711.4215 Air Pollution/565½

Some Notes Concerning the Interview of the Under Secretary of State (Phillips) With the Canadian Prime Minister (Bennett) Concerning the Trail Smelter Case54

Mr. Phillips went lightly into the history of the case, pointing out that the peak of the damage was in the years 1924 to 1928, but that now four hundred tons of sulphur dioxide were coming over the border from Canada into the State of Washington and that no less than sixty thousand acres were affected.

He then pointed out that the damage may be estimated in three zones; the first zone in which agriculture is completely destroyed, the second zone in which it is nearly destroyed and the third zone which is badly destroyed and getting rapidly worse. He then called attention to the Joint Commission appointed in 1928 and the decision given in 1931 which was not admitted by the State of Washington. He also called attention to the appointment of Read of Canada and Metzger of the State Department to reconsider the case in 1933.

The Prime Minister then countered with the fact that $350,000 damages had been paid by Canada for damages up to 1932 and observed that this cheque, though made out, had never been accepted.

Mr. Phillips pointed out that there were two periods: that of the damages before 1932 and a later period which represent the damages after 1932. He also referred to the old question of the two terms caused and occurring.

The Prime Minister then observed that he was fully aware that damage was occurring in the State of Washington from the sulphurdioxide [Page 957] of the Trail Smelter and that he was very regretful that the whole matter had not been settled by being able to purchase the property which was now being damaged, but that this was of course impossible owing to the fact that no foreign citizen could buy property in the United States. He added that they would gladly have made a purchase of all the property which has been damaged.

Mr. Phillips observed, and I think this was one of his strongest arguments, that the abatement of damage has not occurred and that the market for fertilizer from sulphide gas owing to the existing poverty in farming has almost ceased. Mr. Bennett mentioned the damage done in Windsor, Ontario, from the factories in Detroit. He also commented on the fact that such damages were hard to prevent and that frequently the fumes from the Eddy Pulp and Match Factory in Hull were causing annoyance to the inhabitants of Ottawa. To this Mr. Phillips replied that he understood that fully but that in this one case of the Trail Smelter “we know the guilty party”. He also added that we have meters that do determine the poison and that we have inspectors there continuously to observe these meters and make their reports. In other words, our interest which is to point out the damage can be satisfied.

Mr. Phillips then read a letter from Governor Clarence Martin of Washington, addressed to the President, and another very strong letter from Representative Sam Hill of Washington, in which the statement was made that between 60,000 and 70,000 acres of property had been utterly ruined by the sulphurous acids coming from the Smelter Company. These letters also pointed out that in these 60,000 to 70,000 acres destitution had resulted and that people had suffered increasingly for the last ten years. In the Governor’s letter which he read in toto he quoted one statement which I cannot give entirely accurately, but which was to the effect that the Governor of the State protested and insisted that the fumes be stopped or that some impartial tribunal be appointed to whom the question might be submitted. Mr. Phillips pointed out that the people of Washington wished a tribunal. Mr. Bennett countered that that would be all right but that if an unfavorable decision were given to the people of Washington they would as usual say that their rights had been surrendered. He then went into a historic reminiscence as to how frequently after the decision of an impartial tribunal has been given the stronger country refuses to accept the decision, claiming that it is an infringement on their rights and that this is very likely what would happen in the case of a decision by an impartial tribunal should it go against the United States.

Mr. Bennett added that he agreed to the appointment of a tribunal and to the mode of setting it up. In concluding the conversation [Page 958] Mr. Bennett commented that it was obvious, but a pity that the whole case must be reopened and settled by a tribunal and that all the work done up to now had gone for nothing.

Mr. Phillips repeated again that an abatement of the damage was what we sought but that he could not agree to the statement that all the work had gone for nothing, for all reports of damages that occurred and were occurring had been carefully prepared and were available from our experts who were on the ground and reporting regularly.

  1. Enclosure to letter from the Minister in Canada to the Under Secretary of State, October 31 (not printed).