Judge CROWE. I agree with that. Justice Brewer wrote that opinion, and he was a very fine Justice.

Senator SCOTT. Has it been overruled as far as you know?

Judge CROWE. No, sir, it never has.

Senator SCOTT. Then I find a circuit court case where it says that the Panama Canal incorporated territory of the United States, and that laws applicable to the Canal Zone are enacted by the Congress. There is no local legislature. I am not aware of any appeal from this fifth circuit court case.

In your opinion, is that still the law?

Judge CROWE. Yes, sir. That is still viable.

Senator SCOTT. Very well, sir. I don't have any further questions. Thank you very much.

Senator ALLEN. Judge Crowe, when did you resign from the bench? Judge CROWE. I resigned from the bench on the 30th of April of this year.

Senator ALLEN. Was one of the filings of the Helms v. Vance suit in your court?

Judge CROWE. Yes, sir. It was called the Drummond suit. It was filed last year. Unfortunately, I decided that I did not have jurisdiction because there was not proper service on the defendants.

Senator ALLEN. Did you make any study of the merits of the suit? Judge CROWE. The only thing that I said in that decision was to the effect that I thought we had a good and perfect title to the land, but that I was incapable of ruling upon the question of the injunction. Senator ALLEN. I shall not seek to elicit information about your opinion on the merits of the suit itself. It is interesting that you were judge in that particular suit.

There has been no successor appointed to fill the vacancy created by your resignation, is that correct?

Judge CROWE. That is correct, and one is very badly needed.

Senator ALLEN. You say the other judge does not try civil cases? Judge CROWE. He has not been trying civil cases, no, sir.

Senator ALLEN. Does this big backlog of criminal and civil cases. cause considerable chaos in judicial circles?

Judge CROWE. Yes; it does. I was talking to the clerk of the court a few days ago. They wanted me to come back if I could and sit as special judge. Circumstances are not right for that, and they had six jury cases set for trial. One of them was a very bad murder case. Unfortunately, the sitting judge could not get back to those trials because of his illness. Some of those cases might be thrown out because of the Speedy Trial Act.

Senator ALLEN. What would happen to the courts in the event that this treaty should be entered into and approved? Would it be wiped out?

Judge CROWE. It would be wiped out, and the rights of the people. who live in the Canal Zone would suffer greatly because they would be thrown under the Panamanian jurisdiction which I have described. Senator ALLEN. They would also be left to Dictator Torrijos' feelings of mercy, would they not?

Judge CROWE. Exactly.

Senator ALLEN. Do you not feel that the rights of the civilians, then, should be considered?

Judge CROWE. I think they should, indeed. As we mentioned this morning, a poll showed that 62 percent of the people said that they were going to leave there in the event of any change. That might mean that more will leave. Of course, if the United States needs the canal, which I think it does very much for defense purposes and I think that this oil situation is going to develop so that it will be very necessary there, then I do not believe this treaty should give the Canal Zone to the

Panamanians.

I was listening to Ralph Nader on the TV the day before yesterday, and I have listened to others who have said that the west coast does not have refineries that can refine this oil. It will have to go to the east coast to be refined. I think that there is going to be a great stream of tankers flowing through the canal to furnish this oil to the American taxpayers.

Senator ALLEN. Do you think that there is any connection between the pendency of the negotiations and the failure to fill the vacancy on the court?

Judge CROWE. Yes, sir. This is a personal opinion. I feel that in the event that a man is appointed down there for an 8-year term, the Panamanian people might leap upon it and charge that it is an indication of insincerity on the part of the United States.

Senator ALLEN. It seems to me that an effort on the part of the Government would show that the canal is not capable of being defended in the first place, and in the second place, that the treaty is sure to be agreed upon and approved, and therefore there is no need to carry on with the normal functions of government there.

Judge CROWE. That is the way it appears to me.

Senator ALLEN. In other words, they are abandoning the area at least so far as future consideration of the needs of U.S. citizens may be concerned.

Judge CROWE. That is the way it appears to me. Thousands of American citizens-and not only American citizens, but Panamanians who live in the Canal Zone-that have their causes before the court down there cannot get them tried.

Senator ALLEN. They would no longer have the protection of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, but would be subjected to whatever government, whatever despotic government, is in place in Panama.

Judge CROWE. Exactly. Our court, as you know, is a part of the Federal system.

Senator ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Judge CROWE. Therefore, people who feel aggrieved by the decision of the district court have the right of appeal to the fifth circuit sitting in New Orleans, and of course ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States in the event that the certiorari is permitted.

SEA LEVEL CANAL

Senator ALLEN. One suggestion of a way to solve the problem was made by a witness this morning. I believe you heard his testimony. That suggestion was not only to give the present canal to Panama, but to enable them, with the backing of the U.S. Treasury, to build a sea level canal there and give that to them, also.

Judge CROWE. I think that Panama would be opposed to building a sea level canal in the Darien area because the plan to build a sea level canal, as the Senator said this morning, would only take a short time to do. They were talking about building it with nuclear weapons. The people are definitely afraid of fallout and the problems that may arise there. They are also afraid of the ecological change.

They also are afraid that a sea level canal that was built in what they call the Darien area, which is the jungle strip between the present canal and Colombia, would be away from their populated area and would cause the death of their terminal cities. Panama City has about 700,000 people living there, with a great many merchants. Cristobal on the other end has the same thing, and they profit greatly from the flow of commerce through the present canal.

Senator ALLEN. What about the influence of the international banks in the controversy?

Judge CROWE. I think that the international banks are for the transfer of the Canal Zone to Panama, because Panama is heavily obligated. Also, I think that these people that I referred to the 220 people who were members of this organization who have businesses in Panama-feel that there is a possibility that because of this cohesion in Latin America between the Latin American people in support of the Panamanian position that their interests will suffer. They feel that there might be expropriations and they might be kicked out of these countries and their institutions taken over.

That is the reason that I think they have joined in. I think that the Department of State is largely motivated by their position.

Senator ALLEN. If the treaty went through, then, Panama would have the revenue to pay off the big banks, would they not?

Judge CROWE. They would, particularly with the money that they are demanding. They are demanding $1,300 million a year to be paid by us just for defending the canal and keeping it neutral.

Senator ALLEN. Is public opinion in Panama all one sided on wanting this new treaty to be executed?

Judge CROWE. Oh, no. There are many people there who would like to have the United States continue just like it is. Of course, the thousands of employees who are working in the Canal Zone receive the benefit of the minimum wage of the United States. They want their jobs and they want to stay there. They receive good salaries and that money is spent in Panama. The American colony there as well as the military with their good salaries spend a great deal of money in

Panama.

Therefore, from a standpoint of wanting the commerce, the merchants are very much of the opinion that they would like to have the United States there.

They are afraid to say so, because they have a controlled press and they have a dictator there who might make it very difficult for them. Privately, though, the intelligent Panamanians will tell you that they would like to have the United States stay there.

There are a number of people who do not have any money. The poor people, who are motivated by the present dictatorship and who will come in and give voice to the demand for the canal emotionally, they do this because they are have-nots and they figure they might have something.

I want to touch on something right there, and that is the question of this fence which Senator Hatch mentioned this morning. The fence that was so much in the press and created such a big issue was a very short little thing. It extended from what they call "J Street," down to the Quarry Heights military encampment. This is less than a mile. As you know, the division is 50 miles long. Therefore, it was just a little thing that would have very little effect on anything. It was for a police control plan near the big school-there is a normal school, and a lot of students came over and caused difficulties. That was the reason that Governor Potter erected it. It was erected by Governor William Potter, who was one of the predecessors of present Governor Parfitt. He decided to erect it just for protection in that area.

However, it was merely symbolic, because the Canal Zone was not fenced off at all. The flow of people back and forth has continued unlimited throughout the years. President Lakas, the present President of Panama made a statement to Mr. Buckley-William Buckleywho came down there and made a TV program.

He said, "When I was a boy I used to be able to go over and look at the canal freely. Now I can't go over there because of the fence."

