This two-hour debate, the first one done specially for Firing Line (see the preface to this catalogue, p. 1), is said to have influenced the subsequent Senate debate on the treaties-and also Mr. Reagan's electability as President two years thence. Each principal was to bring two seconds and a military expert; Mr. Bunker was present to answer any technical questions about the treaties. The result was at once a brilliant duel and a model of civilized discourse on an emotional topic. Two samples: WFB: "Well, let me ask you to give me the answer to a question which you cannot document, but in which I permit you to consult only your insight. Would you guess that the Panamanian people would prefer, or not prefer, to exercise sovereignty over their own territory? Take as long as you want to answer that." RR: "I was just sitting here wishing that I had with me the transcript of the impassioned plea that was made to United States senators at a meeting of the Civil Council a week or so ago in Panama.... The speaker was a black-a Panamanian, not an American. His father, a West Indian, worked on the Canal, in building the Canal. The speaker had worked all his life on the Canal, and his impassioned plea was, even though he was a Panamanian, 'Don't! Don't do this! Don't ratify those treaties!' "... WFB: "Do you mean, Would President Carter, as Commander in Chief-" PJB: "And would the Senate support him?" WFB: "-would he assert American rights in the Panama Canal? In my judgment he would. Yes, sir." PJB: "... With regard to South African and Chilean vessels, or vessels going to and from those two pariah countries?" WFB: "We have a guarantee that antedates this treaty to see to it that nondiscriminatory passage is guaranteed. It's the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty." PJB: "Right, but do you think American Marines would go in to guarantee passage to vessels headed for South Africa?"