Consistent with those obligations, the United States Government has regularly transmitted information pursuant to article 73 (e) of the Charter to the Secretary-General and has always cooperated with the work of the Committee regarding the U.S. Virgin Islands. This year, for the first time, we invited a U.N. Visiting Mission to visit the territory.

Equally consistent with our obligations we respect the right of selfdetermination. We believe, however, that independence is but one of the possible outcomes of self-determination. We find it significant in the case of the Virgin Islands the Visiting Mission report documents that "no desire was expressed by the people of the Territory in favor of independence." That is an observation of today and has nothing to do with the future.

The Mission's report carefully documents the advanced state of the development of the institutions of self-government in the Virgin Islands. The people of the Territory elect their own governor on the basis of universal adult sufferage. He is responsible for the administration of all activities of the executive branch of government, the appointment and removal of all officers and employees of that branch, the execution of Federal and local laws, including applicable provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and he can recommend and veto legislation. The people of the U.S. Virgin Islands also elect a 15-member unicameral legislature and a delegate to the United States House of Representatives. Judicial power in the Territory is vested in a Territorial Court, whose members are appointed by the governor, and a United States District Court.

A recent important constitutional development . . . is the bill signed into law by the President of the United States in October 1976 permitting the Territorial Legislature to call a convention to draft a constitution for the Territory. The Territorial Legislature has since adopted such a bill, and the governor has approved it, a bill calling for the election of members to a Constitutional Convention and the convening of the Convention in October of this year.

The commitment of the Government of the Virgin Islands to encouraging local cultural development can be seen in its support of the Virgin Islands' Council on the Arts, as well as by direct subsidies to specific expressions of local culture, including televising local cultural activities by the Government-owned television station. We were particularly pleased that the Mission was able to extend its stay in the Virgin Islands to participate in its Carnival, one of the richest and most distinctive manifestations of the vital and varied local culture.

These developments have taken place within the context of a broad range of efforts designed to promote the political, economic, and social and educational advancement of the people of the Virgin Islands. Additional progress in some of these areas is still required. In the case of economic development that progress is complicated by a lack of natural resources and a shortage of land suitable for agricultural development. However, overall, the citizens of the Virgin Islands enjoy a very high standard of living and high standards of health care, education, housing and a broad range of social services. These closely approximate those standards enjoyed by their fellow

citizens on the mainland and compare very favorably with the rest of the Caribbean.

There is room for improvement. One of the important services that the U.N. Visiting Mission has performed is its detailed and comprehensive report which will highlight some of the areas where greater effort is required.

My Government derives particular pride and satisfaction at the Mission's perceptions of the democratic processes and freedoms which prevail in the Virgin Islands. As citizens of the United States the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands are entitled to and enjoy the First Amendment guarantees which are the underpinning for our democratic institutions and way of life. These include freedom of speech, of assembly, and a free press. The exercise of those freedoms was clear throughout the Mission's visit and, I believe, its report reflects that view. The public meeting which the Mission held provided opportunities for the free expression of views covering a wide spectrum from sharp criticism to open admiration of government policies. That there was no hint of reticence or inhibition in expressing such views, we believe, demonstrate the openness of political discourse in the Territory and the attachment of its citizens to democratic processes.

While there are occasional points of detail and emphasis with which we might disagree, the report, we believe, is in general accurate, balanced and objective.

.

Concerning the Visiting Mission's conclusions and recommendations, I wish to assure this Committee that my Government will study them with great care. The United States remains committed to the principle that the status of the Territory should accord to the freely-expressed wishes of the local people. The people of the Virgin Islands are aware of the range of possibilities and they are free to express their preference without hesitation.

The people of the Territory have already, we believe, access to the Federal Government in order to express their views on this matter or other matters of importance to them. We do not believe it is necessary at this time to establish additional mechanisms for them to express their views. The United States Government remains dedicated to furthering the political, economic, social and educational progress and the well being of the people consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Charter.

Press Release USUN-62 (77), Sept. 14, 1977.

For information concerning the U.S. legislation permitting the Territorial Legislature of the Virgin Islands to call a constitutional convention, P.L. 94-584, 90 Stat. 2899, 48 U.S.C. 1391 note, see the 1976 Digest, Ch. 2, § 5, pp. 53-54.

The U.N. Document number for the Report of the U.N. Visiting Mission to the United States Virgin Islands, 1977, is A/AC.109/L.1198. Art. 73 of the U.N. Charter reads as follows:

Article 73

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the

inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;

c. to further international peace and security;

d. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to cooperate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and

e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.

Jurisdiction of Courts

U.S. District Court Appellate Jurisdiction in Guam

In a 5 to 4 decision in the case of the Territory of Guam v. Olsen, 45 Law Week 4469, decided May 23, 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court held that section 22 of the 1950 Organic Act of Guam (Act) providing that the District Court of Guam "shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the [Guam] Legislature may determine" does not permit the Guam Legislature to transfer the U.S. District Court's appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from local Guam courts to the newly created Supreme Court of Guam, though the Guam legislature does have the power under the Act to "determine" what should constitute appealable cases to the U.S. District Court. Id.

