St. Lawrence Seaway

(The statement of Representative Clement J. Zablocki is as follows:) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 20, 1951.

Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,
Chairman, Public Works Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BUCKLEY: I am aware of the fact that the testimony in support and in opposition of resolutions approving the agreement between the United States and Canada relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway will be presented by many individuals and representatives of organizations. To help expedite the hearings, I ask your consideration of my support of the resolutions as contained in the enclosed statement.

I ask your, and your committee's, consideration in including the same in the record of the testimony on the St. Lawrence seaway hearings.

Sincerely yours,

CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, M. C.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, FOURTH DISTRICT, WISCONSIN, IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 102, AND DELIVERED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ON FEBRUARY 20, 1951

Mr. Chairman, this statement is in support of a very important joint resolution, of which I am a cosponsor, approving the agreement between the United States and Canada, relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin, with certain other provisions.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in this sponsorship.

Although our resolutions may vary and differ in provisions and power arrangements, they are in harmony on the desirability of early completion of this beneficial and important project.

The question of the desirability and feasibility of the St. Lawrence seaway has been considered and examined in great detail by Congress on several previous occasions. It is my sincere hope that, at this time, favorable action may be taken on this measure by your committee, and that, bearing in mind the committee's recommendations, the Congress may approve this project without further delay. In the remote, as well as in the immediate, past, prominent legislators, military and shipping experts, and top-ranking members of our Government have pointed out and enumerated the many advantages of the basic proposals embodied in the resolutions today under consideration. Further, many who at one time were dubious of the desirability of the project have since propounded the finest testimony in support of the St. Lawrence seaway. Today, we must all join in a common effort needed to insure the measures necessary for the defense of our Nation, even if these efforts be at a sacrifice and financial loss to personal interests.

There will be many, I am certain, who will more adequately present testimony in support of this project. Our Defense, State, Commerce, Interior, and other departments will no doubt give expert reasons for expeditious action in this matter. It is not, therefore, my intention to go into great detail to show why immediate action should be taken by Congress in approving agreement with our ally and sister nation, Canada, and authorizing steps for the early completion of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway. I wish to join in the opinion, however, that the seaway is needed now more than ever before in the interest of national defense and security, of economic development and of progress.

Inasmuch as the Great Lakes shipbuilding facilities were of inestimable advantage in our war effort during World War II, and since, if the international situation should continue, they may be called upon again in the very near future, it is obvious that the seaway would permit the construction of combat service and ocean vessels for the armed services in greater proportion and with greater ease at a saving of manpower and speedy delivery.

Further, the proposed power project would unleash cheaper electricity for industrial and defense purposes for use in the industrial Northeastern States. The estimated 2,200,000 horsepower of hydroelectric energy, available possibly at the world's cheapest rate, will be most welcome to consumers in that area.

The low-cost transportation made available to consumers and producers in the Lake States and Middle West, to mention another advantage, will stimulate interstate as well as foreign trade. The development of the navigation of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system, permitting ocean traffic to the great farming and industrial areas of the Middle West will, in truth, add a fourth coast line to the United States.

The opportunities made possible by the St. Lawrence seaway power project for economic progress are too many to enumerate in detail. The importance of the seaway in these crucial times of international unrest is best summarized in an editorial from the Milwaukee Journal, from which I quote:

"The nation

* ** that provides lines of communication from its best protected or least vulnerable inner reaches to its coasts, best insures its security in wartimes."

If we respect our enemies and evaluate the needs and desire for assurance of adequate defense, the advantages of constructing the St. Lawrence project are obvious and persuasive. To be blinded by selfish interests, reeking with political prejudice, with no desire to seek and evaluate the justice for long range value of a St. Lawrence seaway, is traitorous and inviting national suicide.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in this statement the expressions on this subject by George A. Haberman, Frank Ranney, and Harry C. Brockel, which appeared, subtitled "We Firmly Believe," in a brochure called 50 miles to go for defense, conservation, low-cost transportation, progress, and expansion.

"One of the few great frontiers left-that is the St. Lawrence seaway. We believe that the American tradition must prevail and that this last great frontier must be developed-not in the interests of Wisconsin alone, but in the interest of the entire Nation.

"Based upon long study of the seaway and its implications, we are convinced that untold thousands of new jobs will be created in lake ports and throughout the Middle West when the seaway is completed.

"To add the St. Lawrence seaway to our other national assets will be to enlarge our national sinews of economic and military strength. To turn our backs on this project now is unthinkable."-George A. Haberman, president, Wisconsin State Federation of Labor (AFL).

"The St. Lawrence seaway is a major link in the United States defense program as well as a stabilizing factor in the Middle West's whole metal-fabricating industry.

"As a national defense measure, the seaway system would permit gradual decentralization of the heavy industry of the United States, thus cutting down our vulnerability to decisive air attack.

"Each year, the seaway becomes an increasingly important 'must,' from the standpoint of conservation. Our presently available supplies of iron ore are decreasing rapidly. With the seaway a reality, newly discovered deposits of iron ore in Labrador could be developed.

