Page images
PDF
EPUB

that the presentation to the President of the Minister, accompanied by Your Excellency, will be made by Mr. Wright, and that no member of Your Excellency's staff will be present.

In view of the fact that the procedure set forth differs from that followed in the presentation of the present Minister Plenipotentiary of the Irish Free State, in that Mr. Smiddy was not accompanied by Your Excellency, it is understood that neither Mr. Smiddy's case nor that of Mr. Massey shall be deemed to establish a precedent, but that the determination of whether or not the Ambassador shall accompany future Ministers of Dominions of the British Empire when presenting to the President letters of credence from His Britannic Majesty in a Plenipotentiary capacity shall be governed by the desire of the respective Dominion or its representative, which shall be communicated to the Department of State by the British Embassy. Accept [etc.]

FRANK B. KELLOGG

CONTINUED PROTESTS BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AGAINST

INCREASED DIVERSION OF THE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES

711.4216 M 58/128

The Canadian Chargé (Beaudry) to the Secretary of State No. 230

WASHINGTON, September 1, 1927. SIR: I have the honor to refer to the note which you addressed to Mr. Chilton on December 7th, 1926, regarding the publication of certain correspondence relating to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago.

His Majesty's Government in Canada has noted that the Government of the United States considers that the reference in the Report of the Joint Board of Engineers on the St. Lawrence Waterway Project 10 to the limited effect on lake levels of the diversion of water through the Chicago Sanitary Canal greatly alters the understanding of the situation, and that it might accordingly be considered undesirable to publish the correspondence in question.

I have been instructed to inform you that His Majesty's Government in Canada has not been under any misapprehension as to the extent to which the abstraction of water through the Chicago Sanitary Canal has lowered the levels of the Great Lakes and that it has been fully advised that this lowering has been in the neighbourhood of six inches. The papers which His Majesty's Government in

[ocr errors]

* Continued from Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, pp. 580–590. Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, p. 589.

Report of Joint Board of Engineers on St. Lawrence Waterroay Project, Dated November 16, 1926 (Ottawa, F. A. Acland, 1927).

10

Canada desires to publish incorporate its viewpoint with respect to the general principle of abstracting water from the Great Lakes System and diverting it into another watershed, and include the protests of the Government of Canada against the abstraction, submitted on behalf of the people of Canada generally, as well as the protest of the Government of Ontario, submitted on behalf of the people of that Province. Any reference in the report of the Joint Board of Engineers as published, as to the actual effect of the withdrawal of water through the Sanitary Canal, does not in any degree whatsoever affect the viewpoint of His Majesty's Government in Canada as expressed in this correspondence.

His Majesty's Government in Canada desires to take this opportunity of pointing out that if any misapprehension exists in the United States or in Canada as to the degree of lowering occasioned by the Chicago abstraction, the publication of these papers will go a long way towards removing such misunderstanding.

With reference to the suggestion that His Majesty's Government in Canada enter upon a further discussion of the practical question of providing compensatory works as recommended by the Joint Board of Engineers, it may be pointed out that the installation of compensatory works for the restoration of lake levels will in no way recoup to the Great Lakes System the power which is lost to that system by the water abstracted therefrom through the Sanitary Canal. While recognizing the marked advantages which may be gained by the construction of suitable compensating works, His Majesty's Government in Canada would not be prepared to enter upon a discussion of any plans for the construction of such works, if this course involved an assumption that the present abstraction is to continue.

With reference, however, to the question immediately under consideration, His Majesty's Government in Canada observes nothing in the Report of the Joint Engineering Board, including Appendices, which would render inadvisable the publication of the papers in question. On the contrary it is considered that the release of these papers would have a marked effect in clarifying public opinion on the question in both countries.

I have the honour therefore to enquire whether the Government of the United States would not be prepared to publish the correspondence listed in Mr. Chilton's note of November 16th, 1926,11 together with subsequent correspondence, at such early date as may be found convenient to both Governments. I have [etc.]

LAURENT BEAUDRY

1 Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, p. 588.

711.4216 M 58/128

The Secretary of State to the Canadian Minister (Massey)

WASHINGTON, October 17, 1927. Sir: In further reply 12 to your Legation’s note, No. 230, of September first, I have the honor to inform you that this Government raises no objection to the publication of the correspondence referred to therein, relating to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan at Chicago.18

This Government has not failed to recognize the importance of the contentions made by the Canadian Government relating to the abstraction of water from one watershed and the diversion of it into another. In my note of July 26, 1926, I informed the British Ambassador that this Government was not prepared to admit the conclusions of law stated in his notes of February 5, 1926, and May 1, 1926, on this question.14 I did not think it was advisable to enter into a discussion of this legal question in view of the fact that the issues involved in certain cases which were then and are still pending in the Supreme Court of the United States are closely parallel to the questions presented in the Ambassador's notes. For this same reason I do not now desire to enter into a discussion of this question at the present moment.

