711.4215 Air Pollution/466

The Minister in Canada (Robbins) to the Secretary of State

No. 412

Sir: I have the honor to enclose herewith copy of a note which has at this moment been received from the Canadian Department of External Affairs regarding the Trail Smelter question. It will be observed that this note deals with the Canadian proposal and the question in general, but does not cover specifically the three suggestions contained in the Department’s instruction No. 194 of January 27, 1934, which are to be dealt with in a subsequent communication.

I am informed by Mr. Read, Legal Adviser of the Department of External Affairs, that Mr. Crowe, the Solicitor for the Consolidated [Page 898] Smelting Company, was to have arrived here today by airplane from Trail to discuss this matter. Up to this time he has not arrived but Mr. Read thought that at the latest he would be here Monday, February 19th, and the discussion would then be begun between the Smelter and the Canadian Government on the three plans contained in the Department’s instruction.

Respectfully yours,

Warren D. Robbins
[Enclosure]

The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs (Bennett)35 to the American Minister (Robbins)

No. 13

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your note No. 172, dated the 30th January, 1934,36 setting forth the views of your Government with regard to the Trail Smelter question.

2. These representations have been carefully considered, and the Canadian Government is disappointed to learn that your Government is proposing to reject the unanimous recommendations of the International Joint Commission in this matter. Before proceeding to a detailed consideration of the questions raised by your note, it is necessary to state the position of the Canadian Government in respect to the present controversy.

3. The Trail Smelter problem has resulted from the incidental effect of the expansion of the industries conducted by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at Trail, in the Province of British Columbia. This Company has been conducting smelter operations for many years at Trail, operating under authority of legislation of the Province of British Columbia. When the smelter was first established, the Columbia Valley, south of the international boundary, was not a distinctively agricultural district, but a smelter area. The smelter at Northport, Washington, had been in existence for some time, though it subsequently discontinued operations. In the course of the development of the Company’s business, the plants were from time to time expanded, with a resultant series of increases in the amount of sulphur dioxide emitted from the stacks at Trail. By reason of the unusual conformation of the Columbia Valley, and the special atmospheric conditions prevalent in that region, sulphur dioxide diffused in the air has been carried from time to time down the Columbia Valley where, admittedly, it has caused some damage in the State of Washington. The extent of the area within which damage [Page 899] has been caused, the intensity of injury, and its evaluation in monetary terms, have been in dispute for some years.

4. The first occasion on which this matter was brought to the attention of the Canadian Government was in a letter from the United States Consulate General at Ottawa, dated the 30th June, 1927. In the two or three years preceding this date, complaints were made by aggrieved individuals, to the Company, many of which were settled by friendly agreement. Such a method of settlement became impracticable, for reasons which it would be unprofitable to discuss at the present stage. When similar problems arise in the case of other smelters in Canada and the United States, a permanent and satisfactory solution is normally to be found in the acquisition, by purchase or otherwise, of smoke easements. In the present case, this course was prevented by the provision of the Constitution of the State of Washington, which prohibits the acquisition of interests in real estate by alien persons or corporations.

5. It is to be observed that this matter was neither a dispute between the two Governments, nor a claim by United States citizens against the Canadian Government. It did not come within any of the ordinary well-known categories of international arbitration. It was a case in which a Canadian corporation carrying on, in British Columbia and elsewhere, an ordinary legitimate, industrial undertaking, was alleged to be committing a tort, or series of torts, against more than one United States citizen in the State of Washington. The torts were in the nature of private nuisances, involving recurrent, but not continuing, injury.

6. When the matter was brought to the attention of the Canadian Government, two courses were open, both of which would have been in accordance with recognized international usages.

7. The simplest course would have been to point out that the alleged facts complained of were civil and not international wrongs. The complainants, if they were unable to obtain satisfactory settlements by agreement, could always seek redress in the manner appropriate to a civil dispute between individuals in one country claiming to be injured by a corporate enterprise operating in another country.

8. When complaints were made by the United States Government, it would have been open to the Canadian Government to disclaim international responsibility and to remit the claimants to their ordinary legal remedies. Such a course could not have been brought into question, because it would have been in accordance with the accepted principles of International Law.

9. The second course was proposed by the Government of the United States. They suggested that the question at issue should be referred to the International Joint Commission. The Canadian Government [Page 900] appreciated the practical difficulties that arise when a number of individuals claim that they are each suffering a small amount of injury caused by an alleged wrong-doer in another country. The Canadian Government thought that it would not be in accordance with the spirit of friendly international co-operation that has animated the two Governments (particularly in dealing with boundary problems), to adopt a rigid legalistic attitude and to stand on its strict rights under International Law. It was recognized that the avenues available under existing treaties between the two countries should be explored, with a view to obtaining a friendly, neighbourly and fair solution to the problem. It was in such a spirit that the Canadian Government concurred in your Government’s proposal. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty 1909,37 a joint governmental reference to the International Joint Commission was made on the 7th August, 1928.38

10. The Canadian Government having joined in the reference made by your Government was, of course, aware that the proceeding under Article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty 1909, was not technically a submission of the question for adjudication. As is indicated on Pages 6–8 of your note, the United States Government takes the same position.

11. Notwithstanding that both Governments recognize that the Report of the Commission is not technically an “award”, it is impossible to overlook the general character of the problem, the nature of the proceedings, the attitude taken by both Governments and by the interested parties throughout and the length of time that has elapsed since the evidence was first taken. The controversy was referred to a distinguished and competent International Commission for examination and report. The object of the reference was stated in the United States Legations’s Note Verbale of the 20th July, 1928,39 in the following words:

“The purpose of the Government of the United States is 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.”

In order that the minds of the Commissioners might be directed to the exact problems to be dealt with, the matter was referred in the form of specific questions to which answers were requested. Extensive investigations were made by groups of scientists, representing the two Governments, in 1928, 1929 and 1930, and also by independent groups [Page 901] of experts acting on behalf of the Company. Hearings were held at Northport, Washington, on October 9th and 10th, 1928; at Washington, D. C., February 21st, April 2nd, 12th, 13th and 22nd, 1929; at Nelson, on November 4th, 1929; and again at Washington, D. C. from January 22nd to February 12th, 1930. At these hearings, the claimants, the Company, and the two Governments were represented by counsel, and testimony of claimants, of scientists appointed by the two Governments and by the Company, and of other witnesses, was heard. The Commission was aided by independent investigations conducted during the season of 1929, by Dean Howes of the University of Alberta, and by Dean Millar of the University of Idaho. There was oral argument by counsel for the claimants, for the Company and the two Governments, and printed briefs were filed. Following the hearings, the Commission had a number of executive sessions and ultimately embodied its recommendations in a unanimous report dated the 28th February, 1931, giving definite answers to the questions that had been referred by the Governments.

12. In the course of the investigation, the Company outlined definite projects for remedial works. They were designed to reduce the output of sulphur dioxide at the smelter to a point where, apart from occasional and abnormal atmospheric conditions, no damage could be caused in the State of Washington. This project was studied by an eminent scientist, representing the Government of the United States, who reported to the Commission and commended it as an earnest and even courageous effort to solve the problem. Recommendations that the Company proceed with and complete the proposed works were embodied in the unanimous Report of the Commission. It may be pointed out that the Company did not await the recommendations of the Commission before proceeding with the remedial works. Construction was commenced and carried on during the inquiry, with a view to eliminating injury at the earliest possible moment. The Company has expended more than ten millions of dollars on the construction of these works and in this matter it was certainly largely influenced by the general approval of the United States Government expert and of the Commission.

13. In view of the foregoing considerations, only the strongest grounds could justify the rejection of the recommendations embodied in the Report of the Commission. Referring again to the purpose of the reference as stated above, it appears that the Report of the Commission completely fulfils the objects that the Government of the United States had in mind in proposing the reference; objects which, I may say, were shared by the Canadian Government. It is submitted that the report recommends “a solution fair to all parties concerned.”