"There is no question but that the United States must join with Canada now in pushing the seaway to completion."-Frank Ranney, general secretary, Milwaukee Federated Trades Council (AFL).

"The midcontinent will be relatively safer than the seaboard in any future war when enemy planes, enemy fleets, or enemy robot bombs may be expected to attack our coasts. Because of the sheltered position which the Great Lakes area enjoys, the Government must plan to locate vital industries, arsenals, and shipyards in this region.

"The Great Lakes has the greatest concentration of steel manufacturing and the greatest reservoir of skilled workmen in the world. Our industries now build all parts used on a ship and send them by rail to coast yards. Our shipyards could build anything up to and including 10,000-ton cruisers if we had the seaway."-Harry C. Brockel, port director, city of Milwaukee, Wis.

The CHAIRMAN. We also have two reports from the State Department and one from the Secretary of Defense to be included in the record.

(The two reports by the State Department are as follows:)

Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,

House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 20, 1951.

MY DEAR MR. BUCKLEY: Reference is made to your letter of February 8, 1951, and my reply of February 12, 1951, concerning your desire to receive a statement of the views of this Department regarding the advisability of enacting into law the provisions of House Joint Resolutions 2, 102, and 122, approving the agreement between the United States and Canada relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin with the exception of certain provisions thereof; expressing the sense of the

Congress with respect to the negotiation of certain treaties; providing for making the St. Lawrence seaway self-liquidating; and for other purposes.

These three House joint resolutions contain similar provisions and approve the agreement of March 19, 1941, relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin, "with the exception of article VII, article VIII, paragraph (c), and article IX thereof." Article VII, which is the subject of the first exception, would assure continuance of the rights of navigation in the Great Lakes system on a permanent basis. As the 1909 treaty guaranteeing these rights contains a provision for termination, it is considered essential that the provision for termination should be eliminated. Article IX of the agreement which is also excepted from approval, relates to changes in the provisions of the 1909 treaty concerning the Niagara River. The Senate has indicated that these are matters more appropriately dealt with by a treaty or treaties. Section 2 of these resolutions provides for the negotiation of such a treaty or treaties. The subject matter of article IX has already been dealt with in the treaty of February 27, 1950, which is now in force between the two countries. It is understood that the Canadian Government is also willing to negotiate a treaty on the subject of permanent rights of navigation in the Great Lakes system.

The second exception relates to article VIII, paragraph (c), of the agreement which provides that if either country should authorize diversions of water from the Great Lakes system, other or greater than those permitted on January 1, 1940, the Government of such country would give immediate consideration to the representations of the other. If satisfactory settlement were not possible, the article provides for an arbitral tribunal. The particular dispute envisaged by this article related to possible future increase in the diversion of Lake Michigan waters through the Chicago drainage canal. The issue as to the Chicago drainage canal was settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wisconsin v. Illinois, in April 1930 (vol. 281 U. S. 179, 696), which enjoined the objectionable diversion. The International Joint Commission has complete jurisdiction over diversion of boundary waters in general and both countries have regarded with satisfaction the exercise of that jurisdiction by the Commission. Because of these facts, it is believed that this provision for a special arbitral tribunal is unnecessary, and consequently the omission of article VIII, paragraph (c), is advisable.

been received that the Canadian Government is prepared to agree to the principle of making the St. Lawrence seaway self-liquidating by means of toll charges, subject to the conclusion of mutually satisfactory arrangements.

In the 1941 agreement, it is provided in article II (b) that the Government of Canada shall complete the essential links in the deep waterway not later than December 31, 1948. In view of the desirability of changing that provision due to the lapse of time and the discussion of this subject during the hearings held last April by the House Committee on Public Works, an exchange of notes was signed with Canada on May 8, 1950, which has the effect of amending the agreement now before the Congress for approval. This exchange of notes provides that in article II (b) of the agreement the words "to complete, not later than December 31, 1948," shall be deleted and that the words "to complete within 8 years after the date of entry into force of this agreement" shall be substituted therefor. Copies of the notes exchanged are enclosed.

Ön account of the above amendment to the agreement, I suggest that the House joint resolutions should be amended to indicate approval of the 1941 agreement as amended by the exchange of notes. It is proposed for your consideration that this might be accomplished by making the following changes in them:

1. Title, second line, insert after "Basin" the words "as amended." 2. Page 2, line 1, insert after the word "session" the phrase “as amended by an exchange of notes signed May 8, 1950."

3. Page 2, line 3, replace the word "thereof" with the words "of the said agreement.'

4. Page 2, line 5, insert after the word "agreement" the words "as amended."

5. Page 2, line 8, insert after the word "agreement" the words "and exchange of notes."

Other sections of the resolutions relate to questions of domestic policy and as they are therefore outside the jurisdiction of this Department, I refrain from commenting on them.

In the President's budget message to the Congress he said that "although long-range improvement of our river basins is essential for the continued economic strength of the country, in the fiscal year 1952 we must emphasize those aspects of the progress which primarily support the national defense." He included the St. Lawrence seaway and power project as one of the seven projects essential to the national defense.

