Caseload statistics in the High Court of American Samoa indicate that jury trial would not overtax the judicial system. In fiscal 1975 there were only 165 criminal findings, and most of these, as is the case in the United States, did not result in trial, but were disposed of by way of the plea bargaining route. No evidence was offered to the effect that the rate of dispositions by pleas would be appreciably affected by the introduction of a jury trial.

The present court system of American Samoa is already handling effectively any problems arising out of the bilingual nature of the society. Interpreters provide simultaneous translation in both civil and criminal cases which are tried in the High Court. The questions are put in English and translated into Samoan. Witnesses answer in whatever language they choose and the responses are immediately translated. Colloquy between the court which is in English is translated into Samoan for the benefit of the Samoan associate judges. Nothing in the evidence points to the fact that this translation system would not function as well in jury proceedings as it does presently in trials before the court. A similar system of translation is in current use in Western Samoa which has the same two official languages, English and Samoan, as American Samoa.

Finally, the evidence establishes that the personnel and officers which would make a jury system work effectively are already present in American Samoa, i.e., professional prosecutors, a public defender office, and a number of American Samoan defense attorneys who are graduates of American law schools and are trained in the American judicial system.

One final word. The witnesses, both for the plaintiff and the defendant, agree that jury trial would be a desirable feature of American Samoa's criminal justice system. The only points of difference arise with the questions of when should it be instituted, and by whom. I wish to emphasize that I have great sensitivity to the views expressed by most of the witnesses that these questions should be resolved by American Samoans themselves. On its face this position has considerable appeal.

However, the many expressions of this point of view do not of themselves establish dispositively the impracticality or anomaly of a jury trial in serious criminal proceedings in American Samoa at this time. I am required at this juncture to consider, as best I can, all of the circumstances bearing on this issue. The fact is that all of the hard evidence which bears on the actual situation in American Samoa today in terms of its legal and cultural development cuts the other way, and leads me to the inescapable conclusion that trial by jury in American Samoa as of the time when Jake King went to trial on the criminal charges here involved would not have been, and is not now, "impractical and anomalous."

Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. Therefore this court (1) concludes that the provisions of the Revised Code of American Samoa, the Rules of the High Court of American Samoa, and the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, which deny the right of trial by jury in criminal cases in American Samoa are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to plaintiff, and that the defendant, his appointees, agents, em

ployees, and all other persons subject to his authority and control cannot lawfully enforce these provisions or act pursuant to them; and (2) permanently enjoins the defendant, his appointees, agents, employees, and all other persons subject to his authority and control from enforcing any judgment of criminal conviction against plaintiff obtained without according him a right to trial by jury.

U.S. App. Ct. D.C. No. 2030-72, pp. 1-3, 9–13.

For further information concerning Ralpho v. Bell, see post, Ch. 2, § 6, pp. 91–95.

86 Trust Territories

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

General Policy

In a statement before the U.N. Trusteeship Council on June 6, 1977, U.S. Representative John Kriendler described efforts to terminate the U.S. Trusteeship Agreement in the Pacific Islands not later than the end of 1981. Mr. Kriendler discussed the drafting of a constitution for the Northern Mariana Islands and procedures for ratification of a constitution in Micronesia. He spoke as well about the Round Table Conference in Honolulu, Hawaii, from May 18 to 21, 1977, between representatives of the United States and the Marshall and Caroline Islands and about a proposal that Micronesia be given separate international standing in the field of marine resources. Mr. Kriendler's statement appears below:

As members of the Council are aware, the Northern Mariana Islands have been administered separately from the Marshall Islands and the Caroline Islands since April 1, 1976. The separation of the Northern Marianas for administrative purposes from the rest of the Trust Territory was the first step in the implementation of the Northern Marianas Commonwealth Covenant, which was approved by the people of the district in a plebiscite observed by a visiting mission from this Council on June 15, 1975. Last year my Government reported that the next step in the development of selfgovernment would be the drafting of a local constitution in accordance with the terms of the Commonwealth Covenant. I am pleased to report that the drafting has been completed and that the draft Constitution has been approved by the people of the Northern Marianas. The Constitution is now under review in Washington in accordance with section 202 of the Covenant, which states that "The Constitution will be submitted to the Government of the United States for approval on the basis of its consistency with the Covenant and those provisions of the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States to be applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands." Unless it is disapproved as a result of that review, the Constitution will be deemed fully approved not later than October 23, 1977, six months from the date it was transmitted to the Federal Government. It is our expectation that elections under the Constitution will be

held by the end of 1977 and that there will be an elected government in the Northern Marianas in early 1978.

The Covenant provides in section 1003 that much of the agreement will come into effect not later than 180 days from final approval of both the Covenant and the Constitution. By its own terms, however, the Covenant also provides that certain sections will be held in abeyance until termination of the Trusteeship Agreement. Specifically, the granting of commonwealth status to the Northern Mariana Islands and the extension of United States citizenship to the local people will not occur while the Trusteeship Agreement is in effect. As we have stated previously, we expect termination of the Trusteeship Agreement not later than the end of 1981 and it is the intention of my Government that the agreement be terminated simultaneously for the entire Trust Territory.

In the Marshall Islands and the Caroline Islands, the question of future status has yet to be resolved and we are actively working with the Micronesians to resume formal negotiations in the near future toward that end. In the meantime, however, there are several developments of interest to the Council. In accordance with Congress of Micronesia legislation calling for a referendum on the draft Micronesian Constitution between June 15 and September 15, 1978, the Acting High Commissioner set July 12, 1978, for the vote. According to the terms of Congress of Micronesia Public Law 5-60, as amended, the Constitution will be ratified if it is approved by a majority of the districts of the Trust Territory existing on the date of the referendum but not in any district where it is disapproved by a majority. In view of the importance of the constitutional referendum, we believe it would be desirable for the Trusteeship Council to dispatch a visiting mission to observe the voting and the period of political education which will precede it.

Last year we reported the initialling of a nearly complete Compact of Free Association and expressed the hope that full agreement would be reached on the incomplete sections at an early date. No formal negotiating sessions have been held during the past year. A policy review by the new Administration in Washington has been completed and the Administration invited representatives from the Marshall and Caroline Islands to participate in a round table conference with the United States in Honolulu from May 18 to 21 to discuss a range of subjects of mutual interest. At this conference the United States reaffirmed its desire to find a mutually satisfactory basis for termination of the Trusteeship Agreement by 1981 and pressed for an early resumption of formal negotiations. We expressed our belief that free association along the general lines negotiated over the past six years provides the most promising basis for ensuring a mutually satisfying relationship between the United States and the peoples of the Marshall Islands and Caroline Islands. We stated that our basic aim was to help the peoples of Micronesia move rapidly and successfully toward a new status based on selfdetermination and that we had not excluded the possibility of talks leading to forms of self-government other than free association, including independence, if that were the expressed wish of the peoples of Micronesia. We expressed our belief that the interests of

the peoples of Micronesia would be best served by the maintenance of some form of unity. We concluded the Honolulu meeting with an agreement by all parties to meet again no later than July for further discussions.

The issue of marine resources has become inextricably linked with. and part of, the political status negotiations, and we believe it should be addressed in that context.

Micronesia has proposed that it be given separate international standing in the field of marine resources, i.e., that it be allowed to negotiate in its own right and sign treaties in its own name. In our opinion, this is not in reality a marine resource issue, but rather flows from the relationship which exists or will be established in the future. We would also include in this category the issues involved in the LOS [Law of the Sea] Conference, signatory status, etc.

From our point of view, we will be guided by two principles as we attempt to resolve this question:

a. Any mutually agreeable arrangement must provide a balance between the authority of Micronesia and the responsibility of the United States for Micronesian actions. It would follow that as Micronesian authority for independent action in the field of marine resources increases. U.S. responsibility for those actions must decrease. (It should be clear that use of the term "authority" in this context refers to authority to act independently internationally rather than authority to manage or conserve marine resources.)

b. Whatever arrangements we conclude, any marine resources solution must be found within the context of our status negotiations.