That was absolutely ridiculous, because anybody can drive in and out of the Canal Zone. There is no customs. There is nobody to stop you. It is a free flow.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much, Judge Crowe.

Judge CROWE. It was a pleasure. Thank you, gentlemen, for your attention.

Senator ALLEN. Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, please?

Admiral Moorer, we are delighted to have you come before the subcommittee and give us the benefit of your views. We are proud of you, and I am proud of you as a fellow Alabamian. I am proud of you as a great patriot and as a former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You are a great military leader and a fine American citizen.

We are certainly delighted and honored to have you come and testify.

TESTIMONY OF ADM. THOMAS H. MOORER, U.S. NAVY, RETIRED, FORMER CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Admiral MOORER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on the Separation of Powers, I am honored to be here as a witness since I have such a deep interest in the subject which you have under consideration. I sincerely hope that my testimony will prove helpful in these hearings regarding the U.S. Canal Zone and the Panama Canal.

My military experience during the last 12 years of active duty, from 1962 to 1974, offered me some extraordinary and unique opportunities to assess the importance of the Panama Canal to the United States, as well as its value to our allies and friends and, indeed, to all maritime nations.

My evaluation of this waterway as an invaluable possession of the United States was intensified in 1962. At that time I was Commander, 7th Fleet operating in the Western Pacific. Frequently my fleet's capabilities depended on the prompt arrival of supplies from the Atlantic seaboard, supplies loaded aboard ships which were utilizing the Panama Canal.

94-468 - 77 - 12

From the 7th Fleet I went to Commander in Chief, Pacific; from there to Commander in Chief, Atlantic and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic; from there to Chief of Naval Operations and from there to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each of these commands provided unique opportunities, and sometimes urgent reasons, to evaluate the Panama Canal. I saw this strategic waterway from many vantage points and under stressful circumstances.

As Commander in Chief, Pacific, I recall in some detail the Tonkin Gulf era of 1964. During that period I saw the Panama Canal as a conduit for rapid reinforcement from the Atlantic Fleet should the naval forces of the Soviet Union or mainland China become involved in the Vietnamese war. The U.S. high command was never sure during those early phases of the war of the intentions of either the Soviet Union or mainland China. We knew they had the naval and air capabilities to make trouble and therefore we had to draw up contingency plans for such eventualities. Later, in order to equalize the wartime exposure and hardship throughout the entire Navy, large numbers of Atlantic Fleet units were continuously rotated through the canal to the combat theater in the South Pacific. In addition, as the Pacific Fleet Commander, I looked to the Atlantic side for rapid logistics support. The U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the US. Navy all required a continuous and heavy flow of logistic support; such necessities as fuel, ammunition, spare parts, and food. Our allies fighting with us in Vietnam also required considerable support from the United States.

If the Panama Canal had not been open and available, the war in Vietnam would have been much more difficult and costly to conduct. This conclusion is also true for the war in Korea.

To give you some idea of the magnitude of Panama Canal usage and its relationship to the war effort, in 1963 there was a total of 300 U.S. Government transits through the Panama Canal. As the war in Vietnam escalated, the number of Government ships transiting by 1966 had almost doubled. The records show for that year-1966-a total of 591 Government ships transited the canal. In 1968 we saw a peak of 1,504 Government ships coming through the canal. Most of these ships were carrying critically needed logistics support to the forces operating under my command.

As Commander in Chief, Atlantic, and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, I saw the situation at Panama in another perspective. That was for the period 1965 to 1967. The war in Vietnam was still expanding, but now I was looking at the canal not only as a means of sending support to the Commander in Chief, Pacific, but also from the Atlantic perspective. I saw the possible need to reverse the flow of ships through the canal, particularly if the situation deteriorated in the Middle East or in the Caribbean during those volatile months of tension and conflict in both those areas.

Both in our U.S. planning and in our NATO planning we envisioned contingencies calling for reinforcements from the Pacific Ocean areas. We envisioned the need for combatant tonnage, Army and Marine divisions, and particularly we saw the need for amphibious lift to be transferred from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

As Chief of Naval Operations I had to look at the Panama Canal as an essential means of equalizing the strength and providing the