278


bids." The committee uses this bare statement to assume that it knows what the Constitution forbids and does not forbid.
 But the quotation does not answer that question. In f act, if the, paragraph quoted from were read in f ull, it would be clear that the Court added a restriction on the treaty power which is directly relevant to the Panama Canal Treaty.
 What the Court actually said is this:
 It would seem to follow that a treaty which purported to exercise the power exclusively granted to Congress would require implementing legislation as is the case when the treaty requires appropriations.
 On the basis of this sentence, I would contend that the Panama Canal Treaty requires implementing legislation, since it purports to exercise a power exclusively given to Congress, the power to dispose of property.
 The way the treaty proponents read the quotation, the Court meant that nothing at all is forbidden to a treaty unless the Constitution expressly uses the word "forbidden" or the words "you shall not do this." Under this reasoning, the President and the Senate could levy taxes on the people by a treaty, since nothing in the Constitution expressly forbids a treaty from being used to raise taxes.
 Article I, section 8, only provides that "Congress shall have the power ... To lay and collect taxes. .. ." It does not say that Congress alone shall have the power. Nor does it say that Congress shall have the exclusive power. As the distinguished legal authority, Professor Berger, has asked in his critique of the administration position, what then is to distinguish the taxing power from the article IV power to dispose of property?
 Mr. President, I think the question answers itself a nd exposes the error defenders of the treaty have fallen into when they rule out participation by the House in transferring the Panama Canal. If they are serious in their contention that the full Congress need not act to dispose of public territory, then the precedent they are asking us to take in advising and consenting to the treaty is more dangerous than anyone imagined. Very few of Congress powers could not be usurped in a similar way by treaty, using the same reasoning that is used today to bypass the House in the Panama Canal Treaty.
 Moreover, I am impressed by Professor Ierger's analysis that the Geofrey case has nothing- at all to do with the disposition of Government property because it actually involved private rights of inherit. amice in the District of Columbia. In fact, the case was decided in: accordance with a preexisting statute of Congress, a far different situation from the present one where Congress is being cut out of the decision.
 Mr. President, I am also surprised to see several cases listed s authorities for the Panama Canal Treaty which involve treaties with Indian tribes. As we all know, a trust relationship exists between the U.S. Government and Indian tribes. Many courts, including the Court headed by Chief Justice John Marshall, have referred to the Indiangs as being in an guardian-ward relationship with the United States. This is well documented in legal briefs prepared by the Library of Congress in July and August of last year.