67 



At the hearing at Montreal counsel for the United States, for the 

 first time, came forward with a definite request that the application 

 should be granted forthwith as an urgent war measure, and presented 

 in support thereof a letter from the Secretary of War of the United 

 States. Counsel for Canada submitted, and argued in support of, 

 a statement presented to the Commission, copy of which is attached 

 hereto. It was contended that, under existing treaties, the Commission 

 was without power to grant the approval sought; and the suggestion 

 was repeated that, in any case, the proper and more expeditious pro- 

 cedure was that of direct negotiation between the two Governments, 

 and the Government of Canada was prepared to enter upon such nego- 

 tiation immediately. 



The International Joint Commission has taken the application 

 under advisement until September 12, when it is possible, though, 

 of course, not certain, that a decision may be announced. It was 

 urged at the hearing that, unless the proposed work was commenced 

 before September 15, there would be a risk that it could not be 

 finished before the winter. 



Having regard both for the necessity of securing the most effective 

 prosecution of the war and for the great desirability of a wise regu- 

 lation of the boundary water system between Canada and the United 

 States, it is believed that the procedure pursued in this matter is not 

 calculated to result in a mutually satisfactory solution. The Gov- 

 ernment of Canada is strongly convinced that some other and more 

 direct means of settlement should be sought; and in this conviction 

 it submits the following considerations and suggestions: — 



1. Article VII of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 declares 

 "that the channels of the river St. Lawrence on both sides of Long 

 Sault islands and of Barnhart island * * shall be 

 equally free and open to the ships, vessels and boats of both parties." 

 This declaration, relating as it does specifically to the South Sault 

 channel, clearly prohibits the construction of the proposed submerged 

 weir, which admittedly would prevent all navigation through this 

 channel. So far as the Treaty of January 11, 1909, goes to the 

 question, it is equally conclusive against the project. Article VIII 

 lays down an order of precedence to be observed among the various 

 uses for boundary Waters enumerated therein, and declares that "no 

 use shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or 

 restrain any other use which is given in preference over it in this 

 order of precedence." In the order of precedence that follows "uses 

 for navigation" are given preference over "uses for power and for 

 irrigation purposes." The construction of the proposed submerged 

 weir is sought purely for power purposes, and, as such, it must bo held 

 to be prohibited by Article VIII, since it would not only "tend 

 materially to conflict with or restrain" but it would wholly prevent 

 the use of this channel of the St. Lawrence river for navigation. 

 Clearly, therefore, the International Joint Commission is without 

 power to approve the proposed structure, and it is apparent that the 

 application, if pressed as at present, must fail. 



2. It is true that the project in question might have been put 

 forward in such a manner that it could properI>' have become the 



59875—5^ 