It is important to understand that we do not contest that rights over marine resources located off the coasts of Micronesia for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of those resources reside in the people of Micronesia, not the United States. And it should also be understood that we are not attempting to protect a right of exploitation by the United States or its citizens.

These questions are of course very difficult ones and we have struggled with how best to arrive at a solution. While we cannot lose sight of these marine resource issues, they must be worked out as an integral part of an agreement between us on the overall political status question.

Separate from the question of the future status of the Marshall Islands and the Caroline Islands, we are moving to achieve a greater degree of self-government in the Trust Territory while the Trusteeship Agreement remains in effect. In this regard, we hope it will be possible to hold popular elections for District Administrators in 1978. We raised this question at the Honolulu Conference and indicated our desire to consult with the Micronesians on the subject. We would expect these elections to take place soon after the approval of District Charters which are to be created by the various district legislatures, in accordance with existing Congress of Micronesia legislation.

In summary, I am able to report that we are moving toward greater self-government throughout the Trust Territory. We expect that before the next meeting of the Trusteeship Council the

Northern Marianas will have an elected Governor and we hope that the other districts will have elected District Administrators. A referendum on the draft Micronesian Constitution is scheduled for July 12, 1978, and we invite the Trusteeship Council to dispatch a visiting mission to observe the voting. Informal talks on questions relating to future status were recently held and the United States hopes to resume formal negotiations at an early date leading to a mutually satisfactory basis for trusteeship termination by 1981. Press Release USUN-32 (77), June 6, 1977.

The Trusteeship Agreement for the Former Japanese Mandated Islands was approved by the Security Council of the United Nations on Apr. 2, 1947, and by the United States on July 18, 1947 (TIAS 1665; 61 Stat. 3301; 12 Bevans 951; 8 UNTS 189; entered into force July 18, 1947).

The text of the Press Release on behalf of the Micronesian-U.S. Conference of May 18-21, 1977, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, appears below:

The Honolulu May 18-21 Round Table Conference, hosted by the United States, was attended by representatives of the Congress of Micronesia; the Micronesian Commission on Future Political Status and Transition; the Delegation of Micronesia to the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference; the District Legislatures of Kosrae, Ponape, the Marshall Islands—including the Marshall Islands Political Status Commission, Palau-including the Palau Political Status Commission; and the Trust Territory Administration. The District Legislatures of Truk and Yap authorized the Congress of Micronesia, the Micronesian Commission on Future Political Status and Transition, and the Law of the Sea Delegation to represent them and speak on their behalf.

The participants engaged in forthright and constructive multilateral and bilateral exchanges of views on a number of subjects, including current and future political relationships and on means of resuming formal status negotiations.

In order to continue the fruitful exploration begun during these discussions, the participants agree to another series of informal multilateral and bilateral talks, to be held at the earliest possible date in June or July.

The Trust Territory participants expect to discuss further among themselves the nature and extent of the relationships they look forward to establishing with each other and with the United States in the post-Trusteeship period. The U.S. will give sympathetic consideration to lending such assistance as may be required to convene these meetings.

The participants expect these talks to facilitate progress toward termination of the Trusteeship Agreement in a manner consistent with the needs and interests of the peoples of Micronesia and of the United States.

Dept. of State File IO/UNP.

On June 8, 1977, Ambassador Allard K. Lowenstein, U.S. Representative to the U.N. Trusteeship Council, responded to statements by spokesmen for the Congress of Micronesia and for the Marshall Islands Political Status Commission concerning activities of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Micronesia. Portions of Ambassador Lowenstein's statement follow:

I want to read into the record a paragraph from a letter sent by Senator Inouye, who is, as you know, the Chairman of the Senate Committee investigating this matter. This letter was sent to a number of representatives of the Congress of Micronesia, and in the letter Senator Inouye says this: