711.42157SA29/1390
The Minister in Canada (Armour) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 14.]
Sir: With reference to my strictly confidential despatch No. 474 of March 10, 1936, regarding Senator Pittman’s forthcoming speech before the meeting of the St. Lawrence Waterways Association at Detroit today, I have the honor to inform the Department that I saw the Prime Minister last night and discussed this matter with him. Mr. King said that he had read the Associated Press telegram in one of the Toronto papers, where he spent Monday. Dr. Skelton, he said, who was with him, seemed to be particularly apprehensive regarding that portion of the statement attributed to Senator Pittman in which it was said that “his words contained an indication that the Administration may be thinking of some concessions to the opposition which thus far has fought the pact successfully”. Dr. Skelton had interpreted this as meaning that the concessions would necessarily be at the expense of Canada, and that he had suggested to Mr. King—Dr. Skelton stayed over in Toronto after Mr. King’s departure—that it might be well to telephone to me and suggest that a word of caution be sent to Washington on this point.
I told the Prime Minister that I understood that not only had the State Department not been consulted with regard to the statement but that it apparently had no advance knowledge that Senator Pittman had intended to give such an interview.
[Page 843]I said that I had been in the House that afternoon when one of the members—Mr. Church, of Broadview—had put the question to Mr. Howe, the Minister of Railways, Canals and Marine, as to whether “the Government will be represented at the annual convention of cities and towns and harbors of the Great Lakes in reference to the St. Lawrence waterway; also whether he will be shortly in a position to inform the House if there are any negotiations going on between the two countries for the seaway, so that when the depression is over there will be a basis of agreement”. Mr. King said that it was unfortunate that the question had been put to Mr. Howe, who had risen to reply before he, the Prime Minister, had had an opportunity to do so. As a matter of fact, our latest proposals had not been discussed in Cabinet meeting. Mr. King had merely talked the matter over with one or two of his colleagues, and it so happened that Mr. Howe had been away and he had not had an opportunity to explain the matter to him. It was, therefore, in perfect good faith that Mr. Howe had replied as he did: “That, so far as we are aware the meeting is entirely unofficial” and, “In reply to the second question, I may say that I know of no communication of recent date between Canada and the United States in the matter of the St. Lawrence waterway.”
With regard to our proposals, Mr. King still felt that the time was not propitious for a reopening of the question. He reiterated his objections as set forth at our last talk, adding that I had probably seen that Mr. Hepburn had again come out, since the elections, as opposed to the St. Lawrence Treaty.
I told Mr. King that I had telephoned Washington the nature of Mr. Howe’s reply and had suggested that in view of it, it might be a wise precaution to see that no reference be made in the speech at Detroit to the fact of our informal talks, as this might cause some embarrassment to the Canadian Government. Mr. King said that he was very glad that this had been done, as reference to the negotiations to date might cause some misunderstanding.
I had a talk with Dr. Skelton this morning and told him of my talk with Mr. King. Dr. Skelton said that he felt that any concessions or changes in the present treaty would necessarily be at the expense of Canada; such changes as had been proposed, e. g. the diversion of water at Chicago, etc., came within this category. Dr. Skelton also referred to Mr. Howe’s reply in the House yesterday, saying that he thought it was unfortunate that the Prime Minister had not himself answered the question, but supposed that was because Mr. Church had addressed his question to the Minister of Railways, Canals and Marine personally. In view of the answer made by Mr. Howe, Dr. Skelton said that he was very glad that Washington had been notified with a view to obviating any misunderstanding through reference in the [Page 844] speech at Detroit to the preliminary talks which had already taken place. Dr. Skelton confirmed what he had said on an earlier occasion, that he felt it would be useful to examine the whole question anew, although he was not sanguine as to finding a solution acceptable to both sides, particularly at the present time.
Respectfully yours,