In my opinion the enactment of one of these joint resolutions is of vital importance to the security and economic development of our Nation. It is also of great importance to the industrial development of Canada to which we are so closely bound by ties of mutual political, economic, and military interests. The Department has been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: Exchange of notes, May 8, 1950.

The Honorable HUME WRONG,

Ambassador of Canada.

JACK K. MCFALL,

Assistant Secretary

(For the Secretary of State).

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, May 8, 1950.

EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to refer to the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada in relation to the utilization of water in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin, signed at Ottawa, March 19, 1941, article II (b) of which provides that the Government of Canada shall complete the essential Canadian links in the deep waterway not later than December 31, 1948.

As the above-mentioned date of December 31, 1948, is no longer appropriate, the Government of the United States of American proposes that in article II (b) of the said agreement the words "to complete, not later than December 31, 1948," be deleted and that the words "to complete within 8 years after the date of entry into force of this agreement" be substituted therefor.

If the Government of Canada agrees to the foregoing proposal, I have the honor to suggest that the present note and your reply to that effect shall be regarded as placing on record the understanding arrived at between the two Governments in this matter and as amending the said agreement accordingly. Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

No. 275.

Mr. JAMES E. WEBB,

JAMES E. WEBB, Acting Secretary of State.

CANADIAN EMBASSY, Washington, D. C., May 8, 1950.

Acting Secretary of State of the United States of America,

Washington, D. C.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of this date regarding the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America in relation to the utilization of water in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin, signed at Ottawa, March 19, 1941, article II (b) of which provides that the Government of Canada shall complete the essential Canadian links in the deep waterway not later than December 31, 1948. Your note states that as the above-mentioned date of December 31, 1948, is no longer appropriate, the Government of the United States of America proposes that in article II (b) of the said agreement the words "to complete within 8 years after the date of entry into force of this agreement" be substituted therefore.

I have the honor to inform you that the Government of Canada agrees to the foregoing proposal and regards your note and this reply as constituting the understanding reached with regard to this matter and as amending the said agreement accordingly.

Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

H. H. WRONG.

The Honorable CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 20, 1951.

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. BUCKLEY: Reference is made to your letter of February 8, 1951, and my reply of February 12, 1951, concerning your desire to receive a statement of the views of this Department regarding the advisability of enacting into law the provisions of House Joint Resolutions 3, 4, and 15, “approving the agreement between the United States and Canada relating to the development of the resources of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin for national security and continental defense of the United States and Canada; providing for making the St. Lawrence seaway self-liquidating; and for other purposes."

The second exception relates to article VIII, paragraph (c) of the agreement which provides that if either country should authorize diversions of water from the Great Lakes system, other or greater than those permitted on January 1, 1940, the Government of such country would give immediate consideration to the representations of the other. If satisfactory settlement were not possible, the article provides for an arbitral tribunal. The particular dispute envisaged by this article related to possible future increase in the diversion of Lake Michigan waters through the Chicago drainage canal. The issue as to the Chicago drainage canal was settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wisconsin v. Illinois, in April 1930 (vol. 281 U. S. 179, 696), which enjoined the objectionable diversion. The International Joint Commission has complete jurisdiction over diversion of boundary waters in general, and both countries have regarded with satisfaction the exercise of that jurisdiction by the Commission. Because of these facts, it is believed that this provision for a special arbitral tribunal is unnecessary, and consequently the omission of article VIII, paragraph (c), is advisable.

The third exception relates to article IX of the agreement concerning the Niagara River. The subject matter of this article was dealt with in the treaty concerning uses of the waters of the Niagara River signed on February 27, 1950, which is already in force between the two countries.

Section 3 of the joint resolutions provides for the negotiation of an additional agreement with Canada whereby the seaway shall be self-liquidating through the payment of tolls, such agreement to become effective only after approval by the Congress of the United States and the Parliament of Canada. Assurances have been received that the Canadian Government is prepared to agree to the principle of making the St. Lawrence seaway self-liquidating by means of toll charges, subject to the conclusion of mutually satisfactory arrangements.

In the 1941 agreement, it is provided in article II (b) that the Government of Canada shall complete the essential links in the deep waterway not later than December 31, 1948. In view of the desirability of changing that provision due to the lapse of time and the discussion of this subject during the hearings held last April by the House Committee on Public Works, an exchange of notes was signed with Canada on May 6, 1950, which has the effect of amending the agreement now before the Congress for approval. This exchange of notes provides that in article II (b) of the agreement the words "to complete, not later than December 31, 1948," shall be deleted and that the words "to complete within 8 years after the date of entry into force of this agreement" shall be substituted therefor. Copies of the notes exchanged are enclosed.

On account of the above amendment to the agreement, I suggest that the House joint resolutions should be amended to indicate approval of the 1941 agreement as amended by the exchange of notes. It is proposed for your consideration that this might be accomplished by making the following changes in them:

1. Title, fourth line, insert after Canada the words "as amended".

2. Page 1, line 6, insert after the word "session" the phrase “as amended by an exchange of notes signed May 8, 1950".

« Înapoi Continuă »

Cărți

St. Lawrence Seaway: Hearings Before the Committee on Public Works, House of ...