711.4215 Air Pollution/82
The Minister in Canada (Phillips) to the Secretary of State
[Extract]
Ottawa, July 27,
1928.
[Received July 30.]
No. 548
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith
enclosed copy of a note received from the Department of External Affairs
dated July 26, 1928, with regard to the terms of reference to the
International Joint Commission of the Trail Smelter question.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I have [etc.]
For the Minister:
La Verne
Baldwin
Secretary of
Legation[Enclosure 1]
The Canadian Secretary of State for External
Affairs (Mackenzie
King) to the American
Minister (Phillips)
The Secretary of State for External Affairs presents his compliments
to the Minister of the United States, and has the honour to refer to
his memorandum of July 20th64 with
reference to the complaints of property owners in the State of
Washington of damages by fumes from the Trail plant of the
Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada.
The Canadian Government is not able to accept the interpretation of
its position which is contained in the memorandum. The view of the
Canadian Government was that the gravity of conditions in the State
of Washington had not been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant
[Page 96]
provision of a remedy of the
drastic character suggested. It may be added that this is
particularly the case since in Canada the control of industrial
establishments of this nature falls within the jurisdiction of the
provincial rather than of the federal government.
The Canadian Government is, however, pleased to state that it is
wholly in sympathy with the wish of the Government of the United
States to have the matter referred to the International Joint
Commission in a form which will admit of the Commission recommending
a solution fair to all parties concerned. It is prepared to agree to
a reference in the form proposed in Mr. Phillips’ memorandum of July
20th, subject to a verbal alteration, which it trusts will commend
itself to the Government of the United States.
The second clause in its present form might be construed as referring
to the Commission the decision of the question whether the interests
affected are entitled to damages, and the Commission might therefore
be restricted in its findings merely to damages that resulted in a
legal right vested in interests in the State of Washington. The
object of the reference, it is understood, is to establish the
amount that would indemnify the aggrieved persons, and with that in
view, to obtain the necessary findings of fact. It is therefore
proposed that the second clause be amended in such a way as to
preclude the possible restriction of the enquiry to claims based on
existing legal rights. The following amendment is suggested:
“The amount of indemnity which would compensate United States
interests in the State of Washington for past damages”.