14. A number of detailed objections have been raised in your note, which do not relate to the essential character of the recommendations. [Page 902] They are based upon doubts as to the true meaning of the provisions, and dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the methods recommended by the Commissioner for settling the questions necessarily arising subsequent to the Report. It is hoped that your Government will see fit to reconsider the matter, with a view to accepting the Report and embodying the essential provisions with such clarification of meaning and adjustment of method as are desirable in the form of an international agreement. With this end in view, it is necessary to give consideration to points which have been raised in your note and which seem to be based upon a misunderstanding of the Report and its implications, and of other aspects of the problem. These points may be dealt with in order:—

First—On Pages 2 and 3, including the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the note, objection is taken to a proposed inquiry into the effect of the remedial works, upon the ground that it would involve investigation of the nature and character of the works and their operation. This was not the intention either of the draft agreement or of the Report. The only effect of the works which is relevant is their effect upon the output of sulphur dioxide at Trail and the consequential effect in the State of Washington. It was intended to provide for an inquiry into the extent to which the causing of damage in the State of Washington had been lessened or eliminated. If there is any ambiguity on this point, either in the Report of the Commission or in the draft agreement, it can be eliminated in drafting. This point recurs throughout the note. The objection being one relating solely to interpretation, can be overcome by removing the ambiguity in drafting the agreement which, of course, would be the governing instrument.

Second—In the seventh paragraph of the note, on Page 3, it is stated that harmful fumigations have continued throughout 1932 and 1933. Similarly, throughout the note will be found a number of statements to the effect that damage has been caused in the State of Washington since the first day of January, 1932. It appears to be assumed that the Canadian Government ought to accept this statement without any question and that it is a point upon which there could be no difference of opinion. The question whether damage has been caused in the State of Washington since the first day of January, 1932, and the extent and character of such damage, are the crucial issues in this case. It is hoped that your Government, learning that the existence of damage in that period is a contested rather than a conceded issue, will recognize the necessity for having this issue determined, either in the manner contemplated by the report of the Commission, or by some equally satisfactory and effective method.

[Page 903]

Third—There also appears to be misunderstanding as to the character of the investigations which are designed to settle these contested questions of fact. Both the specific provisions of your note and its general tenor exhibit your justifiable reluctance to have settlement postponed and a new investigation commenced. The Canadian Government shares this reluctance, and it is thought that possibly its suggestions may have been misunderstood. It is the view of the Canadian Government that the proposal of the Commission for determining whether or not damage has been eliminated in the State of Washington would be expeditious, inexpensive and effective. The Report contemplates that each Government would appoint an eminent scientist, of unquestionable integrity and competence. They would be furnished the data that is available from all sources. They would, then, probably, have the information necessary for finally determining this question. Small gaps in the data could readily be supplemented by these scientists who could have assigned to them for that purpose staffs from the public services of the two countries. The possibility of needing to supplement such data is remote, in view of the extensive character of the investigations that have already been conducted. It is also thought that the possibility of these scientists failing to agree is remote, and that, if such a contingency should arise, the two Governments could effectively and promptly deal with the matter. It is assumed, of course, that the United States Government will not expect the Canadian Government to accept an ex parte determination of the crucial issues.

This point, however, relates solely to method and it is unlikely that there will be any difficulty in finding a method that will be entirely satisfactory to both Governments.

Fourth—In the fourteenth paragraph of your note, on Page 5, you assume that the Canadian Government was suggesting that the inquiry be limited to the effect of the fumigations in March and April of last year. The proposal was intended to involve consideration and treatment of all instances and types of injury, in accordance with the Report of the Commission. Any ambiguity can readily be eliminated in drafting an agreement.

Fifth—In Paragraphs 25 to 29 of your note, on Pages 9 to 11, objection is taken to the failure of the Commission to present reasons for judgment on the question of damages. This omission is one for which the Canadian Government cannot accept any responsibility. In the course of the hearing, adequate and complete evidence as to the monetary quantum of damages was presented by Canadian interests, but no expert evidence on this point was presented by or on behalf of United States interests. Indeed, the United States experts refused to give any evidence on the question of quantum of damages. The only [Page 904] expert evidence on this point, apart from that presented by the Company, was the report by Deans Millar and Howes, referred to above, which would have justified a finding of not more than $50,000. The Commission probably went further than legal principles would justify in making a generous award that might reasonably be expected to satisfy the injured persons and to make ample allowance for the period up to the end of 1931, and their action in so doing is to be commended, rather than criticised.

