« AnteriorContinuar »
but to these six States that our equities entitle us to what we are asking, and we are willing at the same time, so far as shipping interests are concerned, to pay for anything that the diversion of Chicago has cost in the way of compensating work. We came down here within the last four months with a million dollars and offered it to Congress, and we stand ready to give them another million now. We do not want to hurt the shipping interests anywhere. We are willing to pay our_share and give it to them just as we were when we were here. Before there was nobody to receive it.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is the suggestion that was made by the witness, Mr. Randolph, that you ought to be catching up. If contrary to what Mr. Rainey, a resident of Illinois anticipates, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, Congress grants a continuance of the judgment-that is what it would amount to--then it would insist upon expedition in substitutionary measures.
Mr. BARRETT. We will be glad to show you and every man interested in those six States that we are going to spend every penny we can get; if we get constitutional provisions which will raise our bonding power, we will be glad to do that. Of course there is a certain limit to what you can spend in a given time anyway.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And there is a certain limit as to how much you can impose upon the taxpayers.
Mr. BARRETT. Oh, that is true. It has been stated here in a Canadian report-I understand the Canadian gentlemen do not concede some of these statements, we have had reprinted a report signed by the entire International Waterways Commission, in which they discuss the entire diversion to the Sanitary District of Chicago. We have enough copies of these here to give them to the members of this committee now,
The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have them.
The CHAIRMAN. And I suggest that you file one with the stenographer as an exhibit. Mr. BARRETT. I will be glad to do so.
(The report referred to is to be found at the end of to-day's proceedings.)
Mr. BARRETT. One of them was made in 1906 and one in 1907. Both of those reports touch upon and one completely discusses the Sanitary District diversion at Chicago. The CHAIRMAN. What dates are those reports!
Mr. BARRETT. 1906 and 1907. They are the dates upon which the reports were predicated.
The CHAIRMAN. Would not their value depend very largely upon the amount of diversion at that time?
Mr. BARRETT. They do specifically mention 10,000 second-feet. The CHAIRMAN. As being the amount they have diverted. Mr. BARRETT. They recognize the 10,000 second-feet, and say it will continue, and agree to its continuance, and when this treaty was ratified this 10,000 second-feet at Chicago was put in as a part of the United States diversion; in other words, they said 20,000 for power to the Americans, a part of which would go to the canal, 36,000 cubic second-feet to the Canadians, a part of which went to their canal; 10,000 at Chicago, making 30,000, leaving the difference
6,000 feet. The 6,000 feet difference is explainable on this theory: Much of the power generated by the Canadian power plants goes into America. So the difference is more theoretical than actual; that is the explanation of these reports. I have marked the spots.
Mr. WHITE. May I correct an expression. I think you said more theoretical than actual, and I think the expression is that the advantage is more real than apparent.
Mr. BARRETT. You can have your expression on that. I will read it when the time comes. Here is a copy of the report with a marked paragraph, and it is signed by all the commissioners. This is the 1907 report.
The CHAIRMAN. Here is what it says on the question (p. 5, par. 4): When fully completed it was designed to have a capacity of 600,000 cubic feet per minute, or 10,000 cubic feet per second, flowing at a velocity of 1.25 miles per hour in earth and 1.9 per hour in rock.
Mr. BARRETT. May I point out a paragraph here which will save time?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. BARRETT. The green covered book, page 15. May I read! The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will be glad to have you. Mr. BARRETT (reading page 16 of the report of the International, Waterways Commission of 1907):
The diversion of large bodies of water from Lake Michigan for supplying the drainage canal has not been authorized by Congress, but there appears to be a tacit general agreement that no objection will be made to the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second, as originally planned.
Now will you go down on that same page to the paragraph marked “S.” [Reading:]
The effect upon Niagara Falls of diverting water at Chicago is of secondary importance when considering the health of a great city and the navigation interests of the Great Lakes and of the St, Lawrence Valley, but it
proper to note that the volume of the falls will be diminished by the full amount diverted at Chicago.
