123 
of the respective States. Each State has its own machinery; but under 
the terms of the treaty it would seem that the Federal government is 
morally bound to provide the necessary machinery for doing as well on this 
side of the line as Canada is doing on the other. 
Now, if it turns out, as we believe it will, that this is the beginning 
of federal control in all of these large and important streams, then will 
come federal control not only of international waters, but interestate 
streams, and in all matters of pollution of any and ali streams. 
Mr. Shiras cites a number of cases: The State of Missouri vs. Chi- 
cago Drainage Canal, in which the decision of the court showed that the 
question is one larger than the State of Illinois and the State of Mis- 
souri, and that the Federal government must take it up. A similar case, 
Kansas City vs. The State of Colorado, the decision of the court pointed 
to the same view. And there is every reason to believe that the Supreme 
Court will uphold these decisions. 
Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington, D. C. 