Sixth—In Paragraphs 30 to 40, on Pages 11 to 13 of your note, reference is made to the works built by the Company, and to the concentrations in 1930 and 1931. There is a general reference to conditions in 1932 and 1933, and a specific reference to a concentration in March of the latter year. It is pointed out that the Commission fixed the amount of damage in anticipation of a substantial reduction, if not elimination, within the year 1931, of damage from fumes. It is stated that severe injury continued through 1931. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the general scheme for reducing fumes and of the Commission’s assumption in this matter. It was contemplated that the remedial works, which were under construction at the date of the Report, would come into operation in the course of the year 1931, and that they would be fully effective by the end of that year. It was assumed that damage would continue throughout the year 1931, because the works could not be effective until they were completely in operation. Accordingly, the references to concentrations of sulphur dioxide and damage conditions in 1931, which are being paid for out of the $350,000, are irrelevant. The only relevant question relates to conditions and damage in 1932 and subsequent years,—that is to the period of time within which the works were fully in operation. There are, it is true, two references in your note to specific fumigations subsequent to the 1st January, 1932, and there are general references to atmospheric conditions and to damage within that period.

It may be observed that the complete elimination of sulphur dioxide from the atmosphere in the State of Washington was not regarded as practicable or necessary. The Report of the Commission contemplated that remedial measures would accomplish the reduction of sulphur dioxide output to the point where there would be no damage, apart from occasional injury, caused by abnormal atmospheric conditions. It could not reasonably be expected that conditions would be made better than those prevalent in the agricultural areas adjacent to industrial centres where sulphur dioxide is present and concentrations comparable to those found in the Northport area.

The same misunderstanding recurs in the discussion of the third question, paragraphs 43 to 46, on Pages 14 and 15 of the note.

[Page 905]

Seventh—The fourth question is stated in Paragraph 47, and discussed in Paragraphs 48 to 55, inclusive, of your note.

In Paragraph 51, it is suggested that injuries caused by fumigations prior to January 1st, 1932, but which were not apparent on that date, are excluded. Such injuries are paid for out of the $350,000 which covers all injuries caused up to that date. The only real danger is that, practically, it will be impossible to prove that injury which becomes apparent after that date, has been caused before, so that it is certain that the Company will be required to pay twice in some instances. This is an obvious and inevitable defect, but one which is favourable to the position of the claimants.

Your general objection to the recommendations of the Commission under this question, relate to the preliminary notification of the Company, and the method of settlement. The objection, that preliminary notification with a view to affording an opportunity for settlement by agreement would cause unnecessary delay, can readily be overcome. It is the view of the Canadian Government that the Commission’s recommendation would facilitate, rather than delay settlement. However, to meet the objection, provision could be made for filing claims with the agency charged with the determination of compensation. That agency could notify the Company and the two Governments.

With regard to the method of settlement, your Government’s desire for prompt and expeditious adjustment and payment is shared by the Canadian Government. It was thought that if any difficulty arose in effecting settlement by agreement, the two Governments had ample powers to establish the necessary machinery. The problem to be dealt with is one of settlement of occasional instances of injury, where the damage in each case would probably not exceed a few dollars; and there are good grounds for not converting these comparatively small claims into international arbitrations. It is unlikely that there will be any difficulty in devising a solution of this aspect of the question that will be acceptable to both Governments, and to all of the interests concerned.

Eighth—The fifth question is stated in Paragraph 56, and in Paragraphs 57 to 65, on Pages 19 to 22 of your note, the matters dealt with in Paragraphs (a) and (g) of the Commission’s recommendations under this question are discussed.

The fear is expressed, particularly in Paragraph 53 of your note, that chronic, cumulative and permanent injury will continue in Washington, even after “damage”, as defined in the Report, has ceased to be caused in that State by the operations of the Smelter. The Canadian Government cannot admit that chronic, permanent and [Page 906] cumulative injury is being or will be continued in Washington. The question whether such injury is being or will be caused to interests in Washington is one that must be determined by some competent and impartial body, presumably the agency which will be constituted under the proposed agreement.

The objection is taken that the definition of damage in (g) nullifies the provisions of (a) which, if not restricted by the definition, would provide for absolute elimination of damage. Further, objection is taken to the vagueness of the terms used in defining damage in (g). Here, again, if there is ambiguity, there should be no difficulty in removing it in drafting. It is thought, however, that the agency which is charged with the duty of determining whether the remedial works have eliminated damage in the State of Washington will have no difficulty in applying the definition as given.