Now will you go to the next page, paragraph 43, which I will read:
A careful consideration of all the circumstances leads us to the conclusion that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second through the Chicago River will, with proper treatment of the sewage from areas now sparsely occupied, provide for all the population which will ever be tributary to that river, and that the amount named will therefore suffice for the sanitary purposes of the city for all time. Incidentally, it will provide for the largest navigable waterway from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River which has been considered by Congress.
That is the 1907 report.
Mr. BARRETT. It began-
Mr. RANDOLPH. If I still have the floor, let me interject there that the treaty itself recites that limitations of the treaty do not apply to previous diversion works already constructed and heretofore allowed, one of which was the diversion at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty with that is this: As a lawyer I have read this treaty with a great deal of care and I am frank to say that I have been unable as yet to reach a definite conclusion as to what it means regarding the Chicago drainage canal. I doubt very much whether you would get any opinion that would be worth while until you get the expression of a court of last resort. Mr. BARRETT. May I read?
The CHAIRMAN. Just one moment. The treaty, of course, is negotiated between the diplomatic representatives of the two countries.
Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And the treaty was proclaimed in 1910, but was signed in 1909? Mr. BARRETT. Correct. The CHAIRMAN. Now, this is January 4, 1907? Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Just let me say as to this report of the International Waterways Commission, that of course this is the expression of the representatives of the United States as well as those of Canada upon this question, and it is entitled to such weight as the reputation and standing of that commission would give it and nothing more; it has no force or effect of law. It is nothing more than their opinion as to what might be done or would be done. I see one of the commissioners was a retired brigadier general. know Mr. Clinton; I do not know the other members. I do know that, generally speaking, we have been rather unfortunate in results in negotiations with the other side.
Mr. BARRETT. But, Mr. Dempsey, if I may have a word The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to have you; I am just giving you my opinion.
Mr. BARRETT. This commission is the commission selected by the United States Government and the British Government to find out all of the facts in order that the contracting parties might have them available when they concluded the final arrangements which brought about this treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, just wait a moment. Let us see if that is so. I am afraid that is not so. My understanding is that this board is a permanent board. Mr. RANDOLPH. Oh, no. Mr. BARRETT. This was a board organized
Mr. KEEFER. The international commission that you are speaking of is subsequent to that entirely. The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Mr. KEEFER. That is a preliminary matter, the carrying on of those negotiations, and then after that the treaty was made, and under the treaty the international joint commission was arranged.
The CHAIRMAN. I get it. Mr. KEEFER. That document there is about two pages. There are about a thousand pages altogether, involving all these matters. There were many other things taken into consideration at the same time.
Mr. BARRETT. Allow me to make this statement: That nowhere in any report of the International Waterways Commission is there
any language contrary to this language, so far as the Sanitary District of Chicago is concerned.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Will you let me add something there?
Mr. BARRETT. Just let me read one paragraph here and then I will quit. I am reading from Senate Document 134 now, message from the President of the United States transmitting a report to the Secretary of War made by the International Waterways Commissions. [Reading:1
The commission therefore recommend that such diversious, exclusive of water requirements for domestic use or the service of locks in navigation canals, be limited on the Canadian side to 36,000 cubic feet per second, and on the United States side to 18,500 cubic feet per second, and in addition thereto a diversion for sanitary purposes not to exceed 10,000 cubic feet per second be authorized for the Chicago Drainage Canal, and that a treaty of legislation be had limiting these diversions to the quantities mentioned.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, let us give the full effect of the language used, and this is the utmost effect it would have: So far as Canada is concerned, granting that this language is all that there is in all of the documents, so far as Canada is concerned, she 'would not have the right to complain. That would end Canada's case, if we give full effect to these two documents and grant that they are all that there is on the question. But so far as the United States is concerned—and that is what we are considering here, legislation by Congress—so far as the United States is concerned it would have no effect whatever, it does not attempt to deal with the question as an internal or domestic question; it expressly, on the contrary, leaves that to be dealt with by the Congress of the United States, and so we start with it as an original question. It is, perhaps, satisfying, so far as the question has arisen in the minds of many of us as to how Canada
Mr. BARRETT (interposing): Got so much.
