Слике страница
PDF
ePub

WAOES IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE

Contrast the above with the wages paid in the United States. The protective-tariff system is a factor in supporting a higher wage level here than exists elsewhere in the world. The higher purchasing power which naturally results is of great importance to the farmers who dispose of 90 per cent of their production in (he domestic market.

In 1924, accord ins to the United States Bureau of Labor report, the average daily wage in the United States was $5.60; in England, $2.00 per day: in Germany, $1.55 per day ; in Belgium, $1.29 per day; in France, $1.01 per day; and in Italy, 90 cents per day.

The farmers want the wage earners to have a high buying power. Imagine the condition of our farmers if the 90 per cent of their annual production which is consumed within this country were sold to wage earners who received only an average of 90 cents per day, as in Italy; or ,$1.01 per day, as in France; or $1.29 per day. as in Belgium: or .$1.55 per day, as in Germany; or even .$'2.60 per day, as in England, which is lens than half the United States average wage scale as reported by the Labor Bureau.

How would our farmers fare under such conditions?

FAKMKIiS ABU INTERESTED IN PROTECTIVE TARlKff

About 90 per cent of American agricultural production is directly affected by foreign competition. This is the reason the American farmer is so vitally concerned with our tariff-protection policy. This foreign competition affects the farmers in two ways—on the foreign market, where we export, or in the domestic markets into which we import.

Wool and hides, for example, enter the United States from all parts of the world, and compete in the United States with domestic production. Producers of butter, onions, prunes, and hemp are just as much affected. The prices received for farm products are determined in part by the volume and quality of the foreign production.

PROTECTIVE TABIFF BENEFITS

American statesmen are all agreed that our first duty is to the American people by maintaining their standards of living from destruction through prevention of dumping in the markets of our land of the manufactures and of agricultural commodities produced by cheaper labor living under lower standards of living abroad.

Such importations tear down the prosperity and the wellbeing of the United States.

Protective tariff has increased American prosperity. Protective tariff lias increased the domestic production of flax, wool, sugar. Our domestic consumption is increasing faster than the population. If the American farmer could have his domestic market to himself the law of supply and demand will run directly in his favor.

Removal or lessening the tariff on agricultural products would be a death blow to our rural communities. It would result in lessened purchasing power, poorer schools, poorer homes, larger burdens, and longer hours.

It is unthinkable that the great American people would approve such a policy.

It is inevitable that the failure to provide adequate protection against foreign imports will result in a lower standard of living in the country than in the city. It follows that if the farmer's protection shrinks the share of labor will shrink. The welfare of both of these classes is interdependent. There must be jobs for the worker in order to give a profitable home market to the farmer.

Labor wants steady employment, increased real wages, better conditions of living, and u fair scale of living costs.

The farmer wants fully employed labor and protection from foreign competition.

IMPORTS FOB CONSUMPTION

I insert in the Record a table showing imports for consumption of various agricultural commodities—included in II. R. 9357—in the United States, 1924, 1925, 1926 1927:

[merged small][table]

1 Mo butter substitutes imported. Such import.; would be subject to internal-revenue tax of 15 cents per pound in add.lion to the tariff if 8 cents per pound.

Imports for consumption of pariouJt agricultural commodities in fht TTnited Staffs, /fl?j, ISIS, J926, /P?7—Continued

[table]

THE ST. LAWRENCE DEEP WATERWAY

Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask consent to extend my remarks in the Kkcoiid on the subject of the St. Lawrence deep waterway, and us a part of that extension I ask permission to include letter from the Canadian Government dated September 1, 1927, and the answer by Mr. Kellogg, Secretary of State, dated October 17,1927, and also certain correspondence between myself and the Secretary of State and a letter written by myself to the St. Lawrence Tidewater Association and its reply, the whole not to occupy more than three or four pages of the Record.

Mr. ITNDKRIIILL. On what subject?

Mr. PEAVEY. On the subject of the international waterway.

Mr. UNDERI1ILL. About how many columns of the Kecobd would it occupy?

Mr. PEAVEY. It would not cover more than three pages of the Kecobd.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was 110 objection.

Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Speaker, I am making this statement that the people of Wisconsin may be informed about my activities as their Representative in Congress on a subject of vital importance to them.

