I am transmitting herewith copy of a note on this subject received
from the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning,
setting forth the reasons which prompted the Canadian Government to
include the condition in question and concluding with the hope that
our Government will be disposed to reconsider its objection.
[Enclosure]
The Canadian Secretary of State for External
Affairs (Bennett) to the
American Minister (Robbins)
No. 33
Ottawa, April 20,
1934.
Sir: I have the honour to refer to
your note No. 193, dated the 15th March, 1934, in which you
discuss the three conditions which the Canadian Government
engineers desired to have followed with respect to the proposed
dredging of certain shoal areas in the St. Clair River, by the
United States War Department. These conditions were communicated
to you, in my note No. 9, dated the 2nd February, 1934, which
dealt with the second part of the project.
You have stated that no objections are raised to the first two
conditions mentioned in my note. With regard to the third
condition, however, the Secretary of War has pointed out that,
since the area involved lies entirely within United States
territory, supervision by engineers of the Canadian Department
of Public Works over the use and development of the waterway, by
the removal of material therefrom, is inadmissible, except as a
part of a reciprocal agreement for the joint control of the
removal of material in the St. Clair River and its outlets. In
the letter from the Secretary of War, dated the 9th March, 1934,
which was enclosed in your note, it was stated that joint
control by a suitable Control Board, while not of pressing
importance, has certain obvious advantages, and merits
consideration, but that, until such joint control is agreed
upon, the Department is of the opinion that your Government
should not consent to the control by the engineers of the
Canadian Department of Public Works, of the removal of material
from the north channel of the St. Clair River.
This matter has been reconsidered by the Department of Public
Works. The Department’s action, in proposing the third
condition, was based upon the belief that the maintenance of
this fill was, desirable, as compensation for the removal of
material in the deepening,
[Page 989]
by your Government, both on its own side
and on the Canadian side, in the channel of the St. Clair River.
It was thought that the correspondence which was exchanged in
1926 and 192795
between the Secretary of State of the United States and the
British Ambassador, and later the Canadian Minister at
Washington, concerning the further removal of material for
commercial purposes in the vicinity of Point Edward waterfront,
had recognized that each Government had an interest in the
removal of material from the bed of the River on the other side
of the international boundary-line, by reason of the possible
effect of such removal on the general level, particularly of
Lake Huron. The understanding established in this correspondence
was intended to be the basis of the condition as formulated. The
Department did not have in mind the obtaining of any new
extraterritorial rights or privileges, but merely the
recognition and re-affirmation of the reciprocal understanding
which had already been established.
The attitude taken by your Government with regard to the Point
Edward situation has enabled the Department to resist demands
for permission to remove material from the bed of the river in
quantities exceeding those limited by the exchange of
correspondence in 1926. In the present year, as a result of
conversations between the Canadian engineers and the United
States War Department engineer at Detroit, the Department has
taken the stand that no further licenses in that area would be
granted for the removal of material, without the joint consent
of the engineers of the Department of Public Works and of the
United States War Department engineer. In asking for the
acceptance of the third condition, it was thought that the hands
of the United States War Department engineer would be
strengthened in corresponding cases in which he might be
importuned to remove, or permit the removal of, material from
the north channel.
The Department of Public Works agrees with the view that joint
control of the removal of material for commercial purposes, on
the St. Clair River, by a suitable Control Board, while not of
pressing importance, would have certain obvious advantages, and
the Department considers that, when the matter comes to be of
more pressing importance, it may well be desirable that an
agreement for such joint control should be concluded with your
Government.
In view of these circumstances, I venture to suggest that your
Government might reconsider the question of the acceptance of
the third condition, or, at any rate, that it might be agreed
that this matter should continue to be governed by the general
understanding which was embodied in the exchange of
correspondence in 1926 and 1927, to which reference has already
been made.
Accept [etc.]
