President Carter’s claim that he and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos have resolved major differences on interpretation concerning the disputed Panama Canal treaties isn’t likely to calm opposition to the proposal to yield American control of the waterway by the year 2000. Certainly steps should not be taken in the Senate toward ratification of the treaties until the two sides are in complete agreement as to the meaning of the treaties – and until the public is fully informed on official interpretations. Meantime, stout opposition continues. This is evidenced by two lawsuits. In one case, a group of lawmakers and four state attomeys have filed suit in the Supreme Court against President Carter and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, asking the court to uphold what they consider the “exclusive right” of Congress to dispose of federal property under Article IV of the Constitution, The plaintiffs dispute the right of the executive branch to enter into negotiations with Panama independent of Congress and transfer the canal by treaty without a vote by both the House and Senate, Sen, Orrin Hatch (RUtah) is one of the senators joining in the suit. In the other action, Rep. Dan Marriott (ReUtah) is one of the 5l congressmen suing the Carter Administration in an effort to have the proposed treaties sent to the House for a vote. The House members filed the suit as a constitutional test, claiming the Constitution requires that the full Congress shall have the authority to dispose of U.S.-controlled property, not just the Senate. The fact that questions continue to be raised on all sides underscores the need for official interpretation of the proposals and opportunity for extensive debate on them, free of pressure or haste. One of the stickiest questions of all concerns defense of the strategic canal – not only America’s right but the problems and hazards the canal tumover might create. Retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that giving up U.S, control could tum the canal into a “satellite base of an adver-. sary.” There are contrasting points of view, but it’s an issue that must be weighed carefully. The year 2000 is a long way away and we should not be stampeded into premature ratification of agreements that haven’t stood the test of full and complete legal interpretation, public scrutiny, and legislative debate.