269


 Article II of the 1936 treaty of friendship and cooperation (10 Bevans 742) relinquished to Panama a prior grant of rights in perpetuity of the United States to use certain lands and waters outside the Canal Zone. This transf er was effected without implementing legislation or authorization by Congress. Article II of the treaty of 1950 ceded tracts of Canal Zone land adjoining the city of Colon to Panamia. Again, no implementing legislation was called for by the treaty or enacted. As I indicated earlier, articles VI and VII of the treaty of 1955 transferred certain real property to Panama. Unlike article V of the same treaty, which by its terms was intended to be non-self -executing, articles VI and VII did not call for and were not implemented by statute. The Senator's history is thus very selective.
 It is true that in 1932 and in 1942 congressional authorization was sought for executive agreements transferring property to Panama. It is also irrelevant to the present discussion that authority was sought, since the Executive has not contended that it may dispose of property outside the treaty process without the authorization of Congress. Senator Connally's remarks, which Senator H-atch cites, must be viewed in this context. It is significant that Senator Connally, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, reported out the 1950 treaty. That treaty also transferred property rights to Panama. There was no suggestion in that report that implementing legislation was required to eff ectuate the property transfers made by that treaty.
 Aside from the inadequacy of 'the Senator's legal 'analysis, I find particularly disturbing his attack on the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and his statement that "the Senate alleges that thie committee's report fails to discuss the question of whether this treaty is self -implementing. The question of implementation has been raised only with respect to the transfer of property. The committee took testimony on this subject-the question of whether the concurrence of both Houses of Congress was required for property transfers-from several witnesses, including the Attorne y General and the legal adviser of the State Department, -and that testimony is included in the committee's hearings.
 The Senator devoted a great deal of time in his remarks yesterday and Monday to an attack on the committee report. Hle impugns the integrity of the committee's analysis of this issue, in an intemperate, and often peevish way. For example, the Senator finds the first sentence of the report, which reads "The Constitutional text gives no reason to assume that the power to dispose of property may be exercised only by statute, and not by treaty" to be "obviously irrelevant" since the question is whether property could be disposed of by self -executing treaty. Since the treaty before the committee was, by its terms, self -executing,. this clearly is the type of treaty to which the report referred. IHow could the Senator believe that the committee was devoting a large segrment of its report to an issue that no one has ever raised? Obviouisly the issue under discussion was the issue before us-the issue of the transfer of property rights by self-executing treaty. It is also clear that thec quoted sentence is correct with respect to self -executing treaties, as the report itself demonstrates in some detail.
 The Senator from Utahalso dwelt at some length on the second and third sentences of the report, which note that power under articles I