Apart from the question of interpretation, your note seems to suggest that the Government should endeavour to bring about a settlement which would exclude the possibility even of slight and occasional injury caused by abnormal atmospheric conditions. This matter was discussed before the Commission, and it is clear from the evidence submitted that such a proposal would be tantamount to a shut-down of the smelter. A rule which would make the Company a guarantor that under no conditions would pockets of gas be carried across the border, under penalty of a shut-down of the plant, would be impossible. It would involve a far more rigid regime than has been imposed upon any smelter in either of the two Countries. It would be particularly unjust in the present instance, in which the Company has already expended more than ten millions of dollars upon projects designed to bring about a substantial and practical elimination of injury to United States interests. No Court in either country would impose such a harsh and oppressive rule. I have no doubt that your Government will agree that the practical elimination of damage is a satisfactory solution to the problem, and that no rule should be adopted which would involve the destruction of the industry. A principle should not be established in this case which would potentially involve a shutting down of existing industries of various types in industrial communities and sterilizing future development within a broad zone in the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, stretching from coast to coast along the international boundary-line.

Ninth—The recommendations of the Commission under the fifth question, as set forth in (b), and particularly the appointment of scientists and their function, are discussed in Paragraphs 66 to 72, Pages 22 to 24 of your note. Reference is made to the possibility that they might not agree, but it may be pointed out that the two Governments have ample powers to deal with this problem if it arises. In [Page 907] any event, it is unlikely that there will be any difficulty in devising a solution of this aspect of the question that will be acceptable to both Governments and to all of the interests concerned.

With regard to the function of the scientists, there seems to be the same misunderstanding to which reference has already been made. They would be interested in only one question, namely,—whether the works presently in operation have eliminated “damage” and, if not, what further works are necessary in order to accomplish this object. Any ambiguity can be eliminated in drafting.

Tenth—In Paragraph 73, objection is taken to the recommendations of the Commission under (c) in dealing with the fifth question. This is a simple, common-sense provision that when the Company has completed remedial works involving an expenditure of more than ten millions of dollars, and brought the matter to a point where the Company thinks that no further damage is being caused, the Company shall notify the Government of Canada, in order that the two Governments may look into the matter and see whether the Company’s claims are well founded. It was not intended, by implication or otherwise, to prohibit the United States from making complaints as to damage; and here again, if there is ambiguity it can be removed in drafting.

Eleventh—Paragraphs 76, 77 and 78, on Pages 25 and 26 of your note, discuss (e) of the answer to question five. Objection is taken that the terms of (e) provide that no future indemnity is to be paid, apart from that provided for in (g), namely, compensation for occasional damage. This objection seems also to be based upon a misapprehension as to the true meaning of this part of the Report. If chronic, cumulative and permanent damage continues, it cannot be said that “damage” has been eliminated. With regard to the view that occasional instances of damage will involve chronic, cumulative and permanent damage, that, of course, is a contested issue.

Twelfth—Paragraphs 79 to 82 discuss (f) of the answer to question five. The objections are based upon implications which are difficult to justify either by the general tenor or the particular language of the Report. There should be no difficulty in removing any ambiguity when an agreement is drafted.

Thirteenth—In Paragraph 84 of your note, objection is taken to the method of distribution of the sum of $350,000 which was recommended. The Canadian Government has no interest in this aspect of the problem and will concur in any method of distribution desired by the Government of the United States.

Fourteenth—Paragraphs 85 to 87 relate to the position taken in the hearing with regard to the claim of the Government of the United [Page 908] States. In the part of the record following the quotation set forth in your note, will be found a statement:—

Mr. McCumber. For that reason you do not wish the Commission to pass judgment upon the damages that have accrued to these properties?

Mr. Murdock. Precisely.”

There has not been time to make a detailed examination of the Record in order to ascertain whether any further statement[s] were made on this point. The Government of the United States did not present any claims before the Commission in this matter, in respect to federal property, and there can be no difficulty in rectifying this point in any manner that is justified by the Record.

Fifteenth—In Paragraphs 88 and 89, reference is made to the claims on behalf of Stevens County and on behalf of business men and professional men which were rejected by the Commission. These claims were not based upon any recognized legal principle, and the unanimous report of the Commission followed the ordinary rules of law and recommended their rejection.