The majority opinion, written by Mr. Justice Brennan, placed emphasis on the following portions of the Organic Act, Pub. L. No. 630, c. 512, § 22, 64 Stat. 384, 389-390 (1950), 48 U.S.C. 1424 (a), which "before an amendment not relevant here, provided:"

There is hereby created a court of record to be designated the "District Court of Guam," and the judicial authority of Guam shall be vested in the District Court of Guam and in such court or courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by the laws of Guam. The District Court of Guam shall have, in all causes arising under the laws of the United States, the jurisdiction of a district court of the United States as such court is defined in section 451 of title 28, United States Code, and shall have original jurisdiction in all other causes in Guam, jurisdiction over which has not been transferred by the legislature to other court or courts established by it, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the legislature may determine. The jurisdiction of and the procedure in the courts of

Guam other than the District Court of Guam shall be prescribed by the laws of Guam. (Footnote omitted.)

Id. 4470.

The majority opinion noted that the purpose of the Guam Legislature in adopting the Court Reorganization Act of 1974, Guam Pub. L. 12–85 (1974), was to abolish certain local courts with cases appealable to the U.S. District Court and to give to the Guam Superior Court original jurisdiction in the following cases:

... [A]ll cases arising under the laws of Guam, civil or criminal, in law or equity, regardless of the amount in controversy, except for causes arising under the Constitution, treaties, laws of the United States and any matter involving the Guam Territorial Income Tax. (Footnote omitted.)

Id. 4470.

The Court Reorganization Act of 1974 also transferred the appellate jurisdiction previously exercised by the U.S. District Court over cases appealable from the local courts to the Supreme Court of Guam.

The procedural context of the case at bar was described as follows:

Respondent was convicted of criminal charges in the Superior Court, and appealed to the District Court of Guam. The District Court dismissed the appeal on the authority of a divided panel decision of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit holding that the 1974 Court Reorganization Act validly divested the District Court of its appellate jurisdiction and transferred that jurisdiction to the newly created Supreme Court. Agana Bay Devel. Co. Ltd. v. Sup. Ct. of Guam, 529 F. 2d 952 (1976). In this case, however, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overruled en banc the panel decision in Agana Bay, and reversed the dismissal of respondent's appeal. 540 F. 2d 1011 (1976). The Court of Appeals held that "the appellate jurisdiction of the district court may not be transferred without congressional authorization and pursuant to such provisions and safeguards as Congress may provide." Id., at 1012. ... (Footnotes omitted.)

Id. 4470.

The Court interpreted section 22 to permit a "transfer" by the Guam Legislature of original jurisdiction from the U.S. District Court to local courts without permitting a like transfer of the U.S. District Court's appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Guam:

The Act expressly provides that original jurisdiction might be "transferred" to "other court or courts" created by the legislature. As to appellate jurisdiction, however, the wording is that the District Court "shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the legislature may determine." The question immediately arises why, if Congress

contemplated authority to eliminate the District Court's appellate jurisdiction by transferring it to a local court, Congress did not, as in the case of "original jurisdiction," explicitly provide that appellate jurisdiction too might be "transferred." Moreover, if Congress contemplated such a broad grant of authority, it might be expected that it would have referred, as in the case of original jurisdiction, to "other court or courts" that would be established to assume the appellate jurisdiction transferred from the District Court. Clearly, the word "determine" is not used as a synonym for "transfer," and it is not obvious that the power to "determine" the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court includes the power to abolish it by "transfer" to another court. . . . [W]e note that the Guam Legislature found no broader authority in the term for the 23 years from 1951 to 1974. We therefore conclude that Congress expressly authorized a "transfer" of the District Court's original jurisdiction but withheld a like power respecting the court's appellate jurisdiction, empowering Guam to "determine" the District Court's appellate jurisdiction only in the sense of the selection of what should constitute appealable causes. (Footnote omitted.)

45 Law Week 4471.

The opinion also expressed the Court's reluctance to permit the Guam Legislature to foreclose appellate review "of decisions of territorial courts in cases that may turn on questions of Federal law” by courts created pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, including the U.S. Supreme Court, "without a clear signal from Congress." Id.

American Samoa

Local Self-Government

On June 20, 1977, John Kriendler, political adviser to the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, made a statement concerning American Samoa in the Sub-Committee on Small Territories of the U.N. Committee of Twenty-four on Decolonization. Mr. Kriendler described the degree of self-government being exercised by the people of American Samoa and the relationship of the territory to the U.S. Federal Government in the following terms:

I would like to respond to the concerns raised by members of the Committee on June 15 regarding American Samoa.

The Committee is already well informed regarding the decision of the people of the territory to elect their own Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The Committee is also aware that steps have been taken by the local legislature (the Fono) and by the United States to implement this decision. An entirely separate matter of which you are also aware, and which has apparently caused some uncertainty, is recent talk of the United States approving an organic act for the territory. I will discuss each of these matters separately.

11