ary should be suspended until the International Joint Commission had had an opportunity to investigate the problem of drainage in the Roseau Valley.

The delay in replying to your note of August 4th. has been caused by the necessity of discussing with the Government of the Province of Manitoba the matter of the suspension of work on the Roseau River protective works which have been under construction by the Government of Canada in co-operation with the Government of the Province of Manitoba.

I have now been instructed to inform you that the Terms of Reference agreed to by Messrs. Grover and Corriveau are satisfactory to His Majesty's Government in Canada, and that arrangements have now been made for the temporary suspension of work on the Roseau River protective works in Manitoba until such time as the International Joint Commission shall have had an opportunity of reviewing the situation. His Majesty's Government in Canada is therefore prepared formally to transmit the Roseau Reference to the International Joint Commission for examination and report in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. In making this reference to the Commission, it is desired to draw the attention of the Government of the United States to the fact that the protective works which have been under way in the lower Roseau river in the Province of Manitoba have been designed to offset the excess flood flows resulting from the extensive drainage works which have been constructed in the upper Roseau river watershed in the United States without regard to the effect of such works upon the lands bordering upon the lower reaches of the Roseau river in Manitoba. Faced with the resultant extensive flooding of Manitoba lands bordering on the Roseau river, the Government of Canada, jointly with the Government of the Province of Manitoba, arranged for the construction of the protective works which have been the subject of this present interchange of correspondence between the Governments of Canada and of the United States. It is the opinion of the Canadian engineers who have designed and reported upon these works that they will not affect the natural levels of the Roseau river at the international boundary. Even in the event of their affecting these water levels, the works are so planned as to permit of such conditions being relieved by channel excavation between the embankments which have been designed and partly constructed. The design will further permit of any channel enlargement which may be considered necessary to accommodate larger flood flows than have been experienced heretofore. This flexibility will permit of the works fitting in with any reclamation project which may be

reported upon favourably by the International Joint Commission as a result of its investigations under the Reference.

Having the above mentioned points in mind, His Majesty's Government in Canada has, nevertheless, in order that the situation might be approached and examined by the Commission without complications, arranged to suspend temporarily the construction of the protective works in Canada, although such suspension is working a decided hardship upon Canadian landed interests affected by the excess flows which have developed on the Roseau river.

In view of these conditions, His Majesty's Government in Canada, in transmitting the Roseau River Reference to the International Joint Commission, proposes to suggest to the Commission the desirability of giving early consideration to the questions incorporated in Paragraph 2 of the Reference-which questions have to do with the approval or modification of the protective works as at present projected-in order to ascertain whether some measure of approval of these protective works might not be expressed at an early stage in the Commission's investigations without prejudice to its consideration of the questions of the Terms of Reference as a whole. It has occurred to the Government of Canada that the Government of the United States, in transmitting the Reference to the Commission, might feel disposed to include some such similar suggestion, in order that the protection of Canadian landed interests affected may not be unnecessarily delayed.

The Government of Canada would also suggest that in transmitting the Reference to the Commission, an intimation might be included to the effect that the technical assistance which the Commission will probably require in making its investigations into this problem could be supplied from the technical services of the two Governments, should the Commission so desire.

I have [etc.]

H. H. WRONG (For the Minister)

711.42157 R 72/46

The Secretary of State to the Canadian Minister (Massey)

WASHINGTON, December 14, 1928.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of December 10, 1928, in which, referring to my note to your Legation, dated August 4, 1928, in regard to the proposed submission to the International Joint Commission of the problem of drainage in the Roseau River Valley in the State of Minnesota and the Province of Manitoba, you inform me that the terms of reference which were

drafted and signed at Winnipeg on July 10, 1928, by Mr. R. de B. Corriveau, representing the Government of Canada, and Mr. N. C. Grover, representing the Government of the United States, are acceptable to your Government.

I note that your Government has arranged for the temporary suspension of work on the Roseau River protective works in Manitoba until such time as the International Joint Commission shall have opportunity to review the situation.

I am today addressing to the International Joint Commission, a communication 2 submitting to the Commission for investigation, report, and recommendations, the questions described in the memorandum signed by Messrs. Corriveau and Grover. In my communication to the International Joint Commission I emphasized the importance of expediting the investigation which it would be necessary for the Commission to make in order that its report may not be unnecessarily delayed, and informed the Commission that the Department of the Interior of the United States would doubtless be glad to furnish engineers to assist the Commission in making its investigation.

I take this opportunity to express to you, and through you to your Government, my appreciation of the sympathetic consideration which your Government has given to the proposed reference of the Roseau River problem to the International Joint Commission and the cooperation of your Government in consummating the arrangement for the reference.

Accept [etc.]

