711.42157Sa29/625
The Minister in Canada (Phillips) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 25.]
Sir: I had the honor to report to the Department in my telegram No. 182, dated September 19, 1929,26 that the forthcoming conference between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec regarding power developement on the St. Lawrence would probably be postponed until November, and in a telegram No. 181 of the same date26 that the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs had inquired as to whether the United States would allow the Canadian Government to undertake the channel improvements from Lake Ontario to Prescott on both sides of the frontier on the understanding that the United States would reimburse Canada at some future time for expenses incurred in the American channels. These two subjects are in my opinion closely interwoven and should therefore be given simultaneous consideration.
In this connection I beg to enclose a copy of a memorandum on the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence seaway which has been forwarded to me [Page 525] by Mr. Charles P. Craig, Executive Director of the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Tidewater Association, under date of September 9th,27 which deals with the Thousand Islands section, or in other words, with that section of the river to which the Under-Secretary of State referred in his conversation of September 19th. As the Department will note, Mr. Craig is strongly of the opinion that the United States should join with Canada in improving that portion of the American channels lying within the Thousand Islands district. He believes that inasmuch as the whole St. Lawrence waterway project is being undertaken by Canada in a piecemeal fashion, through the completion of the Welland Canal in Ontario and through the concession plan in Quebec, as revealed by the recent Beauharnois concession, the Government of the United States should not place itself in the position of refusing to cooperate with Canada in developing a portion of the international section of the river. He presents an argument which I believe the Department will wish to study with care.
At the same time it may perhaps be helpful to consider another aspect of the matter. The city of Prescott has excellent railway communication with Montreal. Ogdensburg which is immediately across the river on the American side, has very inadequate rail connection with the trunk lines in New York State. It is the declared purpose of the Canadian Government to develop the port of Prescott, and for this purpose large sums of money have been appropriated during the last session of Parliament. Elevators are to be erected for the storage of grain and large piers are to be constructed for the accommodation of Lake vessels and for the transfer of grain. In other words, it is the desire of the Canadian Government that upon the opening of the Welland Canal in 1930 the grain-carrying ships on the Lake will be enabled to proceed through Lake Ontario and as far down the river as Prescott, discharging their cargoes at this point for Montreal and other points east. The only difficulty to this conception lies in the fact that the river channels between Lake Ontario and Prescott-Ogdensburg are situated half in Canada and half in the United States; but such importance is attached to Prescott that Canada herself is willing to develop the American channels if the United States Government is not now prepared to do so. Prescott and not Ogdensburg is to be the great station for the transfer of grain from ships to canal boats or to the railways, and Ogdensburg is to remain, apparently, a mere ferry terminus for the transportation of passengers to and from Prescott.
The Department will recollect that in my confidential despatch No. 464 of June 7, 1928,27 I reported a conversation with the Under-Secretary [Page 526] of State for External Affairs which was to the effect that the “deepening of the channels in question between Lake Ontario and Prescott-Ogdensburg was not designed as a step in the broader development plan; that it could not be so, since the Canadian Government had not as yet committed itself to embark upon the development of the whole St. Lawrence”. Dr. Skelton advised me that it was in fact “the outcome of the debates which had been going on ever since the work had begun on the Welland Canal, and that it was, therefore, related directly to the Welland Canal”.
It seems natural, therefore, that the United States would have no especial interest in the development of channels in the international section of the river which are declared by Canada herself to have no relation to the larger project of navigation and which, moreover, may deprive American ports such as Buffalo of a large part of their transport trade. When Prescott becomes the terminus for Great Lakes transportation, new and powerful influences will be at work to preserve this trade for Prescott—influences which may be counted upon to be unsympathetic to the larger navigation project to which the United States is committed. Prescott has always been Conservative in its political faith and not unnaturally the Liberal government would be glad to transfer the allegiance of this section of the Province of Ontario to the Liberal fold.
In brief, we have the picture as presented by Mr. Craig of the desirability of cooperating with Canada in a section of the river which will ultimately be a part of the Lakes-to-the-Sea development, but at the same time we have to consider the possibility that the Canadian Government will be less inclined to proceed with navigation development in the entire international section until Prescott at least shall have reaped some benefit from her new and increased activities.
In my telegram No. 182 of September 19th I ventured to suggest that we might now take the position that we expect the Canadian Government to give a definite decision with respect to the appointment of commissioners to discuss jointly the various problems involved, which, as the Department will recollect, was put forward by the Secretary of State in his note to the Canadian Government of March 12, 1928.30 I am of the opinion that something is needed from us at this time to strengthen Mr. Mackenzie King’s hand in dealing with his Provincial Premiers so that the conference will not adjourn with the comfortable feeling that since the United States is not pressing matters the thorny problems relating to the St. Lawrence can be sidetracked, at least for some months to come.
[Page 527]As I have said, we have before us for consideration two matters which would seem to be closely connected: (1) Canada’s interest in the Thousand Islands section, and (2) the interest of the United States in the appointment of a commission to discuss jointly the details relating to the international section. It would seem possible that the Department might go so far as to say that since the purpose of the proposed commission was to settle details and costs of improvements in the international section the United States Government would prefer to have the benefit of the judgment of the commission before undertaking any piecemeal improvements, since in this manner, and in this manner only, could Congress be induced to make the necessary appropriation for a portion of the international section of the river. In other words, if Canada will appoint commissioners, the United States will, with the approval of the entire commission, undertake to deepen the American canals in the Thousand Islands section.
The appointment of commissioners, in my opinion, is important because it will keep before the Canadian and American publics the idea that the St. Lawrence seaway is a living project and something which is actually in the process of adjustment. We might perhaps afford to take the risks involved in the improvement of the channel to Prescott if at the same time the public in both countries is assured through the appointment of commissioners that ways and means for the completion of the undertaking are actually under discussion by both governments. In my opinion it would not be wise for us to proceed in accordance with Mr. Craig’s suggestion without some sort of guarantee that Canada would not hold up indefinitely the work of improving the international section of the river as a whole.
I should be very grateful to have the benefit of the Department’s judgment in this whole matter.
I have [etc.]