treaty down. I know I am in favor of all-out appropriations for the Canal Zone if we can protect what we place down there.

Mr. ENGEL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NORRELL. Yes, sir; I will yield.

Mr. ENGEL. I made the statement that the national defense of the Canal could not depend upon a group of college students causing à riot in the streets of Panama. We have to have bases down there not for 10 years, but bases over a long period of years, not less than 99 years, to induce me to make any appropriations other than for temporary purposes.

Mr. NORRELL. I saw your statement, Mr. Chairman, and I want to congratulate you for making that statement. I would be willing to build permanent houses and expend any money necessary that you would recommend if they, in turn, would permit us to protect it, but I am under the impression that we have been so good to them until they feel that they can do almost anything they want to do. I now feel that it is time to stop until they do something.

Mr. ENGEL. That is exactly the position that Mr. Case took in 1946 in the Canal Zone.

Mr. Case expressed himself very forcibly in the conference that we had right there near your office, before we left Panama, and I expressed myself rather forcibly on board ship to the Minister from Panama, who was on his way to Paris.

Mr. CASE. General Mehaffey, at one time when the treaty was made with Panama, when her independence was established and was guaranteed by the United States, did we not have the right at that time to select such bases as were necessary for the defense of the Canal?

General MEHAFFEY. Yes. That treaty granted to us in perpetuity, for the purpose of building and maintaining the Canal, a Canal Zone generally 10 miles wide and, in addition, such other lands or waters as might be necessary or convenient for the operation, maintenance, sanitation, and protection of the Panama Canal, but that right was given up by the United States in the treaty of 1936 with Panama.

Mr. CASE. That was what I was going to bring out, the fact that we had that right, which was a treaty right in perpetuity that was voluntarily surrendered in 1936.

General MEHAFFEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASE. Was that abrogation of the treaty which was made in 1936 recommended by the Governor of the Canal Zone at that time? I am just asking as a matter of fact; I am not asking for an opinion. General MEHAFFEY. I believe not.

Mr. CASE. Was it recommended by the Chief of Engineers to your knowledge?

General MEHAFFEY. I do not believe the Chief of Engineers was consulted in the matter. He has no direct responsibility for the Panama Canal.

Mr. CASE. Was it recommended by the Secretary of War?

General MEHAFFEY. That I do not know, sir. Mr. CASE. But to the best of your knowledge it was not recommended by the then Governor of the Canal Zone? General MEHAFFEY. Yes, sir.

SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF AGREEMENTS OF MARCH 2, 1936

Mr. CASE. General Mehaffey, when you answered my first question as to the rights that we had under the original treaty your words were so well chosen that I thought possibly you were choosing them exactly and keeping in mind the original treaty. When you read the transcript of your remarks will you put in the exact language of the treaty? General MEHAFFEY. Yes, sir.

(Article 2 of the 1903 treaty between the United States and Panama is as follows:)

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of said Canal of the width of 10 miles extending to the distance of 5 miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea 3 marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of 3 marine miles from mean low water mark with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant. The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said enterprise.

The Republic of Panama further grants in like manner to the United States in perpetuity all islands within the limits of the zone above described and in addition thereto the group of small islands in the Bay of Panama, named Perico, Naos, Culebra, and Flamenco.

Mr. CASE. In the treaty of 1936 which surrendered this right pertaining to defense, were there any other subjects considered or did that relate entirely to this matter of the defense in the Canal Zone?

General MEHAFFEY. There were a number of other subjects considered in that treaty, sir.

Mr. CASE. Most of them grants by us in one way or another to the Panamanians?

General MEHAFFEY. To a considerable extent, and concessions to the Panamanians with respect to business operations and residence in the Canal Zone.

Mr. CASE. And what considerations were given to the United States for those concessions which we made?

General MEHAFFEY. I do not know that I am able to answer that question, sir.

Mr. CASE. How long was that 1936 treaty? Would it occupy much space in the record?

General MEHAFFEY. The essential part in which you are interested, I think, is relatively short, sir. Theer are some long sections having to do with the description of land for the Madden Road corridor and other matters.

Mr. CASE. Will you kindly arrange to have inserted at this point the most essential portions of the treaty? I do not care for any long verbiage, but something that would give us an idea of what that