The most important question before the people of Wisconsin and the entire Northwest to-day is the building of the St. Lawrence waterway from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean, lu order that the waterway may be built it is necessary that a treaty be negotiated with Canada to provide for its construction and a proper division of the costs as well as a partition of the hydroelectric power, navigation, and other benefits to accrue to both countries.

The building of the St. Lawrence waterway will not only mean the opening of world commerce and trade to the interior of America but it will to a large degree restore general commerce to the cities and harbors on the Great Lakes. General commerce on the Great Lakes not only means cheap transportation but it would mean reduced transportation charges on everything the people of the Northwest produce for sale and a consequent low freight rate on manufactured goods purchased from the East.

It would mean a saving to the farmers and business men of 21 Northwestern States of over $123,000,000 annually. Forty million people living in those States are demanding it and have been for the past 25 years. No one excepting a few selfish interests in New York have ever opposed the waterway. I ask, Why the delay?

Every dollar needlessly spent for transportation by the people of the Northwest is a dollar lost. According to the St. Lawrence commission, appointed by the President, the annual loss to the people living in the Great Lakes States is computed to be over a hundred million dollars on excessive freight rates on grain nlone.

This is just so much human toil and energy going to waste each year. It means people living in the Northwest must bo content with $125,000,000 less annual business and to do without the consequent happiness and prosperity this vast sum would bestow.

Every official action and pronouncement pertaining to the building of the St. Lawrence waterway has been to delay and forestall progress. Why?

The Senate amendment of 1909 created the joint commission and took the waterway out of the hands of Congress for 19 years. My resolution, which was drawn last January, the introduction of which was withheld until now at the suggestion of Frank B. Kellogg, Secretory of State, is the first move made since 1909 to get this matter back before Congress, where the business of the public belongs. The resolution follows:

LXIX 538

[H. Res. 185, 70th Cong., 1st sess.]

Whereas It appears that of all the leglBlntive and other proposals which have been Hiibmltted for the governmental relief of agriculture In the Middle and Northwestern Stntes the development of n waterway from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean would be the most practical and economically sound: and

Whereas every engineering body and commission, Including the United States-St. Lawrence Commission, appointed to study the potentialities of such a waterway have, without exception, submitted favorable reports; and

Whereas the building of such n waterway would alleviate the present agricultural depression of the mid-continent through lessoning the economic handicap of adverse transportation costs; and

Whereas the legislatures of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have all passed joint resolutions calling upon the President of the United States for immediate action in the building of a waterway from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence Klver, which resolutions have been supported and Indorsed by 10 additional Northwestern States, and by a petition of a representative New England committee, consisting of prominent citizens of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Now, therefore, he it

RfHolrrd, That the report submitted by the United States-St. Lawrence Commission on December U7, 1926, known as Senate Document No. 183, upon the development of a waterway from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence River, be adopted as the policy of the House of Representatives of the United States, the Senate concurring, and that the President and the Secretary of State be requested to conclude negotiations for a treaty that will permit the early completion of such a waterway.

It took the joint commission, created under the act of 1909, 14 years to prepare a report to Congress. Then another commission was created, headed by Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, which commission took nearly four years to present a report made by the Department of United States Engineers.

These two St.,Lawrence commissions and their activities have cost the Government of the United States from 1909 to December, 1920, more than $1,000,000 in salaries and expenses. For the most part their reports and recommendations and facts on which they were based were made by the United States Engineers, paid by the War Department, and requiring about three years' actual preparation. I ask you again, Why all this delay?

It must be apparent to any student of this great problem that the illegal and unwarranted diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the sanitary district of Chicago is, to a large extent, the key to the whole situation.

Were it not for this Illegal diversion and for the several million dollars a year unjust and unrighteous money collected through the .sale of hydroelectric power by the Chicago Sanitary District, no serious difficulties would lie encountered in our negotiations with Canada. Were it not for the intolerable and corrupt use of these same millions to influence Congress to thwart legislation and defeat any move to curb or stop this act of international thievery, the St. Lawrence waterway might now be under construction.

Were the waterway to be built, no city in the continent would profit as would Chicago, because of its dominating position on the Great Lakes. A few unscrupulous and unprincipled politicians banded together under the posthumous institution known as the Chicago Sanitary District are being allowed to set aside the State laws, defy national authority, injure the whole Northwest and Canada, and destroy the future progress of Chicago itself to satisfy individual profit and greed. That the people, who care to know may have the entire facts, I nm Inserting below the official correspondence between Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary ot State, and the Canadian minister. These letters speak for themselves:

Canadian Legation, Washington, September 1, OH.