This Government, however, has heretofore indicated that it is prepared to enter into discussions and negotiations with Canada covering the whole question of preservation of lake levels in the mutual interest of the two countries.

This Government is glad to note the agreement by the Government of Canada with the conclusions of the Joint Board of Engineers that the diversion at Chicago has affected lake levels less than six inches. It also notes the feeling on the part of the Canadian Government that lake levels could be dealt with, so far as navigation is concerned, by compensating works as recommended by the Joint Board of Engineers. It would appear in this connection that the question as to the practical results of diversion in its effect on navigation could be entirely remedied.

As to the observation by the Canadian Government that the installation of compensatory works to restore lake levels would not recoup to the Great Lakes System the power lost to the system by the diversion at Chicago, I would, without in any way admitting the principles of compensation, call attention to the fact that Canada

13

Reply of Sept. 12, 1927, not printed.

Printed in Correspondence Relating to Diversion of the Waters of the Great Lakes by the Sanitary District of Chicago (From March 27, 1912, to October 17, 1927) (Ottawa, F. A. Acland, 1928).

* Notes printed in Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, pp. 580, 584.

now receives 36,000 second feet at Niagara as against 20,000 cubic feet per second on the American side for power purposes. I would further observe that without development of the lower St. Lawrence this question does not arise in that connection.

I again wish to point out that all these problems appeal to the American Government as matters that may be settled by practical engineering measures which might be adopted pending further discussion of the principles involved. Accept [etc.]

FRANK B. KELLOGG

PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY BY

JOINT ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 15

711.42157 Sa 29/302a

The Secretary of State to the Canadian Minister (Massey)

WASHINGTON, April 13, 1929. SIR: For more than one hundred years, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River have furnished a common highway and transportation outlet for the population in the interior of the continent in both the United States and Canada. The waterway has been the subject of several treaties and conventions between the two countries. Its development has been a matter of continuous effort on the part of both countries.

Pursuant to reference made to the International Joint Commission by both governments under authority of the treaty of January 11, 1909,16 that commission made investigation of the feasibility of improving navigational facilities of the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Lake Ontario so as to transform that section into an ocean shipway. The Commission submitted its report, signed on December 19, 1921,17 to your Government and to the Government of the United States after taking into consideration the existing characteristics of the waterway and its projected development, as well as the essential economic factors. It earnestly recommended to both governments the making of a treaty for a scheme of shipway improvement of the river between Montreal and Lake Ontario. It suggested, however, that before final decision be made, the engineering features should receive further consideration and study. Delays naturally ensued due to the problems of reconstruction resulting from the war.

On March 14, 1924, the President of the United States appointed the St. Lawrence River Commission 18 under the chairmanship of the

17

18 Continued from Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 342-349.
16 Foreign Relations, 1910, p. 532.
S. Doc. No. 114, 67th Cong., 2d sess.

See note from the Secretary of State to the British Ambassador, Apr, 28, 1924, Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. I, p. 347.

18

Honorable Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, to consider the whole project in its economic and national aspects and to express an opinion as to whether the project should be undertaken and the Government of Canada on May 7, 1924, appointed a national advisory committee under the chairmanship of the Honorable George Perry Graham, Minister of Railways and Canals. Through the arrangements brought about by these committees the two governments by exchange of notes dated February 4 and March 17, 1925,19 gave instructions to a Joint Board of Engineers designated by them to review and extend the engineering plans as recommended by the International Joint Commission in 1921.

This Joint Engineering Board made an elaborate resurvey of the lake and river systems both as to navigation and power, and filed with each government an exhaustive report upon all its engineering aspects. The representatives of the two countries differed as to a few details but from the report it clearly appears that the improvement of the waterway for navigation and power purposes is both feasible and advisable.

The St. Lawrence River Commission appointed by the President to advise this Government on the subject recently undertook an examination of all of the economic as well as engineering facts bearing upon the proposed development and has made a complete report covering all aspects. It concluded that the construction of the shipway at proper depths would relieve the interior of the continent, cspecially agriculture, from the economic handicaps of adverse transportation costs which now operate to the disadvantage of many states and a large part of Canada, would serve the industrial well being of both countries in the development of their power resources, and would tend largely to the increase of prosperity and the stimulation of industry. The Commission recommended that negotiations should be entered into with your Government in an endeavor to arrive at an agreement as to the speedy development of this waterway.

The Government of the United States adopts the recommendations of the St. Lawrence Commission. It appreciates the advantages which will accrue equally to both countries by the opening of the waterway to ocean shipping. It feels that the necessary increase in railway rates due to the war, and the modern practices respecting the generation and transmission of hydroelectric power have increased the importance and practicability of early development, and believes that the factors which influence its conclusions must have equal application to, and influence upon, the Dominion of Canada.

In view of the action already taken by both governments, it is apprehended that they are in accord on the principle that the project

** Report of Joint Board of Engineers on St. Lawrence Waterway Project, p. 4.

« PreviousContinue »