Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President, Transmitted to Congress, December 4, 1893
Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Gresham.
Washington , May 21, 1893 . (Received May 26.)
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that I duly forwarded to the Governor-General of Canada copy of your predecessor’s note of the 31st December last in regard to the Welland Canal toll controversy, and I have now received a dispatch from his excellency in reply transmitting an approved minute of the privy council embodying the observations of the Canadian minister of railways and canals upon certain statements made by Mr. Foster.
I have the honor to inclose copy of this minute for your information, and I beg at the same time to draw your special attention to its concluding paragraphs.
I have, etc.,
Certified copy of the report of a committee of the honorable the privy council, approved by his excellency the Governor-General in council, on the 9th of May, 1893.
The committee of the privy council have had under consideration a dispatch, hereto attached, dated 11th January, 1893, from the British minister at Washington, covering a copy of a note received by him from the honorable the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Foster, bearing date the 31st of December last, in reply to the minute of council of the 19th November last, respecting tolls on the Welland Canal.
The minister of railways and canals, to whom the dispatch and inclosure were referred, submits the following observations:
A careful perusal of this note discloses certain errors in statement, which it appears should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. In the first place, Mr. Secretary Foster says the report (of the Canadian Government) is incorrect in its allegation that the official announcement of the Canadian Government was in my hands on the very day on which the proclamation was issued. As a matter of fact, the words used in the Canadian minute were as follows: “On the very day on which the proclamation was issued, and before its issue, Mr. Foster was informed by the British chargé d’affaires unofficially of the conclusion which had been arrived at, and was told that the official dispatch was expected by him at any moment.” It will be easily seen that the words of the Canadian dispatch do not in any way justify Mr. Foster’s statement. All that the Canadian Government affirmed was that prior to the issue of the President’s discriminatory proclamation, Mr. Foster had been informed that a proposition looking to a friendly settlement of the controversy, and which might have the effect of rendering the proclamation unnecessary, was on its way to Washington and was momentarily expected, and that in the interest of good neighborhood this might have been awaited before the grave step was taken of imposing the discriminatory rates upon the vessels of a friendly country.
The second statement by Mr. Foster which it is necessary to notice, is that in which he attempts to controvert the Canadian contention that “full five years elapsed from the date of the treaty of 1871 before Canadian vessels had privilege of using the New York State canals.”
He does this by recalling the correspondence which took place between the two governments on this subject, and by citing a part, and only a part, of a Canadian minute of council of February 18, 1875, in which it is declared “that the Canadian government no longer continues to be of the opinion that Canadian vessels are excluded from the canals of the State of New York,” but he fails to notice the antecedents and the contents of this minute.
As early as December 4, 1871, the governor of the State of New York, in a reply to a communication from the President, had declared that no “boat wholly owned in Canada wonld be forbidden the use of our canals or be subject to other tolls or regulations than those imposed upon boats owned in our own State,” and that no State law appeared to prohibit British subjects or vessels from navigating the New York State canals.
Notwithstanding this assurance, however, complaints were afterwards made that there were regulations in existence which practically prevented Canadian vessels from navigating the State canals, and these were forwarded through the British minister to the United States Government. The governor of New York was again communicated with, and after investigation he replied that there existed no State regulations restricting the use of the canals in respect of Canadian vessels.
It was upon the strength of this assurance that the statement referred to in the Canadian minute of February 18, 1875, was made, although that very minute expressly stated that despite these assurances the Canadian customs officials, supported by some of the principal forwarders and boat owners, were “agreed that Canadian canal boats were practically prohibited from navigating the canals of the State on the same terms as American canal boats,” and that if individual cases could not be cited it was probably due to the apparent conviction among those concerned that the policy of restriction in force before 1871 was still operative as regards these canals.
But the matter did not rest here, for in August, 1875, a Canadian minute of council was forwarded to Washington, which showed conclusively that although the governor of the State of New York had been perfectly correct in declaring that no State restrictions were in existence against Canadian vessels, nevertheless these vessels were absolutely prevented from carrying a pound of freight beyond the entrance of the canal at Whitehall, and that by virtue of the laws and regulations of the Government of the United States itself. And it was not until June 7, 1876, that these regulations were altered so as to allow Canadian vessels to carry cargo as far as Albany, or to any port between the entrance of the New York State canals and that city.