Sir: I have the honor to refer to the note which you addressed to Mr. Chllton on December 7, 1926, regarding the publication of certain correspondence relating to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago.

His Majesty's Government in Canada has noted that the Government of the United States considers that the reference In the report of the Joint Board of Engineers on the St. Lawrence waterway project to the limited effect on lake levels of the diversion of water through the Chicago sanitary canal greatly alters the understanding of the situation, and that it might accordingly be considered undesirable to publish the correspondence in question.

I have been instructed to inform yon that His Majesty's Government In Canada has not been under any misapprehension as to the extent to wliich the abstraction of water through the Chicago sanitary canal has lowered the levels of the Great Lakes and that it has beon fully advised that this lowering has been in the neighborhood of 6 inches. The papers which His Majesty's Government in Canada desires to publish incorporate its viewpoint with respect to the general principle of abstracting water from the Great Lakes system and diverting it into another watershed, and include the protests of the Government of Canada against the abstraction, submitted on behalf of the people of Canada generally, as well as the protest of the government of Ontario, submitted on behalf of the people of that Province. Any reference in the report of the Joint Board of Engineers as published as to the actual effect of the withdrawal of water through the sanitary canal does not In any degree whatsoever affect the viewpoint of Ills Majesty's Government in Canada as expressed In this correspondence.

His Majesty's Government in Canada desires to take this opportunity of pointing out that if any misapprehension exists in the United States or In Canada as to the degree of lowering occasioned by the Chicago abstraction the publication of these papers will go a long way toward removing such misunderstanding.

With reference to the suggestion that His Majesty's Government In Canada enter upon a further discussion of the practical question of providing compensatory works as recommended by the Joint Board of Engineers, it may be pointed out that the installation of compensatory works for the restoration of lake levels will In no way recoup to the Great Lakes system the power which is lost to that system by the water abstracted therefrom through the sanitary canal. While recognizing the marked advantages which may be gained by the construction of suitable compensating works, His Majesty's Government In Canada would not be prepared to enter upon a discussion of any plans for the construction of such works if this course involved an assumption that the present abstraction is to continue.

With reference, however, to the question immediately under consideration, His Majesty's Government in Canada observes nothing in the report of the Joint Engineering Board, including appendices, which would render inadvisable the publication of the papers in question. On the contrary, It is considered that the release of these papers would have a marked effect in clarifying public opinion on the question in both countries.

I have the honor, therefore, to Inquire whether the Government of the United States would not he prepared to publish the correspondence listed in Mr. Chllton's note of November 16, 1926, together with subsequent correspondence, at such early date as may be fonnd convenient to both Governments.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir.
Your most obedient, bumble servant,

Laurent Beacdfy,
Charge d'

The Hon. Frank B. Kellogg,

Secretary of State of the Untied States, Tfathington.

September 12, 1927.

Sib: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 230 of September 1, 1927, Inquiring whether this Government would be prepared to make public certain correspondence In regard to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago.

The proposal made by the Canadian Government that the correspondence be made public has beun referred to the authorities of this (invei-nment directly concerned with the matter to which the correspondence relates. I shall be glad to inform you at the earliest date possible of the views of this Government in regard to the publication of the correspondence.

Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my high consideration.

Frank B. Kklloqo.

Mr. Laurent Keaodry,

Charge d'Affaires ad interim of the Dominion of Canada.

October 17, 1927.

Sib: In further reply to your legation's note, No. 230, of September 1, I have the honor to inform you that this Government raises no objection to the publication of the correspondence referred to therein, relating to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan at Chicago.

This Government has not failed to recognize the importance of the contentions made by the Canadian Government relating to the abstraction of water from one watershed and the diversion of it into another. In my note of July 26, 1926, I informed the British ambassador that this Government was not prepared to admit the conclusions of Inw stated in his notes of February 5, 1926, and May 1, 1926, on this question. I did not think It was advisable to enter Into a discussion of this legal question In view of the fact that the Issues Involved in certain cases which were then and are still pending in the Supreme Court of the United States are closely parallel to the questions presented in the ambassador's notes. For this same reason I do not now desire to enter into a discussion of this question at the present moment.