FRANK B. KELLOGG

RENEWED CONSIDERATION OF A JOINT INTERNATIONAL PROJECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY “

711.42157 Sa 29/402

The Canadian Minister (Massey) to the Secretary of State No. 30

WASHINGTON, 31 January, 1928. SIR: I have the honour to refer to your note of April 13, 1927 ** in which, after reviewing the steps taken in recent years by the United States and Canada to enquire into the feasibility of a St. Lawrence ocean shipway, you stated that the Government of the United States had accepted the recommendations of the St. Lawrence River Commission, appointed by the President as an advisory body, and was accordingly prepared to enter into negotiations with Canada

Not printed.

43 Continued from Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. 1, pp. 487-490.

44

Ibid., p. 487.

with a view to formulating a convention for the development of the waterway.

Acknowledgment of this communication was made in a note of July 12, 1927, addressed to the Minister of the United States at Ottawa,15 in which it was stated that, as the report of the Joint Board of Engineers 46 indicated differences of opinion as to the solution of the engineering difficulties presented by the international section of the waterway, the National Advisory Committee, appointed by His Majesty's Government in Canada to report on the economic and general aspects of the waterway question, would not be in a position to advise the Government until certain alternative schemes under consideration by the Joint Board, and to be included in the appendices to the main report, had been received and duly considered.

The full report of the Board has now been received, and the National Advisory Committee, which met in Ottawa this month, has reported its conclusions to His Majesty's Government in Canada." The National Advisory Committee concurs in the finding of the Joint Board of Engineers that the project is feasible. It recommends, however, that should the work be undertaken, fuller allowance should be made for future requirements by providing, in addition to 30-foot depth for the permanent structures, 27-foot navigation in the reaches rather than the 25-foot navigation proposed by the Joint Board. While the National Advisory Committee regards the project as feasible from an engineering standpoint, and notes the findings of the International Joint Commission in 1921 as to its economic practicability, it considers that the question of its advisability at the present time depends upon the successful solution of a number of financial and economic difficulties, and upon further consideration of certain of the engineering features as to which the two sections of the Joint Board of Engineers are not as yet agreed. I am instructed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to inform you that His Majesty's Government in Canada concurs in these conclusions of the National Advisory Committee.

In your note of April 13, it was observed that the St. Lawrence River Commission had reported that the construction of a shipway at proper depth would relieve the interior of the continent, especially agriculture, from the economic handicaps of adverse transportation costs which, it was indicated, now operate to the disadvantage of many States and a large part of Canada. It was added that the Govern

"Ibid., p. 489.

Report of Joint Board of Engineers on St. Lawrence Waterway Project, Dated November 16, 1926.

"Printed in St. Lawrence Waterway Project (Ottawa, F. A. Acland, 1928), pp. 18-21.

ment of the United States appreciated the advantages which would accrue equally to both countries by opening up the waterway to ocean shipping, and that the necessary increase in United States railway rates due to the war, and the desirability of early development of hydro-electric power, were factors which must have equal application to, and influence upon, the Dominion of Canada.

In view of the implications as to Canadian conditions contained in these observations, it may be well to indicate certain features of the transportation situation in Canada which have a direct bearing upon the St. Lawrence waterway question.

For many years past the improvement of transportation has been the foremost task of successive governments of Canada. At heavy cost, an extensive programme of railway, waterway and harbour development has been carried out, with the object of linking up all parts of the Dominion and providing adequate outlets for foreign trade. Two great transcontinental railway systems have been built up, largely with State aid, and both western and eastern Canada are now reasonably well served by railways, though increasing settlement and increasing production render it necessary for both systems to continue to spend large sums annually in the provision of branch lines. Western Canada is now looking to the early completion of the Hudson Bay route to Europe. This route, which it is anticipated will be available in about three years, will shorten the haul to Europe from the Canadian West by a thousand miles and more, and will also be of substantial benefit to shippers from the Western States. Since that work was projected, the completion of the Panama Canal, by the efforts of the United States, has supplied an alternative outlet for much of western Canada through Vancouver and Prince Rupert; and at the present time the Canadian Government is faced with a strong demand for an additional and more direct outlet to the Pacific for the Peace River country. The St. Lawrence route itself has been progressively improved, and has proved of steadily increasing service.

Partly as a result of the existence of competitive alternative outlets, railway rates in Canada are in general lower than in the United States. The rates on grain, which provides fifty-two per cent of the total traffic of western lines, are now below pre-war level. Material reductions have also been made in another bulk movement of importance to both eastern and western Canada, namely, coal. General commodity rates, which were the subject of the same percentage of relative increase in both countries, due to war conditions, have subsequently been reduced in Canada, in certain instances, to a greater extent than in the United States. In recent months a rate on grain has been established from the head of the Lakes to Quebec which approximates the charges incident to the movement by water by the present Great