[Page 339]It will thus he seen that the allegation made in the Canadian minute of council that five years elapsed before our vessels gained the privilege of equal use of the New York State canals was literally true, and that this resulted from no restrictions imposed by the State authorities, but on account of the laws and regulations of the U. S. Government. But even after the tardy removal of these restrictions, Canadian vessels, as Mr. Foster himself observes, were, and still are, subject to great disadvantages on account of the refusal of the U. S. Government to allow them the navigation of the Hudson River, which, although it was not expressly contained in the treaty, might well have followed the analogy of the Ottawa River which rises and lies wholly within Canadian territory and the use of which has, since 1871, been freely accorded to United States vessels, and to their great advantage. The denial of this privilege has rendered the New York canals practically useless to Canadian vessel owners and forwarders, while the St. Lawrence and Welland canals are highways of commerce largely utilized by vessels of the United States.
The minister further submits that another point on which correction seems desirable is the suggestion conveyed in Mr. Foster’s remark, which reads as follows:
“It is, however, a significant fact that the discriminating tolls in the Welland Canal were not imposed on American commerce until after it became apparent that the free navigation of the Hudson River could not be obtained under the treaty of 1871.”
As a matter of fact, the reduction of tolls on wheat and certain food products shipped from Montreal (which is made the ground of the complaint as to discrimination) was first made by order in council of May 26, 1884, nine years after, as Secretary Foster says, the United States refused the free navigation of the Hudson River, and on urgent representations of shippers and forwarders that this should be done to meet the abolition of tolls on the Erie and other canals of the State of New York, which took place in 1882, from the advantages of which abolition Canadians were to all intents and purposes excluded.
The minister, with regard to the further remarks of Mr. Foster as to the understanding arrived at with the Canadian commissioners in the conference of February, 1892, has little to add to the previous minute, which substantiates the fact that a promise made by the commissioners that the complaint of the U. S. Government in respect of the Welland canal tolls should have careful consideration with a view to meeting any just complaint, had been transformed into “an informal engagement to repeal and abandon the drawback of 18 cents a ton.”
The minister observes in this connection it is not inopportune to call the attention of the U. S. Government to the marked difference between the later statements of Mr. Foster’s and the first intimation by Mr. Blaine as to what took place at the conference on the question of rebate on canal tolls.
Mr. Blaine’s letter to Mr. Blanchard, cited in a previous dispatch and written on the day the conference adjourned, to the effect that “an assurance had been given by them (the Canadian commissioners) that the complaint we have preferred shall have careful and prompt consideration with a view to the faithful observance of the treaty stipulation,’ must stand as the first fresh and trustworthy conviction of the U. S. Secretary of State as to what was really promised, and this bears out exactly the impressions and statements of the Canadian commissioners. For any inference drawn by Mr. Foster from this promise to consider, and which was later turned into a promise to remove, the Canadian Government should certainly not be held responsible.
The minister desires again most distinctly and earnestly to repudiate any desire or intention on the part of the Canadian Government to evade any obligations with reference to the use of the Canadian canals by United States vessels which were imposed by the treaty of 1871. The negotiators of that treaty, in fact, declined to enter into any obligations in that respect, and Canada has never recognized any. The treaty embodied an undertaking on the part of Great Britain to use her influence with the Government of Canada to obtain for the United States vessels and citizens the use of their canals on terms of equality with Canadian citizens. Whether Canada would yield acquiescence in this wish or not was entirely a matter of option, and not of obligation, She did, however, willingly and fully acquiesce in the wish of the British Government, and immediately placed United States vessels on a footing of perfect equality with her own, in the enjoyment of which she contends they have always remained, notwithstanding the tolls and rebates complained of.
Every obligation of the treaty, so far as Canada is concerned, has been fully and unreservedly met, and every extension of good will has been continued to the United States, although corresponding and compensating advantages to Canada have been withdrawn or withheld by the United States.
The minister, while considering it necessary to place on record the contention of the Canadian Government in reply to the statements of Mr. Foster, regards it as only [Page 340] fitting and proper that there should at the same time he conveyed to the Government of the United States an expression of satisfaction on the part of Canada at the prompt withdrawal of the tolls levied on freight passing through the Sault Ste. Marie Canal when hound for any Canadian port, such withdrawal being in response to the action taken by the Canadian Government in respect of tolls on the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, and that with this, there should be coupled the hope that the arrangements now in force will be productive of mutual convenience and continued good will.
The committee concurring in the above report of the minister of railways and canals advise that your excellency be moved to forward a certified copy of this minute to Her Majesty’s ambassador in Washington in answer to Mr. Secretary Foster’s note of December 31 last. All of which is respectfully submitted for your excellency’s approval.
Clerk of the Privy Council.
Sir Julian Pauncefote to Lord Stanley, of Preston.
Washington , January 11, 1893 .
My Lord: With reference to your excellency’s dispatch No. 76 of November 25, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a note, which I have received from Mr. Foster, containing observations on the minute of council in regard to the Welland Canal toll controversy which accompanied your excellency’s above mentioned dispatch.
I have, etc.