This Government, however, has heretofore Indicated that It Is prepared to enter into discussions and negotiations with Canada covering the whole question of preservation of lake levels in the mutual interest of the two countries.

This Government is glad to note the agreement by the Government ot Canada with the conclusions of the Joint Board of Engineers that the diversion at Chicago has affected lake levels less than 6 inches. It also notes the feeling on the part of the Canadian Government tbat lake levels could be denlt with, so far as navigation is concerned, by compensating works as recommended by the Joint Board of Engineers. It would appear in this connection tbat the question as to the practical results of diversion in its effect on navigation could be entirely remedied.

As to the observation by the Canadian Government that the installation of compensatory works to restore lake levels would not recoup to the Great Lakes system the power lost to the system by the diversion at Chicago, I would, without In any way admitting the principles of compensation, call attention to the fact that Canada now receives 36,000 second-feet at Niagara as against 20,000 cubic feet per second on the American side for power purposes. I would further observe that without development of the lower St. Lawrence this question does not arise in that connection.

I again wish to point out that all these problems appeal to the American Government as matters that may be settled by practical engineering measures which might be adopted pending further discussion of the principles involved.

Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

Fkank B. Kellogg.

The Hon. Vincbnt Maskey,

Minister of the Dominion of Canadm.

For your further information I am printing herewith my own correspondence with Mr. Kellogg on the subject:

Department Of Statb, Washington, February 19, 1927.

My Dear Mr. Pkavey: I am in receipt of your letter of February 11, 1927, Inquiring what steps, if any, have been taken by this department toward concluding a treaty or treaties with Canada looking to the construction of the St. Lawrence deep waterway.

You will recall that on Decemlwr 19, 1921, the International Joint Commission, in its report on a reference made to it by the Governments of the i nil;.i Stales and Canada, recommended, among other things, that the Governments of the United States and Canada enter Into an arrangement by way of treaty for a scheme of improvement of the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Lake Ontario. On May 17, 1922, this Government suggested to Canada that a treaty be negotiated framed on tbe basis of the report of the commission, or such modifications thereof as might be agreed upon. In Its reply to this suggestion, made on January 30, 1924, the Canadian Government Indicated that it preferred that before the negotiation of a treaty a further report be made covering the engineering features of the whole project, Including its cost. At the sa^tie time the Canadian Government indicated that it was Its intention to form an advisory committee to inquire fully from a national standpoint into the other questions involved.

In accordance with the desires of the Canadian Government a joint engineering board was appointed and instructed to make a further study of the engineering features of the project. An advisory commission was also appointed by the President with the Hon. Herbert Hoover as chairman, to examine into the matter from the standpoint of the national interests of the United States.

As you are aware, tbe reports of the Joint board of engineers and tlie St. Lawrence Commission of the United States have recently been niatlc. The reports are being given consideration by the interested bronchos of this Government, but as yet no negotiations based upon thera Bave been Instituted.

I am, my dear Mr. I'eavey, very sincerely yours,

Fkank B. Ifeixooo.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

l M

[Western Union]

Washington, D. C., May 3, 19Z1. H. Peavby,

Washbum, Wis.:

-telegram, May 2. regarding St. Lawrence deep waterway. I ^rntly tnken up this subject with the Canadian Government, and «- ing im expression of the views of that Government pending an xiding with the Government of Canada. In respect to the publimy note I am giving out no information as to its contents.

Frank B. Kellooo.

Secretary of State.

Washburn, Wis., October 1, 1927.
A.\k B. Kellogo,
JSTff^-m—'ftaty of State, Washington. D. C.

J>^-A.i* Bklu. Seoretaky: Many inquiries have come to me respecting the • ' -: i j — o» ^ the negotiations between the United States and Canada upon the »x» V» J •^ct Of the proposed St. Lawrence deep waterway.

«du please advise what progress has been made toward the con-
^^n of such treaties?
ing you in advance, I am,
«-?ry respectfully yours,

H. H. Feavey.

February 21, 1928.

Frank B. KELi-ooOj

Secretary of State of the United States,

Washington, D. C.