The CHAIRMAN. Got so much more volume than that obtained by us;
but it does not have a particle of bearing, and much less is it of any conclusive weight, upon the question before this committee or before Congress.
Mr. BARRETT. There was only one purpose at this time in my offering these things. I merely wanted to have the Canadian section advised that these records were in existence, and have you gentlemen have them. Now, I just ask this: That this committee keep an open mind on the second phase of the chairman's conclusion on this, so that when we come on to present the entire case of the Sanitary District of Chicago, you may be in a position to determine at the conclusion just what our rights are, and that is all we ask. Now, I am going to sit down.
Mr. SWEET. Is there anything in the treaty that carries out this provision in section 3 of this law of 1906 ?
Mr. BARRETT. Every provision there is carried out; 36,000 cubic feet to the Canadians and 20,000 cubic feet, an addition of 1,500 feet, to the American side.
Mr. SWEET. Is there anything in the treaty about 10,000 cubic feet per second for Chicago?
Mr. BARRETT. No; that is not mentioned in the treaty, except in general terms, that existing diversions shall not be disturbed, and that diversions for domestic and sanitary purposes are of first order and are not controlled.
Mr. SWEET. Are they mentioned in the treaty? Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. Mr. KEEFER. The only language in the treaty is existing uses, not diversions.
The CHAIRMAN. Two of the members of the committee have asked the chairman as to whether or not Chicago was diverting at the time these documents were signed.
Mr. SWEET. In 1910?
The CHAIRMAN. 1910 is the treaty, but let us take it as to both dates. The first is the document which is dated January 4, 1910. It expressly appears upon the face of the document that they were not diverting 10,000 cubic feet, but that their plan called for the ultimate diversion of 10,000 cubic feet. That answers that. The document itself upon its face shows that fact. Now, how much were they diverting? Do you know?
Mr. BARRETT. I can not answer that question, and would prefer this. I will say that it is true that in 1907 the 10,000 cubic secondfeet were not diverted on an average throughout the year. How much less than that I can not answer but the records will appear.
The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, the documents show not only were they not diverting the 10,000 cubic feet, but that they did not have the physical facilities to divert 10,000 cubic feet and that they would have to provide those facilities before they could have diverted that. Do you see?
Mr. BARRETT. Well, I do not know that that is necessarily true. At that time, Mr. Dempsey, I think at that time our program for widening
The CHAIRMAN. I won't say it is true, but I will say that the document showed that that was the opinion of those who signed it. Now it appears, to answer the question of the two members of the committes according to a letter from the Secretary of War, from Colonel Warner's report in 1907, that 5,116 cubic feet were diverted; that in 1910, 3,458 cubic feet per second were diverted. These figures will be found at page 176 of the Warren report.
The figures are as follows: 1900, 2,900; 1901, 4,046; 1902, 4,302; 1903, 4,971; 1904, 4,793; 1905, 4,480; 1906, 4,473; 1907, 5,116; 1908, 4,421; 1909, 2,766; 1910, 3,458; 1911, 6,445; 1912, 6,424; 1913, 7,191; 1914, 7,105; 1915, 6,971: 1916, 7,325; 1917, 7,786.
Mr. RANDOLPH. May I make a conclusion here, so I can relieve you of my presence?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I want to say in conclusion that our position, the Association of Commerce, is that we indorse these provisions, both the provisions of Mr. Hull's bill and those in Mr. Rainey's bill, the diversion of 10,000 second-feet, and compensating works there, regulating works in the interlake channels.
The CHAIRMAN. One moment. Does that mean anything? It has been suggested that compensating work could only be placed in the lake channels with the treaty consent of Canada." Now, if that is so, all your offer would mean would be readiness on your part to do it, provided the Canadian consent was obtained.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am not a lawyer.