Sixteenth—Paragraphs 90, 91 and 92, on Pages 29 and 30, refer to Article 2 of the Canadian draft. It is pointed out that the United States Government cannot accept the amount specified, save as a part of a general scheme based upon a complete revision of the rest of the report.

Similarly, the Canadian Government could not accept this determination of the amount, save as a part of the general friendly settlement of a difficult problem. It is hoped, however, that it may be possible to achieve such a settlement.

Seventeenth—Paragraphs 93 to 99, discuss Article 3 of the Canadian draft, and repeat the objections already made to the same principles as embodied in the Report of the Commission. These have already been dealt with under the preceding points.

15. Paragraph 101, on Pages 32 and 33, summarises the reasons for the rejection of the Report of the Commission. The objections have been dealt with, in considering the preceding points. It is gratifying to observe that the objections leave intact the basic elements of the recommendations of the Commission which, it is submitted, fully realize the express desire of the United States Government that the reference should result in a recommendation and “a solution fair to all parties concerned.”

16. The basic elements in the recommendations are as follows:—

First—Adequate and generous compensation to interests in the State of Washington, for damages up to the 1st January, 1932, assessed at the amount of $350,000.

[Page 909]

Second—Recognition that the industries operated at Trail, upon which the livelihood of so many citizens of this Country depend, should receive fair and just consideration; and that the operations of the industry should not be curtailed and shut down merely because occasional instances of injury may arise, caused by abnormal atmospheric conditions.

Third—Recognition that the position of farmers and other property holders in the State of Washington must be protected by the curtailment of the output of sulphur dioxide at the Trail Smelter, to the point where damage in the State of Washington, caused by the operations of such smelter, will be practically eliminated and where the only instances of injury will be the occasional instances referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Fourth—Recognition that compensation must be made to any interest in the State of Washington damaged in any manner by sulphur dioxide from the Trail Smelter after the first day of January, 1932, even though such damage may have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the Company.

Fifth—Recognition that adequate measures must be taken to insure that these results are achieved and that a settlement must be completed and carried out that is fair to all parties concerned.

17. Accordingly, it is confidently hoped that it may be possible for the two Governments concerned to come to an agreement involving the retention of these basic principles that will adequately meet all valid objections raised in your note.

18. The Canadian Government is giving careful consideration to the specific proposals that are set forth in Paragraph 104 of your note, on Pages 32 to 35, and discussed in Paragraph 105, on Pages 35 and 36. I shall, shortly, communicate to you the views of the Canadian Government with regard to them. Meanwhile, I hope that you will bring the foregoing considerations to the attention of the Government of the United States, with a view to ascertaining whether it is not possible to achieve the results that both Governments desire by the negotiation of an agreement based upon the acceptance of the general principles of the Report of the International Joint Commission, with such clarification and adjustment of its provisions as may be necessary to bring about “a solution fair to all parties concerned.”

The parties concerned are not merely those immediately interested in the solution of the present problem. The peoples of both countries are concerned to maintain and extend the established agencies for the solution of boundary disputes. The United States has long held a foremost place in the advocacy of international arbitration. Through the conclusion and execution of the Boundary Waters Treaty it has co-operated in building up on the North American continent one of the most distinctive and significant experiments in this field. The International Joint Commission, established as a permanent body of [Page 910] citizens of the two countries empowered to investigate and in some instances adjudicate upon a wide range of issues arising out of intimate relationships along the common boundary, is an embodiment and an instrument of our common standards of neighbourly intercourse. I am sure your Government will agree that it would be calamitous to weaken the position of the Commission and imperil the future of this North American experiment by rejecting outright, save upon grave and plainly evident grounds, its unanimous recommendation upon any question. We trust that it will be found possible for both Governments to preserve the advantages of adhering to orderly and established arbitral procedure, while giving every consideration to suggestions for equitable and practical adjustments.

Accept [etc.]

R. B. Bennett
  1. Also, Canadian Prime Minister.
  2. Based on Department’s instruction No. 194, January 27, p. 874.
  3. Foreign Relations, 1910, p. 532.
  4. See telegram No. 108, August 7, 1928, to the Chargé in Canada, ibid., 1928, vol. ii, p. 97.
  5. Not printed, but see ibid., p. 94, footnote 62.