Mr. Secretary: Permit me to thank you for your courtesy ; me with relation to the status of the present negotiations yourself and the Government of Canada with regard to the of a treaty or agreement under which it will be possible to

• Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway. I sincerely hope your in this matter will be borne out by future developments. In

of the people of the district I represent, as well as those of c Northwest, permit me to wish you complete and immediate n your undertaking.

ordance with our conversation by telephone last Thursday, I ittlng herewith a tentative draft of a resolution which I 111 t»l ate introducing in Congress in the near future. I shall bo *"<» S-t.-i your reactions or suggestions with regard to this proposal, of the mid-continent have been deprived of their rights .alter of water-borne commerce. The failure to muke physical *«-^n between the railroads and the boat lines has driven pracH general trade ships off the Great Lakes. It has isolated the the Northwest, making them wholly dependent on the railf transportation. This padlocking of the harbors of the Great removed every vestige of competitive railroad rates. We - he building of the St. Lawrence waterway will to a large general commerce on the I»ikes, and this appears to us heritage.

**» ovement for the development of the St. Lawrence waterway is It has been before our people for the past 60 years. Since . of the Joint commission by Congress In 1909 public officials agencies have repeatedly assured the people that the canal built in the near future. You will therefore understand, the reluctance on the part of the people of the Northaccept further promises on a matter of such national im^^ which they feel has been already too long delayed. •* 0,000,000 Inhabitants of the area tributary to the Great Lakes ***sending action by Congress, the administration, and yourself, to ** that some definite action may be taken looking to the actual of this waterway. It would seem important, therefore, that , by (he reassertion of its policy with reference to the building •waterway, would satisfy this demand and to that extent aid nrrylng on your negotiations with Canada. I am proposing this -n and writing this letter as a matter of duty that this appeal **<? people of my district and the whole Northwest may be con-^ Directly to you.

**V» to assure you. Mr. Secretary, that it is not my purpose or In-
to embarrass or In any way hinder you in conducting these nogo-
** with Canada. On the contrary, I have every desire to aid and
as:e and to wish you early and complete success,
^ery respectfully youra,

H. II. Peavey.

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

April 27, 1928. Hon. Frank B. Kii ;<>...

Secretary/ of State o/ the United Btatet,

Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mb. Secretary: In consideration of the recent publication of the official correspondence exchanged by the State Department of the United States and the Canadian Government on the subject of the treaty negotiations leading to the construction and development of the St. Lawrence waterway, it occurs to me that you might now wish to answer my communication of February 21. at which time I submitted to you a tentative draft of a resolution In support of the waterway, the introduction of which I withheld at your suggestion.

Also, considering the further press releases from the State Department, it would appear that the Canadian Government has altered Its position relative to the diversion of water from the Groat Lakes by the Chicago Sanitary District since our conference held some time ago, when you assured me that, in your opinion, the Canadian Government was willing to accept the principle of compensatory works at Chicago. It now occurs to me that it might be advisable to introduce a bill or resolution providing in substance the theory or principle laid down by the United States Board of Engineers in regard to the water diversion at Chicago, namely, a Qxed graduated reduction in the amount of diversion down to one or two thousand second-feet, the minimum amount necessary for sanitation and navigation in the Chicago and Des Plalnes Rivers.

The extraction of this tremendous amount of water from the Great Lakes at this time is deeply resented by tbe people of Wisconsin as well as those of the entire Northwest, and the refusal of Canada to countenance this action by the Chicago Sanitary District Is not at all surprising to me, and I therefore feel that only through action by Congress limiting the diversion of water can it be expected that Canada will fully concur on all phases of the waterway subject.

I can assure you of the Individual Interest of the people of my district and the entire Northwest in the matter and express to you their most earnest hope that treaties satisfactory to both the United States and Canada will be consummated at an early date. Very truly yours,

H. H. Peavey.

Department oy State,
WOHhington, May t, 1908.

My Dear Mr. Peavby: I have pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your letter of April 27. 1928, In which you referred to your letter of February 21, 1928, inclosing copy of a proposed resolution, declaring the report submitted by the United States-St. Lawrence Commission on December 27, 1926, on the development of n waterway from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean by way of the St. Lawrence River to be the policy of Congress.

I have no suggestions or objections to offer In regard to the resolution which you propose to introduce. I assure you, however, that the matter of the St. Lawrence waterway has received and will continue to receive the energetic attention of the department and of other officials of the Government concerned in the project, and all proper action will be taken to bring the negotiations to an early conclusion. The correspondence published on April 14, 1928. reveals the present status of the negotiations.

