711.4216Ni/342
The Minister in Canada (Armour) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 13.]
Sir: Referring to the Department’s instruction No. 262 of February 25, 1936, and to the Legation’s despatches No. 441 of February [Page 840] 26th, 1936, and No. 443 of February 29th, 1936,52 with regard to the possible withdrawal of the St. Lawrence Waterway Treaty and of the Niagara Falls Convention from the Senate and their replacement by a new treaty dealing with the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin as a whole, including the problems relating to Niagara Falls, I have the honor to confirm my telephone conversation with the Assistant Chief of the Western European Division on Saturday morning, March 7th, reporting the publication in the Canadian press of an Associated Press despatch, bearing a Washington dateline of March 8th, reporting that—
“A new drive by the United States Government for ratification of the St. Lawrence Waterway treaty with Canada—aimed at approval of the pact at the next congressional session—was intimated today in reliable Senate quarters.”
It will be noted that the despatch continues by quoting Senator Pittman53 directly as saying that “he would have some surprises to disclose” in the speech that he will make at Detroit on March 11th next, at the conference of the Great Lakes Waterway Association. The writer of the article interprets Senator Pittman’s words as indicating that the Administration may be thinking of some concessions to the opposition in our Senate, and quotes him directly as having said that he feels that thirteen Senators can be persuaded to change the stand they have hitherto taken but that “nothing will be done this session, but there is a chance for ratification next session”.
As reported in the Legation’s telegram No. 24 of March 9, 10 a.m.,54 on Saturday last, March 7th, I attempted once more to see the Prime Minister, but having been unable to do so owing to Mr. King’s absence from his office I had a talk with his Private Secretary. I reminded Mr. Henry that the Detroit meeting at which a Government spokesman would be expected to make some statement with regard to the waterways question would take place on March 11th and that we would appreciate very much some word from the Prime Minister indicating the Canadian Government’s position on the matter as submitted. I explained that such answer as they might give need not necessarily represent their final decision: that I felt sure that my Government would not wish to hurry Mr. King and would much prefer to have careful consideration given to the whole question, and that all we really wanted was a general indication as to their reaction to the proposal. Mr. Henry later telephoned me to say that he had seen the Prime Minister for a moment just before the Council meeting and that he had sent the following message: that after talking [Page 841] the matter over with the members of the Cabinet he did not feel that it would be wise to raise the matter at the present time.
Mr. Henry seemed to feel that this language of Mr. King referred to the whole question and not merely to the question of the Detroit speech. However, in speaking with Dr. Skelton later he told me that he felt sure that Mr. King merely intended to say that he thought it would be inadvisable to make any public announcement as to withdrawal of the treaties from the Senate, and that while he (Dr. Skelton) was not over-sanguine as to the possibility of working out a solution along the lines indicated, nevertheless it was, he felt, a matter which merited further study and that he felt sure that Mr. King would wish to go into the whole question from every angle before reaching a final decision.
In the meantime, there can be no disguising the fact that the interview attributed to the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate has accomplished just what Mr. King apparently desired to avoid; namely, publicity directed towards reopening the St. Lawrence Waterway Treaty at this time, with a view to altering it. While I have not yet been able to see Mr. King, I have spoken with Mr. Henry and informed him that my understanding is that Senator Pittman’s statement was made without prior consultation with the State Department. The present plan is, I told him, for the Administration’s point of view to be set forth in a message from the President which will be read by Senator Pittman. In the meantime, according to the press, the Canadian Government has stated that its “attitude to a new drive in the United States for ratification of the St. Lawrence Waterway Treaty will not be made known at least until Senator Pittman has spoken in Detroit next Wednesday”.
The Prime Minister spent yesterday in Toronto and it is quite possible that he may have seen the Premier, Mr. Hepburn, in which event he may have something to say to me when I see him with regard to this question, and more particularly Mr. Hepburn’s attitude towards it.
In the House of Commons this afternoon Mr. Church, the independent-Conservative Member from Toronto, put the following questions to the Minister of Railways, Canals and Marine (Mr. Howe):
- (1)
- Is the meeting of the Great Lakes Waterways Association which is being held in Detroit tomorrow official and, if so, will the Canadian Government be represented; and
- (2)
- Have any new negotiations taken place with the United States in connection with the St. Lawrence Treaty?
To the first question the Minister replied that the meeting was not official and that no official Canadian representative was being sent. [Page 842] To the second question he replied (I quote from memory): “So far as I am aware the Government has received no recent communication on the question of the St. Lawrence Waterway Treaty.”
As the Minister of Railways, Canals and Marine, in replying, intimated that he had received these two questions some ten minutes before and as the Prime Minister was in the House at the time, I think it probable that Mr. Howe consulted Mr. King before making his reply. In this event it would seem a logical inference to draw that Mr. King does not desire to have any publicity given to the recent approach made to his Government on this question.
Clippings from the Ottawa Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette and Toronto Globe of March 9th, together with a leading editorial from the Montreal Gazette, on this question, are enclosed herewith.55
Respectfully yours,