I um, my dear Mr. Peavey,

Very sincerely yours, Frank B. Kicixoao.

Inserted below Is a recent letter by myself to tbe St. Lawrence Tidewater Association and their reply:

May 1, 1928.

Mr. Charles P. Cbaio,

Executive Director, 8t. Lawrence TUeicalcr Atmociation,

Washington, D. C.

Dead Mr. Cbaio: I have your letter of April 13 and note that yon are working out a program of political action with the purpose of securing the adoption of "a Great Lakes to the ocean via the St. Lawrence waterway " plank by the Republican and Democratic National Parties at the June conventions.

About a year ago tbe Pivsident of your association, Kx-Governor Harding, of Iowa, appeared before the Ashland Public Forum and made a speech in support of the St. Lawrence waterway. Taking advantage of the rules of the Ashland Public Forum. I asked Mr. Harding some questions. Among others, I asked him tbc following: "Tin- St. Lawrence Tidewater Association has publicly stated that 24 Northwestern States arc pledged to the Immediate building of the St. Lnwronce deep waterway and that President Coolldge and Secretaries Kclloir? and Hoover fire favorable to the project. Why has the association failed to Induce the Republican Party to go on record In favor of the St. Lawrence waterway or adopt a plank to that effoct In their national conventions?" Governor Harding answered as follows: "I am president of this association not as a Democrat, Republican, or Socialist, but as nu American citizen. We are not trylu? to play politics with the waterway. We work with all parties."

I am glad to see that your association has aroused itself to the necessity of putting the national political parties on record as a means of providing support for the waterway before Congress and the people of the United States. I am sure the people of the Northwest will join me in wishing you complete success in getting such a plank adopted at both the Republican and Democratic conventions.

Replying directly to your letter of the 13th with relation to the attitude of the Republican delegates fvom the State of Wisconsin on this subject. I wish to state that I had the honor of serving as a member of the advisory committee of 11 that formulated the platform on which our Progressive Republican delegates were elected to the national convention, and included in our recommendations, which were later adopted as our platform, is a St. Lawrence waterway plank, as follows: "No. 10. We favor a deep waterway from the Great Lakes to the sea. The Government should, in conjunction with Canada, take immediate action to give the Northwestern States an outlet to the ocean for cargoes without change in bulk, thus making the primary markets on the Great Lakes equal to those of New York."

In this connection I can say to you, Mr. Craig, that I sought the adoption of an even stronger and more comprehensive plank on this subject than the one stated above. In my recommendations to the committee I included the proposition of the disappearance of general commerce from the Great Lakes and how the great natural advantage which belongs to the people living tributary to the Great Lakes, that of cheap transportation by water, Is being denied them, largely due to the influence of railroad owners in New York, and that this enforced isolation of the Northwestern States was costing the people of that territory hundreds of millions of dollars annually, etc.

The Republican delegates to the Kansas City convention from Wisconsin are divided as follows: There are 17 Progressive Republicans pledged to the plank quoted above, who, 1 know, you can depend upon to vote and work for the adoption by the convention of an indorsement of the St. Lawrence waterway. Of the remaining 9 members of the delegation, 2 of these were elected to support Mr. Hoover, who was represented as a champion of the waterway. Two of the remaining 7 were elected and pledged to the nomination of ex-Governor Lowden, of Illinois, without any reference being made to the waterway. The remaining 5 regular Republicans were elected as uninstructed and without any reference or pledge as to the waterway. I trust this information will be of some help to you In securing the adoption of a strong St. Lawrence waterway-development plank at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City this coming June. Yours very truly,

H. H. Peavey.

Great Lakes-st. Lawrence Tidewatbb Association,

Washington, D. Q., May 2, 79.28. Hon. H. H. Peavey,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mr. Peavev: Thunk you for your letter of first instant.

The information you convey is explicit and valuable.

Speaking of efforts to have the Republican Party go on record In favor of the St. Lawrence waterway, I wish to say that at the last Republican convention in Cleveland in 1024 a plank was drafted, approved by President Coolidgc, and sent to Cleveland with his personal approval. It went before the resolutions committee with the understanding that it would be put through, but two Congressmen from New York—Dempsey and Sweet—appeared before the committee and were able to have the committee change the resolution so that it meant nothing of great value. We did get a declaration—not a strong one—in the Democratic platform in 1024.

I note the clause No. 10 In the platform of the Progressive Republican Party of Wisconsin. That is fine, and, as you know, I am in sympathy with your position with respect to the present restricted use of the Great Lakes.

I am surprised that the delegates pledged to support Governor Lowden would not have placed the St. Lawrence In their platform because Governor Lowden has always been a supporter of the seaway.

The Information Is all valuable and may be utilized to very great advantage.

With kind personal regards, I remain
Yours sincerely,

Chas. P. Chaio, F.xccutive Director.

In the light of these facts who will maintain that we are any nearer to success and winning the St. Lawrence waterway now than in 1909. Nineteen wasted years.

It is a self-evident deduction from the facts stated above that northwest railroad owners, who live in New York, gauged always hy hindsight rather than foresight, stand to lose .$125,000,000 a year if the waterway is built, and they are bringing every possible political and financial influence to bear on the Government at Washington to prevent It.

The future development and prosperity of Superior, Duluth, Ashland, Washburn, Biiyfield, and the other lake cities of the Northwest are being sacrificed because railroad owners are

afraid to compete with water-borne commerce. The progress of 40,000,000 people Is being thwarted to protect a transportation monopoly.

Since the above was prepared advance press notice has carried the news that Canada has replied to Secretary Mellon's last note of April 7, 1928, stating in substance that they would not negotiate until the illegal diversion of water at Chicago was stopped or the principle disavowed by the United States. This correspondence lias not been given to the press.

Twenty-one Stales and 40,000,000 people are demanding this waterway. No one has had the temerity to appear in public opposition but a few individual politicians and power representatives from New York. Do you not think it is about time to separate those who really want the waterway built from those who just talk about it for politic-ill reasons?

The building of the St. Lawrence canal from an engineering standpoint is mere child's play compared with our undertaking in building the Panama Canal. Under President Roosevelt it took only two years to survey and seven years to build this great engineering enterprise. The Government agencies in charge of (he St. Lawrence waterway in Washington have spent over a million dollars and 19 years to prepare a 60-page pamphlet report.

Can you, Mr. Wisconsin business man and farmer, content yourself to sit idle in the face of these facts and with the divine patience of Job assuage yourself by saying, "How long, O Lord, how long?"

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Sneaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record on the bill to improve the Colorado River.

The SPKAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Idaho?

There was no objection.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that early consideration will be given by the House to the legislation providing for the protection and development of the Colorado River Basin, as provided in H. R. 5773, introduced by Mr. Swing, of California, I gladly avail myself, as chairman of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, of this opportunity to make available to the Members of the House certain facts concerning the importance and urgency of enacting into law this meritorious measure.

I doubt if any project ever brought before Congress has been more thoroughly considered over a long period of time, or one which, when completed, will have more lasting and beneficial effects upon a large proportion of the people of the United States.

There certainly has been no more important measure before this House that has had the support of the Chief Executive and high officials of our Government than the pending legislation.

The President in his message to the Congress of December 6, 1927, stated:

Legislation is desirable for the construction of a dam at Boulder Canyon on the Colorado River, primarily as a method of flood control and irrigation. A secondary result would be a considerable power development and a source of domestic water supply for southern California.

In his message to the Congress of December 22, 1926, he declared:

In previous messages, I have referred to the national importance of the proper development of our water resources. The great project of extension of the Mississippi system, the protection and development of the lower Colorado River, are before Congress, and I have previously commented upon them. I favor the necessary legislation to expedite these projects.

On March 37, 1924, (he present Secretary of the Interior. Dr. Hubert Work, in reporting to this committee on legislation similar to the pending bill, said:

The Colorado River has been under observation, survey, and study, and the subject of reports to Congress since the close of the Civil War. More than $350,000 have been expended by the Bureau of Reclamation since the Kinkaid Act of Hay 18, 1920. More than $2.000,000 have been expended by other agencies of the Government The time has arrived when the Government should decide whether it will proceed to convert this natural menace Into a national resource. (Hearings on H. R. 2903, 68th Cong., 1st sess., p. 818.)

There is attached hereto his report on the proposed legislation dated January J8. 1926, setting forth in detail his views on th« provisions of the bill.

In his latest report of January 4, 1928, printed herewith in the Recoud, he states:

« ПретходнаНастави »